Wiktionary:Votes/2021-12/Including hot words in CFI

Voting on:

Add to WT:CFI at the bottom of the "Spanning at least a year" subsection:

To allow Wiktionary to cover new coinages and emerging vocabulary, "hot words" (words for which all identified durably archived sources have been published within the last two years) are exempt from the "spanning at least a year" criterion. For example, a word which first appeared in a book published on 1 July 2023 is not subject to the "spanning at least a year" criterion before 1 July 2025, but this "hot word" must still satisfy all other criteria for inclusion and may be challenged under those criteria at any time.

Rationale:

• The hot word scheme, largely inspired by the word olinguito which was obviously a worthy inclusion from the day it first appeared, has been running informally and uncontroversially since 2014.
• We should keep CFI up to date with accepted community practices.
• This vote adds hot words to CFI according to the current system, with the addition of a year's grace period to give time for cites that span more than a year to be published and found. This grace period is not really a new thing; something like it is in fact already part of community practice. Category:Hot words older than a year contains 52 pages at the time of writing this, many of them pandemic-related coinages from 2020.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• Vote created: This, that and the other (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion(s):

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/December § Hot words, a grace period and CFI

1. Support as proposer. This, that and the other (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Support —Svārtava 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Support Overlordnat1 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Support --Numberguy6 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Support per the rationale above. Imetsia (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
6. Support, see also: RFV discussion for "Mickey Mouse ring". AG202 (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
7. Support —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
8. Support. I think Ungoliant's concerns are valid, but are addressed sufficiently by This, that and the other's reply. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
9. Support: While the points raised by Ungoliant have some validity, they are of minor importance and hardly outweigh the value of clearly codifying our community practices. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
10. Support. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
11. Support MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
12. Support. "Hot words" have been accepted for several years. All this does is codify an established practice into actual policy. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
13. Support, as per WordyandNerdy. Vininn126 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I would support 1 year from the most recent citation. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

   @Vox Sciurorum:, I find this confusing. What do you mean by this? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

   I mean, if a hot word is entered on January 15, 2022 and the most recent citation is January 16, 2022, it no longer meets CFI after January 16, 2023. If a second citation is added on January 1, 2023 then the word lives to 2024. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I apologise for having missed the prior discussion. While I agree with the spirit of the proposal, I feel it is missing a few important things:
   • there’s no specification that the word needs to be widespread. As defined in the proposed text, an obscure word invented and published by, say, three ufologists in the previous month is a hot word. This makes the criterion for spanning one year useless: a word will be able to be added if meets the other criteria and attestaion spans one year, or if it meets the other criteria and attestation doesn’t span one year
   • I think the need for permanently recorded citations should be waived for hot words; if a word becomes suddenly widespread in online publications and TV, it should still be included as a hot word
   • hot words and senses should be clearly marked as such, and the mark should not be removed until the word or sense meets the real CFI

   — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

   To some extent I think the intent of your first two dot points is achieved by this proposal, although not in the way you have in mind. The requirement to find at least three durably archived uses for a new word serves as an objective proxy for widespreadness. To have three ufologists publish books within the same month that use the same previously unattested word in the same sense would be exceedingly unlikely, unless that word was already in widespread use within the UFO community.

   Of course, some words (such as new internet slang) will still fall through the cracks, but these words have enough trouble passing RFV even after several years, which is a separate, longstanding issue - hence the soon-to-start vote on allowing individually approved online sources at RFV.

   As for marking hot words, that seems to take care of itself already. I have no doubt that people will continue to use {{hot word}} and {{hot sense}} as they are now. This, that and the other (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

   There have been several instances of "hot words" appearing in Wiktionary based on press releases or viral videos despite the fact that there is only one independent use. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Abstain I support the spirit of the move as I understand it, but I'm not certain that I understand the implications completely. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Passed 13–2-1. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Could we split Category:Hot words older than a year into Category:Hot words between one and two years old (for which citations should be actively sought out) and Category:Hot words older than two years (RFV-eligible terms)? This, that and the other (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Erutuon, @Surjection, @Benwing2 if you're available, please. AG202 (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Could someone create those categories with the appropriate descriptions add an appropriate description for the former? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks all. I wrote something at Category:Hot words between one and two years old (not very well, mind you). This, that and the other (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)