Talk:Hot dog

Glizzy

If Tube Steak is okay for an alternative name, Glizzy should be as well. 184.148.58.23 (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Texas

"Texas hot dogs are spicy variants found in upstate New York and Pennsylvania (and as "all the way dogs" in New Jersey), but not Texas." Texas absolutely does have chili dogs, they just aren't known as "Texas" hot dogs there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.219.59.82 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hotdogs are sandwiches

Hot dogs are a considered a sandwich by many because of it being bread products with meat in between. Hot dogs by definition fit what is thought as the requirements of what a sandwich needs to be to be a sandwich. 2604:3D09:2A82:2A00:ED13:8F49:727:EFAE (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I propose that this entire section be deleted. The question is (a) utterly trivial and (b) not intended to be taken seriously. There is no formal or rigorous definition of what is or is not a sandwich because it doesn't matter Czetie (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

My deletion of this section was reverted. I have reinstated it. The section is pop trivia with no business being in this article.

If somebody things it belongs back, please debate it here in good faith rather than reverting it again.

Note: the previous explanation that the section was "well-cited" is no argument. A thing can be well-cited without in any way being relevant to the article's readers. Czetie (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted you @Czetie. It is up to you to make the argument for why it should be removed, not anyone else to argue that something well cited should not stay. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I already made that argument, see my comment above which you ignored as well as my comment on the original edit. Once again, nobody cares whether some people think it's a sandwich. It's pop culture trivia, utterly ephemeral, and utterly irrelevant to the article.

And again "well cited" is absolutely irrelevant. Any ridiculous trivia can be "well cited", that doesn't make it relevant or encyclopedic. Czetie (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Czetie: I care and do not believe it to be trivia, which invalidates your argument that "nobody cares". There's clear WP:SIGCOV on the matter, which makes it worth inclusion. I have reverted your removal. Please be aware of Wikipedia's edit warring poliocy. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

And I have undone it again.

As requested I have justified its removal. You have not justified its inclusion. At best it's pop culture.

Edit warring policy goes both ways. If anybody is in violation, it's you by your failure to justify the relevance. Czetie (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Czetie: To be clear, you've removed the content four times, a change which has been reverted by two separate editors. The standards on Wikipedia involve discussion if your changes are contested, which yours were. When a change is contested, we revert to the WP:STATUSQUO. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed it four times and you have reinstated it three (and for all I know the "other" editor is just you but not logged in.)

You contested it and have repeatedly removed it it without explanation.

You have repeatedly asked me to justify the change and I have repeatedly done so. You have repeatedly failed to address the justification.

Once again, "sourced" does not mean encyclopedic.

The fact that you repeatedly fail to justify the inclusion of this pop culture trivia, but instead appeal to editing policy, I think says everything about the value (none) of the content you are defending. The policy you should be thinking about is WP:AIV

If you like this trivia so much, go write an article about the "is a hot dog a sandwich" meme. Czetie (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Czetie: You're accusing Queen of Hearts and Yoshi24517 of being my accounts? You're welcome to file a report at WP:SPI, but spending even 30 seconds looking into the issue would make it abundantly clear that this is an insane accusation. Though it would be impressive if I could manage to be all three of these accounts.

You're misunderstanding what WP:AIV is for, this is a content dispute, and your edits much more closely resemble vandalism than that of the 3 users that have reverted your changes. As previously mentioned, see WP:STATUSQUO. The long standing version of the article includes the section. That means we leave it until a conversation is had.

Your argument is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason to remove content. The references show clear significant coverage, making the section contextually relevant. It is backed up by a fair bit of reliable sourcing as well, so there's no urgency or need for immediate removal, or frankly removal in general. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Ngram

A curiosity: if we consider Ngram important (example: for "panini", "cannoli", "panzerotti", "biscotti", etc.), why don't we use "hot dogs"? See: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hot+dog%2C+hot+dogs&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3; "hot dogs" is more common than "hot dog", albeit slightly. Mine is a curiosity, I'm not proposing anything. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Use singular form: "Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages). For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (plurals)." This is a core policy. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)