Talk:List of snowclones
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Internet culture WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Internet related culture. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| NA | This article has not yet been rated on the Project's quality scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19/8/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
See also: Talk:List_of_snowclones/Archive1 (comments through 2006)
Contents |
[edit] Many aren't snowclones
It seems to me that many/most of these aren't actually snowclones. Sure, this list catalogs phrases that become hackneyed through substitution rather than strict repitition. But that's only part of the definition. Look back at the main page, which says that these phrases are used "by lazy journalists and writers". It seems that most of these phrases are common in conversation, but not in journalism or writing. CWuestefeld 21:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Snowclones"? Seriously.
Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting neologisms. I have no problem with the snowclone article, because it's well referenced and it explains what an otherwise indecipherable word. "Snowclone"? Does that mean, say, a cyclone made of snow? A clone of a snowcone? The word "snowclone" is likely to confuse anyone who hasn't heard of the word before and they're unlikely to find this page.
So, I'm wondering why this article is called "list of snowclones", as if "snowclone" was an established, well understood word, as opposed to a neologism that primarily has cachet amongst bloggers. I'd suggest it be called something neutral like "list of formulaic clichés". What do people think?
(I have similar issues with other invented words like "eggcorn" and "mondegreen" that don't describe phenomena but allude to a specific example, but Wikipedia doesn't have a "list of mondegreens" or "list of eggcorns" so it's a moot point) 62.31.67.29 11:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- The bloggers among whom it has cachet just happen to be professional linguists, whose job it is to describe these very phenomena. Yes this article is a mess, but it seems silly that so many people denounce this word as a neologism. Surely this doesn't happen for newly coined physics, or computer science terms? --Iustinus 15:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no, it's just a handful of professional linguists that write Language Log. The word is a neologism. In physics and computing, adoption of neologisms also takes a long time - less time for people who actually are physicists and computer scientists, but then they also use a lot of jargon. Neither jargon nor neologisms are acceptable for communicating to lay people. While Wikipedia should write articles about notable neologisms, it shouldn't use neologisms or jargon in other articles. Just because a new word has been coined and it's popular amongst Wikipedia contributors, it doesn't mean that the average reader would know or understand that word. My concern here is that the popularity of memetic phrases and pop culture is being conflated with popularity for this neologism. It's as if people think you couldn't write articles about formulaic clichés prior to the invention of this new word. Memetic phenomena have notability independent of holophrastic linguists. 62.31.67.29 10:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a good point, and I hadn't really thought of it that way. But it seems rather extreme to rename or delete the article on that basis. --Iustinus 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is a neologism, but it describes a common structure which didn't have a name before recently. You couldn't write about the topic before the word existed: discussions about "formulaic cliches" (and not other types of memetic phrases) didn't really happen until they were given a name. It's caught on within its professional community, and has used in the media, so I tend to think its notability won't be diminished anytime soon. So long as a link to the main article exists, I don't think it's going to confuse anyone.
- That said, I wouldn't mind seeing the list severely culled and placed in an expanded "example" section on the snowclone page. It's not like this list could ever be completed, anyway. Cmprince 17:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- The phenomenon did have a name, just not a single-word name. To my knowledge, people have been writing about the phenomenon (of journalists rewriting pop culture phrases) since at least the 1980s, usually by reference to "the new black". As I said, I don't have a problem with the snowclone article itself as the neologism is well referenced. I just don't think it's a well enough established word to be using it as part of the name of other pages.
- I think the name of the page should be "List of formulaic clichés" with the lead paragraph saying that the neologism "snowclone" has been coined to describe them. It's not the notability of the word I'm concerned about, just that it's new and likely to be unknown by most Wikipedia readers; hence the Wikipedia guidelines not to rely on neologisms or jargon to explain things. I don't think there's any need to delete this page. It does need cleaning up; all entries should be referenced. I think the snowclone article looks better with few examples on it and a link to this article. Wikipedia allows incomplete or perpetually incomplete lists. 62.31.67.29 13:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually convinced by that argument - "list of formulaic clichés" would be much more meaningful to the average reader. You actually have to read the article now to make sense of the title. And at the end of the day: it's about clichés. Not "snowclones". Stevage 01:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think the average reader is familiar with the term "formulaic clichés"? I think it's better to link the snowclones page with the cliché page via a "See also" section. I don't think the title "List of snowclones" should be changed. But I do agree that every item here should have a source or an example. That said, if people don't think the word "snowclone" warrants its own page, then it should be sent to the cliché page with a short description and an example.
- Yep, 'formulaic clichés' is self-explanatory. I don't think "formulaic" or "cliché" are unfamiliar to most people. But have you ever met *anybody* who's heard of a "snowclone"? Stevage 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. And I've never met anybody who's heard of a meme either. That said, how many Wikipedia users do you think are actually going to type the term "formulaic clichés" into the Wikipedia search field? I did a Google search for "formulaic cliché" and came up with 387 hits as opposed to 60,100 hits for "snowclone". :)
- The "how many people are going to use this search term" is a very bad metric - we have redirects to solve that exact problem. The Google metric is bad too, as all sorts of inappropriate, inaccurate or incorrect terms could "rate" much higher than good terms that we choose to use. Stevage 07:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But renaming this list as a "List of formulaic clichés" and have the lead paragraph say that the neologism "snowclone" has been coined to describe them is just bad form. Take note: there is no "formulaic cliché" page in Wikipeida as yet. A "List of formulaic clichés" that does not lead to a "Formulaic cliché" page just doesn't make sense.Mind you, I wasn't arguing for the retention of this page. But putting "formulaic cliché" before "snowclone" is just wrong. It would've been better if you didn't mention "snowclone" in the first place.
- I guess the point that I was trying to make is: it's bad to have the "snowclone" page leading to a page titled "List of formulaic clichés". It's either a "snowclone" page leads to a "List of snowclones" page or a "Formulaic clichés" page that leads to a "List of formulaic clichés" page. It's either one or the other. You can't overlap "snowclone" page with a "List of formulaic clichés" page. It's not right.
- I certainly agree with you on that one - didn't know I was arguing the contrary. :) I don't think Wikipedia has very satisfactory policies on a lot of this stuff. Maybe because of competing goals: On the one hand, if someone looks up "snowclone", we want to give them a definitive answer of what a "snowclone" is. On the other hand, if we have an article about these things, we want to call it by the most appropriate, widely accepted, inoffensive etc term. Those two needs can compete with each other. Stevage 13:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose the bottom line is we have to decide whether or not Wikipedia needs an article on formulaic clichés. If so, we then have to decide what to call it: "formulaic cliché" or "snowclone". Note: if we decide on "formulaic cliché", we can add always "snowclone" as a sub-article within the "formulaic cliché" page. Finallly, we have to decide whether or not to keep this list. If this list is kept, then we should name it based on the title of the parent article.
- P.S.: One option is to create a "formulaic cliché" page and use the "snowclone" page as a redirect page.
- P.S.S.: According to the header, this page is going over the 45 kilobyte limit. Sorry about that. I think I'll leave it here for a while. :)
- I certainly agree with you on that one - didn't know I was arguing the contrary. :) I don't think Wikipedia has very satisfactory policies on a lot of this stuff. Maybe because of competing goals: On the one hand, if someone looks up "snowclone", we want to give them a definitive answer of what a "snowclone" is. On the other hand, if we have an article about these things, we want to call it by the most appropriate, widely accepted, inoffensive etc term. Those two needs can compete with each other. Stevage 13:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- The "how many people are going to use this search term" is a very bad metric - we have redirects to solve that exact problem. The Google metric is bad too, as all sorts of inappropriate, inaccurate or incorrect terms could "rate" much higher than good terms that we choose to use. Stevage 07:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. And I've never met anybody who's heard of a meme either. That said, how many Wikipedia users do you think are actually going to type the term "formulaic clichés" into the Wikipedia search field? I did a Google search for "formulaic cliché" and came up with 387 hits as opposed to 60,100 hits for "snowclone". :)
- Yep, 'formulaic clichés' is self-explanatory. I don't think "formulaic" or "cliché" are unfamiliar to most people. But have you ever met *anybody* who's heard of a "snowclone"? Stevage 08:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think the average reader is familiar with the term "formulaic clichés"? I think it's better to link the snowclones page with the cliché page via a "See also" section. I don't think the title "List of snowclones" should be changed. But I do agree that every item here should have a source or an example. That said, if people don't think the word "snowclone" warrants its own page, then it should be sent to the cliché page with a short description and an example.
- I'm actually convinced by that argument - "list of formulaic clichés" would be much more meaningful to the average reader. You actually have to read the article now to make sense of the title. And at the end of the day: it's about clichés. Not "snowclones". Stevage 01:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a good point, and I hadn't really thought of it that way. But it seems rather extreme to rename or delete the article on that basis. --Iustinus 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no, it's just a handful of professional linguists that write Language Log. The word is a neologism. In physics and computing, adoption of neologisms also takes a long time - less time for people who actually are physicists and computer scientists, but then they also use a lot of jargon. Neither jargon nor neologisms are acceptable for communicating to lay people. While Wikipedia should write articles about notable neologisms, it shouldn't use neologisms or jargon in other articles. Just because a new word has been coined and it's popular amongst Wikipedia contributors, it doesn't mean that the average reader would know or understand that word. My concern here is that the popularity of memetic phrases and pop culture is being conflated with popularity for this neologism. It's as if people think you couldn't write articles about formulaic clichés prior to the invention of this new word. Memetic phenomena have notability independent of holophrastic linguists. 62.31.67.29 10:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- One can argue about whether a having a list based on a neologism such as this belongs on Wikipedia ne'er indefinitely, but the article has already been through AfD-- and "snowclone" has verifiable, recognised usage. As noted at the snowclone article, the term was written about in December 2005 by The Times magazine [1], as well as more recently, by the respected journal New Scientist ("The word: Snowclone", November 18.2006). And finally, it was a nominee for the 2006 American Dialect Society Word of the Year (PDF list of the 30 nominees.)--LeflymanTalk 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- A few comments: I think "formulaic cliché" would be horrible. The word "cliché" is not only used to describe idioms, but also plot points and such that are... well... formulaic. "Formulaic cliché" is at once redundant and ambiguous. Whether "snowclone" is a neologism and whether this type of list belongs on Wikipedia are two whole other questions, and I have mixed feelings about them, but I certainly don't think "formulaic cliché" should be used.
- Also, "Neither jargon nor neologisms are acceptable for communicating to lay people."? Jargon certainly has its place in an encyclopedia, namely where there is no other concise term/phrase for a concept. Most people haven't heard of a precondition, and everyone who has is in the field of computer science (or logic), but what else are you going to call an encyclopedia article on preconditions? That might not be a great example but I hope you see what I'm saying.
- Don't mean to sound so vehement, just putting in my two cents... --Galaxiaad 07:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
What about "I'm bringing [b]X[/b] back? Certainly that's overused. 142.177.43.181 22:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Omicron
- Also, what's the original for "X is Y's way of making more Y"? And does "Who's Xing who?" as in "Who's kicking who around now?" count as one? 68.44.13.236 06:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, "X means never having to say Y". No idea where the original of that is either. 68.44.13.236 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dead gay son not so big in fact
The phrase indicated as a misquote of "Heathers" is actually "I love my dead gay son", see clip Perhaps the contributer heard a bowdlerized airline version. Asat 07:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
