Talk:Snowclone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

I realise this has been debated before, but it seems clear that this word still isn't in common usage - almost every use of it online is a discussion of the word, not a use of it. It's a neologism that clearly isn't taking root, so why is it still being indulged? AndrewXyz 11:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume this is a pun on snowcone, something I've only come across (in the UK) by not getting *other* references to it. Is the implication that a snowclone is gratifying but ultimately lazy? --jackv

No mention of the Ur-snowclone, and the source of the term, "____ have X words for ____" (from the erroneous but pervasive comment that 'Eskimos have (some large number) of words for snow')?

--67.171.217.89 04:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

What's going on with the "in Soviet Russia" one? I'm familiar with it, but not the one connected to it. Or are those meant to be on two separate lines?

"Capitalism is a system of dog eat dog, Communism is the exact opposite." unknown

What is the Ur snowclone?

--devotchka oct 19 2005

Who is Glen Whitman, and why do we care what phrases this guy makes up?


The word has spread pretty widely on the internet, but I'll edit the article so that it makes clear that it isn't an official term in any sense.

--devotchka oct 20 2005

What's the origin of the term? Superm401 | Talk 00:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Origin: http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2004_01_11_agoraphilia_archive.html#107412842921919301 Do you think that ought to be on the 'external links' part as well?

--devotchka 21 oct 2005

That was quick. Damn. Devotchka 19:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Why was this page deleted?

Why was this page deleted and then protected? Its wikipedia article is even mentioned here. I have writen a proposal for an article to go here (it isn't wikified or anything, but I didn't want to spend much time on it here: User:Smmurphy/Snowclone. Smmurphy 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


Ample documentation as to why it was deleted available here. In brief, it was decided that it is a neologism that is not used widely enough to warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. I see you have already started building a replacement at User:Smmurphy/Snowclone, which is what I was about recommend. Once you have your version ready to the point where you want to propose it for an article, just drop a note here or on an admin's talk page, and the admins can help move the process forward. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The page was deleted more recently when I wrote the article and it was quickly nominated for deletion, so I deleted it, not understanding the policy and appropriate steps following NfD. It was reverted, so I deleted it again, at which point it was protected because the nominator thought *I* was trying to revert it. The discussion cited above does not relate to what I wrote. Most of what I tried to say is now in the current snowclone article, although I haven't had anything to do with it. I didn't have a user name when I wrote the article. User:ErinOConnor
Forgot to mention: You might consider Wikipedia:Deletion review, if it has not already been brought up there. —HorsePunchKid→龜 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, by no means is this polished (but its cleaner than it was), but I would like to humbly submit User:Smmurphy/Snowclone as a new article for this word. Should I post a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review? If I do that, I suppose I will need to write up a statement defending its undelete, stating why the term deserves an article (which I suppose would then go into the article in some way), so if thats the next step, let me know. Thanks. Smmurphy 00:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
You should definitely be prepared to defend the article. If you can make changes to the article that address the reasons it was deleted (for example, citing sources that have used the word), it would certainly help. Just be careful to avoid writing defensively. I have seen some articles that have gone up for deletion turn into a list of claims to fame, which is not a good way to go. :)
Well, here's one for the citation list -- in the Times, no less: [1] Dan 17:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Give the article a day or two to see if an admin (which I am not) will let you know what the next step is. If you don't get a response soon, you should do what the notice currently on the page says and contact Fire Star, since s/he is the one who protected the page. Good luck! —HorsePunchKid→龜 00:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I've unprotected the page, as it was proposed to me by Smmurphy, it no longer fits what I would speedy delete. If people want it deleted still they can go through AfD or another admin. --Fire Star 02:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language Log takes on Wikipedia Snowcloning

A recent Language Log entry offers a critique of this Wikipedia entry and its sister-article "List of snowclones." Mark Liberman writes that,

But two things have been bothering me about about all this. First, phrasal templates like those on the Wikipedia list are often more protean -- and therefore more interesting -- than the descriptions suggest. And second, the original "If Eskimos" example is not really an example of the same thing at all.

Which may lead one to wonder if "snowcloning" as we've defined it here is really what the Language Log and its participating linguists are actually referring to, or only a shallow version of it. Perhaps Mr. Liberman is expanding the scope of the term, to encompass any sort of phrase modification-- in which case, I would suggest that "snowclone" is merely a different animal of cliche or stock phrase, more like a punnish joke, really, than a linguistic nomenclature. It seems to be that nearly all the modern usages we list of "snowclones" fall into the category of parody/satire, with the nose-tweaking understanding (for the most part) that, "yes, we know we're making a reference to a pop-cultural touchpoint." Since there are no comments available on that blog, I thought I'd bring up the discussion here of whether "snowclone" is a neologism that has any legs, outside of the circle of linguistic-blog-buddies who coined it. --LeflymanTalk 22:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Snowclone is definitely a subcategory of cliche, but that doesn't invalidate it as a separate class. I only have anecdotal evidence for the spread of the term beyond the linguistic sphere, myself, but people seem to like there being a separate word for the concept. I think perhaps some refinement of the definition is in order, particularly taking into account Dr. Liberman's comments on the post you cite, and your own paraphrase. ErinOConnor 00:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Funny, when I first heard "snowclone" I thought it had something to do with the way that snowcones were all basically the same, with just a little variation in the syrup poured on top. Even if it's not the real explanation I think it sounds better :P Confusing Manifestation 15:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What ever happened to the snowclones of yesteryear?

Can someone tell me what the original of "What ever happened to the X of yesteryear" is? --Iustinus 18:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your best bet is probably to email one of the Language Log guys, who have access to lots of corpora that can probably answer this question. I'm compiling a snowclones database but I've never heard of this one. ErinOConnor 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Where are the X of yesteryear" probably has the original "Where are the snows of yesteryear" -- a direct translation of "Ou sont les neiges d'antan". Francois Villon, late 15th century. - anon, 16 July 2006


i forgot to log in before editing - i took out the "x considered harmful" example, because it is a very common phrase *not* referencing the original in any way, and put in "springtime for x", because whenever i see that construction, it is invariably a reference to the original. Shadowsong 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neologism

Though it appears that this page was already deleted and restored once, I don't think that this is an appropriate article, especially since the majority of uses of the world "snowclone" appear in encyclopedia entries defining it. The essence of this article should be incorporated somewhere else: possibly under cliches or maybe a blanket directory of neologisms. Blintz 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase has been widely adopted since its coining, and reported on by several news sources. This is why the word has an article. Circeus 05:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
While the word "snowclone" is a neologism, snowclones themselves are not neologisms. For example, "jumping the shark" is a phrase coined to describe when something has gone too far in an attempt to remain exciting. That's a neologism. If I were to start a trend of using "____ the shark" (eating the shark, maybe?), that would be a snowclone. However, there's nothing neo- about snowclones; they are copies and parodies of an original, not new constructions. Shadowsong 20:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Confusing" tag

The beginning of this section seems to refer to material either now removed or in external links. The reader should not have to follow external links to understand the article, but only to supplement it.

(1) X and Y have been mentioned, but not N or Z.
(2) Nothing has previously been said about Eskimo-Aleut languages.

Hope this helps, (posted by User_talk:"alyosha" from non-secure computer.) 12.210.60.65 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was confusing too. I rewrote it while also trying to clean up the original research. 62.31.67.29 12:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this term used in sources other than the Upenn site?

I don't see a ton of other references here. Croctotheface 20:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I just googled it: there are ~62,300 references. This wikipedia article is listed first, but there are also links to blog entries, other encyclopedic sites (everything2.com), tagging sites (technorati & del.icio.us). There's an opinion piece on newscientist.com from last November, which should probably be looked at as another reference, although the entire article is not accessible without a subscription. This is a 4-year-old linguistic concept, and it's not going away. --Srain 21:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that it's going away, but if it just has one verifiable source, I'm not sure it's sufficiently "arrived" to write about. However, my expectation is that there ARE other verifiable sources out there. The issue is finding them and citing them. Croctotheface 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Identifying section - original research?

I'm cutting that tag on the ground that a) there isn't really any discussion on this talkpage about it and b) it's factually accurate, and indeed, sourced by the originators of the term (who demonstrate that protocol all the time). Anyone disagrees with me; put it back. --Baylink@en.w (who *still* wants a damn login button on the edit screen like LJ has) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.90.224 (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/n/o/Talk%7ESnowclone_ee11.html"