Talk:Snowclone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Common usage, examples, origin

I just don't see enough justification that this is a real phrase in common usage. It seems to me someone trying to be witty, coining something new, and trying to get people to start using it that it becomes real. I don't buy it. --MinervaZee 03:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

[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)
Since "snowclone" is a neologism, it does not deserve an article by that name (WP:NEO). Whether individual "snowclones" are neologisms is irrelevant. I'm shocked this article hasn't been removed by now and can only put it down to overenthusiasm for transient "Internet memes". 86.150.131.83 10:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Whether or not there exist things that can be called snowclones, this does not in itself legitimise the invention of the term. Contrary to claims above, the word has not been widely adopted - the word is used almost exclusively in discussions of the word itself, both online and in the news articles about it. The existence of this article appears to be a vanity. AndrewXyz 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't see much evidence of the term being in widespread use. Most of the references I find refer back to this article, which seems rather backwards to me. Shouldn't this article just be a section of the cliché article?--Efil's god 13:39, 14 July 2007 (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).

[edit] Lazy?

I take issue with the first paragraph, where it says that snowclones are used by lazy journalists and writers. There has got to be a way to creatively--not lazily--use a snowclone, even if they are often used for lack of a better idea. Rkaufman13 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a reference to Geoff Pullum's original blog post coining the word snowclone. Perhaps this article should be edited to include that as a quote. Mark Liberman has also [[2]] about how there is definitely a difference between the snowclone of lazy journalism and the other kind.ErinOConnor 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The reversal

Explanation for the edit on section russian reversal made on September 10, 2007:

"In Z, you Y X. In Soviet Russia, Y Xs YOU!"

changed to

"In Z, you Y X. In Soviet Russia, X Ys YOU!"

  • ...you eat(Y) food(X). In Soviet Russia, food(X) eat(Y)s you!
  • ...you drop(Y) bombs(X). In Soviet Russia, bombs(X) drop(Y) you!
  • ...you edit(Y) Wikipedia(X). In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia(X) edit(Y)s you!

Comments and suggestions are welcome. Soulrefrain (Talk) 01:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source? Notability?

Google Book Search finds not a single book mentioning snowclone; Google Scholar finds only this: "Some words that you will not find in the BNC are “chav” and “snowclone”. Nor are you likely to find them in any existing printed dictionary (yet). But you will find them on the web (with definitions)." So it doesn't seem to pass the neologism test yet. Anyone have sources to the contrary? Dicklyon 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • It does seem to be quite a notable word: studies in journalism [3] refer to it. Bessel Dekker 19:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Snowclones

Wasn't there a comprehensive list of snowclones, broken down by decade, on wikipedia? What happened to it? --FeldBum 20:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted as hopeless original research. If you want it for your personal fun, I can copy them for you. Just don't list them here without refernces from reputable sources which clearly say that they are "snowclones". `'Míkka 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we have the list here, or a link to what old revision had it? I just came wondering whether "Don't X me, bro." made it to the list yet since I keep seeing it elsewhere, only to discover the overwhelming majority of the list was gone. I think an exception should be made for so-called "original research" for new,fun stuff like this. ;) New stuff is where wikipedia excels over old-style encyclopedias, we should embrace that strength rather than ignore it. The link to snowclones.org has satisified my needs for now, though. :) --Danny Rathjens 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember that list; it was useful. I was telling someone about Snowclones and I intended to send him a link to the list. Now I can't find it. Someone put a lot of work into that and it would be a shame if it was lost. I don't understand Wikipedia's obsession with deleting useful pages, but if you must, please find some way to preserve them elsewhere. Are you really running out of disk space?--dww —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.210.10 (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snowclone examples

Please do not add here examples which were not described elsewhere as "snowclones", per wikpedia policy WP:CITE and per general tendency against collecting trivia in wikipedia and other listcruft. For an encyclopedic article 2-3 examples are enough for a reader to get an idea. We don't collect a list of synonyms in the Synonym article, do we? `'Míkka 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about the "GOTO Considered harmful" item here. What's the problem? The article clearly describes a "snowclone" as "a type of formula-based cliché which uses an old idiom in a new context" and offers as an examples "X is the new Y". As noted over at Considered harmful, the letter was not the first use but inspired a bunch of other related cases, all published and verifiable. If there's any such thing as a "snowclone", this is obviously one such. The Considered harmful article has described it as one for six months. And, since Language Log started this mess, would you accept its opinion that "Considered harmful" was the "snowclone of the day" on 2007-07-03?
Of course, it wouldn't take much to convince me that this article should be deleted altogether. Wikipedia doesn't do neologisms, right? RossPatterson 01:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I've put the short form of the "Considered Harmful" text back, with the Language Log reference, since it obviously meets the standard you're asserting. RossPatterson 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I required. Mark Liberman is a reliable source. `'Míkka 22:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, nobody gets to "require" anything other than compliance with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. "Considered Harmful" clearly meets the meaning of this neologism, and it's notable enough to have an article of its own. It didn't need to be mentioned elsewhere, it just happens to have been. RossPatterson 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
We are discussing a totally different issue here. As for "required" it is my bad English. I meant to say "requested", and my request was clearly explained, based not on my whim, but on wikipedia policies and general trends. `'Míkka 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, said. Mikka was coming across like he owns this article or something. Quite different from the collaborative effort this is supposed to be. --Danny Rathjens 23:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Bug off. At the very top I explained the requirements. As for "collaborative effort", take a look around the web to see how much garbage is "collaborated". In wikipedia "collabortive effort" includes some nasty things, such as WP:AFD and WP:CSD. As for "owns", you are simply trolling. I edited it, like, 5 times. `'Míkka 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I was reiterating the exact same point that Ross made. That your wording of personally requiring things made it sound like you think you own this article and the rest of we contributors must meet *your* requirements in order to contribute. Your excuse of bad English is a good enough defense; apparently we read a meaning into your words that you did not intend. Please do not make the same mistake with my words. (I find it hard to believe you can admit your own mistake and yet still call someone who pointed out your mistake a troll, but perhaps that is simply a misunderstanding of the words "troll" or "own", also.) --Danny Rathjens 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Peace. We don't have a disagreement as to article content. I don't like myslef either. `'Míkka 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added "Mother of all X", which I think is notable for its foreign origin. —Ashley Y 04:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I re-removed the example of "welcome our X overlords." I'd never heard of this one before. The very few examples that remain in this article should be, I argue, absolutely well-known to basically anyone. I even question the inclusion of "X considered harmful", since I don't think it's recognizable to anyone outside of the software domain. A good example of one that IS recognizable is the first one, "Have X, will travel." Yes, this is a judgment call, but hey, let's use good judgment and only include examples that are indisputably and broadly entrenched in our language/culture. CasperGoodwood (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion has nothing to do with what you personally are familiar with; the criterion is about sourcing. I personally removed several examples that were not verifiable sourced as snowclones, but this one certainly is. And the majority of Americans who enjoy watching the Simpsons are probably familiar with it, too. The "Have X will travel" one dates you, don't you think? I just checked with my very literate 21-year-old daughter, and she'd never heard of it, with gun, tuxedo, or otherwise. And there's nothing in the definition of snowclone that says it's entrenched, indisputably, broadly, or otherwise; "instantly recognizable, time-worn" can apply within arbitrary subpopulations. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with personal familiarity. There are plenty of one-timer jokes and neologisms we are not going to add to wikipedia just because someone blurbed it. You are coneniently dismissing the most important part of CasperGoodwood argument: "entrenched in culture". Unless the item in question has multiple independent references, it fails the general notability approach of wikipedia. So far no one else noticed/discussed the snowclone in question but the fan of the snowlonism. Therefore this example must be deleted. Also, I agree with the beginning of this section: 2-3 prominent examples are enough to illustrate a linguistic notion. The artile has 4 of them already: "snow", "pink", "travel" & "harmful". Laudak (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
But where does "entrenched in culture" come from as a criterion? I thought that wikipedia's overriding criterion of verifiability was adequate to restrict the examples here. Here are 100,000 or so web hits that are relevant; 500 of those talk about it being a snowclone. Dicklyon (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the argumented discusion, beyound "ilikeit". I am afraid you are mistaken with the "verifiability" rule. This rule is of, so to say, negative action: what is not verifiable may be deleted on sight, but not all verifiable must be dumped into wikipedia. Please take a look into the AfD: every day dozens of verifiable but thoroughly nonnotable things are deleted. The same goes on a lesser scale with "factoids": I cannot point you the reference, but recently a massive campaign happened in wikipedia to delete and clean up various "Trivia" and "In popular culture" sections. In other words, "Notability", however vague it is, is a major inclusion criterion, while verifiability is major deletion criterion. We don't want to put thousands of jokes into Joke article. I am sure hundreds of jokes have zillions of google hits. Thus about yuor google counter, of 500 you preferred hardly 2-3 are original texts. Most of them are blogs and copycats, and nearly none of them go beyond simply citing as an example, rather than discussing its cultural significance. Laudak (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've re-removed the example about the overlords, per what seems to be consensus. User:Dicklyon makes some good points about arbitrary subpopulations, which is the point I was trying to make when I questioned the "considered harmful" example as well. I'd like to evolve to some examples that are virtually irrefutable in their broadness and understandability today. As User:Laudak appropriately says, we don't put thousands of jokes into the Joke article, and we don't want to fall back into just inserting more and more snowclone examples because they're our pet favorites. I'm not wedded to any of the examples here ("Have X, will travel" doesn't date me since I wasn't around for its genesis, by the way :) ). Any other suggestions for universal examples? -- CasperGoodwood (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree that 2-to-1 represents "consensus". Can we have some other opinions on the issue please? Dicklyon (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I was the first remover, so it is actually 3:1. May I suggest a criterion that the examples must be of "own wikipedia article quality", such as considered harmful and ... is the new black? What is more, I would suggest to delete the section "examples" altogether, as a potential magnet, incorporating notable examples into plain text and creating a subcategory:Snowclones in category:Cliches (the latter I will do right now, enjoy and populate). `'Míkka>t 23:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Category was a good suggestion. I populated it from "what links here" Laudak (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] X considered harmful

Ok mr. revert guy, did you even read the reference? The reference cites to wikipedia for support, and then goes on to say

However, "X considered harmful" was already a well-established journalistic cliche in 1968 -- which is why Wirth chose it. The illlustration above shows the headline of a letter to the New York Times published August 12, 1949: "Rent Control Controversy / Enacting Now of Hasty Legislation Considered Harmful". I'm sure it's not the earliest example of this phrase used in a headline or title, either -- I chose it only as a convenient illustration of usage a couple of decades before the date of Dijkstra's paper.

Gront (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. So I changed a few words to make the entry more consistent with the reference. OK? (mr. revert guy)Dicklyon (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. wikipedia considered harmful is the new black. :) Gront (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I for one welcome our new snowclone overlords. Dicklyon (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just passing through...

Thought you guys should know the introduction really doesn't make any sense. I'm still trying to figure out what a snowclone is. -155.42.196.25 (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything confusing about it. Seems ok imho. Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)