Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: May 19, 2006; keep; MFD September 13, 2006; speedy keep per WP:SNOW; MFD September 24, 2006; speedy keep per WP:SK #6; MFD

Archives
January–September 2006 September-October 2006 Oct 2006-January 9 2007 January 2007 → (early) May 2007

Contents 1 It's all gone a bit pointless 2 Addition to "What WP:SNOW is not" 3 IS this Snow? 4 Uphill battles. 5 'Hell' picture 6 Deletion 7 Overuse 8 Name Change??? 9 Awesome 10 Essay header 11 Wait a minute please 12 relationship to policy

[edit] It's all gone a bit pointless

WP:IAR makes total sense, it hits the nail on the head and sums up all left-field thinking. It's crucial to Wikipedia. But the Snowball Clause, as is, is maybe a bit pointless. Does it really have a purpose any more, seeing as it isn't policy? Doesn't IAR cover it all anyway? It just seems a little bit nonsensical to me :) --PopUpPirate 23:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, then I'd suggest that, if this clause prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you ignore it. >Radiant< 12:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I wish everyone else would, too :D --PopUpPirate 23:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to "What WP:SNOW is not"

I would like to add the paragraph below (or a similar one) to the "What SNOW is not" section, because I think this section doesn't appropriately discuss the risks of Snow decisions. However, I would like to hear other editor's comments first.

It can also be argued that there is a reason that the normal AfD process takes 5 days, which is to ensure that all interested users, including experts on the topic and editors of the article in question, get a chance to contribute. Especially when the notability of a subject is in question it can easily happen that an article seems to have a snowball's chance in hell but this consensus may be turned around in the late stages, when experts on the issue become aware of the AfD nomination.

Malc82 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest you instead add that text to WP:PI. Note that "it can be argued that" is a weasel phrase. >Radiant< 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that PI wouldn't need that paragraph, but it may be good for users who use WP:Snow to consider it (since nobody reads every guideline before editing anything).

I know "it can also be argued that" would be weasel words in a mainspace article, but is this relevant here? This is a guideline, and thus it necessarily expresses an opinion. Would "There is a reason that..." be a better start? Malc82 16:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• But this page already has such a section, creating two would be redundant. Note that this page doesn't really express an opinion - it expresses the facts that (1) we sometimes 'snow' things, (2) not everybody likes this. >Radiant< 08:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IS this Snow?

Can 6 votes in 24 hours be counted as a SB?

perfectblue 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the occasion (all six votes could be confirmed sockpuppets, for example). What was the occasion? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A merger between the a page about the urban legend of the Iraqi Killer bager and the factual page about the real life creature the Ratel (honey badger). Somebody put up a merge template and declared snow after only 6 votes. It's worth noting that proceedings were closed within 24 hours of the first vote and without the parent project or the page's creator being informed (they were unable to oppose the merger owing to not knowing about it). - perfectblue 08:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• What gives you the impression that merging is decided by voting upon it? Because it's not. >Radiant< 12:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uphill battles.

I was rereading this, and I noticed it had a bold part for uphill battles-- I'd actually written an essay on it awhile back at WP:UPHILL. I would link the statement to my essay, but that would be a bit egotistical, even for myself, and this article and it are slightly different. My article is mainly about the action of actually trying to save a snowball, whereas the way it's used here is more about things that are nearly snowballs. I would put it in 'see also', but again, that's a bit much, even for my ego, so I'd like to get at least a couple other opinions on it --Lucid 09:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a nice essay, actually. "If everybody disagrees with you, is that an indication of (1) a conspiracy against you, or (2) that you're simply wrong?" It does come up quite a lot. But I'm not sure if the people who fight uphill battles actually benefit from reading that (ironic, no?) >Radiant< 13:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much. The problem is that people fighting uphill battles are usually not good at interpreting policy, which is why I wrote this. It's kind of an "Ok, you don't understand policy, that's not a big issue right now just stop causing trouble" thing. --Lucid 01:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, in some cases, people that understand policy better than everyone around them. If the majority of idiots think something should or shouldn't be in an article, it's probably best to not waste your time dealing with them, as it's a waste of effort --Lucid 01:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thus some people, I among them, edit on things we do not care passionately about, and move on when things look impossible. DGG (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Hell' picture

I feel the picture of hell is confusing. The big dome-lookin in the middle thing could be mistake for a really really big snowball - which to me suggests that whoever added that picture was trying to insert a subversive message into the article; namely that only a really really big snowball has a chance in hell - in other words, in order to force through unpopular decisions, you have to be a really really big dick. Also, the dome looks really sci-fi-ish, so even if people don't mistake it for a really really snowball, they might think it's a picture of future hell, or space hell, or possibly even robot hell - and therefore doesn't apply to the present-day, Earth-bound, human-created Wikipedia. --Gpollock 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I please have what you're having? --Lucid 01:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are, I hope, aware that this is a nineteenth-century painting? >Radiant< 08:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, there's another very important point to be made: in the ninth circle of hell, it's obvious that a snowball would definitely have a chance in hell, as documented by de-facto evidence of this with photographic proof. --slakr^(talk) 11:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A 19th Century painting! Does anyone know if Hell looked different in the 19th Century than it does now? Can we get a good up-to-date copyright-free photograph? Thanks. Wanderer57 15:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And if the universe is exothermic, hell will freeze over which means, of course, snowball fights. --RedJ 17 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I liked "Note the complete absence of snowballs" better than the current caption. :-) - ∅ (∅), 10:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I've put it back. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can we the image's title to "An artist's interpretation of hell. Note the complete absence of snowballs." I don't know how. ——124.149.67.29 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

I'd like to close Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/cf38 by WP:SNOW please. cf38^talk 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse

Anyone else feel that WP:SNOW is overused particularly in AfD debates? I use WP:SNOW, but I believe that it should only be used in contexts for which consensus really is glaringly obvious and there's no chance of the opposite thing eventually happening - in 'speedy keep' cases, or for things which would be impossible to have a sourced, valid article on yet don't quite meet the speedy deletion criteria. What's with people saying speedy delete in AfD now when none of the criteria apply, anyway?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, this seems to be another example of the snowball clause being applied dubiously. Although I argued for a strong keep, anything that resulted in a no consensus during its previous AfD is not going to be a snowball or speedy anything, except in unusual circumstances.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If it had a previous AFD, I could see people speedy keeping it. (I don't believe in double jeopardy ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SNOW, speedy-keep and speedy-delete have all been misused since the days they were each created. Unfortunately, an awful lot of people cite those pages without apparently having actually read them. The best we can do is correct the user as tactfully as possible and explain why their comment was an inappropriate application of the policy page even though you may agree with their opinion that the page in question should be kept or deleted. Rossami (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change???

I have nothing against the idea behind the snowball clause, but closing an AfD debate "Delete per WP:SNOW" is basically telling the author that their article didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing AfD. Is it me, or does that seem a bit inflammatory (no pun intended)? I think that we should change it to something along the lines of "the landslide clause", which is much more civil. Thoughts? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

not landslide--that implies an election, and afd is not a vote. , DGG (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. What would you suggest? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade. User:Krator (t c) 00:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so that I understand: call the situation what it is, but be nice about it. Ok, I guess. Citing "WP:SNOW" is more polite than "This doesn't have a chance in hell". I still think that the wording is impolite. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should leave the name alone. As I understand it, this is a special "rule" to cover some special cases. In these cases, the snowball's chance in hell analogy does apply.

In an organization whose founder and leader is usually referred to as Jimbo, a certain degree of informality is to be expected. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to snowball delete? I don't believe so. If you have {keep, keep, speedy keep, keep} you can speedy keep, but not the other way around. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awesome

I have just wanted to say that i thought that when i went to a link saying that i should look at this page it was going to be another boring ass handbook written page in which i wouldn't even read execpt the first paragraph but when i read this and how they talk aboout snowballs and hell and even verify it with a picture i could barly stop laughing so to who ever did that i say thank you are awsome and that i Seth dalorane admin canidate approves of this pageSeth dalorane (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you like this you might want to check out other pages in Category:Wikipedia culture :D -- Ned Scott 06:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an awesome page for wikipedia. It reminds me of pages in smaller wiki's, such as homestarwiki. Jezzamon (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essay header

I don't think it is necessary to have a non-standard header. The <essay> tag auto-includes the page in Cat:WPessays. In that case, a link to WP:IAR in the see also section is fine. --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why use a broad catch-all tag when a specific custom designed tag is that much more accurate? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The custom designed tag gives readers the wrong idea about the status of this page. It's just an essay. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, and I think it's policy. Are we deadlocked? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC) hence the odd tag you see... people couldn't agree... ;-)

The expression, "just an essay," doesn't mean anything. Arguing over the official status of pages is basically antithetical to the nature of policy here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. So are we going to have another go at the annual Snowball clause tag revert-war, or could we just keep that friendly "agree to disagree" tag up there? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It sure looks like an essay to me. I don't see where it has ever had consensus to be more than an essay. Changing tags isn't going to make it more than an essay. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The expression "more than an essay" doesn't mean anything. Pages are not about their official status; they're about what's written on them. If you stop (mentally) categorizing pages as "essay" or "not an essay", you'll be acting in the spirit of WP:IAR. The question is not "Is SNOW a guideline?," the question, in each context, is "is SNOW useful here?" -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of the insistence that Don't template the regulars was suddenly more than an essay. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If you violate DTTR 3 times in 24 hours, you will be blocked for 24 hours. How is that an essay?  :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm I think you are saying if you break 3RR then it is a violation of the 3RR policy? How does that change the essay at all? It is an essay because that is what consensus wanted. Where is it written that any advice that if ignored 3 times in a day leads to blocking is not an essay? Non-sequitur. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Be Empirical! Try templating a regular and see what happens O:-) . Welcome to wikipedia best practices documentation, where we describe, not prescribe ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is wide disagreement about templating the regulars. But we are getting very off topic. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There is? Has anyone gotten away with it? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec.) Note that this policy was used on WP:MFD at least once as rationale for speedy closing a debate. <innocent look> We have empirical evidence of this particular policy/guideline page being applied as such on-wiki.

I figure perhaps we should start changing all pages with on-wiki consequences to essay , so as to be consistent? :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This page describes an application of the policy WP:IAR, if someone uses IAR as described by this essay that does not make it a policy. Your conclusion does not follow from its premises.

This may sound a bit crazy but bare with me, we can let consensus decide which pages are essays! I know, revolutionary, but it may just work. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what we're doing now, right? I mean, we're discussing, and that's how we find out about consensus. I'd like to see consensus built that talking about whether or not pages are "essays" is off-topic, but whatever kind of consensus we build, I think this is how it's done. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My comment was in response to Kim's statement about empirical evidence and the possibility of changing all pages with on-wiki consequences to essay. I thought that needed some sort of response. Though I agree it is off topic. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• You agree that it's off-topic to talk about whether pages are essays? Now I'm puzzled. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was unclear. I think that arguing about how we decide if something is an essay or not is off topic, perhaps better suited at WT:CONSENSUS. Discussing if a page is an essay or not is productive. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? At what point is "Is SNOW an essay or a guideline or something else?" a more interesting or important question than "Should SNOW be applied in context X?"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about "more important"? I don't think it is a mutually exclusive situation. You can discuss when and in what context SNOW can be applied in, but that does not mean we can't determine what the consensus is regarding the status of this page. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so nobody said "more important". I tend to think that it's utterly frivolous to talk about whether a page is an "essay" or a "guideline". I see no practical benefit there, unless we consider giving people the wrong impression of how Wikipedia works to be a benefit.

Why encourage the idea that a page's official "status" is the way to think about it? I'd love to see those tags all thrown out as so much policy creep, but I realize that some of them are necessary. Tagging policy as policy: fine. Tagging an essay you've written as an essay, so people don't get the wrong idea: cool. Implying that those tags matter by arguing about them: not so cool. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that an essay is an opinion that a group of editors maintain, and a guideline has demonstrated the support of the community. This bit of information is crucial for someone reading this so that they can make an informed opinion on the content of the page. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Except the informed opinion will necessarily take the form of "do I act on this, or don't I?" Eventually, it comes down to an edit that you either make or not. Whether or not you make that edit shouldn't depend on whether it comes from an essay or a guideline, but on whether or not it's a good idea in context. What am I missing? What's a specific case where someone won't know what to do unless we distinguish essays from guidelines? Is it making sense, what I'm driving at here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it more concretely/succinctly, whether a page is an "essay" or a "guideline" has never had any effect on whether or not I apply it, personally. Is the case different for you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, when I was a new user and not a sage veteran such a your or I am now. I followed the guidelines because I saw they had community support, with essays I took into account that they were not the same thing, just something someone wanted you to consider. While experience can lead one to understand the intricacies of IAR and common sense, new users often need guidance in a more direct form. _(1 == 2)^Until 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I've got reservations, so I'll keep playing devil's advocate. I was a new user in '03, when things were a lot looser, and I really have no idea which project-space pages I ever read. I suspect I still haven't read at least two or three core policies. Nevertheless.... how long should we reinforce (to newbies) the concept that Wikipedia is a rules-game, before finally letting them know that it isn't really? Do you think those tags imply a bit much "official status" for a project that includes IAR as a core policy? Shouldn't we encourage contributors to exercise their own judgment from day 1? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This happens automatically as the user gains an understanding of consensus, common sense, and ignore all rules. It happens very organically. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I used to feel a lot less confused when I just followed guidelines blindly, as if they were rules written in stone. Now, I have to think about the context of each individual action, each individual edit. That is hard work, I feel more confused from time to time, but the overall result is better, I think I do better edits this way. --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to get you guys too nervous, but right now, we're standing in an old dusty wikidrama-zone (see archives), have popped off the safety-tag that cooled it down last time, and have re-lit an old fuse we found lying around (see archives some more) , and are... just standing around? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Once the fuse is lit, Mr. Dynamite is not your friend.

I would very strongly advise anyone against invoking this unless they are very sure that the common sense of essentially all people likely to comment in good faith is going to agree with their own. In 18 months here, 12 as an admin, I have found maybe one or two times where i needed to use it. The only valid use is when everyone will agree on something, but find no actual written policy. If it's going to be controversial, the sense is less than common. DGG (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wait a minute please

Quoting the article:

"The snowball clause is not policy, but it is designed to prevent editors from using Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a filibuster"

"The snowball test -- This test can be applied to an action only after it is performed, and is thus useful for learning from experience."

It is hard to see how a test that can only be applied retroactively can prevent anything. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It can prevent one from doing the same mistake again. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. That's why it says it's useful for "learning from experience". -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the snowball test is different from the snowball clause itself. It's more of a note about the snowball clause than part of the actual clause. It's there to prevent snowball fights. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. To see if I understand this, if I apply the snowball test retroactively to an issue, and I learn from that experience, then if a similar issue arises in the future I may be able to "apply the test" proactively to help make a decision. Have I got that right?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the gist of it, yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds right. --Newbyguesses (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] relationship to policy

For an essay, it is not necessary for an essay to agree with existing polic--ine3ed, essays can be a step in changing policy. ., However, when it gives advice that is directly contrary to policy, such as suggesting that speedy can be used in cases which it does not provide for, it had better say that it is contrary to the policy. DGG (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)