This page has been the subject of multiple failed proposals to make it a guideline. If you believe it should be a guideline, please read the prior discussions and figure out how to address the objections editors have raised.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
These two articles say the exact opposite things. This means, in effect that all new users are in a catch-22 situation, since they are forced to follow this and the conflicting rules WP: BOLD, and WP: IAR. This makes it so that the environment of Wikipedia is not fit for new users who are discouraged from editing since an edit by a new user generally, according to the discretion of the administrator, has a snowball´s chance in hell to be accepted. With this, we have an environment that is discouraging new users from editing. How can a new user edit while following all of the rules in question? This is because, this article actively discourages users from being BOLD, since, it can give users a ban or possibly worse for being BOLD, due to this snowball rule. 2601:647:4100:10E2:D962:7A08:ED5A:3671 (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4100:10E2:D962:7A08:ED5A:3671 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, of course I wasn't supposed to be bold because this topic about the Khmer Rouge from the 80s is deemed controversial by Wikipedia. To remove the "allegations of" from the bloated, long title would supposedly be too biased, anti-US government wp: pov editing, say the chief editors. It's definitely not something college history professors in America would readily affirm without batting an eye.. /sarcasm But I digress.
The chief editors appear to be trying their best to just shut down my discussions and make them dead archives even when I have lots of support without actually penalizing me directly; while I appreciate not being banned, it's not great that the rules are enforced in such an arbitrary way but if you ask a chief editor about this they will most likely give you a wishy washy answer like "it's up to you to read between the lines." Don't even get me started on the Wikipedia:IAR brought up below; there are a lot of things that wouldn't have a "snowball's chance in hell" of making it through the process but would still be nice for Wikipedia to be honest about instead of pretending certain things are still up for debate to keep some kind of strange "neutrality" (favoring specific governments and being vague about things they were involved in doesn't seem neutral to me).
A more honest description of Ignore all rules would be: If it would make Wikipedia better by being more clear and truthful, then sure go ahead and ignore the rule if you want because somewhere there is a senior editor with more power than you who can make a bad argument against your solid case in any process stick. Judging by the way things are handled if anything were done about it, I predict they would just end up removing IAR and Be Bold alltogether. Tons of rules and guidelines are routinely abused, editors with higher administrative rank are pretty much allowed to Game the system but if you make an edit, that really shouldn't be controversial but is nevertheless threatening to a very wack and paranoid status quo, your attempt to follow the rules will be framed as gaming the system and there's nothing you can do about it since you're just a new editor. Seems like most editors are just used to it at this point and I'm sadly starting to expect more of the same too. Jester6482 (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 :) --PopUpPirate23:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
IMO the pictures add nothing to the article and should be removed. "Snowball's chance in Hell" is a well-known idiom that does not need illustrating, and indeed it's become so transparent in meaning that the pictures only serve to confuse. 86.184.129.138 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Snowball's chance in Hell" may be a well-known and often-used idiom among religionist Americans with their rather simplistic theological understanding and overall simplistic world view, but certainly not among the entirety of the English-speaking world. It is a very bad name for a Wikipedia guideline. ♆ CUSH ♆11:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with cush that this is not well-know to everyone, though I do not necessarily agree with his views toward religion. I am an atheist myself, although I would certainly not consider religion to be damaging to society, as his userpage states. As for the pictures, I agree with ThisIsAceFrodoBaggins (blackhat999) (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Coming onto this page, I expected it to be about "snowballing" in the sense of an issue that continuously gains momentum until it becomes extremely difficult to overcome (such as debt with high interest, [example on WP], or an actual snowball rolling down a very large hill). Is there a WP page concerning this sense of "snowballing"?
[Edit: forgot signature, I'm on an iPad and I am unused to WP on it.] RETheUgly (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm tempted to introduce WP:AVALANCHE linking to a new section in here.
Often (at least over at WP:RFD) we refer to SNOWBALL but often we mean a large majority opinion in favour of a proposal, not against it, which is the gist of SNOWBALL (although some sections are neutral on the matter). While I could just WP:BOLDly add the shortcut, it would seem itself WP:RFD#D2 confusing unless there is some wording to state this at the target here, and for that I would rather have consensus first (rather than WP:BRD).
#Not what I expected, immediately above, expresses a similar sentiment, but I have a concrete proposal. It would look something like this:
===Avalanche===
{{shortcut|WP:AVALANCHE}}
An avalanche is a set of responses to a proposal where a vast majority are in favour of it, not against it. While made of the same stuff as a snowball, it has a moving force that is hard to stop. These guidelines apply to avalanches too.
Comment I did consider drafting an essay or e.g. calling it WP:BULLDOZER but this has a nice symmetry, and I think SNOWBALL covers it, but focuses on discussions where the majority is against a proposal, and I think we need to distinguish the two cases in closing remarks &c. I can see, however, that this proposal itself will be a WP:SNOWBALL as "no need for it" etc. Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I was going to Boldly add this kind of section, even before I saw the proposal here. However I didn't use the text suggested above. I welcome improvements to my text. I also created {{shortcut|WP:SNOWPRO}} to the new section. Alsee (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is one of the few essays (along with WP:BRD, WP:AADD, WP:ROPE, and a handful of others) that is effectively a guideline by dint of how much reliance the community has on it, I would have preferred to see more discussion of this before it was added. However, I support the addition. People keep coming here looking for the "gathering so much support it can't be stopped" concept (including even after this discussion; see thread-after-next, below), and the addition describes actual practice. I can't even count the times I've seen an RfC or whatever get closed per a SNOWBALL that is pro rather than con, or one of three or more options under discussion. The same basic principle applies: if it's very obvious how the discussion is going to conclude, just conclude it, unless there's reason to believe the emerging consensus might change (e.g. if everyone commenting so far seems to be a bloc vote ginned up by canvassing a particular wikiproject, or if none of the participants so far seem to know what they're talking about because no relevant wikiprojects were even notified; it's usually pretty obvious pretty quickly whether a discussion does or doesn't represent a wide selection of editors). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I saw this change, I was concerned because of certain things that shouldn't be closed early, especially in the case of things that should have an admin closing them. But SMcCandlish's above comment makes me feel better about the addition. Still, I think the addition could use some cautionary language to be on the safe side, and I will leave a note about the change at WP:Village pump (policy) for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the addition, because I do not feel there is a clear analogy that would make an avalanche only applicable for supporting views, versus an avalanche of opposing ones. Additionally, I don't feel any real need to introduce a new jargon term. Commonly-used English expressions should suffice. isaacl (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If one wanted to seek a consensus to request an early close of an RfC, without specifying the result one way or the other, would that be considered a proposal for a SNOW close? ―Mandruss☎23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss and Tamwin: it doesn't, really; at least not in practice, it refers to a situation with a clear outcome, not "winner" in the sense I think you mean that the proposal is carried or opposed with a landslide (or #Avalanche, as I suggest). Here it's just basically "Frozen" or "Chilled". Si Trew (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the phrase "yet another" inserted into the first sentence here? It does not really make sense, unless one has just read a lot of pages with similar content to this one. Vorbee (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Is there an article, essay, policy, or something for the other kind of snowballing? Like, if something is done to one thing it could snowball out of control? Kinda like listcruft? Zero Serenity(talk - contributions)16:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. I'm new to this topic and to Wikipedia administration things generally, and this may have to do with my having trouble with the sentence "For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (not one of those listed in the criteria for speedy deletion), but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion through the normal article deletion process, there's no sense in resurrecting it and forcing everyone to go through the motions of deleting it yet again." I finally figured out what it means, but it still kind of trips me up and I think the idea could be expressed a bit more clearly, perhaps by something like: "For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (not one of those listed in the criteria for speedy deletion), but doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of not being again deleted through the normal article deletion process, there's no sense in an editor's resurrecting it and forcing everyone to go through the motions of deleting it a second time." If it's felt that the original wording is adequate, then at least let it be registered that I had trouble understanding it. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Roy McCoy I agree, that's a long and complicated sentence. Although I'm not sure your version would help a random reader. Instead I trimmed some unnecessary words, and I tried to improve clarity by replacing implicit words (like "one" and "it") with the explicit words (like "reason" and "article"). Overall I have it 10% shorter:
For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (the reason was not within the criteria for speedy deletion), but the article has no chance of surviving the normal deletion process, it would be pointless to resurrect the article and force everyone to go through the motions of deleting it again.
I've got to say, DRV has been overturning speedy deletions that don't meet the criteria even if they lack an meaningful chance of making it through AfD. The argument is that speedy deletion is the action of a single admin and the non-admins can't reasonably double-check it. So WP:CSD is expected to be taking quite literally and improper deletions will get overturned and the admin often chided. I think it might be time to remove the example. Hobit (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RfC about turning the snowball clause into a policy/guideline
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Comments: The article is referred to as an explanatory essay. It has had 297 editors with 235 watchers. As far as I am concerned, and from instances where it has been used, the "essay" can carry authority as if it were a guideline with an unarguable fairly broad community consensus. I didn't look but I surmise the essay is probably seldom if ever overturned when properly invoked.
Promotion to yet another policy or guideline could likely be considered added bureaucracy or instruction creep (which is also an "explanatory essay"), and fail.
An "explanatory essay" is usually about a guideline or policy, generally as a Supplement or interpretation, and includes This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. Sometimes these are accepted as a community norm and sometimes can even be used in sanctions. One that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia (WP:HTBAE), which includes the shortcuts WP:HERE and WP:NOTHERE. Another example is Wikipedia:Competence is required. An explanatory essay about the disruptive editing guideline.
A problem I have is that an article that fails to be promoted tends to have the opposite effect and gets demoted.[clarification needed] -- Alright! Look at nearly any failed proposal. Some might be well-intentioned, some with good ideas, and maybe some that were superseded (Wikipedia:Article series boxes). The one thing noticeable right off is a big red X and This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.
A gamble?: This proposal could be met with consensus for promotion but I feel, as an "explanatory essay" it was already promoted and serves in an important capacity without having the more broad community consensus. Someone's argument "This is not a policy or guideline" is usually not a good argument. What I would like to not see happen is a big red X and "This is a failed proposal". I surmise that this would take credibility away from the explanatory essay and give legitimate grounds that it has failed promotion so not credible to be used. If this does head south I would plea to close as withdrawn unless there is an exception allowing it not to be red Xed. (Summoned by bot) Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In explanation-to-guideline promotion efforts, the explanation often ends up being re-tagged as an essay. In would-be rule-making pages, I've seen failed proposals get marked as failed proposals, and I've also seen them get marked as essays afterwards. For example, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) is a failed proposal, but was tagged as an essay. I think that if people find value in the page, even if they don't want it to be part of "the rules", then they find a gentler tag at the end. That's what I'd expect to happen in this case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is one of those cases where we have an essay that essentially already has the de facto support of a guideline. A discussion is closed as WP:SNOW somewhere on Wikipedia once a day definitely at least once a week, and the only times they're challenged and overturned is when the underlying situation is assessed to not be SNOW. Now, as far as what this changes on Wikipedia--not much. The spirit of this essay is already covered by WP:NOTBURO. Despite that, I think it would be more informative to upgrade it to a guideline, so that it actually tells a first-time reader the level of consensus that this practice receives from the community. It's not rule creep, because the rules aren't actually changing (or if they did, it was back when people first started citing this essay, not today), we're just updating documentation here. signed, Rosguilltalk16:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, it's clear from reading this discussion that this essay is not ripe for promotion but language describing or alluding to it should be added to NOTBURO or IAR. signed, Rosguilltalk20:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a PG, we have too many already, we really don't need more, and even if we were to add more, this isn't the one to promote. Also, while it is very popular and is cited almost daily, the actual text of the page doesn't really describe how SNOW is used on the ground. For example, WP:SNOW says that "snow" is for opposition and "avalanche" is for support, but in practice, that's not how it's used. However, I support adding some language about "SNOW closes" to WP:DETCON (a policy page) and/or WP:CLOSE and/or WP:RFC (both info pages) -- something that documents the consensus of when (and when not) to close discussions "early" because of an obvious outcome. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed but support adding one sentence about it to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Closing discussions. Note that in the area of deletion, the snowball clause is already incorporated in a guideline: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure – at the bottom. Why oppose in the first place: WP:SNOW is already stronger than a guideline. It is really a policy-level vetted practice as it directly comes from WP:NOTBURO and WP:IAR, just explaining (as it should, it being an explanatory essay) the already pretty obvious practical implications of those policies. Invoking the snow clause just means reminding people of those policies. It has no independent substance, and new guidelines should actually have independent prescriptive substance. —Alalch E.18:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not buying the argument that an explanatory essay is just as good as a guideline. Informative and instructional pages are typically edited by the community; while not policies or guidelines themselves, they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where they are well-established as communal norms, they should be upgraded to guideline status. Hawkeye7(discuss)05:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An explanatory essay is not as good as a guideline and WP:SNOW is not only not stronger than a guideline, the comments below demonstrate to my satisfaction that WP:SNOW is not uncontroversial. WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUROare still policies but over time the norms concerning when to invoke them have narrowed. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So... you think it's currently controversial and weaker than a guideline, but you want to make it a guideline?
I'm not sure that "strong" and "weak" are the right concepts here. In my experience, when it's applicable, people are happy with applying it, and when it's inapplicable, people aren't happy to see someone try to use it. I'm not sure what would change about that just by calling it a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm looking for a concrete and specific answer, like "Well, if editors are _____, and if it's an essay, then we can't _____, but if it was marked as a guideline, then we could _____ instead." When exactly would guideline status change the outcome of a discussion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have a shared understanding of the role of essays. I think that editors should be able to cite essays as justification/explanation, whenever doing so makes good sense.
I doubt such a proposal would succeed, @Tbf69. If you decide to attempt it, though, I suggest two things:
Read every single word on the page, in order, in one sitting, so you know exactly what you're proposing. I think you will discover that it doesn't mean what people have told you it means. (Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions; there aren't enough hours in the day.)
Come up with a really convincing explanation for why editors should not be able to cite WP:BRD.
That's the thing with essays. They are used as a bluff, cited in WP:UPPERCASE as if they were guidelines. Then anyone who disagrees doesn't have to address the the issue raised at all; they can dismiss the argument out of hand as being just an essay, which by definition lacks consensus and has no standing or acceptance. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7: No, they are not being done that way. People are allowed, nay, expected to give an explanation for why they think they way they do. Often, that explanation has been given so many times, that it gets written down somewhere so people don't have to repeat such explanations over and over again. That's always, and only what it means when people cite a page like that. It is saying "this explains my position, so instead of copying it verbatim, I'll just link it". An explanation is not a policy and it is not a guideline. In fact, an explanation is more important than a policy or a guideline, in nearly all cases. Citing pages that give explanations is fine. --Jayron3221:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The default template says "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." There's a reason that it says this instead of "Essays have no consensus, no standing, and no acceptance". Some essays do, and some don't.
@Hawkeye7 apparently supports the essay WP:UPPERCASE. Did he cite it as a bluff? I doubt it; I suspect that he cited it because he expects us to be familiar with its contents (or to make ourselves familiar with its contents) and that it conveys his concern about people misusing or being confused by shortcuts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said essays have "uncertain standing and acceptance". The problem with "Some essays do, and some don't" is that newbies in particular have no way of determining which is which, and there is seldom agreement among the old hands. I've been hauled before ANI for reverting with an invitation to present sources and discuss, so I know that Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not universally accepted. I deplore the way that editing Wikipedia involves arguing with fellow Wikipedians, and that we do so by reference to guidelines and essays, usually in abbreviated form, but mastering that corpus involves time and effort better spent on other activity. Worse, many are sometimes quoted without reference to what they actually say. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that our present system presents all sorts of obstacles to newcomers and to unwary editors. For example, what editors usually mean when they tell you to WP:FOLLOWBRD is rather different from BRD itself. And even with strongly supported policies, we might disagree over whether a given policy is especially relevant in a given case, or whether a given edit actually complies with it.
I think there is a tendency to unduly extrapolate from early comments, leading to editors calling to close discussions before giving a chance for the global community to weigh in, or for those who edit less frequently. Establishing consensus requires patience. I appreciate the desire to avoid repetitive comments. I feel, though, that this is better addressed by editors showing restraint and not commenting in scenarios where the outcome is clear. Thus I feel the current status of the page being an explanatory essay is sufficient. isaacl (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The RFC query is wholly inadequate (I don't even see that it specifies whether the proposal is to promote this page to a policy or a guideline), but I'm opposed to either regardless. We have WP:IAR as the relevant policy and no problem is going to be solved by changing the status of this essay. VQuakr (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbf69: IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. SNOW: If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. If the rules say to follow a certain process but there's no point to doing so in a given case, we can ignore the rules regarding that process and just improve WP. Hey while you're here, can you explain why you think this essay should be made a P/G, and which you think it should become? Was there a WP:RFCBEFORE discussion somewhere that isn't obvious? VQuakr (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...the nutshell summary of this page literally reads This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules policies. How did you get to the point of nominating this essay for promotion without noticing that? signed, Rosguilltalk20:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It's written like an essay, not like a policy, and is a poor candidate for promotion. So I'm assuming the proposal is to add a snowball sentence (clause) to an appropriate policy/guideline, rather than just straight-up promoting this essay? If so, fine. Otherwise, please no. We have tons of policies already, and should keep WP:CREEP in mind (CREEP itself is an essay which doesn't need to be promoted to be relevant and useful). (summoned here by bot) DFlhb (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly, yes. It's that tone that makes essays so lovely and lively, and I fear it would get lost if "policy'd" (policide?) Reflecting on it, that's not a great argument against this becoming a policy, since nothing stops people from preserving its playfulness no matter what the label says at the top. DFlhb (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lolcats are not serious enough for some folks
I suspect you're right, though. Some people want official pages to be staid. Pages displaying some character or humor improves memory, but I think they worry that if the page sounds silly, people won't comply with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per the above discussion about IAR, nominator does not seem to know what they are nominating to be a PAG, and they aren't even sure whether it should be a policy or guideline. Also, making this a PAG will increase the likelihood that this is abused by editors wanting to open-and-shut a discussion in their favor. It's fine as an essay, as it's clearly still being used effectively in this form, and turning it into a policy won't make it any more effective or beneficial for Wikipedia. ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support with exceptions. It's already de facto a policy, but however, I'm concerned that sometimes an RFC aimed at the wider Wikipedia community could get SNOW'd by members of a Wikiproject. I would suggest that SNOW should only become a guideline if it's either been tested by people outside of regular editors on a certain article, or if the proposal itself is just too blatantly absurd (think stuff like repealing one of the five pillars). InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this was just listed at CENT, and there has been some support so far for adding a sentence to an existing policy or guideline rather than promoting SNOW, I think it might be helpful organizationally to split that off into a subsection. (I'm on mobile currently or I'd do it.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk15:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than split it'd be better to just close this one, and then start an RFCBEFORE to talk about what language to put in which page(s), and then launch an RFC proposal to do it (or maybe not even that, if it's uncontroversial and there's clear talk page consensus). Maybe I'm biased, but I personally don't think it's controversial to add something about snow closes to one or more pages about closing discussion; of course the devil is in the details, but I think a noncontroversial addition could theoretically be drafted. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As already said, in the few cases anything like this makes sense, then IAR is policy enough. Also, SNOW is the opposite what WP should be. Instead of promoting fast discussion to policy, we should use this, less and less. The normal process should be taking time to discuss. You should not close early just because someone is being rude to the minority opinion (you should tell all to be polite, or shut up the unpolite, if needed, not shut the minority). You should not close early just because there is 100 to 1 vote, the 1 has the same right to have their say exposed and discussed, maybe they'll get to 2... and if you are the 101st you do not "have waste your time" because the discussion is decided, just move on. - Nabla (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? FWIW I think it is already so widely accepted and cited that it is not really controversial. This looks like a solution in search of a problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to say that where SNOW is concerned, NOTPOLICY would be the most widely disregarded rule since the 55mph speed limit, except it's also an essay. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't say what most editors think it says. Contrast the belief that you can't cite SNOW because NOTPOLICY vs what NOTPOLICY says, i.e., "Essays, proposals and information pages should only be cited as opinion or advice, not admonishment." NOTPOLICY approves of citing SNOW as advice on how to wrap up a discussion; it does not approve of citing essays to tell other editors that they did a bad job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Per, when people close discussions per WP:SNOW, it doesn't ever mean they are elevating that page to policy level. It means, as it always has and always does "This page I am citing contains the explanation which is too wordy to recreate here". --Jayron3217:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:SNOW is not "subject" to WP:NOTPOLICY because the latter is not a policy or guideline, either. When a discussion is closed per SNOW we're saying, "this has no reasonable chance to succeed so further formal discussion is unnecessary." We are completely able to do that without this Essay being promoted. VQuakr (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's fine as it is. It is a good explanatory page for when people close silly proposals that have no chance of succeeding. There's no reason to make such a move a policy or guideline or whatever. Having a common explanation of one's actions doesn't mean that common explanation needs to become official policy. --Jayron3217:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. SNOW isn't a rule. It's a decision to disregard the rules when a closer feels it's in the best interests of the encyclopaedia to do so. There is no need to change this.—S MarshallT/C18:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per instruction creep. The policy is IAR and SNOW is a well-accepted corollary of this. We have too many policies and guidelines and they create an enormous learning curve for newcomers. "SNOW" is jargon but it's useful and, so long as it is linked, a newcomer can understand what it means when they see it but should not be going out of their way to learn about it. The page is also written in the style of an essay, which is no problem so long as it remains an essay. — Bilorv (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps I am piling on here, but I do feel that the page is written in the style of an essay and that when SNOW is invoked, either by discussants or in the close, it is fundamentally a judgment call of whether the conditions listed in the essay are met. I also wonder if elevating this page to a guideline would have some unintended effects. --Enos733 (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as instruction creep. We already use SNOWBALL as a closure rationale without any issues, so "elevating" it to guideline wouldn't actually do anything useful. Lots of things we rely on (WP:AADD, WP:BRD, WP:ROPE, WP:5P, etc., etc.) do not have guideline or policy tags on them. This is not a bureaucracy and people are not empowered to wiki-lawyer against community consensus (and SNOWBALL clearly has that consensus) based on whether something has a guideline tag. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's a passage here that I think was written before WP:PROD was implemented, in which case it's long outdated, it is
For example, if an article is speedily deleted for the wrong reason (the reason was not within the criteria for speedy deletion), but the article has no chance of surviving the normal deletion process, it would be pointless to resurrect the article and force everyone to go through the motions of deleting it again.
I think this is exactly what PROD was designed for -- to handle articles that aren't technically speedy worthy, but that any reasonable person can see have no chance of surviving AfD, correct? So the advice is old and actually bad, in this case you would PROD it, I believe?
I don't think (IMO) that the passage is fixable without getting too complicated, so just replace it with a similar example I guess, of which there must be a number. Herostratus (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misreading it. Say a page got deleted for A7, but did actually have an indication of importance. That passage is saying that if it's obvious AFD would delete it anyway, there's no point in undeleting just to send it to AFD so it can be deleted again. PROD doesn't really enter into it, although you could as well say there's no reason to undelete just to PROD it, or there's no reason to un-PROD something that would never pass AFD anyway. Anomie⚔23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[[reply]
Right, don't undelete to send it to AfD, but do undelete it to PROD it. That'd be the proper step, as so why advise people to not do it. Herostratus (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If is if the conclusion is obvious. Undeleting would only be useful if there was a chance that it wouldn't be deleted. The point is that we don't follow rules just to follow them, especially when there is zero chance of a different outcome. --Jayron3213:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, at this point, a suggestion to replace a passage that recommends egregious violation of a key policy is getting pushback and, I guess, the suggestion is going to be ignored. Do we need any more clear a demonstration of the toxic ideology that swirls around around and is fostered and excused by this harmful page? Jeepers creepers. Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a page that needs to be deleted. (This is stipulated in the scenario; whether the page should be deleted is not disputed. Imagine, e.g., an article that says "My First Book is the first poetry book self-published by Author on Amazon Kindle yesterday. The author is a 16-year-old student at City High School.")
A hypothetical editor sends it for deletion, erroneously making the request via the wrong process (e.g., CSD A7, which excludes books).
An admin deletes the page (=the correct outcome, because the scenario says that the page has no chance of avoiding deletion in the end).
You say:
4. Let's go undelete that page, and then re-delete it after doing a bunch of extra work.
I (and this page) say:
4. Why bother jumping through a bunch of procedural steps to end up in exactly the same place? Either way it ends up being deleted. What actual, practical benefit do we get from un-deleting and then re-deleting it?
If you consider this from a pros/cons list, I see it this way:
Pros:
Satisfies some people's idea of Doing Things The Right Way.
Cons:
Undeleting the article means that it gets put back in NPP's queue, which wastes their time.
AFD wastes the community's time on a foregone conclusion. The article has to be nominated, sorted, responded to, closed, and re-deleted.
Wikipedia ends up with an extra page (for AFD) and a couple of extra lines in the log (for the undeleting and redeleting steps).
Looking at the nineteen options with subheadings in the section for proposed names, nine use singular and ten use plural, which would not be considered consensus. Because there has not been major discussion specifically about singular vs. plural, the closest thing that we have to a poll about singular vs. plural suggests that 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outage has 47.4% (9⁄19) preference over 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages, so WP:SNOW does not apply. However, of the eight options with subheadings in the section for proposed names that include either IT outage(s), IT system outage(s), IT systems outage(s), or information technology outage(s), only one has singular, and this suggestion, Global IT outage of July 2024, has two major deviations from most of the proposed titles in putting the date at the beginning instead of the end and including the month, so for all we know, most people actually prefer singular outage, but plural outages, despite being an unpopular candidate, rode on the tails of IT outage and the year being at the beginning without the month. I remind all of this quote from Wikipedia:Snowball clause#A cautionary note:
it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives
In this case, there is a very real danger of excluding slight tweaks that might be better than a good-but-not-perfect proposed title because thinking of something new, even if it's similar to something existing, and justifying the change requires more mental effort and more typing time than just going along with what has already been proposed. For the same reason, I would, as a general principle, oppose any invocation of WP:SNOW that completely preempts a final tweaking phase of any decision with too many initially reasonable possibilities to cover by pure brute force. In a similar vein, the discussion about possibly adding the word system has only recieved two votes so far, not enough to establish consensus, and there has so far been no attempt to debate CrowdStrike-related vs. CrowdStrike-linked vs. CrowdStrike-triggered vs. CrowdStrike-caused, so we should also discuss those two things (and any other plausible tweaks) before closing discussion. (I personally prefer CrowdStrike-triggered, followed by CrowdStrike-linked then CrowdStrike-caused.) However, I do agree that we can eliminate most possibilities, specifically anything that is significantly closer to an already-specifically-considered-and-rejected alternative than 2024 CrowdStrike-related IT outages.
I think that the section with the cautionary note should include a subsection explaining that it is particularly relevant when there are more options than can plausibly be covered individually, something like this:
This article was first created with the title "Lord-Treacherous Subcircle of Dante's Hell", a title which quickly prompted a moving discussion. The title "Judecca (Dante's Hell)" was a clear and overwhelming favorite over the original title and the other proposed new titles, which included "Judecca (Ninth Circle of Dante's Hell)" and "Fourth Round of Ninth Circle of Hell (Dante's Inferno)", so it was accepted after an editor called for a vote to establish whether WP:SNOW would apply. However, while "Judecca (Dante's Hell)" was much better-liked than the other proposed titles, the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of this place would have preferred "Judecca (Dante's Inferno)" which has the concision and other advantages of "Judecca (Dante's Hell)" but is better at clarifying the fictional origin of the topic. Alas, their jaws were frozen shut, so they could only vote thumbs-up or thumbs-down, consigned to silence for betraying their Lord. Thus, just as a snowball may have a reasonable chance of surviving Hell if it is close enough to the King of Hell himself, an alternative to a clear favorite proposal for what to rename an article may have a reasonable chance of surviving if it is similar enough to the clear favorite that has melted more distant proposed alternatives.
Particular caution should be used when the number of initially reasonable options is too large for every option to be reasonably considered individually, which can frequently occur with page-renaming. In this case, there is a very significant chance of excluding perfectly viable options simply because no one has thought of them so far amongst the hundreds or even thousands of possibilities. Even if a clear favorite emerges from the (relatively small collection of) articulated proposals, in cases where there are several areas of variation, an overwhelming advantage in one aspect (e.g., a more concise phrasing) may carry a slight disadvantage in another aspect (e.g., whether the article title should be singular or plural), even if another proposal exists with a relative advantage in that particular area. In these circumstances, a successful invocation of the snowball clause should not close a renaming discussion but rather advance it to a final, tweaking phase.
Another strategy that may be useful in the above situation is to split the decision-making into several parts, one for each point of variation in the title, instead of just voting for titles as a whole. Thus, voters' preferences about aspects such as whether the title should be singular or plural, which country's spelling conventions to follow, and whether the title should include both the month and year or just the year can be made independent when voting. In this case, the snowball clause can be used to end discussion about one aspect of the title, even if a small minority objects), thus safeguarding the discussion from going backwards into a state of lesser progress, while at the same time allowing discussion for other aspects to continue if consensus for those has not been reached yet. This can be helpful for focusing editors' attention on the parts that are still up in the air and preventing renaming discussions from dragging on for longer than they have to. In discussions like these, when deciding whether discussion can be stopped for several aspects that all seem to have overwhelming consensus, one shoudl evaluate each aspect separately.
I cannot see why WP:DOA redirects here or what DOA stands for. Maybe the project page should say it more prominently (if it does) or at all (if it doesn't). --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your case is a snowball, PopUpPirate ;) Benzband (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. I was going to Boldly add this kind of section, even before I saw the proposal here. However I didn't use the text suggested above. I welcome improvements to my text. I also created 
Moved to #Avalanche
The redirect Snowball clause has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 16 § Snowball clause until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 22:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)