Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause

message: 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)
thread_title:  It's all gone a bit pointless 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: I actually rather enjoyed the pictures and their captions. :) thisisace (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

text: 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 ThisIsAce FrodoBaggins (blackhat999) (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pointless pictures 

message: Dante tells us in his Divina Commedia that in the deepest division of hell, we find Brutus and Judas, locked in a block of ice. What can this be but a giant snow-ball surrounding these two traitors? --Koosg (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but how do you get the snowball past the 7th Circle to get to the 9th?  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snowballs known to be in hell since 1300. 

message: {{Discussion top|result=. See proposal along these lines immediately below. Closing redundant thread per WP:MULTI, WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not what I expected 

message: 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===
 
 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.
 
I should appreciate your views. Pinging , , , ,  as regulars at RfD. (Perhaps I should have started this discussion at WT:RFD, I dunno, but it applies as much to any other discussion page.) Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avalanche 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think so, as a WP:SNOW close refers to a situation in which there is a clear winner. Tamwin (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Interpretation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Use of phrase "yet another"

message: 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)
thread_title:  A different type of snowball 

message: TBH how this is worded makes it feel like a TV Tropes article, or at the very least, a small attempt at comedy. Rewrite? RThreeKed (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Humor is often an effective method for helping people remember what they've read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: This feels like TV Tropes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Example given as reasonable snowball