Talk:Snowpack

Snowpack types Merged Here

Snowpack types, a freestanding article, was unilaterally merged here by @User:Reywas92. As the DYK review concluded it was notable, and a DYK hook for snowpack types is up as we speak, I think this warrants discussion.

Pinging those involved in the DYK: @User:Buidhe, @User:Departure–, @User:AirshipJungleman29, @User:Z1720, @User:Tbhotch. Bremps... 15:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

This article was baffling. Obviously the article about snowpack should describe the types of snowpack. Just because this main article was pretty short (and obviously wildly incomplete) to begin with does not mean additional content should be in a separate article, requiring readers to go to a different page for no reason, instead of being used to expand it to make a more comprehensive article, even if the new section is relatively long. The sources are about snowpack, and any sources that mention the types of snowpack still only contribute to the notability of the primary topic and don't justify a disjointed page (WP:NOPAGE). Most of these further reading links should be deleted though, they're just random search results of research that's not necessarily substantively relevant to the article. Reywas92^Talk 15:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree, but per the last bullet of WP:SKCRIT, Reywas92 should've waited until the content was off the main page to execute the BLAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

That refers to deletion discussions. Nothing wrong with the main page now just linking to this article, where readers actually get the context of what snowpack even is... — Reywas92^Talk 15:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Redirects are not allowed in the Main page. As stated above, you have to discuss this at WP:ERRORS, not decide the Main page administration recklessly. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge, as I have stated before the content is definitely UNDUE here as the distinction discussed in the article is mostly present in research related to North America and it is not as commonly used elsewhere. The further reading sources contain additional discussion about the topic as requested by the DYK reviewers so these sources should be used to expand the content about this particular system for snowpack classification, not deleted. You are much better off trying to expand and improve this article based on more general, worldwide sources than dumping content. (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not how undue works. The content is about snowpack, so it belongs on the snowpack article, this is not a separate, different, or independent topic. If these types are mainly used in North America, then why didn't you discuss that? How are snowpacks described elsewhere? But in fact, you wrote that martime snowpack is found in Norway, intermountain snowpack is found in the Alps, and continental snowpack is found in the Pamir Mountains of Asia. Even if research using these terms is primarily in North America, that's still absolutely no justification for a separate page, just provide that context. The content should be expanded and improved as a single comprehensive piece about however snowpack is researched anywhere, not split to the disservice of the reader. There's no need for readers to navigate from one stub to another for closely related information, even if some of it may be regional-specific. — Reywas92^Talk 16:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)