Talk:Snowpack types

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 17:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Thin snowpack in Colorado

• ... that less snow (pictured) is associated with more avalanche fatalities?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pavel Kushnir
  • Comment: Additional QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/1917 Franco-Russian agreement

Created by Buidhe (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 260 past nominations.

(t · c) buidhe 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC).

• @Buidhe: Not a review, but the article only has three sources, all physical books, and they're all from the same publisher. Do you have any other sources to prove notability for this subject? As is, it looks like a prime target to be merged into Snowpack. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Departure– There are actually four sources cited, and I would disagree with any merger, because this would be UNDUE in the snowpack article because the types are mostly distinguished for the purpose of avalanche forecasting in North America. (t · c) buidhe 02:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: They're all published by Mountaineers Books, which is my point. Snowpack types, while well cited, is longer than Snowpack, and could very easily be merged there unless either one has enough specifically on them to prevent such (speaking from someone from Wikiproject Weather, where a lot of articles get merged like this). Just a heads-up that you may have an uphill battle before this ends up on the main page; I have nothing against this being promoted if there truly is a reason to keep the pages separate. Departure– (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• The fact that it's more detailed than the general article is actually a strong indication that the material would be UNDUE if merged. You didn't bother to look for other sources which certainly exist, but simply assumed it's not notable. If you don't have anything against the promotion of the article why are you posting here? (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

An actual review needed.--Launchballer 12:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - See below

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - See below
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - See below

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A newly created article that is long enough. It is neutral and the hook is interesting (although quite obvious on why it occurs). QPQs done. However, I'll voice what Departure said above: The article needs a WP:Notability tag, which would prevent it from the main page. As stated by WP:SIGCOV § Sources, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." You mentioned above that "other sources [...] certainly exist". If such sources exist, it is the job of the nominator (or anyone else) to add them before nominating an article for any process. Although (The) Mountaineers Books is a specialized source, it is still the only publisher used and it doesn't determine the topic's notability. Please, expand the article or add more sources that establish the topic is indeed notable. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• User:Tbhotch I added 11 sources to further reading which hopefully will allay any concerns about notability. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Approved. No other issues found. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Buidhe and Tbhotch: couple of issues. Firstly, I can't see the hook fact in the article, which seems to say that weak layers of snow cause avalanches, not "less snow", unless I misunderstand what "Faceted snow and depth hoar" mean (it would be good to have an explanation in any case). Secondly, as it stands the hook falls foul of MOS:EGG; I would not expect to end up at Snowpack types from a link of "less snow". I think some workshopping is needed, thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
  • User:AirshipJungleman29 The article says that a thinner snowpack is associated with (in fact, one of the causal factors behind) weak layers that are a necessary ingredient for dangerous avalanche potential. The actual cause of avalanche deaths is not weak layers but the combination of potential, a trigger, and people being in the way-hence the wording in the hook. Would "thinner snowpack" alleviate your concerns about mos:egg? (t · c) buidhe 17:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• @AirshipJungleman29: Does the above resolve your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Not really, it still seems very implicit reasoning when the logic should be as explicit as it is in the hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Z1720, User:AirshipJungleman29, I'm still confused what you mean by "implicit reasoning" as opposed to the hook, which is specifically worded to avoid asserting direct causality. The article states that thinner, continental snowpacks are typically associated with more avalanche deaths, which is what the hook says. (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I suppose... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)