Talk:Snowclone/Archive 2

10 years later
10 years later and this word is still not a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A6A0:871:D911:DF48:E46C:1771 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The trope that the word describes is clearly still a thing. As a word, "snowclone" may not be as well-known or as frequently used as you may think necessary, but it remains the only single word available that describes the thing – and as such, it still appears to get used by scholars as well as popular journalists. "Snowclone" is used, for example, in:
 * – Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. "Toward a constructional framework for research on language change." Cognitive Linguistic Studies 1, no. 1 (2014): 3-21.
 * – Geeraerts, Dirk, and Eline Zenner. "One does not simply borrow a meme: Memetics from the perspective of cognitive contact linguistics." Proceedings of Conference on Dynamics of Wordplay – Interdisciplinary Perspectives. University of Trier, Germany (2016).


 * Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC) rev 20:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * New Scientist wrote an article in 2006; The Economist] in 2010. It's widely used by linguists. Ogress 15:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ironically, the Geeraerts & Zenner paper illustrates that we should not include every possible snowclone that can be identified (this is not List of snowclones); the "One does not simply X" case was popular for a few years after the first Lord of the Rings movie, but is almost unheard of in new material today. They don't all have staying power and thus don't all pass WP:NOT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The only times I ever encounter this word in English is in discussions of people using Wikipedia to shape the language rather than describe the language.—38.140.164.106 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There's an article on Wikipedia about (N-acetylneuraminyl)-galactosylglucosylceramide N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase, and until today, I've never encountered that term in English. Not even in discussions of people using Wikipedia to shape the nomenclature of enzymes in molecular biology, rather than merely describing the enzyme by its systematic name or its EC number. Now, the fact that I've never seen it before does not mean the article on (N-acetylneuraminyl)-galactosylglucosylceramide N-acetylgalactosaminyltransferase shouldn't exist. It only means that other editors on Wikipedia are very well-informed about the subject of molecular biology, and I'm uninformed about that particular subject. Similarly, your unfamiliarity with the word "snowclone" indicates that you aren't conversant in all the specialized terminology of linguistics (or pop linguistics). That is not a flaw in this article, and it's also not an insult to you. None of us knows everything there is to know. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

12 years later and it's still "not a thing". The examples listed in the Wikipedia article do not seem to fit the concept of the "words for snow" phrase that apparently gave rise to this neologism. The "words for snow" usage refers to a cliched, overused, and unimaginative analogy. Presumably, used when a writer is searching for "an angle" or a way to reach an audience. But it seems that most of the examples listed are more like puns, deliberate malapropisms with the intent to amuse. It doesn't seem like these examples support the existence of "snowclone" as a word. Also, I think the phrasing of "snowclone" is awkward and requires too much of a multi-stage explanation for the average listener. Also, Wikipedia's Talk page spellchecker is telling me "snowclone" is a typo, and I am feeling inclined to believe it. 50.205.91.59 (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Bug off. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Scoff. 50.205.91.59 (talk) 02:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

X while Y
100 % original research. The only ref cited say only that #drawingwhileblack is a showclone of DWB. The rest, while true, is unreferenced. There are no sources which discuss various snowclones of DWB. Ie. this all is a wikipedian's collection. There are zillions of snowclones. Many examples were rejected from this article precisely because they were not discussed in secondary sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  07:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the editor who added "driving while black" to this article, and I have no emotional attachment to the section. However, your claim that it is "100 % original research" is an overstatement by your own admission, because (as you indicated above) "driving while black" is now appropriately sourced and verified, in response to your first insertion of the OR template. You templated the section a second time. In response, I more specifically tagged only the disputed sentences with appropriate templates. Now you've templated the section a third time, contrary to a consensus that included at least three editors – the original contributor of that section, as well as User:SMcCandlish and me. You have not indicated why the more specific inline tags were not acceptable. It begins to look like you're merely instigating an edit war, but perhaps you have some other reason for reverting the inline tags? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Driving while black" is not sourced/verified for the purposes of out article, so I removed the false footnote (with edit summary). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am reverting this removal. As to "not sourced/verified for the purposes of out article": User:SMcCandlish sourced it, and I independently verified it. Your contribution to the process was not a constructive edit, but the removal of a perfectly valid citation that supports the statement for which it was cited. The edit summary reads "sorry the source does not say that DWB is "X while Y" template", which I perceive as disingenuous: the source uses the word "snowclone," not the word "template," in specifically identifying DWB as a snowclone. (If your objection is to Balkisson's extremely oversimplified explanation of the word "snowclone" for the non-academic reader, I would agree with you that it is flawed. Nevertheless, the source correctly identifies DWB as a snowclone, and there certainly is no other source that disputes Balkisson's identification of DWB as a snowclone.) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the tags until the problems are fixed. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Inline tags must be places on each and every statement in the section.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's much more helpful to use inline tags, as they make for highly specific things to look for citations for, instead of wasting any more editorial time trying to decide if the X while Y pattern is relevant at all. PS: It's not a plausible reading of the source provided that it is saying "#drivingwhileblack" is a snowclone of "driving while black", which would not make any sense at all. I.e., the "OR" claim that opens this talk section isn't valid, though there remain some elements in that section that need citations. When I Googled for this last night, the source I cited was hardly the only hit, just the first one I grabbed.  I have to suggest that actually trying to source the material is not only more sensible but at this point less of a time drain that continuing to try to force a section-wide dispute tag and argue about why one should supposedly be used.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  22:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Section-wide tag indicates major problem: no sources speak about "X while Y", i.e., all including the template itself is OR. Only when the generic ussue of WP:DUE/WP:TRIVIA/WP:SYNTH resolved, we may start pinpointing and nitpicking separate sentences. You may have a ref for every word, but still have WP:SYNTH issue. Please notice that even less known " In space, no one can X" has a ref which discusses it in the context of snowclones. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * if the X while Y pattern is relevant - I am not questioning relevance. I am questioning the inclusion without reliable sources discussing "X while Y" as a snowclone template. By the way, linguists did a sloppy job with this term, which does not allow distinguishing the original phrase, the "clones" of it and the "template" (X is an new Y), but this is just kvetching. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Your kvetch is a valid point. Perhaps because of this sloppiness, it is perfectly reasonable for a linguist or a layperson to infer a template based upon encountering multiple variants that fit the hypothesized template, without necessarily knowing which (if any) of the examples is the original phrase. The original is a snowclone, the variants are snowclones, and the template is also called a snowclone. This is admittedly imprecise, but in fact it's the way the term is widely used. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Section-wide tag indicates major problem" is not true; a section-wide tag indicates that the problem affects all material in the section; it's a scope matter. An inline tag is no less "serious" and may be more so. E.g., I might use a section-wide tag about encyclopedic tone, which is a minor copyediting matter in most cases (if it's not minor, use an NPOV policy tag); an inline citation-needed tag in the same section is vastly more important.  In short, do not confuse the breadth of an issue with its depth. Staszek is also confusing how "follow the sources" works.  WP has no duty to use  the same wording as sources; we have a duty to summarize sources and to avoid plagiarizing them.  Our use throughout this article of "X while Y" and "X is the new Y" notation is a summarization of the "templates" identified in the sources, and it is not at all necessary that an exact phrase like "X while Y" appear in any source.  All that's required is that the pattern be identified and clearly fit our summary/paraphrase.  For example, a source might describe this particular "template" in more detail as "[Verb]ing while [classifying noun]", and it still fits within our "X while Y" paraphrase. I.e., "X while Y" is simply an organizational header WP is using internally to segment the article.  We could rewrite the entire article as, e.g., a table of snowclones, with the first column being the original phrase, and subsequent columns being examples of snowclones of it, and a column of notes about the format and history of that "template", and not use any "X while Y" notation at all. Most of the wording would be the same and all the same sources would be used.  (Note: This would be a terrible idea, of course; it's anti-encyclopedic to tabularize or listify material better written as prose paragraphs; I'm just making the point that Staszek idea that our internal use of "X while Y" organizational labels is "original research" is faulty.)
 * I am not confusing anything. "X while Y" is a neologism invented by wikipedians for whatever reasons. Period. That isolated XwY snowcloning is a phenomenon worth mentioning is wikipedian's observation based on several isolated occurrences. See this cleansing edit by a seasoned wikipedian TenPoundHammer which removed a host of much more examples. Do you want this article turned into an example farm again? See WP:TRIVIA. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Section-wide tag indicates major problem" is not true - Yes it is true. the problem starts with the very definition: "The snowclone "X while Y" is used to indicate that a person is treated as a criminal in ordinary activities for an arbitrary reasons..." Staszek Lem (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please review the fallacy of proof by verbosity. Simply restating your exact same argument in strident tones without adding anything to your rationale and without addressing the prior rebuttal is not an argument, it's just hand-waving.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  21:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubious reference

 * "The template phrase is driving while black,"

This reference says that the hashtag "#paintingwhileblack" is a snowclone based on DWB. Ie the ref is for a particular, not very notable example. To use it as a ref in our context is an inadmissible generalization, i.e., original research. At best, it can be used as an example of showcloning, the way it is done for "FWMuslim". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Damn straight. And I'm pleased to have it resolved, for everyone's satisfaction and the improvement of the article. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Rewritten as "X while black"
The section now includes multiple sources and numerous examples of a snowclone that has been used repeatedly in popular parlance and as a journalistic cliché. This snowclone is particularly worthy of inclusion – and these sources reliably establish notability, by both their content and their volume – because the snowclone is used to describe matters of social justice, and specifically matters of unequal treatment and discrimination (whether real or perceived) on the basis of race, religion, and other group characteristics. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The heading change is not an improvement, since the section covers "X while y", so the "while black" title does not match the scope of the section; and "X while black" is not a snowclone template, but what lead to the emergence of one (which is "X while y").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hamlet
I seem to recall a wise statement, in which you told us to avoid turning this article into an example farm, and in which you praised this "cleansing edit". The "Hamlet" subsection is ungrammatical. It is unhelpful and not encyclopedic to mention, in the body of the article, an unspecified and irreproducible Google search with "millions hits," instead of providing citations to a representative sampling of actual reliable sources. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am citing what is reported in the source in the footnote, not from my own google search. Of all example farm I selected a single one which does have a reliable reference and a reasonable discussion, and quite widespread constrcut, too. As for "ungrammatical", - come on, really. Picking on non-native English speakers is bad taste. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not know that you were "editing while non-native", but it makes no difference. You held other editors to a very high standard. The article is better because of that. Are you not prepared to meet that same high standard in your own editing? I believe that you can do it successfully. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 *  No I am truly and objectively not prepared. WP:AGF. And I do not hold anybody to a very high standard. WP:NOR is the basic policy. If I were an angry mastodon, I would have deleted the section outright. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As for "representative samples", sorry I am still holding a strong opinion that doing so my myself is original research. I would add examples only from sources which explicitly describe them as such. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I refer to a sample of representative reliable sources (as opposed to an assurance that Google will point the reader to millions of hits, leaving the reader to search for himself). Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source mentions "millions hits", this this is not my original research, but a notable fact reported in reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * True, it is not original research. And it is reliably a fact; it's truthful enough. But it is a non-notable fact, a non-encyclopedic (trivial) fact, and above all, it is a non-useful fact. The reader learns nothing about the content or quality of that search result, and isn't even given the search terms so he can see for himself. It's only a reported quantity – which is mere trivia. Search the single word "Hamlet" and you'll get millions of hits too; that's a fact. Have you learned something useful about Hamlet from that fact? Lwarrenwiki (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Learning something useful about Hamlet is irrelevant here; this page is about snowclones, not Hamlet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That was just another example, meant to illustrate the uselessness of a bare quantity of hits. Withdrawn. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you that google search counting is mostly useless. I always say so in deletion discussions. However in this context it makes a point that the phrase is very common. The author goes further and explains that probably not all of hits are snowclones. Still, the author made a notice, and I don't see why Wikipedians must feel smarter than the author and dismiss this observation. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems at least marginally encyclopedically relevant to me. If this page becomes much more rich and detailed, it might slip in contextual relevance, though, especially if sources arise with better metrics in them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  04:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Unfortunately when I tried to search sources to expand this section better, due to sheer millions of hits I failed to find good info, even searching the very phrase TBONTB. Evidently, when a person writes, e.g., "no hack or not to hack", xe feels no need to explain the coinage. So I guess we have to wait for a researcher in snowclones to write a PhD thesis and to spell it for us to cite :-). (or a phraseological dictionary) Thus, since I have better things to do, so I will just be waiting for luck with it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Potentially notable usages of the snowclone
I leave to judgement of others whether some are worth mentioning:
 * To hack or not to hack

~150 unique hits

there is also lots of book titles To Profit Or Not to Profit, To Vote Or Not to Vote?, To Bee Or Not to Bee: A Musical Play for Young Voices, To Agree Or Not to Agree, To Bid Or Not to Bid, To Bed Or Not to Bed: What Men Want, What Women Want,, To Buy or Not to Buy, To Agree Or Not to Agree: Leadership, Bargaining, and Arms Control, To Balance Or Not to Balance: Alignment Theory and the Commonwealth ..., To Farm Or Not to Farm, To Bank, Or Not to Bank: From Pauper to Millionaire, To Hyphenate Or Not to Hyphenate: The Italian/American Writer, To Treat Or Not to Treat: Bioethics and the Handicapped Newborn, To Spank Or Not to Spank, ... ... Staszek Lem (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "To hack, or not to hack?". The Economist article, 2000
 * "To hack, or not to hack?", Brookings Institution article, 2015
 * "To Hack or Not to Hack", National Strength and Conditioning Association (btw this organization is mentioned in several wp: pages. Article due?)
 * "To Hack or not To Hack: Interactive Storytelling in the 21st Century", TVX '15: Proc. ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online Video
 * "To Hack or Not to Hack?", chapter title in Basketball and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Paint (and in a bunch of other books)


 * What is an "orh?" I'm behind on my Internet and texting jargon.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  08:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry it was typo. I meant 'org', i.e., organization. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

On recent refideas
I reviewed the reference from 'refideas' template. Although it is apparently a blog, but in fact is is a continulation of the column (and turn into a colimn again) "Johnson" on linguistics started in 1990s by a "Stephen Hugh-Jones, a former colleague" ?? could it be the anthropologist Stephen Hugh-Jones (btw, apparently deserves a wikibio) ("The name was taken from Samuel Johnson, the English language's first great dictionary writer. "). Currently the column is written by Robert Lane Greene  The suggested reference is signed by "G.L." whoever the heck is this ("Greene Lane" ?). Still, I would believe it is a reliable source for our purposes. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's something called the Johnson Blog and it's by folks on staff for the magazine. intro dated June 7, 2010 I'm not sure who specifically wrote the snowclone article but that was published in June 29, 2010.  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who specifically -- It was written by "G.L." And many other Johnson columns are signed thusly. On the other hand, no column is singed by Lane Greene, whereas he is desribed as the maintainer of the column. So my strong guess he is the one. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Morphological versus syntactic interesting phenomena
In some english dialects, in working class informal speech personal names are abbreviated down to single syllables, examples Jan, Rob and even in my own case /sɛ/ by my wife for my own name 'Cecil', especially in vocatives. There are also further developments involving mor change, such as replacing a final consonant as in ‘Tel’ for ‘Terry’, or ‘Baz’ for ‘Barry’, presumably because some forms that ended in /r/ and were preceded by certain short vowels (I don't know) could not be tolerated, don't understand the conditions. Now one famous example was an English well-known footballer of the 1990s who was informally nicknamed ‘Gazza’ in the media shortened from Gascoigne iirc. Around this time I noticed a number of similar gate-like formations all,of which were characterised by humorously inappropriate application of nicknaming presuming informality and familiarity as opposed to respect, deference or formality. The politician Michael Heseltine was referred to as Hezza. Urbandictionary has ‘lezza’ as an abbreviation for ‘(a) lesbian’, so this phenomenon is not restricted to proper nouns, indeed in the latter case it seems to be possibly usable as an adjective as well as a noun. (Is that only in English usage or also in American?) My own wife referred to a piece that she had been singing as ‘Mozza Rec’ (short o) shortened from ‘Mozart’s Requiem’ (ie unfinished). This was humorous because it asserted great personal familiarity with, and affection for the composer and the work, while denying him the position on a pedestal and formality of reference usually accorded. She had picked up on this gate- like productive opportunity and it seems that it had been triggered by the /s/ or /z/ present combined with affection. There is no semantic load, unlike gates, but there is this general connotation of humour and affectionate deprivation of respect or due formality. I'm not sure, but I think some people named Gary could be nicknamed 'Gaz', anyway I'm not sure about the requirements for triggering this, but note that the final s-type consonant seems to be voiced and the original Gazza was not /gas/ or /gasV/. Anyway, this seems to be a weaker cousin phenomenon, like derivational morphology. CecilWard (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see how this is related to the article subject. Please stare your thougths in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics. Maybe someone there knows something. I vaguely remember that inserting -zz-, -izz-, -azz-, inside words was a feature of some cant ; see Tutnese, but I saw something different. See also heavily underreferenced Gibberish (language game) for more hints. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Another notable example?
X: You're doing it wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemptymethod (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How is that notable? I don't see it in the Snowclones Database? Do you have news articles indicating so? AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 13:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Breathing While Republican
I removed this because the source makes it painfully clear that it's an example of the appropriation of a catchy phrase highlighting racism by privileged white people with a false sense of victimhood:
 * And what's it mean when right-wingers take a catchy phrase that points out racism to express their own sense of victimization? "But to you," "Aaron" wrote to "Fazz" on rightwingnews.com in 2003, "facts don't matter because Abrams committed the greatest crime of all, he was guilty of BWC (Breathing While Conservative)"

The parallels between being black and illegally selling arms to Iran in order to illegally fund insurgents in Nicaragua, is left as an exercise for the reader. Guy (help!) 15:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the deletion. The use of the word "purportedly" in the article body covers this situation. No evidence was provided that this phrase is not a valid example of a snowclone. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That was the wrong thing to do. The source makes it abundantly clear that this is (a) not widespread and (b) nowhere near comparable to the other examples. I have the book. The tone of discussion of this particular phrase is scornful. It's a lot shorter than the mainstream examples, and makes it absolutely clear in context that the author thinks it's a crock. Racism, after all, is a thing, while Republicans have had power in the US for most of the last half century based on consistently less than 50% popular support, which is not exactly suppression.
 * More to the point, the section is for "notable examples". Savan is the only RS to mention this term in either form (13 hits and 8 hits for Republican and Conservative respectively, of which the Savan book is the only RS in either case), compared with 10,000 or more references to both breathing while black and flying while Muslim, and hundreds of thousands for driving while black.
 * I note that you originally added it, and you appear to have reinserted it every time it has been removed. You usually say that's because it's "undiscussed". OK, I am discussing it here. The onus is on you to achieve consensus to include controversial content. Guy (help!) 23:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The expression should not be in the article. Not because it is distasteful (though it is), but because it is rare and unusual. --Macrakis (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Guy, my political opinion and yours are irrelevant here – for the sake of discussion, I will assume that the political point of view that you expressed above is 100% correct. Even so, I still find no valid apolitical editorial basis for removing the example. Wikipedia doesn't shy from controversial content as long as WP:NPOV is maintained. The "notable example" requirement in the section header applies to the template "X-ing while Y", which is undisputedly a notable example of a snowclone template; within that section, every single example does not need to be notable to be mentioned. See WP:NNC. That said, I will refrain from any further editing of that paragraph, and from any further argument with an administrator. It's all yours. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , correct, our political opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that literally no other RS include this. To be notable, it has to be mentioned more than once. That's apolitical. If it were included we would have to also include the fact that it's a case of entitled white people trying to equate genuine criticism with racism, but we don't have to do that because the phrase is not significantly used. 15 hits on Google, of which the cited source is the only RS. Or 7 hits for the alternative, again with the cited source being the only RS. The applicable policy is WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 09:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur, WP:UNDUE; rarely used or discussed expression. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)