Talk:Squab

Hitler

I added the fact that Hitler enjoyed Squab. This is a common knowledge fact mentioned on other parts of Wikipedia, where sources such as books are cited. I would appreciate it not being removed in the future. --XXxJediKnightxXx (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also heard this fact before, likely from articles I have read on Wikipedia. I don't see why it was removed. --OctagonJoe (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because the verification source you used was a letter to the editor printed in the NYTimes. That's not exactly a fact checked source now is it? You also can't use another Wikipedia article to verify this one, that's not independent verification. Many bits of trivia that are "common knowledge" are in fact wrong when serious verification is intended, and if you can't provide a reliable source that meets WP:RS, then it doesn't belong. Wikipedia isn't a collection of hearsay. What's more, the fact that Hitler ate squab is trivial, it doesn't provide any factual information about squab . As it illuminates nothing about squab in cuisine, I don't think it's necessary to include. Certainly many other famous historical figures have consumed squab, and we're not going to list all of them here either. VanTucky 03:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with VanTucky. A letter to an editor is little more than hearsay. Even if you can find a primary source for it I still think it is trivia and as such not suitable in the article. Leave it out please. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Regional term usage

It's not just North American, see this Australian news article for instance. VanTucky 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Bit short, but that's not a criterion. I tweaked a couple of bits and removed unexplained commercial link Jimfbleak (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Squab (food)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I propose Squab (food) fails 2a and 3a of the good article criteria. It could use some more references, as it is mostly based on the second citation. In general, the article could use an expansion on information. –blurpeace ^(talk) 03:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree that the Etymology section is not of GA quality. I did not write it, and it wasn't a part of the article when it was originally reviewed. We should either remove that section, source it, or delist the article. However, on the charge of incompleteness I would say that Good Articles are not meant to be comprehensive. That's what FA is for. Also, the article relies heavily on the second source because it is the most recent and complete book on the pigeon in the 21st century. It's the best source there is, and relying on it is not a fault. Steven Walling (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• We could probably find a reference for the Etymology section in a Merriam-Webster dictionary. Though that is the most up to date source available, basing most of the article on it is a fault. Multiple citations are preferable. A good article is, "Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia." Good articles aren't meant to be outrageously comprehensive, but it should represent all of the major points on the topic. I believe there is a lack of that in the article. –blurpeace ^(talk) 08:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• What major points are not touched on then? Steven Walling (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• For the time being, I have no specific example for you. I am visiting the library today to see what I can dig up. –blurpeace ^(talk) 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• As a note, I'm back from the library and they had no books available on squab as a food. –blurpeace ^(talk) 20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• My point exactly. There's a limited number of sources, and the article uses the best ones to be generally found. Steven Walling (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) After further review, I've decided to initiate a community reassessment of the page. Please share your thoughts at the discussion. –blurpeace ^(talk) 19:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Duck (food) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Lemma should be Squab (food)

... and not "Squab as food".

Apparently it has already been moved back and forth between those two lemmas, but why? Maikel (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Squab, and the page that previously held this name to Squab (disambiguation)(closed by non-admin page mover) Kostas20142 (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

---

. Squab as food → Squab (food) – Maikel says that the page should be moved back because the title "Complies with Wikipedia convention", but the title was already determined at Talk:Duck as food#Requested move 14 June 2016, so another RM is necessary. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 19:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The article is not about "squab as food" because "squab" refers to pigeons only in a culinary sense, i.e. "pigeon as food". (One doesn't go squab hunting or have a squab cage.) The disambiguator serves to disambiguate the term from Squab, California, a very small settlement. Therefore, I prefer a move of this article to Squab per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A semi-perusal of Google Books results shows all of the top 50 hits refer to pigeon as food. —  AjaxSmack  00:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Move to Squab per AjaxSmack – apparent primary topic. No such user (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. But I must repectfully dissent from AjaxSmack's opinion. A squab is "a fledgling bird; specifically : a fledgling pigeon about four weeks old."[1] 10W41 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

  Well, um, maybe, but we aren't a dictionary, and I really don't see that we would (or should) have an article about a fledgling bird, and Google Book hits are telling. Our article already does pay a due attention to history and etymology of the word, and history of domesticating pigeons for food, so it's still a decent target for the reader; the cushion meaning is easily covered by a hatnote. No such user (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Move to Squab as primary topic. Plantdrew (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.