Talk:Squab

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia
to learn how to do this.

Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,

select here

.

Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are

transcluded

from the project's tasks pages.

Birds Mid‑importance

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images

). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

squab is the meat from a young domestic pigeon ?
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Tucky 03:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Regional term usage

It's not just North American, see this Australian news article for instance.

Tucky 03:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Good Article nomination

here
for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to
reliable sources): c (OR
):

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

It follows the neutral point of view
policy.
Fair representation without bias:

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have
suitable captions
):

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)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is
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)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

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)[reply]

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
talk) 11:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

.
talk, contribs) 19:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Support. The article is not about "squab as food" because "squab" refers to pigeons only in a culinary sense, i.e. "
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)[reply
]

Move to No such user (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]
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
No such user (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Squab&oldid=1212529552"