Talk:Squash

Squash

Should I move back Squash → Squash (disambiguation) and Squash (sport) → Squash. A user recently moved it without proper discussion and without concrete reasoning. I agree with Grutness on his/her edit on January 5, 2009 – "moved Talk:Squash to Talk:Squash (disambiguation): preparing to move the sport here - 49 of the top 50 google hits, and most of the incoming links are to the sport" Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 09:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Squash (sport) has its own WikiProject, thus making the move made by Tatterfly as unrealistic Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 10:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this move; it really ought to have gone through some sort of procedure, rather than being done unilaterally. Squash is a widely used word with a lot of different, unrelated meanings, however, so I can see the advantage of having the main 'squash' article as a disambiguation. In this case the user has been bold and I'd probably just about agree with the move. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Best I canremember, MOS suggests that the most common usage be the main refferal. Personally, I would put the main one to link to the vegetable with a "otheruses" tag directed first to the sport and then to the ambiguation page. That's my 3O on the matter based on how I remember the MOS gidelines. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS does suggest that -and the sport is clearly the most widely-known use of the term (it's the national sport of India - that's 1/5 of the world's population at one swoop; the vegetable is largely unknown outside North America). Grutness...wha? 02:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Squash (sport) → Squash

Should I move back Squash → Squash (disambiguation) and Squash (sport) → Squash. A user recently moved it without proper discussion and without concrete reasoning. I agree with Grutness on his/her edit on January 5, 2009 – "moved Talk:Squash to Talk:Squash (disambiguation): preparing to move the sport here - 49 of the top 50 google hits, and most of the incoming links are to the sport" —Arteyu (via posting script) 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: I made the move. The reason why is because the word "squash" is commonly used to refer to both the sport and the vegetable. True, it may be used more often for one than the other. But per WP:GNUM, a google search is not a valid method to determine which is truly more popular. Really, the word "squash" fits the "joker" example on WP:DAB, in which at least two uses are not considered more obscure, and therefore, it is best for the plain title to be the disambiguation. Tatterfly (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the google search was only one of two reasons for the move. Most of the incoming links were for the sport (by a factor of about 8 to 1 IIRC). As such, it is clear that to WP editors and readers, "Squash" refers almost solely to the sport. We therefore have two measures on which to judge the relative status of the meanings, and both strongly favour its use for the sport. As such, I stand by the initial move, and would very strongly recommend that Squash remains the article about the sport. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

With that type of logic, the plain title Shell should be used for Shell Oil Company, since about that percentage of GHits for the word "shell" are for pages having to do with the Shell Oil Company. Saying that squash is most commonly the sport is very much a POV. The term "squash" in most households, supermarkets, and other places where food is handled also refers to the vegetable. There is nothing obscure about that. Tatterfly (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

With due respect, all of those are silly arguments. 1) The plain title "Shell", as a ghit, would link to lots of things which on further examination use a fuller name such as "Shell Oil" or "Shell Oil Company". Virtually none of the hist for "Squash" are to a fuller name such as :"The sport of squash". In any case, just to test your suggestion, I googled shell, and 4 of the first 10 hits are for the company, four for the term used in computing, and two for carapaces and the like. As such, there is clearly no one predominant use of the word, and the use of Shell as a dab page is appropriate; 2) Saying that squash is most commonly the sport is a point of view, sure, but one that is backed up by what evidence is available, in the form of links to the title and by ghits. No such evidence exists that the use of the term as the vegetable is anywhere near as common. 3) Of course in context squash will mean the vegetable. That's like saying "In Ontario, London almost always refers to the local city". It doesn't mean that where there is no given context one meaning isn't the most prevalent. 4) No-one has ever said that the use of the term for a vegetable is in any way obscure - just that it is a far less common usage than for the sport. As I point out above, Squash is the national sport of the second most heavily populated country on the planet, and is played worldwide - squash the vegetable is largely unknown outside a continent which in total has a population less than half that of that one country. I repeat - the title "Squash", undisambiguated, is far better used for the sport, and I would strongly recommend that it be used for such. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbers do not make up how things are done on Wikipedia. The reason why the title London is used for the city in England is because London as the city in England is a household name, and all the other less-known places with that name are named after the English city. This, by common sense, is a no-brainer. But if you walk into the produce section of any supermarket, you will see "acorn squash", "spaghetti squash," etc. There is no doubt that someone might enter "squash" into the search box looking for the vegetable. There is even a category called Squashes and pumpkins, given that this is the official name. Tatterfly (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You miss my points, even though several of the things you write seem to support them. You also miss the point that, for the purposes of disambiguation, numbers are exactly how things are done on Wikipedia. London is used for the capital city of England because it is a household name to the vast majority of those who use the name (i.e., a quantitative measure is being used. Numbers) - despite the fact that within the confines of Ontario the first thing that would come to mind for London is the local city (i.e., despite the fact that for a smaller number of people, it is not the primary usage). Similarly, squash should be used for the sport because it is a household word used for the sport by the vast majority of those who use the term - despite the fact that, within the confines of supermarkets in some parts of the world the first thing that might come to mind is a vegetable. And no, not any supermarket -just ones in some parts of the world. I looked the word up in five dictionaries and four of them referred to the term as being "U.S. only" - the fifth said "chiefly U.S." Here, they're marrows - spaghetti marrows, acorn marrows, etc. As such, it may well rank alongside the sport as a use of the term squash in the United States, but it certainly doesn't for the other 95% of the planet. There is no doubt whatsoever that anyone entering the word "squash" into the search box looking for the vegetable would (a) be guided to the term "Squash (vegetable)" in the list of available links or (b) if they ignored that link, they would find the hatnote at the top of the article on the sport guiding them to the disambiguation page from which they can find the vegetable article. There is also little doubt that in most cases someone entering the word "squash" into the search box is more likely to be looking for the sport. As to the category, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak argument, and it's quite likely that that category could require a change of name. I repeat once more, since you clearly don't seem to understand - for the vast majority of people, "squash" is primarily the sport. For a sizable minority, it is primarily a vegetable. But only for a minority. Given that a definite primacy of one subject at this title over the other has been shown by two quantitative methods plus one qualitative one (the global nature of the term for sport vs the less-than-global nature of it for the vegetable), it is most definitely clear that the sport is the primary topic. As such, according to the rules at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, Squash should clearly and unequivocably refer to the sport, with a hatnote linking to a disambiguation page at Squash (disambiguation). Grutness...wha? 05:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose, though to be honest I don't think its a particularly important issue. Neither of the two uses is primary - and don't forget 'squash' the drink too (eg orange squash). If someone had proposed the original move I would have opposed this as per the statement that: "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Nevertheless, squash is a word with multiple uses. I think that google hits are slightly misleading here - after all, people are simply more likely to write about sport than they are about vegetables: my local paper does not have a 'vegetable news' section. Do a google image search and the results are much more mixed (12 of veg, 8 of sport). Even the geographical thing doesn't work - I'm English and I've certainly eaten a Butternut squash. OK, I'd never just call it a squash, but its enough to make me aware that squash can mean some sort of vegetable. So, I would not have moved it in the first place, but now it has been moved, I'd oppose moving it back! (PS- I should note that I generally like disambig pages more than the average Wikipedian and more than Wikipedia itself does, I don't know why they're not used more!)

Also I'm pretty sure that cricket is the national sport of India... Pretty Green (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, you seem to have the wrong idea about the way this has been moved. The article was stable for over eight months with Squash leading to the sport and with everything linked from Squash (disambiguation). Everything to do with the sport (including some 39 categories) has the sport simply at "Squash" and has had for a long time - which was part of the reason that the article was moved to squash in the first place. The current situation is because it's been moved back to a previous name over the former, stable form. So, if you support the use of disambiguation pages and oppose moves away from stable article locations, then it would seem more natural for you to support rather than oppose that naming. Yes, "Butternut squash" is the name of a vegetable, but - as you say yourself - you wouldn't use the term "squash" on its own to describe it (unlike, say a brussels sprout being called simply a sprout) - you'd use "butternut squash". So I don't really see that you would be able to claim that you'd be likely to expect "squash" to be about the vegetable rather than the sport, any more than you'd expect "cucumber' to be about the marine creature the sea cucumber. As to Google image search, that's very rarely used to determine relative ghits - especially for words with different meanings in the US to the rest of the world - since it is weighted heavily towards US images. As such, it's likely to produced fairly heavily biased results. BTW, cricket, squash, and hockey are all regarded as national sports in both India and Pakistan. Grutness...wha? 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Squash is also the national sport in Egypt, Hong Kong and Malaysia. The sport is popular in England, Scotland, Australia, South Africa & Singapore. It covers all continents in the world and just missed out for 2012 Olympic by a really slim margin. You can go to here [1], here [2] and here [3] to look at how many tournaments are being held, from various countries around the world. The squash women's world open is also currently being held in Amsterdam, and it is being updated each minute over here [4]. You can also watch it live on the net right here[5] Fyi World Squash Day is held a couple of months ago just to show the world how popular the sport is. It is held in more than 50 places around the world, and you can view the event blog over here [6]. Squash (fruits & vegetables) are unknown to Asians and Africans. It is also almost unheard in Ocenia. You can view this yahoo search page [7], out of 100 results, 96 of them are about the sport. And from google [8], out of 100, 92 are for the sport. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see being the national sport of some countries as being a good argument for making the sport the main use of the title. That does automatically make this the dominant use of the term. In fact, it is more common on Wikipedia that if something is the name of a plant that it be the plain title, and all other uses of the term be on a DAB page (example Rose and Rose (disambiguation)). Nor do I see having more google hits as a good reason. There are many words in our vocabulary that have multiple unrelated meanings that can be turned into encyclopedia articles. An example is the word "digit." Commonly, it can refer to a numerical digit (0-9), or digit (anatomy), besides all the more obscure meanings. Imagine an argument stating that the plain title "digit" should be used for the number or the body part. Those who support either one having the plain title may give all the evidence they want. Either way, when there is any such doubt, it is best to leave the plain title as the disambiguation page. A well-constructed DAB page does not complicate finding these articles. Tatterfly (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Being the national sport in and of itself doesn't make it the main reason for the sport to be at squash. What makes that the logical choice is that for over 1,000,000,000 people on the planet "squash" automatically means the sport -compared to fewer than 500,000,000 who would even consider using the term by itself to refer to the plant. Rose is a completely different argument, since the plant is by far an away the main use of the term. A better comparison would be something like pink, a term used as the name of a plant yet clearly a secondary meaning of the word. I note that does not go to either the flower or to a dab page. There are many, many plants which are not the primary meaning of a term (swede, orange, sage, pulse, viola, and rape are a few which come easily to mind that do not). As to digit, certainly both uses are widespreat, worldwide, and frqently used. That is not the case with squash. It is ONLY used as the name of a vegetable, undisambiguated by further words, in one small part of the planet. Squash as the name of the sport is used globally. To consider squash as equally referring to the sport and the vegetable is thus to turn the page into an americocentric one -which is against the spirit of Wikipedia to be a global resource. A well constructed dab page at squash (disambiguation) also does not complicate finding these articles, especially when accompanied by hatnotes.

As to ghits not being a good reason, it is only one of several reasons I have given, and even on its own it would be better reason than none at all or nonee which stand up to close scrutiny, which is what you have offered so far. So far, we have the following:

• Reasons for squash to refer to the sport - it is the a globally used term (the term for the vegetable is a regional usage); it is used by far more people; it generates more ghits by an overwhelming margin; at the time of the original change, far more links to squash were referring to the sport. All these reasons are listed as good reasons to regard a subject as the primary use of a term at WP:Disambiguation
• Reasons for squash to be a dab page: other meanings exist which are widely used (true, though none as widely or as frequently as the sport)
• Reasons for squash to refer primarily to the vegetable: a google image search (which would be biased towards US images, and is not listed as an acceptable means of judging primary subject at WP:Disambiguation); "it is more common on Wikipedia that if something is the name of a plant that it be the plain title" (unprovable easily, but very likely false).

Since my strong recommendation seems to have fallen on deaf ears, let me speak more plainly - to have squash go to anything other than directly to the sport is wrong. One meaning is clearly the primary one by several standard measures of jundging the terms, and as such WP:Disambiguation makes it explicitly clear that the sport should be the term linked. To do otherwise goes against the spirit of Wikipedia as being a global resource by appearing to arrogantly suggest that a word only used in the US is somehow equal in stature to one used worldwide. No difference is made to the actual finding of articles by having the disambiguation page at Squash (disambiguation), and the use of a hatnote at squash would make the article on the vegetable just as easy to find - if not easier - than if the disambiguation page was at squash. Grutness...wha? 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bah, as I say above, its really not very important. Shouldn't have changed but why mess about changing it back? People type squash, they get a list of options, chose the one they want, bob's your uncle --Pretty Green (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Point is that it was originally with the dab page at squash (as now), and was deliberately changed so that the dab page was at squash (disambiguation) for all the reasons above. It has now been changed back to the former incorrect way. It may seem to be messing around to change it back again, but it makes a mockery of having bothered to get it changeed to match WP guidelines and policy in the first place. It's more the principle of the thing than anything else. I mean, why bother having policies and guidelines if someone's going to simply overturn them when they're adhered to? Grutness...wha? 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's more the principle of the thing than anything else - But Wikipedia's rules don't exist to act as principles, they exist as guides for decent behaviour. If changes outside of rules work as well as the previous situation, that they were not within the rules is not relevant. As it goes, I think the move is as good or slightly better than the previous set up and as such I don't see a reason to move it. Regardless, this discussion reuqires primarily more opinions! --Pretty Green (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Squash (sport) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)