Talk:Squib (writing)

There is a contradiction in saying that a squib:

"is intended to ignite thinking and discourse by others on topics of theoretical importance"

and saying that a squib can be about

"'nothing', i.e. something of little or no importance".

Why should somebody write about something of no importance?

Unless it is intended to mean something else (in which case, it needs further clarification), I think that the last phrase is confusing. And most certainly it does not encourage people to write squibs. I think that this phrase is no appropriate, and then I took it out.

Squibs are important tools in sharpening the analytical skills of linguists, specially students. This does not mean that they are about 'nothing'. The only thing absent in a squib is a full solution. This is 'nothing' just when the solution is available somewhere else. If it is not, the squib has a supreme importance.

Aren't squibs primarily a linguistic concept?
I don't think the page name matches the usage, which is primarily in linguistics. I would call the page Squib (language) instead. rhyre (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)