Talk:Squirt

DAB entries
Disambiguation pages are for navigation (in Wikipedia), not information. Please tell me if I'm misinterpreting MOS:DAB:


 * Squirt, in ice hockey, a puck coming loose out of a tight play
 * WP:DABMENTION - If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. How does a link to puck (sports) help someone looking for squirt in this context?


 * Squirt division, in ice hockey, a level of play in North America for children aged 10 and under
 * As above, how does a link to that article give the user more information about the Squirt Division.


 * Squirt, slang for a small person or thing
 * WP:DABENTRY - Include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term.... An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation. This usage is not mentioned at possible candidate articles human height or size.


 * Humorous or erroneous pronunciation of the "sqrt" (square root) function in certain programming languages.
 * WP:DABENTRY - Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions And again, "squirt" is not mentioned at either of the linked Wikipedia articles.

Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of engaging in a slow edit-war to try to "WP:WIN", please WP:JUSTFIXIT: do some actual sourcing work, and some linking to the correct pages, to improve the encyclopedia:
 * Coming loose out of a tight play: The usage is easy to source . It appears to be sports journalism jargon, not hockey jargon, nor is the usage limited to hockey. I added it as a side note at Glossary of cue sports terms's entry on squirt/deflection, since it's probably a derived usage, but we don't seem to have an article along the lines of Glossary of sports journalism or Glossary of sports journalism terms, and I don't have time to research and write one, so this will have to do (and is sufficient).
 * Squirt division: We have an article and section at Minor ice hockey that explicitly includes this, so just correct the link to point there. It took less than ten seconds to find this.
 * Small person or thing: It isn't necessary that every single everyday or slang synonym for something be mentioned explicitly at the target article. There are hundreds of slang terms for the sexual organs and for sexual and excretory functions, and on DAB pages that coincide with these terms, we'll link to those articles whether they contain a list of these terms or not. The fact that the DAB page entry states that it's a slang term for the target is sufficient. It is expected that when  redirects to  (e.g. a subtopic redirecting to an overarching one) that the redirect term appear in the target article; it is not at all required that every alternative name/term for  appear in that topic's target article.  Also, Short stature is a more precise article to provide than Human height.
 * sqrt: Just add it to the Square root article, obviously. When a DAB entry has too many links, remove the ones that aren't necessary, obviously.
 * In short, please use WP:COMMONSENSE and stop approaching the rules of thumb in the WP:DAB guideline as some kind of Holy Law and excuse for pointless deletionism. Until you understand how, and are willing to do the work, to improve instead of damage our disambiguation system, please refrain from deleting any more entries from any disambiguation pages.
 * As always, I stand by my edits. The DAB page did not conform to the manual of style, so I fixed it.  Just as you don't have time to research or write the red linked articles you described above, I didn't want to expend the effort you suggest.  However, I always spend time searching for other target articles before deleting.  The edit summary on your initial restoration of these entries did not address the reasons for my deletion, so I wanted to make sure these issues were considered - not an edit-war, just WP:BRD.  A no-link entry and an external link are explicitly against the MOS (for good reason!), why would you damage our dab system by putting them back in?  For what it's worth I agree with most of your edits now that the target articles have been changed, but I still don't think this DAB completely complies with the Manual of Style.  However if it will make you feel better for me to consider MOS:DAB a mere suggestion, I'm happy to walk away from this one.  If you feel that strongly about it, please review my edit history on dab pages and undo anything I've done, because I've been making these kinds of edits for a long time.  Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)