Talk:Squeeze

Opening heading

I disagree that the band is obviously the primary target for searches for "squeeze". Squeeze is a generic noun in use, for example, for a squeeze play in bridge. (In the US, at least, people don't say "squeeze play" much at all, they just say "squeeze".)

Consider primary topic tests:

• Google search for "squeeze" matches in order

1. the WP article by name
2. Debian squeeze release (named for Toy Story character)
3. Squeeze video compression
4. Squeeze file compressor
5. Squeeze band
6. Squeeze in online free dictionary
7. Squeeze fan site (band-related)
8. Squeeze archive manager
9. Squeeze smoothies franchise operation

In addition, speedy deletion is not appropriate because the underlying move it is to "make room for" is contentious, as evidenced by the good faith disagreement about it. Tb (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it may be a question of location. Squeeze (the band) is not that huge or important in the US, though it is in England. It is natural for English editors to think "duh, it's the band", but in the US, lots of folks haven't even heard of it. Tb (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the first time I came to the page, I was looking for the band but expecting what the dab calls "a slang term for compression". However, on that dab, the first entry is the band, the second is its debut album and the third an unrelated album. Most other terms related to "squeeze" are either non-notable or located at other, more appropriate titles- like compression. Of the entries on the disambiguation page, the band is by far the most notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. In particular, the separate disambig for "squeeze play" is not necessary, and should prolly be joined here. If we treat them as one (most people looking for a squeeze in chess, bridge, or baseball, will type "squeeze" first) the number of hits for the band--outside the UK--is not that much. The band is just not that well known in the US. Making the band first only makes sense when you're in England. It's like Pantheon. The name is widely used, and everyone thinks of the local Pantheon as "the" Pantheon. The evidence from Google suggests that in fact, people expect compression for "squeeze", when they aren't looking for juice products. In itself, this discussion is evidence that the speedy deletion should be dropped, and we can discuss at more length the question of what the primary name should point at. Tb (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy for the reasons given here at talk — I agree that a band shouldn't be the primary topic, and there's no way that this could be noncontroversial housekeeping. Nyttend (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The speedy delete declined, but that doesn't end the issue. I believe that the band should not be the primary topic, so I'm obviously content to let things lie. If other editors would like to discuss the case, I am willing. Tb (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Page Split as suggested in discussion, to Squeeze and Squeeze play. — Station1 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Squeeze → Squeeze play —Relisted. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Even among, myself included, Squeeze play identity is much more popular and well-known. This article's lead would described by most almost everyone as showing Squeeze play, not Squeeze. 75.142.152.104 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to do here - are you suggesting we move this disambiguation page from Squeeze to Squeeze play? Surely not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are several entries on the dab page for just "squeeze" without "play" and the band and some of the albums are pretty notable. If there really is a problem (is there?), maybe separate the "squeeze play" entries into a separate dab page at squeeze play as existed before. — AjaxSmack 04:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I would certainly support a split. Powers ^T 20:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense. User:75.142.152.104 just relisted the request but has not responded to any of the questions here. To me, the status quo looks perfectly serviceable. This is a disambig page that links to a number of different things people are likely to be looking for when they type the word "squeeze". Splitting off the entries reading "squeeze play" would be confusing, because at least in baseball the squeeze play is commonly referred to simply as a "squeeze". --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Well that one use can be included in this disambiguation page. Nothing says it can't appear on two. But people searching Squeeze play should not be directed to a disambiguation page that lists a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with squeeze plays. Powers ^T 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose a renaming of this unified dab page since some of the entries are "Squeeze" (without play). Split the dab page if there's a problem. — AjaxSmack 01:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose this is a dab page for the uses of "squeeze", "squeeze play" entries also occur here, but are not all the entries. Why was this ever relisted? 76.66.192.49 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Out of the question, surely. As has been said, if there's an issue, split the page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

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