Talk:Squat

2007

Squat is the technical term for the interaction between a moving ship and the seabed in shallow water. As the water passes under the ship it accelerates and its pressure falls. The ship sinks deeper into the water and in extreme cases can be sucked down until it touches the bottom. Squat can cause difficulty in manoeuvring and has been the cause of many accidents. See refereences in the journals of the Royal Institute of navigation, among many others. Posted by Bill Cooper, Shipmaster.

Squatter's Rights

Hi Bkonrad I take your point about WP:PARTIAL but I feel it's good to re-include Squatter's Rights since Squatter's rights goes to adverse possession Mujinga (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: I would appreciate a discussion instead of you simply reverting. Especially since that last revert was rather inconsistent. Mujinga (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Should be a hatnote to the film at adverse possession rather included here. Seems a rather circuitous route to expect reader to somehow get to this page from adverse possession in order to find the film. older ≠ wiser 16:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

And there was already a hatnote there pointing to the film. No reason to include here unless perchance the film is also known as simply "squatter" or one of the other terms covered by this page. older ≠ wiser 16:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well there is already a hatnote. You seem to be looking at it the wrong way round. "Squat, squatter or squatting may refer to:" is a good start. In any case it seems worthwhile to disambig Squatter's Rights and Squatter's rights. Seems better to do that here than at a separate squatter's rights page, what do you think? Regarding your latest edit, with the summary "rm partial title matches, entries covered as subtopics of squatting" I am struggling to understand:

1. why you would remove Squat elimia but keep Squatter pigeon?
2. why remove a lot of squatting pages but leave Squatting (Australian history), which is also mentioned at squatting?
3. where the MoS backs up removing "entries covered as subtopics of squatting"?

Cheers! Mujinga (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Why include squatter's rights here? Are either the film or the legal concept known as squat, squatter or squatting? Why would we expect anyone looking for either squatter's rights article to come to this disambiguation page to find it?

1. It's conceivable that a squatter pigeon might be referred to elliptically as simply a "squatter"; it is hard to imagine circumstance where anyone would reference the snail as simply a "squat".
2. Yes, the Squatting (Australian history) seems to be something of an aberration. I'm not sure why that and squatting in Australia require separate articles, but it appears that it was a significant enough of a thing in Australian history to be a distinct topic by that name, similar to how Reconstruction is a distinct topic in U.S. history. All the Squatting in X articles though are however clearly subtopics of the main squatting article.
3. WP:MOSDAB indicates partial title matches should not be included: On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name or WP:DAB A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion between them

older ≠ wiser 16:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers. To reply to them in turn:

This disambig page says "Squat, squatter or squatting may refer to" and if things like "squatting position", "squatting attack" and "cybersquatting" are included you are still not persuading me that "squatter's rights" should not be, particularly since the same title covers two very different pages

I see what you mean about the difference between Squatter pigeon and Squat elimia. Not sure why that justifies putting it in an other uses section though. I'm still not really seeing consistency regarding names generally. What do you think about Squatter's Row and Squatter's Cabin? (Both are presently not added)

(To combine the last two). Yes I am also reading MOSDAB but I didn't see where it says pages that are "clearly subtopics of the main squatting article" should not be added. Surely as disambig page this should be covering all eventualities. In the hierarchy of pages about squatting as occupation on wikipedia, I see Squatting as the umbrella page, then Squatting in Australia describing the Australian situation (as well as the other country pages) then Squatting (Australian history) as describing the historical phenomenon in detail. That's why I am confused by the deletion of one Australian link and not the other. I think it's there from when it was called Squatter (pastoral). I'm fine with it being there by the way, but then the other pages should be too. Mujinga (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The question to ask is whether a topic is known or referenced by the term(s) covered by the disambiguation page. Are Squatter's Row and Squatter's Cabin ever referenced as simply "squatter's"? I'd say it's unlikely. As such these are unambiguous partial title matches. A disambiguation page is not an index. older ≠ wiser 10:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

OK you seem to want to have a strict definition. I disagree, some looseness is fine in my opinion, but in any case we need above all to be consistent so i will edit the page accordingly. Mujinga (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)