Talk:String (structure)

Article instead of disambiguation page

(This thread was copied and continued from Talk:String (disambiguation) as of 1/13/2017)

It's kind of disappointing that we don't have an article on string (cord) instead of just a disambiguation page, as it seems like there is enough information for an article (history, how it's made, uses). If someone were to write one, I would support moving this page to string (disambiguation) with a link to it at the top of the new article. -- Kjkolb 11:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as the article is encyclopedic and not dictionaric (is that a word?), that would be fine. If/when an appropriate article is created, it would certainly be the primary article. -- Natalya 12:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How would such an article be different than the rope article? -- Mikeblas 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't. :) -- Natalya 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages have "(disambiguation)" after the title. This one doesn't. Can someone fix that?Yanwen 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages only have "(disambiguation)" if there is a primary article for the term being disambiguated. Since there is no primary article for this term, any search for "String" goes directly to this page, which is a disambiguation page. -- Natalya 23:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"String", "twine" and "cord" are all pretty similar?? Unless someone is aware of a clear distinction between them, the article on twine probably covers them all - with some appropriate links. Natural fibre (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There is already a small amount of “article content” at the top of the page, with a definition, list of application and a picture. I suggest:

• this article content be split from the disambiguation content
• the article content perhaps be merged into another existing article
• the title String be blessed as a primary topic and redirected to the new or merged article, leaving String (disambiguation) for the disambiguation content

The Rope article differentiates rope from string by saying that rope is thicker and stronger, so perhaps they should be separate articles. Twine is a rather short article. I don’t really use the term twine, but it seems my definition of string might be broader than the definition given for twine. Maybe twine is a subtopic, and could be a subsection of a String article? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

User BD2412 created a draft for this topic in 2015. Today, I moved it to article space and began expanding it. The Transhumanist 14:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I object to the way this stub was moved to the unsuffixed String title, displacing the long-established disambiguation page (now moved to String (disambiguation)). To my mind, this fails our standards of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC treatment by far. Of course I do realize that the generic notion of "string" (as in "cord") has linguistic primacy over the other meanings, in that it is the basic literal meaning from which the others are metaphorically derived or of which they are specialized subsets. However, that is not really among the prime criteria we use for determining primacy in disambiguation. Far more important is encyclopedic/educational value and reader interest. Now, currently, the new "cord" stub is not even strictly speaking a legitimate article yet, as it is a mere dictionary definition plus a list of what are essentially "see also" links. However, even if it can be expanded into something legitimate and moderately interesting, I expect that it will still lag far behind, in terms of educational value and reader interest, compared to at least three of the other disambiguation entries: String (computer science) (c. 600 views a day), String (music) (c. 200 views), and String (physics) (c. 100 views plus a whopping 3,000 for String theory). Each of these is a topic of high, lasting notability; each is a well-developed article with lots of high-level academic content, and has a far higher likelihood of meeting the expectations of a reader searching for the term than an explanation of textile cords ever will. There just isn't that much interesting stuff to say about cords, is there. The fact that User:BD2412 created this draft a year ago but then left it sitting there without a follow-up may well suggest he came to realize exactly this.

I propose moving this stub article to String (cord) or any other appropriate title for the time being (or back into draft space), and return the disambiguation page here. If and when the new article has been expanded and can reasonably be assessed for its potential to readers, we can re-consider primacy status through a standard RM procedure, but I don't really expect it will fare well against so many strong contenders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I would argue that the stuff used to tie things up since close to the dawn of man is the clear primary topic by historical significance, but would also agree that the current article should be much better developed before it takes that spot. bd2412 T 01:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412, and have been busy expanding the article. It is way past the stub stage now. I believe that a consensus has been established to keep this root article. Speaking of articles, it is important to realize that we are speaking of the primacy of topics rather than that of articles (which are merely the treatment of topics). As a thing, generic string is in far wider use than the other concepts, and has far greater familiarity. More people know what string is compared to the other uses of the term, more people use string, and being a basic topic, it is most likely the first context of the term "string" that a person learns. More people use strings to tie their shoes than study string theory, for example. It is also the first context posed in dictionary entries.

The context is presented as the primary topic on the disambiguation page itself, a position it has held for many years. The lead states "String or strings may also refer to". So, community consensus has been strongly established that this context is the main meaning of the term. That is, the context with the strongest claim to the topic name.

In the guideline Is there a primary topic?, it states that there are "two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics". One of them is long-term significance. In the example given in the guideline, the guideline favors apple over Apple, Inc. Apples have been around a lot longer. The same thing applies with string. It has the longest lasting notability of all the contexts for the term. They've discovered archeological evidence that string may have been in use as early as 90,000 years ago. And it has been a part of culture ever since. When speaking the word "string", people are more likely to mean the cord context than the others. Otherwise, it wouldn't be presented as the primary topic on the disambiguation page.

String is a root topic. There is a great deal of coverage on strings and their various applications on Wikipedia. It would be nice to have a root article where to tie them all together. It was not hard finding material to flesh out the subject past the stub stage, and I'm sure the article will grow over the years to come.

Based on these reasons, I respectfully request that you reconsider your position. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 04:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: Take a look at the article now, and let me know what you think. -TT

Can you provide the source for the 90,000 years? I added one for 30,000 years. bd2412 T 05:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

oldest string found at French Neanderthal site The Transhumanist 07:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

"Primacy" is not an issue of what is most "familiar" and most widely used (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC explicitly warns that it is not about "what first comes to mind"; read that section). It is about what topic a Wikipedia user is most likely to be in need of encyclopedic information about. Trivial everyday objects like cords certainly have higher "familiarity", but that doesn't mean there will necessarily be an equally high need of looking them up in an encyclopedia. In any case, decisions like this should be made after proper discussion, not before, and they can only be made after the article is properly developed and after we've had a chance of observing reader interest via pageview counts (and for that observation the candidate has to be at a title different from the base title, so that we can distinguish actual interest in the topic from mere disambiguation searches). I'm therefore moving things back. Please conduct a proper WP:RM if and when the article is ready for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(BTW, Thread is a good example of a very similar case showing how such things are properly handled. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC))

Rope (disambiguation) is a closer match to this case, and shows there is another way to properly handle cases like this. The Transhumanist 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., you've just used admin powers to override consensus and other editors in a debate in which you are a party. That violates WP:INVOLVED, and is an abuse of admin tools. You should not be using your admin powers to force your will upon other editors who you are in debate with concerning an editorial issue. This page was moved from Draft:String to String based upon the discussion above. And you've moved it to String (cord), where it has never been before. You did this without consensus and without leaving a redirect using Page mover, while we were in the middle of a discussion to keep it at String, even though you held the minority position in the discussion. You are not behaving impartially, or fairly. You shouldn't simply ignore everyone else and do what you want. You really should move it back until a new consensus is reached.

As an editor, you properly started the consensus building process by making a proposal above. But then you forced your proposal on us, instead of waiting for consensus about your proposal to emerge. That's not right. The Transhumanist 11:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

No. You initiated a move that you should have known would be potentially controversial. You talked an administrator into performing it under the mistaken assumption that it was uncontroversial, without even knowing the situation. That initial move should never have been performed without discussion. Reverting such a move to the status quo ante is not a controversial action but simple cleanup. In the absence of consensus about a move, pages stay at the status quo ante until a discussion has produced a consensus. If I hadn't been an administrator, I could have filed my request for reversion at WP:RM#Requests to revert undiscussed moves, where it would have been processed as a "speedy" admin action as a matter of course. Or I could have simply asked Dweller to revert it himself, which he would likewise have been obliged to do as a matter of course. I simply spared my colleagues the trouble by performing it myself instead. This being an uncontroversial, "speedy" cleanup action, "involved" status doesn't enter the picture here. The articles are back at where they belong; the person who wants to change the status quo is you, so now is the time to gain that consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Future Perfect is correct about the procedure involved. If the initial move is contested, it must be reverted for discussion. At this stage, of course, it would be silly to move this article back to draft, but had it been moved back to draft, any editor could have boldly moved it from Draft:String to String (cord). bd2412 T 16:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Not if the initial move had consensus, which based on the discussion above, prior to FPAS' post, it did. Based on that discussion, and the fact that this context has been acknowledged as the main use of the term for years, there was no reason to expect that there would be controversy. Even with FPAS's objections, which aren't strong enough to override the all the other positions posted in the discussion, consensus is still quite clear. What we have here is one editor overriding all those who have weighed in above. The Transhumanist 01:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that it certainly would have had consensus in 2006. I would question whether that was still valid after eleven years of the disambiguation page existing at this title. Not to say that there shouldn't be an article there (I would not have created the draft if I didn't think that), but there should probably be a new discussion before making that move. bd2412 T 02:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Let me know when you do. The Transhumanist 08:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What is string made of?

• The white "string" which is commonly sold in shops :: what fibre is it made of??? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)