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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]