Talk:Strong

Strong (signal)

There is a common usage in the sciences and otherwise which I think needs some reference in this disambiguation page. It came up when I described an X-ray source as "one of the strongest in the sky", with reference to Cygnus X-1 (up for FA status), and it was pointed out that this would likely be accused of vagueness.

The term is used in astronomy instead of "bright", which really only applies to optical sources, visible with the human eye, like stars and planets. Outside the visible range (eg, radio, microwave, infrared, ultraviolet, X-ray, gamma-ray, neutrino, gravitational wave, etc), "strong" is so firmly established that I think it would take and act of the IAU and of Congress as well to change it. In astronomy "strong", like "bright", always refers to the apparent signal from the point of view of the observer, not the absolute strength regardless of distance effects, etc (which is called "luminosity" in astronomy). I think among naive non-astronomers this bit of jargon might not be immediately clear, but it is completely clear in context even to amateur star gazers. I think it would be clear also to anyone in the context of description from another planet or another star, as describing observation from a particular site,and perhaps even under particular conditions.

But more generally, in many of the sciences, signals are ranked by visibility (or more generally, observability) from "strong" to "weak". This would apply, for example, to sounds, to spectral lines (observed either in emission or absorption), to statistical effects like correlations, and surely many others -- even emotions. I believe this usage, for perceptions of many kinds, is clear far beyond the sciences.

Therefore, I would propose adding a class, with many sub-classes, relating to perception or signal detection, in which the critical axis is detectability relative to other observable effects of similar kind. I hope that this categorization might trickle through to editorial criteria, so as to allow the term (and also "weak", its opposite) to be used in such contexts without criticism for vagueness when no more precise description is really called for. (One could for example describe a cosmic X-ray source precisely in terms of its flux in SI units of Janskys [watts per square meter per second per Hertz], at a certain time (since most vary), at certain defined energy, but I really think this would be more opaque, not more clear, for most readers than just saying "one of the strongest sources in the sky".)

I have checked Mirriam Webster on-line, and see some examples that would be described under this "relative detectability" criterion, but no generalization that covers many cases, other than (perhaps) "not weak".

Best, Wwheaton (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you for both your conscientious attention to the problem you found and your thoro-ness in clarifying your reasoning. And please accept our apology if you were misled by the long-standing neglect of the list-of-phrases-starting-"strong" approach, from a time when we may not have yet clarified what a Dab is for and what its entries do.
    The problem that drew your attention is real, but WP is not a dictionary nor a usage guide, and while your two related articles may be part of the solution, entries for them on the accompanying Dab page both are unnecessary and obstruct the use which our Dab guidelines were developed to serve.
    At this point, i have no clear opinion on whether the content of those two articles serves WP best in those articles or incorporated into the broader article(s) covering the topics where the clarifications you formulated are likely to be needed. Stating it the other way around, any confusion such as you (IMO quite properly) anticipated should be alleviated not by readers treating Strong like a dictionary or an index to specialized definitions, but rather by their being provided links from articles that use the term in the relevant sense. In the next section, i will list the entries i'm removing, along with your two, based on that reasoning.
--Jerzy•t 03:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed entries

    The Dab page Strong is neither an article, nor a list of articles that should cast light on different senses of "strong". It is a page to provide access to encyclopedia-worthy articles (on, therefore, topics that are too detailed for a dictionary to tackle) that could (except for ambiguity) have been entitled "Strong", when used by editors who chose to code their use of "strong" as a link. Such an editor creates such a link either because they believe an encyclopedia-worthy article relevant in their context already exists (even tho they didn't know its exact title) or because they know such an article would be appropriate in the long run (and don't want to be distracted from working on the article they are linking from, by writing the "strong" article or by working out its exact title at that moment).
    For the time being, none of the following appear to serve that function; if some of them do, they can be restored by editors who will offer convincing explanations of why i am wrong either

in saying that a particular entry fails to conform to my preceding paragraph, or

in saying that that 'graph states the intention of WP:MoSDab and WP:MoSDab.

==General usage==

*Strong acid that which can donate h+ ions easily

*Strong agnosticism

*Strong AI, machine intelligence that rivals human intelligence.

*Strong AI hypothesis, the philosophical position that a simulation of a mind is a mind.

*Weak and strong atheism

*Strong cardinal

*Strong coloring

*Strong convergence (disambiguation), multiple uses

*Strong CP problem

*Strong cryptography

*Strong inflection (linguistics)

*Germanic strong verb

*Strong interaction (Strong force)

*Strong key

*Profanity or strong language

*Strong operator topology

*Strong prior

*Strong programme

*Strong RSA assumption

*Strong symptoms

==Signal Detection and Perception==

*Strong (relative detectability)

*Strong (source)

--Jerzy•t 03:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

    I failed to note that all of the above entries reflect the error of expecting the relevant articles to be found, dictionary style, under the word "strong". Any that might be shown eligible for being Dab entries for the purposes their compilers had in mind would belong on the Dab Strength as there is no reason for ignoring the fundamental WP:NC "preference" for nouns as titles of WP articles. Suffixed versions of Strong are mandated titles for WP articles on titled expressive works bcz Strong, "Strong", etc. are proper nouns for the corresponding works, and Strong is a proper noun for the surname and anyone bearing it. But the word "strong" in e.g. "strong key" or "strong (source)" is an adjective. Those not sufficiently familiar with WP to seek varieties of strongness at Strength rather than Strong are served as well as is practical by the Strong#See also link to Strength (disambiguation).
--Jerzy•t 04:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

   I removed

* Captain Strong (EarthBound), in the video game EarthBound

(or rather, i removed what will have to be replaced by this entry, if an entry ever becomes justified) bcz editors of that game's article don't mention him, and

* Strong Vincent

bcz it is farfetched that he is ever called by his given name without his surname being clear. (It is also false that we should have a Strong (given name) article for him to be mentioned in, since it is a given name only in the sense that at least one notable person has borne it as such: it was his mother's maiden name, and use of the surname of your mother, maternal grandparents, or any family your parents or ancestors are indebted to, as a given name, doesn't make it notable as a given name, even if you are notable.)
    The entries for Strong Sad, Strong Bad, and Strong Mad should not be retained w/o evidence in the respective cases of them sometimes being referred to simply as "Strong"; being cartoon characters, it is not at all implausible that such an odd practice will quickly emerge for at least one of them, and i'm leaving them intact for the moment.
--Jerzy•t 03:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A powerful Bade blade

Strong Ones 2603:8080:4C00:D6:D117:FF90:60F0:2F04 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)