The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support. Many dab pages have all variations on a single page. In the case of this one, where Strings in music is a different concept, you can make it a separate "Strings can mean:" section. -JCBarr (can't believe I didn't sign this) -Jcbarr 00:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Support. --FocalPoint 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Support - considering that not only does Strings already contains some singluar uses of the word, but they also link to many of the same pages, I think they are in desperate need of a merge. Also some cleanup, but that can come after the merge. -- Natalya 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've performed the merge. -- Mikeblas 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What was this a discussion of? Which pages where mereged? Hyacinth 10:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Strings now redirects to String. They both used to be separated disambiguation pages.
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I've removed a few red links while performing the merge, though I've left some in the expectation they might be common or notable enough usage to anticipate an article. I noted that this isn't a very typical layout for a disambiguation page, so if anyone wants to perform more cleanup, fix up the layout, or so on, please do feel encouraged to do so. -- Mikeblas 13:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I've taken care of a lot of it, I removed all the extraneous links, removed the piping, fixed all the headers, and reordered them (see MoS:DP). The only thing I wasn't sure about was removing the dictionary definition - I'm all for taking it out, because there is already the link to Wiktionary (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyway) but there has always been some discrepancy about it. -- Natalya 18:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to thank you: Thank you! -- Mikeblas 01:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
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 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).
This thread was copied, and continued at Talk:String. Please post further comments there. Thank you. The Transhumanist 14:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
"A measure of time approximately equivalent to 10 minutes"
When this was added by an anonymous user back in July I wasn't sure if it was nonsense or might actually have some basis, so I assumed good faith... However all my attempts to verify this usage of "string" as a measure of time have failed, including a browse through the OED entry for string. Since nobody else has provided a reasonable citation since then, I've removed it from the article for now. --Dfred (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Whether or not a primary topic status has been achieved or not is really questionable at this time. It would be a good idea to put Draft:String into mainspace first (with a disambiguator, of course) to see whether it really is the primary topic or not, and try this again at a later time. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM(talk to me) 17:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
String → String (disambiguation) – To make way for moving Draft:String to article space as the primary topic for "String". An article for the primary topic has been built at Draft:String. Based on the lengthy history of that topic (tens of thousands of years), the enduring notability of the term (it has been called "string" since Middle English), and the fact that it has been in the main context position at the top of this disambiguation page for over ten years, I propose to move the disambiguation page to String (disambiguation), to make way for the moving of the draft to article space. The Transhumanist 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The context at the top of the disambiguation page (the long flexible fibrous tool known as "string"), qualifies as the primary topic based on long-term significance per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and this notability is in turn reflected by most of the other uses of the term being derived from the meaning of this word. That is, most of those concepts were named after it. Some of the topics on the disambiguation page are actually subtopics of the primary topic, and have subsections in its article. The context is also presented as the primary in dictionary entries. It is the primary topic for the word in the English language, and its title should reflect that. But this disambiguation page needs to be moved in order for it to take that spot. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Support with the caveat that the plural form, strings, continue to point to the disambiguation page; string, the tool, is generally referred to in the singular; "strings" more often refers to the instrument section in an orchestra. bd2412T 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, as I said at Draft talk:String. While I recognize that the everyday object "string" may have linguistic primacy over the other concepts, being the base from which the others are metaphorically or otherwise derived, what counts here is primacy in reader interest (as measurable in potential pageviews). According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "primacy" is not simply "what comes first to mind"; it is a matter of reader interest and educational value. All of String (physics), String (music) and String (computer science) are high-profile articles of lasting notability. String (physics) has about 100 pageviews day (plus 3,000 for String theory); String (music) about 200; String (computer science) about 600. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could only come into play if the new cord article stood a chance of surpassing all of these taken together by a wide margin. It just doesn't. Fut.Perf.☼ 05:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - The draft is much more than a stub and has plenty of references to it. We have a Rope article and a Rope (disambiguation) page. If someone was searching for string theory, I'm sure they wouldn't leave off "theory" in their search, and the usual "for other uses" message and link to the disambiguation page is there as well. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, mainly per Fut. Perf. Just being a common use of the term does not make it automatically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, because the competing uses are of lasting importance and high encyclopedic value. The evidence for that is that, well, we haven't had an article on cord strings for 12 years, and apparently one hasn't been in high demand. String should continue to be a disambiguation page, and draft:String can be moved to an appropriate mainspace title, such as String (cord). I appreciate the effort, but I think that the current dab page serves the readers better than a WP:CONCEPTDAB that does not cover all the derived but important meanings. The analogy with rope is misguided – no other item at rope (disambiguation) competes for the primary topic as strongly as String (music) and String (computer science) do here. No such user (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – get the new article into main with an appropriately disambiguated title first, do primarytopic grab later maybe. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. String (music) is just as strong of a qualifier for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the subject of Draft:String. I advise publishing the draft first to a title with a disambiguator to see if, blatantly, I can be proven wrong. With the other topic currently sitting in the "Draft:" namespace, it is currently impossible to assess a primary topic by page views. Steel1943 (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. No evidence nor reason suggests that people searching for "string" are more likely searching for this use than any other. To the contrary. No way is this topic primary based on usage. The fact that you can argue this topic is primary based on the Johnny-come-lately so-called "long-term significance" criterion demonstrates why that criterion is problematic and should be removed, not that this topic is primary. --В²C☎ 17:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. In the real world, this is the overwhelmingly clear primary topic. Frankly, claims that the scientific topics come close are utterly laughable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Clearly page view stats are not available, but it seems obvious that the basic meaning of "string" is the primary topic. String (music) is about a type of string.--Cúchullaint/c 19:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, there are just too many prominent senses that are often known as simply "string". These should be disambiguated and moving would only serve to obscure mistaken links. older ≠ wiser 20:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.