Talk:String figure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Page name
Re: request for page MOVE "String_figure" --> "string_figures"
There is a substantial international community of string figure enthusiasts, including the International String Figure Association (www.isfa.org )
The consensus is that the primary entry in the wikipedia should be under "string_figures" i.e. lower case and PLURAL, NOT, as now, "String_figure" (i.e. Initial caps and singular).
If you can make that change, please do so.
Frankatca Frank Ferguson f2@CAInc.com
-- Frankatca 18:00, 17 Jan 2005
- First, if you look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions), article names with leading lower-car characters are not supported. I will add the message about the name being incorrect. Second, about the plural being preferred, Wikipedia goes with the singular unless the plural is nonsensical (e.g. "pants"). You called yourselves the "String Figure Association", so clearly the singular is viable. I will note that a Wikipedia:Redirect from String figures to String figure already exists. I will make a note about the incorrect caps, using the standard template for so doing. Thank you. Noel (talk) 19:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
This article is very non-NPOV and needs to be fixed immediately. Clearly there is far too much bias towards string figurerers.
- How so? Can you give an example? I don't find it that clear at all. Also, Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks!. Hyacinth 03:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comment from article
- NOTE: Even though these words I type are more on the "following" side of string figures, I encourage you to make your own string figures. After all, some of the most famous string figures were just developed by people messing around with string and seeing what they could find.
I removed the above from below the list of figures and moves. Hyacinth 07:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Navaho
Hyacinth, please do not change loop back to leap the next time I edit it. I am a member of ISFA, and have a lot of experience with string figures. Please trust me when I say it is not navaho LEAP, it is navaho LOOP. -Turbokoala 12:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please start new discussion topics at the bottom of the talk page, thanks. See Wikipedia:Talk.
- Unfortunately wikipedia has a policy: Wikipedia:No original research, and the complimentary Wikipedia:Citing sources, which prevent your personal credentials and experience from being considered as evidence towards your argument.
- There are ways around this whole argument. Gryski (1985, p.10) uses "to navaho a loop".
- However, Elffers and Schuyt (1979, p.30) call it "the Navaho leap" saying "On the right we show three ways in which the Navaho Indians make a loop leap over another loop above it..." (Less strong an argument is that it is a movement, such as a leap, not a loop, and a loop is not an move (its a loop).)
- Perhaps there is some disagreement among published works (which Gryski conviently avoids). In that case the disagreement should be described. See: Wikipedia:NPOV.
- User:Hyacinth 18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Religious Significance?
If I'm not mistaken I think I read somewhere about string figures having some religious significance among Inuits (in particular shamans). (dont qoute me on this.).
- Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks!
- Since string figures may be used to illustrate stories they may have religious signifigance to all groups who use them. For instance, string figures are named, in Europe and America, after Christian stories (such as the manger or upside down cat's cradle). Hyacinth 18:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prevalence
This article claims that Heraklas described the first "string figures." According to my research, Heraklas was a Greek physician who described knots to use in medical situations. That doesn't qualify as a string figure according to the definition given in the article. Also, it is claimed that string figures are common across the world in different cultures, but the citation given to support this claim does nothing more to back this statement up than to state the same thing on a different webpage. What other cultures, and when? It seems to me that the prevalence of string figures as a whole has been exaggerated by this article and should probably be more grounded. Chachilongbow (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
