Talk:Cardboard (disambiguation)

Untitled

Vandalized? Aelita Hopper (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.59.4 (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man!!! How can something as central to our existence as cardboard have such a stub of an entry!!!

Where's the drama and debate! I guess we have to start saying some incendiery things to get some love and attention for this article...SubcomOvashins (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 12.72.36.50 (talk) - moved from article: We need a definition that menions, and differentiates, the terms "paper", "paperboard", "cardboard", and " corrugated cardboard". You can start by defining paper as being the product of a Fourdrinier Machine which comes off it in rolls. I expect that this would exclude cardboard. I would also expect that corrugated cardboard is a product manufactured entirely from paper, and containing neither paperboard nor cardboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Langbein Rise (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could add that cardboard has like a really thin layer glued to thick layers. The thin layer isn't as rough as the inside layers. Jasonxu98 (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation Page

This short Stub really should be changed to a Disambiguation Page. It just points readers to three or four better pages. Comments? Rlsheehan (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneRlsheehan (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a subject for a disambiguation page, as it is merely a collection of types of the same thing. There is not, for example, an album or film titled Cardboard, or a person having that as a surname, or a place with that name. bd2412 T 14:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cardboard" is an ambiguous term. This disabmiguation page helps readers link to articles that discuss the various meanings of the term. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ambiguous as used in this article. It refers to variations of a single thing, stiff, heavy forms of paper. bd2412 T 22:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is silly to have this disambiuation page on cardboard and another weaker one Talk:Cardboard (disambiguation). This is the proper dab for the term Rlsheehan (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The complicated move history seems to suggest that the current mess is mostly your fault. Good to clean it up. Dicklyon (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not a decision that can be made by editors who are not participants in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. I am taking this to my fellow members of the High Council of Disambiguators for an authoritative resolution. bd2412 T 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, for an example of how to turn this into a proper genus article, see Rocket launcher and Rice cake, both disambig pages turned into primary topic articles for genera. bd2412 T 19:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger_proposal

Someone made a merger proposal from Cardboard (disambiguation), but didn't start this discussion section, so here it is.

Not sure – Cardboard can be made a proper article, and Cardboard (disambiguation) a real disambig; or they can be merged. Pick one. Dicklyon (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, cardboard is in reasonably good shape now. It is a disambiguation page as it should be: "cardboard" is an ambiguous term and this page provides links to articles that discuss the several different meanings of the term. I recently came across a weaker page, cardboard (disambiguation). There is no point to have two disambiguation pages on the same subject. It makes sense to merge the weaker one into the better one. One cardboard page is all we need: it clarifies the term by pointing to substantive articles about more specific types of "cardboards.Rlsheehan (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page that you say you just came across is one that you created in 2007, according to the history. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I missed that one. The point now is to fix the situation by a merger. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's coverage of everyday things is still rather underdeveloped compared to more unusual things. Of course there are good reasons for this, such as the problem that there are less good sources available, and the few good sources that exist are harder to find than is the case with more special things.

This disambiguation page stands in the way of a proper article on the topic, which is of course not ambiguous at all. Whether a proper article will ever be written if the disambiguation page is replaced by a stub is an open question. Hans Adler 22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation suggests use when there can be confusion about which Wikipedia article to be directed to. "Cardboard" certainly is an ambiguous term: when someone says it, I do not know which of the various meanings they refer to. This is the correct usage of a disambiuation page. There are reasonable articles (of course, room for improvement) on several possible meanings such as card stock, paperboard (and several varieties), corrugated fiberboard, etc. What is the argument against clarifying a term for Wikipedia readers? Rlsheehan (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would find it impossible to disambiguate links to cardboard in articles such as Model (person), Baler, and Forestry in Argentina, because the link in any of those articles could properly go to any of the stiffened forms of paper that could be called "cardboard". The reader is certainly no worse off by a general purpose article that covers the concept with a universality that none of those subtype articles can achieve, and continues linking to all of them. I note that the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica disposes of all kinds of cardboard in a single section in its article on papermaking, something that we can definitely outdo. In particular, we can and should outline the history of cardboard from the earliest reference (the earliest one I can confirm is a 1683 publication of Joseph Moxon, Theodore Low De Vinne, Moxon's Mechanick exercises; or The doctrine of handy-works Applied to the Art of Printing, Volume 2: "The scabbards mentioned in printers' grammars of the last century were of cardboard or millboard". Of course, there's no way to tell from the text what kind of cardboard the writers meant, or if they meant some predecessor form. bd2412 T 01:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – There should be ONE article on cardboard and it should be a Disambiguation Page. Pkgx (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. No comment as to whether we should have an article here and a disambiguator at Cardboard (disambiguation). I believe that by the current naming conventions, when the unmodified title is a disambiguation page, [Title] (disambiguation) should redirect to [Title]. If I am wrong, it is simple enough to swap them. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article

Draft materials moved to Cardboard (paper product)

Comment – Please do not try to take this article in the wrong direction.

The article is currently a disambiuation page: it properly points readers to articles about the various different meanings of the term "cardboard". An effort to start a new article on this ambiguous term will only confuse Wikipedia readers. Your constructive input to the substantive articles about card stock, various paperbords, etc is welcome. Let's leave this ambiguous term alone and let this disambiguation page do its work. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some specific examples of how a reader would be confused by the above? After all, it does contain every single link relating to paper products that is on the disambig page, and with more explanation of them, along with historical context that would not belong on any of the individual articles that are about kinds of cardboard instead of the general concept. bd2412 T 16:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we have a very functional disambiguation page now. There is no need for a mushy mini-article about this ambiguous subject. Let's spend out efforts on improving the more substantive articles. There is no consensus for developing an article of some sort on cardboard. Rlsheehan (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since "cardboard" covers virtually all variations of stiffened paper, and since this range can not historically be neatly divided into subtypes of cardboard (or else we'd be able to state what kind of cardboard was meant by that 1683 reference), it is misleading to suggest that cardboard itself is subject to crisp divisions instead of being a "mushy" continuum. However, since there are non-paper meanings properly susceptible to disambiguation, I've moved the above material to Cardboard (paper product). That way, we can reference this as a generic article where incoming links do not provide for a specific subtype, and clean up all the "see also" links on the disambig page. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be resolved for now. I am satisfied with the resolution of having a generic article at Cardboard (paper product) as a target for generic references to the paper product. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Cardboard (paper product) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]