Talk:String bag
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Síťovka from cs.wikipedia. (385374646 et seq.) |
Proof of pre-1920's origins and spread outside Czechoslovakia.
[edit]The string bag had to have been around, in use in England, and common enough that it needed no explanation in a children's picture book, by 1906: Beatrix Potter wrote of a tortoise carrying a cabbage in a string bag in The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher, published in 1906. Hatchetfish (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, the Czech WP article is very misleading, implying that these bags were invented in the 1920s. They were widely produced in the late 19th century. What seems to have happened is a Czech hairnet company diversified into making them in the 20s and achieved local market dominance, resulting in a mistaken local belief that string bags are Czech. --Ef80 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I suspect multiple independent older origins. Once you have a net, and netting techniques, the leap to bag for carrying things is not huge. Some other examples of older net/string bags (obviously not all for shopping):
- If the techniques are expanded to tighter weaves, then there are many other examples, eg:
- PNG bilum
- Australian Aborigine dillybag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydronium Hydroxide (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Merge with Avoska?
[edit]Is there any real difference between this and the Russian avoska? Any reason why they shouldn't be merged? -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 12:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I know, avoska is just the Russian term for a string bag. Could a native Russian speaker confirm this? --Ef80 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of citations
[edit]I had added a couple of citations. These were patents which are Reliable Sources. They are government documents relevant to the subject of this article. Wikipedia allows these and provides a Template to facilitate in-line citations. An editor deleted these without valid reason. I have restored my valid edits with further clarification of the text and also including other citations. Pkgx (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please quote the text from the patent footnote which supports the statement
It is one common type of reusable shopping bag
. - Altenmann >talk 02:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)- @Pkgx: You missed this specific request. - Altenmann >talk 17:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, patents are reliable sources about specific items they patent. They are not reliable sources about more general things. Any redneck may invent a better mousetrap. This does not make him an expert on mousetraps to be cited in wikipedia. He is an expert only on the mousetrap he invented. Basically, a patent is a self-published source, without peer review. The only professional review the patent gets is its novelty and other patentability issues. - Altenmann >talk 02:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Patents contain a wealth of information and are considered a Reliable Source by Wikipedia. Patent examiners are experts in their field and conduct a thorough review (with substantive and editorial changes) prior to publication. Patents usually have a "Background" section which discusses the broad subject being discussed, current usage and practice, and the need for an improvement. They then go on to discuss the specific item or process which provides for improvement. The specific patent you have shown interest in has a Background section which discusses reusable shopping bags and some of the types: The patent then goes on to describe one specific novel improvement. Readers of this article can get good background information from this in-line citation. Pkgx (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please show me the guideline whics says patents are reliable source. Since this is a general question, I started the discussion at WP:RSN. You may express your opinion there.- Altenmann >talk 17:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Patents contain a wealth of information and are considered a Reliable Source by Wikipedia. Patent examiners are experts in their field and conduct a thorough review (with substantive and editorial changes) prior to publication. Patents usually have a "Background" section which discusses the broad subject being discussed, current usage and practice, and the need for an improvement. They then go on to discuss the specific item or process which provides for improvement. The specific patent you have shown interest in has a Background section which discusses reusable shopping bags and some of the types: The patent then goes on to describe one specific novel improvement. Readers of this article can get good background information from this in-line citation. Pkgx (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have raised a good question and there are diverse opinions. I agree that more formal Wikipedia policy is needed. I have also raised the question on Wikipedia talk:Reliable source examples. It seems that the Background section of a patent which provides and overview and reviews past work is a Secondary Source. The specific novel material and experiments may be a Primary Source. Pkgx (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)