Talk:Strong

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Strong (signal) 

message: Strong Ones 2603:8080:4C00:D6:D117:FF90:60F0:2F04 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A powerful Bade blade