Talk:Bow

Untitled

I don't want to make a big deal out of this (because it really isn't a big deal), but the reason we had "When used on its own in the context of music, the word bow refers to a device pulled across the strings of a string instrument in order to make them vibrate" is because in the section above a different use of the word "bow" in music is described - there's an article on this, different, type of bow at musical bow. However, as the sentence said, when the word "bow" is used on its own in music, it refers to this thing you drag across strings (the other type of bow usually being called a "musical bow"). --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 24 April 2003 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the 'bow (knot)' link went to a page about the knot, not about some rosette...you know, the knot used in tying shoelaces, the bows tied in hair and on ballgowns and Japanese uniforms? Lady BlahDeBlah 02:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the 60 000 year old African arrowhead

My edit was probably not well formulated.

However, the source for that ancient arrowhead is more careful than the formulation in the Wikipedia text:

[1]

A slender point is consistent with a pin or needle-like implement, while a larger point, reminiscent of the single specimen from Peers Cave, parallels large un-poisoned bone arrow points from LSA, Iron Age and historical Bushman sites. Additional support for the Sibudu point having served as an arrow tip comes from backed lithics in the HP compatible with this use, and the recovery of older, larger bone and lithic points from Blombos Cave, interpreted as spear heads. If the bone point from the HP layers at Sibudu Cave is substantiated by future discoveries, this will push back the origin of bow and bone arrow technology by at least 20,000 years, and corroborate arguments in favour of the hypothesis that crucial technological innovations took place during the MSA in Africa.

I find "has been identified as arrowhead" much stronger than the original claim, so I think the text should be adapted a bit.

Also, the link to the Discovery page should be changed to the link to the original paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Springelkamp (talk • contribs) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the scientific paper, which I hadn't checked. It does indeed support what you say. I have changed the wording and added the reference in History of archery, also a quotation. For the moment I have left the Discovery reference in, but it is probably disposable. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters and weapons

Dr. Rainbow Johnson, a fictional character on the U.S. TV series Black-ish is apparently nicknamed "Bow". It has been suggested that this merits mention here. Discussion has occurred on my talk page and I paste it here:

Bow in the U.S. TV series Black-ish may not have her own article, but most TV characters don't.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability usually. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that's for articles. Lots of people and ideas get to have entries on disambiguation pages as long as there's a blue link. Let's say someone remembers only that there's a sitcom where the wife/mother is called "Bo". Now I have a hard time making a case for that on the Bo page, but on Bow, that's completely logical.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of mentioning under Bow the nickname of a minor character in a transient show itself of marginal notability seems absurd to me, but perhaps we could get a third opinion? We might apply the answer to the article Rainbow as well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a minor character, and whether it's a "transient" show is debatable. For now it is a hit. And she gets second billing. I appreciate you considering a third opinion. I'll consider Rainbow too.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar theme, I have just removed mention of

B.O.W (Bio-Organic Weapons), a type of weapon in the Resident Evil video game and movie series

The game may be notable but the weapon appears to be both non-notable in itself and not worth mentioning here.

Fresh opinions would be welcome. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I have again removed the trivia / fictional characters section. Per WP:TRIVIA I really don't think we should include these things. There again, Vchimpanzee and quite a lot of other people do like trivia section, and of course I'll bow to consensus. I do suggest that, until we have a consensus, the trivia should stay out. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a major character in a popular U.S. TV series is not notable. She may not qualify for her own article, but she's certainly important. I think of what we're doing this way: A person might ask, "What is that show where the mother's name is Bow?"— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to wait for another opinion. Is it worth going to WP:3O for one, and if so would you like to do it? Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when I'll have time to do it. But I agree we need more. Obviously my example is a rare one, but it's an example of what I do. I forget the simplest things and have to go to disambiguation pages to find them here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all good will, I doubt if either of us will ever convince the other. I look forward to the comments of a third opinion in the fullness of time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we've got it. With thanks to Vchimpanzee and Bkonrad, I'll drop the point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both of you.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]