Talk:String graph

Needs to rework. A very uncomfortable for a common man to understand. Please read the objectives of Wikipedia.

I have asked with a good spirit to someone to edit the article you referred to. You need to accept with good spirit the comments from people like me. I'm a reader.

Please do not delete the flags without asking me.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangi-tamma (talk • contribs)


 * This would be more plausible if (1) you were adding tags that reflected the weaknesses of the article, rather than targeting seemingly randomly chosen articles for the same two tags that have been applied to your pet article, Intersection (Line) Graphs of hypergraphs, (2) you explained clearly and specifically, as you have done for none of the articles you've tagged in this way, what you see as needing improvement and what sort of improvement would be sufficient to remove the tags, and (3) you made some attempt at improving the articles yourself rather than merely defacing them with tags. In this particular case, refimprove is a very strange choice for a tag to apply to the article. We have a two-paragraph article with eleven highly relevant and properly cited references. More references, or even a more careful choice of references, is not what this article needs: it needs more expansion, and possibly more care in writing that can be accessible to readers who may not be familiar with the subject. It needs more motivation: why should those readers care about this subject? It needs a more clearly articulated linkage to Scheinerman's conjecture. But it does not need improved references, except to the extent that this would aid in those other goals, and it does not need general cleanup, as it already is reasonably well-formatted, written in grammatical English, contains appropriate wikilinks, etc. By adding inappropriate tags rather than contributing to the improvement of the article, you only annoy its other editors, those whom you should be enlisting to help you with other articles. For instance, you are annoying me; I did you a favor yesterday making an illustration for you, but this hostile behavior makes me less interested in doing similar favors for you in future. Is that the effect you hoped to achieve by this indiscriminate tagging? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

-Are there any sources to a scholarly article for the claims for constructions on the statements made in the "Related Graph Classes" section? That is, anything before the Circle Packing Theorem? I have not found any in particular, and it would be of assistance to others to do so as it is not very reliable and may be misleading if a paper is not out there that states such about planar graphs.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.158.59 (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean about being misleading, but here's a quote from "Decidability of string graphs", M. Schaefer and D. Stefankovic, STOC 2001: "On the theoretical side he observed that all planar graphs are string graphs" (here "he" refers to Sinden 1966).. I'll add the Sinden reference to that part of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)