Jump to content

Talk:Ringside

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 30 November 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus was to move pages as requested —usernamekiran(talk) 18:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– The obscure band should not have primarytopic status here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

☎ see hurricane. Doesn't have an article, but is still WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane = Tropical storm, Ringside = boxing ring (although I see that use of ringside is expanding). In ictu oculi (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • B2C, readers do not know that dictionary entries never get mainspace pages. It's not even true, but that aside, readers can expect most nouns to have an entry. Finding an obscure band at the basename will be astonishing. Common words can be soft links to wikitionary, and where related to multiple actual titles, work very well as a DAB page that includes the wiktionary link. Anything else will require excessive hatnoting, and hatnotes are definitely not reader-friendly. Also important is to not reward commercial product marking by their attempts to take over common words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see your point with respect to some dictionary word topics, but not with this one. It's an unlikely topic to be sought by anyone, let alone in an encyclopedia. --В²C ☎ 22:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like to get a gut feel by doing a google image search, it indicates (take with a grain of salt) what people mean by a word or phrase. For "ringside", is it overwhelmingly commercial, with the remainder being a high proportion of boxing, and I didn't see anything on the band. You think this is an obscure word? It has a great many occurances in mainspace. It even occurs in at least one title: American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians. I think the PrimaryTopic is the dictionary definition, and so the base name must include a link to Wiktionary and this is easily done best with the DAB page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem locked to Wikipedia backroom guideline wordings and terms-of-art, I think that is not the reader perspective. When a reader sees the title wikilinked, reads the hovertext, or reads the url, what would they expect to find on downloading the page. Don't assume a modern device or good internet connection, there is a high cost of each download for many readers. Most uses of "ringside" are associated with boxing, that has to exclude this band as having any primary topic claim to the term, if we are to use real world English. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "Wikipedia backroom guideline wordings and terms-of-art...that is not the reader perspective", and I say "policies, guidelines and conventions reflecting community consensus on how best to serve the reader perspective". And per that consensus the main issue is not what is downloaded by clicking on a link named "ringside"; it's about what they get when they search with "ringside" relative to what topic they are likely to be searching for. That's partly because wherever we have a link to Ringside, we also have context, be it a reference in an article or an item listed in a category. Show me a context which demonstrates the current setup is actually problematic, whether it's for a reader with slow connection or whatever (BTW, there are fewer of those slow connection users every day). --В²C ☎ 01:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom, per image, per SmokeyJoe, and per common name. 'Ringside' is a well-known term, and if a primary has to be given (which it doesn't) then something in the boxing genre should be the linked article (Boxing ring?). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, that is the most sensible primary topic. The problem with linking it to something like "boxing ring" is that ringside seats can also refer to pretty much any sports arena, or theater, upon which time it is simply a dicdef. Also note that the article title is simply "Ringside", which may or may not refer to seating.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ringside in a theatre? Not unless punches are being thrown or wrestlers. AFAIK "a ringside" can only mean a boxing ring or, less commonly, wrestling ring. What sports take place in a ring other than boxing or wrestling? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the word has broadened in meaning. Like the image I posted above, the girl has a ringside seat. See wikt:ringside seat. It applies especially to boxing, but has broadened to the front row of other smaller performance venues. Generally, it is for sporting events, not so much theatre, but it applies where the sporting metaphor can apply, such as at political events. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll accept that. Most articles employing the term seem to be boxing related, but I get what you are saying. And that increases the argument that the indie band isn't the meaning of "ringside" no caps. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, even assuming that the band did make it by page views more than all other Ringside articles combined, which it doesn't, Ringside band doesn't come within light years of meeting either criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As for a ringside is not a thing that exists, there is no such thing as a ringside, so it is a dicdef. Not so. Some active policy editors (in some cases divorced from active content edit activity on Wikipedia) have for many years has centered on the idea that only proper nouns should exist in an encyclopedia; so a "ringside" is not an encyclopedic subject, but a short film called "Ringside" would be encyclopedic. WP:NOTDICTIONARY doesn't say this of course, but the policy has over the years been edited in such a way that it doesn't make clear that this is not what it says. The guideline needs to be restored to something resembling article corpus reality. But for the time being, even misreading that guideline, the page views already make this emphemeral indie band not the automatic majority topic for the world's readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant criteria is "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.", not "the automatic majority topic for the world's readers" (whatever that means). Speaking of whatever that means, I, for one, cannot extract any coherent meaning from your ramblings about WP:NOTDICTIONARY, including where you got the idea that some argue "only proper nouns should exist in an encyclopedia". That said, regardless of what should exist in an encyclopedia, the simple truth is that the word "ringside" has no article in this encyclopedia, and that does matter. The page view counts page view counts graph speaks for itself. Look at the bottom. The Daily averages for all 5 pages that might possibly be sought by someone searching with "ringside" are 86; this band gets 55 (that's 63%) and the next highest is the steakhouse with 24 (27%). So this band is clearly "much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" to be the one being sought by a "ringside" searcher on Wikipedia, and is thus objectively the primary topic. If this is not a clear-cut primary topic case, then none are. --В²C ☎ 21:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, those have to be put together so. If you're excluding the major use in articles (which is boxing ring) from your view search, it leads to a misleading view of reality. Likewise the Google image search mentioned above speaks for itself. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously think people searching with the term "ringside" are going to be looking for Boxing ring? Yeah? No. --В²C ☎ 01:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per SmokeyJoe and In ictu oculi. If anything, the primary topic would be the longstanding use to denote a location that is by a ring, not an indie band that's barely over a decade old. Pageview are not helpful in this case because the band has it's own page, while the pageviews for the ringside locations are subsumed by the views for the articles on the ring itself. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at this point, boxing ring doesn't even mention "ringside". Is there some encyclopedic content about the topic that can be included there - e.g. do any of the various national boxing federations have an official definition of "ringside", standards for placement or protection of ringside tables and seats or ringside flooring material, etc.? 59.149.124.29 (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was fair comment and a good question, a start has been made with 2 sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ringside&oldid=1241798333"