Jump to content

Talk:Addison Russell

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

Requested move 5 May 2015

[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: moved. The baseball player has had consistently higher page views than the other Addison Russell ever since the article was written in November 2012. So, the argument that he is the primary topic is supported by evidence and the argument that his fame is recent is weakened by consistently higher page views over more than two years. DrKiernan (talk) 15:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Russell (baseball) → Addison Russell – primary topic Relisted. Joeykai (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Relisted. Joeykai (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Joeykai (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page views shows he clearly is the primary topic. 16229 vs 489Joeykai (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RECENTISM he just got called up to the Majors, so there will definitely be a spike in accesses. This guy fails in long-term significance, as there isn't any, since he hasn't done anything yet. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that a normal encyclopedia wouldn't have bios on someone so highly recent, and see "Addison Russell" in print sources pre this May. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu -- are you serious??? "Encyclopedic" doesn't -- in 2015 -- meant "has to be in print sources" at any point in time. Nor do our rules suggest as much -- in fact, they suggest that non-print sources are fine; just as good as print sources. So, do you think that on 9 12, we shouldn't have had an article on 9 11, because there were no books out yet? We have here someone who is overwhelmingly TODAY the person that people look for when searching for that name. The same will be true tomorrow. And next week, next month, and next year. The entire exercise here is to help readers. To help them find the person they are looking for. Today. And the future. Not the person they may have been looking for at some date in the past. Why in the world would you want to muck up their ability to find that person, as quickly and with as few clicks as possible. Because only! 97 per cent are looking for the baseball player? Seriously???? Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody much cares about the fellow born in 1826. And he's not about to do anything in the future, so interest won't increase. On a good day, his page gets 10 hits. The baseball player, in contrast, was the primary topic well before he even made the majors, getting easily 5x as many people looking for him on his worst days. The fellow born nearly two centuries ago simply isn't the person people are searching for when they type in the name Addison Russell. And he's not going to increase peoples' interest in him from today's levels. And, of course, a half a dozen of the people who were Ohio Secretary of State are so non-notable that nobody has even sought to write a wp article about them, at all. Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Span -- we only direct "Addison Russell" to a dab page if we don't have a primary topic. Not if we have one clear primary topic, as here, and two people nobody has an interest in looking up. In that case, we direct Addison Russell to the primary topic. This third fellow is even less-searched-for than the other fellow who is also from the 1800s. See here. Page views for the last 90 days? 16,686 vs 507 vs (for the new guy) 481. The living Russell has 16-17x as many views as the other two combined. Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clear primary topic. Hat notes exist for a reason. Calidum T|C 00:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - perhaps if the baseball player becomes a superstar there will be a case for him being the primary topic. But right now we are talking about a rookie baseball player versus the Secretary of State of Ohio during the Civil War, and despite the obvious recent interest in the baseball player, I don't think that at this point he can be considered the primary topic other than through WP:RECENTISM. Rlendog (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with converting Addison Russell to a disambiguation page rather than redirecting to the Secretary of State, but not convinced of fully moving. You can't go just by page views for primary topic. Wizardman 16:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our goal is to help readers arrive at the page they are seeking. With the fewest clicks. Why would you force 95 per cent and more of the readers to click an extra page? A full 36x as many of our readers were seeking his page, in the last 90 days, and there is no reason to expect anything different in the coming few years. Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To show this is not recentism, here are the page views from January 2014, 18 months ago, during baseball's offseason, well before he debuted in MLB and before he became one of the top prospects in baseball. 794 vs 80. He wasn't very significant back then and still got 10x as many page views as the politician. Now he is very significant and is getting 36x as many page views as the politician.Joeykai (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Pageviews are not everything, but when the disparity is this large, there needs to be a very strong case for long-term significance to match the usage. That is not the case here. This move would greatly assist our readers and editors. Dohn joe (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2015 (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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Addison Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Addison_Russell&oldid=1207800736"