Talk:Nosebleed (disambiguation)

Requested move

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: page moved: 6 v. 3 majority after 15 deys. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Nosebleeds → Nosebleed (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT, the clear primary topic of "Nosebleeds" in terms of historical importance is the singular, Nosebleed; the band is obscure and the phenomenon of seats with a distant view of the stadium floor is comparatively unimportant. Move this page to the singular "Foo (disambiguation)" title, add Nosebleed (film), and redirect "Nosebleeds" to "Nosebleed". bd2412 T 16:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because the main topic of plural "nosebleeds" is the seats in arenas and they are usually used with a plural form like that. I would even say there is a better chance that "Nosebleeds" should redirect to Nosebleed section than to Nosebleed. Nosebleeds -blood gets 2.2 million Google hits and Nosebleeds -seat -sports gets 3.3 million Google hits. No clear primary topic. 128.135.96.142 (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that since nosebleeds in the actual bleeding sense have probably existed for as long as there have been noses, that topic is substantially more important historically. bd2412 T 23:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I think readers will be annoyed if they specifically type in "nosebleeds" to learn about the seats and they get sent to an article about having a nosebleed even though they put in the plural that is used for the seats. 128.135.96.142 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Right now, if readers type in "nosebleeds" to learn about the seats, they are sent to a disambiguation page, which is not what they were looking for. If they are sent to an article on having a nosebleed with a hatnote pointing to Nosebleed seating, they are no worse off, while all readers actually searching for information on having a nosebleed will have reached their destination. Now, how many readers are searching for the seats as opposed to the condition? In the past 90 days, "Nosebleed section" was viewed 7,180 times, while Nosebleed was viewed 44,674 times. This would suggest that the condition is far more likely to be the article readers are looking for in the first place. bd2412 T 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
        • No, it doesn't mean anything about the people who looked at the page Nosebleeds, your data doesn't mean anything about which article they wanted, it's like saying that people who type "John" want JFK (viewed 233000 times this month) and not the name "John" just because they are both on the John page and he gets more overall page views than the name page (600 views this month).... Even though no one would search for "JFK" by typing "John".... 2601:D:3080:EA2:3CF4:B234:F49D:6D9A (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic. How anyone could argue that a relatively obscure term for seating is primary is beyond me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose this one for now, per IP. Sitting in "the nosebleeds" is a very common term for the upper reaches of stadium seating, and possibly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "nosebleeds". We would normally expect between 5-10% of singular article traffic for a plural redirect. Since the nosebleed section article gets closer to 20%, it may be that more people typing in "nosebleeds" want to go there. Dohn joe (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course, the only reason the seating is called that is because it jokingly refers to the fact that the seats are so high up that the thin air could lead to an actual nosebleed. Primary historical reference. bd2412 T 19:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, don't send someone to another page they don't want because of the historical origin of a joke or the historical origin of the term, we don't send readers to Door because they type Knock knock I hope. 2601:D:3080:EA2:3CF4:B234:F49D:6D9A (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support: There's a primary topic here, and it has to do with bleeding from the nose. Whatever other meanings exist, they seem to be derived from that primary meaning. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support since other topics are obscure. —innotata 05:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nosebleeds never refers to the plural of nosebleed, in my personal experience--when on earth do you ever need to use the plural?--but very frequently for the seating area. Red Slash 01:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • When you're describing it as a repeating side effect that people may suffer from a medical condition, like here, here, and here. If you had a nosebleed every day for three days in a row, would you say, "I had a nosebleed, and another nosebleed, and also another nosebleed", or would you say "I had nosebleeds"? bd2412 T 01:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Nosebleed and nosebleeds are the same topic. Clear PrimaryTopic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Post-move discussion

Just for posterity.... For the last two weeks, there have been special redirects from this page to the two articles Nosebleed and Nosebleed section, to get an idea of what people who come to this page are actually looking for. Here's the results (from Oct. 29 to Nov. 10):

• Nosebleed - 34 views
• Nosebleed section - 44 views

That includes a suspiciously high day for Nosebleed section (21 views on Nov. 1, when no other day had more than 6 views). We would need more time on this to see how the actual patterns fall, but it seems likely that people are searching for those two pages in relatively similar numbers. Enough to keep it as a separate dab? It's debatable. Dohn joe (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would suggest that close numbers for pageviews should only be relevant in the absence of a topic that is primary in terms of historic importance. bd2412 T 15:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  Nosebleed seats are historically important. They've been around more than 2,000 years. Perhaps that explains the relatively equal number of people wanting to go to these two articles. :) Dohn joe (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  Important, but derivative. Anyone interested in the topic of the seating section would know, or should immediately find out, what is the base concept of a nosebleed. Someone interested in nosebleeds may very well have absolutely no concept of the seating section topic, and this derivative topic is insignificant to the base topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  Also, there may always have been seats distant from the spectacle, but you won't find any old references to "nosebleeds" meaning anything other than bleeding from the nose, which is the natural and obvious meaning of the word. Someone looking to research attitudes about remote seating in, say, the Victorian Era, would be very frustrated if they were looking for "nosebleeds" in literature of the day. bd2412 T 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  You folks must have missed the ":)" in my post. Dohn joe (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  You are quite right. :) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any value to these redirect stats, they just reflect the way things are set up. There was a clear consensus that nosebleeds refers to nosebleeds. Let's move on. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)