Talk:Daisy Jones & the Six

Requested move 26 April 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) 〜 Festucalex • talk 10:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Daisy Jones & The Six → Daisy Jones & the Six – MOS:THEBAND ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Uncontroversial, and unless there is opposition within 24 hours, the page should just be moved. — HTGS (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. snapsnap ^(talk) 06:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title change

request to change the title to Daisy Jones & The Six (TV) or something along those lines, as there is now a separate wiki page for the book Seastandbymeblackeye (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The best guideline to help determine which title should be disambiguated is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Page views are likely to help determine this, but given how new the book article is, it will be too early to tell for a while yet, so check back on this link in a few weeks: [1]. — HTGS (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2023

Daisy Jones & the Six → Daisy Jones & the Six (miniseries) – This article only exists at its current title because it was created before the book article (and boldly moved here with the rationale "no article exists for the book, disambiguation is unnecessary"). It is certainly a notable topic, but I am not convinced that it towers over the source material, which a quick inquiry will tell you sold over a million copies and is one of the most reviewed books on Goodreads. The New York Times echoed those sentiments in their 2021 feature on the author Taylor Jenkins Reid. In 2023, the BBC wrote: "The novel, like the fictional band, became an instant sensation. The it-book of 2019, it has sold more than one million copies worldwide, spent nine weeks on the New York Times bestseller chart, and been a hit on BookTok." And I'm not sure pageviews are a particularly valuable metric here given this article has existed for five years and the book article was only created 100 days ago, over a month after the series finished airing. One was accessible during the height of its popularity, the other was not. As such, external metrics of notability are more appropriate, and they have not proven the series is the primary topic. WP:ONEOTHER fails. There is WP:NOPRIMARY, so a disambiguation page is necessary. Οἶδα (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose with nuance I'm not sure that pageviews aren't valuable here - the novel's article is highly ranked on Google and it doesn't follow that the book's article being recent depresses pageviews today. I think WP:ONEOTHER applies here. It could be looked at in some time, but right now the pageview stats are very clear that there's more interest in this article than the other and its better to treat the work of main interest as primary in my view. Parallels might be American Psycho, The Help, and To Kill a Mockingbird (where the book is primary), or The Godfather and Forrest Gump (where the film is primary). Then again, some of the former examples have more pageviews for the film's article - but I still think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is satisfied because its highly likely people will be interested in the miniseries, especially through the coming awards cycle. \/\/slack (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)