Talk:Daisy Jones & the Six

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

February 26 to March 4, 2023

On 23 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Daisy Jones & the Six (miniseries). The result of the discussion was not moved.

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 23 August 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: not moved. Consensus not to move at this time. However, editors agree that a new move request may be appropriate in a couple of months with updated evidence. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose with nuance I get where this is coming from and support the conversation, but I think pageviews are valuable - 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, especially looking at coverage from reliable sources. 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)[reply]
Re both: Wslack and Station1: Thank you for supporting the conversation. Respectfully, it appears that your entire opposition hinges on pageviews, which I believe I have already demonstrated is a poor indicator of the comparative notability between both subjects. Furthermore, as an example, back in February 2022 I created the article It Ends with Us (published in 2016), a similarly widely-read book that became a bestseller and achieved virality through BookTok. The page has since had over 1.7 million pageviews. That book is also receiving a screen adaptation. Now imagine I had not created the article, and the article for the film adaptation of the same name had been allowed to exist at the time of the film's release (height of its popularity) in exclusion of a book article. I have no doubt that this same reasoning would be used to rationalise that the film was the primary topic, when in reality there would likely be no primary topic. Just as there is no primary topic for Daisy Jones & the Six.

Pageviews are a rather deficient metric to rest your laurels on here. I don't understand how you can argue that "it doesn't follow that the book's article being recent depresses pageviews today" when pageviews are inherently dictated entirely by seasons of engagement. Compare the original "Daisy Jones & The Six" article pageviews with the current lowercase "Daisy Jones & the Six" pageviews. The book article has only existed since the middle of May 2023, a month and a half after the show ended. We have no way of knowing what the pageviews would have been at the height of the book's engagement, or even during the height of the series's engagement! That is why I believe external indicators of notability serve as a more reliable basis. The miniseries article also has hundreds of incoming links, compared with the book's mere three links. Again, I am not arguing that one topic takes precedent over another, but precisely the opposite. Neither topic towers over the other in terms of notability to a degree that declares a primary topic. And frankly, whether or not it is "highly likely people will be interested in the miniseries, especially through the coming awards cycle" feels even more inappropriate of a sentinment to invoke as a rationalisation for primary topic status. I don't see the harm in a dab page similar to Big Little Lies (novel) and Big Little Lies (TV series). But I digress. Thank you again for the conversation. Οἶδα (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that pageviews are a poor indicator. Properly analyzed, I think they are one excellent indicator, not of "comparative notability", but of what the majority of readers of WP expect to find at a given title at a point in time. Incoming wikilinks are another useful indicator, as are google searches. The harm, however slight, of an unnecessary dab page is that the significant majority is forced by us to land on a page that they neither want nor expect, while the minority gains no offsetting benefit. In the case of Big Little Lies, for example, approximately 10 people per day[2] land on the dab page, 9 of whom want the TV series and are forced to click through, while the tenth could click through a hatnote just as easily as they do through the dab page. Station1 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with above comment. If pageviews change over the next few months, this can be revisited. I'll add that I just added a hatnote to the miniseries article pointing to the book, even though it was already mentioned and linked in the first sentence. That should help readers looking for the book just as much as a dab page would. Station1 (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.