Talk:One and Only (Big Daddy Weave album)

Requested move 16 December 2015

 * 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: not moved. In general, I think Cuchullain's comment "It doesn't need a separate article, it just needs to be notable and be covered at some other article" is the threshold we're looking for. And in this case, the opposers have clearly shown that the Adele song of this title has enough coverage both on Wikipedia and in reliable sources to make simply "One and Only" ambiguous. Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

One and Only (album) → One and Only – DAB not needed when this is the only notable article titled "One and Only" – Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * One and Only is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware. The "(album)" qualifier in this case isn't needed for reasons stated above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - nom blanked the dab (why?), I have restored it. But suggest The One and Only dab be merged into One and Only dab, no need for separate pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, you have not given a reason for opposing. Secondly, blanking and redirecting are two different things, and I redirected the DAB. Third, I said in that edit summary that this page is the only notable subject titled "One and Only", therefore a "One and Only" DAB is pointless and qualifer is unnecessary. I agree that there is no need for two separate DAB pages, but it would be better to get rid of the "One and Only" DAB and have this page linked in a "see also" section for "The One and Only" DAB. Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the statement that "this page is the only notable subject titled 'One and Only is clearly untrue, since there are other notable topics with that title that are identified on the dab page. Perhaps the user thinks that topics that don't have a separate article don't need to be considered, and should read WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary" and WP:DAB "when it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject". —BarrelProof (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Notable subject = something worth its own article. There is no other article titled "One and Only" that is notable enough for a separate article. "The One and Only" is a separate entity from "One and Only". There is really no need to add a parenthetical qualifier to a title when nothing else worthy of a separate article shares the title. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I really hope we don't generally start thinking that all notable topics should have a separate articles. Unnecessary topic forking should be avoided. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not every topic is notable per WP:Content forking and WP:Notability. There are indeed limits to what should and shouldn't have separate articles. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And not every notable topic should have a separate article. It is often better to discuss multiple notable topics in a single article (e.g., a band and its members or an album and its songs). To do otherwise fragments the presentation, tends to reduce quality, and creates maintenance headaches. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The album is clearly not the primary topic for the phrase "one and only". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless there's an article on the phrase "one and only", I'd have to say this is the primary topic. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The primary topic for "one and only" in any capitalisation is clearly the widely-used phrase, which is the title of the many topics listed at the dab page The one and only. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "One and only" is a separate entity from "The one and only" since "The" is a distinguisher itself. For example, there is Police and The Police. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. This is the only article titled "One and Only" using this capitalization and formatting. There are only three topics that are actually ambiguous (Mariah Carey's song, Adele's song, and perhaps the song by " Morning Musume '15") and none of them have substantial coverage at the linked articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The quality of the coverage of the other songs is a reflection of the state of those wikipiedia articles. It does not negate the ambiguity of this title. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We disambiguate by topics covered on the encyclopedia, and this is effectively the only one using this capitalization and formatting. If that changes in the future we can discuss it then.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you're in the "needs to have a separate article" camp or not, and I disagree with the notion that there is a reasonable distinction between "and" and "&", but please note that there are now additional topics listed on the dab page. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a separate article, it just needs to be notable and be covered at some other article. Simply being name-dropped at an album article isn't real coverage, and that's the case with most if not all of the others. In a number of cases, the songs aren't even mentioned besides in the track list. I disagree that "and" and "&" can't serve to distinguish titles, but it's a moot point here as there's no article or coverage of things called "One & Only". In my opinion, the current arrangement just throws an obstacle in the way of readers when we really only cover one thing of this title.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. I think your point about a mere mention not having much value is a very reasonable one (not so much agreeing regarding "and" and "&", but as you note, that's a moot point here). However, I think a few other things are worth noticing here. One is that there is substantially more than a mere mention of the song in the article about the Adele album – there is real information about that particular song in several places in that article. Another is that this article really says very little about the Big Daddy Weave album. A third is that the Adele song seems much more notable than the Big Daddy Weave album. Many many more people are presumably listening to and interested in the Adele song than the Big Daddy Weave album, and there is no apparent historical significance to the Big Daddy Weave album. And even if you want to be skeptical about that, it seems clear that the Adele song is prominent enough and discussed in the article enough to say that the Big Daddy Weave album is not the one and only primary topic for the phrase "One and Only" – it is merely one of two or more topics that readers would seek knowledge about – not a single dominant topic of interest. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The album sold 30 million copies, and plenty reviews say it was the best song of the album (e.g. ) Even checking just the one other topics shows that the nominator did inadequate preparation before making this move request. Adele's song is clearly notable enough to be a plausible search target, and we already have enough coverage to plausibly consider it as a possible primary topic. I hope that the nominator SNUGGUMS will consider withdrawing this move request.-- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC) This discussion is about whether a small-selling album by a minor band is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over all other uses, including a highly-rated song on a 30-million selling album. Note that the test is for PRIMARYTOPIC, not PRIMARYARTICLE. The guideline is explicit that there does not have to be a standalaone article when comparing primacy, the topic of Adele's song is covered in existing articles. The two short reviews for the album being discussed her together amount to far less coverage than Adele's song gets in one article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says that "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". You are the one who is pushing the case that the album by Big Daddy Weave meets that criterion. That BDW album has no significant review, and only tiny sales -- yet you are trying to claim that it has "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value" than a song which did receive a substantial review, and one of the most highly-rated tracks on one of the 20 or 30 best-selling albums of all time. We have not even begun to examine the other songs listed at the dab, such as Tsumetai Kaze to Kataomoi / Endless Sky / One and Only, which is the theme of Japan's only English-language music show, J-Melo. You have not offered any evidence at all in support of your claim, which is entirely based on the irrelevant fact that there is no other standalone article of the same exact title. Procedurally, you have behaved very badly -- you preceded this nomination by the sneakily disruptive redirecting oof the disambiguation page, which had the effect of hiding the existence of other topics of the same title. You didn't even declare that action in the nomination, making it look like a bad faith ruse to impede scrutiny of your move request. So I suggest again that you withdraw this move request. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC) This dab page was a crucial fact in assessing your nomination, and you should have declared that you had obliterated it. Your failure to do so was sneaky. I don't know whether you intended to mislead other editors, but your actions were compatible with an intent to mislead ... and your continue defence of that action makes it hard to sustain an assumption of good faith. It is very surprising that despite several editors drawing your attention to the disambiguation guideline, you continue to falsely assert that existing article is essentially primary by default. There is no basis in policy for that claim. Nor is there a policy basis for your assertion of some threshold for primacy; you appear to be still confusing the question of primacy with the separate issue of notability. The guideline at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is quite clear that primacy is assessed by comparing the significance of various topics, rather than asking whether one of them passes some arbitrary test. In this case, you do not even attempt to claim that the album has either greater long-term significance than the song, or greater usage. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Your continued claims that "the significance of something not worthy of its own article is negligible" are very wearisome -- please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which explicitly contradicts your claim. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note I did a quick check on just the first item on the dab page: Adele's song "One and Only". It gets 5 sentences in the articles 21 (Adele album) ... and American Songwriter magazine has a whole article on the song. It also gets lots of mentions in reviews.
 * WP:Notability (music) states that a song must be significantly covered outside of album reviews by reliable secondary sources. One source alone independent of album reviews is not enough. There must also be enough material on the song itself to grow beyond a stub. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is a separate issue, about whether to have a standalone article; it is irrelevant to what we are discussing here.
 * Notability actually DOES need to be taken into account when determining a primary topic because qualifiers are needless when no other subject warrants a separate article. That also was just one song review included. How many copies its parent album sold is irrelevant. If it can be proven that Adele's song meets notability criteria, one might be able to argue that it's the primary topic, but so far there isn't enough evidence to prove it warrants a separate article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The notion that only topics with separate articles need to be considered as primary topics is explicitly rejected in WP:DAB and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary." As long as a topic is discussed somewhere on Wikipedia, it is a candidate for disambiguation, and Adele's song is more notable and historically important and more likely to be looked for by readers than this album is. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't prove with just one review that the song is a more likely search term. Additionally, when no other subject with a certain name (whether officially or informally known as such) is notable enough for a standalone article, one can reasonably go with a WP:CONCISE title that excludes qualifiers. I also don't see anything at WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT saying that terms without separate articles are eligible for primary topic consideration. This instance is not at all like the examples listed or even their nature. Also, let's be honest; it's not likely that anyone is going to search for a term without an article rather than one with an article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 01:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary" means if it doesn't mean that terms without separate articles are eligible for primary topic consideration? (How about Hurricane?) —BarrelProof (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Hurricane" is a better example of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT since Tropical cyclone is often called a hurricane, there other notable subjects called "Hurricane", and it happens to be the one most commonly referred to as such. Other good examples would be "Hitler" for Adolf Hitler and "JFK" for John F. Kennedy. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 02:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, not all tropical cyclones are referred to as hurricanes. The term "hurricane" is not used for storms that are in the Southern Hemisphere or the Indian Ocean – it is a term that applies only to certain tropical cyclones, not all of them, so it is not synonymous with the main topic of the article. As the lead says, it is a term that applies only "depending on its location and strength". Hurricanes do not have a separate article – they are a sub-topic discussed within another article. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * you continue to miss the point here.
 * It is not "sneakily disruptive" to redirect an article; I was simply being bold in redirecting. If nothing else is worth a standalone article, the sole existing article is essentially primary by default; it is not likely that someone is going to search for a subject without its own article over one that does. Again, album sales are not a relevant factor for a song's significance (or lack thereof) and one review alone is NOT enough to warrant a song's article or prove it is primary. Neither is a how much critics like it compared to other album tracks. Multiple substantial reviews (independent of album reviews) and perhaps high song sales could, but not just one review. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note again the wording of WP:PDAB, which says to disambiguate topics that are discussed anywhere on Wikipedia "either as the main topic of an article, or a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject". There is no special status conferred on a topic by having a separate article devoted to it, and there is no need to have a separate article for a topic simply because it is notable. We should only create separate articles when that is a better way to present the information (without excess fragmentation or duplication of content). —BarrelProof (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the effect your WP:BOLD redirection was to deprive readers of a disambiguation page. That was disruptive.  (It would have been a legitimate bold move to rename the dab page to One and Only (disambiguation), and link to it from elsewhere, but that's not what you did).
 * "Deprive" isn't really the right term since the redirect was to indicate that nothing else was notable (which does have at least some effect on whether qualifiers are needed) and thus the DAB was needless. There wasn't really any misleading or even attempts to mislead since I never denied any previous actions. In fact, I actually DID say earlier in this thread that I redirected due to no other terms meeting notability criteria. I am not "falsely asserting" when there obviously is a higher chance of someone looking for something with an article than something that doesn't, and when comparing significance, the significance of something not worthy of its own article is negligible (if even existant at all) since no significance = not worth article. WP:Notability and its subpages are NOT "arbitrary" tests. If Tsumetia Kaze to Kataomoi / Endless Sky / One and Only isn't simply a partial title match, one could simply use a referral to that article rather than have a DAB when a sole "One and Only" article exists. It obviously has greater significance than the Adele song since this passes WP:Notability (music) for multiple quality length reviews (even if not as detailed as one song review) while her song isn't (yet) proven to have independent notability from the album if only one source outside of album reviews covers it in a quality amount of detail. No confusion is being made here. I do admit this album article is rather short and needs work. However, it clearly has at least some degree of significance due to being covered in a fair amount of detail and more than just a passing mention. If levels of commercial success are any indicator, this helped brought the band to fame and earned them a nomination for "Best New Artist". Something that brings a an artist/group to prominence evidently has a significant impact on one's career and the music industry (even if said artist/group is not as popular as other musical acts). The Adele song in contrast did not at all affect her career or the music industry. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Snuggums, you continue to comment as if we were discussing notability. This discussion is not about notability, which has is a different issue with different criteria.


 * Oppose – no evidence this is the primary topic. sst✈(discuss) 16:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment why do we need separate disambiguation pages for "One and Only" and The One and Only ? The two should be merged together. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion about that at Talk:One and Only. Participation in the discussion is encouraged. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment if this is moved, the page history at (the page history there from prior to the dab merger) should be displaced to One and Only (disambiguation) to preserve contribution history. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2015 (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.