Talk:Back from the Edge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Back from the Edge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 8 January 2017[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. Clear primary topic, according to consensus. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back from the Edge (album) → Back from the Edge – WP:TWODABS. Even the dab page is more popular than the song.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment before proposing blanking of a dab page it's important to check that a dab page is complete. In this case several of the items which should have been included per WP:DABMENTION weren't included. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No longer a two-way DAB. No attempt to fix the now invalid rationale since this potential problem was pointed out the day after the RM was raised. Not worth relisting IMO. Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting it per my comments below. The rationale isn't really faulty as there are still only two articles on topics of this name (and none of the other recent additions have more than a mention of topics of this name).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's an amount of recentism here as the album just came out last year, but there's no indication that any other topic challenges it in terms of either page views or significance. It receives *97.8%* of the traffic[2]; most of the other uses don't have articles or substantial coverage in any other article. Additionally, the album appears to have been quite successful and garnered coverage in many sources, none of which can be said about the other topics.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as looks like disambiguation is good in this case. Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it look good? Unreal7 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Yikes. 98% of pageviews?!?! And nothing else remotely as significant. Dohn joe (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's arguably the most significant topic: Gold album, weekly chart peak at #1, position on the yearly chart (all in its country of origin only). But that doesn't make it the primary topic, it needs to be more significant than all other topics combined. Page views are notoriously unreliable even as indicators of English usage, let alone of significance. Andrewa (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Chart positions and certifications mean that the album overwhelmingly exceeds all other topics with the same name in long-term significance. feminist (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Station1 (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2017 (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.

Strange long chart trajectory[edit]

the first single reached only #11 on the weekly charts in the billboard hot 100 but reached the same position in the year end charts there

the album reached only 39 on the weekly charts but was strong enough and sold enough to reach #66 on the year end billboard 200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:191:5FA0:3584:5B4D:9775:673 (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]