Talk:Ring My Bell

Collette version

No mention of the awesomely camp version of this song by Aussie/Kiwi disco diva Collette. Tooironic (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Also used in:

Taco Bell commercials (1990s?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.106.217.125 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be two levels of innuendo if true, but looks like it was Burger King. -- GreenC 17:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested moves

The following discussion is an archived 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

---

• Ring My Bell → Ring My Bell (Anita Ward song)
• Ring My Bell (disambiguation) → Ring My Bell

– I guess there are some various title "Ring My Bell". If you think this don't deserves to move, feel free to comment below. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 03:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was never really designed for media products which are unrecognizable without artist name, and this doesn't pass WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anyway. In ictu oculi (talk)
• Oppose. Sorry, but the fact that other articles exist doesn't mean we can't have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - in fact, that's the whole point of the guideline. Here, both usage and enduring notability back up the current setup. So far this month, the Anita Ward song has gotten 2,036 pageviews, versus 256 for all the other articles on the disambiguation page combined. (DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince) + (Hitomi Yaida) + Gimme All (Ring My Bell).) So people are looking for this page by a nearly 10:1 margin. Dohn joe (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support I am honestly not sure (nor, I suppose, can anyone be) how many of the pageviews for the Anita Ward song arose from error, as that song occupies the base title. My intuition is that the more recent 2013 song would be the one most searched for, though an argument on that basis would be flawed by RECENTISM. The simple fact is that -- given the bias introduced in the pageviews by the status quo of having Ward's song at the base title -- I cannot consider that evidence reliable for the purposes of PRIMARYTOPIC. Since pageviews are of limited utility under the circumstances, moving the disambiguation page to the base title seems to maximize the ease of reader navigation. Xoloz (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per statistics. What makes up a primarytopic, something that gets 100% of the hits, 80%, 51% or more than any of the other potential target. Do we actually care about readers going to the wrong page as long as it is not disambiguated? Are we bound to restart the RM debate every time a new song with the same title hits the charts? And with regard to songs how we do substantiate by demographic, age, nationality, and all the other variables that go into making a "primarytopic?" This is why there is WP:SONGDAB and why the nomination is good and correct. Xoloz's comments are worth reading, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, we care a great deal about sending readers to the wrong page! That's the whole point of this discussion. If we make "Ring My Bell" a disambiguation page, we will potentially be sending thousands of people each month to the wrong page, and making it more difficult for them to get to the right page. And you'll have to spell out how demographics and nationality go into primarytopic. I'd thought that our only demographic was "readers". Dohn joe (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dohn joe. Anybody not sure of what they are looking for will (probably) find it at the disambiguation page, those looking for the Anita Ward song will find it at Ring My Bell (Anita Ward song). Whereas with your argument anybody looking for a song called "Ring My Bell" will finish up at the wrong page by default, to be redirected to the disambiguation page and then to the page they were actually looking for (if WP actually has an article on that particular "Ring My Bell"). How many extra clicks do you want to create? --Richhoncho (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The way that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC works, is we decide that a particular title has a topic that is much more likely to be sought than the other articles with that title. That way, we send most people to the correct article when they type the title and hit enter, and most editors will be correctly linking an article when they put double brackets around that title. We are pretty sure that most people and editors are thinking about France when they search for or link to Paris. Are there other Parises? Absolutely. Are people looking for those Parises misdirected when they type "Paris" and hit enter? Yes. But by far more people are getting where they want. Keeping this article at the current title means that somewhere around 90% of people looking for "Ring My Bell" are going where they want. Your solution would force 100% of people to go to a page that they don't want - the dab page. True, the 90% of people who want the Anita Ward song will likely find it at the dab page. But only after extra clicks. Your solution is the one that imposes extra clicks on a vast majority of users. Dohn joe (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. You are wrong. If you want to continue this discussion let's find another venue, rather than across a multitude of RMs. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, Dohn joe is absolutely correct on how wp:primarytopic works. Perhaps my !vote below will help to understand. Regards, ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Primarytopic only works if EVERYBODY knows exactly what the primarytopic should be. At any point there is any confusion it no longer works. The Anita Ward song is PT for readers of a certain demographic (which, to be fair, includes me), but nobody else. I repeat, once again, this is why PT is eschewed for cultural items. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a question of demographics, personally I'm not part of the disco generation and it's hardly my favourite music genre, but about being able to judge "enduring notability", which undeniably RMB has reckoning the frequency of inclusion in "disco era greatest hits" compilations and assures its place in music history. ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What victor falk? Much of WP is demographic-sensitive. US-centric is just one alleged demographic. Is there an age demographic? Do we know? I think there is, but you obviously neither know nor care. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Shh, you're divulging the true ruling cabal of wikipedia: crusty disco hipsters. Pay no attention whatsoever to those pokemon articles, they are just plants to fool the sheeple... ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dohn joe. Clear cut wp:primarytopic by both quantitative (90% being enough to satisfy someone like me that demands statistically significant numbers and not merely vague "x>y") and qualitative ("Ring my bell" being one of the absolute most famous disco hits with "enduring notability" and "educational value"). Since so many songs, albums, etc had parenthetical dabs, it is very easy for editors of such articles to be lulled into the belief it is standard that applies to all articles. Not so. This nomination is apparently based on nothing else than "that title doesn't have the "... (artist name)" dab, and they are others with the same name, so it should be added." This is a superfluous disambiguation per WP:CONCISE (not to mention a breach of WP:NATURALDIS, avoid parenthetical disambiguators). The point is, to paraphrase wp:at, is that titles are there to "uniquely and recognisably identify an article". That disambiguators happen to provide extra information is an entirely secondary effect that is irrelevant, because the job of providing information (like who's the singer, when was it released, who wrote it, what was its chart ranking, etc), is the article's, not the title's. ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dohn joe et al. I'm starting to find nominations along these lines, of which there have been many lately, borderline disruptive. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 21:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Two of the other three entries at the dab page are derivatives and the third is barely an article on a much less notable song. —  AjaxSmack  21:01, 17 June 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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ring My Bell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1050chum.com/index_chumcharts.aspx?chart=1176
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130920064608/http://infodisc.fr/Bilan_W.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/Bilan_W.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/19790630.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/muggy59/1979.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106213449/http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=40276 to http://australian-charts.com/forum.asp?todo=viewthread&id=40276
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303183205/http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/1979.php to http://longboredsurfer.com/charts/1979.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_display.jsp?f=Hot%20R&B%2FHip-Hop%20Songs&g=Year-end%20Singles&year=1982
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1979YESP.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714191330/http://www.infodisc.fr/S_ToutTemps.php?debut=961 to http://www.infodisc.fr/S_ToutTemps.php?debut=961

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture sleeve?

I appreciate your reinsertion of File:RINGBELL.jpg, JGabbard. However, none of the releases use this image. Search for others if you want to confirm. --George Ho (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure it's used. Check out page two. It's on the 2003 CD (UK). - JGabbard (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If the 2003 CD (UK) means this, JGabbard, the release is not the actual single release but the compilation album using the same name. The identification is not accurate to the song/single. Also, when you said page 2, I guess you meant the one under the "Compilations" section, right? Almost forgot to say that the PROD tag is still there. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If you prefer a picture sleeve, how about this one instead? --George Ho (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The alternative image, which I feel features a somewhat less flattering photo of Anita, is also single-specific and therefore would be acceptable. I would, however, like to see a clear consensus of preference before any such change be made. - JGabbard (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

JGabbard, I wonder whether you are still aware that the image is PRODded, especially after I told you already. Regardless, please feel free to revert my PRODding if you wish. I could upload a non-free image of the German release. However, I would find the picture sleeve replaceable and unnecessary, especially per WP:NFCC#Rationale. George Ho (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you removed the PROD, so I took it to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 October 19#File:RINGBELL.jpg.

Blood sisters version

Should this page mention the cover version by The Blood Sisters? 92.15.88.233 (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)