Jump to content

Talk:Bell (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004

[edit]

This article needs breaking up. Bell telephone, and cowbell don't belong on the same page. Lupin 10:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the instrument (which covers handbells, church bells, and even I think cowbells) is by far the most common bell, is what the English word bell normally means, and should be at 'bell' with other meanings at 'bell (disambiguation)'. TSP 03:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. -Joey- 23:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page move (2007)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Any opinions on whether this page should be at Bell (disambiguation) and Bell (instrument) at Bell?? Georgia guy 19:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support that. Uttaddmb 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support as well. -Hapsiainen 12:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After disambiguating 10 links, I think so too. --Alvestrand 14:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After disambiguating all of them (except for user pages and talk pages): don't bother. --Alvestrand 07:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the proposed move as well. The Proffesor 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Read this f you are writing "bell"

[edit]

Please don't blindly put bell when you should have bell. Hopefully some people will find this when they are creating pages. I've knocked the Bell disambig down to 120 or so from the 180 ... will take some more time later to try and do more. On another note, I'm all for having the bell as a disambig, and not directly going to the bell instrument page. --Rbeas 02:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bell shape?

[edit]

Stumbled on a link to Bell from jellyfish (Gonionemus) ... what about using bell as bell-shaped, does that need a wiki? I.e., list of bell-shaped objects?--Rbeas 03:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bell"

[edit]

I've added "The Bell", the Nazi experiment to conquer gravity . . . I don't know much about this though, so someone else could create the article.--Codenamecuckoo 08:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bells split

[edit]

There are many articles under Bells, which I believe should be split into a separate page with appropriate cross-references. When looking for the Bellingham Bells or Edgar Allan Poe's poem, a reader shouldn't have to wade through many dozen "Bell" articles. Matchups 05:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Bird

[edit]

I removed A Bell Bird, ancestor of the Do-Do bird, exstinct due to inept ability and laziness as possible attack plus Google says no such critter.--Dakota ~ ε 23:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More bells

[edit]

Article titles containing the word "bell", complete listing at http://www.wikiwax.com/ as of 08:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Placed here for sorting:

People

[edit]



Vehicles

[edit]

Places

[edit]

Sound-making devices

[edit]

Bell-shaped items

[edit]

Bell Telephone

[edit]

Companies

[edit]

Animals & plants

[edit]

Events

[edit]

Media

[edit]

Music

[edit]

Math & physics

[edit]

Other

[edit]

More bells - reply

[edit]

If Bell is used fo a middle name it should not be included in the dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Page Move, June 2010

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bell → Bell (disambiguation), to allow for Bell (instrument) → Bell, (with Bell (instrument) becoming a redirect)

This has been discussed before on this talk page and generally agreed to, though nothing has been done. Bell, as an instrument is by far the most common usage of this word, especially when it comes to 'wikilinks'. It recieves more traffic that most other topics on the dab page, except for Alexander Graham Bell, which isn't actually on this page. Also the Bell, as an instrument, is a topic to which many other wikipedia articles are connected to, including, subtopics, like church bells and bellfounding. (I am working on a Navbox for this subject at the moment.)

I can see objections being made on the part of disambiguation, and I am very aware that this will cause a huge amount of links to be erroneous. Hopefully creating a redirect at Bell (instrument) will temporary sort this out until they can once again be properly disambiguated. Excess work, however, should not be the reason not to move this page. Wikipedia does not have a finish date. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. For there to be a primary topic there must be a topic which is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term". It is my opinion that such a topic does not exist in this case. Many of the companies and places get significant numbers of hits and although it isn't clear how many of those come through this disambiguation page taken as a whole it is clear to me that there is no primary topic. Dpmuk (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

clan bell

[edit]

what section do they belong in? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 71.235.78.170, 7 June 2011

[edit]

Why did you lock it with the Palin reference in place?

71.235.78.170 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that; thanks for the heads-up. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Palin (OK, really someone who listened to Stephen Colbert) struck this article again. But it got fixed. http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/uvi91o/paul-revere-s-famous-ride Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 September 2015

[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. The wording of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC allows the bell instrument to be chosen as the primary topic, and there is consensus for that option. The guideline allows editors to consider both long-term significance and usage, so counting page hits is not the only criterion. It is hard to argue with SmokeyJoe, who said "No sensible person will search "bell" wanting Alexander Graham and be upset having an article on bell returned." EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– This is a clear application of the second part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "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." I think this wording was inserted since the last move request in 2010. The instrument is the original meaning of the term, after which all others are named, and has more long term significance than any other. I also think it's a contender for primary topic on common usage. This seems to me to be quite a similar example to Apple vs Apple Inc. where the original and traditional meaning is primary.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support – I find the present situation very strange. A bell is a bell, and clearly the primary topic of the word bell is the thing called a bell. Everything else that involves the word "bell" is derived from either the image of symbolism of a bell. RGloucester — ☎ 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - On Wikipedia the "primary topic" for a given term is not the topic most likely to pop into your brain when you encounter the term, as RGloucester seems to think; it is the topic most likely to be sought when people are searching with that term. Huge difference, that. This is a clear example of why the relatively new second part of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC contradicts the original first part and thus creates ambiguous, confusing and useless guidance, serves no beneficial purpose for anyone, should be removed, and should be ignored until it is. While bell is a widely known common object, it simply is not a topic that people frequently seek to read about in any encyclopedia. A relatively paltry 5,000 views per month [1] for the instrument, while Alexander Graham Bell, for example, gets 10 times as many [2] at 51,000. Even Bell Labs gets almost four times as many views as the instrument, at almost 19,000 [3], and that's just one of the dozens of topics listed on this Bell dab page. Moving the instrument to the plain base name serves no beneficial purpose for anyone. --В²C ☎ 15:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose largely per B2C. Unlike the apple example, where there are really just two options (the fruit and the tech company), there are multiple entries competing for primacy here. I can't fathom that Alexander Graham Bell (who died in 1922) or Bell Labs (founded 1925) benefit from the sort of recentism the second part of WP:PT is meant to protect against. Calidum 16:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, neither Bell Labs nor Alexander Graham Bell are primarily known as just "Bell". "Bell" without qualification means a bell. Bells are of longer historical significance and educational value. I agree that the primary topic is not necessarily what first comes to mind, as B2C says, and as the guidelines say, but the guidelines also say "Of course, coming first to mind does not preclude primary topic". Note that the relevant guidelines, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, say that a topic is primary "if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". That clearly applies to the original "bell", which goes back thousands of years, and is the origin of all other things called "bell". Merely because people search for Graham Bell or Bell Labs does not mean that "Bell" is not the primary topic of "Bell". Pages views for either of those pages are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what users expect when they search for "Bell", and that's a bell by all indications. Please see the guidelines again, which say that something is the primary topic "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". The opposers have provided no evidence that people searching for "Bell" want "Bell Labs" or "Alexander Graham Bell". RGloucester — ☎ 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there was a way to know what people are seeking when they search with a given search term. Oh, wait, there is a way. It's called "Google". Google is wholly devoted to monitoring what people ultimately select when they search with a given term, and displaying results in order of likelihood accordingly. Regardless of what people ARE seeking when they are searching for "bell", we know with virtual certainty that it's unlikely to be the instrument (which is all that is relevant here) because no links to anything about the instrument appear on the first page of results from a Google search for "bell". We may not have evidence that people searching for "bell" want "Bell Labs" or "Alexander Graham Bell", but we do have very strong evidence that they don't want the instrument. Let's not give them something they are very unlikely to be seeking. --В²C ☎ 18:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
B2C: I think the point you may be missing is that Wikipedia is not Google. You're right that Google does order its results based almost entirely on popularity, but Wikipedia takes into account other more encyclopedic considerations – which is appropriate since it's an encyclopedia and not a search engine. That's why Google's first page of results for "apple" returns nothing but information about the company, while Wikipedia gives primary topic status to the fruit. That the company is unquestionably the more popular destination does not (and should not) override the fact that the fruit represents the more enduring and fundamental meaning of the term: hence its occupancy of the primary topic. This case seems similar. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Huwmanbeing, no, I do of course recognize that WP is not Google. The point I think you're missing, however, is that determining primary topic based on usage is not treating WP like it's Google. It's simply a consistent and objective way to decide between titles that are about equally reasonable, useful and helpful. --В²C ☎ 16:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although the bell is not as significant to humans as the apple, the apple being perhaps the earliest tree to be cultivated and responsible for the Fall of man, the bell is very significant to humans and has been for thousands of years, and an article on bells is to be naturally expected when going to the main encyclopedia article under the simple title of "bell". B2C's inability to cope with nuanced guidance should be ignored, and what people search for should be unimportant because Wikipedia is not a search engine. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP is not a search engine, but what people search for with a given term is the essential question in determining what people are most likely to search for with that term. --В²C ☎ 16:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the problem with "nuanced" contradictory guidance is that it can be (and is) easily interpreted to suit one's predilections. The responses to this proposal exemplify this characteristic. Perhaps that's what you like about it? --В²C ☎ 16:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sensible reader is not going to search for Alexander Graham using "bell" and not expect to come up with an article on the bell. Long term significant is very important, because it means the concept permeates literature, over time, and widely over current audiences. If you think I have a predilection towards logical title-structuring, with simple things at simple titles, and highly specific things at more specific titles, you are right. I think that is a good thing. All readers everywhere in this world know about the bell, even readers unfamiliar with Alexander Graham and telephones, and all of them can appreciate that "bell" first refers to the bell. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because a title meets the low hurdle of avoiding surprise does not mean it's a good title, let alone the one that best meets WP:CRITERIA. My point about title predilections wasn't not about yours personally, but about the fact that everyone has them, and that vague, ambiguous and contradictory guidelines do not help us sort out differences created by those predilections. The whole thing is ridiculous considering how unimportant titles really are. The cost of being at one title rather than another is dwarfed by the cost of arguing which among two fine titles is preferred by vague criteria. That's why my goal is to make the guidelines less vague and the titles better in line with them: to reduce the silly bickering. --В²C ☎ 19:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making the guidelines less vague would be a laudable goal, plenty to do there, but you mix every effort with your perverse titling theories (generally minimalism), and an obstinate refusal to consider importance of usefulness of titles in a wide variety of contexts, including listings in the category system and downstream PDF outputs. I think the two points in PrimaryTopic that you call contradictory can be reconciled, but agree it may be difficult. In the meantime, both should be considered, and consideration given to which is more clearly applicable. Here, I don't think it is reasonable that readers will be searching for something other the bell when searching "bell", or would query something else when wanting the bell, so the search point is pretty weak, while on the other hand the bell has a very long history and clear significance as detailed in the article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? In a discussion where I favor Bell (instrument) and you favor Bell you're going to accuse me of being the minimalist? Facepalm Facepalm Anyway, the only way to reconcile between the two contradictory guidelines (usage and long-term significance) in a case like this is totally and completely subjective. Reasonable arguments can always be rationalized to go with one or the other. Neither is ever objectively stronger. The guidance is useless. You might as well toss a coin, or count !votes. There is nothing else anyone can do. I can't imagine how a guideline could be any worse (that is, provide even less guidance) than by indicating either of two choices is equal in preference. Can you? --В²C ☎ 16:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you are not obviously following simple minimalism here, but it does fit. You prefer the most popular pages to have the shortest titles, bell is not top of popularity, so you oppose it being at the short title.
I already gave reasonably objective reasons for why likely topic sought, is unclear, every reader searching for another bell should know that bell will likely lead to bell, and long term significance is undeniable. Given two things to consider, one is unclear, the other clear, go with the one that is clear.
And in any case, your apparent premise that subjective=bad is not true. Subjectiveness is a matter of subjective impression. When something seems subjective, the thing to do is to look deeper, to make more effort required to understand others' decision making process.
Four of your last six sentences are absolute nonsense. If you can't understand how others can make a decision, it is not helpful to make so much noise about it. Find something where you can be productive.
I think reconciliation of the two points in PRIMARYTOPIC might be achieved by inserting "logically" or "intelligently" after "searches" into "when a reader searches for that term". No sensible person will search "bell" wanting Alexander Graham and be upset having an article on bell returned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


No, B2C, the fact that not every proposal for primary topic status gets accepted doesn't mean we don't follow the principle. We do. For instance:
I think you get the idea. In each of these cases, one is currently much more popular in terms of traffic (both here and at Google) and one is more fundamental and of enduring notability... and in each of these cases we favor enduring notability. I understand you don't like that, but nonetheless that is how we as an encyclopedia generally operate, and it's why I consider it reasonable to consider following the same precedent here. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:40, 22 September 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bell_(disambiguation)&oldid=1242568577"