Talk:Hells Bells (song)

Hells Bells

Remove the statement about Rolling Thunder & HALO. Include a statement about Rolling Thunder and Vietnam. Children with no sense of history, tsk tsk! Check the album: it's Hells Bells! no apostrophe! --Fireblues 18:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC) I have to agree with Fireblues. Although grammatically there should be an apostrophe, the band has never included one. 24.235.103.202 15:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Back In Black

It states that this song was on the Who Made Who album (caption for the picture). This couldn't be farther from the truth: it is track 1 on Back In Black and NOT Who Made Who.

68.198.112.113 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC) The song is featured on the "Who Made Who" album, but it appeared on "Back in Black" first. "Who Made Who" was a soundtrack, not an album, so while there was some new material, a few AC/DC classics were added to the album, including "Hells Bells."

Big Ben

The paragraph about Big Ben is true. It's not vandalism.

Then provide a reference, spell everything correctly, write it from a npov and resubmit. Bongwarrior 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Look in the BBC archives. I know it's in there. Put the bong down. There was also a video interview that went to VHS for a time. I owned that in the late 80s. Wish I had it now.

Unspecified source for Image:ACDC Who Made Who.JPG

I found Image:ACDC Who Made Who.JPG and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ACDC Who Made Who.JPG

Image:ACDC Who Made Who.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Covers

The Dandy Warhols covered this song and it was released on a bonus Australia only cd along with Thirteen Tales from Urban Bohemia. Not sure if it's notable though. --phocks (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

also: daft punk - aerodynamic starts with the same bells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.45.233 (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Replacement

Should one say that Brian Johnson was a replacement? I understand that many believe Bon Scott was a better vocalist, but that does not mean Brian was his replacement. AC/DC considered him as a successor not a replacement. McDABest (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Comeback album?

The first sentence says this song is from their comeback album. "Back in Black" was not a comeback album. They were extremely famous with "Highway to Hell" being released before "Back in Black." Does anyone think we should change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.112.113 (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC) No it isn't a comeback in the sense that you are speaking of, however it is a comeback from Bon Scott's death however it is easy to take the wrong way and hence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.226.176 (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Stupid

This song is so pointless. I don't understand why it's so popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.30.174 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus Aervanath (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Hells Bells (song) → Hells Bells – The article "Hells Bells (song)" is about a song, "Hells Bells", which does not include an apostrophe in its name. Currently, Hells Bells is a redirect to a disambiguation page Hell's bells, which does include an apostrophe. All the other entries at the dab page have an apostrophe except for one, HellsBelles. Hells Bells (song) would be the primary topic over HellsBelles, and arguably "Hells Bells (song)" is the the primary topic for all the entries in Hell's Bells. Its not user friendly for a reader who enters the correct spelling without an apostrophe (Hells Bells) to get redirected to a page with an apostrophe (Hells's bells) to finally select a name without the apostrophe (Hells Bells (song)).—Bagumba (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If moved, the article should include a hatnote such as "This article is about the song with no apostrophe in its name. For other uses, see Hell's bells."—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is not in the interest of readers to have such obviously useful information removed. Who is inconvenienced, and how, by the present arrangement? With respect, it seems that the proposal to move this page serves only one purpose: the narrowest legalistic satisfaction of provisions in policy and guidelines. The phrase "hells bells" – with whatever capitalisation and whatever punctuation applied – cries out for interpretation. Do not remove such an easy and immediate provision from the present title. Please! Noetica^Tea? 01:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There would be a hatnote that points to Hell's bells, which will still exist, so nothing is being "removed".—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Something is being removed from the title, so that people will end up at an article probably irrelevant to their needs before being informed of somewhere else they will have to look. That is, when and if they see the hatnote. Why make things hard and slow, when it is desperately simple to keep them easy and quick? Noetica^Tea? 01:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC] )

It seems like the tradeoff between inconveniencing correct spellers, versus concern that incorrect spellers will also not notice the hatnote. A spelling like Shawn Jones does not redirect to Sean Jones assuming the users might not know how to spell. In any event, your point is noted, and others can comment.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't for one minute go along with Bagumba's arguments. Article names needs to be sufficiently specific to avoid encouraging readers to visit them, only to find out that they've been mislead—apostrophe or not. Hell's bells, often misspelt as hells bells (a straight repetition visually as well as aurally) is a common term; if there's no competition for this article-title space, there very likely will be in the future. Who wants that hassle too? Tony (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support move back to original title per WP:PRECISE. Completely agree with the nom that readers looking for the popular song and correctly spelling it shouldn't be needlessly shunted to a dab page. But even if one disagrees with that reasoning, the song is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, getting way over double the views of the Buffy episode and more than all other uses combined, even liberally construed (i.e. including the Belles spellings). Station1 (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)"He
• Support per Station1. This is the primary topic by a country mile, regardless of the other arguments, which themselves are not without merit. Move and add the hatnote. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It may be the primary topic for a while, but the song, like most pop music songs, will almost certainly prove ephemeral and be replaced by other pop music songs, and those by others, and so on. I have seen thousands of pop music songs come and go, ever since before the Beatles arose. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. There are 0 English-language Google Book hits for "Hells Bells (song)" AC/DC -wikipedia, compared to 201 for "Hells Bells" AC/DC -wikipedia. Kauffner (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tony. I believe more users will be inconvenienced by the proposed move. The specificity of the title is required to differentiate it from similarly titled articles: the lack/presence of an apostrophe notwithstanding.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• I support the move only because I'm a stickler for detail and like that it be accurate. But can you really say that users, in either case, will be "inconvenienced". Having to click one or two extra times doesn't qualify as an inconvenience for me. Maybe some people still have really slow internet. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment on primary topic As of stats up to October 18, here are the number of views in the last 30 days for items on the Hells Bells dab currently:

  Hells Bells (song): 5675

  One of Kind: 624

  "Hell's Bells" (Buffy the Vampire Slayer): 2410

  Hell's Bells (TV series): 102

  Silly Symphonies: 6447

  Hell's Bells: 1214

  The Dangers of Rock 'N' Roll: 606

  Deadly Towers: 950

  Hell's Belles: 936

  Hell's Belles (film): 325

  Hell's Belles (band): 755

  HellsBelles: 380

  Hell's Bells (plant): 23

  Hell's Bells (play): 140

Note the entry for Silly Symphonies is: "Hell's Bells (1929 film), a part of the Walt Disney Silly Symphonies animated series", so there's no accurate way to gauge what percentage of views of Silly Symphonies is from this dab. However, I do not believe that users are coming to Hells Bells for information of the 1929 film to get to Silly Symphonies.—Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. The page views establish without any question that there is no primary topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Care to explain that? It seems rather obvious to me that there is a primary topic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Majority is not the same as a primary topic. Care to explain why I'm wrong? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

More than twice as many views as any other, most of which are pretty insignificant in terms of page traffic. Some of them are also highly questionable in terms of notability, such as a play by a non-notable playwright, a Christian documentary film (by another non-notable creator) whose article makes no attempt to establish notability, and a band who exist solely to cover songs such as the one we're dealing with here. Three other topics do not have even slightly similar names. Removing articles that wouldn't survive an AfD and the articles with different names, the song has more page views than all the others put together, making it the primary topic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Twice as many as any other, is not primary use, that is twice as many views as one page. You need to look at the total picture. If the other articles are not notable, that is not an issue in determining primary use. And if they are not notable, why do they get a reasonable number of hits? Again, primary use is not simply more views, it is a more like an overwhelming percentage, especially if you want to displace a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at the whole picture. Number of hits do not indicate notability, that's why we have notability guidelines. Notability of other articles will indirectly become a factor in determining primary use if those non-notable articles are deleted, which they ought to be. That could easily be done. The guideline doesn't mention an overwhelming percentage, it talks about "much more likely than any other topic" (pretty clear here); and "more likely than all other topics combined", and it's often just a matter of consensus, hence this discussion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Presence or absence of an apostrophe is no difference, judging how often apostrophes appear and disappear in popular usage. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• To most people "Hells Bells" is the same as Hell's bells, which is a disambig page with 13 choices. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Audio system test

Apparently this recording is considered a test for audio systems. I don't know if it is used widely.

• Geere, Duncan (19 July 2013). "Inside the insane 50,000-watt Ibiza speaker stack built by LCD Soundsystem's James Murphy". The Verge. Vox Media. Despacio, on the other hand, has been designed specifically to reproduce both modern dance music and "Hells Bells" as accurately as possible.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 21:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Would need more evidence that this is widely used and discussed, almost like those frequently removed pop culture references of "Hells Bells is played during XYZ event"

Who played the bell?

The article doesn't say who the bell was played by. Does anyone know who it was? The bell was one of the unique things about this song.--Kevjgav (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, was it one stroke which then was repeatedly used in the studio, or a proper ringing? --2003:C6:3726:7C42:851E:CE2B:4F7F:2470 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It was the same bell they used on stage, the one they had specially commissioned. The bell was still being manufactured, so they tried to record a church bell at a church nearby. That didn't work out, so they went back to the bell that was being made for them. It was recorded in the bell foundry where it was made, by engineer Tony Platt, using Ronnie Lane's Mobile Studio. The bell was hung up in the foundry and struck by the bellfounder's employee who built it. No idea who he was. Mutt Lange mixed the bell sound and slowed it down to sound like a bigger, heavier bell. This should all be in the article if a suitable source can be found. Must be in a book somewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

New amendment citing SOS magazine source

Hello again. Unfortunately I cannot put this in correctly; you can see I have had several attempts. I do not understand the technical "Cite error A" If you can help me this this I would be very grateful. At age 76 I am not as computer literate as I would like to be. Thanks 83.61.200.173 (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Use in sports

There was an inordinate amount of trivia in the article surrounding the song's use as Trevor Hoffman's entrance music. I'm sure if you were a San Diego Padres fan, this event seemed significant in your life, but outside of that, does the English-speaking world even barely aware of this? It's trivia and deserves a mention, sure, but all the other stuff is more suited to the Trevor Hoffman article. Hell, I'm a sports fan and I know who Hoffman was but I had no idea they used this music for him. One sentence is plenty. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, the content was previously four sentences supported by eight reliable sources, which seemed in line with the WP:CULTURALREFS guideline and not "inordinate".—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The addition of its appearance on an NHL arena playlist sourced only to a non-independent team website, even with a mere one sentence mention, needs multiple, independent sources that discuss its significance. A lot of sports events play this song. We should limit listings to the one where there is demonstrated significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I get that. And there are more sources available; as I said, I just grabbed the first one I found after I deleted another guy's unsourced addition, because I knew that the info was factual, and I felt bad about it. I agree that not every trivial use of the song in sports should be on the page (as it was in the past, I saw that in the history), but I also feel the love letter to Hoffman could be trimmed a bit, as it's really not that big a deal when it comes to the history of the song, more a big deal to Padres fans. The Devils usage (and the Calgary Flames usage) is pretty significant as well. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Re: baseball, the "love letter", as you refer to it, is four sentences. Two are about the song's significance to baseball, a third is a tie in to AC/DC's Brian Johnson. I could understand "not that big a deal" if it was a rambling paragraph, but it's quite compact. Maybe it just looks like a lot because the rest of the page is sparse so far?—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems like a lot of filler to me. Mariano Rivera is much more notable reliever, and his walk-out music is really well-known (to baseball fans, anyway), and the Enter Sandman article features exactly one sentence about it, which feels appropriate. Meanwhile, this song's page had: a fluff opinion piece by Gary Peterson (whoever that is) that mentions the song once. Another fluff piece by Kaitee Daley (Senior Director, ESPN Social, wow) that does the same, and those two non-notable people are instead credited in the text as "San Jose Mercury News and ESPN.com", which they're not, they are just two people. Brian Johnson recorded a video message for Hoffman's retirement ceremony in 2011 - great, but isn't that trivia as well, and only tangentially related to the song itself? Would you put that sentence on the Brian Johnson article? Of course not.

The "forerunner in the heavy metal theme songs for closers" is actually contradicted by one of the two sources used for that sentence - says right in the Slate article that Billy Wagner was using Enter Sandman since 1996, two years before Hoffman was using Hells Bells. The Sandman article doesn't even mention him - and rightly so, in my book. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Rivera gets into WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST issues, so is not a good comparison.—Bagumba (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That policy appears to be about deletion discussions, so not relevant here. JimKaatFan (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's more the spirit. Maybe "Enter Sandman" should have mention, but it currently doesn't. Maybe Rivera had a more decoreated career, so this is a minor to him. Maybe "his" song is not as synonymous with him. The point is that something not exisiting or even existing is not an end all argument. It's generally better to deal with each on its own merits.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the main issue is if we don't demonstrate that a few sentences can be written about a cultural reference based on multiple sources—not to be confused with WP:GNG—this will go back to being an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of every random mention of the song with no context given to the reader about their significance. What would be the objective criteria to determine if an entry belongs?—Bagumba (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

My whole point was the sourcing on those extra sentences was extremely weak. I'm sure there's a policy somewhere about padding an entry with weak sourcing. The mention of Hoffman's walk-out music is significant. That's plenty. JimKaatFan (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. But if someone that didn't know background with Hoffman looks at what's currently written, it also reads as "who cares?" without context, or an invitation to put more items where it was played, just because it's true. That what the NHL item looks like currently.—Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add a little more detail to the NHL item, and another source. After all, the Devils played that song when the Devils took the ice for about 15 years, spanning tenures in 2 different arenas. And if someone cares about Hoffman's intro music, they can click on his name, his article has like 3 paragraphs and 3 other mentions of the song scattered throughout. But this is the article about the song itself; one or two sentences is plenty, because this is trivia. JimKaatFan (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

As a reference, here's an example of the random playings that used to be listed. If we assume they are all true, how would you suggest filtering the notable ones going forward?—Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Look, we agree that that list is ridiculous. Like I said, I didn't add the NJ Devils entry, and I even deleted it at first, if you look at the history, but because I had personal knowledge of that being factual, I took a minute to find a source and add a sentence. That's all the page needs. A sentence, maybe two. And one or two solid sources. JimKaatFan (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

JimKaatFan, I'm not bagging on you for the NHL. I've been filtering items if editors couldn't come up with a few sentences on the signficance. If we stop using that criteria, I'm wondering what standard you think could be fairly applied when everyone will want "their" item added. Getting rid of the wide "In popular culture" header helped perviously, but "In sports" opens it back up.—Bagumba (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I have the article on my watchlist and obviously so do you. It doesn't open anything back up. Nearly every item on that bloated list that you linked to earlier was unsourced. If an unsourced item is added, it'll be removed. Easy enough. And there's zero difference between "use in baseball" and "use in sports". Don't you think you're getting into WP:BLUDGEON territory here? JimKaatFan (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)