Talk:Devil Woman (Cliff Richard song)

Unclear

My impression of this is that there are two meanings for "Devil Woman" that have nothing to do with one another. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to go pasting the second definiton elsewhere if it has something to do with the song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.81.33.39 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Many people posit that the song is, in fact, about a man who has been ruined by a "scarlet woman" warning others away. Cliff has on numerous occasions refuted this claiming the song is not in any way about a sexual topic. Whatever; it's a cracking song.--Wangpangu (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little thing, Bruce Willis didn't cover this song at the premiere of Sin City. The "Devil Woman" he covered was from a band called the Red Devils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.55.74 (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Willis

There's no way the Bruce Willis version is in any way a cover of the Cliff Richard song. That's like suggesting Linux is a cover of Windows.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist: Cliff Richard Song Bruce Willis Song

Rysin3 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Bruce Willis from this article and added the red devils song to other uses page with a reference to Bruce Willis, as somebody has already said; it's a cover of the Red Devils' song, not Cliff Richard. Rysin3 (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves

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: no consensus to move, per the discussion below. I'd also note that WP:SONGDAB asks us to disambiguate by name "when necessary;" disambiguation is not necessary when the primary topic can be determined, and WP:SONGDAB does not indicate that we can never determine the primary topic in these cases. Dekimasuよ! 02:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:SONGDAB asks that when there are two or more songs with the same to disambiguate by the artist's name, The underlying reason for this request is that song notability relates to the ear, age, musical preferences, nationality, language and sex of the reader. Deciding which is primary topic (which not a compulsory guideline) between a 52-year old song and a 38-year old song is of no benefit to anybody. In all likelihood, the most sought after song will be the latest - which doesn't have a article namespace. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Richhoncho (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - for all the reasons in nomination. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Evidence is needed to prove it is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 04:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on both sides of argument. Ear and musical preference is much the same. Nationality and language? the song gained higher chart position than in the UK in France, Ireland and Norway and in 5 English speaking countries. However it only got to No1 in South Africa. Sex of reader may potentially relate to appeal of the song (depending perhaps on orientation) but not necessarily on notability. The Richard's song has been widely covered including by one instance now marked on the disambiguation page. (I suspect that the style of the song and of the artist may have had a negative effect on the use of the topic in later songs). Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye. You made me do some research. Apparently Robbins made 5 with his song, whereas Richard only made 9 in the UK. Robbins No 1 in the US Country charts which means it probably (I got fed up of searching!) charted on the main US chart. At what point can anybody "decide" which song is primary over the other? That's without considering other songs with the same name. Even you refer to "negative effects" which may color the decision of some. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not a compulsory guideline, it uses words like "may" and "sometimes" and requires consensus to apply, and that can easily be affected by who sees the RM - there is no consistency how these RMs turn out, just depends on which group of fans (artist, genre fan, WP guideline, age et al) turn up in the week. By disambiguating this song we have avoided further moves and future proved the article against the next notable song that comes along called, "Devil Woman." I do appreciate (and apply) primarytopic, but when comparing apples and pears it does not work. FWIW, last time I looked all the links came into this article via Devil Woman (Cliff Richard song) because those that kept moving from there were more concerned about making a point than ease of use of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't expressed a vote. My heart says support on the basis that the Richard song isn't, in my POV, a great and even though, adding POV to POV, the other songs aren't any better, I would consider it a service to music to move the Richard song from the name space. However I would also consider, for worse of for better, that the Richard song has had a more enduring cultural impact. I don't personally have an argument against primary topic. The Richard song got to #1 in the national charts of at least one country and has had enduring cultural impact. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye. Sorry, I appreciate you didn't cast a !vote I added/commented on your comment. I just wanted to discuss some points you raised. FWIW I also think "cultural impact" means "commercial impact" and that goes towards notability, but not necessarily to apply primary topic (as stated above) but I think we both want to leave that to another day, happy editing.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This page got 6,059 page views in the last 90 days, the Marty Robbins song got 1,388. The third most likely search destination is a Philippino film, but we don't have an article about it. Claimsworth (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2014 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Devil Woman. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]