Talk:Rag Doll (Aerosmith song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rag Doll (Aerosmith song) 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

Aerosmith (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aerosmith, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.AerosmithWikipedia:WikiProject AerosmithTemplate:WikiProject AerosmithAerosmith articles

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal 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.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Neutrality?

The claims that the song's lyrics are "very catchy" and that it is a staple of rock radio don't seem very neutral to me. LemonBowl 17:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, it's just a song, not a pressing global issue. I guess I was just trying to spice up the vocabularly, instead of being so generic. But really, the song was popular on rock radio back in 1988 and it still gets played today...how is it not a staple, then. There are plenty of songs out there that were played on rock radio back then that don't get played today. And the song's melody and the lyrics that go with it are very poppy, or "catchy", in nature...just listen for yourself. Abog 01:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so, but Wikipedia policies must be observed, and LemonBowl's point of it violating WP:NPOV is a valid one. 147.70.242.40 13:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ragdoll.jpg

Image:Ragdoll.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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video?

The "Song structure" section says, "The video (see below) is based on the album version of the song" - but there is no mention of the video below that statement. JezGrove (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a "Music video" section below the "Song structure" section but it was removed in this edit: Special:Diff/1031665302/next. Since the target of the "(see below)" no longer exists I will remove the "(see below)".

Dieter.Meinertzhagen (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]