Talk:Bumble

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Itsjmitchell. Peer reviewers: Jadejasso, Davidsanusi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

CEO

I deleted the section on the CEO's background because I don't think it's relevant to this article. This article is about the app, not the app's founder. Where she went to school, her parents' professions, and her other entrepreneurial ventures aren't relevant to Bumble; they're relevant to her. If you were to start an article about Wolfe herself, I think that information would be appropriate, just not in this article. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Same-sex matching

Noticed that is says Bumble only this year added same-sex matching...I've used the app for a few years now so that doesn't seem right. Off to find sourcing. EvCalifano (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Added sources on same-sex matches! EvCalifano (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Transgender

"There are no options for users to identify as genderqueer or transgender, in contrast to competitors OkCupid and Tinder.[23]" This is no longer true. I'm not sure when this changed but as someone who just recently signed up for Bumble and was curious about it's history, I checked the wiki of course, but when I made my profile I was more than welcome to select from a wide array of transgender/genderqueer/non-binary options for gender. 98.122.186.165 (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

True, they have added new options. Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ. (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I've changed this content to past tense and introduced a new blog post source on Bumble which describes their widening of gender identity choices. It's important for Wikipedia to keep track of historical perspectives of a topic, not just list present-day app features, and the Daily Dot source is good in establishing mainstream coverage of the app and its features. Thanks to the anonymous user for bringing this outdated information up and to Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ for making the initial change. — Bilorv (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. General agreement that this page is the primary topic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

---

• Bumble (app) → Bumble
• Bumble → Bumble (disambiguation)

– Call it recentism and a primary topic grab if you wish, but none of other topics on the disambiguation page seem like they will ever attract a very large number of readers looking for "Bumble", and none of them that would reasonably be called "Bumble" seem to have major historical importance. (There's the bee, of course, but that's a bumble bee, not a bumble.) The article about the app and the company that produces it, which was recently at Bumble Inc. for a few months before I had that bold move reverted today, has been attracting 20,000–60,000 readers per month for the past five years. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support, other than the stub at Bumble (TV series), this is the only exact title match for "Bumble", and the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, there's Bumble (Oliver Twist), although that article calls him a minor character, and there's also the 1964 cartoon snow monster, but those two will always be niche topics. The 1970s cricketer is actually pretty popular, presumably due to a later career in sportscasting, but the name he is primarily known by is not Bumble – the nickname is barely discussed in the article and not evident in the titles or author lists of any of the article's (approximately 50) cited sources. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• move Bumble (app) to Bumble (dating service) - Other than the very bad "(app)", its best to disambiguate all as the best long-term handling. The article is about more than the downloadable "app" itself, but rather covers the breadth of the service/company that makes the app and should reflect that. -- Netoholic @ 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There's also Tinder (app), by the way. If we move it to Bumble, we don't need to worry about whether it's an app, a company, a service, or something else. We can just talk about all that inside the article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    • We don't move pages to primary just to "solve" a bad disambiguator. We move them to primary if they are actually the primary meaning of their term, which in this case, it isn't. Tinder should move away from (app) also. -- Netoholic @ 08:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Also for some strange reason, google searches return the redirect 'Bumble Inc." leading to that having a tonne of page views [1]—blindlynx (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose while Google and Images mainly returns the app Books mainly returns the bee and the bee gets more views (47,692) than the app (3,598) and Bumble (Oliver Twist) gets 1,322[[2]] which is within order of magnitude. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the requester that we should almost entirely discount bumblebee when considering the term "Bumble" alone. As for page views (including redirects, to help account for the various page moves in the past), [3] gives around 40k/month for the dating app and 2000–3000 for the Oliver Twist character. I think the character doesn't have the "long-term significance" to outweigh this (unlike apple or tinder). Adumbrativus (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The existence of the extremely well-known Dickens character means this can never be primary in terms of long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The article on the Oliver Twist character refers to him as a "minor" character in the opening sentence. It also primarily refers to him as "Mr Bumble" rather than just "Bumble". The "Mr" might be a good way to provide WP:natural disambiguation (regardless of what happens in this RM). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI, I have submitted an RM at Talk:Bumble (Oliver Twist), suggesting to move it to Mr Bumble. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is a minor character in the context of the story. But he is an incredibly well-known character mainly due to his appearance in the musical and film Oliver! and has very clear long-term significance. Whereas the app is pure WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Not convinced by the argument that the Dickens character is significant enough to contest the app's primary topic status. czar 23:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think its "primary topic status" has been established. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inspiration Daily source

An unregistered volunteer removed the following content, with the rationale this is a blog post, doesn't state Bumble tracks locations. WP:No original research:

Bumble user locations can be tracked, and a company called Buzz Humble sells this information to people looking for their spouses on the platform.

References

Another unregistered volunteer has reinstated it a couple of times, with the rationale (in response to me): This is a long standing part of this page that was undone in error. Please stop defacing this page. I've also removed it with the reasoning: original removal was correct. This blog fails WP:RS/WP:V.

Further input is requested on whether this content is appropriate, to reach a consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If no RSs cover this story, then its inclusion is certainly undue. Pavlor (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Income numbers

102,844 million is an implausible income number, I assume there's some unit error. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

advertising

I really don't get the latest ad for Bumble. I mean, what does moving to a monastery have to do with dating? Visokor (talk) 07:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)