Talk:Cool (Gwen Stefani song)

Please note that this was unilaterally deleted by User:Mel Etitis in a blatant misuse of sysop abilities, requiring the recreation of the article. Everyking 5 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia style

Here is the (unwikified, sadly) old article, which I retrieved from the deletion history:

"Cool" is the planned fourth single off of pop star Gwen Stefani's multi-platinum album Love. Angel. Music. Baby..

It is about her looking back at a past relationship with No Doubt bassist Tony Kanal.

This single will be the follow-up release to the mega-hit "Hollaback Girl", which topped the United States Billboard Hot 100 for four weeks.

For the week ending June 25, 2005, it was the highest debut (#44) on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay Chart, beating out "Ass Like That" by Eminem (#47) and "Speed of Sound" by Coldplay (#48). It has now peaked at #42, meanwhile, Eminem slipped off the chart.

"Cool" premiered at TRL on June 30, 2005 and is expected to climb the charts.

Link to music video

Are we not allowed to include a link to the music video? DrippingInk July 6, 2005 17:28 (UTC)

If Mel would please stop his strongarm tactics on this and related articles...I strongly prefer Omega's version. Mel cannot just continue doing this when he is in the minority. Everyking 7 July 2005 17:18 (UTC)

You're talking nonsense. When two people are reverting to their preferred versions, in what sense is one of them "using strongarm tactics"? The discussion is taking place mainly at Talk:Since U Been Gone; my point is, first, that the article is about the song, so having a section on "The song" is pointless, and secondly, that we shouldn't obveruse sections (as per the M<anual of Style). I've placed this at RfC; let's see what other editors think. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)

You don't realize you also reverted a bunch of info on the music video and chart positions? Everyking 7 July 2005 17:59 (UTC)

No I didn't; for that I apologise (it would have been helpful if, instead of snarling aggressively and uninformatively in the first place you'd actually said what your worry was). The material involved, however, includes the duplication of categories, and the usual fan-cruft use of first names instead of surnames, so needs to be edited. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

So... does someone care to answer my question? DrippingInk July 7, 2005 18:16 (UTC)

What question did you ask (it doesn't seem to appear here)? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

Uh... yes it does. Look above. Are we allowed to link the music video to this article? I think it would seem appropriate... but if it's breaking Wikipedia rules, then I guess we cannot do that. DrippingInk July 8, 2005 14:41 (UTC)

Scrap the music video suggestion. It appears there is a broken link to the website. DrippingInk 19:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Important removal of information

Mel, please stop removing information which is quite relevant to the song's message. OmegaWikipedia 08:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Given that it's only just been added to the article (by someone else), it was (and is) difficult to see how it's essential. It's also only about the video, and no link is made to the song. It's also poorly written, and at the very least needs to be copy-edited; as it seemed to be a bit of fan-cruft gossip, I thought it better just to remove it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes

For reasons of consistency, I have altered the "Charts" format to co-incide with the format of Gwen Stefani's other singles.

South African User

This format may work better. Boa

My baby

Mel Etitis, I want you out of this article, as it has become my baby. I want to be responsible for its (I'm hoping) FA status one day, and I don't require your presence. Do not remove the lyrics, as I have the copyright information posted as a reference. In addition, the entire song is not exhibited to the world in the article, so I can claim this as fair use. --Winnermario 01:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't reprint more than four lines or so of a song in an article and claim fair use. Song lyrics are copyrighted independently of any recorded versions of the song, and are therefore protected by their own copyright laws. I removed the lyrics, short of listing the article as a copyright violation. And you can't "kick" editors out of your article because it's "your baby" (and you can't claim articles as "your babies", either). --FuriousFreddy 03:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to add to FuriousFreddy's comment, I also removed PoV language such as "disappoint". Also, the heading "Comprehensive charts" is incorrect, as the section clearly doesn't list every chart. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't care about anything you have to say. I am also no longer listening to whenever the word "PoV" is used. If anything that word is abused so often that I'm surprised the letters haven't withered away. And yes, this article is my baby, as you can see I am practically the only person who has been developing it. Oh, and if "Comprehensive charts" is incorrect, why didn't you remove the headers in the Kelly Clarkson articles ages ago? I don't believe what you have to say. Your words walk through my ears. This is just your way of stirring trouble again. You will leave me alone, because if you do not, well then I'm just going to have to take it back to RfC. --Winnermario 21:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Refer to the lyrics in Yesterday (song), and lay whatever excuse of its "fair use" you have got in your sleeve upon me. --Winnermario 22:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Those aren't the actual published lyrics to "Yesterday". Apparently, they were dummy lyrics drummed up during the songwriting process. Although they may or may not be protected by copyright, I am posting a message on the talk page there and removing them just the same. You can't break or bend rules because you see someone else doing it; you're supposed to help them stop bending or breaking them. --FuriousFreddy 22:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't you dare accuse me of breaking or bending rules. I was previously unaware of the copyright rules. So next time you want to say something, think first. --Winnermario 23:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything. If you honestly didn't know about the issue, then I apoligize for thinking that you did what you did deliberately. However, your comments and your reversion of the article to the version with more lyrics included were done some time after I explained, in detail above, why we cannot post song lyrics in articles. But, if you honestly didn't know, I am glad that the issue was cleared up for you. It's okay to post a link to an external page with the lyrics (So long as it's not here, to prevent Gwen Stefani's publishing company suing the Wikimedia Foundation)--FuriousFreddy 00:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Winnermario 21:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I need to have a discussion here with you, since we continue to revert each other's edits, okay? You don't need to remove the lyrics, as if we only post that number, the copyright is in place. And you can't remove the fact that the song was released as a 5" CD single in the U.K., as it was. Also, if "disappoint" is PoV (I still disagree with you), I'll leave it out for now. However, I'm replacing the "Mainstream Top 40" undersuccess, as it clearly is, and the "Dance Radio Airplay" underachievement. And who cares if "peaked at" or "reached" is used? Same meaning, doesn't really matter. --Winnermario 20:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't bother to explain my edits before because comments like "I don't care about anything you have to say." and "I am also no longer listening to whenever the word "PoV" is used." seemed to make pointless. If you're prepared to discuss things, then I'm more than happy.

I didn't remove the reference to the CD single, only to the reference to the size (CDs are in fact 12cm, just under 5"; I know of no 5" CDs, and the article to which you linked doesn't mention such a thing).

Disappointment is only possible if you have hopes; we don't have hopes about singles, as we're an encyclopædia rather than a fan club.

The stuff about it "being seens as unsuccessful" is weasel-worded and relative.

Much of the stuff about the "plot" and lyrics makes sense, if at all, only so someone who has read the lyrics, is couched in slang. ""Cool" being written close to ten years after "Don't Speak" is seen as an appropriate gap between the two pennings. This creates a timeline consisting of all of the events that occurred among Stefani and Tony Kanal within the decade; their presence in No Doubt included.", even aside from peculiarities like "pennings", is also wael-worded and virtually incomprehensible. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What it really is is original research (from the "speculation" and "supposition" angle). It's not entirely unfounded, however. Since it's not routed in solid fact, it would need a credible sourse to be retained. --FuriousFreddy 00:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the lyrics. Again, there is no reason to not have the meaning of the lyrics on Wikipedia. Some other singles articles even have the music and melody documented. (Eg: "This cord is in D minor".) Or something like that. Also, I removed the ungodly amount of wikilinks to "2005". There were just far too many. Otherwise, I have left Mel Etitis' edits, with the exception of rewriting one sentence. --Winnermario 13:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with documenting the meanings of the lyrics, but in cases where the meanings may be cryptic, disputed, or otherwise not made explicitly clear by the song itself, it might be best to source from a reference if the article is to be featured. Also, you would need to format your references in either MLA or APA format, they have examples and templetes available here: Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style, Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations. --FuriousFreddy 00:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why Wikipedia also has a particular way of formatting references. Yeesh. But anyways, I suppose I really have no choice if I want to nominate this article for featured article in the future. I'll rearrange it whenever I decide to. --Winnermario 12:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

References have to be formatted a certain way, just like reports and papers in school. --FuriousFreddy 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Completed references formatting. --Winnermario 15:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Request review

The peer request has (finally) been answered. I've combined two of the paragraphs in "Chart performance" into one and moved the "CD single track listing" above the "Charts". I'm curious to know how the "Music video" paragraphs beneath the image should be expanded. Does anyone have any ideas? --Winnermario 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Is the guy in the video actually supposed to be Kanal? I mean, you might interpret it that way, but they don't look very similar so I don't know if I'd assume that automatically. Everyking 11:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It is supposed to be Kanal, despite the fact that they don't look alike. --Winnermario 23:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Push for featured article status

Winnermario, I admire your dedication to this article, but if it is to become a featured article, the objections at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cool (song) need to be addressed. That's what I'm doing. Extraordinary Machine 01:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Extraordinary Machine [1]) I am reverting the charts. I don't care if people are complaining about them, unified charts are POV, and I'm restoring the images, as two of them play an important role in telling the story. (The fourth one does not so much.) --Winnermario 01:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

But the objections need to be addressed. I can see you have put a lot of effort into this article to get it into shape...why stop now? Also, it's relatively easy to claim "fair use" on one music video screenshot, but not three. I've provided fair use rationale for Image:CoolCap3.JPG, since that highlights the theme of the song best, in my opinion. Extraordinary Machine 01:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but the opinions of having only three images concerns me—the image of young Stefani and Kanal should be there, and also the one of when Stefani is "uncool", showing the contradiction that is represented in the music video. And the charts? You know that will be argued over forever... --Winnermario 01:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

WHAT? But User:OmegaWikipedia is the one who made those images. He screen-shotted them, so they are indeed fair use. Have I yet to bring this up? I think not. --Winnermario 01:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of this unified chart thing being NPOV. Don't you see that it is, or I would not be arguing for separate charts? --Winnermario 01:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. You cannot unify charts just because the opposers want it this way—that is their point of view. There is a reason that charts are not unified, and that's because they are ugly when whole. They can also be misleading when people are reading country to country, and then jumping into the Billboard charts. --DrippingInk 01:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

But part of the requirement for fair use is that we only use copyrighted images where absolutely necessary, no matter who uploaded them. The use of three screenshots might slide for an article about a single which is more famous for its video than anything else, but "Cool" isn't one of those. As for my reformatting of the charts, it's what more than one FAC commentator requested. Please reconsider what you are doing, for your own good and the good of this article. Extraordinary Machine 01:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Then why use that specific image? Its story is the least important (after the one of Stefani on the bed). I request the one of when Stefani and Kanal were dating, because it "looks back", just like in the song information and lyrics and meaning section. Does it not? --DrippingInk 01:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Look at the image structure now. I find this the most fair. --DrippingInk 01:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose this looks fine. EM, we can't use the one of Stefani greeting her ex's girlfriend with a kiss, because these other images tell better stories. (I guess. I'm no artist like DrippingInk is.) --Winnermario 02:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, this song is about Stefani and her ex-boyfriend being "cool" in the aftermath of their relationship (and, obviously, the title of the song is "cool"). I think the best image to highlight this is Image:CoolCap3.JPG, as it depicts exactly that. In any case, User:Carnildo said that only one screenshot from the video should be used. Extraordinary Machine 02:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Then why don't we use the one that you want, EM, and the one where they are "young"? Believe me, that one is really required, as it shows the story of their relationship. Stefani's hair colour also points this out. --Winnermario 02:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems fair enough. --DrippingInk 02:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The voting doesn't end for a few more days. Let's leave this for now, DrippingInk. I have school tomorrow. I'll be back (to argue as it appears). Otherwise, good job on this article to everyone who contributed! --Winnermario 02:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I find this behavior to be a bit hypocritical from Extraordinary Machine. First of all, he still has images which are not fair use on his user page after other users have repeatedly asked him to remove them. Second of all, he suddenly has a new image of Hilary Duff on his page which is not fair use. Third of all, he is known for endorsing more than 1 image on single articles. I have reduced the number of images, but have explained their fair uses rationales as they each display an important movement of each part of the song OmegaWikipedia 05:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

1. There are no "fair use" images on my user page.
2. The Hilary Duff image is public domain, and irrelevant to this conversation.
3. I have never endorsed the use of more than one music video screenshot on an article about a single.
4. User:Carnildo has suggested that we only use three images in the article: the single cover, the image of Stefani performing the song in concert, and a music video screenshot. That's what I was trying to do. However, since you have added fair use rationale onto the image description pages of the other screenshots, I suppose we should wait until Carnildo has commented instead of tinkering with them again.
5. Carnildo has also said that the chart tables shouldn't be separate, as has User:Volatile.
6. User:Haukurth has said that the superflous "Cool"/"Cool"/"Cool"/"Cool" column in the chart table needs to be removed.
7. Other uses have commented that the lead section, as well as the article as a whole, concentrates too much on the single's chart performance.
8. The above objections are about to be addressed by me (and some already had been, until I was reverted). If you chose to revert, then the FAC will most likely fail. Extraordinary Machine 12:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia, you do realise that, for this article to become a featured article, objections must be addressed? Such as the separate charts and the superfluous column? I'm only addressing the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cool (song). Extraordinary Machine 13:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The unified chart table should certainly be kept. One must remember that not all visitors to the English Wikipedia are from the United States, and separating US and world charts constitutes a POV violation (or Americentrism). If you look through most of the FA songs, you'll find unified chart tables for this very reason. While I'm not passionate either way on the issue, it's something that should be addressed, and probably sooner than later. Volatile 13:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This has already been explained by several users, including myself (see Talk:The Trouble with Love Is and Talk:One Sweet Day), but to no avail. Most times those in favour of separated charts give rather questionable justifications for them to be used ("It's not POV", "unified charts suck", "[Billboard charts] are one entity, and cant be seperated" etc.), and do not recognise the importance of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Extraordinary Machine 14:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

My turn to comment. I will let the unified charts go for now, but I don't think I'm going to want them remaining there in the long run. But who knows, my opinion might change. And bless your soul for returning the important images. Oh, and I'm also glad you removed the "notes" section, as it was just a bit pointless to have. --Winnermario 19:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There is an issue I have to address. How is the chart trajectory going to be updated come this weekend? The U.S. chart updates on Thursdays, while the Canadian chart updates on Fridays. --Winnermario 20:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I was looking at something else for a few minutes. You can do it yourself (or anybody else, for that matter), if you have Microsoft Excel. Just make a table, enlarge it as much as you can, then take a screenshot of it, edit out the rest of the shot, and then upload it to Wikipedia over the already existing image. Extraordinary Machine 21:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

And then there's the off-chance that I don't have Microsoft Excel? (I've never heard of the program before.) --Winnermario 21:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, then, I suppose I myself could update the chart every week, or somebody else with Excel...or we could add a note in the caption saying "click for more up to date figures" or something. Extraordinary Machine 21:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you update it until week twenty? I'm sure that's a long enough chart trajectory, after that would seem a little pointless unless the song did something remarkable. Also, I would like to address the following: "It also reached number six on the ARC Weekly Top 40, a non-Billboard chart". Could you leave this line in, Extraordinary Machine? Since the chart does not officially appear on Billboard, we cannot insert it into the charts section, and because of that, I believe its position should be explicit here. Otherwise its position is unknown in the article. Thanks. --Winnermario 22:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that level of detail is best left to the charts table rather than the main body of the article. In fact, by merging them, there would be no hard and fast rule for excluding non-Billboard U.S. charts. Extraordinary Machine 22:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I removed "non-Billboard" from the charts, because I think that's pointless to mention. It's not like people are going to assume everything there is from Billboard. --Winnermario 00:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I also restored two important details to the article. Just letting everyone know. --Winnermario 00:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I just took a turn at trying to smooth out some wording, per the WP:FAC comments. While doing so, I took out some sentence about chart differences in Canada and the U.S. which I could not parse and seemed to be speculation. I feel that it was in some way a shame to remove it, as it would be nice to break up all that "it reached here on this chart, there on that chart" with something else, but that sentence wasn't helping the article. Jkelly 03:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that much of what I did above was changed back by User:Rossrs. I'd like to suggest a couple of things. One is that "consistency" in writing is not exactly the same as "brilliant prose", and, in fact, a list of chart positions (or chart numbers) written in prose might be less tedious to read if there was some variation in the wording. However, always using "number" instead of "position" may be part of some style guide that I am not familiar with, and I am not invested in it. Secondly, the word "while" means "concurrent with". For a comparison, use "whereas". I'll be changing it back after this edit. Finally, I'd like to ask the other editors whether we should be using the verb "to chart" at all. Jkelly 16:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we should be. --Winnermario 20:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should too. "Chart" in this context is a valid word in pop music discussion. Jkelly, with regards to "position", there's nothing wrong with using that for variety, but in the article the word "number" is used about 20 times and the word position (at least in that particular section) was used once. So rather than make the section read less tediously, or give variety, it just looked jarring. I don't see anything wrong with "while" but I also don't see anything wrong with "whereas" so if you prefer the latter, it's no big deal to me. Rossrs 21:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not abuse the word "pop music". The word "chart" is used in all genres of music. --Winnermario 00:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes the word "chart" is very widely used in all genres of music, including "pop music" which is what we're discussing here. Rossrs 12:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood you. Sorry to start the conflict. --Winnermario 22:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I hear we will get a repeat of CUPS soon... --129.173.105.28 14:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article

This article is now a featured article! Congratulations! Much thanks goes out to everyone who contributed to its success. Thank you and continue making Wikipedia the excellent and informative place that it is! --Winnermario 22:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a sad day when a hateful homophobe, not to mention someone who's had her edit privileges suspended, gets her day in the sun on Wikipedia with a featured article.--malber 14:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why an article about an interpretation of song lyrics is a featured article to begin with. I'm new to Wikipedia and I thought an encyclopedia was about information, not interpretation? Ms ArtGeek 16:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)Ms_ArtGeek

Musicians

Hi, the article doesn't appear to state which musicians (other than Stefani of course) performed on the song or instruments etc. Leithp 08:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

If this had been a collaboration, it would have been noted. Credits are not exhibited on Wikipedia. --Hollow Wilerding 22:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the musicians are significantly more important than the video, which takes up a large portion of the article. The song, of course, is a collaboration between Stefani and Austin but that's not to say that the contribution of the musicians is unimportant. Leithp ^(talk) 22:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Where appropriate, brief lists of credits are, an always have been, exhibited on Wikipedia. --FuriousFreddy 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It mentions that they collaborated on the piece of work. If you mean featured-artist-wise, there are none, so that question is completely irrelevant. Also, it is no walk in the park to find all the musicians on one song. --Hollow Wilerding 01:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The liner notes for the CD don't give any musicians other than Stefani or Austin? If it doesn't, there's no reason to try and look for them. However, many albums credit the musicians who played on the record. --FuriousFreddy 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the fact that Motown chose not to credit The Funk Brothers as the musicians on many of their tracks, despite their talent and influence on the songs. That's not to say that I think that the musicians here had the same creative input, just that I believe that on an article this length and in this level of depth their names, at least, should be noted. Leithp ^(talk) 07:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I've raised the same point in a bit more detail at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl for those who are interested. Leithp (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely entirely. For an article that spends so many pages discussing lyrics of the song, responses to the song, video accompanying the song, success of the song, etc., it's remarkable how little time is actually spent on the music itself. That hardly strikes me as "comprehensive". See Layla for a real Featured Article that's almost entirely about a song, and not just about everything extra piled on top of the song. -Silence 10:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The above is a personal attack to those users who devoted their time to transforming "Cool" into a featured article. Please refrain from making comments like these again. Much appreciated! --Hollow Wilerding 15:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The above is solely the comment of an obsessed individual who, instead of volunteering with the needy, or improving herself; dedicated hours to creating an ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE ABOUT A SILLY POP SONG, and then DEFENDS IT LIKE A MOTHER DEFENDING HER CHILD. Moron says what?

Encyclopedic?

Can someone explain to me how one pop song is encyclopedic? Gwen ain't Elvis. She ain't even Tori. - JeffBurdges 01:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I can't wait to see your reaction to all the anime pages in here. --129.173.105.28 01:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Is this an ad or something? First a featured article for a movie starring Courtney Cox, now a song that is currently being marketed as a single on the radio. Why? --Halal 02:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• This seems to me too to be advertising.
• There is no advertising on Wikipedia, the article went through a review process. But yea I have to admit it makes the encyclopedia look stupid. Brings the reputation down a bit. Actually though, it is reflective of a different kind of culture that runs wikipedia. It is people's encyclopedia and people don't just love science or arts or history or economics they also love music, even pop music and even trash movies. Actually I appreciate that not just the pseudo-intelligent have a right to write, approve and feature an article on wikipedia, but at the same time (personally) I just find it plain hilarious that a song can be a featured article. I guess the time is long past when you can say - wikipedia also has some [[ wikipedia:featured articles|nice articles]]

There should be some grace period for featured articles based on current products, whether it's a film, book, movie, car, etc. That way it's less likely to be interpreted as advertising. On the flip side, it's good to see that the encyclopedia is up-to-date with more recent happenings. --Madchester 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Also, I think this article, while undeniably well done, is a little excessive for an average pop song. -- Iorek85 07:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, given the system of independent promotion used by the music industry, and not having looked at the history of contributions. I would guess that there are reasonable odds that a independent music promoter contributed heavely to this article, for pay. I would suggest a grace period of one year from the initial release of any product before it can be featured on the main page. It can be nominated, voted on, etc. earlier, but any main page display should be delayed until a year has elapsed. - JeffBurdges 09:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's great to have an article on a current pop song as a FA. It shows Wikipedia's depth and potential. You can't treat something any differently because you think it might be "advertising". Everyking 09:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear. A promoter who tries to market through wikipedia is a stupid promoter.

I think this a great article - it's very solid. But this has created a precedent that fans of other musical acts are going to have to follow now. Every fairly decent song is going to need an article like this.

First Wario, then this. What's next, the Macarena?--malber 13:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It is pathetic that articles such as this become the article of the day. Victor Gijsbers 14:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the litmus test for what goes into Wikipedia? This has no social or intellectual value at all. If we allow every song that has any value to anyone, soon the wiki will be filled with entries of every song, poem, that anyone chooses to write about. How long until the Advertisers start writing their own song entires. Sad. Bobcooley 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Check out the list of Pokemon characters. --129.173.105.28 16:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having the article. But giving it FA status was a serious mistake.

Unfortunately, the featured article critera do not include the requirement for a featured article to be culturally relevant. While we wouldn't want to exlude pop songs from the encyclopedia, does Gwen Stefani's song have the long lasting cultural relevancy of, say, any Lennon/McCartney song? --malber 19:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, one or two of the serious contributors here ought to think about asking for money from a record labal, as independent promoters, next time they want to make an article about a recent pop song. Hey, might as well see if they will pay you, and it seems to be what your interested in.

Articles up for featured status are judged on their quality in relation to the featured article criteria, not the "social or intellectual value" of the subject or how "culturally relevant" it is. This article was believed by several users to have met the criteria, and thus is a featured article. If you have a problem with the current criteria, please leave a comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles, but please don't put down the work of others that has gone through the peer review and featured article candidates process just because the subject may not have, in your personal opinion, "long lasting cultural relevancy". Extraordinary Machine 21:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole little orgy of criticism against this article is silly. There is a snobbish bias against popular culture that is hard to wash away, even on a project as open as Wikipedia. Everyking 21:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no, Cool is definitely not encyclopedic in any vaguely traditional sence of the word. In particular, the Gay Nigger Association of America is actually more encyclopedic as they at least represent a significant influence on internet trolling. But wikipedia is tollerant of all such things, which is cool.  :) But it really should reiterate the encyclopedic requirment in the test of featured article status. I should go nominate the GNAA for featured article.  :) JeffBurdges 12:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you feel so strongly about this, then I recommend you propose on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles that an "encyclopedic" requirement be inserted into the featured article criteria, as I have already suggested you to do above. Extraordinary Machine 14:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Please use Talk pages to discuss improving the article

Hi. I'd like to remind people that article Talk pages are to be used to discuss improvements to the article, and not for a general discussion of the subject of the article. If there is concern about this article's quality, (as opposed to the worthiness of its subject), please offer concise and specific comments on possible improvements. Jkelly 16:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Article's quality is being discussed above. JeffBurdges 18:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You're a little too much into Gwen, dude.

The above discussion is irrelevant to "Cool" achieving featured article status. It does not matter if the song will not contain the longevity that a Beatles or Elvis Presley song will — it's about quality, not quantity. --Hollow Wilerding 21:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a quality or quanity issue; it's about the fact that this entry belongs on a Gwen Stefani fan site, NOT Wikipedia.

Problem with overall quality and Featured Artist standing

This article should be to a much higher standard, especially to maintain Featured Article status. Here are some specific reasons:

The writing is sloppy, often redundant, and laced with unsupported conclusions that at times seem simply like the author's opinion.

The worst example, and I can't believe this MADE IT ONTO THE WIKIPEDIA FRONT PAGE, is the statement in the overview paragraph:

The song's musical style, and its production by Austin, were heavily inspired by pop music from the 1980s

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? It is debatable whether this would be more meaningless and absurd, with or without the "pop music from the 1980s" redirect to Timeline of trends in music (1980-1989), a massive, eclectic, arbitrary list of stuff that happened in all styles of music around the world. Does it mean that "Cool" was somehow influenced by the alt-folk group Biermosl Blosn's appearance on Bavarian TV, or the Malian roots revival sparked by Jali Musa Juawara's Yasimiki (two representative items from the referenced page), or are these not "pop"? Is this a do-it-yourself feature, or a CLUE: you listen to the sample and then try to figure out which "pop music" (of the 1980s) it references? Or WHAT? Unbelievable...

This paragraph from the Composition and Meaning section illustrates the poor writing and pervasive inclusion of either unsupported info, or straight author's opinion:

The lyrics of "Cool" describe a relationship that ended amicably. As Austin had wanted to write a song about the aftermath of his failed relationship, the lyrics recall a romantic relationship] that once existed, from the point of view of someone who has moved past the relationship, with Stefani mentioning that she has found new love. The lyrics suggest a progression through a turbulent time to a mutual understanding that takes their relationship to a level of respect....

How many times can we include "relationship"? How redundant can it get? For good measure, "relationship" appears six times in the previous three paragraphs, including twice in the overview, and there at least two previous statements that "Cool" is about a relationship between Stefani and Kanal. That ended amicably.

...As the word "cool" is one of the most ubiquitous slang terms in modern Western culture, the frequent use of the word throughout the song provides an easily recognisable affirmation to the song's listeners. Although the word has various applications its use in this song conveys a simple and positive message that the two people are okay with themselves, and with each other.

This is an entirely unsupported analysis of the lyrical meaning, built on extraneous and also unsupported conclusions about the term cool. What is this about? If it's a reference to an external analysis, then that source should be noted. Otherwise, it's an author's opinion that goes far beyond a simple synthesis of the facts, and does not belong in a reference article. Is all this intended to convey the opinion that the song means, "we're cool"? Yikes.

A couple more examples of the combination of imprecise and rambling writing, and unsupported conclusions, that characterizes this article:

"Cool" received a generally positive response from music critics.

This is supported by reviews from a five sources that collectively are far from representative of "music critics": LAUNCHcast (web site for an Net radio station which apparently only works with the Internet Explorer browser), AllMusicGuide (an discography/bio web site), PlayLouder (a web site that also sells digital music), PopMatters (an indie/underground/breaking bands type "trendy" site), and About.com (a general information web site with hundreds of specialized areas, from automotive to parenting to homework help). I'm not trying to disparage these sources, only to point out that, even on cursory examination, it is clear that they are not representative of "music critics". For example, Billboard, so prevalent in the charts section, is not represented here, nor is a US household name in music criticism like Rolling Stone, etc.

Stefani's previous singles had charted most strongly in Australia, where "What You Waiting For?" and "Hollaback Girl" both debuted at number one, and "Rich Girl" peaked at number two. "Cool" debuted at number ten before quickly slipping from the top forty, however its widespread airplay and Stefani's concurrent promotional visit to Australia stimulated a resurgence of interest in the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. album, which began to climb the charts again.

After a lengthy recounting of Billboard chart activity, suddenly songs appear on unspecified "national charts" in other countries. Where is a "number one" in Australia? Whose chart? This type of statement works fine as trivia on, say, and entertainment TV show, but this is an encylopedia: statements have to be supported. Chart positions can't appear without the charts themselves? Also, this example meanders off into an even more vague tracking of the resurgence of the ALBUM -- it began to climb the charts again -- that is completely unsupported as well as off-topic.

Important basic info is missing, specifically, any concrete discussion of the song structure and recording, and an accounting of the various versions and remixes (modern pop singles are practically by definition about their different versions: radio edits for each national market, version for the videore, and mixes for various audience segments, like different dancefloor styles -- in the last category, WHO does those remixes is often a major consideration, as the remixer often completely restyles elements of the track while retaining signature elements, like the vocals or hook or whatever).

How can this be a Featured Article? --Tsavage 20:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, you could try to improve it, or you could nominate it for Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates. Everyking

Yes, but Tsavage is the only user with an issue about Hollaback Girl and Cool not attaining FA status. Most of the complaints he posted above were added to the article because of the objections raised at the nomination process. So this situation is currently quite funny. Honestly, it appears as though he is the only one who feels this way. --Hollow Wilerding 22:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and also, to answer "How can this be a Featured Article?" — because the people voted on it, and that is how it made it to the main page. Tsavage is most certainly in the minority here. --Hollow Wilerding 22:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the repetitive use of the word "relationship". Now, this being aimed straight at Tsavage: quit complaining about the current state of the article. Had it not been featured article criteria, then "Cool" would have failed during the nomination process. There were only three objections, and about eleven supports; I think a consensus was met. I would highly prefer it if Tsavage returned to editing on Wikipedia where he has become dominant instead of snooping into other's businesses. The article is complete — a perfect portrayal of modern Western music. Congratulations to everyone who contributed! --Hollow Wilerding 22:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is complete — a perfect portrayal of modern Western music. - You are wrong. It's hard to realize when you have reached the limit of your ability to learn because you are so sure of yourself, as you apparently are and have here. WHAT IF, one day in future you came back and looked at this stuff and thought, Hmmm, that coulda been better? How would you feel now? There is a difference between "good" and "good enough", and that's often pointed out only when someone sticks their head out to make the point. It also seems easier for most people to "keep the peace", to cross the street rather than get involved. And it often seems easier to shout someone down than to actually deal with what they have to say. I don't presume to lecture you or anything, but it's only polite to reply when spoken to... --Tsavage 16:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, I just might think that in the future, so I respect what you said — however, as of right now, I think "Cool" is quite the article: I mean, compare it to all of the other singles on Wikipedia. This one has made some pretty good progress with the help of a moronic Saskatchewian and other helpful users. That you have to admit.

But for now, "Cool" greatly satisfies me. --Hollow Wilerding 20:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I gotta admit, you're one determined maniac, which, all in all, is probably a good thing... --Tsavage 23:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hollow, I think that Tsavage has offered some very constructive criticisms of the article, and I believe we should try to remedy these concerns so that the article is better for it. Please see Wikipedia:Civility and assume good faith. Extraordinary Machine 14:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

FA removal

This article made it to FA status because Winnermario used sockpuppets for the voting. I have no more faith in any Wikipedia Featured Article.--malber 04:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you link to the history? Evidence would help in any campaign to remove FA status. Plus your obejction should be notted on the Hollaback Girl FA candidate forum. - JeffBurdges 12:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've just taken another look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cool (song). I can understand why you might think the article became featured because of sockpuppetry during the nomination process; analysing the evidence, however, I don't personally believe this to be the case. Including all users, I count thirteen "support" votes and two "object" votes. Two of the "support" votes came from anon IP addresses, 201.137.188.56 (talk · contribs) and 64.231.70.46 (talk · contribs), so they should probably be taken out, leaving eleven "supports" and two "objects". Then, due to [2], [3], [4] and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues, I think the "support" votes from DrippingInk (talk · contribs), OmegaWikipedia (talk · contribs), Impressionist (talk · contribs) and Anittas (talk · contribs) should be stricken out. This now leaves seven "support" votes by PedanticallySpeaking (talk · contribs), Everyking (talk · contribs), Rossrs (talk · contribs), Haukurth (talk · contribs), Volatile (talk · contribs), Extraordinary Machine (talk · contribs) and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (talk · contribs), and two "objects" by Jgm (talk · contribs) and Keepsleeping (talk · contribs), as well as withdrawn "object" votes from FuriousFreddy (talk · contribs), Carnildo (talk · contribs) and Hoary (talk · contribs), which may or may not count as "supports", and of course the nomination itself by Winnermario (talk · contribs), which also may or may not be considered a "support". Extraordinary Machine 13:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence that sockpuppetry was used during the nomination process, then I'll take the comment seriously. As it currently stands, this is another excuse to strip "Cool" of its FA status. –Hollow Wilerding 13:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is difficult to prove or disprove. It's quite simple to get your friends and cronies to vote for support for FA status. This article does not meet the criteria for FA status as listed above. It takes a surprisingly small sample to get to FA status. For these reasons I will not take any pop related article listed as FA seriously.--malber 11:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: The underlying issue to the question of sockpuppetry and general manipulation of the votes, is the quality of the objections that are raised. In theory, FA rules require a consensus, which is not unanimity, it is only the final judgement that "actionable" and "reasonable" objections have been satisfactorily addressed. Not all objections are in fact addressed in FAs, only those that the moderator/arbiter/judge (which seems to be one person, currently, Raul654) ultimately finds to be of reasonable importance. It could then seem...reasonable to question the idea of having a single gatekeeper, since s/he can't be personally well-versed in ALL of the subjects s/he has to judge. But that's too easy. If the objections are well-articulated, the judge's decisions can be scrutinized, and if s/he seems to be unfairly biased, THAT would be actionable under other Wikipedia rules. So, it's back to the quality of the objections -- and "good" objections aren't enough. If the judge isn't fairly expert in a subject area, and supporters of the FAC appear to reply to the objections when in fact they are not, and the objecting party doesn't fully back up those objections by CLEARLY pointing out why the spurious responses do not satisfy the objections, the judge could still be mislead. So, ultimately, BEING THE OBJECTING PARTY can be the hardest role to play, and the critical one, in the FAC process. Because:

1) an objection has to both be, and HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF BEING, valid (reasonably significant, actionable)

2) the objection has to be VIGOUROUSLY SUPPORTED, even in the face of protracted defense (EVEN if that defense is essentially inadequate), and against seemingly overwhelming votes against it (although FAC is not ultimately a vote, many people disagreeing with one or a few can create the appearance, valid or not, of the objecting party being somehow personally biased and off-base)

All of that can require a fair bit of time and energy. Case in point, IMO, is the current "Hollaback Girl" FAC proceedings, where there has been so much activity after some original objections, including long exchanges that are off-topic, or require extensive elaboration of the objections, and the intervention of the judge (first, archiving the initial nomination proceedings, then, saying he'd keep the nom open as long as there was activity), that it's not all that clear (to me, at least) in this case what the distinction is between a FAC nom, a Peer Review, and simply a busy Talk page.

In summary, my point is, the current reality of the FAC procedure would seem to be determined by the QUALITY OF OBJECTIONS, which is in turn a function of the ability and determination of the objecting parties to see the process through. The good result of this is that each outcome, if it is granting FA status, SETS A PRECEDENT (at least, for its subject area, like, recent pop songs), creating a new standard, meaning FA "fights" (where, for example, sockpuppetry is charged) shouldn't have to be repeated every time for every similar topic... The bad side is, unless there's at least one quality objection for ever FAC that deserves one, some real sorry FAs can and will get through. (Sorry if I've been kinda VERBOSE here, I typed as fast as I could... :-) --Tsavage 18:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced

I've added the unsourced tag. The references listed mostly only deal with chart position. There are no sources cited for the assumptions the article makes about the meaning of the song. --malber 20:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This link confirms that the inspiration for the song is the Stefani/Kanal relationship, and this link states very clearly that the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. album was inspired by music from the 1980s. I've added both to the article. Extraordinary Machine 21:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Those links only confirm what the inspiration for the song was. Unless there's a quote by Stefani that says what the song means, the material in the article speculating the meaning of the song is original research. --malber 21:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. The inspiration for the song pretty much sums up what the song is about. Otherwise this article would be loaded with more references than actual content. –Hollow Wilerding 23:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)