Talk:Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 (Gwen Stefani 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 (Gwen Stefani 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 , 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)

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?