Talk:Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/Archive 2

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 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)

Can anyone explain to a confused member how this flash-in-the-pan gets not only her own bio, but also an in depth commercial advertisment completely free of charge on wikipaedia? The former we might argue is acceptable, but this entry surely violates the "100 years rule". Who in the year 2105 is going to type the word "cool" into this project with the expectation of finding this article? Just so I know for future reference... --HasBeen 13:56, 5 December 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 &mdash; 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 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?" &mdash; 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 &mdash; a perfect portrayal of modern Western music. Congratulations to everyone who contributed! --Hollow Wilerding 22:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is complete &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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 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 Featured article candidates/Cool (Gwen Stefani 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, and, so they should probably be taken out, leaving eleven "supports" and two "objects". Then, due to , ,  and Requests for comment/Pop music issues, I think the "support" votes from , ,  and  should be stricken out. This now leaves seven "support" votes by , , , , ,  and , and two "objects" by  and , as well as withdrawn "object" votes from ,  and , which may or may not count as "supports", and of course the nomination itself by , 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)