Talk:Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/Archive 4

Unexplained partial revert by EE
Please EE, if you're going to revert other people's edits, please say so in the edit summary (per WP:RV) rather than writing things like "tidied".


 * 1) Changing Gold to Gold is unwise. As I said on your talk page, it's not necessary for redirect links to be changed so that they point directly to wherever they're supposed to go; see Redirect. This is especially important if, for example, sometime in the future gold single becomes its own article.
 * This is not wise. Gold single was merged for a reason, therefore, I will revert this. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ...except that if music recording sales certification is expanded and material is spun off into subarticles, then the "avoiding redirect" link won't be as useful because the information on gold singles might be on a completely different page. Also, it's not as if gold single leads to somewhere other than music recording sales certification at the moment (not all redirects are a bad thing). If somebody does edit it to lead somewhere else, they will correct all the links (including the one on this article). Extraordinary Machine 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How about an agreement? Seeing that I'm going to be monitoring this article for a long time to come, why don't I change it to the correct link for now? In the future, if "gold single" is recreated as an independent article, I will then direct it to point at the appropriate article. After all, because of the merge, "gold single" may not receive its own article again in the forseeable future. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with linking to gold single, especially as it makes more logical sense to do so? Extraordinary Machine 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing &mdash; since it is currently not gold single, personally I don't see any logic. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The logic is that gold single links to music recording sales certification, and (as the guidelines states above) redirects do not have to be bypassed if they point to the correct page and if they don't contain typos or grammatical errors. Extraordinary Machine 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, wikilinks like critic aren't needed; see WP:CONTEXT.
 * Yes, I had over wikilinked. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I remembered there was extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts where consensus arose that Billboard component charts aren't needed in most cases. The Hot 100 Airplay and Hot Digital Songs are component charts of the Hot 100, so I removed them. That's the same reason we don't need to know that the song reached the top ten on the Pop 100 Airplay; it's not a very notable chart. As for the Hot Dance Music/Club Play and Hot Dance Airplay, you're right that they are separate from each other, but whenever a song is referred to as a "number-one dance hit" it's in relation to the Hot Dance Music/Club Play, so that's the more notable one and it's unnecessary to have two.
 * Okay, I can concur with the Hot Digital Songs format, but I'm unsure of the Hot 100 Airplay since it is certainly notable, and especially the Hot Dance Airplay since there is no affiliation between it and the club chart. Let's elaborate on this. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the Hot 100 Airplay is "certainly notable"; it's a component chart just like the rest, and previous consensus concluded that component charts shouldn't really be included except in special cases (e.g. if a song didn't chart on the Hot 100 but did on one or more of the components, which isn't the case here). I'll ask user:Ericorbit about the dance charts. Extraordinary Machine 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey kids :-) Here's my take on it... I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb by saying that a "#1 dance hit" generally refers to club play.  The "hot dance airplay" chart is relatively new (I dont think too many people even know it exists) and it only is tabulated by about nine radio stations that specialize in rhythmic play (as opposed to hundreds of club DJs who compile the Club Play list).  For a chart like "dance airplay" I would say that its inclusion in an article may be notable if, say, the track hit #1 or if it got no major play on any other format.  If we're talking component charts, "Hot Dance Airplay" really is a component of Hot 100 Airplay, not Dance Club Play.  Clear as mud now? -- eo 12:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear as mud :). My only remaining argument is the "Hot 100 Airplay", once again. I'm still not quite sure why this cannot be displayed on Wikipedia. One, the Canadian airplay chart is in the article, and nobody has made a great deal out of this, so why should we do this for the Hot 100 Airplay? While it may be a component chart of the official Hot 100, the U.S. does not have any other official airplay chart, so I think it would be fair enough to include this chart in the article. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, eo. Well then the Canadian airplay chart should probably be removed as well, especially if it's unofficial. Lots of countries have airplay charts; if we included all of them then the charts tables would double in size. In fact, I think the Hot 100 Airplay should be the first of the airplay charts to go, since airplay statistics contribute to the main Hot 100 (as oppose to other countries where the official singles charts are based on sales only). Extraordinary Machine 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that the Canadian airplay chart certainly is official (here) and does not attribute to a Canadian Singles Chart position. What seems to be the issue with displaying the Hot 100 Airplay other than because a Hot 100 position is based on its points-system? I feel there is further reasoning, such as the length of an article. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I also reduced the wordiness. "Reached" may appear to sound less intelligent than "subsequently peaked within" and "did not enter" is shorted than "failed to peak within", but it's much clearer and retain's the meaning of what is being said without swamping it and becoming jarring. It's better to sound clear than "flowery".
 * I see. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Closely related to this is repetition, particularly in the "Composition and inspiration" section. We read "Although their romantic relationship ended, Stefani's lyrics portray her attitude that it is "cool" that they still remain very good and close friends", "The lyrics of "Cool" describe a relationship that ended amicably" and "The lyrics suggest a progression through a turbulent time to a mutual understanding that takes their relationship to a level of respect", all of which are essentially saying the same thing in the same section. One of them had to go, otherwise it would again be jarring for the reader.
 * Yes. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Overquoting. This is really only a problem with the quote from the PopMatters review, but it becomes apparent when one single quote is large enough that it has to be split into its own paragraph. I had to shorten it; again, it read jarringly and interrupted the flow of the text (I know one of the weaknesses of my writing is that I tend to quote excessively, and I know what a problem it can be). Extraordinary Machine 22:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat confused. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring the the PopMatters quote that had its own paragraph because it was so long (with the bit about the Fleetwood Mac/"Everywhere" comparison). You seemed to have shortened it again though, so never mind. Extraordinary Machine 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one was far too long. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Pop 100 Airplay's peak position should be mentioned in the article since there is no chart for it under the "Charts" section. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've explained above why I removed it originally, and the consensus established at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts is that component charts are arbitrary in most cases (whether in the text or in the "Charts" section). Extraordinary Machine 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop directing me to that wikiproject because I am no longer interested in its material; this was the opinion of a few editors and I had not been around at the time. Airplay are just as notable as singles chart, especially in nations such as Canada, Japan and South Korea, where they are looked at into further depth than the actual singles chart. I don't think there is anything wrong with displaying the actual peak position in the paragraph, if it, after all, cannot be in the article. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. I removed the mention of the Pop 100 Airplay's peak position. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe the airplay charts for countries where the official sales and airplay charts are separate should be included, but since the U.S. Hot 100 is made up of the airplay and sales charts, I don't really see the point in including those component charts (except in special cases).They seem arbitrary. Extraordinary Machine 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think that the Hot 100 Airplay is notable because the U.S. does not have an official chart that is separate from Billboard. The sales charts, however, such as the Hot 100 Singles Sales is the equivalent, say, to the Canadian Singles Chart, but since the Hot 100 functions differently from the Canadian Singles Chart, I don't think this format is useful. Airplay, on the other hand, appears to establish some notability. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 21:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I haven't really edited this article, but I'm gonna bud in here and give my opinion about the Hot 100 Airplay. I don't agree with it being removed from singles articles.  I think it is the most imporant chart after the Billboard Hot 100.  The argument that it is a compenent of the Hot 100 does not make sense to me.  At the end of the day, ALL the singles charts are a component of the Hot 100 including the genre charts.  I can understand if R&B Airplay or Pop Airplay are removed, but the Hot 100 Airplay should remain.  Just because it is a component of the Hot 100 does not mean you can infer the Airplay position from the Hot 100 position.  Many times airplay positions vary greatly from the Hot 100 positions.  I also feel the same way about the Hot Digital Songs chart.  These charts do not take up too much article space, and are the most imporant charts in the U.S. following the Hot 100, so I don't see any reason in removing them.  As I stated, positions on all three charts may vary and in most cases usually do vary greatly (especially with the new calculation of the hot 100).  Readers should be able to see how a song performed on radio AND in sales INDIVIDUALLY as they are both very important pieces of information; it is impossible to see this from just a Hot 100 position which can be any possible mixture of airplay/sales.  How a song performed at radio and in sales nationally is significant, especially when songs reach number-one on these charts, but do not reach number-one on the Hot 100 chart. --Musicpvm 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I strongly agree with Musicpvm in regards to the importance of the Hot 100 Airplay. However, while the Hot Digital Songs chart is also essential when Billboard's statisticians calculate the Hot 100 position, I do not understand what makes its presence relevant. After all, it just furthers the sales components; the Hot 100 Singles Sales supplies a major basis in determining a Hot 100 ranking as well, although this chart is not as renowned as it had been at one point. I have an idea: we should pretend that a song such as Madonna's "Hung Up" reached number one on the Hot 100 Singles Sales and the Hot Digital Songs. The song peaked at the top position on both sales component charts, but does this warrant separate chart sections in its article? This would be critical for the singles that appear on both of the sales charts. However, while there is no indication within the article that "Cool" entered the Hot 100 Singles Sales, it most certainly did (this was to be expected since it topped the Canadian chart). Since both components are measured and heavily influence a Hot 100 position, should both be included in the article? It is likely that this situation would not be as difficult to overcome if the single only charted on one of the sales components. Any suggestions and/or thoughts on the matter? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. These days though, I think it is pretty rare for a song to chart on both the Hot Digital Songs and Hot 100 Singles Sales (there are definite exceptions as you mentioned Madonna's "Hung Up").  For the most part, physical commercial singles are obsolete in the U.S., and the sales component for the majority of singles is solely based on the Hot Digital Songs.  This was the reason the Digital Songs chart became a component of the Hot 100 chart in 2005, as the Hot 100 Airplay became almost identical to the Hot 100 (which at that time was only based on the Hot 100 Airplay and Hot 100 Singles Sales - which barely affected the chart due to falling commercial single sales and lack of physical single releases).  I think the Hot 100 Singles Sales should definitely be mentioned for songs before the 2000s when commercial singles were popular and had a large effect on the Hot 100.  With current singles, it should probably only be mentioned when a song is very successful on the chart ("Hung Up", the American Idol singles).  I don't think most of the number-one singles this year even charted on the Hot 100 Singles Sales.  I'm not even sure if "Cool" did as I see no mention of a physical single release in the U.S.; it seems it was only released digitally in the U.S. which is the usual case these days.  --Musicpvm 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Cool" did chart on the Hot 100 Singles Sales, but at number seventy-something (I do not remember the precise position). You have an interesting theory, especially when taking into the consideration of the sales component charts and songs that place a very high ranking ("Hung Up" and such). Perhaps Extraordinary Machine should offer some input and his opinion before we arrive at a solution for the charts? In total, I do not believe that there should be more than twenty charts displayed in the section of the article. Thoughts? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 23:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, in the case of "Cool" and other songs that chart so low, I think it's unnecessary to mention the Hot 100 Singles Sales. Such a low position on that particular chart is pretty meaningless.  It is probably due to a limited vinyl release of the single and has no or very little effect on the actual Hot 100 position.  Overall, i think the Hot 100 Singles Sales is a dying chart that has already been pretty much replaced by Hot Digital Songs.  Sales on the Singles Sales chart are only notable in special circumstances such as American Idol singles.  But yes, we should wait and see what EM says.  I think 20-ish is a reasonable max.  Even if the Airplay and Sales charts are included, for most singles this would mean 5 to 8 Billboard charts.  In extreme cases, where songs have mass multi-genre appeal, such as We Belong Together, it may mean 10 Billboard charts.  For the most part, this still leaves plenty of open spaces for international charts.  --Musicpvm 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Let us wait for EM. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is a discrepancy between sales and airplay, it should be covered in the text and not in a chart; remember that the majority of people probably don't even know anything about the Billboard chart hierarchy. As I said above, there was extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts where consensus arose that Billboard component charts aren't needed in most cases. EE is right that "this was the opinion of a few editors", but so is pretty much every policy and guideline on Wikipedia; consensus can't just be dismissed. I must also stress the need to keep any irrelevancies and unneeded info out of articles (particularly pop music ones), or else what you end up getting is articles like Stupid Girls and this version of Hung Up: indiscriminate collections of info in which you can't see the forest for the trees. If somebody inserts component charts, then somebody else might think it's okay for ones in another country to be included, and that's when you start getting these unnecessarily huge chart sections that don't actually tell the reader that much. As another user once said, too much data is a great way of hiding information. Why use three or even two charts when one will do? Extraordinary Machine 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Music
I've just conducted a short musical session with a few of my friends, and after some investigation, we've come to realize that "Cool" is not actually composed in F major. From what I believe, it is actually composed in D major with F and C serving as the sharps. This error was likely miscalculated in that F sharp is the most-projected note in the song. Can anybody else verify this? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to change F major to D major in the article for now. Since some of my friends have very good connections in Tokyo, I'm going to ask different musical experts and once I receive the proper information, the scale should be determined (or at least I would hope that it is). &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know if there is a piano present in the music? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a musical section to the article. Suggestions or thoughts, anybody? &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest edits to two elements in the music section, but am hesitant to touch this specially highlighted article! (1) You've already established the key of the song in the music section, so I'm not sure what is meant by its "D-Major harmony." It isn't consistent to the use of the term "harmony" in my experience; it reads as if a layman is speaking about the key. (2) The Cello or the Violin being "appropriate for this style of music" because they are tuned in D is a bit of a misnomer - they aren't appropriate for New Wave, which is the real "style" of this song, and they obviously could play in any key, much as a guitar can. I would delete that sentence. I'm interested to hear from EE or others if they agree with these alterations to an already wonderful article! --Krisispm 03:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If "Cool" was not new wave-produced, would the D major tuning differ from, let's say, classical music? 64.231.119.227 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The key of D major applies in the same way to a pop song as it does to classical music. Regardless of the semantics, the language in question is not so much incorrect as it simply holds no meaning for a reader who knows some music theory. I struck it from the article. Also, I've spent time listening to the song and have stripped out a few remarks that were incorrect (e.g. Gwen does not rise in pitch on "good friends", "impossible", et cetera). I have also added some brief additional analysis to make up for my deletions of the well-meaning content. Hopefully this marks a slight improvement to the section! Krisispm 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of it was likely incorrect because I wrote the section based on what I knew. Thank you very muchly! 64.231.118.130 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've basically just edited the musical stuff in this article, because it's what I happen to know about. First of all, the instruments: do you have a source for the instruments? I just shelled out ¢99 in order to listen to the entirety of this song, and I couldn't distinguish specific brass instruments, it basically sounds like synth-brass-ish-ness to me, so I'm not sure why EE chose to put in specific instruments, and especially baritone horn, which is used almost exclusively in brass bands. As far as I can tell, from listening to it and the bit of sheetmusic that's put up, the piece has an eighth note pulse going through most of it (y'know, the cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha-cha bit - there are eight chas per measure). Lastly, I'm not sure why anyone thinks specific rests are notable. If you can find me a pop song without rests then I might possibly... I don't know, fall over and die. Rests are part of music, it's like listing every pitch, you can assume these things from the key signature and time signature, and the fact that it's pop music. Lastly, a piece isn't "in" a "time signature". The time signature is a visual symbol on the physical score, expressing metre or time. Idiomatically, musicians would just say a piece is "in 4" or "4/4", but I see how this could be confusing to the uninitiated, so I figure a better compromise is "4/4 time". Thanks, Mak (talk)  20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice changes; you definitely made it more reader (and musician) friendly. I too was boggled by the bit about rests, but was not bold enough to strike. Krisispm 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

64.231.119.227 / Eternal Equinox
I've restored my edits that were surreptitiously removed by, which is in the IP range used by Eternal Equinox:


 * 1) You again changed "Hot Dance Music/Club Play" to "Hot Dance Club Play". It's factually inaccurate to do that, because the chart didn't have that title back then. Just like we don't change every "Snoop Doggy Dogg" reference to "Snoop Dogg" or "Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliott" to "Missy Elliot".
 * 2) "Elsewhere" and "global" shouldn't be capitalised, because they aren't proper nouns.
 * Yes, I do realize this. Sorry about the revert there. 64.231.77.2 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I removed the chart trajectory image again. At the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts (which you already know about) after this article was promoted to featured states, consensus arose that they weren't needed.
 * 2) user:Ericorbit said very few radio stations contribute to the Hot Dance Airplay chart, and that it is notable enough for inclusion if a song hit number one ("Cool" didn't) or if it got no major play on any other format ("Cool" topped the Hot Dance Music/Club Play chart). That's why I removed it.

EE, your behaviour on this article and your tendency to edit war is one of the reasons why an RFAr on you was opened (Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox), so I strongly suggest you reconsider what you are doing. Extraordinary Machine 21:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned to you in the MSN message, since I am only going to be editing this article until July 19 (because I have a few days to break from my studies), I would like to come to a compromise. Unfortunately, you are being far too demanding as usual, and it is making me incredibly mad. As I've mentioned before, "factual accuracy" is blatant nonsense for articles on Wikipedia because we are trying to keep them as updated as possible. If the chart "Hot Dance Music/Club Play" was retitled shortly following the time that "Cool" topped the chart, then it would seem &mdash; with all common sense &mdash; logical to rename it. Consensus rose on the basis of the chart trajectory image as a result of few editors, and because I participated in this discussion and opposed such an act the entire time, I feel that it is strongly POV to tout it as "unnecessary information" or this that you are famous for (OmegaWikipedia went through much "trouble" [I suppose] to collect the information). I am restoring it again. The Hot Dance Airplay may not have very many radio dials, but I don't think that's the reason you want it removed. I think the reason is that you want the section to be as short as possible, and because it is an airplay chart, you have persisted in this ridicule by removing it. Now, we will try to achieve consensus with this material I have supplied; there is no use in consistently reverting because what you feel is right &mdash; it's not necessary that it is. Second parties would be pleasant as well. 64.231.77.2 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hot Dance Airplay not restored, primarily because I don't care. Other two edits restored. Does anybody want to comment? 22:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what MSN message you are referring to; if you sent one, I didn't receive it. Given your previous contradictory statements, I'm not sure I'd believe you anyhow.
 * Ignoring your histrionics: it is factually inaccurate to refer to the chart as "Hot Dance Club Play" when it wasn't known by that name at the time the article is referring to. "Cool" topped the chart in November, and the chart wasn't renamed until less than two months ago; hardly a "short" time, wouldn't you say?
 * I know you opposed, but the general consensus (which you don't seem to acknowledge that it was supported by several editors who had explained their reasoning) was that chart trajectories were unnecessary; it's not POV to abide by consensus and reasoning, it's the way of Wikipedia. May I also remind you that WP:NOT is policy, and I'd be happy to be "famous" for enforcing it. Whatever "trouble" OmegaWikipedia went through to provide such information is irrelevant.
 * user:Ericorbit's explanation above (in a section you inexplicably attempted to move to the archives) indicated that the Hot Dance Airplay is a minor chart that isn't notable enough for inclusion in this article. If I misinterpreted his comments, feel free to explain using diffs and links rather than accusing me of "persisting in ridicule".
 * Note that you've been editing other people's messages again, even though more than one editor has asked you not to. You also moved recent and relevant discussions to the archive, in violation of the WP:ARCHIVE guidelines. You're already the subject of an RFAr; if you continue this questionable behaviour, you may find yourself blocked from editing for a period. Extraordinary Machine 19:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you stop telling me the same thing about the RFAr over and over again? Chart trajectories being unnecessary sounds peculiar; to be honest, all of the information in this article is not necessary, but we add the bits and pieces that we believe to be the most untrivial and most essential. In this case many people found the chart trajectory to be an interesting piece of information since it visually illustrates the song's performance on the U.S. and Canadian charts. More trajectories could have been added, but few people seem to access them. Whatever the case, I am beginning to envy you less and less because you are becoming a strong nusiance &mdash; I've already indicated that I did not restore the Hot Dance Airplay peak position, so why are you listing this again? The Hot Dance Club Play was renamed months ago; what are you talking about? 64.231.76.145 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The RFAr hasn't been filed for no reason; many editors have expressed concerns with your behaviour towards certain users and on certain pages, including this one. I know you've read my messages about this, but you don't seem to have understood them. The impression I've got from reading the various discussion pages is that most users are either indifferent to chart trajectories or would prefer not to have them included, but if you disagree with this assessment, please provide diffs and links. The article Hot Dance Club Play was moved from Hot Dance Music/Club Play on June 1st; if you have any evidence to suggest that the name change occurred earlier, then it would be appreciated. In any case, Billboard.com lists "Cool" as having topped the "Hot Dance Music/Club Play" chart.


 * "The lyrics of "Cool" reflect" to "The lyrical content of "Cool" reflects" - EE, please honestly tell me you think the latter sentence is clearer than the former. The problem with being verbiose is that for some it creates the illusion that the text has more to say than it actually does, and for others it sends the impression that it has less to say. You said in your edit summary it is "more encyclopedic"; well actually crisp and straightforward writing is more helpful for readers. Extraordinary Machine 20:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, I'm slightly confused. Which sentence do you think is clearer? 64.231.76.145 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The first. Anyway, I see you've chosen to revert again (misleading edit summary aside), so here goes:
 * "The lyrics of "Don't Speak" and "Cool" create a timeline of events within Gwen Stefani and Tony Kanal's relationship between 1994 and 2004; this includes their association in the band No Doubt." - the No Doubt connection is irrelevant to this song, and mentioning that they are in No Doubt is just repetition anyway.


 * "Throughout the entire piece, the synthesizer emulates brass-like instruments (such as the baritone, trumpet and tuba) and woodwind instruments," - I replaced this with "in the song" after "synthesizer". Because the paragragh doesn't say otherwise, the reader will assumed that the synthesizer is present throughout the song.


 * "while the bass and guitar retain a prominent and regular quarter-note pulse;" - if the quater-note pulse is being "retained", we don't need to then mention that it's "regular"; "retain" implies that already.


 * "the drum also maintains its beat." - it's already mentioned in the previous paragraph that the drum beat is maintained throughout the song.


 * "It was the first digital download to ever be removed." - "ever" is redundant here, and the sentence says the exact same thing without it.
 * EE, given these examples, I think you might have to check whether your writing is clear and concise enough. Don't dress up the prose and add "filler"; let the info stand by itself. Maybe you should check out User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. Extraordinary Machine 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have actually been looking at that a lot lately. It is quite useful. Anyway, most of these examples I never reverted or changed (I think you changed the last one, but somehow it returned into the article which I then removed again [I'm unsure if I accidentally did it]). Anyway, "regular" and "retain" do not mean the same thing here: a regular quarter-note pulse it featured in many songs, and retaining it indicates that is not changed as it is in other songs. It does not imply that "regular" means "retain". 64.231.76.145 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of my edits and placed the majority of yours back. Is there anything else that needs to be done? 64.231.76.145 21:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It entered the top twenty on the majority of the U.S. Billboard charts on which it appeared, and its remixes reached the top of the Hot Dance Club Play (at the time named Hot Dance Music/Club Play) chart for the week of November 12 2005, but was less successful on the Adult Contemporary and Hot Dance Airplay formats. &mdash; factually incorrect. This implies that the remixes charted on the Adult Contemporary and Hot Dance Airplay formats. Rewritten. 64.231.76.145 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another concern: Someday (Mariah Carey song) is listed in even though the song charted when it was not known as this. As I said before, Wikipedia should concentrate on remaining updated with mainstream culture. 64.231.76.145 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Take care my lovely article. Perhaps someday I'll edit anonymously again! &mdash;EE 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did clarify that it was the original song being discussed in relation to the Adult Contemporary chart. It was you who made it obscure when you carelessly reverted, not me.
 * The category has the same title on every article it is on because categories can't be redirected. We shouldn't "concentrate on remaining updated with mainstream culture" if doing so introduces inaccuracies.
 * This is not "your lovely article"; you do not own it. Stop undoing my changes without explaining, and do not use misleading edit summaries. Extraordinary Machine 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't own it. Very good. I'll call it what I want. You seem to think &mdash; especially most recently &mdash; that you own it. 64.231.68.11 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And no I didn't. It was aboslutely you. Well I had fifteen minutes to be here, but I have to go unless I want to get in trouble. So long! 64.231.68.11 01:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I don't own this article, nor do I want to.
 * I don't understand why you're still saying I made the sentence unclear, when it's apparent from that diff that you did. Extraordinary Machine 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Some changes
Firstly, I am not going to justify myself. I will be making some changes to the article, and as much as they seem E.E.-related, I am absolutely not him/her. If you do not believe me, perform a user-check. Now, I feel that this article has been stripped of too many important details and will be restoring some and adding some new material. Why is “Cool” listed as topping the Canadian chart for three weeks? The list of 2005 number-one singles claims that it only did for two weeks. I’m going to change this. If anybody wants a reference, I will post it. A few other changes include:


 * 1) What happened to the chart trajectory? Fair use criteria states: “Always use a more free alternative if one is available”. In this case, the free image was removed. I don’t understand. It should be restored.The “charts" section excludes South American countries. This violates Neutral point of view. Actually, the entire article ignores South American charts.
 * 2) The two music video screen caps are almost identical. What happened to the third one? Can it be brought back and one of these two be removed?

I added the changes to a previous edit so that everyone could see it.68.32.205.159 14:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious from your edit history that you are EE, so I won't bother rehashing the justifications I provided for my edits that removed supposedly "important details" and the trajectory image. Your insistence that it is necessary for South American charts to be included is rather funny, because you were the editor who compiled the charts section to begin with. I removed the music video screencap because the article contained five fair use images and a sound sample; as well as making the article look cluttered, they introduced copyright issues. Extraordinary Machine 16:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No EM, that editor is not E.E. You really need to stop accusing people of what they have or haven't done. That IP range is from the United States. But I concur with what this user has stated; and what's this about removing the Canadian airplay chart because Stefani's not Canadian? That doesn't make any sense at all; if we have a chart, it should be listed. Stefani's not Russian, but we have the Russian airplay chart listed. You're a pretty difficult editor to work with. Also, I am not E.E. either, but I'm not going to lie: you do know me and I have edited here before. What2do 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a 64.231 editor. It's not E.E., but you know me. 64.231.70.87 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Contributions history of includes several edits to The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, an article EE helped elevate to featured article status.
 * Contributions history of includes edit to Oral Fixation Vol. 2, an article EE has previously edited.
 * All "users" of the 64.231 IP range have been revealed to be one person - you (by your own admission) - so please drop the charade.
 * Surely there are only so many Shakira, Gwen Stefani and Legend of Zelda fans on Wikipedia? How likely is it that three such fans would parachute into the same talk page within hours of each other? Extraordinary Machine 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for EM

 * 1) Why are you selectively changing precise dates to "mid-October"? Some sections are like this, while others are written out.
 * 2) Please stop introducing a very long opening sentence. It is shorter the way it is written out and barely increases its length.
 * 3) You removed the Canadian airplay chart because you think it's a component chart of the Canadian Singles Chart; it's not, so I've restored it. Stefani also isn't Mexican, Norwegian or Russian, but you left these charts in the boxes. Interesting. Explain?
 * I've now removed the airplay chart to allow an African chart presence. 64.231.70.87 17:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I have changed the dance chart to "Hot Dance Club Play". As stated when I was here in July, the song is categorized as topping this chart. If Wikipedia wants factual accuracy, then the category is going to have to be changed too. Otherwise it doesn't make sense and mainstream revisions have to be made.
 * 2) Are you okay with having one image in the music video section? I think there should only be the image of Stefani, Gonzalez and Lokitz.
 * 3) The chart trajectory is most definitely appropriate, like the above user mentioned.
 * 64.231.70.87 17:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because precise dates aren't necessary.
 * The sentences you keep reverting to introduces redundancies. If it's a song on Stefani's album, there's a more-than-faint implication that she recorded it. I'd think you'd have realised by now that your prose isn't exactly the clearest or most concise. How is "Canadian success" clearer than "success in Canada"? And how does "had more Canadian success and peaked higher" give any more information than "peaked higher"?
 * Because the Canadian singles chart was already there, whereas the Russian one was not. Airplay charts aren't necessary unless the corresponding singles chart for the country isn't available; the charts section could potentially double in size otherwise.
 * And, as I told you at the time, it's factually inaccurate to call the chart "Hot Dance Club Play", because it didn't have that title back then. Billboard.com lists the chart as "Hot Dance Music/Club Play" on Stefani's chart history page. References to Top Black Singles would not be changed to Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, Snoop Doggy Dogg would not be changed to Snoop Dogg, Our Gang would not be changed to The Little Rascals. Hot Dance Music/Club Play leads to the correct article, so I don't see what the problem is.
 * Yes, just as long as there aren't more than two.
 * The above user is you, and I've already directed you to the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. If you want to begin a new discussion there (rather than here), then by all means do so, but I'm sure many users (including myself) would say the same things as before.
 * Also, I've removed the centering from the charts table, per WikiProject Music/Tables for charts. It's not obvious that the numbers in parentheses are referring to the numbers of weeks, so I clarified that. Extraordinary Machine 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The above user is not me. Perform a check-user or I will submit a request myself and you will see.


 * 1) I think the precise dates are a fine idea, and if we have the information, why should we deny it to the readers?
 * 2) The current lead paragraph is long and irritating. You originally said that it was introducing redundancies when it said "It was written by Dallas Austin and Stefani for Stefani's debut solo album..." The revised version changed it to "her debut solo album", which no longer implies the obvious. It's shorter and more crisp.
 * 3) I will not restore the Canadian airplay chart since I found an African chart and because there should be up to twenty charts listed and none further.
 * 4) The category needs to be changed then.
 * 5) Okay.
 * 6) Could you point to me exactly where at WikiProject Music/Tables for charts is there discussion regarding the centering of the chart names?
 * 64.231.66.189 19:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * All the reader has to know is the general timeframe for when the song peaked. The remixes aren't as significant as the song, and the United World Chart is an approximation so the exact date definitely isn't needed.
 * You've changed it to ""Cool" is a pop song. It was written by Gwen Stefani and Dallas Austin for Stefani's solo debut album Love. Angel. Music. Baby (2004)." You speak of run-on sentences (though I can hardly see how the one I wrote qualifies as a "run-on"), but there's such a thing as sentences that are very short and choppy. Your version also adds two words that aren't needed. On a related note, please (again) ditch the purple prose: "line" (as in "line in a song") means exactly the same thing as "lyric" while using less syllables (which makes it quicker to read), and "remembers" is simpler than "reminisces about".
 * I don't think you understand: I'm saying that the exact airplay positions shouldn't be mentioned anywhere in the article, particularly if the singles chart for the country is present. The twenty chart limit guideline was introduced to present articles from becoming swamped with chart information; what matters is the amount of info, wherever it is in the article, and it's still there if it's moved up to the "Chart performance" section.
 * What "category" are you referring to?
 * There isn't discussion of the centering of the charts; that's my point. No-one on the talk page for WikiProject Music/Tables for charts said "Hey, wouldn't it be a good idea if the names were centered?", so the idea wasn't incorporated into the guideline. You can propose it if you want, but bear in mind that many, many articles use the format already present on the guideline page. Extraordinary Machine 10:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The remixes not being as significant as the song itself is redundant; perhaps someone prefers the remixes to the original version and wants to know the date it topped the club chart. Some may find the music video less important than the song and remove the precise date. It doesn't make sense why these are being removed. And what in the world do you mean when you refer to the United World Chart as an "approximation"? This doesn't make sense at all.
 * Syllables is not an excuse to introduce vague writing.
 * I'm not a particular fan of the ARC Weekly Top 40, so perhaps its precise peak position isn't needed since it's not as important as the Hot 100. You'd best know that the Canadian airplay chart has become rather significant in determining the peak position of a song that charts in Canada; this is because the singles chart became very ineffective due to the physical sales that were strongly declining. "Cool" did top the chart, so maybe the airplay chart is not as significant in this article as it would be in Hollaback Girl, so perhaps you've made your point here. Additionally, the Canadian Singles Chart is on the verge of becoming corrected, so it's a point I've thought about thoroughly.
 * The category is . It needs to be changed back to this if you want factual accuracy.
 * Because it wasn't present in the discussion &mdash; and because discussion seems to have died out &mdash; I don't really mind incorporating something new. It was just a thought, however. For now I will keep them left-aligned, but it's your turn to bear in mind that your opinion is welcome should discussion arise.
 * 64.231.154.3 21:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've scratched all issues that have been dealt with. 64.231.154.3 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I've semi-reverted myself. 64.231.154.3 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "like" in "Can I Have It like That" shouldn't be capitalised because it is a preposition. When referring to songs the word "line" is commonly used in place of "lyric"; it's not "vague writing" at all, but rather a removal of ornate purple prose that takes longer to read for no good reason. The exact date isn't provided for when the song itself peaked in the U.S., so I don't understand why exact dates should accompany the remixes' and world positions. Extraordinary Machine 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Attempt at resolving the few remaining problems

 * 1) Concerning "Can I Have It like That": yes, I didn't mean to revert you in that field. Excuse the error.
 * 2) Since you don't have the decency to compromise, I'm going ahead and making some changes that will remove our issues altogether. Now, the argument that the remixes listing a peak position rather than the actual song is fair enough, so we'll leave it at "mid-November". However, because the United World Chart is composed of statistics from fifty-some countries &mdash; and because it's the actual song &mdash; I think it's okay to list the precise date here. In the music section I'm removing "the line" because it's redundant altogether. Now, you're going to have to provide a source where you state that "the line" means "the lyric". When I took drama some years ago, "lines" were read from a script. The professor said, "Please read your lines". In music, however, he would say, "Please recite the lyrics" or on a rarer occasion, "The words". I've never heard of anything as remotely unusual as "the line(s)" in music. That is why I continued to revert you, because it made no sense. You'll have to provide a source.
 * 3) Also, the argument that "the line" is shorter in syllable-length over "the lyric" is redundant; when writing a book, one does not write "that was fun" rather than "that was entertaining" because there are less syllables. What makes it "easier" for the reader? I'd like factual accuracy, not vague writing. 64.231.152.163 22:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That the United World Chart comprises statistics from over fifty countries is precisely why exact dates aren't necessary; the day on which the national chart for one country is released differs from those for other countries, which means the chart is really an approximation based on chart statistics from a certain period (not an exact day), which means that we wouldn't be misleading readers if we were to exclude the exact date. I can't believe you haven't heard the phrase "line in a song" or anything similar; for what it's worth, none of my music teachers during secondary school ever referred to a line in a song as a "lyric" (perhaps because they were more concerned with being clear than sounding more intelligent than they actually were, but let's not get into that again). Let's see, though - "line in a song" - 48,600 Google hits, "lyric in a song" - 9,710. "line in the song" - 65,000. "lyric in the song" - 9,160. Your comment about book writing doesn't make any sense; firstly, encyclopedia (and Wikipedia) articles are not written in the same way as books (and for good reason), and secondly, what gives you the impression that any author worth his/her salt would use words such as "entertaining" over "fun"? Extraordinary Machine 21:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked. I hadn't heard "line in a song" or "line in the song" before, but because there are more Google hits for it over "lyric in a song" or "lyric in the song" &mdash; which is still factually accurate and has nothing to do with clarity over "intelligence" &mdash; I suppose we can leave it as "line". However, in the musical section, we can remove "the line" altogether because it's redundant and the sentence is shorter-read with its omission.
 * It's not for us to know whether an author would write "entertaining" or "fun"; it was simply an example.
 * United World Chart: this is the entire world. Individual dates for all the countries aren't exactly, and because "Cool" topped only the Canadian chart, many spelled-out dates are not used anyway. The world comprises of everybody &mdash; it's fine to have the date written out that concerns everybody.
 * By the way, this song has to be recategorized. Like I've already said, factual accuracy indicates that it has to appear in the proper "Dance Club" chart classification. (As does "Someday"; it topped the dance chart when it was known as something entirely different too. I can ask a friend for its name in mid-1990.)
 * 64.231.113.136 17:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I request article unprotection since one week has passed and 95% of the issues have been resolved. Veltron 01:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm surprised you haven't heard that phrase before.
 * My point was that the example is irrelevant in relation to an encyclopedia article.
 * I didn't think about it that way, so I guess it wouldn't be completely unnecessary to include the full date.
 * The problem is that categories can't be redirected, as I've already told you. Extraordinary Machine 11:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is the issue concerning categories that cannot be redirected. Well, I don't want to get myself into a hassle of trying to move the songs that topped this dance chart to the former, so I'm not going to bother. I suppose it's not that big of a deal. Okay, issues resolved. I hope the page can be unprotected now. Velten 15:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, sorry about that stupid What2do edit. Velten 17:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Notice of article ban
Eternal Equinox and / or Hollow Wilerding and their 64.231.* IPs are now banned from this article and talkpage for 48 hours for disruptive editing, as per remedy 1 in Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement for a discussion of the disruption. Any edits to this article or this talk page during the ban will be met with brief blocks. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because EE edited the article at 22:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC), I've reset the ban in accordance with Banning_policy. Extraordinary Machine 16:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This ban has now successfully expired. 64.231.115.150 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This should not be a featured article
After reading this article in a fairly short time, I really do not see what is so great about it. There's nothing in it that is overwhelmingly informative or interesting. "Cool" was not a song of great cultural or historical significance, it was just a moderately succesful single by Gwen Stefani. While it may contain an above-average amount of info for a musical article, that doesn't make it better than 99.83 % of all the entries on the site, which featured articles are apparently supposed to be.

I don't have enough power as a user to demote "Cool" from its current featured status, but I would strongly advise anyone with such power to do so, for the simple reason that its status is entirely undeserved. 2Pac 12:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:WIAFA?. This article meets all the criteria, and therefore was made a featured article. It does not have to be "overwhelmingly informative or interesting". Velten 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, any user has "enough power as a user" to do this. If you really don't think it's suitable for Featured Article status, you are (or any other Wikipedian is) welcome to nominate it at Featured Article Review, where you can make your argument that it fails to meet the Featured Article criteria, and where it can be discussed by your fellow editors. -- keep sleep ing   slack   off!  20:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions for EE/Velten

 * 1) How does sheet music support the claim that the composition of the song was inspired by 1980s music?
 * 2) You cite the Spanish Wikipedia when changing the chart position in Mexico from one to eleven. How is another Wikipedia a reliable source?
 * 3) "Rv for now. If the user can provide sources, I'd be happy to reinclude the Argentine chart." - why must you be the one to do the reincluding? Why can't the user do it themselves?
 * 4) "Is this really notable for inclusion?" - how is this not notable for inclusion?
 * 5) You cited "unnecessary space" when removing a space between the chart title and the subscript number. How is it unnecessary? Are you familiar with the WikiProject Music/Tables for charts guidelines?
 * 6) You restored the Stefani official website external link that I had removed. Why have you restored a link to a site that contains no information whatsoever on the song, let alone any information not included in the article? Are you familiar with the WP:EL guidelines?
 * 7) You again changed the Gold to Gold, saying "This has already been discussed at length". Do you not remember failing to reply to my last message in that discussion (which is available to read above)? Why do you choose to ignore the WP:RDR guidelines and common sense?
 * 8) You changed other wikilinks so that they lead directly to a page rather than going through a redirect. Why is this? Why do you choose to ignore the guidelines?
 * Extraordinary Machine 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to try and answer all the questions now.
 * The sheet music states: "... the song's 1980s music and production by Austin ...".
 * The Spanish Wikipedia listed the song's peak position at number eleven for a long time now. If you'd like me to further verify this, I can get one of my friends (who speaks Spanish natively) to ask on that Wikipedia's talk page.
 * "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment." RadioKirk (u|t|c)  21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I'm uncertain of which is correct. Velten 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then WP:V requires that the data not be included at all until one can WP:CITE a WP:RS. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)  21:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Velten 21:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The other users can do it themselves, of course. Sorry if I sounded demanding there, I didn't realize that at the time.
 * I suppose it is notable for inclusion, but it doesn't appear on a soundtrack album or any other formats, as you said earlier, so where should it be placed?
 * It is a guideline and not a policy. Additional space is unnecessary.
 * You can remove that, I had forgotten about that earlier discussion.
 * They are guidelines; I will be here to change it if a "gold single" article is created.
 * They are guidelines and not policy. Also, one, which had originally pointed to the correct article, no longer meets this criteria because the chart's name was entirely changed.
 * Velten 21:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who was the sheet music written by? From my experience I know that people who write the text in sheet music books often a) provide their own personal interpretation of the song and b) don't have any association with the people who did "compose" it. So a piece of sheet music mentioning that the song includes/is reminiscent of "1980s music" isn't an adequate reference to support the claim that the composition was inspired by it.
 * Where is the source for the Japanese Airplay Chart you inserted?
 * Personally, I'm indifferent about mentioning the song's use in that film soundtrack, but If it is included, it could be inserted into "Background and writing", because that section includes stuff on the themes of the song and the film was a romantic comedy.
 * Guidelines are formed from extensive discussion and establishment of consensus; they did not write themselves. If people aren't going to follow them, why have them at all? If you're suggesting guidelines should be ignored, then literally anything would be acceptable, and there would not no consistency whatsoever from article to article. Extraordinary Machine 16:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The sheet music was written entirely by Interscope Records and published by EMI. Because Interscope is Stefani's label, I would assume that they know what they are talking about. Also, your experiences are not my experiences.
 * Oricon. I'll list it as a reference now.
 * I don't understand why you are so worked up about redirects. I loathe them and like it when I'm taken to the correct article (without being redirected). Also, the subscript number shouldn't be hanging in space in the charts because it looks odd and somewhat untidy.
 * Velten 21:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then, what do you mean by "[t]he song's composition"? Do you mean the writing of the song, or the putting together of everything in the song? We know here that 1980s music influenced the production of the song, but not necessarily how it was written. So a piece of sheet music saying the song contains/sounds like 1980s music, no matter who wrote or published the sheet music, is not evidence supporting the idea that when the song was being written there was a deliberate '80s influence being included. If by "composition" you mean the putting together of everything in the song, including both of the words in "composition and production" is redundant - the putting together of everything in a song includes the production. I'd drop "composition" because, again, unclear whether it refers to just the writing of the song or the putting together of everything.
 * As I said above, if the music recording sales certification article is expanded and material is spun off into subarticles, the "avoiding redirect" link won't be as useful because the information on gold singles might be on a completely different page. Let's take another look at WP:RDR:


 * Some editors are tempted, upon finding links using a legitimate redirect target, to edit the page to "fix" the link so that it points "straight" at the "correct" page. Unless the link displays incorrectly — for instance, if the link is to a misspelling, or other unprintworthy redirects, or if the hint that appears when you hover over the link is misleading — there is no need to edit the link. The link may be deliberate, may consolidate related information in one place, or may indicate possible future articles.


 * Most especially, there should never be a need to replace redirect with redirect .


 * Some editors are under the mistaken impression that fixing such links improves the capacity of the Wikipedia servers. Because editing a page is seemingly thousands of times more expensive for the servers than following a redirect, the opposite is true if anything.  It's inadvisable to worry about performance.


 * I can't think of anything to add to the above; if you have a problem with the guideline, discuss it on the relevant talk page, because citing alleged problems with the guideline on this talk page alone will not get you very far. It's odd that you say I am "worked up" about redirects, and yet you say you "loathe" having to pass through a redirect: why? What is wrong with it? Why do you think that because you dislike it, others feel the same way?
 * About the subscript: firstly, it's easier to see when there is a space before it; secondly, subscripts look "odd and somewhat untidy" by nature; and thirdly, you might want to suggest the WP:MUSIC/TABLE guidelines be amended so that we can avoid inconsistency between what's written there and what's going on in articles. Extraordinary Machine 20:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) The article used to say "musical-style" some time ago. Because the sheet music states "... the song's 1980s music and production by Austin ...", it's more likely referring to the genre rather than the entire composition.
 * 2) I'm going to open a discussion there. It sounds like a plan.
 * Velten 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the "music and structure" section
I'm surprised nobody raised this concern before, actually. There are no citations in this section. There are claims such as "To distinguish some of the changes in her relationship, she stresses several lyrics by rising to her highest pitch in the song (C#5) and quickly descends." There are other similar lines in the text. If Stefani has made such a claim, or even if an independent critic has, it can and should be referenced with an in-line citation. Otherwise, it is a lucid analysis, but it fails WP:OR, which holds that "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories" are inappropriate to include in Wikipedia articles. I didn't add the tag lightly, especially since this kind of material is informative and goes beyond what is usually included in articles. However, this is not an essay site, and it's not the place for users to write up their analyses of the song's composition. Croctotheface 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll include the appropriate citations over the course of the next few days. Velten 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. The claim that you pointed out above has been removed, but I can't pinpoint any other unsourced material. Because you're a third-party reader, would you be willing to elucidate further? Velten 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There still needs to be verification that Stefani is using pitch to stress the lyrics, and the sentence before that one describes her "impassive state" and makes some suggestions by implication about what the song is communicating. To me, it reads like something of an essay, even some of the factual statements and selection of details seem to feed in to the way that the author of the section interprets the song.  I'm not as concerned with the rest of the text in terms of arguments and opinions, but there really should be citations for just about everything, even mundane information like the instruments that are used.  Although this certainly does not occur in practice, in Wikipedia articles, especially ones with FA status, every statement of fact should be sourced.  Croctotheface 01:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For the instruments, I'll use the CD inline notes as a reference because they list them. The others you've pointed out will require some work (I know where some references exist), but I'll need to search out one or two. Thanks for the input! Velten 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some issues have been remedied. I'll continue to correct the remaining non-referenced points. Velten 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I'll try to find some secondary sources too. Velten 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually curious about what the sheet music says in terms of her "impassive state" and using pitch to stress the lyrics. Would it be too much to ask for you to quote the passages here?  Croctotheface 05:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I figured you would ask this because some of it is unusual. The first part is simple:
 * 1) "Using pitch to stress lyrics": the notes last several beats and the pitch is raised significantly, placing emphasis on the lyrics during each measure.
 * 2) The sheet music states "piano" (which indicates that it is sung softly) for the first few bars of the song. At one point it also says "quietly" and "sadly". This was the part that concerned me the most and I'll try to look for another source since it's very vague and not entirely reliable. For the most part otherwise, what do you think? Velten 00:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree about the "sadly" note being straightforward. For the other items, though, there's interpretation involved, which still strikes me as OR.  I don't like being difficult about this, and I agree with the interpretation, but it really needs to be out there in a reliable secondary source to comply with the policy. Croctotheface 09:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gold single
It is not a good idea to make sure every single link leads directly to the correct page. Gold single is a redirect with a possibility; an article could be created at that location at any time. Velten, just let it go. Extraordinary Machine 18:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to have this pointing at a similar article (but not music recording sales certification), it should be something other than "gold single", such as "gold single certification" or "gold single recording certification". Velten 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine then. But you haven't given any compelling reason for why you keep changing links so that they lead directly to a page, nor have you initiated any sort of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, which I recommended that you do before. Extraordinary Machine 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Which option sounds most plausible? I would suggest "Gold single certification"; it's less vague and more efficient. Velten 18:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, then. But please don't revert me again; you're in danger of committing a 3RR violation. And please, for heaven's sake, don't bother correcting redirects so that they lead directly to a page. Not even for me, but for yourself; if you get caught up in the little details like that, you'll lose all perspective of the bigger picture. I used to to it before I realised what a waste of time it was. It really is no way to edit, you know. Extraordinary Machine 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do see that I'm almost in violation of 3RR, so I'm not going to edit anymore today. Plus, I have to finish something not concerning Wikipedia, so I need to leave. Don't worry, the bigger picture will always be the most important feature on this site. Velten 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Digital Download?
I'm kind of curious about this, I assume there was at one time a digital download single with just the two remixes on it and it was removed, but the Photek remix is still available for download on the Cool single, and the Richard X remix was rereleased on the Luxurious single, so is it really worth mentioning? Also, what does the part about it being the first removed digitsl download mean? First ever? I've seen a few digital download be removed, so I think that needs a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.81.108 (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Naming convention
Should this article be moved to Cool (Gwen Stefani song)? Because there is another song named "Cool" (from the musical West Side Story) located at Cool (Leonard Bernstein song). Yvesnimmo 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

WTF?
Was "Cool" re-released or something? It's charting again in France. 17Drew 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly interesting. I don't think it was re-released because I did not see any information pertaining to that online. There's always the possibility that it was featured on a French programme or in a commercial that sparked re-interest in the single. Otherwise, I'm not entirely certain. Velten 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Genre
I know this is Pop..but it has a rockish sound to it

so shouldnt it be pop-rock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.220 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not rock. It's new wave influenced. Charmed36 (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok then rock/New wave kinda the same thing..so shouldnt "New Wave" be added?

Gwenspride08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.254.220 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not rock. New wave shouldn't be there. Everything is said in the article about the new wave influence. Charmed36 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspride08

Yes I know it s not rock..its pop-rock and totally different..or New wave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.252.8 (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Gwenspride08

And did you know that New-wave is a type of ROCK music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.252.8 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know, but it's mention in the article. Charmed36 (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspride08, please source yourself to make your point. Editors have no right to jugde songs and put up genres. Thank you. Indianescence (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gwenspride08 did pop need a source? not saying its not pop ..just wondering

Music video
From what it looks like, the original romance between young Stefani and Gonzalez takes place in the 1930's, and the "present-day" shots are in the late 40's. Any opinions on this?Javalava14 (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)