| Revision as of 18:27, 6 January 2006 editExtraordinary Machine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,464 edits moved recent and erroneously archived discussion from Talk:Cool (song)/Archive02← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:50, 10 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,808,025 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=otherTag: AWB |
| (263 intermediate revisions by 78 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{featured}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Mainpage date|November 23|2005}} |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=October 23, 2005 |
|
<!--{{farc}}--> |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive1 |
|
] |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=26297658 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
] |
|
|
|
|action2date=October 27, 2005 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cool (Gwen Stefani song) |
|
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
|
|action2oldid=26642451 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=AFD |
|
== Unsourced == |
|
|
|
|action3date=November 28, 2005 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cool (Gwen Stefani song) |
|
|
|action3result=speedy keep |
|
|
|action3oldid=29508255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAR |
|
I've added the ] tag. The references listed mostly only deal with chart position. There are no sources cited for the assumptions the article makes about the meaning of the song. --] 20:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4date=January 4, 2006 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result=kept |
|
|
|action4oldid=33783738 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FTC |
|
: confirms that the inspiration for the song is the Stefani/Kanal relationship, and states very clearly that the ''Love. Angel. Music. Baby.'' album was inspired by music from the 1980s. I've added both to the article. ] 21:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5date=May 9, 2007 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby. |
|
|
|action5result=promoted |
|
|
|action5oldid=128539152 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=FAR |
|
::Those links only confirm what the inspiration for the song was. Unless there's a quote by Stefani that says what the song means, the material in the article speculating the meaning of the song is ]. --] 21:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6date=23:35, 28 March 2010 |
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive2 |
|
|
|action6result=removed |
|
|
|action6oldid=352421746 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=FTR |
|
:::I don't think so. The inspiration for the song pretty much sums up what the song is about. Otherwise this article would be loaded with more references than actual content. –] 23:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7date=17:46, 16 June 2010 |
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby./archive1 |
|
|
|action7result=demoted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8= PR |
|
::::That's what an encyclopedia is. It's cited sources. It's not about making inferences and suppositions from the sources. If the sources say that the inspiration for the song was Stefani's relationship, great, say that in the article. But if those sources don't go beyond that and you say more, then you're making assumptions and inserting your own interpretation into the article, and that's ]. An encyclopedia does not go farther than what can be cited elsewhere. Unless a source can be cited for what the article contends is the "meaning," the entire section should be deleted. --] 01:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8date= 19:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|action8link= Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive2 |
|
|
|action8result= reviewed |
|
|
|action8oldid=388620449 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9= GAN |
|
:::::Now that is unbelievable. There is no logic in that statement at all. If someone had been reading this article, and read that the inspiration came from a break-up, I'm sure everything's been said and done. Would someone be inspired to write a campfire song from a break-up? I highly doubt that. It isn't original research, at this point strictness is playing a role in this article. I would appreciate it if you'd quit attempting to point out every little detail that is completely irrelevant to "Cool"'s FA status. I am aware that you don't want it to hold this honour, but incase you haven't noticed, there are several other users who disagree with you. Nobody requires an article to be referenced to the last breath. That would be asinine. –] 02:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9date= 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|action9link= Talk:Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/GA1 |
|
|
|action9result= listed |
|
|
|action9oldid=396221819 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action10= PR |
|
:::::You not really supposed to put personal conjecture into an encyclopedia article, and NOR covers this restriction. You can probably get away with quoting a serious fansite article on it, but the fansite should be reputable. The website kuro5hin.org is a good place for a well-written article about almost anything. Also, pointing out every detail of non-encyclopedicness is exactly what he should be doing, as FA status does not allow object votes without correctable details. ] 13:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action10date= 21:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|action10link= Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive3 |
|
|
|action10result= reviewed |
|
|
|action10oldid= 430737949 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action11= GTC |
|
Changing the section title does not improve the situation. The assumptions and inferrences are still there. Unless there's a quote from Stefani saying "Cool" means X, or something like "Respected Critic from Prestegious Trade Publication has said that the song means Y," then this section still contains unsourced ]. --] 19:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action11date= 12:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|action11link= Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby./archive2 |
|
|
|action11result= not promoted |
|
|
|action11oldid= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=FTC |
|
:I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Please specify which specific passages, sentences and/or phrases in the article you feel are not supported by references and violate Misplaced Pages's no original research policy, and I (or another editor) will see what I can do with them. ] 17:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12date=00:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby./archive3 |
|
|
|action12result=promoted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|ftname = Love. Angel. Music. Baby. |
|
::I have removed the tag because ] and other users who do not support this article's current status will subsequently address another "issue" that they do not find "appropriate". If you look at the lyrics of this song, they seem to have ''something'' to do with a former relationship, and the inspiration and the music video also include Stefani and Kanal's relationship — so I wonder what that could mean the song is about? –] 20:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=music |
|
:::The song itself cannot be the source. If you do that, then you're providing your own interpretation to the song. Most artwork is, to a certain extent, supposed to have an ambiguous meaning. Pop songs in particular are designed to be ambiguous to have the broadest appeal. You can apply whatever meaning you want to it. While one person may see the song as meaning it's "cool" to be friends with your ex-boyfriend, another might see the song as sarcastic. Unless you have a verifiable published quote from Austin or Stefani corroborating what the article claims is the meaning of the song, then that section is unsourced. Even if you couldn't find that, a critique of the song from a creditable music critic published in a reputable publication would be acceptable. Otherwise, the editor's interpretation of the song is ]. The section I find most objectionable follows: |
|
|
|
|maindate=23 November 2005 |
|
::::''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 pairing that once existed, from the point of view of someone who has moved on from their former love, with Stefani mentioning that she has found a new partner. The lyrics suggest a progression through a turbulent time to a mutual understanding that takes their relationship to a level of respect. 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.<br><br>Stefani sums up the evolution of their relationship with the line "after all that we've been through, I know we're cool". They are now "hanging out" with his new girlfriend, amid "circles and triangles", while she has married and is pleased that he calls her by her "new last name".''<br> |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA/GA |
|
:::Unless you can find a quote from Austin or Stefani that corroborates that interpretation, or a quote from an established credible music critic, then this section should be deleted. --] 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=GA|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gwen Stefani|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New Wave music}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pop music|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Songs}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women in Music|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archives}} |
|
:From (which was already present on the article): ''"So he played it for her, and instantly, Stefani said, she had the "craziest feeling," like, "Wow, this is my song." Within the next 15 minutes, the lyrics just poured out. "When he told me about the track and where it came from for him, it just triggered something in me."'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/GA1}} |
|
:''Stefani related to Austin's struggle to describe his relationship with a girlfriend that had evolved into being not "just friends" but the best of friends, thanks to her much-chronicled relationship with No Doubt bassist Tony Kanal. In "Cool," she sings, "It's such a miracle that you and me are still good friends/ After all that we've been through, I know we're cool." While the video doesn't co-star Kanal, it does depict Gwen in a relationship that changes over time — as the couple become lovers, then exes and finally, friends. The clip is tragic yet elegant and scenic, thanks to its locale — just outside Milan, Italy."'' ] 17:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::Exactly what I was looking for. --] 17:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Video == |
|
:Thanks! Also, a user above had a good comment on a passage about the possibly unsupported claim about the meaning of the song's title, which I have cut and paste here per ]: ''" As the word "]" is one of the most ubiquitous ] 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 ] with themselves, and with each other."'' ] 18:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Does anyone else feel the video is obviously contradicting the lyrics? Prank or message there? --] (]) 10:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
::One could make a valid argument that the usage of "cool" in the song has a double meaning. While I doubt that Austin/Stefani strive to acheive this level of literary irony, we wouldn't want to assume that they didn't unless they actually say so. A valid argument could be made that "cool" means that while the relationship may be amicable, it is no longer "hot" and the loss of this level of passion may be something to mourn. If the video is to be taken as a literal interpretation of the song, this would be a support of this argument. You could also say that the singer's constant repetition of this sentiment is her trying to convince herself of these feelings, and perhaps things aren't as "cool" as she would like to think they are. Some examples of songs that use this device are ] by ] and ]'s ]. Since it's possible for any pop song to have multiple interpretations and levels of meaning, an atribute that applies to most music, it would be presumptuous for an editor to include his or her own interpretation without a verifiable cited source. --] 19:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Let me reword: Has Stefani or a reviewer commented on this contradiction? --] (]) 20:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Not as far as I know. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 17:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
:Now can we restore the information about Kanal in the article? —] 20:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Never mind, as I've completed the restoration. —] 01:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've removed the above paragraph again. It isn't supported by a source. Also, while the song was inspired by Stefani's relationship with Tony Kanal, the music video may not be (there's nothing in the references to say it is), so I've tweaked the language again to make it more ambiguous. ] 20:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yeah, I again have to point out that guy looks absolutely nothing like Kanal. Someone needs to provide a cite for the claim that the song is about Kanal (this is plausible to me), and also one for the claim that the music video is supposed to depict that particular relationship—it could easily be a generalized scenario based loosely on Gwen & Tony, rather than a serious depiction of that particular relationship—if we want to include those things. I would rather forego an assumption like that than make it and turn out to be wrong. Very important to be careful and thorough—especially now that this is an FA. ] 06:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Sourcing == |
|
|
<S>Re: ]. I think this article could use references from more trustworthy sources. I've spelled out my reasoning in the withdrawn FARC. I may resubmit this to ] in several weeks if my criticisms are not refuted or addressed (on the talk page here and in improvements to the article). This is generally a FA-worthy article except for sourcing and style issues. ] 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)</S> |
|
|
:Good lord. I'm not going to submit this to FARC — not now or in the future. I'm not planning on making any other comments or taking action on this issue. Please, do not leave further messages related to this article on my talk page. Thanks. ] 00:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
Done Tbhotch 23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Doing... Tbhotch 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
