| Revision as of 10:12, 5 September 2006 editExtraordinary Machine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users32,464 edits →Questions for EM: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:50, 10 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,797,893 editsm →top: blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=otherTag: AWB |
| (147 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{featured}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Mainpage date|November 23|2005}} |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=October 23, 2005 |
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive1 |
|
{{WikiProjectSongs|class=FA|importance=top}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=26297658 |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
| style="text-align: center" |'''Cool (song)''' was nominated for ''''']''''' on ] ]. The result of the discussion was '''speedy keep'''. An archived record of this discussion can be found ]. |
|
|
|
|action2date=October 27, 2005 |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Cool (Gwen Stefani song) |
|
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|
|
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
|- |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=26642451 |
|
|<center><u>'''''Former discussions'''''</u><br /></center> |
|
|
<center>]: July — November 2005<br />]: November 2005<br />]: November 2005 —</center> |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=AFD |
|
== Unexplained partial revert by EE == |
|
|
|
|action3date=November 28, 2005 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cool (Gwen Stefani song) |
|
|
|action3result=speedy keep |
|
|
|action3oldid=29508255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAR |
|
Please EE, if you're going to revert other people's edits, please say so in the edit summary (per ]) rather than writing things like "tidied". |
|
|
|
|action4date=January 4, 2006 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive1 |
|
|
|action4result=kept |
|
|
|action4oldid=33783738 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FTC |
|
#Changing <nowiki>] to ]</nowiki> 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 ]. This is especially important if, for example, sometime in the future ] becomes its own article. |
|
|
|
|action5date=May 9, 2007 |
|
#:This is not wise. Gold single was merged for a reason, therefore, I will revert this. —] | ] 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby. |
|
#::...except that if ] 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 ] leads to somewhere other than ] 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). ] 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5result=promoted |
|
#:::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. —] | ] 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5oldid=128539152 |
|
#::::What is wrong with linking to ], especially as it makes more logical sense to do so? ] 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#:::::But that's the thing — since it is currently not gold single, personally I don't see any logic. —] | ] 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#::::::The logic is that ] links to ], 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. ] 18:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#Again, wikilinks like ] aren't needed; see ]. |
|
|
#:Yes, I had over wikilinked. —] | ] 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#I remembered there was extensive discussion at ] 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. —] | ] 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 ] about the dance charts. ] 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? -- ] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. —] | ] 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). ] 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Except that the Canadian airplay chart certainly is official () 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. —] | ] 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#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. —] | ] 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#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. —] | ] 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#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). ] 22:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#:I'm somewhat confused. —] | ] 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. ] 12:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#:::Yes, that one was far too long. —] | ] 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=FAR |
|
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. —] | ] 21:26, 14 June 2006 (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've explained above (]) why I removed it originally, and the consensus established at ] is that component charts are arbitrary in most cases (whether in the text or in the "Charts" section). ] 22:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7date=17:46, 16 June 2010 |
|
::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. —] | ] 22:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic removal candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby./archive1 |
|
:::Changed my mind. I removed the mention of the Pop 100 Airplay's peak position. —] | ] 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7result=demoted |
|
::::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. ] 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 ], 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. —] | ] 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 ]. I don't agree with it being removed from singles articles. I think it is the most imporant chart after the ]. 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 ] 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. --] 22:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Personally, I strongly agree with ] 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 ]'s "]" 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? —] | ] 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 ] and ] (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 ]. 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. --] 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 ] 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? —] | ] 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 ], it may mean 10 Billboard charts. For the most part, this still leaves plenty of open spaces for international charts. --] 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Absolutely. Let us wait for EM. —] | ] 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages; 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 ] and version of ]: 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? ] 19:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8= PR |
|
==Music== |
|
|
|
|action8date= 19:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC) |
|
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 ] 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? —] | ] 22:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8link= Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive2 |
|
: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). —] | ] 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8result= reviewed |
|
|
|action8oldid=388620449 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9= GAN |
|
Does anybody know if there is a piano present in the music? —] | ] 17:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9date= 23:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
|
:I have added a musical section to the article. Suggestions or thoughts, anybody? —] | ] 22:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9link= Talk:Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/GA1 |
|
::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! --] 03:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9result= listed |
|
:::If "Cool" was not new wave-produced, would the D major tuning differ from, let's say, classical music? ] 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9oldid=396221819 |
|
::::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 <i>were</i> incorrect (e.g. Gwen does <i>not</i> 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! ] 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! ] 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action10= PR |
|
== 64.231.119.227 / Eternal Equinox == |
|
|
|
|action10date= 21:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|action10link= Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/archive3 |
|
|
|action10result= reviewed |
|
|
|action10oldid= 430737949 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action11= GTC |
|
I've restored my edits that were surreptitiously removed by {{user|64.231.119.227}}, which is in the IP range used by Eternal Equinox: |
|
|
|
|action11date= 12:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|action11link= Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby./archive2 |
|
|
|action11result= not promoted |
|
|
|action11oldid= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=FTC |
|
#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". |
|
|
|
|action12date=00:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
#"Elsewhere" and "global" shouldn't be capitalised, because they aren't proper nouns. |
|
|
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby./archive3 |
|
#:Yes, I do realize this. Sorry about the revert there. ] 22:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12result=promoted |
|
#I removed the chart trajectory image again. At the discussions at ] (which you already know about) after this article was promoted to featured states, consensus arose that they weren't needed. |
|
|
#] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|ftname = Love. Angel. Music. Baby. |
|
EE, your behaviour on this article and your tendency to edit war is one of the reasons why an RFAr on you was opened (]), so I strongly suggest you reconsider what you are doing. ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 — with all common sense — 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 ] that you are famous for (] went through much "trouble" 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 — it's not necessary that it is. Second parties would be pleasant as well. ] 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 Misplaced Pages. May I also remind you that ] is policy, and I'd be happy to be "famous" for enforcing it. Whatever "trouble" OmegaWikipedia went through to provide such information is irrelevant. |
|
|
:::#]'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 ] 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. ] 19:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=music |
|
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 — 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? ] 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maindate=23 November 2005 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA/GA |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{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}} |
|
: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 ] was moved from ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:Cool (Gwen Stefani song)/GA1}} |
|
:''"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. ] 20:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Wait, I'm slightly confused. Which sentence do you think is clearer? ] 20:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Video == |
|
:::The first. Anyway, I see you've chosen to revert again ( aside), so here goes: |
|
|
|
Does anyone else feel the video is obviously contradicting the lyrics? Prank or message there? --] (]) 10:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC) |
|
::::''"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. |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
::::''"'''Throughout the entire piece''', the synthesizer emulates ]-like instruments (such as the ], ] and ]) and ]s,"'' - 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 ]'''."'' - 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 ]. ] 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 ). 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". ] 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? ] 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 ] (at the time named Hot Dance Music/Club Play) chart for the week of ] ], but was less successful on the ] and ] formats.''''' — factually incorrect. This implies that the remixes charted on the Adult Contemporary and Hot Dance Airplay formats. Rewritten. ] 21:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Another concern: ] is listed in <nowiki>]</nowiki> even though the song charted when it was not known as this. As I said before, Misplaced Pages should concentrate on remaining updated with mainstream culture. ] 21:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Take care my lovely article. Perhaps someday I'll edit anonymously again! —] 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"; ]. Stop undoing my changes without explaining, and do not use misleading edit summaries. ] 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't own it. Very good. I'll call it what I want. You seem to think — especially most recently — that you own it. ] 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:And no I didn't. It was aboslutely . Well I had fifteen minutes to be here, but I have to go unless I want to get in trouble. So long! ] 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. ] 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Musical stuff== |
|
|
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 ], 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, ] <font color="green">]</font> 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. ] 23:22, 21 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
#What happened to the chart trajectory? ] 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 ]. Actually, the entire article ignores South American charts. |
|
|
#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.] 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. ] 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. ] 16:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::'''This''' is a 64.231 editor. It's not E.E., but you know me. ] 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:#Contributions history of {{user|What2do}} includes several edits to ], an article EE helped elevate to featured article status. |
|
|
:#Contributions history of {{user|68.32.205.159}} includes edit to ], 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 Misplaced Pages? How likely is it that three such fans would parachute into the same talk page within hours of each other? ] 18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Questions for EM=== |
|
|
#Why are you selectively changing precise dates to "mid-October"? Some sections are like this, while others are written out. |
|
|
#Please stop introducing a very long opening sentence. It is shorter the way it is written out and barely increases its length. |
|
|
#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. ] 17:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#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 Misplaced Pages 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. |
|
|
#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. |
|
|
#The chart trajectory is most definitely appropriate, like the above user mentioned. |
|
|
:] 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 ] would not be changed to ], ] would not be changed to ], ] would not be changed to ]. ] 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 ]. 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 ]. It's not obvious that the numbers in parentheses are referring to the numbers of weeks, so I clarified that. ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#I think the precise dates are a fine idea, and if we have the information, why should we deny it to the readers? |
|
|
#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. |
|
|
#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. |
|
|
#The category needs to be changed then. |
|
|
#Okay. |
|
|
#Could you point to me exactly where at ] is there discussion regarding the centering of the chart names? |
|
|
:] 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 ]: "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 ] 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. ] 10:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
Done Tbhotch 23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Doing... Tbhotch 20:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
