Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:15, 15 July 2006

Unsourced

I've added the unsourced 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. --malber 20:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This link confirms that the inspiration for the song is the Stefani/Kanal relationship, and this link states very clearly that the Love. Angel. Music. Baby. album was inspired by music from the 1980s. I've added both to the article. Extraordinary Machine 21:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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 original research. --malber 21:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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. –Hollow Wilerding 23:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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 original research. 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. --malber 01:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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. –Hollow Wilerding 02:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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. JeffBurdges 13:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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 original research. --malber 19:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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. Extraordinary Machine 17:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the tag because User:Malber 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? –Hollow Wilerding 20:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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 original research. The section I find most objectionable follows:

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.

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".

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. --malber 03:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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."

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." Extraordinary Machine 17:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for. --malber 17:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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 WP:CITE#When there is a factual dispute: " 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." Extraordinary Machine 18:13, 2 December 2005 (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 I Ain't Missing You by John Waite and Keith Urban's You'll Think of Me. 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. --malber 19:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Now can we restore the information about Kanal in the article? —Hollow Wilerding 20:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, as I've completed the restoration. —Hollow Wilerding 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. Extraordinary Machine 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. Everyking 06:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing

Re: Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Cool (song). 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 WP:FARC 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. Saravask 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Saravask 00:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Still gold?

What You Waiting For? is recorded as being certified platinum

1. 47 (U.S.)
2. 11 (CAN)
3. 4 (UK)
4. 1 (AU)

Cool is recorded on the artical as being certified Gold

1. 1 Canada
2. 10 Australia
3. 11 UK
4. 13 U.S.

Looking at the two of these together, it seems as if Cool was probably the more successful of the two, yet why is it still just Gold? Is this right? (unsigned comment by 24.18.129.104 on 06:16, 15 January 2006)

At least with the RIAA the criteria for Platinum and Gold records is number of sales of the relevant medium, while this is related in some sense to chart positions, there is scope for variation, as certain seasonal variation in single sales, and overall decline in single sales that has been seen in the last couple of decades can affect the total sales, as well as how long the song was in the charts overall not just its high water mark. Sfnhltb 15:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that What You Waiting For? peaked at number 24 in Canada. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excess detail

User:Eternal Equinox writes in his edit summary here: "mentioning that previous singles all reached the top two is awkward". I'd argue that wading through paragraphs of excessively detailed coverage of chart performance is more awkward for readers. If people want to know exact peak positions, that's what the table at the bottom of the page is for. Likewise, the articles on Stefani's other singles can tell people the exact positions they reached on whatever chart, if readers want to know that information. We do not need to know that the song debuted within the top fifty of the Pop 100 Airplay, unless its debut broke some kind of record or is notable in some other way (the article should make that clear if it is). Same with how long the song's video stayed at number one on the MuchMusic countdown. In fact, the Pop 100 Airplay isn't that notable anyway as it's a component chart used to calculate the main Pop 100, which isn't even the main U.S. chart. There's no reason to mention component charts for non-Hot 100 charts except in special cases, i.e. if a song didn't appear on a main chart but did appear on one of its components. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.

Also, the link to album in the lead should not be there either, per WP:CONTEXT. I have removed it again. Extraordinary Machine 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

""Cool" is a pop song written by American singer-songwriter Gwen Stefani" - the mention of "songwriter" is repetitive and redundant here. Extraordinary Machine 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to log off, so I'll have to get back to the majority of this discussion later, but I'm only going to answer that "singer-songwriter" is not redundant or repetitive at all because it is mentioned in the very first sentence, contains its own article, and mis-illustrates Gwen Stefani. After all, would we only place "singer" in Mariah Carey's article ot We Belong Together? Album should also be linked because it the actual album is straight in front of it, regardless of what WP:CONTEXT reads. It is a bit silly. I don't think any of this information relates to What Misplaced Pages is not any way possible. Also, "all reached the top two" is still rather ridiculous-sounding and needs to be rewritten, and since the songs are notable for reaching number one there, should be individual. The situation is identical with the Billboard charts — top ten, top twenty? Why deprive the people of the information here? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a song. Why can't there be a link to album? Even though I left a message on your talk page, I still find this a bit unusual. Is this part of WP:CONTEXT? —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually this article is rather short. Look at everything above "Formats and track listings" (the real meat of the article): there's really not much there. It's OK, but it's not FA quality detail in my opinion. So I think "excess detail" is the last thing we should be worried about. Everyking 07:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion that Stefani is a songwriter is already inferred by the statement that the song was written by her. We don't need to remind the reader of the same thing twice in the same sentence, and this isn't just for song articles either. We wouldn't write "In the Name of the Father is a 1993 film directed and co-written by director and screenwriter Jim Sheridan", it's repetitive and jarring for readers. The exact chart positions are at the bottom of the article so it's certainly not a case of "depriving the people of the information"; it's just tiresome having to read through all that unnecessary detail.

The fact that this article is about a song is the reason why we shouldn't link to album, per WP:CONTEXT as you said. Extraordinary Machine 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The charts listed are at the bottom, but not placing them in the article could possibly be seen as point of view, though maybe only to a certain extent. In the case that album is not related to a song, if you look throughout the article, there are many other topics that are not related to a song, such as a wig or even Italy, but are still linked due to the significance of their existence. Although the rest of the links removed (this includes singer-songwriter) were definitely irrelevant and redundant, I don't believe album is. Also, I did not find it listed on CONTEXT anywhere. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would it be point of view not to mention exact peak positions, as they are already in a table at the bottom of the article? It's less difficult to read through, in my opinion, and doesn't mean that the text gets swamped in excessive detail. As for WP:CONTEXT, it states "Only make links that are relevant to the context", and an article on album is not relevant to the context of a song article, unless there is a discussion of albums in general in the article for some reason and the link is needed to help readers understand the discussion. This is the same reason why we don't link to articles like singer and lake: the topics are not discussed here and mentioned only in passing. Perhaps the wig and Italy wikilinks could be removed as well. Extraordinary Machine 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion is perhaps fairly silly in several manners, and WP:CONTEXT fails to intrepert its detail accurately; however, after a read-through of its material again, I've come to the conclusion that you're not 100% correct, but you are most certainly not wrong. Therefore, I am not obligiated to remove the link in any way from this moment, yet I will not refrain from believing that it should remain. Should boyfriend and girlfriend remain linked since the topics are expanded upon substantially as the writing becomes more in-depth? —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that readers will most likely be familiar with the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend", so those wikilinks are probably unnecessary here, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Machine 13:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that's true. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Images?

What is going on with the images here? 64.231.155.252 (talk · contribs) asked me to replace them. I note that they have been reverted when trying to do it themselves. Jkelly 21:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

64.231.155.252 is blocked editor Eternal Equinox, evading the block to edit here, elsewhere, wikilawyer, post threats and insults, and generally disrupt. Followed by 64.231.152.133, which was promptly blocked by three admins at once. Apologies for any confusion. We now return you to your regularly scheduled editing. KillerChihuahua 21:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The images have been reincluded in the article. I have also moved some of the content around so that it approitately fits the layout and structure. —Eternal Equinox | talk 20:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)