This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Can someone explain to me how one pop song is encyclopedic? Gwen ain't Elvis. She ain't even Tori. - JeffBurdges 01:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
There should be some grace period for featured articles based on current products, whether it's a film, book, movie, car, etc. That way it's less likely to be interpreted as advertising. On the flip side, it's good to see that the encyclopedia is up-to-date with more recent happenings. -- Madchester 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
That is a good idea. Also, I think this article, while undeniably well done, is a little excessive for an average pop song. -- Iorek85 07:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, given the system of independent promotion used by the music industry, and not having looked at the history of contributions. I would guess that there are reasonable odds that a independent music promoter contributed heavely to this article, for pay. I would suggest a grace period of one year from the initial release of any product before it can be featured on the main page. It can be nominated, voted on, etc. earlier, but any main page display should be delayed until a year has elapsed. - JeffBurdges 09:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's great to have an article on a current pop song as a FA. It shows Wikipedia's depth and potential. You can't treat something any differently because you think it might be "advertising". Everyking 09:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this a great article - it's very solid. But this has created a precedent that fans of other musical acts are going to have to follow now. Every fairly decent song is going to need an article like this.
First Wario, then this. What's next, the Macarena?-- malber 13:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
What is the litmus test for what goes into Wikipedia? This has no social or intellectual value at all. If we allow every song that has any value to anyone, soon the wiki will be filled with entries of every song, poem, that anyone chooses to write about. How long until the Advertisers start writing their own song entires. Sad. Bobcooley 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, one or two of the serious contributors here ought to think about asking for money from a record labal, as independent promoters, next time they want to make an article about a recent pop song. Hey, might as well see if they will pay you, and it seems to be what your interested in.
This whole little orgy of criticism against this article is silly. There is a snobbish bias against popular culture that is hard to wash away, even on a project as open as Wikipedia. Everyking 21:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, no, Cool is definitely not encyclopedic in any vaguely traditional sence of the word. In particular, the Gay Nigger Association of America is actually more encyclopedic as they at least represent a significant influence on internet trolling. But wikipedia is tollerant of all such things, which is cool. :) But it really should reiterate the encyclopedic requirment in the test of featured article status. I should go nominate the GNAA for featured article. :) JeffBurdges 12:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to a confused member how this flash-in-the-pan gets not only her own bio, but also an in depth commercial advertisment completely free of charge on wikipaedia? The former we might argue is acceptable, but this entry surely violates the "100 years rule". Who in the year 2105 is going to type the word "cool" into this project with the expectation of finding this article? Just so I know for future reference... -- HasBeen 13:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to remind people that article Talk pages are to be used to discuss improvements to the article, and not for a general discussion of the subject of the article. If there is concern about this article's quality, (as opposed to the worthiness of its subject), please offer concise and specific comments on possible improvements. Jkelly 16:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
You're a little too much into Gwen, dude.
This is not a quality or quanity issue; it's about the fact that this entry belongs on a Gwen Stefani fan site, NOT Wikipedia.
This article should be to a much higher standard, especially to maintain Featured Article status. Here are some specific reasons:
The writing is sloppy, often redundant, and laced with unsupported conclusions that at times seem simply like the author's opinion.
The worst example, and I can't believe this MADE IT ONTO THE WIKIPEDIA FRONT PAGE, is the statement in the overview paragraph:
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? It is debatable whether this would be more meaningless and absurd, with or without the "pop music from the 1980s" redirect to Timeline of trends in music (1980-1989), a massive, eclectic, arbitrary list of stuff that happened in all styles of music around the world. Does it mean that "Cool" was somehow influenced by the alt-folk group Biermosl Blosn's appearance on Bavarian TV, or the Malian roots revival sparked by Jali Musa Juawara's Yasimiki (two representative items from the referenced page), or are these not "pop"? Is this a do-it-yourself feature, or a CLUE: you listen to the sample and then try to figure out which "pop music" (of the 1980s) it references? Or WHAT? Unbelievable...
This paragraph from the Composition and Meaning section illustrates the poor writing and pervasive inclusion of either unsupported info, or straight author's opinion:
A couple more examples of the combination of imprecise and rambling writing, and unsupported conclusions, that characterizes this article:
Important basic info is missing, specifically, any concrete discussion of the song structure and recording, and an accounting of the various versions and remixes (modern pop singles are practically by definition about their different versions: radio edits for each national market, version for the videore, and mixes for various audience segments, like different dancefloor styles -- in the last category, WHO does those remixes is often a major consideration, as the remixer often completely restyles elements of the track while retaining signature elements, like the vocals or hook or whatever).
How can this be a Featured Article? -- Tsavage 20:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This article made it to FA status because Winnermario used sockpuppets for the voting. I have no more faith in any Wikipedia Featured Article.-- malber 04:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you link to the history? Evidence would help in any campaign to remove FA status. Plus your obejction should be notted on the Hollaback Girl FA candidate forum. - JeffBurdges 12:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
If you can provide evidence that sockpuppetry was used during the nomination process, then I'll take the comment seriously. As it currently stands, this is another excuse to strip "Cool" of its FA status. – Hollow Wilerding 13:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Can someone explain to me how one pop song is encyclopedic? Gwen ain't Elvis. She ain't even Tori. - JeffBurdges 01:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
There should be some grace period for featured articles based on current products, whether it's a film, book, movie, car, etc. That way it's less likely to be interpreted as advertising. On the flip side, it's good to see that the encyclopedia is up-to-date with more recent happenings. -- Madchester 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
That is a good idea. Also, I think this article, while undeniably well done, is a little excessive for an average pop song. -- Iorek85 07:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, given the system of independent promotion used by the music industry, and not having looked at the history of contributions. I would guess that there are reasonable odds that a independent music promoter contributed heavely to this article, for pay. I would suggest a grace period of one year from the initial release of any product before it can be featured on the main page. It can be nominated, voted on, etc. earlier, but any main page display should be delayed until a year has elapsed. - JeffBurdges 09:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's great to have an article on a current pop song as a FA. It shows Wikipedia's depth and potential. You can't treat something any differently because you think it might be "advertising". Everyking 09:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this a great article - it's very solid. But this has created a precedent that fans of other musical acts are going to have to follow now. Every fairly decent song is going to need an article like this.
First Wario, then this. What's next, the Macarena?-- malber 13:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
What is the litmus test for what goes into Wikipedia? This has no social or intellectual value at all. If we allow every song that has any value to anyone, soon the wiki will be filled with entries of every song, poem, that anyone chooses to write about. How long until the Advertisers start writing their own song entires. Sad. Bobcooley 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, one or two of the serious contributors here ought to think about asking for money from a record labal, as independent promoters, next time they want to make an article about a recent pop song. Hey, might as well see if they will pay you, and it seems to be what your interested in.
This whole little orgy of criticism against this article is silly. There is a snobbish bias against popular culture that is hard to wash away, even on a project as open as Wikipedia. Everyking 21:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, no, Cool is definitely not encyclopedic in any vaguely traditional sence of the word. In particular, the Gay Nigger Association of America is actually more encyclopedic as they at least represent a significant influence on internet trolling. But wikipedia is tollerant of all such things, which is cool. :) But it really should reiterate the encyclopedic requirment in the test of featured article status. I should go nominate the GNAA for featured article. :) JeffBurdges 12:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone explain to a confused member how this flash-in-the-pan gets not only her own bio, but also an in depth commercial advertisment completely free of charge on wikipaedia? The former we might argue is acceptable, but this entry surely violates the "100 years rule". Who in the year 2105 is going to type the word "cool" into this project with the expectation of finding this article? Just so I know for future reference... -- HasBeen 13:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to remind people that article Talk pages are to be used to discuss improvements to the article, and not for a general discussion of the subject of the article. If there is concern about this article's quality, (as opposed to the worthiness of its subject), please offer concise and specific comments on possible improvements. Jkelly 16:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
You're a little too much into Gwen, dude.
This is not a quality or quanity issue; it's about the fact that this entry belongs on a Gwen Stefani fan site, NOT Wikipedia.
This article should be to a much higher standard, especially to maintain Featured Article status. Here are some specific reasons:
The writing is sloppy, often redundant, and laced with unsupported conclusions that at times seem simply like the author's opinion.
The worst example, and I can't believe this MADE IT ONTO THE WIKIPEDIA FRONT PAGE, is the statement in the overview paragraph:
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? It is debatable whether this would be more meaningless and absurd, with or without the "pop music from the 1980s" redirect to Timeline of trends in music (1980-1989), a massive, eclectic, arbitrary list of stuff that happened in all styles of music around the world. Does it mean that "Cool" was somehow influenced by the alt-folk group Biermosl Blosn's appearance on Bavarian TV, or the Malian roots revival sparked by Jali Musa Juawara's Yasimiki (two representative items from the referenced page), or are these not "pop"? Is this a do-it-yourself feature, or a CLUE: you listen to the sample and then try to figure out which "pop music" (of the 1980s) it references? Or WHAT? Unbelievable...
This paragraph from the Composition and Meaning section illustrates the poor writing and pervasive inclusion of either unsupported info, or straight author's opinion:
A couple more examples of the combination of imprecise and rambling writing, and unsupported conclusions, that characterizes this article:
Important basic info is missing, specifically, any concrete discussion of the song structure and recording, and an accounting of the various versions and remixes (modern pop singles are practically by definition about their different versions: radio edits for each national market, version for the videore, and mixes for various audience segments, like different dancefloor styles -- in the last category, WHO does those remixes is often a major consideration, as the remixer often completely restyles elements of the track while retaining signature elements, like the vocals or hook or whatever).
How can this be a Featured Article? -- Tsavage 20:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This article made it to FA status because Winnermario used sockpuppets for the voting. I have no more faith in any Wikipedia Featured Article.-- malber 04:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you link to the history? Evidence would help in any campaign to remove FA status. Plus your obejction should be notted on the Hollaback Girl FA candidate forum. - JeffBurdges 12:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
If you can provide evidence that sockpuppetry was used during the nomination process, then I'll take the comment seriously. As it currently stands, this is another excuse to strip "Cool" of its FA status. – Hollow Wilerding 13:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)