Jump to content

Talk:Love. Angel. Music. Baby./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Album title correction

The correct album title is "Love. Angel. Music. Baby." with a period after each word, not a comma. I hope to have the page moved along with all the links to the correct version soon. CyberSkull 05:07, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Finished it. CyberSkull 22:33, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Too many redirects

This page has so many redirects, most of them are probably useless. Looking at "What Links Here" I can find:

Most of these don't have any linking pages, and I intend on correcting the ones that do. Perhaps soon I can RfD the more useless redirects. — Jesse's Girl | Please talk! 17:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It does seem a bit excessive, but they aren't hurting anything, and they could be helpful to somebody doing a search. Personally I wouldn't invest the effort in trying to get rid of them. Everyking 17:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see a problem, this album gets misspelled allot. They should stay. CyberSkull 23:34, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

The Real Thing

New Order provide backing vocals and instrumentation. If that doesn't merit a (with New Order) after the song name, I doubt some of the other ones there merit it either. Reverting. --Kiand 11:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

That's probably true — but doesn't constitute a reason for including it in this case. Is there any source for the "featuring" claim? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
http://www.nme.com/news/110958.htm
http://www.mtv.co.uk/mtv.co.uk/news/article.jhtml?articleId=30115419 (the band bitching about how bad the track was)
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/stefani_gwen/love-angel-music-baby.shtml
I could go on, but three sources from totally different sites should be enough. --Kiand 12:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, the first one makes it clear that New Order appear on that track, but it doesn't refer to them being featured (and the journalistic English makes it difficult to judge); the second one (once I'd copied and pasted the text; who on Earth designed that site?) contradicts the first one in most respects, but again implies that New Order appear but not that they're featured; the third one comes closest to backing up your claim, but doesn't quite do it.

Why not point out that the album involved a number of collaborators, and then add their names to the track listing using the form "(with xyz)"? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I did add them to the track listing in the form (with New Order) and its been removed, three times, including once by you. I'm going to add it back, as I think those links back my claim up enough. --Kiand 13:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact I removed "(featuring New Order)", as the History clearly shows ([1]), and your other edits were the same ([2] &[3]--Kiand 21:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)). Still, it's good that you've moved to "with" now. Perhaps the others should be edited similarly, and the other collaborations added? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Featuring and With are synonyms. Nothing different. --Kiand 14:24, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know which dictionary you're using, but I'd ask for a refund. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Enough of this. I own the album and it clearly states that "Rich Girl", "Bubble Pop Electric" and "Long Way to Go" are collaborations. "The Real Thing" is not a collaboration. It's that simple. If you don't believe me, check your closest music store and look at the back of the album. Track number nine, "The Real Thing", has no collaboration. Therefore, New Order does not appear on this record. That's how simple it is. DrippingInk 21:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check the full credit listing. Might not be listed there, but her and their record labels say there there. --Kiand 21:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, SHE says they're on it. Actual artist versus printing plant. Hrrmmm...
I also can't see why you're so insistant that they're NOT on it. --Kiand 21:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And this is from the official site for the album, maintained by Interscope:

"Helping Gwen achieve that goal are artists like Dr Dre, The Neptunes, Andre 3000, Linda Perry, Bernard Sumner and Peter Hook of New Order, Nellee Hooper, Dallas Austin, Wendy & Lisa, Tony Kanal, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis." --Kiand 21:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My view:

  1. The track listing should follow the details on the album cover.
  2. The body of the article should contain details of who else appears on the album (we need a new section for that). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Paragraph added. I don't know, or even really give a damn, about who's on the other tracks; the list on the Interscope site has LOTS of people who aren't on the 'offcial' track listing. I can't see any advantage, -at all- to doing it like this, but if you two are going to be so.. (omitting thoughts) --Kiand 22:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Digipak version

Best Buy is carrying a "digipak" version[4]. Hardback book-style CD case with ribbon page bookmarker and a separate Cd wallet included. Not sure how to note this in the article... the CD itself has no extra songs and I'm not sure if this is a Best Buy exclusive(wasn't noted as such when I bought it there). BB's page doesn't even bother to specify the extra details either. 206.162.192.39 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It seemed somewhat expectant. Velten 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"On radio"

An anon wonders (aggressively) why I reverted his/her edit: "*'Cool' (now on radio)". I hope that the reason's clear to everyone else. "Now on radio" is telegraphic and vague; whose radio? where? does this mean that it's been officially released? if so, when?

If it has been released, could someone edit the article accordingly? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That probably means U.S. radio. It doesn't seem too vague to me. Everyking 23:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Your two sentences contradict each other. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

...What? The problem with English professors. God. Anyways, "Cool" indeed documents the relationship Stefani once had with Tony Kanal. Maybe not heavily (I highly doubt that), but if you just read the lyrics ("After all that we've been through / I know we're cool", "And after all the obstacles it's good to / See you now with someone else", "And it's such a miracle that you and meet are still good friends", and "I'll be happy for you if you can / Be happy for me". The music video also clearly shows this. 64.231.168.171 23:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

  1. ????
  2. You seem to be having a different conversation.
  3. Wikipedia:No original research
  4. The other singles don't have entries about their subject matter, but technical details about where played, samples, etc. Why do you insist that "Cool" be different? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Mel. You need to realize that you're looking like a complete idiot here. For one, when did this become original research? The music video clearly shows that the song documents Gwen and Tony's relationship. I don't see what the problem is here. Anyways, I'm going to be on holiday. When I come back I expect the "documents relationship" to still be there. And how are we making "Cool" any different from the rest? Like I've said before, you know nothing about Gwen, the Spice Girls, Kelly Clarkson, or any of them. You just insist the English be proper. So quit it. The song and video documents her relationship. End of story. DrippingInk 17:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
  1. I'll add Wikipedia:No personal attacks to the reading list.
  2. My comments have nothing to do with knowledge; if you read what I said, and look at the article, you'll see that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
You want to know why? That is what the song is known for, that is exactly why. I have nothing more to say. Now I'm going on holiday (I seriously mean this, I will not be making edits for the next month), and I want it that way.
Unlike its three predecessors, there is no other information on "Cool" that is actually useful. Now have a fun August. See you in September. DrippingInk 17:55, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Having Kanal (or anyone) portray the ex in a video is in no way sufficient proof of a given song's meaning. User:Mel Etitis is quite right on this: this is a case of original research, if this is all the proof that is on the table. Also, the tone of User:DrippingInk is confrontational and unwarranted, at best.
Their ended relationship is well-known to Stefani's most serious fans. This makes it highly possible that Tony Kanal is sometimes chosen as a representation of an emblematic ex. I actually believe I read that this was the case with a video of No Doubt (maybe from Return of Saturn), but that would have to be verified to be sure (otherwise, that would be, how do you say... original research).
Ms. Stefani did have a long-term relationship, and a break-up, with Tony Kanal. However, let us keep in mind that the odds of the lovely Gwen Stefani having more than one ex-boyfriend, must I say it, are non-negligible. --Liberlogos 01:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

André Vulture 3000 Diddy Combs

Producers: Andre 3000, Dallas Austin, Dr. Dre, Nellee Hooper, Jimmy Jam, Tony Kanal, Terry Lewis, The Neptunes, Mark "Spike" Stent, Johnny Vulture

André 3000 IS Johnny Vulture. Should we underline this? Should we remove one (and if so, which one)? --Liberlogos 01:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Red Hot Chili Peppers reference?

Does anybody know that the album name would somehow refer to Blood. Sugar. Sex. Magik., as it was the first thing that came in to my mind when I saw the name. --Easyas12c 21:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not so sure about that. (Love. Angel. Music. Baby.)=LAMB, an acronym for the album title. Besides, there are other album that use periods after all of the words, such as CKY's Infiltrate.Destroy.Rebuild. or Dashboard Confessional's A Mark. A Mission. A Brand. A Scar.. --G VOLTT 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Same here, that was the first thing that came to my mind as well. The resemblance lies not only in that there's four words with periods after each; the title seems like a softer version of Blood Sugar Sex Magik, I can't imagine Gwen didn't think of this as RHCP is a very renounced group and she's not an ignorant. Cyborg 20:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Chili Peppers ablum came before all of the above mentioned album titles with periods in the title. Further, Cyborg mentioned other differentiating factors. I can't say for sure that the RHCP album was inspirational to Stephani, but I think it is likely that it crossed her mind. Plus, I would bet that one could find a credible music critic that makes this connection. I would suggest putting line about the connection back in this article. I put it in originally and someone deleted it... Unless there is no reference to this connection on the net, I would put it back... ask123 21:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    It needs a reference from a reliable source. Any speculation on what might have been going through Stefani's mind when coming up with the title is original research. The title shares its name with Stefani's fashion line L.A.M.B. (which she started before the album), which gets its name from Stefani's dog, whose name came from the nursery rhyme "Mary Had a Little Lamb". Any connection to RHCP is unlikely. 17Drew 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course, the change cannot be made without reliable sourcing. As said above, one should look to a credible music critic who has written on L.A.M.B. for sourcing. The fact that it may have crossed her mind is not a reason to include that in the article. That is just a musing, a fact that should be clear when one reads the following sentence requesting a credible source. It is hardly a reason for inclusion in and of itself. Unfortunately, I am not invested in this article, but perhaps someone who is can track this down and find an answer on this issue once and for all. ask123 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I feel that till Gwen doesn't mention about herself being inspired by blood sugar sex magik, we can't put it. If we find resemblence in the names, then that's our personal thinking. Neither Gwen nor any major site has mentioned about this. It's just our brain thinking. If Gwen would have been inspired and named the album accordingly and would have mentioned it somewhere, then i would have jumped to add it to the article. User:Luxurious.gaurav
Gaurav, I think you're on the right track. If Stefani confirms it, then it should surely be entered. I would add that if a credible music writer mentions it in any way beyond a musing, it might be considered for entry. If such a mention is found, I would suggest that one might say it is "reminiscent" of the previous album title because that fact is applicable to the academic study (if that is possible ;)) of this album. ask123 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion?

I feel a little uneasy about this paragraph (in the intro of the page)...should it stay?

"Despite having strong language and violent content (listen to Hollaback Girl) and sexual content (listen to Crash), and being on a major label, the album did not get a Parental Advisory label for some reason." Vikramsidhu 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'n not sure, my album (special edition, australian) has a warning "MODERATE IMPACT" on the cover..-Anthony- 07:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I do know Wal-Mart sold the album uncensored for a time. Then they caught it apparently as I saw a sign up one day about the album being "out of stock"(which is unusual for WM to put a sign up for). Not sure if they got in a later edited copy or not though. 206.162.192.39 13:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Album sales

i put a reference link and someone took it out! the album sold approx 6 million worldwide a little over 6.4 about....please do not change this thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.215.166 (talk • contribs)

Your album sales are not entirely verifiable. One is from a blog that does not meet those guidelines, while the other is from the United World Chart. Now, although this one is appropriate, it is dated October 25, 2005; that's more than a year ago, so I'm going to change this accordingly. Velten 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion beginning February 2007

Pitchfork review

I've restored a section that was removed since Wikipedia is not censored. If you still disagree, it may be a good idea to get a third opinion. ShadowHalo 00:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the censorship policy, yet I feel that it's unnecessary to expand on a topic if it includes such profanity. Perhaps there's a more suitable opinion within that review? Velten 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There's another part of the review that deals with the fashion shout-outs, but it's not much better: "the rest of LAMB's zombied buy-LAMB-clothing mantras and transparent Hollywood Dream bullshit-- the Joker's free-money parade through Gotham City was a much more entertaining display of wealth, and he had Prince, not just Wendy & Lisa." ShadowHalo 00:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the second part can be featured in the article (it's somewhat better! :P)? Velten 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh duh, I should have thought of that. Thanks. I changed the quote in the article, but I have no idea what Prince is supposed to refer to after checking Prince (disambiguation). I was thinking Prince (musician), but he never appeared in Batman so far as I know... ShadowHalo 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am none the wiser. Um...perhaps we could link it at a later date, I'm sure other editors would forgive us in the meantime. Velten 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. Prince (musician) did the soundtrack; it's linked now. Thanks for your help so far. I think this is almost to GA status. ShadowHalo 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree; you work at such speedy rates I'm amazed. I don't know where you look for your information, but it's certainly something. Very good work indeed. Velten 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sound samples

I was wondering if it would be possible to upload sound samples of songs other than just the singles for this article. After all, I think we're limiting the selection to its commercial availability instead of the album's actual diversity, which seems somewhat avaricious in our favour. Velten 01:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little mixed on that. In order to justify having them, there would need to be critical commentary in the article, and it feels like that would be undue weight. ShadowHalo 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm... could we remove one of the samples then? Velten 01:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean remove one, merge them into one box, and have three? Or remove a sample of one of the singles and replace it with a sample of an album track? ShadowHalo 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Remove one, merge them into one box, and have three. Velten 01:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds fine. I'd recommend keeping "Hollaback Girl" since it's her best known and "What You Waiting For?" since it's the lead. I don't have a preference between the other two though. ShadowHalo 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"What You Waiting For?" is a dance-pop song, one of the album's genres, and "Hollaback Girl" is pop-rap. I would suggest keeping "Cool" because it's New Wave-produced, another genre on the album, though "Rich Girl" and its ragga-influence is also tempting. Velten 14:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Now a good article

Reviewed, passed as a good article, well done to all contributors. Hopefully whatever issue with Image:Gwen Stefani in November 2005.jpg is cleared up. PhoenixTwo 22:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I contacted the Flickr user about it, and he said that he took it down because he didn't like the quality of the pictures. He gave permission for the images to be used, but it was phrased somewhat vaguely, so I might need to contact him again. ShadowHalo 09:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
All taken care of and archived in OTRS. ShadowHalo 02:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In discussing the track "Harajuku Girls," I find that stating that the track was "panned" due to its "homoeroticism" is offensive, as homoeroticism is not a negative quality, and was not stated in the cited article as being a reason for its being panned. Therefore, I am , for a "good reason," deleting the words "homoerotic" and "and," irrevocably changing the article. 12.135.58.53 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)scharles

Please note that Wikipedia is a wiki and that changes are not irrevocable. Since "homoerotic" was a term frequently used to describe the song, I've added it back in, but it now reads "'bizarrely' and 'weirdly homoerotic'" to address your concern. ShadowHalo 19:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro copyedit

I made some changes to the intro, following up on ShadowHalo's request at the music noticeboard. One change which may need explanation is removing the references from the intro. Since the introduction is a summary of the article, I think references are generally unnecessary; instead, the intro should summarize the information presented — and properly referenced — in the body of the article. Λυδαcιτγ 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing a copyedit. I wasn't sure if maybe you missed it or if there was a specific reason, but should the citation for "Most of the songs focus on fashion and wealth." also be moved into the article body? ShadowHalo 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No reason, just a mistake. Λυδαcιτγ 03:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Chad Hugo's name is in the credits of her album. Don't take it out of the credits on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin19 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Features Article

Please nominate it ShadowHalo....it will be passed...this article is a masterpeice....go for it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.224.87.205 (talk) 07:48, May 10, 2007 (UTC)

It already failed a FAC. I'm waiting until the League of CopyEditors can take a look before renominating unless someone else would like to do a copyedit. ShadowHalo 07:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Three singles from the album have been made featured and the other four are good articles,yet the album is not featured.Sounds odd. User: luxurious.gaurav

Now can this article be made featured? User:luxurious.gaurav

If someone else wants to nominate it, feel free. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with the article. It does need some improvement, and at the very least a copyedit. I've asked WP:LOCE to take a look, but that was two months ago, and it's still only two thirds of the way through the queue. I think I might need to take a fresh look at this article once I'm done work with Hey Ya! so that I can take the time to do a decent amount of rewriting. ShadowHalo 15:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical Errors

I noticed many grammatical errors in this article, mostly involving comparisons between unlike objects. For instance, one cannot compare an album with a music genre, as they are not in the same category of object. Rather, one must compare an album with other albums in the given genre. This happens repeatedly throughout the article in the form of comparisons between L.A.M.B. and pop music or L.A.M.B. and eighties music, instead of L.A.M.B. and other pop albums or L.A.M.B. and albums from the eighties. As I'm not invested in this article, maybe someone else who is invested can give it a grammar check. ask123 15:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Like pop albums of the 1980s, L.A.M.B. focuses primarily on money, with songs such as "Rich Girl" and "Luxurious" featuring descriptions of riches and wealth."I think there is nothing wrong in this.
"Love. Angel. Music. Baby. takes influence from a variety of 1980s genres, with one reviewer stating that "the only significant '80s radio style skipped is the ska revival that No Doubt rode to success".Here it is clearly mentioned that it takes inspiration from genres.You can't say that the album took inspiration from another album, because all albums take inspiration from genres.You will say "this is a pop album" and not, for example, "a Thriller type album". User:Luxurious.gaurav
An album may certainly take inspiration from a genre (as well as from other albums themselves). But an album cannot be compared to a genre. Rather, it is compared to an album or other albums in a genre. Similarly, an album cannot be "a modern version of" a genre. Rather, it is a modern version of another album or showcases modern renderings of the themes of a genre.
The changes I made relate only to the errors noted above. The second quotation you culled is not something with which I tampered. I never had a problem with that statement. Rather, I simply pointed out the unlike objects that I found in the article (in this case, two). If you can find others, change them! The second example you provided does not show a comparison between unlike objects. ask123 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not able to find such mistakes in the article.So can you please correct them beacuase you know where the mistakes are.I might end up changing something which is right.I would be greatful if you do so.Thank you for your guidance and do leave your comments in the FAC talk page.User:Luxurious.gaurav
I'll give the article a skim, but, as I said, I am not invested in its contents. As I'm sure you can understand, one can only put their time and attention into so many articles. Consequently, I work on articles that cover the topics that interest me most. I came upon the L.A.M.B. entry because it was selected for the main page last week. And, frankly, I was surprised to find two mistakes within the first three sections. Given that fact, I figured that it was possible (even likely) that there would be more errors in the remaining portions of the article. But I didn't have the time or inclination to check (for the reason explained above). The bottom line is that those who (a) really care about Gwen Stefani/No Doubt/etc. and (b) know their grammar rules, should offer their services the other editors of this article and scan it for errors. Nonetheless, I will give it a quick look (between duties at work) and, if I find anything, will change it and note that here... Oh, and by the way, thank you for your kind reply. Other than the grammar issue, things look great! Cheers ask123 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much.Even i will try my best to hunt down the mistakes in the article and try to reduce your work.This article was lucky enough to get your attention.God Bless! User:Luxurious.gaurav

Pseudonym

I remember Stefani said something about wanting to release the album under the pseudonym GS (her initials), but I can't seem to find anything about it? Does anyone else know if/where she said that? 17Drew 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she said that. It's on the No Doubt official site http://nodoubtweb.com/wordpress/?p=298 I hope you are able to find it. There is a lot written on the page. I know u will be able to find it. To help you, the paragraph in which the line is starts with "To hear stefani tell it.....talked her out of it." Actually, if u want it directly, go to entertainment weekly and get it. but i found it on the No Doubt site. Someone copy pasted it on the site. User:Luxurious.gaurav

No wonder I couldn't find it. I was only looking at the pre-Sweet Escape articles. The article was even already being used as a reference here. Thanks for finding that. 17Drew 12:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FA

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh....Congrats everyone who worked on the article and supported the article. Luxurious.gaurav 08:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of material about the Harajuku Girls

I've removed this:

, and Stefani has drawn accusations of racism for the subject. In October 2005, Korean American actor and comedian Margaret Cho wrote an article largely critical of the group. In the article, Cho referred to the group as a "minstrel show" and compared the act to the blackface tradition, stating, "I am just in acceptance over it, because something is better than nothing."[1] The Village Voice rebuked Stefani for contractual obligations that the four not speak English, although they are fluent, and stated that "silencing people is the epitome of taking away their autonomy and subjectivity, even if Gwen Stefani thinks her silent Japanese fashionistas are part of an awesome and empowering counterculture."[2] Salon magazine also criticized the practice, stating that Stefani had "swallowed a subversive youth culture in Japan and barfed up another image of submissive giggling Asian women."[3]

This is related to a discussion of the specific criticisms, on Talk:Harajuku Girls, and a feeling that overall a small number of criticisms were being over-represented on that article. The criticism being directed at Stefani's use of the dancers, also has inappropriate weighting in this article about an album.

In addition I noticed that the Village Voice reference takes Anne Ishii's statement that "Rumor has it that they were contractually obliged by Gwen Stefani (or her PR gurus) not to speak English while on tour, despite being fluent in the language" as a statement of fact that they were so obliged. This is very inappropriate sourcing.

I'm also at a loss to understand what these criticisms of the Harajuku Girls phenomenon have to do with the lyrical content of a 2004 album. --Tony Sidaway 10:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Mixed reviews?

Our lead section says it received "mixed reviews", but I can't find much evidence of that. NME and Rolling Stone absolutely loved it. What's all that about? --Tony Sidaway 11:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be the ones that hated it, like Pitchfork or Stylus. If you read the article, there are, in fact, more publications that reviewed the album and had varied responses. 17Drew 15:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT matters a lot here. The influential reviewers count for more than the marginals. If the Guardian likes something but the Borsettshire Chronicle hates it, we don't say "it got mixed reviews." --Tony Sidaway 18:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
But see, they weren't the only publications that didn't like it. In fact, The Guardian only gave it three stars. There are both positive and negative articles from notable publications there. 17Drew 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually read the Guardian review? [5] I have. To state that the reviewer didn't like it is grossly inaccurate:
Only a pair of beefy co-writes with rock mauler Linda Perry detract from the overall tingliness, highlights of which are the electro-crackling What You Waiting For? and an aggressive bit of chick-hop, Hollaback Girl. Stefani's transparent, self-deprecating lyrics are the icing on an exceptionally sweet cake that tastes like her and her alone.
And you've actually singled this out as a negative review! --Tony Sidaway 18:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hardly. It's given as the one publication that viewed the large number of collaborations positively, and then it's used again in the next paragraph as the one positive view of the album's focus on money and fashion (whereas Entertainment Weekly and Pitchfork were critical, and Slant was mixed). 17Drew 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That's extremely naughty. Rolling Stone raises abolutely no issue on collaborations or "money and fashion" (indeed it praises the latter as "irresistible party: trashy, hedonistic and deeply weird"). NME takes much the same stance. And those two sources cannot just be brushed under the carpet as we've done here. The report on reviews in this article is a mess. It ignores some opinions by heavyweights and plays up negative views without proper balance. --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, silly me. I completely brushed them under the carpet, since they're not represented at all. It really would have been good to put those reviews in the first paragraph, say one that didn't focus on one particular issue and had general views of the album. Oh, wait. 17Drew 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Your sarcasm is misplaced. The article still falsely claims that the album was released to "mixed" reviews. --Tony Sidaway 04:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pulling strings?

Not to dismiss the tremendous cultural impact of Gwen Stefani and her music, but I am wondering how this article came to be a "today's featured article" when 6 months ago (June 13) the "Hollaback Girl" article was featured. Is somebody pulling strings? Dan Levy (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncertain but it certainly meets the FA criteria. JoshHuzzuh  Talk  00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
How long would you suggest would be an acceptable time period between Gwen Stefani-related Featured Article appearances on the Main Page. I ask because Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song), What You Waiting For?, and Cool (song) are still waiting in the wings. What would you suggest as an appropriate gap before the one of these three remaining high-quality Stefani-related articles can become a "Today's Featured Article"? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 04:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to dismiss the "tremendous" impact you have here on this talk page, but I am wondering if maybe somebody has a vendetta against Gwen Stefani? The featured page recognition just goes to show how dedicated the editors of the pages about she and her music are to great quality.

Until The Sweet Escape becomes a featured page, EsocksLAMB (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I can see that some of you are being sarcastic (humor is a good thing, here). But some seem serious. Let me put it this way: There are 2million articles out there. Lets say that one in 200 is worthy of FA status. That means that there are 10,000 worthy of FA status. Now lets say that you could divide that number by 5 for relatedness (like "Sweet Escape" and "Wind it Up.") That would bring you down to 2,000. That says to me that it should be about 6 years between related articles, not 6 months. So go ahead and start arguing with my numbers (humor).......And being serious, I do realize that the page is very well edited and many people have contributed alot of time to make it so fine. My rant began only because I was so surprised to see two FAs on topics so closely related. Cheers. Dan Levy (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Gotta argue with your numbers: there aren't 10,000 articles of FA status, {{featured article}} is used in less than 2000 articles. Skarioffszky (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And since TFA has been running for around 3 years now, half of those will have already been used. So, taking the lower bound of 1000 (there're probably more), we'll apply the same "divide by 5 for relatedness" that you did with the 10,000 figure. That means that a gap of only 200 is called for between related articles. The last Stefani article was in mid-June, so while it's early by a month or two, the gap seems entirely appropriate. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 15:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I completly agree with GeeJo. On top of that, an article on an album seriously needed to be on the front page. And surely there is no sort of "PARTIALITY" going around here. People here are not Stefani's relatives! Indianescence (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It's just a shame that Wikipedians' musical tastes are so dire :P GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 19:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

'Lyrical Content' irrelevancies?

I've noticed that 'Lyrical content' tends to go from one place to another, and I see no reason for the LAMB dolls to be included in that section, honestly, not even in the article at all. Any reason to be kept? EsocksLAMB (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Moby citation

It's useless. Here's the song she collaborated with him on: South Side (song). --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement is wrong. The version of Southside that appears on the album Play does not feature Gwen Stefani: she only appears on the single. I put the citation there because I was unsure if this track featured Gwen Stefani on the non-UK release of the album, though I am pretty sure that this isn't the case. Technohead1980 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Post-FAC Comments

Hello, after reading this article, I spotted some minor errors.

Frontwoman split into two
The album was designed as an updated version of an 1980s music record it’s "a," not "an"
In early 2003 do not wikilink; unless it is preceded with a full date
"The only significant '80s radio style skipped is the ska revival that No Doubt rode to success". The quotation, I think, is a direct quotation started with a capital letter and ends with a period. Therefore, the period should be written within the quotation marks.
Criticised English or British usage?
59th citation which states "Top Album Acheievements" Wrong spelling

Feel free to object. Thank you. BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

what songs?

on this album are hip-hop?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirlthemanson (talk • contribs) 12:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC) this album is not even CLOSE to hip-hop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirlthemanson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

unnecessary..this needs a clean up

The part about influences on other albums is TOTALLY unnecessary. If nelly furtado was inspired by Gwen stefani than it should go in NELLY FURTADOS ARTICLE!!!! not Gwen Stefani's Whos idea was this? Its stupid and should be removed.

Cheers! Jamalar —Preceding comment was added at 15:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pop

{{editprotected}} The genres are listed as "Dance,Pop,New Wave". Pop should not be capitalized. Can an admin fix this? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I presume that, in that context, 'Pop' is a proper noun and as such properly capitalised. But I'll leave the editprotected template remain so that another pair of eyes takes a look at it. - Nabla (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"Note that most genres aren't proper nouns, and shouldn't be capitalized, but the first word in the list should be." XxJoshuaxX (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. - Nabla (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1

Genre wars

Ridiculous. This album is now four years old and information about it should be well-established. Edit-warring about detailed definitions is disruptive to the the encyclopedia, let alone pissing me off beyond belief, and especially when sockpuppets keep on changing it to their own tastes. I've replaced the unreliably-sourced list with one that IS reliably-sourced. Having said that, there seems to be a confusion about the difference between genre and style; the album taken as a whole has a reliably-sourced genre, whereas individual tracks may exhibit variations of style within that genre. I'm not going to fully-protect this article right now, but if any more unreliably-sourced (and that includes completely unsourced) genres appear in the infobox, I'll lock it immediately. anyone changing the genre field without citing a source is liable to be blocked. --Rodhullandemu 21:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pissed off too. — Realist2 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's dance-pop, it should be done. It's not rock at all, so fuck that stupid article. Why are we basing Wiki pages around biased sources? Who cares if it's sourced, it doesn't mean it's true. The sky isn't pink just because a reliable source says it is. 71.59.189.46 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia is about reporting what reliable sources say, it has nothing to do with what's fair or true. — Realist2 07:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, well, that's fucking retarded. It's not rock though, so..go ahead and pick and choose what you want to use for a source. [: Blindeffigy (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Audio samples

Hi ghuys, how did you manage to keep as many as 3 fair-use audio samples in the article? I thought the basic policy was "minimal fair-use content". Netrat (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwen's quote about the chorus to Yesterday

Don't know if this belongs in the article, but her quote about the song Yesterday might be misleading or ambiguous to others as it was just now for me... She talks about songwriting and apparently brings up the Beatles' Yesterday, a huge early example of smashing pop songwriting success. It was written mostly by Paul in the fairly early Beatles days, and that song has pretty much gotten covered by more major artists and just in general more than any other song besides Happy f****n Birthday man, I mean c'mon!!!, no seriously more often than any other original rock/pop tune and I believe that's citable. Which was the reason for her using it as like the Mona Lisa as an example of pop tunesmithing. Anyway, the point is that from the wording of the quote given here, it's kinda tough to distinguish whether or not Gwen realizes a key fact about the song to which she refers: There's NO CHORUS in that song. There are ample reliable sources to verify that fact, which actually occurred to me upon reading the article and seeing the quote, as I am familiar with the tune.* But in her defense, it should be said likewise that she might have known there's no chorus, in which case the quote meant something more like 'if I was sitting there in the room at the time with Paul etc., and the song was being worked on, and it needed a chorus, and I happened to come up with a good one, then that one accomplishment would be forever remarkable...' etc. and should be read as such. *I thought it was quick intro, then a 'verse verse bridge' section that repeats slightly modified somehow, with a solo in there in the middle. Phaedrx (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Love. Angel. Music. Baby.'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UK":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Love. Angel. Music. Baby. → Love Angel Music Baby – There appears to be no clear consistency when it comes to how the album title is written in the media. There are various sources for different variations of the title:

I believe that Love Angel Music Baby is the most appropriate title for this article. The reasoning being that the others are simply a stylization, which is not included in albums such as Janet (album), Shakira (album), Mad Love (JoJo album). In addition, Gwen's website, Spotify and Tidal refer to the album as such (iTunes appears inconsitent). — Status (talk · contribs) 16:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom, WikiRedactor (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Status' explanation and sources review. — Tom(T2ME) 17:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – while I would normally support something like this, the periods are necessary in making the title coherent. Love Angel Music Baby doesn't make any sense; these are four different items - in this case, she is referring to her four backup dancers. The periods are used to separate their names. When the album was initially released, Stefani's official website referred to it as Love. Angel. Music. Baby. too. Carbrera (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC).
  • Oppose per Carbrera. The cover art does indeed use periods, so I don't really see the point in replacing the periods with commas. Plus, the periods here have a different function than in the albums mentioned in the OP. snapsnap (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Carbrera, SnapSnap The album cover does not have periods on it. If you look closely, you can see that it actually says "Love ♡ Angel 天使 Music 音楽 Baby ♡". 天使 meaning "angel" in Japanese and 音楽 meaning "music". The picture opposite the album artwork in the booklet says "Love Angel Music Baby" and the CD disc says "Love ♥ Angel ♥ Music ♥ Baby". All of this is clearly stylization of the title, which is a no no when it comes to album titles. That's why I'm suggesting that the stylization is removed from the title and we simply use Love Angel Music Baby instead, which is a title that is used by a variety of sources that I outlined above. I wouldn't completely be opposed to Love, Angel, Music, Baby either, due to the grammatical separation of names, but then again we also have titles like LoveGame. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Status – I do see that now. I own several different editions of the album and looked through them today. The CD inlay liner notes to all of my copies use periods and, yes, the disc itself uses hearts but I would argue that they were designed to look like periods. If this article's title absolutely had to change, I just don't see any logicality in Love Angel Music Baby as the four names are supposed to be separated. In your original argument above, you listed four sources that used periods and four that used commas. I really don't see this as a stylization issue but rather a coherency one. Carbrera (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC).
  • Support unnecessary and confusing stylism In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the periods may be stylization, the title makes zero sense without them, seemingly about a "Music baby". For this reason I would oppose the move.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ Cho, Margaret. "Harajuku Girls". October 31, 2005.
  2. ^ Ishii, Anne. "English as a Second Language". The Village Voice. January 3, 2006. Retrieved March 23, 2007.
  3. ^ Ahn, MiHi. "Gwenihana". Salon.com. April 9, 2005. Retrieved February 25, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love._Angel._Music._Baby./Archive_1&oldid=1224267400"