Talk:More cowbell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 More cowbell was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 20, 2008
Peer review More cowbell has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia userbox

Hello. The More cowbell userboxes are surprisingly popular among Wikipedians, and reference to them is curiously absent from this page. I'd like to add the following to the References in popular culture section:

Wikipedia itself has a good example of the prevalence of the sketch and its derived catchphrase.  Wikipedians may place 
 userboxes on their personal page to identify themselves, join lists or groups, pledge allegiances, or just for fun; one
 of the more popular of these reads: This user advocates the use of more cowbell.

I'm not sure of the appropriateness of including one of the boxes in the article itself, but I think a link may be acceptable, like the last one in the above text. Any thoughts?

If you wish to quantify the popularity of the userboxes yourself (I haven't counted them, but there seem to be many hundreds), check out these links:

No objections in two weeks so I'm going ahead. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't respond right away, I don't check up on Wikipedia daily like I used to. But I don't think the mention of the userboxes it at all relevant to the article. It's just not notable to the subject of the article, that being the "more cowbell" SNL sketch. It's tangential at best. Errick (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Errick. I hesitate to correct you, but this article isn't about the SNL sketch, but about the cultural phenomenon that evolved from it. Line 1: "More cowbell is an American pop culture catchphrase originally derived from a Saturday Night Live comedy sketch". It's on that basis that I included the userboxes, as an example of the reach and popularity of the expression. In this light, do they seem more relevant? ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia and Userboxes

Since I'm not sure if you're supposed to continue a discussion in the archived page or not I'll mention it here. As an article on the whole of the pop culture meme that is "more cowbell", then I can see the userboxes as being somewhat relevant, but specifically mentioning wikipedia seems unnecessary. Or at least, a bit overly self-referential, as this article is (in theory anyway) supposed to be able to show up on other site that aren't wikipedia. There might be a better way to express the aspect of people identifying with the sketch/phrase than the userboxes, which would could be confusing to someone not familiar with wikipedian culture. Though I suppose if there is an article on userboxes, then it might make more sense if there's a wikilink included to it so that someone coming in who's never heard of a userbox would know why they're relevant to the article. I'd point out that we're pushing it with the trivia section as it is, getting.. uh.. what's the best term for it? Relevance creep? The more tangential the examples get, the more people are encouraged to add even less relevant examples, and we keep having to go back and flush out the non-illustrative examples. Hope that makes sense. So I wouldn't say we need to cut the mention of userboxes outright, but it'd help if it explained more clearly what userboxes have to do with anything, and why it's significant that people would mention "more cowbell" in one. Errick (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't know what that's showing up in a box like that. If someone can fix it, go right ahead. Errick (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
You're right not to modify an archived discussion, always use the current talk page. The box around your post was because of the blank spaces you left at the beginning of the lines. Wikipedia identifies that format as a quotation.
Regarding your comments, I see the validity of your point and agree with your position. I asked before posting the text precisely because I was concerned with self-reference. I have no objection to excising the text, but am concerned with the total removal of the "References in popular culture" section, as forcefully advocated by Coccyx Bloccyx. Do you think the article is better off without that section, or should it still include a reduced version? ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a tough line to walk, but there should be some mention of references to illustrate how pervasive it is. I'm not sure where to draw the line though, as to what examples are significant enough that they fit in the article and which ones just contribute to listcruft. There's a few essays and guidleines on the site for such things, and I'm trying to go by those, but I fear this may be a pretty subjective area where it'd be hard to work out just how "big" an example needs to be. But there certainly do need to be some examples. Errick 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've requested input from Coccyx Bloccyx, so if it's OK with you, Errick, I'd like to see what he suggests. ↔ Dennywuh 18:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If any of the cowbell trivia is notable I suggest it be integrated as prose into the body of the article, but the itemized list, as it was, was only inviting more like-trivia and none of it was really encyclopedic matter in my honest opinion, even the items which contained sources (and most of them did not). Coccyx Bloccyx 19:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly have an opinion about the list of references, but I do believe it was right to remove the Wikipedia references. Also, while not official policy, WP:IPC seems quite relevant here. GoodnightmushTalk 20:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I confess I wasn't conversant with Wikipedia:popular culture references and I thank GoodnightMush for pointing them out. With this policy in mind I've re-read the list of references and none seem worthy of shoe-horning into the text, so I propose leaving the article as it is. I'm now painfully aware I'm to blame for this long debate and I apologise to Errick, Coccyx Bloccyx and GoodnightMush for taking up your time. ↔ Dennywuh 11:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Well before you abandon your case, let me just make two points i think you could easily argue, and would be valid. First, WP:IPC is not policy, merely a popular essay on the subject, and is not at all binding. Second, as this article is all about a pop culture catchphrase, a short list of pop culture references that particularly well illustrates its pervasiveness in society, such as the Jeopardy one, might be appropriate. But I don't really have an opinion either way, just don't want to see the discussion cut short early. GoodnightmushTalk 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, GoodnightMush, for your input. I humbly suggest adding a section at the end of the article, between Sketch performers and References titled Influence, to include the following:
The influence of the cultural phenomenon created by the sketch is surprisingly widespread. It has been adopted by sports teams to promote supporter-involvement in matches[1], and it has appeared in movies[2], video games[3] and television. For instance, on the November 18, 2005, episode of the NBC TV program Jeopardy, the last answer in the Double Jeopardy category "I Need More Cowbell" was "Don't fear this band who turned cowbell from a cult into a religion."[4]
Does this seem acceptable? ↔ Dennywuh 16:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. GoodnightmushTalk 16:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Works for me too. Errick 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I was waiting for Coccyx Bloccyx's comments, but I suppose we can always revert if he has objections. ↔ Dennywuh 18:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No objections here, I find this an acceptable compromise. Coccyx Bloccyx 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of a skit or a catch phrase

Should this article be moved to More Cowbell? It should be if it is the name of the skit(s). Kingturtle (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as it stands now the article's title is referring to the pop culture catch phrase itself, not the skit. Although, the article seems to talk about the skit more, so maybe it should be changed. 69.131.74.226 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[[Media:Example.ogg[http: / / www.example.comlinktitle--I teh yuh (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Strike-through text]]]

[edit] quote

I think I heard that the quote was I have a fever, and the only cure... is more cowbell! someone might want to look into that--Pewwer42  Talk  07:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's "I have a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Just looked it up, yes it prescription--Pewwer42  Talk  23:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

After reviewing this article, I believe that it does not meet the current guidelines.

  • The synopsis is too long (WP:PLOT says you should keep it as short as possible and try to avoid going into too much detail about specific jokes).
  • I'm not convinced that the images of Walken and Farrell are necessary. The one of Walken is just him in mid speech, while the Farrell one is just him beating the cowbell. Images should be used to illustrate a point that would otherwise be hard to visualize, and I think the lead image is more than enough.
  • Too many unsourced statements, especially in the "Comedy vs. reality", "Reappearance in Saturday Night Live", as well as a couple of statements in the "Influence" section.
  • The lead should be expanded.

It is a good start, but it still has a ways to go before it is a good article. -- Scorpion0422 03:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impetus (song)

Was'nt there a cowbell on Impetus? Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)