Jump to content

Talk:Coldplay/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Alt rock's too vague

If I had just heard of Coldplay, I would have no idea of their sound. Improvements are needed. Titan50 (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! Coldplay is NOT an alternative rock band. I like Allmusic, as they have a genre category and style categories. They list their primary genre as Pop/Rock, with styles as adult alternative pop/rock, alternative pop/rock and Britpop. To me, adult alternative pop/rock rings true. Here is a link to the description of this genre: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2896 DFS (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay is not an alt rock band as the name alt rock is not even relevant in 2009. It is a term used by mostly rock critics in their 50s-60s who see modern rock as an alternative to the rock they used to listen to and love. There is no modern rock or alt rock. it is rock.Rudolpma (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Success

"All of Coldplay's albums have enjoyed commercial success." Is this a good sentence? Because the album themselves do not enjoy commercial success, the band does. Should this be changed? Amazincredible 03:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be changed because the albums make money for the band, not the other way round. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[reflekts] --> reflekts I can't change the source so somebody else (a mod) has to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.118.161 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean under 'musical styles' where it says [reflects]? That shouldn't be wikilinked, it's an editing mark that is common in a quote. tedder (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay are an English alternative rock The ARE needs to be changed to IS

Coldplay is a single entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicHicks (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dates Contradict themselves

First Sentence: 1998 The Block on the Right: 1997 We have a problem. Anyone know whic one is true? I think its '98 but I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaptopSafe (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Websites

Can the Official Coldplay Ultimate Fan Page be added into the external sites section. http://www.coldplay.ultimatefanpage.com/ --Sezzawarb (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In what way is it official? --JD554 (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Prospekt's March

I would have classified it as a studio album, even if it is an EP. It entered the Album Chart with some success, and the UK Album Chart people call an album "either 25 minutes long or at least 4 tracks". It passes both with ease. Thoughts? Alan16 talk 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The EP did chart on the UK Albums Chart, but the rule you point out is simply to determine whether the release should count towards the album or single charts - if it only contained four songs and was 20 minutes long it would still be an EP but would qualify for the singles chart. It's best to go with how the majority of reliable sources describe it. The band itself describe it as an EP[1] as do Rolling Stone[2], Billboard[3], Allmusic[4] and Pitchfork[5]. NME seem utterly confused as to what it is[6], but acknowledge that it is described as an EP. --JD554 (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Live 2003

In the article it refers to the Live Album coldplay recorded as just 'Live 2003'. I'm pretty sure it is Coldplay Live 2003 as the actual title. Thats how it's listed on itunes, but it still might not be right. --Canalstmartin (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I Heard Of A Misspelled Version Of The Name Of Hordren Pavilion, In The Credits Of Live 2003. Maybe It's Horden Pavilion. Chris Maeder (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Credible, real evidence and quotes about the issue of Coldplay's alleged plagiarism are constantly being edited out of the article. I think we need to come to a conclusion on the best way to address this topic. Most recently, quotes from Chris Martin on the subject were deleted because an editor thought that the NOR rules applied. However, in the text that I authored it was clear that the statements were separated from the current plagiarism accusations based on the phrase "prior to the current allegations" and the chronological timeline. Additionally, these quotes are frequently referenced in the press when addressing this issue.[7] [8] Therefore, NOR isn't being violated since other sources are applying the same logic. Rosennose (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

However, by placing the quotes next to the current allegations the way you did, you were inviting the reader to make their own WP:SYNTH and adding WP:UNDUE weight to Martin's quotes. --JD554 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The paragraph is about the current VLV plagiarism allegations. You can't take any old Martin quote and apply it to this particular case as it would be a WP:NOR/WP:SYN vio. The policy means that if Martin addresses plagiarism in other contexts, you can't use it to advance the argument that they plagiarized VLV. i.e., your edit on Martins's 2005 quote on an entirely different piece of work can't be used to support the 2008/9 VLV allegations. You can do that on a personal blog, but it goes against Wiki's policies as JD554 mentioned above.
I noticed that you have been pushing the plagiarism angle since opening an account, and I would also advise at taking a look at WP:UNDUE. Unless there is due reason, you can't place such allegations in the intro or in its own section... as you did with some of your earlier edits. --Madchester (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I established a Plagiarism section which outlines all info in chological order, including Martin quote. Therefore, all evidence is presented in an unbiased manner. This is important information and should not be censored. It is not UNDUE by any means. The accusations are from established musicians, the evidence from credible sources, and is being addressed by the legal system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosennose (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why other editors are trying to hide the truth? That's like arguing that an article about Barry Bonds should not include a reference to Steroid use. The allegations are valid, numerous, and relevant, and therefore should not be hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.163.154 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection

This edit-warring is unacceptable, and I have fully protected the article for a week while you thrash it out. Please look at Disupute Resolution if you can't sort out a consensus here. However, if agreement is reached before then, please contact me or report at WP:RFPP. I don't rule out blocks for WP:3RR breaches either. Rodhullandemu 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I sense WP:SOCKPUPPET being an issue here.

All 3 users have solely focused on Coldplay plagarism allegations. Also, they've been restoring each others' edits after they've been removed by multiple established editors. My 2 cents is that a checkuser run may be needed here..... --Madchester (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


In response to SOCKPUPPET allegations, 67.111.163 is Rosennose. I just didn't sign in on that edit. Sorry for that mistake. Otherwisealilly is a colleague of mine who agrees that the plagiarism sections should be included. Rosennose (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

And do you both work for the same firm of architects? Because apart from WP:DUCK, it's probably also taking a look at WP:MEAT. Rodhullandemu 17:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I would say they both work for the same flower shop. To me there seems to be some obvious sockpuppetry, and even if there isn't, there is a flaw in Rosennose's argument. (S)he claims to have presented the information in a chronological fashion yet (s)he put the 2005 quote after the 2008/09 stuff, encouraging people to draw a certain conclusion. Alan16 talk 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Alan16's argument about the chronology, please reread the current text in the Plagarism section. It is all presented in chronological order. The 2005 quote appears first, followed by the allegations.

In response to the sock/meat/duck arguments, I think the plagiarism issue should be addressed on its merits, instead of focusing on my identity. Can someone please explain why the plagiarism information is not worthy of reference? It receives ample media coverage and is being litigated in the court system, so it is certainly a real, relevant issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosennose (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason that we keep in a lawsuit which was withdrawn because the suer realised he had no case, which is basically what happened. Alan16 talk 17:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting, that the Led Zeppelin article has an entire section entitled "Allegations of Plagiarism" as well, so there is clearly a precedent for including such information. Rosennose (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

There is no problem in having the plagiarism allegations in the article. The problem is adding in Martin's quotes about being "good plagiarists" as this lends WP:UNDUE weight to the allegations causing the reader to reach a possible wrong conclusion that they are guilty of plagiarism. It certainly doesn't help when the section starts "Several artists have accused Coldplay of plagiarism." and then immediately follows with Martin's quote about how good they are at it. It draws an obvious conclusion which may or may not be true (that is what the court case needs to decide). --JD554 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The quotes are real and relevant. They shouldn't be shoved under a rug and hidden. The quotes and allegations are presented in a chronological, factual manner. And the quote is included in the media coverage on the plagiarism issue, so clearly there is a precedent for using the quote in the context of this discussion. It is not our responsibility to edit the truth because someone may, illogically draw a conclusion. Ultimately, Martin made the statement, so he should be accountable for people potentially drawing conclusions from it. Wikipedia should present all relevant information to the public--we shouldn't censor Martin's own statement because it may cast him in a negative light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosennose (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The way it is currently worded invites readers implies Martin is guilty of the greater accusations of plagiarism rather than the simple borrowing of chords he is referring to. Context is everything and it isn't provided here and is a breach of WP:SYNTH. --JD554 (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely not a violation of WP:SYNTH. First, the quote has been presented by other sources in relation to the Plagarism topic. To quote from the SYNTH rule, the "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." Numerous sources have published the 2005 Martin quote in the context of the allegations several years later. Therefore, a violation is not present. Second, the chronological nature of the presentation of the quote relative to the accusations makes it clear that Martin was not admitting guilt to the actual accusations. In fact his quote, predates the release of the song in question.
With that said, I will agree that we could probably devise a better wording around the inclusion of the quote. But to patently erases it is unreasonable. Rosennose (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose
These plagiarism allegations are most directed towards "Viva la Vida"; its article already contains a dedicated section with the three most notable claims by Creaky Boards, Joe Satriani, and now Cat Stevens. I don't see how a dedicated section about this song's allegations need to be reproduced on the artist article. Likewise, I don't see how applying Martin's Rolling Stone plagiarism quote is appropriate, when it's not even in the context of VLV at all. Unless Martin makes a plagiarism comment directly about VLV, it fails WP:SYN. --Madchester (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not only about VLV. There was an earlier allegation about Clocks. The allegations, combined with Martin's quote, demonstrate a clear pattern, beyond VLV. That's why the quote is historically relevant. Beyond this quote, there are other quotes from the band related to the subject of plagiarism--so I don't understand how the band's own statements on the matter are somehow suddenly irrelevant? Here are a few more references which provide more statements [9] [10] [11] Perhaps we should include all the quotes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosennose (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The allegations, combined with Martin's quote, demonstrate a clear pattern, beyond VLV.
You just demonstrated WP:SYN in progress; using Source A (allegations) with un-related Source B (Martin's quote) to derive Conclusion C (of "a clear pattern" of plagiarism). Wiki doesn't work that way. Cheers, --Madchester (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. You're not answering the argument I made above. Which is that the SYN rule provides for an exception when other reliable sources have already published the same analysis. To quote from the SYNTH rule, the "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." Numerous sources have published the 2005 Martin quote in the context of the allegations several years later. What is your answer to this? Go read the articles and you'll see that I'm right.
And I didn't say that there was a clear pattern of plagiarism. I meant that there was a chronological pattern on the issue. History is a pattern. And all of the information IS related, since it ALL addresses the issue of plagiarism. Rosennose (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

(outdent) Has there been any consensus to actually keep the section? The band's plagiarism accusations do seem notable to mention in this article, perhaps. But as it stands, the section itself is not very well-written and, as pointed out above, has definite WP:SYNTH problems by using Martin's unrelated 2005 quote. I don't wish for another edit war to start, but I'm ready to rework that section, or just remove it. Jamie☆S93 12:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Besides the WP:SYN issues, the actual "Clocks" lawsuit hasn't been well-covered by any reliable sources. A one line mention on (a Radiohead fan site no less) doesn't satisfy WP:RS. Taking out the passing "Clocks" mention; the remaining allegations are all related to VLV... and that article already has a section comprehensively covering past and on-going plagiarism claims. So ultimately, I don't see the need for this same section to be repeated on the main artist article, when the claims are really focused on one track in their entire catalogue. --Madchester (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah - I hadn't checked the source on the Clocks one, good catch. Discounting that one, there's only three remaining like you said, all for VLV. Since the section is focused upon one song alone, it's not really needed, and would be giving undue weight to something that's not relevant to the band's entire career. I'm removing the section now. Jamie☆S93 17:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
The lawsuit is a fact. It's even covered in the Dutch version of Wikipedia. [12] Is that not a reliable source? 67.111.163.154 (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose
Rosenose, a fansite is not a reliable source. Sure it's mentioned at it.wp, but not sourced. Even if a major band fansite states true facts, it's still not reliable. You may ask, why? In this case specifically, a Radiohead fanpage will certainly not portray Coldplay in a neutral light; for all I know, this may have been a very non-notable case that the website dredged up to paint Coldplay in a negative light. Including that here is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Fansites are simply not acceptable in this kind of situation. Jamie☆S93 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to accept that the mention of 2005 Martin quote violates the SYN rule. As I mentioned several times above, the SYN rule provides for an exception when other reliable sources have already published the same analysis. To quote from the SYNTH rule, the "precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor." Numerous sources have published the 2005 Martin quote in the context of the allegations several years later. What is your answer to this? Go read the articles and you'll see that I'm right. 67.111.163.154 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

  1. Keep your cool; bolded comments can be seen as shouting at other editors.
  2. We don't cross-reference Wikipedia pages. Nor do we use a (Radiohead) fan site as a source per WP:RS
  3. The only reliably sourced plagiarism allegations are about VLV, and that article already contains its own sub-section on those claims. Creating a new sub-section on an artist page based on allegations about a single song in the artist catalogue violates WP:UNDUE. To extrapolate these existing allegations about one song as evidence of a band being plagiarists fails WP:SYN.

Please assume the good faith of Wiki's editors. Thanks --Madchester (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I added 2 new reliable sources for the Van Houten plagiarism claim. [13] [14] These sources justify the Plagiarism section, since the only reason to delete the section was that the claims only related to VLV.

The only reason I bolded my text, was because my argument has been ignored. I apologize if it appears as yelling--it's not. I'm just reiterating the argument. 67.111.163.154 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

I find interesting about the "Clocks" plagiarism claims interesting:
  1. While the VLV allegations were published in multiple mainstream reliable sources, this case has only appeared sporadically at best among sources with questionable history of fact checking. The Laptoprockers story has no link to the original source(s) reporting on this plagiarism claim.
  2. In the year and half since this story was released, there's been no responses from either Mr. Van Houten or the band. Nor has there been any news about the actual litigation process or any out-of-court settlement. On the other hand, the VLV allegations were followed prompt responses by the band, and even by Creaky Boards in their claim.
Plagiarism is an exceptional claim; and per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Right now, there are no water-tight sources reporting the "Clocks" plagiarism claims.
As an aside, the "Bitter Sweet Symphony" article describes the Rolling Stones' successful lawsuit against the Verve. We don't give undue weight to the incident by adding a "Plagiarism" section to the Verve artist article even though the verdict means that Richard Ashcroft did plagiarize the Stones. Likewise, it just seems off to have an individual section on plagiarism claims in the Coldplay article... especially when the "Clocks" case is not reliably sourced or verifiable, while the VLV claims are just that - claims that have yet to be proven in any court case. Following the Verve/BSS example, even if Coldplay were to lose the Satriani lawsuit, it would still be undue weight to include a plagiarism section in the artist article. --Madchester (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


I have provided several reliable sources for the "Clocks" case. The laptoprockers article is entirely valid and reliable, and you have no basis to claim that the source has a questionable history of fact checking. And unlike Wikipedia, sources do not need to provide links to the original source of their research. So unless you can actually demonstrate how the source is somehow unreliable, they should be considered valid.
Furthermore, the Van Houten claim did receive press in Europe. In fact, it was broadcast on Italian TV. Here are some additional sources. [15] [16] [17]
If we accept that the Van Houten claim is real, then I don't think the UNDUE weight claim is correct. The Led Zeppelinarticle has an entire section on Plagiarism which outlines the history of the claims against the band. Is the Led Zepplin section UNDUE? Given that there have been multiple claims against Coldplay and multiple statements by the band about Plagiarism, the section is not UNDUE. It is very relevant and important. 67.111.163.154 (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose
laptoprockers looks like a self-published source to me. In fact this page states: "We do not guarantee the accuracy, the integrity, or the quality of the content on this Site, and you may not rely on any of this content." That doesn't sound like it can be considered a reliable source to me. Can you show that it has good editorial oversight? One way of doing this would be to show that it has been used by other known reliable sources (newspapers, radio stations, television stations, etc) as a source of information. By the way, could you ensure that you log in to make your comments so it is clear that there is only one person arguing your case and not more than one? Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
fair enough. what about the additional 3 sources I supplied above? [18] [19] [20] Rosennose (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose
Here are additional sources on Van Houten [21] [22] [23]> Rosennose (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose
I don't read or speak Dutch so can't comment on those. --JD554 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are the articles translated into English [1] [2] [3] The articles cite ANP (www.anp.nl) as the original source, which is the Netherlands national news agency. I think this qualifies as a reliable source. 67.111.163.154 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose
They're reliable. Like you said, they're newspaper publications. Though, I have a question regarding the section. Should it be titled "Plagiarism" or "Accusations of Plagiarism"? I'm just curious about this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I actually just changed the title to "Accusations of Plagiarism" This is the same section title in the Led Zepplin article. Rosennose (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose
I wouldn't consider the Led Zeppelin article a good model to follow because it's far inferior to this article, which is ranked as a Good Article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
True, but in this instance it might be better to go by their section title "Accusations of Plagarism", because Coldplay have never been found guilty of the crime of plagarising, so if you ask me, having a section called "Plagarism" implies that it has been confirmed. Alan16 talk 07:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Again, I just find it bizarre that only Dutch sources are reporting on the "Clocks" plagarism claim. No international dailies or news agencies picked up on the story themselves. WP:UNDUE state that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources Again, the VLV cases has been covered across multiple international outlets, this "Clocks" case has only received localized coverage - and no coverage at all following the original allegations.

Per WP:NPOV, it would be best to spread out the details in the plagiarism allegation section across the entire article. Rolling Stone's Chris Martin quote is problematic since it isn't accompanied by a question to frame its context. (Whereas Page's comments in the Led Zeppelin article were direct answers to the interviewer(s)' questions on plagarism in the first two Led Zeppelin albums) --Madchester (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So is your claim that the Dutch national news agency is not a reliable source? I don't think it's reasonable to ignore an entire country. Additionally, the Van Houten Clocks case was referenced in US based sources about the VLV claim---the MotherJones article is an example of this.
Throughout this entire discussion, I have consistently defeated each argument against the section. First, there was the SYN objection, but I demonstrated that the SYN rule provides an exception when a source provides the same exact analysis. Second, there was an objection to reliability of the Van Houten sources, but I provided several examples from unquestionably reliable sources.
With your current NPOV objection, you're a) misapplying the NPOV rules and b) guilty of violating NPOV by excluding facts. The problem with your NPOV objection is that you're assuming that I am trying to present a point of view. That's not correct. I have only provided relevant facts about an important issue. Facts that are well documented. And if you read NPOV carefully, it's concern is about representing minority viewpoints (e.g., "the earth is flat" or "the holocaust didn't occur). That does not apply in this situation. The facts are that at least 4 artists have accused Coldplay of plagiarism. That the allegations occurred is a fact that is not debatable.
Unfortunately, for the sake of our research, Coldplay hasn't made public statements about these particular accusations, so we can't represent the band's viewpoint. However, we shouldn't ignore the factual allegations, simply because Coldplay is silent. If Coldplay had responded to the accusations and I had excluded Coldplay's response, that would be a violation of NPOV. But by simply providing factual allegations there is no NPOV violation.
Clearly the Van Houten accusation is real and this justifies the separate "Accusations of Plagiarism" section. Again, there is precedence in the Led Zeppelin article (and even if you exclude the Martin quote, per your argument, the section is still justified). And if we look at articles about athletes accused of steroid use (e.g., Lance Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds), there are separate sections dedicated to the accusations. The accusations are not "burried" in the general prose of the article due to fear of a NPOV violation. Rosennose (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose

Rosenose, I believe that me and others don't necessarily oppose to this section being included. However, you've repeatedly re-added the section's current version, claiming consensus when it's not really there – I look at the above discussion that involve a few fairly experienced users, and I still don't exactly see people agreeing with "sure, that might work". WP:UNDUE is still pointed out as a problem. Defeating arguments doesn't mean that the general sentiment is in favor of keeping the section, which is the heart of the term "consensus". Discussion is the key; and honestly, I think your view would get across better if you left the section out of the article and drafted it in your userspace. Then, show your draft and talk about it from there. Otherwise, this is becoming a fruitless edit war.

This article is listed as a GA—it needs to keep that standard! :-) RN, I hope you understand why I have removed the section. Best, Jamie☆S93 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the section on plagiarism have been added again? It seems to me there is no imminent danger of an edit war at the moment. Can someone add a section with the facts? I came here to read about the lawsuit and was a bit surprised to see this disussion. It's a pretty important part of Coldplays career, and I feel it should be mentioned.Zaglabarg (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I also came here to find out more about the plagiarism issue and am likewise surprised by this. If there's dispute about it, let's sort that out. It's better, I think, to have a section that needs work than to have no section at all. Right now it's a glaring omission from the page. Removing it to keep GA status feels like the wrong priority. 59.167.47.154 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  1. There's been no consensus for re-inserting the section
  2. The section still fails WP:UNDUE. The full claims are properly addressed in the VLV song article. The reliably sourced allegations are specific to one song in the band's entire discography; creating an entire section labelling the act as "alleged plagiarists" doesn't meet our WP:NPOV standards. As I mentioned above, a band like The Verve were found to be guilty of plagiarism in a lawsuit; yet even then those plagiarism details are limited to the "Bitter Sweet Symphony" article as the plagarism suit was limited to that one song, and is not representative of the band's entire career. --Madchester (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Future and 2009 Album

Why on Earth did it take so long to create the "Future" section? It was clear as day, and there has been a number of sources for the information.JozePedro (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, according to Coldplay's frontman Chris Martin has been stating over the last year, they are to release a new album in late 2009 not 2010/2011.JozePedro (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Though there is no need, doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. I think it's important that fact that Coldplay are about to release a new album, in less that four months.JozePedro (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL at work here. As album releases don't follow any set pattern (like the Olympics or Nobel prizes), we don't include future release info, unless a firm date has been officially confirmed by the label or band. The Guardian info only says the band "hope to release a new album in 2009 ". There's nothing concrete in the statement.
Though this was posted on the talk page, you're also synthesizing a personal conclusion by taking that statement and assuming that the band is due for another album release "in less than 4 months", as it is currently August 2009... with 4 months left in the year. Again, there's been no offical releases by the band nor EMI confirming a scheduled release date (or even quarter) for an upcoming album. --Madchester (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay ARE/IS

There is only one band called Coldplay. If there was more than one, than are should've been used.

In UK English 'are' is the commonly accepted method of referring to a band (which is a collection of people). --JD554 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree with JD554's thought process. It depends on whether we are trying to give the idea that Coldplay are one thing, ie singular. If we are, then grammatically we should use "is" because after all, we wouldn't say "table are...". However the use of the plural pronoun "they" makes it complicated. I would say stick with "are" for now, but I think there should be some sort of discussion on this for a general policy. Alan16 talk 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "is" is correct, because would you say U2 is a good band, or U2 are a good band? It's the same thing, so it should be is. Thanks, --Canalstmartin (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Canalstmartin.

I would say that it depends on the usage, in whether you're talking about the band as a whole or the members comprising it. I would say "Coldplay is a band" and "Coldplay is alt rock" but at the same time, I would also likely say "Coldplay are advocates of free trade". 66.38.75.179 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The use of "are" to describe a collection of people is primarily European. It is acceptable, but grammatically incorrect. Any group is singular and as such, "is" should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.250.9.149 (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't gramatically incorrect whatsoever. If Americans find it difficult to use English correctly, perhaps they should think about using a non-European/foreign language instead? Or, based maye due to American arrogance - maybe you'd like to change the name or your bastardised version of English (purely for Republican/Anglophobic reason) to "American"?

92.11.34.158 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

60 Minutes interview

I find it interesting that after the ORKEY rules featured in the interview were removed from the article, they've been discreetly inserted back into the article via a link to the 60 Minutes interview.

Regardless, said video itself is not appropriate as an external link per WP:ELNO, since not all users have the proper browser and plugin settings to view it. The clip also contains a 15-20 second commercial for Katie Couric's stint on the CBS Evening News, again inappropriate under WP:ELNO. In general, videos shouldn't be posted as an external link to Wiki articles, save expcetional examples like Bus Uncle, which was based on a Youtube viral phenomenon. I've changed to the transcript link to this story.

P.S., neither the U2 and Radiohead featured articles only contain the official band website under the External Links section - so I find this 60 Minutes links superfluous at best, but it's the best compromise to this constant re-insertion of the story by one editor. --Madchester (talk) 01:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

More Info On Coldplay's Fifth Studio Album:

O.K. (Alternative Music Wikiporject Members), We Need To Add More Info (Reliable Sources) On Coldplay's Fifth Studio Album. Do We Need To Make This A Featured Article, With This? GU!TARH3R0CHR!ST0PHER _-= 22:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Maybe Everybody Could Make This Article, A Featured Article. GU!TARH3R0CHR!ST0PHER _-= 03:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to do a run-through of the prose sometime soon and leave general comments here when I'm done. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup

Steps to get this on the road to FAC

Running observations:

  • Remove the list of influences from the lead. Give us a sense of what the band sounds like. For instance, they use a lot of piano. That's a starting point. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There's A LOT of little bits that need to be cited. I've tagged most of them. Please verify these items as quickly as possible. If you can't verify them, just remove them.
  • There's a lot of recentism in the Viva la Vida section. Cut it down so it's more comparable to the other sections in the biography. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Activism" section needs a more expansive title, as the first paragraph deals largely with how the band deals with commercial endorsements. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we take the last few sentences on the VLV section and remake the Future paragraph.--Coldplay Expert 10:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC) (Yeah never mind per WP:CRYSTAL)
I strongely suggest you avoid making a "future" section, because the future does not exist. All you have is statements made by people in the past about possible upcoming events. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Genre and Style

I also disagree with cthe comparison to Radiohead, as the person below states, coldplay is pop-rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.122.12 (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, i cannot find anything "alternative" in their music. What about a simple pop-rock label? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.11.175.233 (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a band

Coldplay is a band, not are a band. It is not plural. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times we've been through this debate on articles related to British bands. Briefly, in the 1950s and 60s, bands had names along the lines of Gerry & The Pacemakers. Each member was a "Pacemaker", collectively they were "The Pacemakers". Even when the band name had no named lead singer, they were still referred to as plural. Traffic were probably the first group to lose "The", but even now, we still refer to them as a plural entity by established UK convention. Some editors make the "Exxon" argument, which is that "Exxon IS a multinational corporation, so why should Genesis not be referred to in the same way?" The short answer is: convention; bands are not necessarily corporate identities. If anyone thinks that this should be changed throughout the whole of the encyclopedia, good luck to you and your stamina, but if American bands want to be singular ("Iggy and The Stooges IS"?) they can choose to be. This argument is jejune, IMO, and best abandoned. Rodhullandemu 23:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Are is correct here. British English uses are, and this article uses British English, so it uses Are. This same debate has occurred on U2 as well, with the decision to use the British style. Deserted Cities (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above. I like to think of it this way. If you are talking about Coldplay, would you say "They are a good band" or would you say "It is a good band"? If the first one sounds better then the band should be referred to as a plural. - Nimbusania talk 00:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Never thought about it that way. Makes sense though. Deserted Cities (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed even though I think the wording Coldplay is an... I understand why it is the other way around so I wont argue it.--Coldplay Expert 00:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

English or British

Some Facebook dweeb keeps changing back a simple and factual amendment I have made here: Coldplay are a BRITISH band, not an English band. Why? Because Guy Berryman, the bassist, is Scottish having been born in Kirkcaldy and educated in Edinburgh. See his article QV. The band cannot therefore be English because Scotland and England are separate countries within the United Kingdom. Sorry to have to explain that when most of you who are bound to know, but someone keeps changing this correct alteration.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Benweston1969 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. No personal attacks... i.e., don't call someone a "Facebook dweeb"
  2. The band formed at UCL in London, England. So do you base a band's "nationality" on its group members or where it was formed? For example, Oasis are generally described as an "English" group even after it added Andy Bell (a Welshman), since it was formed in Manchester. Likewise, Adam Clayton was born in England, but U2's always been described as an Irish group.
  3. Per WP:LEDE, nationality is a recommendation, but not a requirement of the lead section. So we can simply have a lead sentence stating: Coldplay are an alternative rock band. or Coldplay are an alternative rock band formed in (or from) London, England. That gets around the ambiguity of labelling a band's "nationality" as described in Point 2 above. See also WP:UKNATIONALS; there's no uniform way of describing UK nationals and we review each one on a case-by-case basis. --Madchester (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. Apologies, I didn't mean Facebook, I meant Wikipedia.
  2. Of course you don't base a band's nationality (why the inverted commas?) on where they formed - that's a valid but completely separate piece of information. You base it on their majority nationality where there is one. In this case all four members are from the UK, so they are British. It is not correct to say that they are English, just as it is not correct to say that Oasis are English, which is why almost everyone refers to them as British.
  3. Nationality may not be "a necessity of the lead section" but it is illogical to deprive the article of this simple and quite significant piece of information when there is no confusion to be had here: they are all British, and they formed in London anyway; London is the capital of Great Britain and the UK, so no ambiguity there. They are irrevocably British!
  4. Forgive me, but I am a UK national and I think I have as good an understanding as anyone (maybe more than a Canadian) about how UK nationals are referred to: as nationals of the UK we are referred to as British. There is no other adjective.
  5. Regarding Adam Clayton, you are wrong. He may have been born in the UK, but he was educated, raised and lives in Ireland and holds an Irish passport.
And AC/DC is an Australian band even though it was formed by two Scottish brothers and has an English lead singer... since the act is based out of Oz.
Regardless, Per WP:BLP, we write conservatively about a biographical subject, musical ensembles included. Coldplay have never made a statement about whether they're English/British/Scottish-English/English-Scottish/Martian/etc. so for us to label them as a particular nationality is in vio of WP:NOR. The current lead sentence is a good compromise without violating WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. It could also be tweaked to remove any mention of location(s) and still satisfy existing Wiki policies. --Madchester (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. This is pedantic, ridiculous, rules-over-common-sense nonsense. Are you suggesting that the veracity of everything written in this article depends on Coldplay having "made a statement" about it first? That's preposterous, and it's not the case. There is nothing contentious about the question of nationality here, and there's not even any ambiguity in this instance (as there might be, as you correctly point out, with AC/DC). Furthermore, I have just looked, and just about every other article in Wiki on bands states their natiomality without them having to have made their own statement on the matter. Why not just admit that in this instance it is an improvement to say that Coldplay are British?
When there's ambiguity, we don't say they're "British/English/Martian/whatever" - the band has to say it themseleves per WP:BLP. We always write conservatively about living subjects, especially when they have never indicated a "preferred" nationality. Per WP:BLP, you carry the burden of proof of assigning them with a specific nationality; the current lead doesn't make any such claim and satisfies the policy. --Madchester (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris Martin even refers to the band as being English - http://www.contactmusic.com/new/xmlfeed.nsf/story/coldplay-to-take-a-break_16_02_2006. Also, Berryman has lived in southern England since he was 12 and Berryman is an English surname so comes from an English background.

92.11.132.12 (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording in place now "...are an alt rock band formed in London..." works fine. putting "english/british/etc. before the band almost implies that the nationality is the genre. Deserted Cities (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I've now re-instated the description and the reference where Chris Martin clearly refers to the band as English. Can people "try" and refrain from removing the reference this time? 92.15.23.95 (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone explain how they are alternative rock,,,

It's not meant as a rip or anything, because I like them, but they clearly are not alternative rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Moult (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you think alternative rock is. Allmusic think they are alternative rock, and we regard them as a reliable source. Rodhullandemu 19:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they are alternative rock. and havent we gone through this before?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a good definition: "Alternative rock" is essentially an umbrella term for underground music that has emerged in the wake of punk rock since the mid-1980s. - Taken from Wikipedia's article on Alternative rock. Quite a bit of Coldplay's music has been influenced by this punk rock scene, and this is the same for a few of Coldplay's band and artist influences. - Nimbusania talk 22:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Allmusic actually has their main genre as Pop rock, which is what they are. Hmmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Moult (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible FA?

OK this seems to have been brought up several times in the past but to no consensus. (Atention all major editors to this article) When do you all belive that this will be fully ready for an FA? What other improvments have to be made? (Other than shortening the Viva la Vida section as it way too long) Im all ears...--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Song Copying/Court Cases

Nothing in the article about the copy of Joe Satriani song by Coldplay in Viva la Vida and the court call? (Joe also stole the song from argentinian band Enanitos Verdes). 189.122.141.138 (talk) 07:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Its in Viva la Vida.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 14:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a mention in the main article (even a whole section) on the plagiarism problems associated with Coldplay in the last year or so: there was the Joe Satriani incident, Cat Stevens' plagiarism claim and the latest story of legal action against Coldplay by someone called Sammie Lee Smith who claim's he wrote Yellow, Clocks and Trouble.[4] Please follow this up. Officially Mr X (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd wait until sources independent of TMZ report on the story, as the site's not recognized as a reliable source. The story just broke a few hours ago, so let's wait for it to develop (and reported via more reliable outlets) before consdering its addition to the wiki article. --Madchester (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be TMZ for the last case (Sammie Lee Smith) but for the rest it can be found elsewhere! http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/09/16/satrianis-viva-la-vida-copyright-suit-against-coldplay-dismissed/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.61.52 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Coldplay are - grammar error

I believe the correct grammar would be, "Coldplay is," not "Coldplay are," as "Coldplay" is a collective noun. Please consult the OWL at Purdue University on Subject/Verb Agreement.

From the note at the top of the talk page: This article is written in British English, which differs from American English in some ways. --Madchester (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Coldplay is the name of the band. In the context of the opening paragraph it is not a collective noun, it's a proper noun referring to a single band, not to a group of people. To say 'Coldplay are a band' is completely incorrect in both British and American english.
It's like opening the Manchester United article with 'Manchester United ARE a football club'... makes no sense at all. --Jhantor (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Which, as a mass noun, would be equally correct. However, we've been through this debate far too many times to settle it here. There is long-standing consensus that British musical groups are described in the plural, and if it is to be changed , this should be proposed at the Project level, not here. Rodhullandemu 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue

I believe that Coldplay is in fact a band, not a group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.50.164 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-Britpop?

Maybe we should add Post-Britpop because their is a large section saying that they are Post-Britpop? 81.96.254.143 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, I don't see that section. Eitherway it's better to be general in the infobox/lead. Free As A Byrd (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You dont see it? are you blind? on Post-Britpop it even has a picture of them, i think we should add it 81.96.254.143 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Uh...no. Any other evidense?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind. I'll add it.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

In light of the recent issue about a certain user creating an article for every song off of Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends, I propose that even if a song was not released as a single but charted in a major chart as such, it should be created as a seperate article. The others would be created as redirects to the album that it came from. Any comments?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Coldplay songs keep to the guideline given on WP:MUSIC? Free As A Byrd (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

50 Million Albums?

The only reference given for the point that Coldplay has sold over 50 million albums worldwide is the review by Contactmusic. It's definitely not reliable. It's really hard to figure how their albums could climb upto 50. The figures don't add up (Parachutes - maximum 7 million; A Rush of Blood to the Head - approx 12 million; X & Y - maximum 8 million; Viva la Vida - maximum 8.2 million.) The EP's live albums etc are minor - barely 2 million put together. These figures can be calculated from the total album certifications. You can also read it on the separate wikipedia articles on the albums or anywhere on the net. The maximum is 35 to 40 million. Any other references as to this 50 million thingy??? Steed Asprey - 171 (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't there be some mention on here of the considerable criticism Coldplay have recieved? They appear to be possibly the most critically attacked major artists since Phil Collins. 92.8.190.0 (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Progressive rock/art rock?

Coldplay are not just Alternative rock. Can you add "Progressive rock", "Art rock", or both in the genres section of the band template? --Triedradio (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I love when these rather ridiculous genre additions start cropping up. What reliable published sources have called Coldplay an art rock or progressive rock band? Are you familiar with these genres of music at all? Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But nowhere near as ridiculous as calling them "alternative" rock - can you think of a less alternative band - no I didn't think so!

English or British?

I wonder if Guy Berryman (who is Scottish) would object to the band being labelled 'English'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.114.135 (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the band was formed in London and it's something of a hot topic, especially on WP, so I'm inclined to say if it anin't broke, don't fix it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

LP5

This section should be removed and the portion about the Latin American leg of the tour moved into the Viva La Vida section, where it belongs. At most, the article should state that work has begun on the next album, none of this stuff about "killer tunes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotty insano (talk • contribs) 16:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it that the whole debacle around copyright infringement allegations is completely absent from this page?

Joe Satriani alleged that "Viva La Vida" infringed on his song "If I Could Fly". Coldplay made a statement insisting that any similarly was coincidence. Coldplay then settled with Satriani out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.

This seems significant, and was at some point present on this page. It has since been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

In order to promote this to FA status, a Criticism section really needs to be added. Otherwise it would fail due to the article being "biased". ThinkBlue, do you think that you'd be willing to start such a section? I'll be willing to help.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 02:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't start it, but there's nothing stopping you from adding it. It would probably be best to ask others what they think, to avoid any disagreements in the future, you know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I see that in the LP5 section, there needs a citation. Well, I'm new at wikipedia and I don't know how to cite webpages yet. I would like someone if the can to put this http://coldplay.com/newsdetail.php?id=628&page=0 as the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.207.112 (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Alternative rock"

As far as I can tell this is a major label pop band with mainstream success. What's this meant to be an alternative to exactly? Hairhorn (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They do there own style of rock which doesn't fit into sub genres. By definition makes it alternative. Although i believe britpop goes with the first 3 albums they're made. Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Admittedly, calling "alternative" a genre makes the issue a bit nebulous... but saying it's because "they have their own style" doesn't clarify the matter. Hairhorn (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A default definition of "alternative" helps nobody, particularly when discussing such a thoroughly mainstream band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.19.130 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Using the term alternative rock to describe Coldplay is completely ridiculous - if they're "alternative" just what is non/alternative/mainstream. It's errors like this that make Wikipedia such a laughing stock...

English not British

It's an English band because it was formed in London England, If your that arrogant to edit that then go and edit AC/DC too.Davido488 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

British is fine. See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POINT. --John (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 4 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Genres in infobox

This article suffers considerable fly-by editing to the genres in the infobox. Can we just get consensus over this? I suggest that it is left as alternative rock, for which there is ample evidence. There are sources that indicate more specific sub-genres, such as Britpop and post-Britpop, but those are clearly part of alternative. So lets keep it general and accurate as per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Genre.--SabreBD (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Description of Coldplay as an "English" band

Should Coldplay not be described as a "British" band? Guy Berryman is Scottish. I wanted to edit the page but it is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.221.73 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

also if this group are "alternative" rock what the hell is non-alternative? their about as conventional as rock can get... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.77.25 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.7.103.29, 31 May 2011

It is not fair that I can not edit articles that I want to edit

They are blocked from locks and no edit tab

174.7.103.29 (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Not an edit request. Consider creating an account. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

BRIT awards

The opening paragraph states Coldplay have won Best British Group at the BRITS three times when they have only won it twice but have been awarded Best British Album three times. That's an achievement worth highlighting and worth correcting. I think they are the only artists to have achieved that honour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.87.97 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 178.255.11.6, 29 June 2011

Second word "are," should be singular: "is"

178.255.11.6 (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I believe either usage is gramatically correct, though apparently "are" is more common in British English, and per WP:ENGVAR, this article should use British English for a British band. See American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective it's not about British English or American English, some of the words in the article simply aren't English. I am editing as I post. Stephenjh (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It is really a separate issue. The article does really need some serous copy editing. Sometimes it is very difficult to work out what is being said.--SabreBD (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Noticing

I've shrunken the introduction paragraphs, placing the influences paragrahp in the "musical style" section, and the paragraph that is all about awards was placed in the "awards and nominations" section, to make it look less rachitic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnotaurus044 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fifth album (2009–present) - poor writing/grammar

This section of the article needs a rewrite. An example of the poor writing, spelling and grammar is:

The new matierial were eventually gabbered by postponing dates, as the band released only one single in 2010; "Christmas Lights" debuted in December of that year, but neithertheless the music video was briefly removed from Youtube due to breach of copyright claims from the IFPI.

The text quoted above seems to have disappeared, although what remains is poorly written. It looks as though it has been put through an automatic translator. The problem with correcting the English is that what is being said is empty drivel. It is a load of verbose twaddle about absolutely nothing. I'd like to delete it, and I'm no deletionist. Rubywine (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now deleted the material to which I refer above. It was not worth editing. Rubywine (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

Since one of the members is Scottish, the first sentence saying English band should be changed to British, or English/Scottish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.138.178 (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

They formed in England. Just as AC/DC are an Australian band even though they're full of Scots and Englishmen, etc. This has been covered dozens of times; read the archives. JonChappleTalk 21:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Me and some friends decided to form our band at a festival in Serbia, we're all American. Are we a Serbian rock band? Peculiar logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.138.178 (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No, because none of you are Serbian. JonChappleTalk 12:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, EVERY member of the band is British, while not all of them are English. Hence the only logical conclusion is to call them British. The standard practice is to call all bands from the states American, even if they formed and every member hails from one state, the same should apply to the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.255.213 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, I see that the change from British to English was reverted. The claim was that this is due to "Long standing consensus". I had a look at the archives, and can fairly confidently say, there is no consensus. This has been braught up multiple times, and there is simply not agreement on the topic. The band should definantly be refered to as British;

1) One of the members is not English - this is very important.
2) The band is widely considered British
3) The band may have formed within England, but it also formed within Britain
4) Every other reference in the article one way or another is to the band being British. English was only mentioned in the opening statement. Most of the mentions are along the lines of "winning Best British Band".

The fact is that by being English, you are also British. There is no English citizen ship and the band has no particularly strong link to being English specifically. To say that they are English is factually misleading and saying British really does not make it considerably less specific. The facts are that the band are not necessarily English, but are undeniably British. The only logical choice is to go with British. JosephK19 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The only reason "English" remained that way because of people editing it back any time the change was made leaving the person who changed it to "British" unable to change again due to the rule against edit wars. JosephK19 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

A reasonable solution would be to eliminate 'nationality' and just let the article say that they formed in London. We went through this with Queen, and the unsatisfactory compromise was to call them 'British', because of Freddie Mercury's birth place - not because of where the band formed. Radiopathy •talk• 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Coldplay ARE?

This seems rather strange from a grammatical construct. It should be "Coldplay IS" because the band itself is a singular noun, not a plural.

On the other hand, it would be more appropriate to say "The members of Coldplay are...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.208.183 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In British English bands are generally treated as a plural and British English applies here to a British band due to "close national ties to a subject". Some of this is explained at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement.--SabreBD (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
For reference, see also prior discussions (now archived) on this issue:
Maybe we need a FAQ infobox at the top of the talk page to address the question? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Pop rock

Since Viva la Vida Coldplay is playing pop rock. Now in his new album this is confirmed. It's only a matter of reading the analysis that have made the critics. I think it would be right to add this genre to the band. ZetaStereo (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A example. ZetaStereo (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerts of 2011

Is it already the information related to their last concerts which were broadcasted by YouTube? This was because of an agreement between VEVO and Google --Dandublin93 (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Coldplay's presence in the celebration of Steve Jobs' Life

I think we should mention that they performed in the celebration of Steve's life. It can be found here: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ApnZTL-AspQ#t=4745s) and here on the Apple.com website: (http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/10oiuhfvojb23/event/index.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad.azzam (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical Error?

I am not an expert on British English but it seems like the beginning line should read "Coldplay IS a British" rather than "Coldplay ARE a British." Am I the one that's incorrect? ThanksChryslerfan (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No its not an error. In British English all bands are treated as plural. See American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement.--SabreBD (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference!Chryslerfan (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Rihanna

Is a one-off performance with an artist enough to consider that artist to be an "associated act"? Tentonbricks (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, and no it doesn't class as an associated act, this is what constitutes one. Jonjonjohny (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mylo Xyloto

Big problem on Mylo Xyloto#Certifications i posted this also on the albums talk page i think it will get more attention here. the certifications say sales however if you see List of music recording certifications most of figures in countries are still based on shipments. shipments are way different then sales - you can't say its sales that is false information. i'm don't edit their pages cramped as it is however someone really needs to fix it asap 201.229.28.101 (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

songs

hey, i was wondering what all of coldplay's songs were, maybe someone could put them all in the article? thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob the lord of awesome (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

They have deliberately been moved from this article to keep the size down. You can find the list at List of Coldplay songs. QU TalkQu 18:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Good decision. Smileguy91 (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

COLDPLAY SALES

Coldplay have sold nearly 50 million copies worldwide:

- Parachutes: 9,100,000

- A Rush Of Blood To The Head: 12,700,000

- Live 2003: 1,700,000

- X&Y: 11,000,000

- Prospekt's March: 400,000

- Viva La Vida Or Death And Hall His Friends: 8,900,000

- Mylo Xyloto: 5,200,000 (according to Mediatraffic)

- Sales of additional minor releases: 400,000

TOTAL: 49,400,000 copies worldwide LINK: http://fanofmusic.free.fr/ajax.php?m=Charts&s=BestSellers&p=BestSellers&Act=41 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voilet92 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Rock vs. alternative rock and britpop

Coldplay has more genres than two, and to avoid long arguments over specifics, we should define their genre as general as simply "rock". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Citation no. [38] doubted

It seems that the citation or reference no. [38] is nothing but a link that redirects to the article page itself. This reference has been used once in the article. Should I delete the reference link and the referenced text, or is it a link that I'm not able to use as I should? — Smtchahal (talk | contribs) 13:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Citation #38 does not, as of now, redirect to this article. smileguy91talk 22:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


January 1, 2014

Can anyone check this new album called Ezra etc....?!Super48paul (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Clarification please. smileguy91talk 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Coldplay" being used as a plural noun

The first sentence currently reads "Coldplay are a British alternative Rock band..."; other sentences also use "Coldplay" as plural.

"Band" is a collective noun. Collective nouns are singular nouns that refer to a group of objects. For another example, "group" is a collective noun; it is singular, even though it is used to refer to multiple objects.

"Coldplay" is a proper noun which refers to the band; thus, "Coldplay" is a proper, collective noun.

Therefore, "Coldplay" should be used as singular; for example, the first sentence should read "Coldplay is..." not "Coldplay are..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.91.75 (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In British English collective nouns are treated as plurals and because this is a British group this article uses British English, but thanks for bringing this to the talkpage rather than just changing it. See American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement.--SabreBD (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Coldplay is a British band, thus British English should be used as the language of this page, thus "Coldplay are" is correct. Smileguy91 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's article on collective nouns, in British English, either the singular or the plural verb form may be used. As this is the U.S. version of the site, it should be more appropriate to go with the U.S. choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.190.66.52 (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not the US version.--SabreBD (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an American site. It was founded by an American and owned by an Amercan corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.150.252 (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Can someone get the page to semi-protection.URDNEXTtalk 5:19, May 31 2014 (PT) — Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Pop rock

Hello friends. Many web sites and many critics considered Coldplay a "pop rock band", but you doesn't leave me o others include pop rock as a genre of the band. Wikipedia must be objetive. Coldplay was alternative rock and post-britpop (like Radiohead or Jeff Buckley) on Parachutes, A rush of blood to the head and part of X&Y, but then they adopted a pop rock sound. I'm fan of Coldplay, but i think we must to be objetive. Grettings! Gabriel (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Their music is poppier than the average alternative rock band, especially on their later releases. Someone keeps insisting for pop to be listed. If pop going to be listed, then pop rock may as well be too, since that could really apply to most of their music, rather than just pop. With the many sources available, I went ahead and added pop rock, citing Billboard, a highly reliable source. 75.129.101.158 (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

A Head Full of Dreams

Hello everybody.

I see that you have placed a link for Coldplay's latest album, A Head Full of Dreams into Coldplay's page. However, I am making a page for the album. This is interfering with the publishing of the page, and I would like the link to be deleted.

I have three reasons to backup my complaint: 

1: I'm relatively new to this type of coding. I don't know how to delete this type of URL.
2: Coldplay's page is semi-protected, due to the rising popularity of the new album, and vandalism. 
3: I am not an authorized editor.

I hope that you can understand that I would like to add this page very soon, and this will get in the way, due to an article title policy. As my word as an encyclopedia editor, I will not publish this article until the link is clearly removed.

--Sheldon.andre (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's way too early to add an article about A Head Full of Dreams. Album articles need to pass WP:NALBUMS criteria, such as:
  1. the album has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it,
  2. has appeared on any country's national music chart,
  3. has been certified gold or higher in at least one country,
  4. has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award,
etc.
When the release of the album is announced and more information on the topic is published in reliable sources, it'll be possible to consider adding the article.
As for the redirect page, when the article is ready you can just edit it and paste your article there. There's no need to delete it. — Mayast (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, in the mean time, you might consider adding some information on the new album that you have gathered to the appropriate section of this article. It could definitely use some new content. — Mayast (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Just to clarify for anybody coming to this conversation, I think the original poster is talking about A Head Full of Dreams currently being a redirect to a section of Coldplay and they want to create a new article. — Brianhe (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As of 2015-03-15, it does not seem that Coldplay has released the album yet. Sheldon.andre, my recommendation is to copy the Wiki markup from this old version of A Head Full of Dreams to User:Sheldon.andre/sandbox, then work on it there. Once Coldplay has released the album & it passes WP:NALBUMS including multiple valid citations, then you should be able to copy your work to overwrite the code at A Head Full of Dreams. Peaceray (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Phil Harvey?

Phil Harvey should be considered part of the band. Coldplay say so in their liner notes, and there are other sources which verify this. However, the minute this is edited into the article, someone undoes it because "Harvey's status is already reliably cited". Never mind that that status is listed as "unofficial fifth member". Coldplay's word should be enough verification. End of story. Rovingrobert (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Record sales

Is there any other source, besides a ticket exchange market website, that support the claim that this band has sold more than 80 million records worldwide? If that is so, that would make then one of the best-selling bands in the world, something that other sources does not corroborated. Coltsfan (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.volkskrant.nl/kunst/article471768.ece/Nederlander_eist_een_miljoen_van_Coldplay&ei=lV4VSuKwB4iy9AS108THAg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.volkskrant.nl/kunst/article471768.ece/Nederlander_eist_een_miljoen_van_Coldplay%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DhVo
  2. ^ http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.degierstam.nl/home/index.php%3Fp%3Dviewweblog%26id%3D5371&ei=E18VSu_6KJSO8wSyv9jHAg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=7&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DChampagne%2Ben%2Bkaviaar%2Bcoldplay%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DQsT
  3. ^ http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.trouw.nl/cultuur/article1494363.ece&ei=OV8VSv7TMZSS9QS3sZDHAg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.trouw.nl/cultuur/article1494363.ece%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3D2sT
  4. ^ http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2010/01/14/12462361-wenn-story.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coldplay/Archive_3&oldid=1219089162"