Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Coldplay discography/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:57, 1 November 2012 [1].

Coldplay discography

Featured list candidates/Coldplay discography/archive1

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because having performed much work on the article, I feel it may be ready to be promoted to featured list status. Holiday56 (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments'

"making them one of the..." example of WP:NOUNING change to "which makes them on of the
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although most people are aware UK is an acronym of United Kingdom, I would still provide the acronym after the first use of United Kingdom, in the off chance someone is unaware of this
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the US." -> United States
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"huge commercial success" that is perhaps POV even though you reference it, if the refs actually state that then I would quote it
- Removed "huge". Would that be acceptable enough? Holiday56 (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NapHit (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"in multiple other countries" don't think you need multiple since you say "countries" and multiple just means more than one... Do you mean "many"?
- Changed to "many". Holiday56 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"best-selling " or "best selling"? Consistency.
- Made consistent. Holiday56 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
zobbel.de says "Hurts Like Heaven" was released in 2011....
- zobbel.de does not show the release year, but rather the year the song charted. "Hurts Like Heaven" charted in 2011 following the release of the album, before it was released as a single. Holiday56 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the table lists it as a 2012 release/chart... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the discography singles table, "Year" represents the year the single was released (which I guess is made clear by the table caption). It just so happens that "Hurts Like Heaven" charted ahead of its single release date. Holiday56 (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, now I am confused. Could you explain how that would work? Also, could you explain how I get 45 for its Dutch chart placing from ref 14? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Clicking on the Dutch singles chart reference gives a link to songs that have charted. Selecting "Hurts Like Heaven" will lead you to a page that shows a graph containing the song's chart trajectory – including its peak. It charted on the Dutch Tipparade, which acts as an extension to the main Dutch Top 40.
        I looked at the graph, I couldn't make anything out of it.... It had numbers on both axes but nothing relating to 45 in Holland at some defined date... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Scroll over the final point on the first graph. It should read: "Tipparade positie in week 40 van 2012: 4". I've changed to peak to 44 in the discography. Holiday56 (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well shouldn't it be 4, not 44? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's number 4 on the Tipparade, which acts as an extension to the Dutch Top 40. I've noted this in the article. Holiday56 (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I assume you're inquiring about how "Hurts Like Heaven" charted before being released as a single – it originally entered the chart as a result of digital downloads of the song following the release of its parent album in 2011 – both singles and non-singles are allowed to enter the UK Singles Chart. For a while, it was placed under the "Other charted songs" section. When it was finally released as a single in 2012, it was moved up to the singles section.
        
        I hope I've explained this all well enough – my sincere apologies if this is becoming complicating. Holiday56 (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If it was "released" as a digital download, surely that's the release date? Or are release dates "physical" only? If so, that should be noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Digital retailers allow individual tracks from an album to be downloaded (Coldplay's Mylo Xyloto as an example, where the choice is given to download a single track as opposed to the entire album). However, that does not necessarily make every song from an album a single. A song becomes a single when it is released separately from the album (see the "Hurts Like Heaven" single, as an example). Mylo Xyloto was released in 2011, but "Hurts Like Heaven" was only released as a single in July 2012.
        
        I'm pretty sure that in a singles table, the year a song was released as a single should be the one listed. Which is why 2012 is listed as the year in "Hurts Like Heaven". I've changed "year released" to "year released as single" in the table caption to avoid any further confusion. Holiday56 (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes "Up with the Birds" a promo release if it was just a release off the album?
- "Up with the Birds" was released as a single for Record Store Day; I myself was thinking whether the release could truly be classified a promotional single, as it was not released for the purpose of promoting the album. I've noticed that in several discographies, including some featured lists, Record Store Day singles have been placed in the singles section. Would you see any issue with me moving it to that section? Holiday56 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, not really. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. Moved. Holiday56 (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Osbourne is not referenced.
- Just noticed that a user added the video in. I've added a reference for him. Holiday56 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

" Coldplay performing at MuchMusic in Toronto, Canada in September 2011" well, MuchMusic is a television channel, so could you be more specific, or clarify more?
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:NUM and WP:NBSP, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 737ng, use 737 ng, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 737 ng
- I don't see any units of measurement within the article. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"United Kingdom (UK)" I really don't think "UK" is needed
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you say "United Kingdom" in its first mention, then UK, which is fine, but then say "US" in its first mention. In order to be consistent, in its first mention, I'd say "United States" then say US thereafter, like it is for the UK
- Not sure what you're talking about. The first mention of the US I see reads: "United States Billboard Hot 100". Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"June 2005", there must be a specific day, this applies also to other stuff like this in the list
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon should be written and actually is "Amazon.com"
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In notes, the letter should not be in capitals as per MOS:CAPS and should not be in bold as per MOS:BOLD, and MOS:ACCESS
- I've followed this format of noting for several discographies; based on Help:Footnotes, it seems okay to format notes this way. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"coldplay.com" just write as "Coldplay" instead
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, after that, link Coldplay in all references
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should be sorted in alphabetical order
- Done. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one is just a bot-generated issue, so if there is nothing, just ignore it. It says, "As per MOS:DATES, dates shouldn't use ^th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30^th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day."
- The references and titles with "-th" really do read that way. I'll ignore this one. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one is also bot-generated , so if there is nothing, again, just ignore it. "This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail."
- Don't see an issue, so I'm gonna ignore this one as well. Holiday56 (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBr and ley 02:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBr and ley 23:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks very good. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine to me − can't see anything obvious that should stop this becoming a featured list. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.