Talk:Coldplay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Coldplay is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 15 November 2006

/Discussion from 2005

Contents

[edit] Link Broken

The link called [4] (I think; it's at the end of the paragraph about X&Y awards) is broken, as VH1 have updated their site. I have tried to find this article and fix the link, but as yet I can't. Any chances of help? Φ 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Til Kingdom Come" and "Neighborhood #4"

I'm putting this message near the bottom because it is not extremely important. However, has anyone heard Coldplay's "Til Kingdom Come" and The Arcade Fires' "Neighborhood #4 (7 Kettles)"? These two songs seem awkwardly similar in style and maybe if someone else has noticed, we should mention it?? --Anthony5429 02:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost positive that Coldplay wrote that song for the Arcade Fire and gave it to them. I think it'd be more important putting it on the Arcade Fire page?--Mondayrocks 17:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, they're both folk songs... that's the only similarity. With this policy we should mention things like that for all folk songs, blues songs, rock'n'roll songs, classical pieces and so on. --Joanberenguer 13:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

although im a big fan of coldplay, a lot of their songs are very similar...comparing X&Y to rush of blood, its in a very similar format. Square One vs. In my Place, Fix you vs. Amsterdam, daylight vs. twisted logic, warning sign vs. see you soon and most importantly.... CLOCKS VS. SPEED OF SOUND!!!! its exactly the same chord progression but in a different key. i mean, come on, its not like they're the foo fighters (who can get away with it cause they're not nearly as popular). at least they're on different albums...

[edit] Take note

Coldplay's new CD has rules

May not be useful right now but it's good to be aware of such things.

Does this just apply to certain parts of the world or on later copies of X & Y. I have the CD in my car stereo and have copied it to my PC, and it works on both? Bevo74 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Answered via the X & Y page. (Some regions) Bevo74 15:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is/Are

Being British, Coldplay 'is' grates with me. I know on Wikipedia we are not pedantic about the different versions of English, but it would seem more natural that the British English 'Coldplay are' was used as they are all British. Bevo74 08:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia's policy is that since this is a British topic, the article should be in British English. Feel free to edit away.--Esprit15d 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Being British as well as literate, I would propose that the use of is/are is dependent upon the structure of the sentence--whether or not the group is being referred to as a single unit, or collectively. For example, it is grammatically correct to say 'Coldplay is the greatest band ever, in my opinion'; conversely, it would be more correct to state that 'Coldplay are in the studio once again'. This is/are confusion is common, and grates with pedants on both sides of the pond. Others choose to just get on with reading the damned sentence and cope.  :-)

I personally don't get the American thing here. Which sentence makes more sense?

a) Coldplay? I saw them play the other day. OR b) Coldplay? I saw it play the other day.

Surely this is a no-brainer? Vanky 15:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Of couse it's a no-brainer.. I saw the band the other day. --Madchester 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My favorite band are Coldplay? No. --Macarion 00:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, seeing as 'Coldplay' is the object there, not the subject. "Coldplay are my favourite band" would certainly be acceptable and, seeing as I'm a Brit, preferable to "Coldplay is my favourite band" for me. Well quite 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tin whistle

An anonymous IP user added a line to Tin whistle under "well-known performers" indicating that the drummer from Coldplay also plays tin whistle. While this is true and he's certainly well-known, I can't find any listing indicating that Coldplay (or anyone else, for that matter) has actually recorded him playing the instrument, so I reverted the change. However, I'm (cough) hardly an expert on the band, so if someone can correct me I'll put it back. Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 14:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact is the before becoming the band's drummer, Champion played 4 or 5 other instruments. He didn't take up drumming before joining the band. --Madchester 19:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Er, right; that's obvious from the article. I was asking if Coldplay has recorded him playing the tin whistle. My guess is no, but I wanted to be sure. --Craig Stuntz 19:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Make Trade Fair user template

Just a heads up; I've created a Make Trade Fair userbox template. (Template:User Make Trade Fair)

I've also created one for the Make Poverty History/ONE Campaign. (User:1ne/Userboxes/User MPH-ONE).

Enjoy!

--Madchester 22:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Break up"

Martin and co. went thru the same shpiel after Parachutes was released, saying that it would be the their last album. It's way too premature to say that the band has called it quits. They have tour dates booked through the summer and another single to be released this year. The band's probably taking some time off, especially with Martin having another kiddie on the way. --Madchester 13:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "See also"

I think the two "see also" sections make the page look ugly, because why not just have "influences listed in order" and "similar artists" to become titles instead? Well, I will change it to show everyone what I mean, because I really think it will be a lot better, and show a good example for non-member users. Darkroom Danny 09:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other

The section entitled other should be moved into the Discocraphy article - it makes no sense where it is at the moment. Willnz0 02:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X+Y Promo's/Leaking?

I heard that X+Y promo copies were sent out under a pseudonym in an attempt to stop it being leaked. Does anyone know anything about this? I feel it would be an intresting, relevant addition to the article.

[edit] Kraftwerk

I have to start by saying that I find Coldplay unutterably dull (hence don't have much of a stake in this article), but have to respond to another editor's comment that Coldplay were "In no way influenced by Kraftwerk, but merely sampled them". Its clear to me that 'Speak' hasn't sampled 'Computer Love', its pinched the synthesiser hook and played it on a guitar (I always wondered why against my better instincts I actually liked 'Speak', it wasn't til it was pointed out to me that it uses the riff from Computer Love, which I've always liked, that i realised why). Also i'm sure I saw Chris martin on telly on the Jonathon Ross show or suchlike acknowledging that he 'borrowed' the riff from Computer Love, and that he had Kraftwerk's permission to do so. So to me that counts as 'influenced by' (you can't get much more 'influenced' than pinching someone elses tune note for note...) quercus robur 23:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep calling it "Speak"? It's "Talk." Macarion 00:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh... Macarion didn't actually address the issue but nitpicked. Kudos Macarion!

[edit] Moving hoax?

I have to question why the Grauniard April fools day hoax section was moved to the Chris Martin page as the "Talk to David" song was allegedly the product of the whole band, not just CM. The whole hoax thing should at least be acknowledged in the main Coldpaly article, even if the detail belongs on the CM page, IMHO quercus robur 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

'Madchester' is persistently removing the gfollowing text from the article;
On April 1 2006 the UK Guardian journalist "Olaf Priol" claimed that Chris Martin had decided to publicly support the UK Conservative party leader David Cameron due to his disillusionment with current New Labour prime minister Tony Blair [1], even going so far as to produce a fake song, "Talk to David", that could be downloaded via the Guardian website [2]. despite being an obvious hoax, the Labour Party's Media Monitoring Unit were concerned enough to circulate the story throughout "most of the government" [3].
Apparently its not 'significant', however, this made page three of one of biggest newspapers in the UK as well as a by-line on the front page, hence I feel it is appropriate for inclusion. However I was accused by Madchester of being a 'vandal' when I questioned his edits. I would appreciate a nuetral party deciding whether the April Fools hoax is worthy of inclusion, I would also appreciate an apology from Madchester for his alegations of 'vandalism'. quercus robur 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine the Coldplay article:

  • Details on Coldplay's contribution to Live 8: 1 sentence, less than 10 words.
  • Details on an April Fool's hoax, due to an author name-dropping Chris Martin: 1 paragragh (shown above)

Why should the Coldplay article devote an entire paragraph to some one-off April Fool's joke when,

  • A) It only refers to one member of the band
  • B) Chris Martin's involvement is in name only. The author could have chosen any other artist (Thom Yorke, Robbie Williams, Madonna, etc.) and the hoax would still have been published.

Just because a story has been published in "one of the biggest newspapers in the UK" doesn't justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. There are regular front page newspaper articles on lottery winners, but these persons are generally non-notable, per WP:BIO. While this hoax is verifiable, it does not warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:Importance.

--Madchester 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Well I disagree. It wasn't some tabloid story about 'a lottery winner' but the front page of a respected broadsheet about Chris Martin who is lead singer of Coldplay, not about Thom Yorke or whoever, the joke being of course Chris Martins leanings towards leftist liberal political causes such as Make Trade Fair etc. The hoaxers went so far as to whip up a fake song attributed to Coldplay, that they put online, and which really put the wind up New Labour's spin machine, to the extent that a briefing alerting government ministers to the story was circulated. Thus its not 'an indiscriminate item of information', but places Coldplay within a cultural context, complete with external reference links to the song and newspaper articles in question. Currently however I note that all mention of the hoax has been erradicated apart from in the external links section.
As there is obviously a dispute here as to whether this item should be included, it should be thrown open for consensus to decide, not for you to simply revert my contributions in such a high handed manner. I suggest this matter be thrown open to consesus and the results be respected by both parties.
More seriously though, you have placed a 'vandalism' notice on my talk page which is totally out of order. You have not addressed this matter, and I expect you to do so by publically retracting your comments regarding my being a 'vandal' and inserting 'nonsense' into articles. quercus robur 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any strong opinions on whether the hoax is all that notable (and, in fact, I've heard very little of Coldplay's music), but I do have to agree that the controversial edits weren't vandalism and didn't have to be announced via a test template. Good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia aren't vandalism, even if people disagree. --Elkman - (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking consensus re disputed paragraph

As this paragraph is a source of dispute (see above), I feel consensus should be sought as to whether it should be included in the article;

On April 1 2006 the UK Guardian journalist "Olaf Priol" claimed that Chris Martin had decided to publicly support the UK Conservative party leader David Cameron due to his disillusionment with current New Labour prime minister Tony Blair [4], even going so far as to produce a fake song, "Talk to David", that could be downloaded via the Guardian website [5]. despite being an obvious hoax, the Labour Party's Media Monitoring Unit were concerned enough to circulate the story throughout "most of the government" [6].

Motion; The above paragraph, or the substance of the information contained therin, is appropriate for inclusion in the Wikipedia Coldplay article

Please add your vote below;

Agree (ie, the paragraph, or the substance of the information contained therin, meets Wikipedia critera for inclusion and it is appropriate for it to be included in this article)

  • quercus robur (Reasons as stated above. Also declaring an interest in that I have instigated this poll, and am author of the text in question)
  • Though admitedly, I do have inclusionist leanings. The argument below about how it is inapropriate given that the rest of the more important projects only have one sentance each does not mean it shouldn't be included, only that those sentances should be extended. I would agree with moving it to another article except that by itself it would be a stub. KalevTait 17:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree (ie, the paragraph, or the substance of the information contained therin, does not meet Wikipedia critera for inclusion and it is inappropriate for it to be included in this article)

  • Disagree. Some of Coldplay's more important projects from the past few years (Make Trade Fair, Live 8, etc.) only garner one sentence references in the main article. The inclusion of an entire paragraph on a hoax, where the band's "participation" was in name only, is not only excessive, but in violation of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Namely, point 2 and 5 stating that articles should not contain "loosely associated topics" and "news reports" respectively. Also note the author's derogatory POV comments towards the band, (User_talk:Elkman#Coldplay) claiming that Coldplay "as dull as dish water". --Madchester 01:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
NB. My personal opinions regarding Coldplay, posted as a comment on another users talk page (and thus NOT in breach of wiki POV policy) (and also above, see Kraftwerk section [7]), have nothing to do with the issue in question. What is at issue is whether the above paragraph belongs in the article, not the quality or otherwise of my possibly dubious personal musical tastes quercus robur 18:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree The information is not centered on the band, it belongs in an article about the hoaxter if anywhere. Only hoax's with very serious consequences/repurcussions have any real long-term notability WP:N. --Quiddity 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. "Loosely associated topics" indeed.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - as a hoax, it has absolutely no underlying substance in relation to Coldplay, and therefore shouldn't be in the Coldplay article. DJR (Talk) 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - I agree with points made above, especially Madchester's opinion that it is "in violation of WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" -DanDanRevolution 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree — I really believe there is better material about Coldplay to discuss. Cedars 09:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - The edit was clearly not vandalism, but I agree it was misplaced. I strongly feel that the info should go on Chris Martin's page; it has nothing do with Coldplay THE BAND - and the article should be focued on Coldplay. Band article across Wikipedia are filled with trivia about individual members, whose own pages are often stubs. --DreamsReign 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Well, from the poll results so far it would appear that, apart from you and I, nobody else could care less either way whether the April Fools joke should be in this article. As we both have strong views and are unlikely to reach a consensus I propose a compromise in that a 'trivia' or 'notes' section, found in many other band articles on wikipedia, is inserted near the bottom of the page, and the April Fools hoax, along with an appropriate link, be included here. This would also be a good place to mention their appropriation of the hook from Kraftwerk's "Computer Love" for "Talk" and other such footnotes without disrupting the flow of the main article. quercus robur 10:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise. The wikipedia policies section mentioned above does specify that section such as this shouldn't be included. But a trivial section would be a good addition, and the April Fools mention would fit well there. It is important to keep the article significant, but the trivial information deserves mention. --The Human Spellchecker 16:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
There's already a 1 sentence mention in the Chris Martin article. There's no need to duplicate the material on another Wikipedia article, when the hoax was directed at Martin. Last year, there were problems with the Coldplay article, because users were adding CM's personal details to it (i.e., his marraige to Paltrow, baby girl named Apple, etc.), when they should have been restricted to CM's article. --Madchester 16:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I do take your point Madchester, but part of the hoax was that the band Coldplay, not just Chris Martin, had recorded a song supporting David Cameron, and even cobbled up a downloadable fake song ("Talk" with new lyrics placed over the top) and that is why i feel it is appropriate for inclusion on this page in some form or another quercus robur 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a "Notes" section would be appropriate for such a paragraph. Good compromise, and it's the kind of useless piece of information that people like to find out... which is why Wikipedia is so great! DJR (Talk) 18:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
So what happened to it? Septentrionalis 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I've kind of left this article alone personally as I feel I have a vested interest, I thought it might he better if somebody else created the section if its felt it belongs here quercus robur 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the status of this matter? The result of the discussion was that it should not be included, with good reason, and you should ask yourself whether this material is appropriate for an encyclopedia (will anyone be interested in this even as soon as April 1, 2007, let alone a few years on? Will this information simply be deleted at some point in the future to make way for less trivial information?). - Centrx 01:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed two sections

I boldly removed the "influences" section, since Wikipedia prefers prose over lists, and it was already mentioned in the body of the article. I also removed "similar bands" since that is totally unverifible and incredibly subjective and POV.--Esprit15d 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected songs

As a huge Coldplay fan I felt I had to change a thing or two in the paragraph about songs they played on the A Rush Of Blood To The Head Tour but later rejected for X&Y. I can clear it up that the song Your World Turned Upside Down was only ever performed live and has never appeard on an official release however The World Turned Upside Down which is a completly different song found its way onto the B-Side of the Fix You single. I can see where the confusion may arise but believe me they are totally different songs! {{unsigned|TedTheRed|21:15, 3 May 2006}

[edit] Selling their songs

According to Martin, "We wouldn't be able to live with ourselves if we sold the songs' meanings like that."[1]

In Australia Coldplay is on just about every television network ad there is. I'm certain that channel 10 has used "yellow" many times over the years, and channel 9 has used one of their songs as well. Is that comment truthful at all?

Yes, but is it in advertisement for anything but the channel itself? -- Ianiceboy 09:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


Does An advertisement for PBL or Newslimited "cheapen" coldplay any less than an ad for any other company?

[edit] Death Metal

I guess this is a hoax at genre: "Death Metal"(?)

Yes, I've reverted the edit Matt Eason 13:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ColdPlay Userbox

As part of Wikiproject Userbox, I have added Template: User ColdPlay to the bands area. Feel free to use. Tim Quievryn

[edit] influences

The article stated flatly that Coldplay were influenced by Kraftwerk and Johnny Cash, but the link given as a source is a record reviewer basically saying that, in his opinion, he hears those influences. Not the same thing. I amended this. I also removed the Travis sentence because it contained WP:WEASEL language, and do you really think that because someone on allmusic.com said their early recordings were "heart-rending like Travis, passionate like Jeff Buckley, and as fresh as Oasis" (note this is not even referring necessarily to their musical style!) this one person's opinion and vague comparison is important enough to be snowballed into fact by making it the first sentence in the second paragraph of their article? wikipediatrix 17:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, if you do some further research, you'll see that "Talk" was based on the main riff from Kraftwerk's "Computer Love". Coldplay specifically asked Kraftwerk to get permission to use that riff. Likewise, "'Til Kingdom Come" was written specifically as a colloboration with Johnny Cash, who died just weeks before they would have recorded it together in a studio. In turn, the band has regularly performed a cover of Cash's "Ring of Fire" during its recent Twisted Logic Tour.
Jeff Buckley, Travis, and Radiohead have all been regularly cited as a template for Coldplay's Parachutes album:
And for Echo and the Bunnymen for A Rush of Blood to the Head:
In tribute to McCulloch's influence, the band regularly covered the Bunnymen hit "Lips Like Sugar" during the A Rush of Blood to the Head Tour. A live version also makes it way as a B-side to "The Scientist's DVD single (see tracklisting).


Drop Oasis if you like, but the fact is all three of these acts (and many others) have been influences for Coldplay.
Again, I would recommend doing some research and follow up to the information presented, instead of pulling out the WP:WEASEL card at the first available opportunity. Critiquing and playing devils' advocate is fine, but adding supporting evidence and information is also an important role of Wikipedia's editors. Yes, editors should be held accountable for the information they enter, but at the same time, those doing the fact-checking wouldn't do themselves any harm by doing some actual research themselves. --Madchester 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, it isn't up to me to do your research for you. It's your information that you seem determined to insert prominently near the top of the article, so the burden is on you to provide proper cited sources for it. I already made my contribution: I prefer to just jettison the entire paragraph, as I already did, or at least move it somewhere much lower in the article. Secondly, some of the stuff you just mentioned are still various rock critics giving their own opinions of "obvious" influences. To say "Coldplay is influenced by Oasis", we need a source with an actual band member stating words to this effect. Thirdly, why is it so important to you to devote so much time, space, and effort to Coldplay's influences, and why is it important enough to be so near the top of the article? wikipediatrix 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
And I ask you this. I would kindly suggest that you help out by also looking for any additional references. Instead of taking a passive role of critiquing other people's work, I encourage taking an active role in participating and contributing actual content to the article. I personally did not include many of the influences listed. But being a flexible Wiki-editor, I don't mind filling the gaps for other editors who had forgotten to include references. I'm an administrator on Wikipedia, but I still take an active role in participating in articles that may need work, regardless of my actual level of expertise of the topic. Please assume good faith on the part of editors who have contributed to this article. Instead of immediately disregarding their work, you can help improve their writing by finding any supporting details. --Madchester 21:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well said Madchester. Testify! DJR (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In case you missed what I said earlier, I don't even think the paragraph should BE in the article, therefore I am not going to contribute to its sourcing and its existence. I'm already compromising with you by trying to clean it up. If it MUST be there, at least let it done properly. I am not going to argue about this any further. wikipediatrix 01:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] influences, redux

Madchester, I think you really are just being stubborn at this point and edit-warring just to try to get the last word, but you're doing so at the expense of the quality of the article's writing. My sentence: "Coldplay's early material has been compared by some reviewers to artists such as Jeff Buckley" is literally true, yet you insist on replacing it with the vaguer and less factual "Coldplay's early material was influenced by the likes of Jeff Buckley." Your latest link for citation 1 (the third you've attempted in 24 hours - why are you on such a mission to insert all these influences at the start of the article? Why is it that important?) has Martin mentioning Jeff Buckley, but Martin is not Coldplay. He does not speak for the entire band. wikipediatrix 05:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I recommend that you keep your cool or resorting to personal attacks. There's no need to threaten other users by calling them "stubborn" or resorting to remarks like "What point am I trying to prove, in your imagination" [8] to belittle other users.
Second, I also posted a quote from the Wisconsin State Journal ion your talk page, ndicating Buckley's influence on the band's music on your talk page:
Middle-class, earnest and smitten by the music of Radiohead and Jeff Buckley, they (Buckland and Martin) set out to write folk-rock songs that would measure up to the work of their heroes.
The only reason why there's been multiple revisions to Citation 1 within the last 24 hours is simply to appease your standards. Again, I would assume good faith on part of the multiple editors who have contributed to this article. If you truly wish to improve the accuracy of this article, then I would encourage your active particpation in helping us search for valid citations to the article. I've invested quite a bit of time resarching into the article over the past 36 hours, simply to touch up information left out by other editors.
As I said before, I never added most of those influences; they had been inserted by other editors over the past year and a half. If you reviewed the edit history, you'll see that I had already removed a number of unsourced references. The band's influences are a good indicator of its genre and also of its evolution over the past 3 albums. Note that such a format has also been adopted in the introduction to articles like Radiohead, Oasis, Blur, The Killers, etc. --Madchester 06:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot communicate any further with you if you must call every little thing I say to you that doesn't sit well with you a "personal attack". You're also talking in circles and repeating points that I have already addressed. I maintain the article in its current state is embarassingly amateurishly written and violates Wikipedia policies in more ways than one. You seriously need to cool down yourself, study WP:OR a lot more and try to get some perspective when it comes to articles about bands. The article in its current state reads like something written by young and overzealous fans for some homemade zine or something. wikipediatrix 07:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, there's no need for personal attacks, comme calling out editors on this page as "young and overzealous fans". Feel free to create a To Do box or a list of suggestions if you feel that the article is a "homemade zine". Thanks. --Madchester 07:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I said no such thing. You are twisting my comments into something I obviously did not say, in effect you are the one doing the personal attacking, even as you passive-aggressively keep trying to turn it around on me. I give up attempting to communicate with you. wikipediatrix 07:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the Coldplay name

The second post on this page of the official Keane forums by ChrisFlynn: here and this post by Tim Rice-Oxley: here seem to show that the Coldplay name was not taken from Rice-Oxley and instead from Tim Crompton of Bettina Motive. That part of the article needs to be changed. Unless anyone can prove me wrong? --BM20950 17:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, Rolling Stone says that the name comes from a collection of poems by Philip Horky. Apterygial 09:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rush of Blood

Every song on the rush of blood album is incredibly sharp! does anyone know if there is a reason for this cause they do use a real piano in their recordings. --58.162.103.251 06:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Trouble should really be linked straight to the article. Meanwhile I have fixed a double redirect. BlueValour 18:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't redir to a disambig page, when it can be redir to the actual article. thanks. --Madchester 18:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent overhaul, removal of images

Could we have some discussion before making such drastic changes to the article? I just find it bizzare that images have been removed outright, when similar articles for Radiohead and Oasis have retained their photos and posters. --Madchester 21:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To make myself clear

Probably, you don't mind, but Christ Martin looks like a hairy monkey with that hair and beard. Also it's not coloured, it is orange and it's not so good. Please, can't we find another pic of Coldplay? Martin is good looking guy, but with hair and beard - he's not Thom Yorke, whom the lazy eye makes more charming. Just some good pic with shaved Martin.

About the posters, issues. Nor, Oasis, nor Radiohead pages have posters. Oasis has a photo of every line-up of the band. The missing is the last, as Starkey is not yet confirmed as an official bandmember. Radiohead has one photo of the band and some bandmember photos, not poster photos, as they have a consistent ant tight line-up.

Why I do not endorse these posters and so much photos around? Because, Coldplay is a little more than a hald-decade around. Oasis and Radiohead are on the music scene for much of the 90s. Their respective histories are longer. Nor disrespect for Coldplay and their fans, but Coldplay are younger band and while they are around for about 6-7 years, both Radiohead and Oasis likewise have been around for twice longer about 13-14 years.

Therefore, I consider the amount of posters on the page, meaningless. Come on, guys, the band is 6-year old on the music scene, why so much posters? Nor, Radiohead, nor Oasis have these posters. Try to be reasonable.

Put one good photo of the band, put a couple of Buckland and Martin and that's it. These posters about the "representation" of the band of their career aren't little more than hilarious.

Regards Painbearer 22:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
How did I miss this for two months. For the ones having seen this, this guy is only complaining about band photos on their articles. I kept on fighting with him on a revert war on Keane for two months until he gave up. Coldplay are highly superior than Oasis and Radiohead. The age does not mean nothing in a band's quality. And Painbearer, I¿m not telling you how do you look on your photo. It would be a personal attack...--Fluence 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I found the external links of the band's official website and myspace page to be wrong, so I put the right links. Also there was a Official Bebo Bands page, which I found to link to cold-play.net, and it seems to be a false link, so I deleted it. Note: most of the links are to cold-play.net, so if anyone knows the right links, please attach them.

[edit] What???

The album was banned in China after the Chinese government took the lyrics to "Spies" too seriously.

Seriously, people, is there a source on this? I find it kind of insanely unlikely and I don't know why somebody put it there - some shocking joke? I'll remove it, and if a source can be found you can put it back.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebrat (talk • contribs).

The album wasn't banned, but the track 'Spies' was removed (I think the official line was "due to political sensitivity"). It was answered in the Q&A on the band's official site a few years ago. I'll have a look for a decent source on it.
(Incidentally, please remember to sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks!) Matt Eason 15:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm having trouble finding a definitive answer/source for this one. This news posting on an old version of the official site says the album's release was blocked by the Chinese government. This listing for the album on joyo.com (Amazon-owned online store in China) has 'Careful Where You Stand' in place of 'Spies' (track 3), so it may be the case that it was blocked originally but then allowed to be released with 'Spies' removed. Still can't find an authoritative source to back that claim up though. Matt Eason 16:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failure on Nov. 15, 2006

I'm sorry to have to fail this article, but it is not yet up to the quality of the average (or even lower-end) good articles. Follows are the problems I have found, according to the guidelines laid out at What is a good article?:

Criterion 1(a)- compelling prose: There are many problems in relation to tone, and some of them are also NPOV (violating Criterion 4, but I'm lumping this issue into Crit. 1). To wit: "Coldplay are one of very few current British music acts..." (from the lead); "Coldplay was performing small club gigs for local Camden promoters and the delight of their budding fanbase." (from "Formation"); "Martin kicked Champion out of the band but later pleaded with him to return and due to his guilt, Martin (a self-proclaimed non-drinker and non-smoker) went on a drinking binge" (also from "Formation") is a run-on sentence and also unsourced; "June 2000 was a pivotal moment in Coldplay's history. The band embarked on their first headlining tour, which included a triumphant return to Glastonbury." (from "Parachutes"); "In May, Coldplay teased fans with a new song"..." (from "X&Y"); etc. This is such a recurring problem that I won't even go through all of its instances.

Criterion 2- verifiability: Many of the statements- and, in fact, many paragraphs- are completely unverified. The number of citations [including references that are external jumps instead of appropriate citations- failing WIAGA criterion 2(b)] for an article of this length is, in my view, too low for a Good Article. After the lead and first paragraph of the next section, there is only one reference (in addition to half a dozen external jumps) in the entire article; this is unacceptable for a GA. Even facts such as (these are general examples) "this album debuted at #1 on the charts" or "this single was not as well-received" need citations, and statements such as (this is a specific example) "at one point Martin had considered forming an *NSYNC-inspired boy band called Pectoralz" are completely unbelieveable without a reference.

Criterion 6- images: As brought up in this article's Featured Article candidacy, multiple images have rationales that don't make sense. The image in the infobox is fair use, but it should not be used, as I'm quite sure that there is a free use alternative. The image of Martin from the "Fix You" video states it's free use under Creative Commons, but it comes from a TV network's web site, and I doubt that this image is free to use (please, if I am wrong, feel free to correct me in this error).

Best of luck, and feel free to resubmit the article to WP:GAC when these problems are fixed. -- Kicking222 23:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference bewteen in-line citations and references. If you examine the list of references cited, you will find most of the information in the article can be verified. For example the "unbelievable" *NSYNC reference of the band Source, which has been listed within the References section for almost 2 years now. --Madchester 08:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Then, very simply, why not just put in an inline citation? -- Kicking222 14:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The source is referenced multiple times and adding citations to each detail is far too excessive. The reference section is used to cover more comprehensive resources. Likewise, a book has been used as a secondary source in the article, but it's not practical to provide an inline citation to each reference from that source. --Madchester 18:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
So, in other words, you expect the average person who questions the validity of a statement such as "Chris Martin wanted to do a boy band" to simply say, "Oh, well, I guess that's probably in one of those books." That's not what makes a GA or FA. Look at any GA or FA on a band (or, really, anything) and see if that's how it's done. -- Kicking222 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songs in advertisements

I could have sworn I heard....a Coldplay song (they all sound the same, I think it was Speed Of Sound) on an insurance company advert here in the UK. Also is it really important enough to be mentioned in the introduction? Its inclusion smells to me like a overzealous fan wanting to shout about the supposed integrity of their favorite band. Tom Waits, who is - for some reason - far less popular than Coldplay, doesnt have anything about his notorious and extensive entanglements with the ad industry in his introduction. And its not like there aren't plenty of other bands that refuse to sell their songs either..... 81.157.114.169 16:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box Layout

I hate this layout of the box with the band members, escpecialy the flags. i like the layout as it was 18:56, 30 October 2006 much and much better anybody agree?

--Vincspenc 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree.--Fluence 00:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the box as it currently stands. The flag is fine (not particularly necessary, but acceptable), and I like that the "labels" section no longer takes up so many lines. -- Kicking222 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Talk%7EColdplay_5838.html"