Talk:Coachella/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible vandalism?

I know absolutely nothing about this festival, but over the last few days there have been a lot of edits that look suspicious. If you're familiar with the topic, I recommend giving this article a very close inspection. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct to be suspicious. The lineup for 2005 has been deleted and various ridiculous fake lineups for 2006 have been cycled through. Honestly, though, I am less bothered by clearly fake jokes than by believeable but still unsupported speculation (e.g. the previously popular 2006 lineup with Depeche Mode and the White Stripes.) The last good version was "Revision as of 20:27, 18 October 2005" Mountmccabe 23:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Okay, I've reverted the article to that version. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 14:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

2006 line-up is still vandalized.

The Last Three Paragraphs

Looks like someone edited the page and changed the last three paragraphs in the main portion of the article so that they are virtually gibberish.

Does anyone know when the last good version of this page was made?

The last good version didn't have those last 3 paragraphs; I got rid of them. swidly 17:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Stereophonics on 2005 Card

If I remember correctly, Stereophonics was initially listed on Day 2, but on the final lineup card, they played on the first day of 2005. Can anyone verify? Davemcarlson 09:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Artists Who have Played More than Once

Does this page really need a list of artists who've played more than once? It's a bit trivial, surely? Also - 'Old timer british rockers' New Order aren't exactly rockers, nor are they especially 'Old Timer', given that they're still writing and releasing... Annihilatenow 19:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• For the New Order comment, I completely agree with you, they're neither rockers nor old-timer. I've made the adjustments. For the list of multiple appearances, I'm sort of split. I think the discussion of the festival not booking too many artists multiple times is topical. I also think the list of performers who have played more than twice is worth salvaging, as it's interesting little trivia (yes, technically still "trivial") and it helps define the "flavor" of the festival (if you'd like me to elaborate, leave a message on my talk page). The list of two-time performers is long, and certainly not too useful. I'd like to see it replaced with a "list of artists reunited at coachella", or something similar. Davemcarlson 08:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Salvage "History" Section?

There used to be a long section called "History" that has been removed. See the 22 September version(s) for that section. I think some of that could be salvaged. Although it wasn't really well-written, there must have been some information of interest in there. Davemcarlson 00:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NIN Reunion

This is totally messed up. NIN's first show in five years wasn't at Coachella but at Fresno, CA on March 23rd, 2005. (Source: Mukul R. Dwivedi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.77.137 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Massive Attack 'reunion'

As with the Nine Inch Nails deletion from the reunion section, Massive Attack's Coachella 2006 performance was not their first US performance since 1998. They played two shows before Coachella, the first of which being in Seattle. An article about that performance can be found here: [1]. I am deleting them from the reunions section. Povvy 03:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Soulwax, or Soulwax Nite Versions?

I know the official lineup lists "Soulwax Nite Versions" but it looks like it should simply be "Soulwax". Nite Versions is their album. If you change it to simply "Soulwax", then the link will work.67.79.16.18 18:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Size down image

Can someone please make the image appear smaller. I don't know how. Randomfrenchie 22:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever did it. :) Randomfrenchie 01:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You bet! Forgot to say done here. The resize code's simple, just one extra attribute on the image tag (the px). But you can see that in the "diff" link in history if you're interested. Ah... looking forward to this Friday at the festival. --Justin 03:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

images

Free images available here Flickr - CC-Attribution and Flickr - CC-SA. Mahanga^Talk 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

highlight

its my belief that users that actually went to the event should have say regarding "the point of the view". that is to say when i personally highlight lcd soundsystem for 2007, in my opinion that is fair. i base this judgment on concert reviews published in the LA times and personal first hand experience. TomSkillingJr. — Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

oops, then again maybe we are only techincally highlighting headliners TomSkillingJr. — Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

2008 Headliners

Wheres the verification for this? The name Pink Floyd came out of nowhere, I have no clue where this was heard. Can anyone clear this up?

AnthonyMDOB 21:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I want verification for all these huge, unlikely (nigh on impossible) reunion claims too. Pink Floyd? The Smiths? Zeppelin even. These need to be sourced or deleted, because it's both highly improbable, unsourced and damn cruel. Amphetachronism 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2008 Dates

The dates have been posted on The Desert Sun website. It is the Indio local news paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trassin (talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are some performers in Bold?

Are they special? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.147.240 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think that they are the headlining band for the given day. Trassin 17:14, 18 July 2007

Coachella 2008 Bands

The unconfirmed bands for 2008 were added again by 74.71.106.251 without a reference. I removed her post and added a level 1 vandalism to her talk page. Trassin 17:18, 18 July 2007

74.71.106.251 added the unconfirmed bands again. Thank you Thelma.6 for removing them. I added a level 2 vandalism to 74.71.106.251's talk page. Trassin 02:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutral statements?

The following statement "Due to the capitalistic nature of the musically arts, installation arts often receive a much smaller attention; nevertheless" isnt neutral and should be removed or replaced. Insanelyquiet 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MainPostercoachella.jpg

Image:MainPostercoachella.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Goldenvoice

I find it odd that there is no mention of Goldenvoice in this article. Or that there is no article at all on the history ofthe company, a significant cultural force in SoCal. I'm an early worker so I have a COI myself. Wwwhatsup (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaked bands for Coachella 2008

I didn't want to add a "Confirmed" section due to the official release not being available yet. However, I believe that the last news item on this article by Spin.com [2] is sufficient to have Portishead listed as a "Leaked" band. --Trassin 08:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know. However, I have been trying my best to keep anything that cites Myspace, youtube, or uncited off the page.-Carados (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Self-published too. -Carados (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

since when is a band's myspace not an allowed source? 76.199.13.188 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Only allowed in articles about themselves. See WP:SELFPUB. Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Length of article

Is there any support for the idea of moving previous years to their own articles with brief summaries on this one? Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

April 25, 2008

Any reason why the lineup was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllTheBrightness (talk • contribs) 09:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Listen to artists to perform at Coachella 2008

Here is a playlist that allows you to stream every artists to play in Coachella 2008:

(external link removed) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does this get taken down in the 'external links' portion of article? It's directly related and helpful to the entry...plus I spent a lot of time on it!

 —Preceding jonfredric comment added by 67.88.219.227 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

Sunset at Coachella 2006

The sunset photo - while beautiful - contributes very little to the article. Given that tens of thousands of people attend each year, a photo of the crowd (for example) would be far more appropriate. 75.45.127.127 (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Estimated attendance

In prior years, single day, 2 day, and 3 day passes were sold. In the most extreme estimate, you could assume 60,000 single day tickets were sold for each of the 3 days. The attendance would then be 180,000 unique individuals over the 3 days. But that is not likely the case. In 2010 it was the first year they only sold 3 day passes exclusively. They sold over 60,000 3 day passes. There were a lot of gate crashers in 2010. Thus the total attendance was estimated to be 75,000 over 3 days with an average aggregate estimate of 225,000 but not 225,000 unique individuals, only 75,000 unique individuals. Attendance numbers cannot be compared to all years. 1999-2007 can be compared but 2010 and foward will have to be compared amongst themselves. In 2010 there was not 75,000 tickets sold. 2010 was the first year they sold over 60,000 tickets but no official number was ever released. The estimated attendance including the gate crashers was 75,000 people. Based on overwhelmed services in 2010 they have decided to sell less tickets in 2011 and add more space. 2010 probably had the highest number of visitors each day at 75,000 but 2007 may still have the record of highest number of individual persons attending over the total 3 day span as single day tickets were sold in 2007 but not in 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.255.235 (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag food and beverage and sustainability sections as advertisements

The food and beverage and sustainability sections are written like a promotional brochure and do not add anything of value to the encyclopedic content. These sections should be removed or rewritten in a more neutral fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.194.137 (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

50 cent

isn't 50 cent a notable performer,too?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Have A Party (talk • contribs) 08:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing 2007 Artists

Someone from Coachella keeps removing the confirmed acts for 2007, I protected the article. The following scripts keeps getting added: As with the tradition of Coachella since 1999, the promoters prefer to release the line up in it's entirety. They thank you for respecting this tradition and reframing from posting premature confirmations or rumors.

Does this sound ok? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by One0hseven (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Sigh. Apparently it's not working, because it keeps getting reverted to that. This is a place for information, not censorship. I wish Coachella, or whoever, would stop doing that. We're trying to list artists who have themselves confirmed they'll be playing, for Chrissakes. (And if they're going to keep adding that script, I wish they would at least change line up to lineup, it's to its, and reframing to refraining.)

How do we protect it for real? Charolastra charolo 04:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Whats even worse is MSTRKRFT cant even come to Coachella so whoever is doing this has wrong information. MSTRKFT is on tour from away from CA.

They are only on tour until March 31 according to their website. Coachella is in April. See lineup: http://www.coachella.com/poster/web480.jpg

I agree with the Coachella people. We should be sure a band is actually playing at the festival before posting their name in "confirmed acts". It is an article about Coachella, so the organizers should have a big say. Randomfrenchie 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Randomfrenchie, I'm definitely on your side, but Wikipedia is encyclopedic, so companies and orgnaizations should not generally control information on Wikipedia that is about them. Davemcarlson 06:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC) (see my comment below)

Although I think it could be useful to compile a list of "possible" or "confirmed" acts, this isn't the site for that. Wikipedia isn't a news site, nor for speculation. Although Charolastra's argument about WP being a place for information is true, Wikipedia can be a "place of censorship" in order to protect copyrighted information (which the event organizers may have with regards to this info), and also to prevent original research, speculation and "news" related information. It's okay to post cited criticism of an organization or group, but posting potential or "confirmed" acts for a future Coachella doesn't qualify as appropriate criticism. For now, since the copyright status of distributing the Coachella lineup is unknown (and may even be a "trade secret" under contract law), We have 2 options

• One thing that we could do is mention somewhere that "Prior to each festival, there is considerable activity in music publications and online to compile lists of 'confirmed acts' prior to the official release of the lineup card." and then somewhere have a link to an external site listing this information. This would require perhaps creating a new section about the online culture surrounding Coachella, or making major adjustments to the existing text.
• Otherwise, if you can't find a creative way to present the information in an encyclopedic fashion (not news or buzz or speculation or original research or anything that breaches copyrights or trade secrets), it's best to just leave the Coachella people's statement (with Charolastra charololo's corrections): As with the tradition of Coachella since 1999, the promoters prefer to release the lineup in its entirety. They thank you for respecting this tradition and refraining from posting premature confirmations or rumors.

P.S. I'm not with Coachella. I'm a fairly experienced (3500+ edits) Wikipedian and someone who happens to love Coachella (and this page: I completed many of the historical lineup lists, and added the "Artists who have played Coachella more than once" section), so as someone who is a dedicated Wikipedian and Coachella fan, I don't think I have a conflict of interest. We just need to make sure that we don't do anything unencyclopedic nor dictated by public interest. Find a common ground. Davemcarlson 06:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

comment: just an observation (& i know it's an OLD conversation i'm adding to here; but neither copyright NOR {trademark<contract law} has ANY PART in our considerations here.

simple lists are NOT COPYRIGHTABLE under us law, & we have no "contractual obligations" (of nondisclosure or ANYTHING else) with the coachella organizers, so IT DOESN'T MATTER whether it's a "trade secret" to them or not; if the information is available, we can publish it. there is no intellectual property "right" protecting "trade secrets", in the usa (thank GOD), beyond binding contractual agreements between involved parties. so there ARE NO "legal considerations" here. Lx 121 (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"3-day, 2 weekend"

could somebody who knows for certain PLEASE add a sentence clarifying this?

does the exact same line-up repeat for both weekends? do they do variations? or have different acts? or what?

the way i read it, the text seems to imply that it's basically the same event repeated twice; but it's not stated EXPLICITLY anywhere that i can find...

also, didn't banksy have an art-thing on display @ the fest this year (2014)? if someone can confirm that (going on memory over the coverage here & no time to pursue it), it should probably be added to the art section, no?

finally; what about standalone articles for each year, or at least sections for each year (hopefully with more info)? i.e.: combining the info for that year's event; instead of one list for acts, one list for art displays, & not much else.

if nobody presents any reasonable objections i'll come back & implement that last item when i have more time (if nobody else has done it already).

Lx 121 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

125000 saw Beyoncé?

I realize there was a potential crowd of 125000 for Beyoncé, but can we claim for absolute sure that: No other bands were playing or that all other bands playing at the same time had 0 people in attendance? And that no-one was either home sick or stuck drunk in their tents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.54.5.98 (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Recycling numbers seem completely bogus

This sentence seems bogus to me:

In 2013, staff diverted over 577,720,000 pounds of materials, comprising: 36,860 tons of aluminum cans, 105,000 tons of cardboard, 65,360 tons of PET plastic, 47,040 tons of scrap metal, and 34,600 tons of glass.

For instance, 36,860 TONS of aluminum cans? The internet tells me that there's about 30 aluminum cans per pound. So by my math, that works out to over 2.2 BILLION cans. With an attendance of about 250,000 people, that's about 9,000 cans apiece. The other numbers seem similarly implausible. Unfortunately, I can't verify the source because it's not available online, but it seems reasonable to me to nuke this sentence because these numbers are clearly inaccurate. (If I were to guess, "tons" should be "pounds", but again... can't verify the source and it's possible that the source is also mistaken). Thoughts? 173.166.187.68 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is the direct quote from the magazine that was handed out to festival attendees:

"With over 180,000 people attending over the two Coachella weekends, saying that there is a lot of resource that accumulates is an understatement. In 2013 alone, the resource team diverted 36,860 tons of aluminum cans, 105,000 tons of cardboard, 65,360 tons of PET plastic, 47,040 in scrap metal, and 34,600 tons of glass. That's 577,720,000 pounds of resources! This is collected and sorted in a Matrix-like system designed to be as green and as efficient as possible."

Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

J Balvin - "Art(ist)"

I realize that you're curating this article to make it GA. Would it be possible for you to consider adding something about the stage for J Balvin's performance at the 2019 festival? Variety magazine states about artist / reggaeton musician J Balvin, "led the way Saturday with one of the most eye-popping and elaborate sets ever to be immortalized on festival’s stage."--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

So... are we not going to mention that the owner supports anti-LGBTQ proganda?

Source (I'm User:AaronxAphmau by the way.) 137.118.229.17 (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess you didn't read that far into the article huh? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

For IP editor's consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coachella_Valley_Music_and_Arts_Festival#2015%E2%80%932017. robertsky (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 and 2021 should be separated from 2018-present

Due to COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 and 2021 dates was postponed for 2 times out of 3 in history. My opinion is that they should be separated from 2018-present. -- BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

Why was there no Coachella M&A Festival in 2000? 136.158.29.220 (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 18 May 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Coachella (festival). Consensus favors following common usage by shortening the festival name. Of these shortenings, Coachella (festival) has the least objections. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival → Coachella (music festival) – WP:COMMONNAME; this may be touchy so express your thoughts here. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

What about renaming to "Coachella Festival"? It's a WP:COMMONNAME, a WP:NATURALDAB and the page Coachella Festival line-ups uses it. Skyshifter ^talk 15:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no need for a change to the article name. Instead of trying to come up with an agreeable parenthetical disambiguator, we have the event's official title, in the event logo no less. I don't see any need to change it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Coachella Festival per WP:NATURAL. Also, I think there's an argument to be made that the Festival is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and wouldn't be opposed to discussion to place it at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"Coachella Festival" seems to be the name least supported by reliable sources. Rarely are they using the word "Festival" as a capitalized proper noun. If anything, sources support "Coachella festival" instead. And therein lies the problem. There are many, many festivals in Indio, California alone, let alone the Coachella Valley as a whole. "Coachella Festival" or "Coachella festival" aren't nearly as a precise as the event's official name, which is a natural disambiguator from any other Coachella topic or any other event that takes place in the region. If the proposition to move the article away from the event's official name means having to disambiguate it, then there is no benefit gained. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose When you google Coachella, Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival appears as the name of the official website. Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival also appears in the Bio of the official Instagram page. While it is commonly referred to as just 'Coachella', I believe we should have the official title on the page. Sheehanpg93 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References

• Support Coachella (festival). I think it's clear that reliable sources overwhelmingly use "Coachella", as a quick scroll through the article's reference section makes clear. Official titles don't get any special preference, and in this case "Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival" has two flaws: it's not the common name, and it's "longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". The suggestion of a natural disambiguation like "Coachella Festival" is tempting, but I think the preference in sources for "Coachella" is just so overwhelming that COMMONNAME takes preference over NATURAL here. As for the disambiguator, I'm not sure why we'd need to use Coachella (music festival) when Coachella (festival) is unambiguous and redirects to this article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support Coachella (festival), per Extraordinary Writ. We use the common name, not the official name. czar 03:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved to Coachella

mello, Extraordinary Writ, Skyshifter, Y2Kcrazyjoker4, Ortizesp, Naheehsp9, czar. I noted that Coachella is the primary topic for the term Coachella, and moved the article. I hadn't looked at the talkpage to see this fairly recent discussion. Would people prefer I revert the move and make a proper Requested move? SilkTork (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I am strongly considering self-reverting anyway. I think this would benefit from a discussion. SilkTork (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely self revert any move. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 10:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I have self-reverted the page moves. SilkTork (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah confirming that something is the primary topic needs discussion in case a snag shows up. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)