Talk:Coexist (album)

Some things

This:

Five new songs were played live at their show in London in May 2012.

probably violates WP:ELNEVER, and the 'Possible tracks' section violates WP:CRYSTAL unless a reilable source is provided. Radiopathy •talk• 13:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The source for the removed sentence:

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coexist (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomcat7 (talk · contribs) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Additional Comments

Not sure about this sentence in the lead For Coexist, The xx drew on the electronic dance music that occurred when they were away on tour in 2010. I find this section about electronic music 'occuring' a bit vague. Unfortunately, in the source for the similar statement in the article (source 15), Jamies quote is also a bit vague, although he doesn't say anything about it happening in 2010. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesnt clarify whether the music that was recorded or performed at clubs. I just wrote that sentence to summarize parts of the background and "Writing and recording" sections: they toured in 2010, the dance music they say they missed out on during their tour, etc. Dan56 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

---

As usual, the prose is very good. There are bare urls that could be improved, [1] does not list the position. Otherwise most references are pretty reliable, while some sources are not the most reliable but acceptable. --Tomcat (7) 22:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed bare links. Some IP added those bare ref.s just recently. Cited olis.onyx.pl link with WebCite. Dan56 (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Overlapping sections

There's notable overlap of thematic content among Composition, Lyrics and themes and Songs sections. It looks like two of these sections should be merged.--Lpdte77 (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at present. The creation of an article for the bumper sticker image during the discussion means any argument that the album is primary topic based on page views is going to be outdated. I recommend looking at the evidence again after a few months. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

---

• Coexist (album) → Coexist
• Coexist → Coexist (disambiguation)

– The other two articles on the disambiguation page only have "coexist" in part of their titles. It is unlikely that readers searching for just "coexist" would be looking for these two articles. Also, this article has higher page views than the other two articles on the disambiguation page, making it the primary topic for "coexist". sst✈ 02:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment per WP:VERB the verb form "coexist" should redirect to the noun form coexistence. But we are missing a topic article for "coexistence". It instead redirects to a communist philosophy article, which isn't "coexistence". So we have a missing topic. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It should only redirect to Coexistence if that is the primary topic for both. Peter James (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support move per SSTflyer's reasoning. Dan56 (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support (see below). The primary topic, such as it is, is the mawkish bumper sticker graphic. Since we don't have an article on that, the album might as well get the short title. Coexistence can be linked from a hatnote. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

But we do now coexist (image) which makes the move more evidently moot. But even if we hadn't it still would have not been absolute majority topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Since we do, that article ought to be the primary topic, so I must now oppose the first move, while still supporting the second one. Also, thank you for starting that article. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per the above. Dohn joe (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as written - you've identified a problem, but a better solution is to create an article on the bumper sticker at Coexist, merge the existing two disambiguation pages to Coexist (disambiguation), and leave Coexistence redirecting to Coexist (disambiguation). Leave Coexist (album) where it is. If the proposal is adopted, someone (me, if I have time) will write Coexist (bumper sticker) and when it's page-view stats clearly demonstrate that it is the primary topic, not only will we have to have a "requested moves" discussion but on-Wiki redirects will have to be fixed up and off-wiki ones will break. Imagine the WP:SURPRISE in 2016 when someone clicks on an off-Wiki link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coexist that was created in November 2015 expecting to see information about the album but instead getting a lesson in religious tolerance in the form of a bumper sticker. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The Coexist Foundation now goes by the name of Coexist. The article should be updated and the page moved to Coexist (foundation). Yes, I did check page-view stats: It is getting less than half of the "hits" that Coexist (album) is getting so it's not the primary topic by a long shot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this album isn't absolute majority topic for "coexist" by any definition so why would we move it into a primary topic slot? There is no primary topic, as is often or even usually the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Easily the primary topic among the three listed at Coexist (disambiguation). Cavarrone 19:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose these moves, keep dab at base name 73.154.175.89 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Information The "page view statistics" tool is working again. Coexist (image) isn't even breaking 40/day yet but it's brand new, The Coexist Foundation hasn't broken 60/day in the last month, Coexist (album) hasn't dropped BELOW 155/day in the last month, and the disambiguation page Coexist only broke 35/day twice in the last month. If these stats hold after Coexist (image) has been around for a month then we can restart the debate. Otherwise, it's "too soon" to make this change. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• I have created Draft:Coexistence as a target page to create an article on the concept; once this is done, "Coexist" should redirect there. bd2412 T 16:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose allowing commercial products to take the place of generic concepts. Note that these surprising names are chosen for the benefit of extra attention achieved by hijacking a previously recognized concept. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-close post-script: On 2 December 2015, Coexist (image) was linked to from the Main Page's "Did you know?" section. It had over 8000 "hits" that day, compared to less than 8700 hits for the entire past 30 days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)