Talk:Coldplay/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 [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].

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 [4]), 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)

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)

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)

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! {{Subst:unsigned|TedTheRed|21:15, 3 May 2006}

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?

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)

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.

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" [5] 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)

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:

• • • CMJ - COLDPLAY: Parachutes (Buckley, Thom Yorke (of Radiohead))
    • Ink Blot: Coldplay - Parachutes (Buckley, Travis)
    • Canoe.ca: Jam Shobiz - Coldplay Parachutes review (Buckley, Travis)
    • NME: Coldplay - Parachutes review (Buckley, Travis, Radiohead)
    • Pitchfork Media: Parachutes review (the influence can even be pinned to a single song: Jeff Buckley's "Grace".)
    • Q magazine, Sept. 2000 (Coldplay are four sensitive souls - higher education and a pot noodle diet not too distant a memory - and clearly au-fait with the finer points of Jeff Buckley, Pink Floyd and, inevitably, Radiohead.)

And for Echo and the Bunnymen for A Rush of Blood to the Head:

• • • NME: Coldplay - A Rush of Blood to the Head (sucking up new influences - from Echo And The Bunnymen to Pink Floyd)
    • Canoe: Jam-Showbiz - A Rush of Blood to the Head (Echo &The Bunnymen's Ian McCulloch also acted as consultant during the group's Liverpool recording sessions...His influence can be heard on such pop masterpieces as Clocks and Daylight)
    • PopMatters: Coldplay - A Rush of Blood to the Head ( "Clocks" and "Daylight" were apparently recorded under the guidance of Echo and the Bunnymen frontman Ian McCulloch, and both songs possess an influence from the infamous neo-psychedelic band ("Daylight", especially, which owes a lot to McCulloch's "The Cutter"))

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)

Post-rock and britpop?

I mean Coldplay does use elements found in post-rock such as ambiently played guitars and atmospheric lyrics alongside piano-based play. Yes or no to post-rock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.217.10.10 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean Coldplay does use elements found in britpop such as ambiently played guitars and atmospheric lyrics alongside piano-based play. Yes or no to britpop?

Link Broken

The link called [4] (I think; Jeff Bennettit'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I readded the old Coldplay image as no other fair use image could accurately depict the members.71.252.157.36 23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Blah blah blah what a load of rubbish. Coldplay is not better than Oasis or Radiohead

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.—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

You may not like the infobox, but that's the way it's going to stay. {{Infobox band}} has been superseded by {{Infobox musical artist}} and all instances of the {{Infobox band}} are to be replaced. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. Do not change it back to the old box. - kollision 02:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture? How about one with all 4 members in it?

What's with the picture of 4 different Chris Martins? I found it kind of bizarre and unrepresentative. How about a picture with all 4 members in it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.125.169 (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

It does have all 4 members in it. Chris is singing, Jonny is playing electric guitar, Guy is playing acoustic guitar and Will is playing piano. Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful World?

That song isn't on any record —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.95.55.191 (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

It's Don't Panic (first track on Parachutes), but I can't see it being referred to as "Beautiful World" anywhere in this article. Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he was refering to the lyrics? 'we live in a beatiful world, ...' Yea the song's called Don't Panic. But what about the song played in Live 2003; 'See you Soon'. I can't figure on which album it would be other than that one paat 23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See You Soon is on The Blue Room EP, as well as the promotional "Acoustic" EP. Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Toronto concert?

sorry if this is repetitive, but I saw on their site about a toronto concert filming that would be aired later on, and maybe available on DVD (?) Any help with understanding what's happeneing would be good. Sorry if this is repeating the concret footage airing topic up there paat 23:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New Singles Box Set?

All of Coldplay's 14 singles will be released as a box set called "The Singles 1999-2006" on March 26... I was wondering if any of you out there would like to add such information to the page, and possibly even put it under next studio release and describe it kind of as a gap release between X&Y and their future fourth release. Jgrizzy89 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Direction?

I would like to see this article get the Good Article status it missed back in November, and would like to help personally. Is there anyone willing to make a list of what changes are needed and any other formatting? I'm still relatively new to editing Wikipedia on a larger scale than grammar nitpicks and rving vandalism, so I don't think I'm the best candidate for the job. StvnLunsford 02:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not harm this article

Who is the smart alex who changed "Parachutes" to "FAGGOTS" and whatnot? You are only making a fool of yourself and it is not funny, if you think it is. Really, get the shit out of this article. 219.75.59.153 09:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I love how a recent vandalism didn't even get the right band. Fools indeed. StvnLunsford 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

There's no critic of the band, surely some of the negative press and the allergations of being boring should also be mentioned in order for it to be balanced article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveyWevey (talk • contribs)

If you can source it then yeah, maybe. However, vandalising the article as you just did is counter-productive and extremely unhelpful. Please don't do it. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comprise

"Comprise" means consist of, encompass, be composed of, contain, etc. The whole comprises the parts (see here). The group therefore comprises Chris Martin et al. It isn't "comprised of" its members. Apologies, but I find myself reverting on this rather a lot. Maybe I was a little off the mark in my latest edit by saying that there is no such expression: it's such a common error that some dictionaries now acknowledge it anyway, but I found this quote from Merriam-Webster: "You should be aware, however, that if you use ['comprised of'] you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up." Chris 42 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is / Are Dispute

Can we just settle the dispute between whether or not "Coldplay is" / "Coldplay are" will be used at the beginning of the article. I'm not a grammar expert, but the constant reverts are getting annoying. Can someone just make a decision and have the grammatical proof to justify it?--Comtraya 01:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this from English collective nouns: "In British English, it is generally accepted that collective nouns can take either singular or plural verb forms depending on the context and the metonymic shift that it implies. For example, "the team is in the dressing room" (formal agreement) refers to the team as an ensemble, whilst "the team are fighting among themselves" (notional agreement) refers to the team as individuals." I believe that since the article heading refers to the group as an ensemble, the former usage would be correct. Chris 42 11:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. British usage will always use the plural in cases like this. For example, "England are playing great football" would be used instead of "England is playing great football." It should always be "Coldplay are". Further weight is given to this by phrases in the article like "they did" and "Coldplay have", and the fact that they were originally called "The Coldplay". Other similar examples can be found in Queen (band), Led Zeppelin, and similar bands like Keane (band). -- Scjessey 23:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. 219.74.66.240 05:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Scjessey. In my view, if you refer to more than one person, it just sound more grammatically correct to say 'are' rather than 'is'. londonsista | ^Prod 06:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I dug up a few sites that deal with this issue. They all agree that in British English "When you use a collective noun, it may be followed by either a singular or plural verb, depending on whether you are thinking of the group as a unit, in which case it will be singular, or as a number of individuals, in which case it will be plural" So Coldplay is a band whereas Colplay are splitting up. http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/collective_nouns.html http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/grammar/nouns.htm http://www.onestopenglish.com/section.asp?catid=59612&docid=152820 http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/youmeus/learnit/learnitv163.shtml 137.222.215.52 (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's assess this situation... "Coldplay" is a band. It may be made up of more than one person, but it is still singular. Why? Because there can be many Coldplays. Or, what if I said "The faculty are planning the winter formal." Does that make sense at all? No. Why? Because faculty, like Coldplay, is singular. Not plural. I think it's ridiculous that this dispute exists.

More examples:

• Coldplay play/plays at large venues.
• Coldplay is/are made up of many people.
• Coldplay is/are a band.

When speaking normally, would you honestly say "Coldplay are a band"? As an English speaker, I know for a fact that I wouldn't, and I'd be surprised to see someone say that.

The word "family" is just like "faculty" and "Coldplay". For example, would you say "My family eat everyday" or "My family eats everyday"? I would say the latter, because family, although being composed of numerous people, is a singular noun, just like Coldplay. This is Obento Musubi, by the way, and I have not logged in yet, but I will sign my post when I do. Please, don't make it more complicated than it has to be. I've asked my grammar teachers to clarify this for me at school, and they would agree with what I'm saying. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 10:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Timbaland/Swizz Beatz

Why is it that when I mention this part to the article, it gets deleted. I GAVE SOURCES. The Swizz Beatz colloboration comes from Billboard.com and Timbaland said himself that he was working with that band from a GQ magazine article. The mention of Brian Eno was added to the article before the band reluctantly confirmed it. So whats the deal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.134.186.38 (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

"Critically acclaimed"

ShadowHalo removed[6] the phrase "critically acclaimed" from the lead sentence, citing WP:NPOV as the reason for this edit. I'm not sure about this one - I agree that it probably doesn't belong in the first sentence, but WP:NPOV does allow "an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation", so maybe a mention of the critical consensus would be appropriate in the lead paragraph. Thoughts? — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That phrase has actually been repeatedly replaced and removed. If it is to be restored, I recommend that it is absorbed into the last sentence of the first paragraph ("Coldplay has been one of the most successful acts of the new millennium, selling over 35 million albums to date."), which also needs an appropriate citation. -- Scjessey 11:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Searching a song from Coldplay

Excuse me for asking, but I search informations about a song called 'Us Against The World' from Coldplay. I couldn't find anything here but perhaps someone knows something about it. 88.64.123.21 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a cover of a song by Hilary Duff. I would guess it's tongue-in-cheek. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, helped me a lot :) 84.57.159.231 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're looking for is "How You See the World"

Flag

I wonder if anybody can make an encyclopedic case for retaining the small England flag in the infobox. I wonder what it adds to the link to England that we already have. WP:FLAGCRUFT is an essay which gives an interesting take on why using flags like this is unhelpful to our project. --John 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see an anonymous editor has reverted my removal. Anybody have a reason this should be retained in the article? If not I'll remove it again. --John 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There has been an "edit war" going on recently concerning the use of British or American English for the article. The flag helps to give a clear indication which style to use, but I'll freely admit that this is a rather weak justification for its existence. As I understand it, flag icons are encouraged in infoboxes when indicating origin or nationality. -- Scjessey 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

An invisible comment would be easier. Clearly it should be in UK English. --John 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusing

Can anyone explain why the grammar in this article is so inconsistent? Is that the intent of British English? A band is an object, therefore it should be referred to it as "it" not "they". It really doesn't make much sense for consistency across other band pages. The first sentence (I edited it) strikes the reader as bizarre. "Coldplay are an English rock band." Switching to British English seems unjustified... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.49.168.240 (talk) 23:32:08, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

Please see this section of the Manual of Style. In short, we aim for consistency within within articles, not across articles. To quote the MoS, "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic". The article has evolved using British English, and the band have stronger national ties to the UK than they do to the US, so please avoid changing the article to use American English. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys I have a question--what is the bonus song #13 on X and Y refer to? What does it mean? It is moving.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.195.157 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

I hope nobody minds, but I went ahead an organized the sections so that it would be easier to see a timeline of Coldplay's career. I also put the discography under its own section. Dh993 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Marvin

The robot in the Talk video looks nothing like any incarnation of Marvin I've ever seen, and there's no source that says it's him and not some other robot. Where did this come from? Gorman 15:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess it looks kind of like the Marvin from the BBC TV series, but I agree that it's a bit of a stretch (especially without a source) and it should be removed. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

New album:

Rumors on the new album need to stop on the page.

Everyday, I visit this page to find new unverified claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.47.236 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed: Prospekt is the new album name

On Coldplay's website, [[7]], the entry for Thursday December 6th, 2007 refers to the album name as Prospekt several times, including at the very end of the entry. This should be noted. Kevin (talk) 05:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really confirm that Prospekt is the new album name. It says "one minute we're all buzzing about the mix of Prospekt's March" - this might be refering to a song named "Prospekt's March" or maybe the album title is Prospekt's March, either way it doesn't confirm that the album's title is Prospekt. The only other reference to Prospekt is just the word "Prospekt" at the end of the post, which could mean anything. It does not confirm without a doubt that the album title is "Prospekt". - kollision (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When the band themselves reference the album as Prospekt, it isn't credible? Weird. Kevin (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Now it becomes evident why we regular editors continued to revert the hundreds of attempts to title the 4th album as "Prospekt". The Jan 30 website entry clearly states that "Prospekt" is not the album title. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dates

I believe that it is ok to put the formation on 1996-1999, but it should state that Coldplay started in 1998 as an actual act with that name. also, the dates for the 4 album. shouls be 2006- (probably it will end up being 2006-2009 or 2006-2010) because the band started working on it since December 2006. And so as to continue with the rest of the article's design and idea we should put the dates since the "chapter" of the band's history started till it ends, not only the year the album was released. I believe this helps the reader a lot in order to have a clear picture of the band's history and different phases and moments. That is why I will keep on adding this to the article. (190.17.68.133 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

Please don't. --John (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Nappies

I have deleted 'The Nappies' section. I don't believe that it's really needed as it was already commented on in the 'X&Y' section. Feel free to appeal though. Crislee 88 (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"the American actress" edit

I tried to add "the American actress" (sort of an "encyclopedia style" description) in front of the Gwyneth Paltrow link in the Political_and_Social_Activism section, the final section of the article. It was however removed by someone, perhaps the article's steward, on the grounds that anyone wanting to know who she is can click the link. I was simply offering the description to add more continuity to the sentence, as well as add a bit of extra knowledge to the article. Not everyone clicks links; sometimes people should be prompted to interesting facts such as that Chris Martin is married to a famous actress. As an aside, I was wondering what constitutes a "valid" wikipedia edit; that is how good must an edit be for it to be retained. I am using wiki increasingly for research use and I would like to know for future reference. Thank you. -A.H. , 17:24, Fri 25 January 2008

I think your edit was completely legitimate. It's a simple and concise description, and it's true not everybody would click on the link. It also gives a little background/context. I've been at FA nominations where editors have suggested the same. Cheers. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Status?

Should this article be nominated to GA status? If so, I will nominate this article. Please voice your opinions.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the article needs tons of work, before it can be nominated. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that a few days ago. Let's all continue.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just sayin'. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why has genuine, referenced critisism of the band been removed?

This is not a fan page. Why are we deleting relevant information about how the band have been criticsed for being bland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.146.165 (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use make test/vandal edits on articles. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Coldplaying.com is not a reliable source

I strongly doubt that Coldplaying.com, a popular Coldplay website, is a reliable source. This article is often used in this article, understandingly, but the information it provides is not always accurate — it is basically a blog, if I recall correctly. Please try not to use it in this article if possible, thanks! A good place to find news articles as references is the Google News Archives. Gary King (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the recently added coldplaying.com links are more like track listings instead of 'news', so that's more acceptable since it's stating something that isn't controversial or anything. But still, another source would be better, like Rolling Stone. Gary King (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Prose

A couple of prose/wording concerns, now that this is up for GA. (I know I'm sort of treating it like an FA, but GAs need to be "well written", too).

• I don't quite like this sentence: The Rush of Blood to the Head tour showed the band's progression into a bona fide stadium act. A "bona fide stadium act" somehow just doesn't sound like encyclopedic verbiage. I know it goes on to mention the stage lights and screens, but it sounds more like an opinion to me. By who's standard would they have been considered that, unless we had a ref?
• It's not very clear when they were on the ROBTTH tour; was it during most of the 15-month touring spree, or only part of it? An outside reader, like myself, might be a little confused. I suggest merge some of the content from A Rush of Blood to the Head Tour to provide a brief explanation of the time scheme. --JamieS93 12:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Feel free to clean up if you feel it is still inadequate. Gary King (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN on hold

First of all; Coldplay rocks. Now for the review...

• 1st sentence is a yucky four words...please expand (possibly include formation date/place in it?)
• "X&Y (2005) met with a" - rmv with
• "Coldplay's early material was compared to acts such as Jeff Buckley and Radiohead,[1] while also drawing comparisons to U2[2] and Travis." - being compared to and drawing comparisons to are essentially the same thing...also, no ref for Travis?
• Image in Formation and first years (1996–1999) section didn't take place in that period (rather 2005) and isn't appropriate there
  • Same with (kickass) "Yellow" image a bit further on
• A fair bit of wordiness ("lineup was finally complete", "Eventually Guy Berryman") in/ that section...try and copyedit a bit
• "The multi-talented Champion" - claim needs source (sound POVish otherwise)
• "the name was "too depressing"." - this statement needs a source
• Music samples in A Rush of Blood to the Head (2001–2004) section need descriptions (see Silverchair for a good example)
• "placed at a modest #35" - which chart, and ref?
• Ref 9; no italics for CNN
• More refs needed for awards won and stuff like that
• "Parachutes was released in November 2000" - released in NA. in 2000, you mean?
• "reminiscent of U2's recent Elevation tour." - rmv italics, add ref for comparison to U2
• "to celebrate the birth of Apple" - needs ref for this being the reason (and generally...moar ref plz)
• "went on their Twisted Logic tour" - rmv italics
• "as the first single from Viva la Vida" - no need to name the album again here
• Political and social activism section needs more sourcing
• No musical style section?

  Got suggestions for where I could look to build this section? I know I can browse news articles, etc. but anything more specific, such as what to look for, keywords, etc. Also, I've visited a few musical artist FAs in the past and not all have a 'musical style' section; some are just a biographical look at the artist. Gary King (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  Hmm...well, interviews where the band talk about how they make music are always a good start. All Music Guide are generally good at talking about musical styles and stuff; Rolling Stone too. I also use reviews from others, but those tend to be the best for this sort of thing. Nine Inch Nails has an exceptionally good musical style section, probably the best I've seen—musical sample analysis and everything. Something that great isn't a GA requirement, but having something would be nice... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  Done Gary King (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Leave me a note when done... cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should also be noted that several paragraphs are still completely uncited. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The images in the X&Y (2004–2006) section also need to be re-arranged (or removed...) per WP:MOS#IMAGES. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved Gary King (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you change current refs 9,10 and 48 please. There are much stronger ones available. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

9; yes, that could be better. 10 and 48 are a newspaper and Amnesty International respectively—both are very good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

48 didnt work for me? Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, my bad. plenty of sources for that quote, though. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(indent) - ok just 9 and 48 then, others seem fine, article is much healthier than it was a week ago. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Plenty of sources"? I beg to differ. None of those appear to be reliable, also :/ I'll just remove quote; although, I did include an archive.org link for the Amnesty ref. Gary King (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the first hit is the book used for refs 11, 12, 43, and 44 (at the moment) and is a book. That's reliable. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldnt get the archive to work either, doh!! Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Archive link works for me. Also, I don't know how you were able to tell that the quote was from the book from this, but anyways, it is, so I'll use that. Gary King (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, no, the first hit for me was [8]. Probably depends on region. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 03:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aussies and their more accurate search results :) Gary King (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to remove the reference to "rumours" about Timbaland producing Vida La Vida. The source cited (note 33) merely mentions him in relation to a separate news story. 86.136.133.228 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Viva la Vida Release Date

In the article, their forthcoming album is said to be released on the 16th. However, the album's earliest release date is (according to their website) the 11th. I do not know what the official Wikipedian policy on this is, so if the American release date is common practice, then fine. 86.17.250.9 (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Piano Rock and Britpop They ARE these genres whether you like it or not. Unfortunately, I can't find any good sources saying so, because most sources are denied by the wankstains that run this site. So, can anyone find any GOOD sources? Titan50 (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Front Row, BBC Radio 4 June 2008

CM walked out of an interview. Why? It should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.114.220 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Coldplay on iTunes//Activism (merge topics)

I've recently seen a LOT of these airing on several different channels.. does this count as product endorsement?? I was reading the "Activism" section and this goes directly against what they were talking about does it not? OK sure it's promoting their song Viva la Vida and that you can download it now... but exclusively from iTunes, correct? So it is product endorsement.. the album as of now (may 27th) is not out yet. What's up??

Is the song being on iTunes being advertised in any way? No. As far as I can tell, it's just to sell albums. 71.131.184.64 (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, watch this 30-second YouTube video of the commercial; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3mYc1m3lsM. At the end of the commercial it clearly states, "Exclusively on iTunes." If it was merely advertising Coldplay as being available on most popular music-downloading outlets -including- iTunes then it would be a different case. But it states exclusivity, and thus being a product endorsement. I think it should be noted in the Activism section. They shouldn't be able to claim that they don't do product endorsement when a commercial directly contradicts that statement. --71.231.123.7 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In the activism paragraph, it states that Coldplay basically doesn't want to sell out. That is, have their songs being used for Coke commercials and et cetera. What about the band's 30 second snippet for iTunes? Is that a sellout? Isn't Apple using their song "Viva la Vide" to promote iTunes, the iTunes store and the Apple iPod? I tried looking up any statements from the band but couldn't find any explaining why they allowed Apple to use their song when it states in this paragraph that they don't do that sort of thing. Any comments? Should the paragraph be rewritten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.240.148.207 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The band is using iTunes to promote and sell the single. It's no different than the band premiering "Violet Hill" on Radio 1 or MySpace. They're promoting their own work, which so happens to be played, sold, or hosted by a third party. By your logic, if the band had a live performance on the Late Show or Jonathan Ross, they'd be promoting the talk show and not their song/album? --Madchester (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

EXCLUSIVELY on iTunes. They are not merely trying to sell singles. If they wanted to sell singles they would be available from any music downloading outlet. Period. The fact that it's exclusively on iTunes makes it product endorsement. They are using the Apple trademark to boost their sales, and so is Apple vica versa. If this was not product endorsement it would read at the end "Available on iTunes," not "Exclusively on iTunes." Your talk/radio show analogy doesn't hold up, since they don't EXCLUSIVELY sing for one show. It should be noted on the section. --71.231.123.7 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll need reliable sources to add that to the section. Wikipedia doesn't allow original research or allow editors can insert their own commentary or claims. The Activism section is based on articles and interviews from creditable media outlets reporting on the band's stance against product placement - likewise sources need to be cited when mentioning any changes in the band's philosophy on advertising. --Madchester (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, here's a source from Music Week: "Coldplay iTunes ad debuts on US TV" http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?storycode=1034284 . "The 30-second ad, filmed by acclaimed director Mark Romanek, aired on American Idol at 8pm East Coast Time and featured a clip of the band performing the new single Viva La Vida. An accompanying graphic stated: Viva La Vida Coldplay exclusively on iTunes." How do you think this should be added to the section? Here's my proposition; "Although the band claims to not be a part of product endorsement, Coldplay began a marketing campaign on May 20th, 2008 with a commercial advertising their new single "Viva la Vida" from their upcoming album. At the end of the commercial text claims exclusive availability on Apple's iTunes music downloading service." OR, do we need a quote of representation from the band itself talking about their position on this topic? How does this need to presented? A new sub-section? Or rewrite the beginning of the section? Such as: "Despite Coldplay's worldwide popularity, the band has remained protective of how their music is used in the media,

refusing being very selective in its use for product endorsements." And then go on about what I wrote above? --71.231.123.7 (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The song being released exclusively for iTunes, does not constitute an endorsement of iTunes. It may give iTunes a market advantage, but that is not the same thing as an endorsement. It is an ad for their music; if they are endorsing any product with the ad, it is their music, and not iTunes. In order to be an endorsement of iTunes there would have to be some statement or implication made that iTunes is a good service and/or that consumers ought to use it. No such statement or implication is made. A mere reference to it being available there does not advance such a claim. Maybe Coldplay is showing some favor to iTunes by having an exclusive agreement. But that is not the same thing as an endorsement. 216.36.188.184 (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Favoritism, endorsement, agreement ... call it what you will. They could have easily have plugged their song out to all accessible online music outlets. There's a difference between stating "Exclusively on iTunes" and "Available on iTunes." When I saw that commercial it made me think, "hrm, I don't have iTunes, I should probably use the service to listen to my favorite band's new song." That's how endorsement works. Coldplay is endorsing using the iTunes' service exlusively to access their music. Why can't I use Amazon's service to get the song? That's right. A contract was made so their fans would Have to use the iTunes service. I can get the Violet Hill song on Amazon right now in mp3, yet not Viva la Vida. That's endorsement. And if it isn't I don't know what is. They can't claim they refuse to use their music in product endorsements without sounding like hypocrites in this case. Better to just take the section down for editing.--71.231.123.7 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's back track a bit. Right now, we have sources indicating the band's exclusive iTunes singles release. That's fine. However, none of these sources indicate that the deal is a change in the band's advertising philosophy. You're currently adding personal commentary, if not original research, when the press have not criticized the band for being "hypocrites" with the iTunes marketing whatsoever. Until a reliable source like the NYT or NME specifically state that the band changed their advertising stance, it's simply personal commentary/research and neither is allowed on Wikipedia. --Madchester (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Let the facts speak for themselves" - Neutral Point of View. We have sources citing facts about a band's 'product endorsement' viewpoints. And here we have a source citing their advertising method for their music and endorsing through exclusivity a music service to access it. It's relevant to the Section on the band's article. Should this source not be cited on band's section about activism on product endorsement? If we provide the sources, then how does that go against Wikipedia's policy on personal reporting? We're providing the reader facts surrounding the band's definition of a "product endorsement." It would be bias to leave this source out of the picture of their activism section. --71.231.123.7 (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources like media commentators or the band have to comment on the nature of "exclusivity" and whether it is considered a change in the band's advertising policy. We as wiki-editors can't draw personal conclusions per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Putting it simply, there's a good dozen or so reliable sources commentating on the iTunes promotion. However, none of these sources have claimed that the deal goes against the band's advertising stance. And that's the crux of the issue. You can add the details of the iTunes deal in the section since it's properly referenced. However saying that it "goes against the band's principles" violates both wiki-policies above, since that's a personal claim, not one stated in any reliable source. --Madchester (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. So at the end of the section I'll add, "On May 20th, 2008, Coldplay began a marketing campaign with a commercial advertising their new single "Viva la Vida" from their upcoming album, Violet Hill. At the end of the commercial, text claims the song's exclusive availability on Apple's iTunes music downloading service." --71.231.123.7 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how I know you're gay? You listen to Coldplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.55.113 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

EP names

Why does each EP have the "EP" suffix at the end of its name? This is contrary to how AllMusic titles them. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Severe grammatical errors throughout artical

In several instances, Coldplay is followed with have. For Example, "Coldplay have been one of the most successful bands of the new millenium." Coldplay is an entity, a group of people make up "Coldplay". Several little Coldplays dont make up many Coldplay. Please, somebody fix this immediately. It is quite painful to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.248.65 (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The construction in question is grammatical in British English. See this search and this search for examples. -- The Anome (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Search my ass instead. I read the correct Brit grammar after writing the talk, and deleted my talk above (Severe grammatical errors throughout article). The fact that you undid my own talk article and called it " an unconstructive edit" just goes to show what a joke you guys are. Keep fighting the good fight though, for free of course! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.248.65 (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasted an hour on this and then ended up wrong. Instead of using google searches to prove a point which answers nothing you should have referenced American and British English differences where it states: "The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance, BrE: The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well-known band." I'm reveresing my edit to Proper British based on the Wikipedia entry. I'm making it consistant though because even before I touched it the article went both ways. Cubbieco (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of plagiarism

This pretty much speaks for itself. They even stole the name of the song. Sbw01f (talk) 05:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources here. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to push that issue, then be prepared to edit a Plagiarism section into every artist page on Wikipedia. Art (especially music) is a game of influences and inspirations. I can find a lot of differences in those two songs, and just because they might have the same mood or atmosphere, that by no means equals plagiarism. It's almost laughable from a musical standpoint to even think that. I should also point out that I'm no fan of Coldplay, au contraire, I think they are one of the most mediocre, crappy acts to ever grace the contemporary soundscape. But fair is fair, and you are going to need a little more than some indie bands YouTube video to be able to accuse someone of stealing.F33bs (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofFw9DKu_I Coldplay ARE rip-off Artists. Influence is one thing, but taking someone else's work and changing it enough to call it your own is not art, its stealing from the poor, playing with house money, and cheating true music lovers out of genuine, original music. I AM a Coldplay fan, and Art is the real (original) thing, not a cheap fake like the ones Coldplay are making- no matter what some uninspired art historians will tell you. "The music has already been composed, it is the musician who discovers it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.44.243 (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but original research is not permitted, let alone linking to original research from an anonymous Youtube source. This claim has to be reported by reliable news sources. --Madchester (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Coldplay has admitted to Plagiarism. The link is here: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2005/07/04/coldplay-admits-plagiarism/ the youtube videos are not examples of original research as they are factual accounts based on the topic of discussion. If the judgement above is based on the facts of a widely published article, then it is not original- just like Coldplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.44.243 (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The PlagarismToday site is a blog. It cannot be accepted as a reliable source, since there's no professional editorial screening for content. Youtube videos are not reliable sources either, since they can be uploaded by any user with no screening for verifiability or a neutral point of view. If there's claims of "plagiarism" they need to be supported by articles from reliable media sources. Even then, the content has to meet the site's WP:NPOV guidelines, we can't misreport or write libel about individuals, per WP:BLP. --Madchester (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20080617/en_celeb_eo/55de2ab210a7_4129_9c57_43ebab81fda8 http://eonline.mlogic.mobi/detail.jsp?key=281529&rc=ne These are reputable news sites. All with the same information. People need to know the truth about this- Again, the youtube video exhibits factual content in the form of MUSIC. How can you prove something in a discussion that is about sounds without posting that video? Oh and there is screening on youtube videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.44.243 (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, Youtube videos are not permissible as reliable sources; there's no editorial screening (like a blog), meaning anyone could use it to share any pinion online. Just because a blog/Youtube video made a public statement that Coldplay is awesome/awful/fake/inspiring/etc. doesn't mean it's true. The same opinion has to be voiced by a reliable source, say a critic in order for it to be reproduced in Wiki.

If you read between the lines, the wire source says the band is being "self-deprecating" - i.e., they were saying it with tongue firmly in cheek. Have you watched the video where the source took the quote from? link Context is always important, especially when reviewing wire sources, which simply piece together multiple news excerpts. Namely the wire source took the original story about the band being accused of plagiarism (allegations have now been retracted by Creaky Boards here) and spinning it even further with an older out-of-context quote from a promo video for the new album.

I'd suggest reading up on WP:LIBEL and WP:BLP. Defamatory material about individuals is not permitted on Wikipedia, especially claims that are not backed up by any credible sources. I'm already generous by not removing this talk section, since WP:BLP states that any such contentious material should be removed immediately. --Madchester (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will have to disagree with you there Madchester. I think accusing these individuals of trying to defame Coldplay is a little presumptive. I know where they are coming from. I will review those links and videos and decide for myself. F33bs (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Youtube is not accepted as a reliable source. (Also read this essay section on Reliable source examples) With the Creaky Boards plagiarism incident, it was mentioned on Wikipedia because of widespread reporting by the media - not because of the original YouTube video. There are thousands of YouTube videos comparing samples between different music artists, but we can only report on the ones that have been documented and screened by reliable sources. --Madchester (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source is called my ears and brain. It's ridiculous to look at that video and say that it's not valid until a corporation says it is. That's elitist and in my opinion contrary to what a peer-reviewed encyclopedia should be. Arbitrarily relegating the task of information verification to a for-profit business is about the most unreliable way of disseminating information in the world. I understand that Wikipedia operates that way, which is truly sad, but come on Madchester, watch the video. It's so obvious. I don't suggest that we accuse them of plagiarism. Just note that there has been some talk of similarities (vis a vis the video).F33bs (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You can discuss the use of Youtube in the talk section for WP:RS. But it's been discussed numerous times and the consensus is that video sites are not valid sources. Even Youtube internet memes have to be verified for notability via third-party sources for inclusion on Wikipedia. --Madchester (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked WP:YOUTUBE and WP:EL.

There is no blanket ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would happen infrequently) ...Therefore, each instance of allowance is on a case-by-case basis.

Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

I guess the argument would be over the word "knowledgeable". Since we have established that reliable sources are indeed willing to report on plagiarism, and that the YouTube video in question IS on topic and does relate to plagiarism, and on top of that, is more relevant to the plagiarism allegations than the Creaky Boards incident.

More importantly though, I think we should move this discussion and effort to the actual article of the album instead of the band.--F33bs (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Time out. WP:EL and WP:RS are two different policies. The former states that external links are not citations of article sources. YouTube videos are allowed as external links, but not as reliable sources. So again, we can't use that YouTube video as the basis for another section on plagiarism - wait till the press does that first.

Also see WP:SELFPUBLISHED for why we don't allow self-created material like YouTube videos as sources. --Madchester (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see what you are saying. Well there's nothing I can do to change the rules, I guess I'll just have to wait for corporate America to decide our truth for us :D --F33bs (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing about this discussion, is that if anyone with ears and a brain watches that youtube video, they would know beyond any reasonable doubt that Coldplay copied Joe Satriani's "If I could fly". It will come out anyway, and people will know Coldplay has been copying other artists. Even the most imperious Coldplay fanboy wont be able to deny it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.44.243 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If this Youtube plagiarism claim is notable, then it'll be reported by reliable sources just like the recent (disproved) Creaky Boards allegations. It's that simple. Cheers. --Madchester (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, after watching the Satriani video, I have to say it's a little suspicious, as the melody and chord progression are the exact same. However as I said before, musical plagiarism is a very grey area. I personally am inclined to think that Coldplay do plagiarize material, based solely off that Satriani video and friends I have who like Radiohead and say that CP blatantly from them. I think if we really were going to make a change to this page, we should change their bio from "alternative rock band" to "U2 cover band", they try so hard its really pathetic. Anyway, yeah I don't think it should be included in this page until its verified by legitimate sources. BUT, I do think mention should be made of the uncanny similiarities in the section for the new album. What do you think Madchester?F33bs (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If the editors of NME/AP/NYT/etc. take a look at the video and decide to report on it, then yes, we can also mention it on Wiki, since we have valid sources documenting the incident. Right now it's not making headlines like the Creaky Boards incident. --Madchester (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

english not british

How are Coldplay an English band when at least one of its members is not English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.34.77 (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The band was formed in London, England, hence it being an English band. Wikipedia removed the "British" label in band articles and categories a long time ago. --Madchester (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

so why do english nationalists continually change Franz Ferdinand back to "British" then? i think you should provide the rules you are using; it sounds like something you made up, as plenty of other bands are called British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.38.220 (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you follow the Franz Ferdinand talk page, most editors decided that despite the band having English-born members, it's considered a Scottish-based band, since it was formed in Glasgow. Some random editor(s) inserted the British tag and it has gone unchanged in a while. Also, the article has been tagged with [[Category:Scottish musical groups]] for some time, even with the changes to the lead sentence. Regardless, it follows the mainstream media labeling the band as "Scottish". --Madchester (talk) 12:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Guy Berryman is Scottish, it would seem reasonable to refer to them as British. Similarly, if some members of Franz Ferdinand are English the same should apply. However, where a band is all Scottish, the Scottish epithet should apply. Seems straightforward to me. Justin talk 16:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, we use place of formation to classify the nationality of the band. Using a more familiar example, U2 is universally recognized as an Irish band, even though 2 band members are actually from England.

As a compromise, I've removed the nationality qualifier in the lead sentence; saying that the band was formed in London, England is already sufficient. --Madchester (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your compromise suggestion, but it was changed again just before the article was semi-protected. I'd technically be in breach of WP:3RR if I were to revert the changes of that editor again. Justin talk 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"U2 is universally recognized as an Irish band, even though 2 band members are actually from England."' True, but Adam came to Ireland at the age of 5 and The Edge was only 1 year old, when his family moved to Ireland. Although both are British citizens, they were raised in and around Dublin. For all that matters, they could be Irish..... User:Brynnar/sig 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

People here are too wrapped up with individual biographic details when they should simply be looking at the band's history. The U2 example was to highlight the use of the band's city of formation (Dublin) being the reason they're considered Irish, regardless of the birth places of each band member. Likewise, other acts like The Police, Franz Ferdinand, Queen, and Blur all have different individual nationalities, but ultimately the band's nationality is based on its place of formation.

Using individual birthplace/citizenship as the primary indicator of a band's "nationality" can get very messy. For example, Oasis in all its incarnations is recognized as an English act. When Andy Bell joined the group it didn't become "English-Welsh". Likewise, with Martin living on both sides of the pond, if he were to get American citizenship would Coldplay become an "English-American" or "British-American" group? It's just silly to rely on individual nationality/citizenship to represent that of the entire group - a band's history begins with its formation, and hence it's place of formation should be used to identify its "nationality".

Again, I suggest a lead sentence like:Coldplay are an alternative rock band formed in London, England in 1997. It gets around the tricky "place of birth" issues raised by some editors, while focusing on the main details about the band. Many articles like The Beatles use a similar format.--Madchester (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem with that at all, as I indicated above. The problem arises with the assumption that anyone who is British is automatically English. Justin talk 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I semiprotected the page for 7 days asa rtesult of the edit warring and report at AN3. Nudge me on my talk if the dipsute ends before the 7 days are up and you need the article unprotected. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

fake pic.

the photo for: "make trade fair" under activism is clearly doctored NIS3R (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, because 'MTF' is so bright? I think it's just glow-in-the-dark tape; there are similar images here and here. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Official Myspace Link

One Myspace Official link may be added, as a result of the WP:EL discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#.22Official_Myspace.22_Links_on_Wiki Please feel free to add it back!Tsurugaoka (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre

We've been through this many times, but the general opinion is that Coldplay is an "alternative rock" band. You can look up the talk page and article edit history... --Madchester (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia does not regard Coldplay as an 'Post-Britpop Group'?

There are lots of web site that talking about Coldplay and most of them regard Coldplay as an 'Post-Britpop Band'.And also the articles "Alternative Rock" in the Wikipedia mention that Coldplay is an 'Post-Britpop Group' just like Travis.So Why Wikipedia does not regard Coldplay as an 'Post-Britpop Group'? I just want to know why Coldplay is not an 'Post-Britpop Group'.I will be happy if someone can show me some evidences which can tell me "Coldplay is not an Post-Britpop Group". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynical Andy (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Per WP:V, it is the responsibility of an editor to cite reliable sources when making an addition to Wikipedia. Therefore, it's about proving your additions are true and referenced - not relying on other editors to prove your details are false or to add citations.
2. Wikipedia articles need third party reliable sources as citations. You can't use Wikipedia article A as a reference for Wikipedia article B. However, you can use share third party reliable sources across many Wiki articles.
3. Post-Britpop simply refers to bands who started up after the Britpop movement. It's not an actual genre of music. The Melody Maker columnist in the BBC article summed it up best by saying "Coldplay's success in the US has been, if anything, despite Oasis and Blur, not because of them" --Madchester (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While Allmusic's Coldplay article is tagged with a "Britpop" label, the actual Britpop article has no mention of the band whatsoever. (On the other hand Travis is cited as a Britpop artist in both the artist and Britpop pages) Therefore I've removed the mention of the genre from the infobox again. Per WP:BLP, we have to write conservatively about living, biographical subjects. When the Allmusic site is inconsistently tagging the group's genre, the course of action is not to include in in Wikipedia. --Madchester (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What about "Piano rock", since its mentioned in the genre category in the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Year Started

Their official myspace states "we have been a band since january 16th 1998" not 1997. 68.73.55.192 (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please edit the article!

http://www.coldplay.com/newsdetail.php?id=80 84.139.71.124 (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look through the article history, I was the one who added the bit about "mutual friend Tim suggesting the name Coldplay". I don't know how the "Tim" in the original source became Tim Rice-Oxley of Keane. Rice-Oxley did an interview with Q, discussing his invitation to join Coldplay back in 1997, but I can't find it online anymore.... so let's just leave that off the article until a reliable source is found. --Madchester (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit strange - I've found an interview with Rice-Oxley which says "...a four-piece band with an Irish guitarist who used to be called Coldplay..." and "'We though the Coldplay name was too depressing so I ended up giving it away to a guy I knew at college - Chris Martin. I believe he's still using it'". The article's here. Perhaps Crompton suggested it, Rice-Oxley took it and then dropped it and Martin nabbed it. The coldplay.com post does say that it was Crompton who first suggested it, not that he gave it to the band (I know, WP:SYN). Mr Anchorman, if you're reading, could you clarify..? — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Two more points:

1. I'm also a bit wary of adding Phil Harvey as a fifth member to the article. I know he's had an important role in the band's history, but outside of the band themselves, he's never been credited as a member of the group. I'd rather describe him as an unofficial member of the band, like George Martin being referred to as The Fifth Beatle or Cressa during The Stone Roses first album tour. Something like "Coldplay consider long-time collaborator Phil Harvey as a fifth member of the group." That can be embedded into the section where Phil is introduced in the band's early biography. --Madchester (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Technically, reliable sources need to be from a third party. The official site would still be considered a primary source, I believe. Also the source cheekily calls the band as a "hell-raising rock combo", so I don't know how much seriousness was actually put into the post/complaint. You still want to deal with any errors ASAP so that it doesn't bubble into another Seigenthaler incident. --Madchester (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Typo!

I'm sorry to post in the discussion board for something so minor, but I can't edit. It should be "Coldplay is a rock band," not "Coldplay are a rock band." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.82.107 (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed a few times before. The article is written in British English. 'Are' is correct. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Great article

Im goin to say great article. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Prospekt's March

The title of Coldplay's upcoming EP should be changed from Prospect's March to Prospekt's March. While a number of news articles have cited the name with a C rather than with a K this is most likely a mistake made by uninformed writers and editors and not the intent of the band who clearly indicated they had written and recorded a track during the sessions for Viva la Vida named "Prospekt's March". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.68.114 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Link has been fixed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

coldplay is Britpop

--יוני לוי (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC) http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gzfwxqrkld6e Why say that not?

Is or Are dispute again

I believe we should change all of them to singular verbs. If you feel there must be a plural verb, then you might as well say "the members of Coldplay..." instead of just "Coldplay". Because then, the verb refers to the members, not the group (Coldplay). – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 11:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I just read the article regarding the differences between AmE and BrE, and they state that, with collective nouns, it is decided whether the emphasis is "on the body as a whole (singular) or on the individual members (plural)". From many of the uses in the article, it seems like it's on the body as a whole. For example:

• Coldplay (as a whole) is an alternative rock band formed in London, England on 16 January 1998.

Plus, I see many cases where singular and plural are used "correctly". I won't say where, though. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 11:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur... the verbs should refer to the band as a whole, because that is what the article is about.Ladyjanegrey94 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I refer you you both to the honkin' great big British English box at the talk of this page. In BrE, if the pronoun "they" is appropriate, one would never use the singular in conjunction with the proper noun. (And bands are invariably "they"s, and not "it"s.) I shall endeavour to fix the remaining AmE usages. The existence of these doesn't really prove anything other than that Wikipedia is edited by people with mutually inconsistent ideas about English usage. Alai (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I'm American, not British, so I don't know all the differences in grammar between the two countries. Yes, Wikipedia is edited by people with different grammar educations because it is an international, multi-lingual encyclopedia. British English is different in several ways from American English, and I'm sorry if you were offended by our discussion. I didn't change the verbs, so no harm done. It was just an idea we were discussing.Ladyjanegrey94 (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the is/are dispute, its definately "Coldplay are". Being British i know this is a fact. Its written like this in BrE. --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 01:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

LJG, no offence(sic!) taken on my part: apologies if I expressed myself somewhat too testily on this point. Alai (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just Alt. Rock?

Just alternative rock is way way way too vague. It doesn't describe their soudn enough. if I was to visit this article with no knowledge of their sound, Iw ould think they sound just like every other alt. band out there. I think "piano rock" (dominant use of piano) and "britpop" (they often are referred to as britpop) should be added. Thoughts? Titan50 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They emerged after the Britpop movement ended, so calling them Britpop is erroneous. Piano rock is frankly not a genre and I intend to nominate that article for deletion in the near future. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Starsailor emerged after Britpop, yet still...Titan50 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't be labeled Britpop in their article, either. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Piano rock" is a ridiculous term, I'm glad it's deleted. RonDivine (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Then how do we define piano-driven rock? Titan50 (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "piano rock" isn't a "genre," but it does help further classify. I think it definitely applies to Coldplay, a very piano-centered band, and gives some description of their music.Ladyjanegrey94 (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ladyjanegrey94 on that. Many of Coldplay's songs start off with a piano, such as Speed of Sound, What If, The Scientists, and Death and All His Friends, as well as a few songs that *only* have a voice and piano part, like Lost?. The majority of their songs have a piano part throughout. Plus, Wikipedia has a pretty decent sized article on piano rock, as well as quite a few artists/bands that have piano rock listed as a genre on their infoboxes. I will now be adding it back in, thank you very much. Eugeniu B (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

Coldplay Performed Viva la Vida on Saturday Night Live on October 25th' 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerichx (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris Martin has suggested splitting up the band at the end of 09.

Coldplay's Chris Martin has suggested that he plans to split up the band at the end of 2009. The frontman told the Daily Express that his decision was based on his view that bands should call it a day before they get too old – saying he wanted to go out with a blast by keeping as busy as possible until 2009 ends. http://www.nme.com/photos/631/10/this-week-s-news-in-pictures-22-november-2008 I can't add anything because the page is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chekt (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

current tour

Something should be mentioned about the current tour, they have now reached the UK and played in Sheffield last Saturday (29th November); I was there! Wikisaver62 (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the Viva la Vida Tour, it is mentioned already in the Viva La Vida (2006-Present) section. --Flashflash; (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Can someone fix the spelling error of "collaberated" (it should be collaborated)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadiandi (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 December 2008

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel 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). --JD554 (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's the correct spelling. The article uses British English spelling, thus not needing a change. Also, this article has been protected from new or unregistered users until March 10, 2009. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I shall go and correct it then as it is the incorrect spelling even in British English[9]. --JD554 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no I won't as you've already removed it with your last edit. --JD554 (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Coldplay Lawsuit

I think the recent lawsuit brought against Coldplay for plagiarism by guitarist Joe Satriani should be added. article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indierocker22 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is already presented in detail in "Viva la Vida (song)". --Madchester (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But nothing about the previous accusation about the same song from creaky boards.Tstrobaugh (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Tstrobaugh, that link's dead: however, there is (currently) a clip of that Creaky Boards song (AND the one by Alizee) here IMO it seems as if at least one of these other musicians has a pretty watertight case, but the world won't explode if we wait until the outcome of any cases before amending Coldplay's WP page Dom Kaos (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramsay Hall of Residence

Hall of residence where coldplay where supposed to have met and lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.147.62 (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Query over endorsements

It says their music hasn't been used in any campaign ads or whatever, but I distinctly remember hearing "Yellow" in an ad for Cancer Council's Daffodil Day (I think it's just an Australian thing?). Is this worth noting or does somebody already know about it and just lumps it in with Coldplay supporting charity?  PN57  11:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Picture Change?

Can we get a main picture change for them? I'd do it myself, though I lack knowledge of the requirements.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterbasset (talk • contribs) 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sales

The article states sales of 40m but I read the article cited as saying 30m, of which 10m were X&Y. I believe that the 40m figure double counts the X&Y sales. Anyone else read it that way? Danno uk (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you count global sales for all their albums, including their latest effort, you find out they've sold 30 million records in all, not 40. According to the pages of Wikipedia devoted to their albums, "Parachutes" sold an approximate 7 million copies (5 of which in the UK and in the US), "A Rush Of Blood To The Head" an approximate 9 million (6 of which in the UK and in the US), "X&Y" 8,3 million and "Viva La Vida" 5,1 up to date, which brings global sales to a total of 29,4. Even of we wanted to boost them, we would come to over 30 million, which is still far from 40 million.Dreamboy81 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dreamboy. Agreed, so until anyone comes up with a new sales reference I'm switching the sales figure to 30m. Danno uk (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think reconsideration of this matter is required. To this date, Viva La Vida has sold 6.9 million copies, which makes the total number of sales to around 31.4 million. At least instead of putting “they have sold 30 million albums”, we can say “OVER 30 million albums”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtCP (talk • contribs) 17:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sales

I think we need a more reliable source that claims the mentioned "50 million sales". At this moment they don't have sold 50 million albums, but more than 40 million albums.Christo jones (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay is Christian Rock

I think that due to the Christian themes in some of Coldplay's songs as well as the fact that all members are confessed Christians, the first sentence should read "Coldplay are a British alternative Christian rock band", I bolded the change.

220.237.37.165 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Christian themes? Do you have any examples? Unless a band is typified by Christian lyrics, I am reluctant to call them a "Christian band." Personally, I don't think Coldplay fits the bill. —ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² 03:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

unless there has been some recent news stating that all the members of Colplay have converted to Christianity, I don't think this is true. Do you have any references to any reliable sources stating this? - И i m b u s a n i a talk 22:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol you have it all wrong. Coldplay are as atheist as they come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.76.95.203 (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't call them alternative rock. - 78.145.72.73 (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)