Talk:Music of the Spheres World Tour

isn’t Groupama Stadium located in Lyon?

The Groupama Stadium is situated in Greater Lyon, at the heart of the city. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if the venue were officially recognized as being in Lyon itself. Additionally, it seems that many past concerts held at the stadium have referred to the location simply as "Lyon" rather than the specific subcity of "Décines-Charpieu." Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. Newpicarchive (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Their address is Décines-Charpieu similar to how Stade de France is located in Saint-Denis but shows there get labelled as "Paris". The footnotes talking about this difference are already in place. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

BBC Radio 1 Big Weekend

Shouldn't the BBCR1 Big Weekend date be added to the list of shows since Glastonbury is on there as well? 2001:14BB:159:9A2B:80DD:5FFF:FEC1:92B9 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Glastonbury was marketed as their only European festival stop, so no. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and length issues

Reviews

Seems to be an issue with WP:NPOV in the reviews section... the review section is filled with glowing reviews of the tour, but when one note is added from WP:RS that gives less some less than stellar notes on the show, it's immediately reverted with the excuse being "there's enough reviews already", and then, when the reversion is contested, it is stealthily removed instead (while adding excerpts from another glowing review in the same edit despite that same editor's previous statements of having "enough reviews already").

If reviewers have given less than perfect notes on the show then they should be given due weight as a contrast from all the positive ones.

Examples:

• The Arizona Republic calls the puppet section "awkward" and says the concert's finale was a "misfire" that "fell a bit flat"
• The Guardian talks about audience disconnect with the band's newer material in the setlist
• Rolling Stone says the show's midsection was "drawn-out" and called it "a show that’s world-beating at its best but often falls short of its potential.", saying the show was hampered by "hackneyed platitudes and uneven pacing"
• The Standard called the show "a self-indulgent romp through whatever they seemed to feel like playing"

Reading the reviews section, one would think that nobody ever had a negative thing to say about the show, and the attempts by some editors to suppress their additions to this article suggests that this is exactly what they're trying to portray.

What's up with that? RachelTensions (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Arizona Republic was talking about the music video shoot, saying it felt awkward and flat to perform the song twice, but that's what happens at pretty much every music video shoot. The writer also claimed the band "seem to have mastered the art of the 21st Century stadium concert" and that "it was a great night".
• Coldplay's set at Glastonbury had positive reviews from every other news outlet in the United Kingdom. And despite Rolling Stone and The Standard being outliners, they still complimented the band, making their articles "less enthusiastic" in the middle of all the praise at worst.
• As for the Australian version of The Guardian, the author could not even tell the songs from the set list apart, declaring that "Human Heart" is a collaboration with Selena Gomez when in reality she was featured in "Let Somebody Go".

With that out of the way, do you mind if I ask why you, a Kpop-focused editor, suddenly took interest on Coldplay? More specifically on making them look like bad? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

And when I said there were enough reviews, I meant North America. I trimmed the South today as well. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With that out of the way, do you mind if I ask why you, a Kpop-focused editor, suddenly took interest on Coldplay? More specifically on making them look like bad?

Are you insinuating I shouldn't be editing this article? I took an interest in editing this article because I came across it and noticed that the article was chock full of puffery and not a single negative word spoken about it, which I thought was interesting. So I had a look at the sources and found that to not be the case.

I'm not contesting that the vast majority of reviewers are extremely positive, but, again, a reader of this article would assume that there has never been a critical word spoken about a single show on this tour. WP:NPOV states that articles need to be neutral which, in this case, means including less than perfect criticisms of shows on the tour even if they might differ from other reviews for the same show.

As an unbiased editor with nothing for or against Coldplay, I added a passage that presented a differing opinion to contrast the rest of the reviews, and you immediately reverted it. Since you want to talk what types of articles editors generally focus on, what makes you believe that you, as an editor with 99% of your 29,000 edits belonging to Coldplay-related-articles, are not presenting a bias? RachelTensions (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The Eras Tour, nothing less than the highest-grossing tour of all time, also doesn't have any bad reviews on it. Would you say the editors there are presenting a bias too? But anyway, out of the four sources you brought:

• One praised the whole show except for a music video shoot.
• One could not tell songs in the set list apart.
• Two were mixed-to-positive about Glastonbury but praised their London shows, which are closer to the tour experience than the festival experience.

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The Eras Tour, nothing less than the highest-grossing tour of all time, also doesn't have any bad reviews on it. Would you say the editors there are presenting a bias too? probably, but we're at Talk:Music of the Spheres World Tour, not Talk:The Eras Tour.

Point is that all four of those are well-established reliable sources and all four of those sources present points that are not at all communicated the way the article is currently written. It's not for us to disregard their content because one of them messed up a song title, or one of them was criticizing events of that particular show, or because we WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

You edited the article today to add a glowing review of the Glastonbury show but apparently are averse to adding mixed reviews on that same show because they're reviewing "the festival experience", not the tour. What's up with that? RachelTensions (talk) 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The Arizona Republic's writer was not even critical of the show as a whole, he disliked one specific song and you added to the article as a bad review. As for Glastonbury, you only need to compare set lists to see how different things were, I might as well remove that review. That leaves you with the guy that could not tell songs apart, in a newspaper where other authors made five-star reviews for them on this tour. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 00:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot: thank you for confirming you only care about Coldplay specifically instead of WP:NPOV policies. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

? RachelTensions (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Y2kcrazyjoker4, @User:4TheWynne, @User:TheTourEditorBDF, @User:Rodericksilly for their thoughts on this subject as they seem to be the other recent semi-regular contributors to this article or Coldplay's main article. RachelTensions (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

TheTourEditorBDF made 10 edits three years ago, that is not regular. The other three don't really like Coldplay so they are going to side with you. I know you want to make the band look untalented but a few reviewers disliking specific songs is not synonym with that. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: TheTourEditorBDF oops I clicked "oldest" instead of "older" in the history and saw a string of substantial edits, didn't realize it flipped to 3 years ago.

Regarding the rest of your statement, I have no idea of their opinions on the band other than that they regularly contribute to their articles. But your assumption of bad faith towards anybody who goes against the status quo of only noting glowingly positive notes or that people are trying to make the band look "untalented" by presenting sources that offer a differing point of view of what is presently shown in the article sure is interesting.

To be 100% clear I'm not suggesting that we give both sides equal weight, that would be ridiculous given that this tour's obvious amount of acclaim. I'm simply suggesting that we include something to let readers know that mixed reviews even exist in the first place. RachelTensions (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Assuming I am one of the people Gustavo is painting with the broad brush of not liking Coldplay: that would be incorrect. What I don't like is trying to copyedit less-than-exemplary prose and being reverted by someone who seems to have WP:OWN issues. So while I have not had problems with editing the Reception section in this article, I've had similar experiences as you, RachelTensions. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 02:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

RachelTensions, seconding Y2kcrazyjoker4 here, Coldplay is not only one of my favourite bands but one of the main influences of my own band, and you'll have probably already gathered even before our comments that GustavoCza has serious ownership issues over anything Coldplay-related (I, too, have had similar clashes with them), so you can take their comments with a grain of salt. You're well within your rights to present more of a balance of/give some representation to different opinions. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@4TheWynne @Y2kcrazyjoker4 thanks for your responses, but I should clarify I wasn't pinging you for your opinions of GustavoCza; I was simply asking for your input on the POV issue in an attempt to gain consensus on what seems to be the contentious issue of adding mixed or less-than-perfect reviews to the "Reviews" section.

I've turned to the talk page in an effort to gain consensus on presenting other POVs in that section after flipping back and forth with reversions. I don't want to re-add without consensus because I know they'll just get reverted again. RachelTensions (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@GustavoCza I'm not at all well versed in this subject area, and have no intention of getting involved in what I perceive as a content dispute. That said, please take note of the concerns being raised by multiple of your colleagues. I recall similar issues being raised at Coldplay and the talk page there. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

RachelTensions, I think you are more than justified in trying to find a balance between positive and critical reviews. There is definitely an overabundance of glowing prose in the article that I don't think reflects reality. If you'd like me to weigh in on the specific examples you're looking to add, I can do that when I have more bandwidth. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be great if you could assess the merits of inclusion for the four reviews in the original comment.

The first bit of contention was that the Arizona Republic review was critical about events that happened at that show in particular (the way they stalled the show to film the puppet show music video and performed songs twice) but probably wouldn't reflect the every stop on the tour... let's start there. RachelTensions (talk) 04:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the overall structure of the section is changed, this could be a way to mention the more mixed reviews:

In a more mixed review, Ed Masley from The Arizona Republic praised Coldplay's Phoenix show but criticised their use of the Weirdos during segments of the performance, calling it "awkward" and "a bit flat", while Rosamund Brennan from The Guardian questioned some of the band's visuals and the crowd's connection to some of their newer songs at their Perth show. In a review of the band's 2024 Glastonbury Festival set, Rolling Stone's Will Richards described the performance as "mesmerising at its best but often simultaneously head scratching" and "world-beating at its best but often [fell] short of its potential", praising the first 45 minutes but criticising the "drawn-out" middle section of the set which included several guests, along with Martin's performance, ultimately saying, "Martin increasingly toes a line between charmingly earnest and overly sentimental [...] frequently throughout the set, you feel embarrassed, then moved, then awestruck within a single song"; in a review of the same performance, Vicky Jessop from The Standard added that the set felt "uneven" and described the performance as "a self-indulgent romp" and "[w]ildly exciting in parts, tonally deaf in others".

Again, these aren't even super critical, they're mixed reviews, and it's not written in a way that reads like we're bashing the band, just offering some different views – as RachelTensions said, just something to balance the section out a little bit and not make it sound so one-sided when other views exist. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I support this wording - it presents a neutral POV and wouldn't take away from the numerous positive reviews - it simply lets the reader know that alternative viewpoints exist in the first place and provides a bit of balance.

Of course that paragraph would have to be broken up into the three different sections for reviews from different continents, but the gist is there. RachelTensions (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Given the lack of opposition, I've added the reviews, splitting them by continent rather than changing the structure of the section. I do think that the article's otherwise quite long, or at the very least more reliant on lists/tables over prose than it should be, so I've split the venue records (roughly one-sixth of the article's total size, even after rescuing the affected sources) to the impact article and tagged the set list section in the hope of discussing how best to trim it here. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• As you can see on this revision from last year, I trimmed down the praise from European publications for brevity's sake. With that in mind, I don't see why these two negative reviews should get a whole paragraph when there is a lot more positive material available, hence my latest edit.
• Will Richards' review was first published in Rolling Stone UK, another thing I adjusted just now.
• I removed Glastonbury's year again because Coldplay performed there only once between 2022 and 2024, so the specification is not really needed.
• Their set at the festival was acclaimed and I already provided sources, having one positive review vs two negative ones for it makes it seem otherwise: the alleged WP:NPOV issue continues to exist.
• I originally wrote the reviews section (mostly) in chronological order, so Manila Bulletin should come last for Asia–Pacific.
• Rosamund Brennan said "the show is certainly a visual feast" with "masterful animations and immersive lighting". She wasn't really negative towards the visuals, just the crowd's connection to some of their newer material.
• Moving the venue records to Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour is something I've been thinking about for a while but I never did it because I'm not sure it's appropriate. The article as it stands right now gives the impression the band didn't do anything when in reality there are over 100 achievements. How about I bring back the subtitle and write a prose with the biggest highlights?
• I reduced the set list section a lot throughout the tour, it's kind of impossible to make it shorter when we had 164 shows and there are 58 on the way. Coldplay will announce a final Latin American leg in a few months too.
• Not a single Wikipedia article addressing tours hide the dates like you did. It's also bad for visualization on the phone.

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Their set at the festival was acclaimed and I already provided sources, having one positive review vs two negative ones for it makes it seem otherwise: the alleged WP:NPOV issue continues to exist.
I originally wrote the reviews section (mostly) in chronological order, so Manila Bulletin should come last for Asia–Pacific.
Rosamund Brennan said "the show is certainly a visual feast" with "masterful animations and immersive lighting". She wasn't really negative towards the visuals, just the crowd's connection to some of their newer material.

IMO the cuts you've made to the mixed reviews, cutting the whole of the wording down to:

On the other hand, Rolling Stone UK's Will Richards said the middle section was "drawn-out" and had more potential. Vicky Jessop from The Standard described it as "wildly uneven".

mischaracterizes the essence of what the reviews were saying; you've removed any detail on why the middle section felt drawn out as well as most of the wording that makes the review "mixed" instead of "negative", and while The Standard did call it "wildly uneven", just including that makes it sound like more of a negative review than a mixed one. I support @4TheWynne's original wording here.

Regarding the one from The Guardian for the Perth show, some adjustments are warranted. The wording made it seem like she was criticizing the visuals themselves which wasn't really the case, the critique was in the use of the visuals to support what she felt was a disconnect between the audience and newer material: "Eye-popping gimmicks aren’t enough if the music is so far removed it’s lost its authentic core."

As far as the length is concerned, I'd recommend collapsing the "Details" and "Highlights" sections of the setlist. Those list-form sections require a lot of scrolling (especially on mobile) and are supplementary to the main information included in the section (the setlist itself). Anyone who wishes to see the details and highlights list will expand them. RachelTensions (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

For the venue records, IMO the "Commercial performance" section with the hatnote for further information at the Impact article is plenty and definitely doesn't leave the reader with the impression that they "didn't do anything", as you put it.

At the most, a small bit of prose about how "the tour broke over Xnumber venue records" or something like that would be appropriate. RachelTensions (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You've removed any detail on why the middle section felt drawn out.

The paragraphs I wrote with reviews praising them don't go too much in detail either. Personally, I think the goal should be compiling material and evaluate whether the reception was positive or negative. If we were to flesh out each text, the article would grow too long.

At the most, a small bit of prose about how "the tour broke over Xnumber venue records".

Yes, don't worry. What I'm proposing is a small. I just don't like the idea of removing the "Venue records" link from the table of contents because it implies there were no records. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Can we decide on specific wording before another flipflop revert war ensues? I think @4TheWynne and I have agreed on one set of wording, and @GustavoCza has decided on another.

We're going to have to come to a compromise between the two unless a greater consensus forms for one way or the other. RachelTensions (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I chose to word the Guardian review as "questioned some of the band's visuals" because of this paragraph: [...] tonight it’s performed by a Muppet, aka the fictional alien character Angel Moon. Judging by some of the bemused, cringing faces in the crowd, it’s totally lost on certain fans. Similarly in Something Just Like This, the entire band dons giant illuminated alien heads while a dizzying intergalactic journey lights up the screens. It gets a little fanciful and perplexing. I understand she did make the visual-crowd connection further down, but she seems to be talking solely about some of the visuals here. Perhaps we could include "visual feast" to sound more mixed and say something like 'Rosamund Brennan from The Guardian called the show a "visual feast" but described some of the choices as "a little fanciful and perplexing" and noted a disconnect between the crowd and some of their newer material'? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I support this wording RachelTensions (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, cool – does anyone else have anything to add regarding the reviews? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of fleshing out the reviews or not, one problem I mentioned still stands: the two bad European reviews are from Glastonbury. As it is right now, the section gives the impression their headlining set was met with mixed reactions, but it was more praised than panned. The Times, The Telegraph and iNews gave them five stars, while NME granted four. My question is: how do we approach this without making the section too long, since you guys are worried about length? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, they're not bad reviews, they're mixed. Even if you did add more positive reviews, that would extend the paragraph by maybe three lines or so, which is inconsequential compared to the other sections that you're reluctant to trim further. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

References

I've split the two topics into subsections to try and separate the discussions a bit/make it easier to focus on one or the other. Y2kcrazyjoker4 and others are still more than welcome to participate – thanks. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Length

Also @GustavoCza saying something is "not up for discussion" as you did in this edit summary is more WP:OWN territory which I believe you've been warned about multiple times before. RachelTensions (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I said it's not up for discussion because literally no tour article on Wikipedia hides the dates, this page wouldn't even exist without them. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 00:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything is up for discussion. RachelTensions (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Except some discussions are ridiculous and unnecessary, such as one for hiding the most important part of an article. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Well it's fine and dandy if you're not willing to participate in the discussion because you think it's ridiculous and unnecessary, but if other people are willing to discuss the change then the discussion will continue with or without your participation. RachelTensions (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Give me one rational explanation to hide the tour dates. Just one. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not particularly passionate either way about collapsing the tour dates (there are other, less useful things to collapse like portions of the setlist if we wanted to shrink the article a bit)

What I was pointing out is that unilaterally declaring a topic as "not up for discussion" is not a declaration you can make, and such statements are incompatible with the collaborative nature of this project. RachelTensions (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, we're talking about an article that's already quite long even after the venue records were split elsewhere, so collapsing things like the tour dates is another way to shorten the length; the tables are still very easy to expand on both web and mobile (a bit like above, the section requires a lot of scrolling and if anyone wants to expand the tables to look for specific shows/countries, attendances, etc., they can), so I don't know where the "bad for visualisation on the phone" argument comes in, and as for your other argument, see WP:IAPD. Regarding the subsections of the set list section, obviously those could be collapsed as well, but do we really need to include details/highlights from just about every show, or could it be summarised in a paragraph? Not "kind of impossible" at all, just unwilling to compromise/accept other contributions that could be constructive, as per usual. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAPD is saying to ignore precedent in order to improve a page. The dates are pretty much the most essential part of a tour article, hiding them is not an improvement. And as seen in this revision from some months ago, the set list notes used to be on a collapsed template, but an editor put things the way they are now due to MOS:DONTHIDE. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all. If the information is important and the concern is article density or length, consider dividing the article into more sections, integrating unnecessarily list-formatted information into the article prose, or splitting the article.

These are interesting points brought up by the WP:DONTHIDE guideline you mentioned. RachelTensions (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Many performances from the highlights section became a news topic in media, removing them altogether will take away a notable aspect of the tour. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 02:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It should also be pointed out that this tour has been going for almost three years now. It's completely natural for its article to be longer than usual. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? I find it hard to collaborate on Wikipedia when everyone always treats me like I'm dumb and only make horrible edits everywhere. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Mate, you need to stop playing the "everyone always treats me like I'm dumb and only make horrible edits" card, as it's frustrating and immature, and does nothing whatsoever to improve your situation (or the article, more importantly). There are always going to be people out there who disagree with/have different views to you, but that doesn't make you "dumb" or your edits "horrible". Collapsing the tour dates would go a long way to reducing the article length but by maintaining the captions and allowing the tables to be expanded, the whole section is still easily accessible, and summarising the most important details/highlights in maybe a couple of paragraphs (or even splitting to a new article if need be) would also help with length concerns; they're the two longest sections of the article (along with personnel) by some distance, so reducing them – and the overall length of the article – would definitely be an improvement. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to wonder if the massive "Personnel" list is really encyclopedic at all... Does the fact that someone named Dalton McGuire does the tour's IT, or Michael Raven did the laundry, really add anything to the article?

I'm going through the list of concert FAs and List of highest-grossing concert tours and none of them have a Personnel section that is even a fraction as detailed, if they even have one at all. (except for the other Coldplay tour on this list)

But I digress; we should probably loop back around to resolve the reviews section issue first before moving on to other topics. RachelTensions (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The bad reviews were added and the records deleted, anyone that reads the article will think the tour was a failure, I don't know why you two are still not happy about it. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 05:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The "bad reviews" (they weren't bad) were added after a short discussion and then promptly butchered back into two sentences.

If, as a group, we can't come up with a consensus on how things should be included, then we need to start talking about a compromise between the two versions that we all can agree on. RachelTensions (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Weren't the records deleted under the rationale that the article is too long? I don't see the need to flesh out four bad reviews when the positive ones were all trimmed down for the sake of brevity as well. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This tour will span four years when it's all said and done, I don't get why you are so desperate to delete everything from it when shorter runs like The Eras Tour have longer articles. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 05:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

As opposed to when you were intentionally keeping anything less than glowing reviews from being added to the article, where anyone who reads the article will think the tour was nothing but a 100% success? Think about it. We're not "deleting everything" (including the venue records, which were just moved), just trying to come up with ways to further improve the article, while you're continuing to either fully or partially revert anytime someone tries to make a constructive edit. And again, we're not editing The Eras Tour. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 07:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I mention The Eras Tour article because a lot more users contribute there and yet no one seems to have an issue with the article length. This page is the only one where you have people trying to hide the gross, attendance and positive reception as much as possible. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the Personnel section is excessive detail and should be removed, per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTDATABASE. This is information more appropriate for the tour souvenir program (which is cited as the source), not an encyclopedia... not to mention that there is no guarantee that all these staff remained on the tour for its entirety or that the personnel didn't change for different regions. The Gear section also is not needed in my opinion, but rather than remove it altogether, I think the information from it should be converted into prose; there isn't any section on the set or stage design, which seems like a conspicuous omission. The show-by-show Highlights section is such unnecessary detail, and I don't think any of that info is remotely encyclopedic. A few sentences summarizing that the band invited fans on stage with them or made dedications is more than enough. I disagree with the collapsing of the tour dates section, per WP:DONTHIDE; if people feel strongly about that, I think there needs to be a project-wide consensus so there isn't inconsistency from one tour article to another. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Album articles include the Personnel to recognise the people who helped to bring it to the world. I don't see why tours should be any different. The list was taken from the tour book, making it the most "official" line-up. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 18:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Comparing albums to tours is like comparing apples to oranges. It does not seem very common for tour articles to go into this level of detail. If this information were notable, wouldn't you be able to source it from somewhere else besides a self-published source (i.e. the tour book)? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Saying other tour articles don't include the Personnel also goes into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory. There's nothing wrong with recognising the people that helped Coldplay to put this tour together. It's respectful actually. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Then you can link to the credits as an external link. Or list the heads of department only. Listing 200 people is simply disrespectful to the reader; they are not going to care about who the riggers are. Also, how am I supposed to understand what Gavin Maude's role is? He's simply listed under a heading that says "Russells"; this tells me nothing about how this person contributed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

So you agree this section can be adjusted instead of deleted then? I'll be happy to adjust it myself if it means all of you will finally leave me alone like I've been for the past two years here. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you think compromising means we are going to leave you alone... you're going about this the wrong way. People are going to continue to edit Coldplay articles and make edits you disagree with. You need to learn to compromise, play nice, and collaborate with them. So no, we aren't going away. Unless you can determine a sensible way to trim down the Personnel section (and source it from something other than a self-published source), it probably should be deleted altogether. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I already let the whole records section to be deleted in order to make the tour look unsuccessful. That was more than enough compromise. A four-year run is bound to have a lot of content, get over yourselves. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the highlights, they're essentially the same thing as the "surprise song" segments other artists do. We can try to reduce it further, but removing everything like those moments didn't made headlines is weird to say the least. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because something was reported overnight after a concert does not mean it has lasting importance. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Last but not least, I know you guys think all my contributions on Wikipedia should be deleted, but it was thanks to my revisions and their completeness that this article was promoted to Good status in the first place, with Personnel, Gear... Everything. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you stop being so overdramatic? No one is targeting your work for deletion. What we're trying to do is improve this article, and sometimes that means removing information that detracts from, rather than adding value, to the reader's experience. Also, "there is no end" to Wikipedia. We don't stop making edits simply because an article received some kind of promotion. Standards change over time, new information becomes available; there are always reasons to continue editing. Simply passing a "good article" review is not a reason to stop making progress. But also a good article promotion is not necessarily an endorsement about everything facet of an article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

How does crediting the people that made this tour possible devalues the article then? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it bloats the article with an indiscriminate list of information. It makes the article interminably long, and 99.9% of readers are going to scroll right past that section. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not "bloat", it's the people responsible for the work in question. Giving credit where credit is due will never be something bad. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a film/movie article that lists the credits of the hundreds of people that worked on it? I seriously doubt it. Wikipedia itself does not need to list this information. You can include an external link to the credits if it means that much to you. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Film and movie articles include the cast, director, editor, cinematographer, etc. It's not everyone but it's not nobody like you're proposing either. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This is almost verbatim one of the statements listed in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR which, once again, I know you've been warned about many many times before by several people.

I'm not sure why you keep interpreting any attempted adjustments to this article as being an attack on your contributions specifically. This is a collaborative project. Other editors have the opinion that there are issues with this article and are working towards coming to consensus for a solution. It has nothing to do with you. RachelTensions (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep talking about how this is a collaborative project but Y2Kcrazyjoker4 and 4TheWynne had two whole years to contribute to this article and did nothing. They want to delete everything because if I edited it, then it must be trash. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This discussion will get nowhere if we can't move past the "they only want to change it because I edited it" argument. RachelTensions (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hard to move past it when it's the truth. I'm not going to feed anyone's ego here just because they're older users. If I don't agree with something, I will be talking about it. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 22:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me be absolutely clear about something: there is no deadline on Wikipedia. Whether we didn't participate in this article for 2 years is irrelevant. Whether we were involved in editing the article from its inception is irrelevant. We are involved now. This is a volunteer project, in which people can come and go as they please, editing whatever articles they want to, to whatever degree they want. No one should be looked down upon because they are coming to an article (what you perceive to be) "late". This is not a group homework assignment in which everyone has to pull their weight equally. Do you have some other goals for editing Wikipedia than everyone else, which would perhaps be why you take such a combative stance with everyone who edits the same articles you do? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

My interest is improving the coverage on Coldplay, just like yours is improving the coverage on U2. Other than that, do you really want me to believe you conveniently started to care about this tour today? I'm not stupid. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 23:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, it's kind of hilarious of you to say "people can come and go as they please, editing whatever articles they want to, to whatever degree they want" only to always be around the corner to delete any contribution I make. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we going to actually discuss any of the proposals people are making or are we just going to spin our wheels talking about other editors's motivations for wanting to clean up the article ad nauseam RachelTensions (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to trim down the Personnel and Gear sections, but we can do something in Set list. I just tried to see if I could arrange the highlights per city instead of dates, but London, Buenos Aires and São Paulo are tricky. Any suggestions? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I just finished adjusting the Highlights section. As you guys can see by the (-19,000) on the edit history, I've managed it to reduce it greatly despite not compromising its content too much. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 05:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that the personnel section needs to include any more than just the band members, and agree with the notion to add an external link for further credits if you absolutely have to/it's at all possible. And with the highlights section, that can still be simplified significantly. For example, do we need to list any of the covers, or all of the guests? And not only is it a question of whether the "songbook debuts" and improvisations are necessary, but are they even notable? Just because something's sourced (and in a lot of cases, these do little more than mention the songs and not even that they're debuts), doesn't mean that it must be included. You're still hanging onto far too much, and it could honestly be simplified into a couple of paragraphs. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, regarding GustavoCza's comment about this article's GA status, after looking into it a bit further, I'm actually a bit concerned that it was passed reasonably hastily (I must stress that I'm not trying to criticise/attack the reviewer here, but I do think it's possible that a less experienced editor might not share the same concerns about length/concision, bias or accuracy of sourcing) and that, even with some improvements made recently, it might not meet some of the criteria. @GAR coordinators: taking into account the above discussion and activity at the article over the last week or so, I'm concerned about 2c, 3b, 4 and 5 in particular. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding GA, the process for reassessment is beginning discussion about potential issues. As this discussion is already covering that topic, it is best that it continue here rather than splitting it between two locations. CMD (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Given we're already actively working towards resolutions to a lot of the issues I don't think it'd be appropriate for GA review. If the conversation stalls out before coming to a suitable resolution then maybe a GA review can be opened officially. RachelTensions (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, all I will say here is that if a good faith editor believes a GAR is warranted, then they can choose to pursue a GAR. GAR can be a venue for coordinated work to improve an article to meet the GA criteria. As for if this particular article merits GAR, I can't really say as I haven't taken a deep dive into the subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Rewind

There's too much comments, I’m not going to scroll through all this mess. Let's recap:

• @RachelTensions wanted and managed to add negative reviews. I made them more concise but User:4TheWynne took issue with it despite claiming to be worried about the article's length. Additionally, I raised concerns over the fact that Coldplay's Glastonbury performance currently has two negative reviews versus a good one, which can lead readers to think the tour was praised but the festival not. I'm yet to receive any answer on this matter.

• @4TheWynne and @Y2kcrazyjoker4 want to delete the Personnel and Highlights sections. I'm against it, specially in the former case. Martin, Buckland, Berryman, Champion and Harvey didn't put the tour together on their own, it's not coherent to act like it. As for the latter instance: publications have cited the songbooks, covers, guests and improvisations among the reasons for the band's connection with the public and success. This inclusivity is a notable aspect of the show and their artistry. With that said, I can compromise to remove the improvisations if we can all agree to keep the rest. What do you two think?

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, I wouldn't support deleting the personnel section entirely; it's a fairly standard section in tour articles. What isn't standard is the level of minutiae in the section. Tour personnel sections typically include key players: on-stage personnel, and a subset of notable production personnel. Minutiae like the laundry person, truck drivers, security guards, IT technician, etc. are not necessary. No disrespect to all the people who did those jobs, but just because they're in the tour book doesn't mean they need to be in the Wikipedia article. RachelTensions (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If any reliable, independent, non-self published sources mention the personnel, they would be notable enough to include in the article. Ideally, there will be references that discuss some of these people by name and how they built or contributed to the tour's production, so that they can actually be incorporated in the article prose instead of just appearing on a list that no one will ever look through. You certainly will never see the thousands of people who contributed to a theatrical film listed in its Wikipedia article; instead, only the key players are mentioned and how they contributed. This should be no different. As for Gustavo's other comment: since this article is about an entire tour, having any more than 1 review about a single show (even Glastonbury) seems excessive to me (if this were an article on a specific year's Glastonbury, I'd feel differently). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"A list that no one will ever look through" is just your personal opinion, while "You certainly will never see the thousands of people [...] in its Wikipedia article" enters WP:OTHER territory. I think the best way to go is removing sections like Video crew, Lighting crew and Special effects crew, since the chiefs for each one of them are listed separately already. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the day we have to decide whether inclusion of an indiscriminate list of people in this article is really encyclopedic content and does the inclusion of such a massive and largely useless list help more than hinder the quality of the article.

I would venture to guess that most people would answer "no" to both points. RachelTensions (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not really that massive. And with the reductions I suggested it will be even smaller. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it be crazy to nix the Opening Acts section given it is entirely duplicated from information already available in the Tour Dates section? RachelTensions (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The opening acts have to be sourced somehow and the section is for that. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 10:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If the whole point of the section is just to provide a venue for opening act references, it'd probably be just as effective to cite them in the "opening acts" column of the Tour Dates table. RachelTensions (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's best to keep the tour dates table as clean as possible. And with that I mind I have to point out their opening acts usually get announced in batches, some of them cancel, some are last-minute additions, etc. Just imagine the citation nightmare. Anyway, what do you think about giving the Highlights section its own article per WP: SPLIT? We could also include stuff from their previous tours there. A similar discussion is currently happening on The Eras Tour talk page for Taylor Swift's surprise songs. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I can't envision it (would it still be a list? or prose?) but if you wanted to create a rough draft in draftspace so we can get an idea then maybe that'd give a better idea of what we're working with RachelTensions (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be a list similar to Cover versions of Coldplay songs but probably with a longer introduction talking about how these covers, guests, etc. became a notable part of their show. The only issue is that I'm quite short on time right now, this is the sort of project I would do in late December and early January. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)