Talk:Coldplay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Coldplay article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from, or are not used in, American English. For more information, see American and British English differences. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good article Coldplay has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.


Contents

[edit] ColdPlay Userbox

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


[edit] 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)

[edit] Concert footage airing

In case there are any misconceptions, the concert slated as being a DVD release earlier in the year has been shown on BOTH SPANISH AND CANADIAN TELEVISION. Somebody is continually deleting my alterations even though it WAS DEFINITELY shown on Spanish television, according to the official website.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]. 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)

[edit] 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)