Jump to content

Talk:Coldplay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:58d:301:c060:7063:d4e7:fa7:7dc4 (talk) at 03:04, 18 May 2021 (Why remove the logos?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleColdplay has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 15, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed
February 3, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

"British" to "English".

Is there a reason why British rock can't be changed to English rock? Coldplay are a band from England, so does that make them an English rock band? What prevents my change to change British rock to English rock?

Dean12065 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your question has been answered above. ... discospinster talk 15:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Coldplay listed as a 'British rock band' whereas others such as Radiohead are listed as an 'English rock band' on their page. Surely this is an inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.177.223 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is in Archive 3 Talk:Coldplay/Archive_3#English_or_British. I was wondering about this myself.User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How Did They Get Their Name?

This article could explain how they got the name "Coldplay". I do not know myself, I just thought it would be interesting if any one who does know put this in the article. Vorbee (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

Why is there images of various logos on Coldplay's Wikipedia article? If the band is switching between types of logos, shouldn't there be no logo images on the article? May I delete them? Dean12065 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay doesn't have official logo. They're changing logo on every album releases. Esambuu (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Band members" Section

There should be a timeline within the "Band members" section in the article. Dean12065 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

        I agree, I looked into creating the PGN for Coldplay but couldn't quite figure out how to create it and apply it to their main page- I have the code edited for Coldplay here. Code template borrowed from other band pages. AvocetWing (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay are to Coldplay is

Why did the page say "Coldplay are a British rock band" instead of "Coldplay is a British rock band"? I don’t know why it says are, not is. Bfdi1234 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We say are because they are British. British bands are referred to as a plural noun. Where as American bands are referred to as a singular noun. If they were American, we would say Coldplay is... Bowling is life (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

For a long time, the infobox image of the article was the one on the left, but at some point, it was changed to the one on the right.

The image on the right is certainly serviceable and shows all the band members well enough, but to me, it's not a very interesting image. The shot of the band performing is much more visually appealing. It's an action shot, shows the lighting/visual effects of the band's show, and depicts the band members in their roles with their primary instruments. If given the choice between a performance image and a curtain call image at comparable zoom levels, I would almost always prefer to see a performance image. And from a photographic perspective, the left image is better compositionally and technically. I would like to see if others agree with me about changing the image back. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 04:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think being able to see the band members clearly is more important than a visually interesting shot. Instead, you could possibly put that under the A Head Full of Dreams section as an example of a concert from that era. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it any more difficult to identify the band members in the left image? You can see each of them in the image at a standard thumbnail size (and even more so at the larger thumbnail size when used in an infobox), and you have the added benefit of seeing them perform their instruments, which to me, is a much contextually relevant detail than how large their faces are in the image. The image on the right just strikes me as something you would not use in an encyclopedia unless there were no other options to consider. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 14:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After more careful consideration, I agree with you. It would be more crucial to see the band with their respective instruments than their faces. I support the change back. Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear you have reconsidered, but I wanted to see if anyone else had thoughts on this before I change the image. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 18:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for starting a discussion. I would say the one on the right is better for three reasons: 1) It depicts sufficiently well all band members (except Phil) and their faces can be recognised clearly. In my opinion the main purpose of the lead image is to show the members (like in The Beatles, Pink Floyd or Toto), in the article one can find many shots from different eras of them performing with their instruments; 2) The image is from the A Head Full of Dreams Era, but is generic enough not to be strictly associated with that period. Conversely, the one on the left depicts the kind of show that was typical of that period, but Coldplay is not just visually bombastic shows and colourful animations, for example think about the Ghost Stories Era or the recent Everyday Life Era, with their very particular and intimate shows; 3) The image is not of lower quality compared with the first one, there are not many photos like this one. For all these reasons I would prefer to replace the current image with the previous one. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 12:41, 6 May 2021 (ECT)

Impact / Legacy / Influence or whatever section

Should we make one? Coldplay is arguably one of the century's biggest acts, broke records, many artists have shown their appreciation for the band, they have been cited as inspiration, have been covered and sampled, publications noticed influence from their work in other artists' projects and their albums/songs have been placed in decade-end and all-time listicles. I've made a draft with sources so I'll be more than happy to help. GustavoCza (talk) 15 May 2021 (ECT)

That sounds like a good idea to me. If you have reliable sources, then I don't see any reason not to add that section. 2601:58D:301:C060:592D:F5C6:8090:62E4 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove the logos?

I’ve noticed that the logos between eras have been removed. Why were they removed and was consensus established beforehand? Paul Webb (PaulWebbtheTechExpert) (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought was that it was because of some copyright issue, but then I saw one of the sections above, where someone said that the band has no official logo and that the logos therefore should have been removed. Personally, I don't think it was a good idea to remove the logos. Even if none of them were ever a permanent thing, they still represent Coldplay's history and stylistic evolution, and that one logo that they had at the beginning, which was written in Albertus, had been used from the very beginning of the band up until the band's fourth album, so it actually became somewhat iconic. Considering how much and how long that one logo was used, I think it might have actually been planned to be the band's permanent or at least semi-permanent logo until Viva la Vida came along and the band decided to change their logo for each album going forward. It's also worth noting that each of the old logos are still being used in merchandise associated with their respective albums. 2601:58D:301:C060:592D:F5C6:8090:62E4 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the article has 12 images. Repetitive "Coldplay" logos with different fonts don't add anything to the page. You see the "history and stylistic evolution" of the band through their visual live performances or by listening to the samples of their songs (i.e. "Yellow" vs. "Adventure of a Lifetime"). Should we use these logos at Madonna? No. Madonna has reinvented herself many more times than Coldplay and it's not a reason to saturate that page with logos either. There is no reason to add that Coldplay moved from Times New Roman to Gill Sans Ultra Ultra Bold. (CC) Tbhotch 16:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point about not cluttering the page with logos. In that case, should each of the logos go on the pages for their respective albums? 2601:58D:301:C060:7063:D4E7:FA7:7DC4 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]