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 Rosennose (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 7 May 2009 (→‎Plagiarism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Current status: Good article

Coldplay ARE/IS

There is only one band called Coldplay. If there was more than one, than are should've been used.

In UK English 'are' is the commonly accepted method of referring to a band (which is a collection of people). --JD554 (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with JD554's thought process. It depends on whether we are trying to give the idea that Coldplay are one thing, ie singular. If we are, then grammatically we should use "is" because after all, we wouldn't say "table are...". However the use of the plural pronoun "they" makes it complicated. I would say stick with "are" for now, but I think there should be some sort of discussion on this for a general policy. Alan16 talk 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ColdPlay Userbox

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

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.

Commercial Success

"All of Coldplay's albums have enjoyed commercial success." Is this a good sentence? Because the album themselves do not enjoy commercial success, the band does. Should this be changed? Amazincredible 03:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it should be changed because the albums make money for the band, not the other way round. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[reflekts] --> reflekts I can't change the source so somebody else (a mod) has to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.118.161 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean under 'musical styles' where it says [reflects]? That shouldn't be wikilinked, it's an editing mark that is common in a quote. tedder (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay are an English alternative rock The ARE needs to be changed to IS

Coldplay is a single entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RicHicks (talkcontribs) 04:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates Contradict themselves

First Sentence: 1998 The Block on the Right: 1997 We have a problem. Anyone know whic one is true? I think its '98 but I could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaptopSafe (talkcontribs) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Credible, real evidence and quotes about the issue of Coldplay's alleged plagiarism are constantly being edited out of the article. I think we need to come to a conclusion on the best way to address this topic. Most recently, quotes from Chris Martin on the subject were deleted because an editor thought that the NOR rules applied. However, in the text that I authored it was clear that the statements were separated from the current plagiarism accusations based on the phrase "prior to the current allegations" and the chronological timeline. Additionally, these quotes are frequently referenced in the press when addressing this issue.[1] [2] Therefore, NOR isn't being violated since other sources are applying the same logic. Rosennose (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Rosennose[reply]

However, by placing the quotes next to the current allegations the way you did, you were inviting the reader to make their own WP:SYNTH and adding WP:UNDUE weight to Martin's quotes. --JD554 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph is about the current VLV plagiarism allegations. You can't take any old Martin quote and apply it to this particular case as it would be a WP:NOR/WP:SYN vio. The policy means that if Martin addresses plagiarism in other contexts, you can't use it to advance the argument that they plagiarized VLV. i.e., your edit on Martins's 2005 quote on an entirely different piece of work can't be used to support the 2008/9 VLV allegations. You can do that on a personal blog, but it goes against Wiki's policies as JD554 mentioned above.
I noticed that you have been pushing the plagiarism angle since opening an account, and I would also advise at taking a look at WP:UNDUE. Unless there is due reason, you can't place such allegations in the intro or in its own section... as you did with some of your earlier edits. --Madchester (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I established a Plagiarism section which outlines all info in chological order, including Martin quote. Therefore, all evidence is presented in an unbiased manner. This is important information and should not be censored. It is not UNDUE by any means. The accusations are from established musicians, the evidence from credible sources, and is being addressed by the legal system.