Talk:Coldplay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
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
Close

Legacy

The Russian magazine source cited in support of Coldplay being equivalent to a 21-century Beatles does not make that claim. I have inserted a "cn" tag 13:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Billsmith60 (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Google tranlsate does not support the translation in the "archived" version. Please investigate, thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I recommend scrolling down the entire article so the translation can be complete, then search for the word "Beatles". You will find the full paragraph on the second mention of their name. In any case, the source has been archived again, I hope it helps. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 04:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
I'll take your word on this, although I found only one occurrence of the string 'beatles' when using GT. Frustratingly, GT has a 1,500-character limit, so I had to check it by cutting and pasting para. after para. Billsmith60 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Is the CEO event going to be added to this page?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/monicamercuri/2025/07/19/astronomer-ceo-placed-on-leave-amid-viral-coldplay-concert-scandal/ Tarushv (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It was added to Impact of the Music of the Spheres World Tour already. I don't think it belongs here when there are more important things to cover about their 28 years in the music industry. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 14:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Overall copy-editing needed

There are some odd grammar choices, omitted words, etc. I'm just passing through (13 Aug 2025) and don't have time to tidy up now; perhaps some kind soul would take it on. Thank you. Cwilsyn (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Albums not Records

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I am asking for respect for the terminology used in the Thelegraph article where the editor uses the word "albums" and not "records" to describe Coldplay's album sales. I would find it very unserious and lacking in bias to disrespect what is written in the article and to edit the Wikipedia page to suit some interpretations. The post says: Coldplay sold over 160 million albums, it doesn't say records. I'm only asking for what is fair, let's not fall into speculation by assuming they are records, because so far only the sales of Coldplay albums have been revealed, not the records. Hilario21 (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Hilario21:
  • About the source wording: The Telegraph does use "albums" for the 160M figure. However, other mainstream coverage uses “records” (i.e., albums + singles) for ~160M. In other words, sources conflict on the term. Per WP:V/WP:RS/WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, we shouldn’t state "albums" in Wikipedia’s voice unless that wording is consistently reflected in high-quality sources, not just one article.
  • Let’s avoid edit warring: Please pause bold changes while we sort this out here per WP:BRD and work toward WP:CONSENSUS. Repeated reverts over a wording dispute fall under WP:EW.
  • On tone and conduct: Personal remarks like "Are you blind…", "You should be blocked," etc., aren't OK per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Content disputes are normal; personal attacks aren't. Let's please keep it focused on sources and policy.
I'm staying out of of the edit war but just wanted to drop in a few quick thoughts here. Veggiegalaxy (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
A while ago, several administrators and editors on Wikipedia told me that what is written in the article is noted, now it turns out that they edit according to their interpretation of the article, I don't think what they are doing is serious. Hilario21 (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
A while ago, several administrators and editors on Wikipedia told me that what is written in the article is noted, now it turns out that they edit according to their interpretation of the article, I don't think what they are doing is correct * I was wrong in the message above Hilario21 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia resorts to pure sales (physical and digital copies) when ranking the best-selling acts of all time. 160 million across albums and singles is perfectly realistic for Coldplay under that logic. With streaming they are well past 300 million. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 17:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Well, I still think that the term albums should be respected since the editor of Thelegraph uses the term album and not records, since being a very credible medium, it makes the editor know what he is writing and makes reference to sales only of Coldplay albums. Hilario21 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
As you say, Coldplay has sold more than 300 million records. There are even sites that claim it's more than 400 million. Putting the information that Coldplay sold 160 million records is inaccurate and wrong.only misinforms. Hilario21 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Our colleagues working to maintain the page List of best-selling music artists have determined that the 160 million number is low. They estimate that 166.7 million albums and singles have been sold. All of the sales figures in this range are combined albums and singles. The Telegraph piece was wrong—see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. We don't simply accept wrong facts just because they appear in an otherwise reliable source. Common sense is used, and we compare other sources to determine the truth. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I ask that you not interpret the information, since the rules prohibit the interpretation of sources. Are you saying you have more knowledge than what I edit in The Telegraph? From the beginning of Wikipedia, information was posted as it was written in the source Maxwellxy (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
and the use of interpretation was prohibited, if so they would not be biased Wikipedia:No original research
Wikipedia:Verifiability Maxwellxy (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Sources can also be wrong. If I quoted every piece of information I ever read in any news/magazine article for the purposes of adding to Wikipedia, it would be a mess. Referencing requires a discerning eye sometimes when sources conflict. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk contributions) 21:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
In this case, this new information should not be published, since it is not clear. In any case, the rules are the rules, and reading the word "records" on the Wikipedia page and then going to the source and reading "albums" is inconsistent. Maxwellxy (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I understand the point, but in this case we would be leaving it up to everyone to interpret the information. Maxwellxy (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree - if we don't think the source is giving an accurate number AND label, then we should find a different reference instead of simply using a different label in the Wikipedia article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk contributions) 05:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I think the same Maxwellxy (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
It's either that or reproduce the information as it is in the source and not "interpret" the information, since the source was approved for a reason and if the source was approved it must be written as the source of information is written. Maxwellxy (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I was also reading the discussions above, and it seems to me that several editors are making use of "interpretation", which seems to me to be a very bad use of Wikipedia. Maxwellxy (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
since you cannot approve a source of information and publish it and then change what the source says and interpret what it meant, that is not correct, either you approve something and write it as is or you do not upload it and that's it until you have better data Maxwellxy (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is clear that a nonsense "fact" cannot be accepted on its face even though the source is usually reliable. Our colleagues working the trenches over at List of best-selling music artists have to deal with this all the time. They have determined that 160M is the claimed number of total units sold. Not just albums. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
And where do your "colleagues" get that figure from? Parlaphone only released the sales figures for Coldplay's albums. Maxwellxy (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Parlophone, as Coldplay's record label, is not an independent source, as record labels are often known for inflating sales figures for promotional purposes. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Haha, what are you talking about? That post I'm talking about was on Coldplay's main Wikipedia page for a long time. William2do (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

information Administrator note I've blocked the obvious sock puppet accounts in this discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained reverts

I did some minor editing of the lead to fix the overlinking of London per MOS:CAPS and remove some redundant elements. These changes have been removed for mysterious reasons. Can we address this? Popcornfud (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Popcornfud, GustavoCza thinks that they WP:OWN this article and any others related to Coldplay... it's been a long-running issue; there was nothing wrong with the changes that you made. 4TheWynne (talk contribs) 05:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
GustavoCza, do you want to comment? Popcornfud (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Given they decided to revert yet again after the most recent comment (now five in 24 hours) and this is part of a long pattern of behaviour, I've reported them to WP:ANI. 4TheWynne (talk contribs) 16:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Phil Harvey

Typo

Lead

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI