Talk:Coldplay

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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.

Lead

There are several issues with the lead I would like to discuss at the moment:

• "Percussion": As previously stated, it is fair to highlight the fact Will is a percussionist. He is not limited to drums and plays other instruments on stage.
• "Parentheses": Using the parentheses format avoid having something clunky like "bassist Guy Berryman, and drummer and percussionist Will".
• "The band initially went by the names Big Fat Noises and Starfish": Their alma mater has always been mentioned as part of their narrative and should be put back.
• "The band": This could easily be replaced by "They" to avoid repetition with "the group" on the previous paragraph.
• "They signed": Change to "the band" as consequence of the above.
• "The albums ... drew from": If "repertoire" was not good, it could have been changed to "Coldplay expanded their sound". That statement made things more explicit.
• "Coldplay: A Head Full of Dreams": The term "career-spanning documentary" was previously used to avoid repetition.
• "second-highest-grossing": Being the first tour by a group to gross $1 billion is more notable and concise.

Further commentary

• The third and fourth paragraphs were originally separated between talking about Coldplay's projects and achievements, merging them is unnecessarily confusing.
• The previous lead emphasised the band have two of the highest-grossing and most-attended tours in history, the current one undermines their achievements.
• Leads usually cite most of the notable singles from an artist, there must be more than just "Yellow", "Viva la Vida" and "My Universe".
• On the controversial side, I feel like "Something Just Like This" should not be included.

Pinging @4TheWynne, Popcornfud, and Veggiegalaxy for this. Thank you. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't really agree with most or all of these changes, particularly the first three – listing percussion just isn't necessary and can be simplified to drummer, that would be an equally unnecesssary/improper use of parentheses, and given it already mentions that the band formed in London, I feel like that's sufficient enough/pretty standard for the lead, and adding the alma mater (which I suspect might be more of a personal preference than "it's always been part of their narrative") would essentially be repeating that information. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Simplifying Will to just "drummer" is a problem though, his bandmates always highlighted him as more than that. Regarding the inclusion of UCL, it's not my "personal preference", it has been on the lead since the Coldplay article was created back in September 2002. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 14:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

First, "It's been here for a long time" isn't a good argument. See WP:BEENHERE.

Second, it's normal for band members to play different instruments and fill different roles. For the lead we just want to summarize their main roles. Sources mainly describe him as a drummer.

Third, drums are percussion instruments. All drummers are percussionists. Writing "drummer and percussionist" would be like writing "drummer and musician". It doesn't add information. Popcornfud (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

"First, 'It's been here for a long time' isn't a good argument". Well, I think we can both agree it's been there for a reason, no? Chris, Guy, Jonny and Will didn't appeared out of thin air in London; they met at university, became friends and then formed a band. This is something highlighted in profiles written by their agents, opinion articles, show reviews and numerous other sources. Also, it's not like this was removed because the lead is too big or something. That section is supposed to cover the basics and this is one of them when it comes to Coldplay. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

On a rather unrelated note, since I know WP:OTHER is a thing, it's kind of hilarious to think that information seems to be worthy of inclusion on Wikipedias all over the world, but we have to remove it from the English one because two users don't like it. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 15:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That's exactly why it was removed, because the section was too long and needed trimming. I don't see how a group of people meeting at university, becoming friends and then forming a band (even if simplified to where they met/studied) is leadworthy for any band; James responding to Lars' newspaper ad and forming a band is potentially an even more famous example, but is this mentioned in that article's lead? No. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

The section is not long at all. And reading the Metallica lead, it seems that information on their origins was not included because editors needed room to address line-up changes, something that doesn't apply for Coldplay. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Not important for a summary of the most important elements of the article subject. Popcornfud (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, mate, it's pretty long. As for Metallica, you're failing to grasp the point: that information isn't in the lead because it simply isn't leadworthy... that sort of detail is for the history section, same goes for here. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It's quite literally shorter than the example you brought. Either way, if length is such an issue, why was the sentence that contemplated both the Head Full of Dreams and Music of the Spheres tours erased in favor of a longer one that only cites the latter? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

And how do we gauge that objectively? Because several sources mention it as part of their basic profile. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Apologies that I've not yet weighed in here, I was on a trip and appreciate the tag. I do agree that UCL is unnecessary for the lead for the above reasons. the band has a great origin story and history but if you are trying to understand Coldplay at a high level we don't need that context.

I've been on your side, Gustavo, about the inclusion of percussionist because Will does so much for the band. But @Popcornfud makes a good point that writing "drummer and percussionist" would be a bit like writing "drummer and musician".

Veggiegalaxy (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like it wouldn't be as redundant if his role was listed as "(drums and percussion)" like Larry Mullen Jr. in the U2 article. That separation would make it clearer that he does things outside the traditional drum kit. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not important. Popcornfud (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @4TheWynne, @Popcornfud and @Veggiegalaxy again because I think we still need to discuss the other points. I'm disappointed that Will was reduced to simply a drummer but the third and fourth paragraphs being merged for no reason is more annoying. I don't expect any of you to answer right now though. Happy holidays and let us talk about this after New Year's Eve. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:59, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@GustavoCza Would it be terrible to just have him listed as "percussionist"? It acknowledges the band's broad soundscape. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I think "drummer" is too well-established to change, hence why "percussionist" should be additional. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

GustavoCza, probably stop flogging the proverbial dead horse on the drummer issue; the format doesn't need to change (including adding parentheses – just because you might see it elsewhere every once in a blue moon, doesn't make it right). Same goes for the university – not necessary for the lead. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 14:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't pinged you again to be rude for the billionth time, I did it because "we still need to discuss the other points", most notably "third and fourth paragraphs" of the lead. You've been on Wikipedia for more than 10 years, so I assume you know something about writing, such as paragraphs being used to organize the text. Weeks ago, the third paragraph addressed Coldplay's post-Viva albums and side-projects, while the fourth talked about their achievements. Right now, it goes from talking about the albums to randomly mentioning "My Universe" and the Music of the Spheres World Tour, then citing philanthropic activities, only for the fourth paragraph to handle stats once again. Long story short, the text went from cohesive to... Well... Not cohesive. I'm asking you to use your review skills here, the discussion is no longer about the first paragraph. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 18:14, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the philanthropy, which I've moved to the bottom as it's more of a career-spanning activity, the third paragraph (including "My Universe", the tour and the Time ranking) does still cover Coldplay's post-Viva activities, so it's not random; the fourth paragraph covers more of the the band's career as a whole, only mentioning specific projects with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame additions, so it's still pretty easy to distinguish between the two paragraphs. We don't necessarily have to keep all statistics and achievements in the one paragraph, and the fourth paragraph was double the size of the third at the time. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 02:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame additions are not projects by the band, they're part of their achievements. If the size was an issue you could have removed them instead of this weird mish-mash we have right now. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 05:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the sentence with the Hall of Fame exhibit additions was the only one to mention specific projects (never said the additions were projects), and no, removing the sentence wouldn't have solved the issue, as its inclusion is more than warranted. I don't understand how you can still say that the section's a mish-mash – the first paragraph introduces the band, second is the first half of the career, third is the second half and the fourth covers career-spanning achievements; there's a clear structure, and just because you might have worded it differently, doesn't make the current version incohesive. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

"My Universe" and the Music of the Spheres World Tour are two different things, it doesn't make sense for them to be on the same sentence right now. The lead is also missing the Head Full of Dreams Tour. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it does, as both relate to the Music of the Spheres album, so I reworded the sentence to make it more explicit. The A Head Full of Dreams tour is currently the 14th-most-attended and 16th-highest-grossing tour... it doesn't need to be in the lead. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 04:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

With the latest revisions, the lead looks in a good place to me! Happy New Year everyone! Veggiegalaxy (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

INFORMATION BASED ON THE SOURCES

Ban evasion by User:Claudio1098. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I made an edit regarding terminology—specifically "albums" rather than "records"—in relation to Coldplay. I cited three different sources stating that Coldplay has sold over 160 million *albums*, not *records*. The issue here is the source of the "records" terminology, given that the articles refer to albums; indeed, Parlophone never disclosed the number of *records* sold by Coldplay, only *album* sales. I ask that the terminology used in the sources be respected and that we avoid speculation. At the following links, you can see that the articles refer to album sales rather than record sales: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/concerts/coldplay-tour-wembley-worlds-best-live-band/ https://www.elguardiandelamusica.es/musics/3rvh5MeRhj8WNQrDxuje https://www.canarias7.es/cultura/musica/experiencia-coldplay-san-telmo-20251205120923-nt.html I would like this topic to be addressed. @Popcornfud @Veggiegalaxy @4TheWynne since I see that @GustavoCza thinks he owns the Coldplay page...i hope you have a good day and can review this confusion of terms. Tommylorenzo (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I own the page. I think this matter has already been extensively discussed and the consensus was leaving the numbers at 160 million records. Their official certifications are stalled at 170 million, so it's not like we can do much at the moment. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, man, but I’m referring to what the sources actually say; all three speak of "albums" rather than "discs." I think the work of the writers and editors at each site or publishing house deserves respect. It’s a bit frustrating to see one thing on the Wikipedia page and then check the sources only to find something else. As for certifications, they haven't been updated since 2010, so that figure is a bit outdated in terms of certified sales. Anyway, you really should consider what I’m saying about using the term "album" instead of "disc"—I’m just pointing this out politely and with evidence. @GustavoCza Tommylorenzo (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I opened a SPI case. For future reference, www.elguardiandelamusica.es appears to be a self-published website. It doesn't have editors's names or who manages this website, lacks an "about us", any other legal information, it consists of 4 articles (3 about Coldplay, 1 about Final Straw by Snow Patrol). Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 20:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Band timeline

I personally don't think it's necessary. Aside from Phil in a couple of years they didn't really changed much. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 02:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: HIST 401 Sec 2, Fall 2026

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 17 August 2026 and 23 December 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VDang2004a (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by VDang2004a (talk) 06:20, 17 September 2026 (UTC)