Talk:The Scientist (song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateThe Scientist (song) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleThe Scientist (song) 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
September 17, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 17, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted
March 5, 2021Good topic removal candidateDemoted
June 2, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Second or seventh single[edit]

Surely this was their seventh single - not second. See Coldplay discography#Singles. Or am I missing something? Peanut4 (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it is the seventh. I think whoever wrote it was probably thinking of the second from the album. --JD554 (talk) 07:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

It passed. Just one question is it possible to add their chart positions. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The chart positions are mentioned. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not what i ment, but who cears not a big deal any way. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Back to the star"[edit]

I was reading the article just now, and noticed in the Reception section a quote from a Rolling Stone editor that may leave a misleading impression. The reviewer says that the line is: "Let's go back to the star". I know this is kind of WP:OR; if you listen to the song it's not quite clear, but it sounds more like "start" on every occasion. Also, every major lyric website (yes I know, lyric sites are oftentimes wikis) reports it as "start" for every pre-chorus. I don't own the album, so I don't know what the lyric liner says. This may sound weak, but for the sake of the encyclopedia, I think this part of the quote needs to somehow be removed, because it may not be true. Comments? Jamie☆S93 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, none of the Coldplay albums include lyrics, but the official website says 'start'. -- I need a name (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good finding! Didn't know they had all that info on the website. I've excluding the lyric from the quote with a "...", and tried to keep it as original as possible by only changing the word "with". Best, Jamie☆S93 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian singles chart[edit]

How can this be considered a good article if it ain't stating its best peak position worldwide, which was at #8 in Austria... Reidlos (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://hitparade.ch/showitem.asp?interpret=Coldplay&titel=The+Scientist&cat=s

Wrong Category?[edit]

This article was put under the category "Songs About Suicide". That doesn't seem to be the correct category at all. Could someone make any needed corrections on this page and the category page? 170.211.148.46 (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video Filming Location[edit]

I don't believe he goes back to the suburbs. Hopefully all y'all won't be upset I put the location as Kentish Town. A look in google shows Hampstead Heath near there - across the tracks. London has tracks like that all through it, but at some level it does match the walk from Kentish town in Camden in London to Hampstead Heath, which certainly has wooded areas and a hill. (All though I've been most recently in 1998 it has been 59 years since I spent considerable time on the heath.) I don't consider this research - one can see it in the video - it is hardly research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.81.188 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wyoming Vehicle License Plate at 3:04 is 4-397 BG. The 4- means it was issued in Sweetwater, Wyoming. The 397 bomb group was the dam busters. Significant? Can we ask Chris Martin? Am I going to get my wrist slapped for asking for research here? 75.191.84.199 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC) J (75.191.81.188)[reply]

Other Versions[edit]

The version of the song performed by Katelyn Epperly on the 9th Season of American Idol is in fact an "Other Version" of the song. American Idol is a noted musical TV program that is highly viewed. The episode was viewed by more than 23 Million people. Three youtube videos combined have another 165,000 views with much commentary on the version performed by Katelyn Epperly. Katelyn is a musician and not a one off talent show participant. The interweb contains many articles about the performance. To remove the edit as being "not notable" is an opinion of the editor. The factual evidence reveals it is a different version of the song, as well as being notable as described above. The interweb contains many articles about the performance. Further, in this same section there is a cite to a Voice contestant performing the song.

In addition, while a youtube video may not be an appropriate cite in most instances, this youtube videos documents that the performance happened on American Idol, although there are other cites including the full article of American Idol Season 9 on Wikipedia.

Further, Calidum says "not important." Many music listeners enjoy hearing different or alternative versions of popular songs. Wikipedia is a site to find out about those other versions. I went and listed to both the Willie Nelson Version of the song and the Voice contestant's version of the song after coming to this page. Katelyn Epperly's version of the song is readily available on the web as described above and providing this version to music enthusiasts is important.

Let's include the below in the article under "Other Versions"

Thanks.70.91.216.5 (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010, American Idol contestant Katelyn Epperly performed the song on the 9th season of American Idol.[1][2] The episode of American Idol, March 3, 2010, that Katelyn performed the song on was viewed by approximately 23 Million people according to Nielsen Ratings.[3]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ "TV Ratings Top 25: Oscars, American Idol & The Big Bang Theory Top Weekly Broadcast Charts". Tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com. Retrieved April 19, 2012.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.216.5 (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably delete The Voice item as well, since it was only an audition. Softlavender (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be included as it appears to be a known rendition of the song. Also, I have not seen a valid reason why it should not be included. But if it is deleted, then the Voice one should be deleted as well. Glee should probably be deleted as well as it is an episode of a TV show just like American Idol, I'll assume that episode of Glee did not have as many viewers as AI.2601:182:C001:AAD1:ACF9:D78E:C819:213C (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, 2601:182:C001:AAD1:ACF9:D78E:C819:213C, how did you just happen to come upon this obscure conversation on a very obscure Wikipedia talk page, having never having made a single edit to Wikipedia, mere minutes after this conversation started? Forgive us if we suspect you are a sockpuppet of the other IP, and discount your ill-considered (having never before even ventured upon Wikipedia) opinion. And you are even spouting the same nonsensical rhetoric about number of viewers. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, Softlavender, I never purported to be a different user. I'm just on a different computer. You should ask yourself the same question, as you are suddenly on this obscure conversation. You weren't conversing with martin all day on another page were you? No, that couldn't of happened, right. I'm sure you weren't asked to come to this conversation and revert the page. Forgive me if I suspect that you are ganging up. Additionally, none of you has made a valid reason why the addition should not be included. Most of all, you have added nothing. So I'm the only one that has contributed anything of substance to the talk page, where you have just made reversions.2601:182:C001:AAD1:ACF9:D78E:C819:213C (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This shows that you have not done any research on the matter, why are you making revisions without doing your homework? I would consider that poor editing. It smacks of revenge editing to support your friend martin, who also did no research before making an edit that he assumed was not important. If the article is going to include other versions of the song, it should include all that are reasonably known. I would wager that the American Idol and Voice performances have probably been heard just as much as the other versions mentioned in the article, and definitely more than the Glee version. If you want to remove the American Idol version, then I think you should remove the entire category of "other versions," which I am amenable to doing. Otherwise provide some reasoning to counter my points here as to why it should not be included.2601:182:C001:AAD1:ACF9:D78E:C819:213C (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think TV talent contest performances are notable. Not even those by guest artists. Chris Martin included. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a very disappointing argument. I added the entry after coming to the page and seeing the Other Versions heading and it reminded me of the version performed by Katelyn Epperly on American Idol, because - well- it was notable. My addition was consistent with the other entries under the heading of Other Versions, it adds to the article as I 've discussed above, it does not destroy the integrity of the article, and I added 4 references although there are more that could be added. You have a strong feeling that the entry should be excluded, I'm really not sure why as you have not elaborated on your opinion. I have my guesses as to why you deleted my entry without any thought or research, but I don't wish to denigrate you. I'm sure you've made valuable contributions and protected against vandalism in the past. I offer the following: If you insist my entry not be included because it is not notable, I would ask that the Voice contestant's version and the Glee version also be removed. I believe this would be consistent at least. Do you agree?70.91.216.5 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’m very pleased that you “don’t wish to denigrate me”. But then I’m not quite sure why you suggest that I reverted your entry “without any thought or research”. I see that Katelyn Epperly is not notable enough to have her own article and that her name redirects to American Idol (season 9). So I’d imagine that’s the article where any details about "her" choices of song for the show might be added. I would have no objection to the removal of the performances in Glee and The Voice. Perhaps if Ms Epperly eventually secured a recording contract and recorded the song on an album which was itself praised, or at least discussed, by multiple WP:RS sources, maybe then it could be added to this article. If there was consensus to do so. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, at least now you've put some thought into the issue. You still haven't responded to any of my points as to why it is notable. While Katelyn may not have her own Wikipedia page, the performance itself has been discussed and "her choices of song for the show" are contained in multiple sources. Example [1] In this digital age of music, Katelyn did record and publish the song on iTunes. It was released on June 25, 2012, has a high popularity rating, and reviews by users. In the list of Other Versions, the only versions appearing on an album are from Willie Nelson and Aimee Mann, so we should knock out all other versions as well, no?70.91.216.5 (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So pleased I've improved. Let's hear what other editors think. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [3]

Requested move 13 December 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 11:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientist (song) → The Scientist – More than 16 years after it came out, the song has stood the test of time and is WAY more popular than any of the other topics.[4] Unreal7 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Misleading recognizable astonishing to the readers not conversant with Wikipedia's WP:THE and WP:DIFFCAPS. Pageviews should be a very small consideration for topics on commercial products, including songs. Promoters title things with deliberate ambiguity for catchiness for the unsuspecting. Finally, there is no advantage to any reader for removing from the title an essential feature of the topic, that it is a song. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I think the "song" helps the new reader find it and doesn't really hinder anyone. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC) "I was just guessing at numbers and figures, Pulling your puzzles apart, Questions of science, science and progress, Do not speak as loud as my heart," as they say.[reply]
  • Oppose - too many significant entries on this disambiguation page being redirected from here - in particular the journal. -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In addition to the arguments already made, WP:PTOPICs accumulate bad links in which degrade the encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Scientist_(song)&oldid=1195537835"