Talk:Prospekt's March

Title

The title is definitely Prospekt's March. The song is directly referenced in an official Coldplay.com journal entry (from last Christmas). The link to that is at http://www.coldplay.com/timeline/2007_12_06_001.png. My apologies if my referencing isn't 100% in accordance with guidelines, I'm rather novice when it comes to Wikipedia protocol! (I didn't know how to change the actual article title, either.)

Before this is immediately reverted to Prospects March (which I fear will be the case), perhaps the subject should be discussed here.124.168.199.109 (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the title is spelt with a 'k' (and an apostrophe) as used on the official Coldplay website. Outrune (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a proper reference, since it isn't talking about the EP. -- I need a name (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's very anal of you to assume that the song and the EP have nothing to do with and will be spelt differently from each other. Outrune (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The journal article from Coldplay.com clearly references a track that was intended for Viva la Vida... but did not make the final cut. Since the BBC article post-dates that journal entry and also comes from direct interview with band members, it should be safe to assume that if the song is included on the EP the title has been changed. Cbing01 (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is the BBC article is transcribed from a radio interview, and it's very likely that the band didn't check or confirm the spelling before it was published. The edit warring needs to stop until it's officially confirmed one way or the other, but I'm almost certain it's going to be "Prospekt's". Agree that we should keep at "Prospects" for now, since the BBC is the most reliable source we have - unfortunately I think the reliable source is wrong in this case. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The title of Coldplay's upcoming EP should be changed from Prospect's March to Prospekt's March. While a number of news articles have cited the name with a C rather than with a K this is most likely a mistake made by uninformed writers and editors and not the intent of the band who clearly indicated they had written and recorded a track during the sessions for Viva la Vida named "Prospekt's March". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.68.114 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't wait to see the people who insist on calling this EP "Prospect's March" be proven totally wrong. We all know that it's going to be Prospekt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.162.125 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Leftover Tracks from the Viva La Vida Sessions

There is no reason to remove the "Leftover Tracks from the Viva la Vida Sessions" section. This is valid information that is not in dispute. All of these tracks appeared on the Coldplay website as tracks that had been recorded during the Viva la Vida sessions, save for the full version of Life in Technicolor, which has been confirmed as complete by Chris in various interviews. The interview with Chris, and this page itself, makes it clear that this is where the tracks will be drawn from. This section only shows a collection of possible selections that may appear and does not state that these tracks will be on the album. It is mearly meant to give people an idea of what tracks may appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.162.125 (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Listing these tracks is no different from the list of tracks that were present on the Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends page prior to the release of the confirmed track list. All the list gives are the names of a number of tracks that Coldplay confirmed had been recorded during the sessions in their Prospekt journal entries. Since Chris said that these are the songs they'll be chosing from, it's relevant to the article for now.

Per WP:PROVEIT (part of the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability), "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I am reluctant to remove this unsourced section as I don't want to tear up old wounds, but those who know their way around Coldplay fandom and have seen the sources should really cite the sources accordingly, or should be prepared with the removal of unsourced information. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Any REAL Coldplay fan who's worth their salt knows that there isn't anything wrong with this information. If you want a reference you can go check out the timeline page on the Coldplay website, I don't have the time to waste doing it though. The majority of the tracks in this list can be found there, and it's only those ones that I added to the page when this all started. The tracks like Bucket for a Crown and The Dubliners which were listed off in other places I don't have a problem with them being taken down, but tracks like Famous Old Painters, Glass of Water, Poppy Fields, Leftrightleftrightleft, Rainy Day and Prospekt's March were part of the sessions as noted by Prospekt. All this list is there for is to show that these were some of the left over tracks from the sessions that Chris himself said would be where the tracks would come from. Once the actual track list is made public, just like happened with Viva La Vida itself, the rest of the tracks can be removed. Until then, leave them there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.148.48 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And a REAL wikipedian knows to cite his sources, which brings as back to WP:BURDEN. Welcome to wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh, funny. I seem to remember a lot of the confirmed tracks for the album being listed on a "Leftover Tracks from the Viva la Vida Sessions" section that was removed by some people who thought for sure that Lhuna would be included. Huh, where is Lhuna on the track list anyways. Maybe citing your sources doesn't always guarentee correct information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.173.47 (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. If you want to take issue with the policy do it on the talk page there, not here. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Lhuna (with Kylie Minogue)

I would argue that the line about Lhuna having been previously confirmed by Chris Martin but having been removed from the final tracklisting should be removed. I don't think it was ever confirmed (yes, I know about the article). Rather I think that it was just Chris running his mouth again, as he is known to do, and that the track was never really intended to be included. I'm not saying that the track isn't out there, but it was never meant to be part of this general movement in Coldplay history. Besides, how is it relevant to the article about an upcoming release to talk about tracks that aren't going to be on the disc? It just sounds to me like someone got burned on the whole tracklisting issue and is now trying to save face. I guess my real arguement is that it is no longer relavant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.68.114 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Always nice to see that others know my intentions/feelings better than I know them myself. But anyway, (strike because previous comment was refactored) is there a reliable source that cited CM to have said that Lhuna would be part of the EP, or isn't there? Wikipedia doesn't do anything wrong citing that source until proven false. (If you have a source stating otherwise, please present it; otherwise, we're engaging in WP:Original research.) – sgeureka ^t•c 16:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The best reason to remove the reference to Lhuna from the Prospekt's March page is that it's not going to be on the EP, making it irrelevant information. Besides, Chris Martin has proven (and takes pride) in the fact that, in interviews, he is the least reliable source for information about Coldplay on the planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.4.68.114 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting that wikipedia is keeping track of history, and Lhuna is now part of that history. For illustration, "Hey Jude" was once considered to be named "Hey Jules", although that song was never released as such and is not widely known as such. Should that information be removed? No. Likewise (in my opinion and article-building experience), Lhuna should not be removed until this EP article bursts with so much information that Lhuna becomes insignificant. In the worst case (since Lhuna will likely be released at some time), that information can be copypasted into a new album/single article with a source saying that it was first mentioned then and then. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reviews

Surely the "ephemic' review of 3/5 stars can not be considered proffessional. NME on the other had are a credible review source. Still waiting for more reviews on the way I hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauiwi09 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotes around song or track titles

According to the guidelines for the Songs WikiProject quotes are meant to go around song titles, not track titles. This is confirmed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Format. --JD554 (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me where it says quotes should not go around track titles. The guidelines do not even mention track titles in any capacity whatsoever, let alone how they should be formatted. 58.7.229.107 (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It specifically says: song and single titles go in quotation marks. Like you say, track titles aren't mentioned. If they were meant to be included within the quotes along with the song title, they would have been mentioned. --JD554 (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you suggest track titles be formatted, as they aren't covered in the guidelines? "Lovers in Japan" (Osaka Sun mix) is surely incorrect, as it doesn't represent the full track title and turns the "Osaka Sun Mix" part into nouns, even though "Osaka Sun Mix" is a name, just like the song title.

This is the point I'm trying to make both here and at Viva la Vida (song). A lot of editors don't seem to understand that the name of the mix, edit etc. is part of the track title. And more often than not, it is track listings we are dealing with, not song listings. 58.7.229.107 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you format it with the quotes around the song title as the guidelines say to do. The track title doesn't come in to it. Three different editors now have been putting the quotes around just the song title and you are the only one who is trying to put them around the complete track title. The guidelines I've quoted above don't back up your position. If you want the guidelines changing then you need to take it up at WP:SONGS or WP:MUSTARD. --JD554 (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we take for example, Lost+, the (feat. Jay-Z) is an "explanation" of the song, not the song's name. On the other hand, Lovers in Japan (Osaka Sun Mix) is actually the song's name. ≤ ^alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving this article to Prospekt's March EP

Hey,

I think this article should be moved to Prospekt's March EP, since: 1. The back of the album's sleeve says it's Prospekt's March EP. 2. Coldplay's official site also does. 3. So does the Label-submitted Last.fm page for it (http://last.fm/music/Coldplay/Prospekt's+March+EP ) 4. And MusicBrainz does too.

Previously, I need a name said that 'EP' wasn't part of the CD name, but was what the CD is. This is wrong, since there are many EPs that aren't listed everywhere with an 'EP' at its end. Examples: Nine Inch Nails' Broken and Fixed EPs, and Maroon 5's 1.22.03.Acoustic EP. ≤ ^alvareo [speak to me] ≥ 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Songs

I'd like to make a point about the redirect and deletion of Glass of Water (song) page. In some ways it is an unnecessary page but why is it that bands like U2 on Wikipedia have pages for almost every song ever written? As for Coldplay, not even the singles What If? and White Shadows have pages. It doesn't make sense that it should be like that. Who has decided it's okay for U2 (and maybe there are other examples) and not for Coldplay. They are equally significant as bands and there is certainly enough stuff to mention about a lot of the Coldplay songs as it is for U2. What does everyone else think? Officially Mr X (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Because there aren't many sources to make articles on the songs you mentioned. In time, more sources will lead to more articles. I remember when I first checked out wikipedia, most U2 songs didn't have articles, now many do (like you mentioned). Also, older bands like U2 or the Beatles, are likely to have been covered more, and that can lead to notability. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Notability for more. Deserted Cities (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Prospekt's March (EP) → Prospekt's March – And current content at Prospekt's March eliminated. The page was moved to create a DAB page but it contains two articles, this and a song from this EP "Prospekt's March/Poppyfields". Per WP:TWODABS the hatnote {{about}}: "This article is about the EP, for the song see "Prospekt's March/Poppyfields" is enough. Also there should not be a page titled Prospekt's March (disambiguation) as the hatnote already covers this (if needed a XFD discussion would be used instead). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Disambiguation is unnecessary for this, the other topic has a different title and is less notable. Peter James (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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.