Talk:Strawberry Swing

Single

Just heard the track on Xfm. It's also on their playlist [1]. Looks like it might be a single. You might want to remove that redirect. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to verify it's going to be a single. Lots of songs get played on radio but don't get released as a single. --JD554 (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a single now. The announcement came out to the Coldplay mailing list and appeared on their website this morning. The article, as it was at the last revision, however, is terrible and sounds like a fanboy wiki article, not an encyclopedia entry. Definitely in need of a rewrite, but there is verifiable evidence out there (even shiny new single artwork) that proves that the article should be reinstated ... I'm just too lazy to cite it properly and get the ball rolling. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.137.250 (talk • contribs)

The band's official website confirmed that a new video for "Strawberry Swing" will be released in early August, and a digital-only single will come out on September 14. Here's the announcement: http://www.coldplay.com/newsdetail.php?id=441. That page also includes the single's artwork. Cbing01 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We still need to wait until the single has been written about in reliable sources. Until then, the article wouldn't meet the notability criteria at WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the band's official website isn't a reliable source? That makes less than no sense. I can site a half a dozen examples from the last year where wikipedia contained wrong information from "reliable sources" that was then trumped by underground information that was proven to be true. That aside, the band's own website is hardly underground information. I don't know why this can't be accepted. And if all you've got to stand on are wikipedia rules, then the rules need to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.137.250 (talk • contribs)

Just because it's being released as a single doesn't make it notable. It still needs to meet the conditions at WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. --JD554 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So. You can still make pages for the Coldplay and or other bands songs. I mean there is a page for almost every single U2 song also.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The video has been officially released online today. --94.43.112.105 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

JD445, all that you follow is rules. Sometimes to get the best results, rules must be broke, or as the Joker said "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules", Ect. Hey are you part of a Wikipedia organization called "Delete Dept.", cause it sure seems like it. Plus, how can a band's official website not be a reliable source? Screw You JD445.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS you would see that the sources needed are independent reliable sources. The band's official website is hardly independent. --JD554 (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So. It's still their website they operate from.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, quoting NSONGS:

Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

Now, let's ask ourselves, is there enough verifiable material as of right now to write an article that actually has enough information to be useful to readers? If you could show us some independently sourced information that's more useful than the info we have right now, "This song is going to be a single on X date", then we can discuss if there's enough to warrant a separate article. Fingerz 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Das Ansehnlisch, personal attacks are not tolerated, and are hardly going to help your case. Fingerz 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In answering your first question, YES!!!. Heck I already did. Just let me go back, make a new page about the son..er..single and it will be a good page. Glass of Water is a great page 'o info, too.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't enough information. The key word is verifiable, that verifiability has to come from, once again, independent reliable sources. --JD554 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC

Um why doesnt Strawberry Swing, White Shadows and What If have their own articles? All of them are singles and have or had a considerable amout of popularity. (However I understand that White Shadows doesnt have an article because it was released to radio stations only) There are several sources that Strawberry Swing will be a single. and as for the notability guidelines. well the song (while its not my favorite) has gained some considerable populartiy among fans and celebrities. When you say that it must be comfirmed by an indipendent source, does that mean that we cant trust Coldplay's own website? are you trying to say that "Coldplay is lying and Strawberry Swing becoming a single is not true"what in the world is your problem? I think that you just dont want the article to be made out of spite JD554. either that or your just jealous that someone decided to make the article before you. Instead of "redirecting" and "Deleating" articles like Strawberry Swing, why not HELP contribute to the article and MAKE IT RELIABLE.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt Coldplay's website when it says "Strawberry Swing" is a single. However, being a single in itself does not make the single notable per Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS (please read them). I am not saying this out of spite or jealousy and would suggest that you also read WP:AGF before making personal attacks. --JD554 (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, SHUT UP JD554!!! seriously. Why not HELP. All you do is "delete page" and "redirect page". it's even more annoying when it's a brand new page(!). Coldplay Expert's right, MAKE IT RELIABLE. I don't see why you're on Wikipedia anyway, if all you do is screw up things people took valuble time to make. You think you do but you don't help, you suck. Oh and Coldplay Expert, radio only singles can have their own pages (ex. "The Only Difference Between Martyrdom and Suicide Is Press Coverage")--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry if you thought that I was making a personal attack. I dont want to attack you directly its just that you deleate/redirect pages that people spent alot of time on (mine included). it is my opinion (along with several others) that Strawberry Swing should have its own page. NOW. Why should we wait untill September to make it? If your only reason to deleat/redirect pages like Strawberry Swing and What If is some random rule that wikipedia has, then...why should Lovers In Japan have its own article? after all it was only released to radio stations? And about that rule of yours that you keep bringing up, "Notability". well in YOUR OPINION Strawberry Swing and What If are not notable. But I think that there are more people that belive that both songs are notable enough to have their own articles than people (like you) that dont. JD554 Please think about the people (like me) that have spent several hours of their time to make an article, and have it erased in one second. I still belive that we can have a peacefull settlement on this issue.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• (unindent) Ok, regarding Lovers in Japan. The reason it has an article and Strawberry Swing does not, is because of the amount of independent references it has, Lovers in Japan#References, and the fact that it has charted on ten different charts, unlike strawberry swing. The independent references about it let it contain information that actually is helpful to readers. As of right now, no one has shown any independent references that have any information about strawberry swing. I'm not saying that strawberry swing won't be a single; it probably will be, but unless we have more information than "Strawbery Swing is a single by Coldply and was released on X date", there's really no point in having a separate article for it. A one line article like that wouldn't provide any useful information to readers, and is basically useless. However, if you can find independent sources, and put them in the article to provide useful information readers, go ahead and make a draft at User:Coldplay Expert/Strawberry Swing. We can all take a look at it, and see if it is satisfactory. Fingerz 21:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone actualy still looks at this page, the artice that I made is now located at my home page.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hate to always bring up the same old tired question, but then why does almost every single Beatles song have its own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.137.250 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably because they've been around for a long time and have been written about in independent reliable sources. However, can I suggest you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --JD554 (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article

The second that the protection wears off, I will make the article. If anyone has objections they can leave me a note on my talk page.--Coldplay Expert 17:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strawberry Swing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Kudos to the editor(s) for the work put into this article. It's off to a good start, although it could benefit from further development across the board. For example, there is no discussion of the themes reflected in the lyrics. In addition, there is a need to work out a few specific points:

• Please expand the fair use rationale details for the image "Coldplay - Strawberry Swing Screenshot"

• I believe I have corrected the issue with the fair use rationale. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Additional chart information would be useful. At minimum, info from other key Anglophone countries (Canada, US, Australia...) and possibly France or other large markets where the band is popular. Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• It was the final single released from the album, released over a year after the album itself was released. It did not chart very well. As far as I'm aware all charts that the song appeared on are covered in the article. And as the fifth and final single of the album, there are not a lot of references that discuss the song in intricate detail.

• If you look at the Strawberry Swing articles in other languages, you'll see how the song charted in a number of other countries... these are no doubt not exhaustive, but it would be good to incorporate the info where it's readily available. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Also, the UK reference you use merely says that Strawberry Swing debuted at 158. It does not tell you what happened in subsequent weeks. If it didn't appear on the UK top 75, then you know it didn't get that high, but you need more evidence than the CLUK gives you that it peaked at 158; it could easily have risen to 111 or 76. Absent another source, this can't be listed as a peak. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• It would be good to expand on the instrumentation and lyrical themes. Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 08:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is comparable to other GA Coldplay articles from the same album like Lost!, Lovers in Japan and Violet Hill (song) in length and detail about the lyrical themes. What it covered in the article is all that can be said about the song using reliable sources and utilizing no original research, as it was not one of the band's more successful singles. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I browsed around for books on Coldplay that might provide more insight but wasn't able to unearth anything easily. Although this is a serious gap in the coverage of this article, if more information isn't accessible in English at this time I won't allow this point to keep me from awarding GA. That said, the article definitely could not advance to A or FA without expanding these areas. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• As a side note, there is more that could be said about the music video - I found some interesting articles online. But again I won't hold that against a GA pass.Lemurbaby (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any sign of a response to the September 4 comments. Has this stalled? What needs to happen to get it moving and wrapped up one way or the other? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it seems to have stalled. If I don't hear anything from the nominator by Monday I will fail the nomination. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• I pinged him on this talk page, and he said to "go ahead, fail it"; full response at User talk:Bruce Campbell#GA down at the bottom of the section. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Don't forget to replace the GA nominee template on the Strawberry Swing talk page with a FailedGA template, so the bots can move into action, remove the nomination from the WP:GAN page, etc. Thanks for working on the nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)