Jump to content

Talk:Violet Hill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleViolet Hill 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 27, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Written by all band's members

[edit]

Hi, I would like to know whether the song is really written not only by Chris Martin but also by the rest of the band. I am working on the subject and was happy seeing this information in the introduction but going further on the reading I can't find other occurrences to that fact. Searching on the web, I don't find more about this. It's to be really sure that it has to figure in the article and that it's not a fantasy. Thank you for answering ! Erιne (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Violet Hill (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2016

[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Dohn Joe's evidence for PRIMARYTOPIC is convincing. Number 57 22:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Clear primary topic.[1] And there's nothing called Violet hills. Unreal7 (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this again. First of all, no it is not a joke. Secondly, no I am not misinformed, I have all the evidence I need. Thirdly, there's nothing called Violet Hills (hence that part) and none of the other Violet Hills have a fraction of the information that this song does: some of them are even redirects. And finally, as I keep saying: existence and notability ARE NOT the same thing. Unreal7 (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Wikipedia is more than a pop blog. Obviously the volunteer base is more interested in writing a big article about a song named after the real Violet Hill, London garden/hospital area in St John's Wood than any of the 8 or 9 geographical Violet Hill. But enthusiasm of pop editors (wonderful as that is), doesn't equal an absolute majority of encyclopedic notability - nor make it more important than all the real Violet Hill places combined. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And why didn't you search before submitting the RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because none of the other topics have a patch of notability in comparison. You need to acknowledge for once that sometimes songs are actually notable. Unreal7 (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Violet Hill (song): 12,965
  • Violet Hill, Arkansas: 172
  • Violet Hill, Pennsylvania: 90
  • Violet Hill, Ontario: 60
  • Violet Hill (Hong Kong): 730
  • Violet Hill, London: 0 (newly created redirect)
That is well over 90% for the song article. And none of the geographical articles are particularly strong on long-term significance. The song article, despite some editors' biases, is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by any standard. WP is not a pop blog or music-only site - but when a musical topic is primary, we should recognize that and help out our readers and editors. Dohn joe (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Google Books "Violet Hill is" In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. In the past 25 years, there have been three references to the hill in Hong Kong, and a couple to some random vampire book series. None of these topics have much long-term significance, so we should give even more weight to the overwhelmingly lopsided usage criterion here. How does three books that mention the Hong Kong hill in passing overcome 90+% pageviews? Short answer - it doesn't. Dohn joe (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Dohn Joe. Those numbers are clear and convincing proof the Coldplay song is the primary topic for the term. Calidum ¤ 04:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. May I remind people of the "long-term significance" requirement of primary topic. At the point where a transient song (which is a marketable product, hence the G'hits) is "more important" (aka primary topic) than a number of geological sites, WP is truly f***ed. And that is the opinion of an editor who has worked almost exclusively on song articles for the past 6 years - so I do actually think (in my world) songs are important. Move Violet hills to Violet Hill for the disambiguation page, as suggested above. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a long-term significance argument, literally just above the previous comment. None of these topics have long-term significance. In the past 30 years, there have been three passing mentions of the Hong Kong hill in reliable sources available on Google Books - that's it. On the other, hand, the song article is clearly much more sought-after than all the other articles combined, isn't it? Dohn joe (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. By all evidence, this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of both use and long-term significance.--Cúchullain t/c 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; This is the primary topic.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  14:05, 29 February 2016 (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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Violet Hill (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violet_Hill&oldid=1195552378"