# Talk:Trouble (Coldplay song)

Apparently the song's 'musicscape' is minimalist. This does not appear to be a real word. What does it mean? I vote it should be changed to something more accessible to laymen. 86.141.82.75 (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL is all that babble about a band called Trouble? What's that got to do with Coldplay? I'm removing it and see if anyone gets upset. DarkBard 08:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, apparently that band really did exist. DarkBard 08:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Trouble" is a piano-based ballad that underwent many stages of development. In September 1999, the song was dominated by fast guitar riffs and aggressive vocals reminiscent of Supergrass. At the final recording sessions for Parachutes, the song was slowed down to its current form with the new guitar and percussion pieces.
--Efe (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trouble (Coldplay song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Lead
A bit short, but should also only be one paragraph, per WP:LEAD.
I think the two paras are a bit different so I prefer to stay as is. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Still needs to be expanded. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Added something. --Efe (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Writing
"The mixing, however, was redone because it was sent back that fell shortly of the desired quality." This doesn't make sense.
Edited. I dont know it now makes sense. --Efe (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It makes no sense at all and I don't know what on earth the sentence is trying to say, so I'm struggling to offer any suggestions.
"The mixing, however, was redone because," absolutely fine.
"... it was sent back" what was sent back?
"... that fell shortly" presumably this should be "fell short" also what does that refer to
"... of the desired quality" The desired quality of what? Peanut4 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Done something. --Efe (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It was nearly there. I've reworded it, but can you check it to make sure it is what you meant. Peanut4 (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
What happened once it was remixed?
Not in the source. But it was remixed to meet artistic preferences. --Efe (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Am, the meaning changed. Tried mine. Please check. --Efe (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Much better. Makes perfect sense now. Peanut4 (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Lyrics
"Like the song "Yellow", Martin wrote "Trouble" with the repetitive use of the word trouble." It's not clear whether Yellow had repetitive use of the word yellow or trouble. It suggests the latter at the moment. Which is correct?
Hmm, good point. It seems the "Yellow" also uses the word trouble repetitively. Clarified. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A very short section with two very short pars. Can you expand this at all?
I decided to merge this part and the preceding section. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Release
"American actor Sylvester Stallone was interested to use the song for the soundtrack of his film, but the band declined." Which film?
Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
"It has reached number 10 on the UK Singles Chart, making it the band's second Top 10 single in the UK after "Yellow"." Should probably be "It reached ..." unless it is still in the charts.
"It has reached number 23 on the Billboard Adult Top 40 and 38 on the Billboard Modern Rock Tracks." Ditto
Music videos
Does the one reference cover the entire section?
It only supports the last two sentence. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The section could do with some improved referencing then. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Which part? That section main talks about the video, and the video itself is the source. The last two sentences (reception) are sourced. --Efe (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I never understand the video itself is a source but that's not an argument to be had here. However, could you find sources for:
That's the usual argument by a lot of editors. Anyway, I tried to address below comments. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
"The original European version of the music video for "Trouble" was directed by British director Sophie Muller."
Sourced. --Efe (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
"In October 2001, a US version of the music video was created. The video is directed by English film director Tim Pope" Peanut4 (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Tim Pope is supported by the last ref. Date removed. --Efe (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
A bit to do, but nothing substantial, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As an outside editor, I've fixed the two "It has" instances in the release section. Regards, Jamie☆S93 02:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: A discussion about the grammar is carried here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Singles_that_are_no_longer_charting. --Efe (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no responses, so I removed "has", temporarily for this review not to be delayed. Once it gets the consensus, I'll reflect it in the page, either to change or as is. Anymore concerns? Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Added "has" again. My good and featured articles are using such grammar.  --Efe (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's an arugment between how long the present exists for, because I can understand the arguments on both sides. However, it's no biggy so I'll leave it.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Peanut4 (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Since IHelpWhenICan has been reverting my corrections of the track times and names, here's some screenshots and websites for reference. The screenshots are for the times and are from various media players with this CD (sorry about the quality) inserted in my laptop.
Times:

CD in Winamp
CD in Foobar2000
CD in Windows Media Player
CD in Exact Audio Copy
AMG
Names:

Discogs 1
Discogs 2
Discogs 3
-- I need a name (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

With no disrespect, none of those fit the definition of reliable sources. I have added sources on my own. Read that link to get more information. Basically, here-say or what you found out on your own doesn't count. Reliable sources also exclude other user input sites like Wikipedia (this also means you can't cite Wikipedia articles on other articles). Discogs is a user input site. Therefore, it may not be used, anywhere on Wikipedia.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 14:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The CD of the single in question itself is infinitely more reliable than the previous source used in the article, which was none whatsoever. This is seemingly the exact same methodology used by AMG, since any track times I've gotten off CDs have been consistent with the ones there, even when the Wikipedia ones differed. I specifically didn't use Discogs as a source for the times because of its user-edited nature (even though their guidelines also use the same methodology for CD times). I linked to images of the singles to show that those are the names of the tracks. If those are unreliable, then you might as well remove the cover image from this article, since that's also an image of the single. Hell, the source for it being called Trouble is also the single itself, maybe that's suspect as well? -- I need a name (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok... You did not understand me...
"The CD of the single in question itself is infinitely more reliable than the previous source used in the article, which was none whatsoever." → True, but you just can't add material to an article without giving a reliable source. You are hurting the article further by doing that.
"This is seemingly the exact same methodology used by AMG, since any track times I've gotten off CDs have been consistent with the ones there, even when the Wikipedia ones differed." → Allmusic is a source filled with release notes. They do not use that method. Count this as a coincidence.
"... (even though their guidelines also use the same methodology for CD times)." → Ok, but we already established that it is a unreliable source, so does this matter?
"I linked to images of the singles to show that those are the names of the tracks." → You did not link to images of the single. You linked to images of the single in your CD player, which doesn't hold any weight in Wikipedia.
"If those are unreliable, then you might as well remove the cover image from this article, since that's also an image of the single." → That is the cover image of the single. It has a source on it's file page.
"Hell, the source for it being called Trouble is also the single itself, maybe that's suspect as well?" → No. The source is Allmusic. The title of the page is "Trouble".  I Help, When I Can. [12] 15:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you didn't actually read my first comment at all. You should've saved me the time and the effort and just told me that to begin with, then I could've just ignored you completely. -- I need a name (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead, ignore me, just know that the majority of Wikipedia shares my views, and we will be there to revert the incorrect edits you do. Cheers.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Trouble (Coldplay song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050811021036/http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct00/articles/ken.htm to http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct00/articles/ken.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527112128/http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12043300 to http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12043300
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

coldplay
parachutes 188.151.122.253 (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)