Talk:Glastonbury Festival 2009

Untitled

Are the rumours of Pink Floyd playing glastonbury not from before Richard Wrights tragic death? Also I added the Madness rumour.

I've removed all but a few rumours. They're all speculation – the websites they come from don't cite a source, and not all of them agree – it's best to leave them out for now. Besides, it can't be long before we know at least a handful of confirmed artists. Cycle~ (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-inserted the strongly rumoured artists section. Deleting it was a major change that you should not have proceeded with without seeking consensus on this talk page. Glastonbury festival is not a scientific theory. It is a social event which thrives on rumour. Because of that it is entirely normal and reasonable that the key rumours driving the sales should be included on a wiki page about the festival. This is just a reflection of the nature of the event. Rumours have been included on all previous years' pages and there is no consensus that this should be stopped now. Fig (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a scientific theory or social event is irrelevant. Listing rumours is crystal balling, as the sources cannot be verified. I agree that rumours do affect sales, and this should be reflected – but we're not here to "drive" the event. The only authoritative sources on the matter are the Glastonbury website and the individual artists' websites. Wikipedia is cited as an authoritative source by so many people, and there should be no situation in which we help spread rumours. Cycle~ (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes you're right – I should have sought consensus first! Cycle~ (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not suggesting that this page should aid sales, what I'm suggesting is that for most of the year Glastonbury is rumours. The rumours are an integral part of Glastonbury, and therefore inclusion is warranted. It would be better if every rumoured artist was referenced to where it had come from, I'll agree that. I'm not a fundamentalist about this though, so if others come along and agree with you we'll go with that consensus. Fig (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of rumours

CONSENSUS

Rumours should not be added to articles of this nature. Non-official announcements (such as an artist self-announcing their appearance) can be included – but must be backed-up by a third-party, reliable source. Of course, rumours that gain substantial media coverage (and therefore pass WP:GNG) can be included.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute over whether rumoured artists should be included in the article before the lineup has been officially announced —Cycle~ (via posting script) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO artists should be included in the article before the lineup has been officially announced. Look at Wiki Rules. Where does information come from? --Artypants (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sites such as eFestivals show lineups and rumours, and categorize them by "weak rumour", "rumour", "strong rumour", "to be confirmed" and "confirmed". There are never sources to show where these rumours originate; occasionally an artist will self-confirm (leading to a to be confirmed status) yet no word from the organizers. It is likely that the rumoured artists will perform – and so where they originate I don't know – but including them is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Cycle~ (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Artypants that no artists should be listed prior to an official announcement. This comes down to the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia. Rumors, by definition, are not verifiable (except to the extent that one can verify that the rumor, itself, exists, which is trivial and not noteworthy). Although not asked here, I notice that the problem partly grows out of the fact that there is a page specifically for the 2009 festival; I'd suggest just having a single page for all Glastonbury Festivals, with year-by-year sections, each listing the performers only when official. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in general agreement with preceding points that there is not a place for rumours. There may be an exception if a particular rumour has achieved significant attention in major sources, in which case there is the possibility of including it as a noteworthy rumour according to those sources, along with whatever other material relates to it. Ty 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that rumours are rumours and are not a fact of any kind and do not belong on any fact based website such as wiki. However in todays hustle and bustle society rumours circulate like air. So if rumours were to be included it would need to be included for every section for everyyear.Not just remove the rumours when acts are confirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattcm02 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think rumours from reliable sources can be included provided we are reporting that it is a rumour and a ref is given to the source. So if the NME says "x band are rumoured to be playing..." then by all means include it. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if the ref is to a reliable source, and "reliable" can hold up to a rigorous standard, and the rumors hold up to a rigorous standard of notability. And of course, they have to be labeled as rumors. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd avoid a 'list-style' format for an article such as this (leave that to the efestivals of this world). However, an overall paragraph discussing the line-up is reasonable e.g. comments that the line up headliners are expected to be rock acts following the issues regarding Jay Z last year, and discussing the claims made by the Eavises, as long as these are all referenced. Then, of course, add any self-confirmed acts (where self-confirmed is at a high standard and not wishy-washy comments from an interview e.g. Lilly Allen). At the moment the current section is OKish. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've condensed the section into twi sentences now, any comments? Cycle~ (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is that on quick glance it looks good. It implies, of course, that the page will be updated as more information comes along. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Glastonbury Festival 2009. 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:

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) 18:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]