Talk:Glastonbury Festival 2009

Dispute over whether rumoured artists should be included in the article before the lineup has been officially announced —

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

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?

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]