Talk:David Gilmour

Luck and Strange

A source dated 24 April 2024 can't support a claim for an event on 5 or 6 September 2024. That's not "ridiculous", it's just plain logic. We simply need a source that states it has been released. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's a review in The Independent that suggests the album was released today. And here's a press release, at Gilmour's own website, that confirms it was. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I've updated the article. Popcornfud (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not "plain logic" and it is ridiculous. We do not need constant assurance from sources that a release occurred on the date the source states. The date passed; the article was updated to reflect that the event did indeed occur like the source stated it would. Pretty uncontentious when you or anybody can go to a music website set to a country where it's past midnight before it's midnight in your country and check yourself. It's simply updating tense of an article because we have no information to the contrary that the album was not released. No other editor I have come across on this website has had an issue with merely updating tense. @Sergecross73:. Ss112 16:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source that verifies a release date, and it becomes said date in a time zone, I do not see the issue with changing the tense to "released". If someone sees this as problematic, then a much wider discussion needs to happen, because I see this happen very consistently across the music and video game content areas, not just by Ss112. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe that a historical source can be used as support for a predicted event just because the date for that predicted event has passed. "... any body can go to a music website set to a country where it's past midnight before it's midnight in your country and check yourself", sounds a little bit like WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH to me. So yes, I'd welcome a wider discussion. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Go for it. I just don't understand the good-faith doubt that exists here. We have a verifying source. No contradictory source. No realistic reason to believe a delay has occurred. And the date occurred. Which part do you have reason to challenge? And where do you draw the line? Why stop there? With that sort of logic, why was it okay for the release date to stay in the article back in August? It was announced 4 months prior. It could have changed and we didn't know, right? How is that any different from what you're proposing? Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

How is that WP:OR? Original research is information for which no source exists. In what you just quoted, I told you how you could find the source yourself—so it exists, even if not present on the article, which the page for OR states is actually not required. Regardless, I even provided said source in my edit summary yesterday—Apple Music is reliable even if not a desired source per WP:AFFILIATE—that showed the album was indeed available in NZ at the time I updated the article (track times do not show for unreleased albums on Apple Music—the track times were visible—and the wording on said page showed it was out). I was not going to add said AFFILIATE source to the article for that reason. Ss112 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A source dated April 2024 can't "verify" an event that occurs in September 2024. I'm sorry I can't make this any simpler. It has nothing to do with "good-faith doubt". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Is your opinion backed up by a guideline or policy? Is there a guideline or policy stating that we cannot update text to say an event occurred that a reliable source stated was certain to occur? You are also ignoring that the Apple Music page provided to you in my revert summary yesterday showed it was released. Ss112 18:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's too bad; if you're already giving up on explaining it to two experienced editors very familiar with policy, I don't know how you're going to convince the community to change this widely held norm. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen any guideline or policy about this. Apart from the general one on WP:V. I don't think sources can be used to verify future events. And I don't think we can use edit summaries as article sources. I'd welcome a wider discussion, but I'm sorry I don't have the time or inclination to try and "convince the community to change this widely held norm". I won't be following you guys around to slap {cn} tags on your claims. If I happen to run into another instance, I might just look for an up-to-date source and add it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I don't do this either, so there'd be no reason to "follow me around" even if you weren't dropping it. Other editors always beat me to it because I'm not generally thinking about what time it is in other time zones. I just don't fault others doing it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Well then, I hope you both enjoy your widely-held no-fault norm. I'm really quite surprised by the size of the reaction to this one tiny edit and what I see as the legitimate reasons for it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Martin is deserving of quite the level of vitriol I'm seeing here. While I don't think it's a terrible Wikipedia crime to jump the gun and update articles as soon as the clock hits midnight in the first time zone, I also can't really fault Martin's logic: a source saying "something will happen" is not the same as a source that says "something happened", especially, you know, as things sometimes don't happen. When we have a source that explicitly says what we want to say, why not use that instead? (Also, FWIW, I made this change to update the source before seeing any of the debate prior, it seemed like an easy improvement.) Popcornfud (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No vitriol here, just confusion, exacerbated by a refusal to elaborate. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Did I refuse to elaborate? How can I make this clearer? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Not wanting to get stung any further, but my other bugbear here is my feeling of intense "meh" when it comes to these breathless corporate announcements of forthcoming albums/ films/ TV series. Yes, fine for fansites and media chat-boards. I'm sure we're all really excited. But really. Why can't Wikipedia wait for something to actually get released. That's what really matters? Anyway, ahem.... I'll just get me coat. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

New main picture?

Given the note on the main page regarding a consensus, I would like nominate this for the new main picture for the page. SilverBullitt (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, it’s definitely an improvement on the current infobox image.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; not as dark and much better view of his face. Schazjmd (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change the image. I doubt anyone will contest this change. SilverBullitt (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Instagram

According to Romany Gilmour's instagram page (https://www.instagram.com/romanygilmour) they go by they/them. This is a self-published source. This should hopefully be reliable enough according to WP:SELFSOURCE. Unfortunately I can't edit the page. 208.117.117.12 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)