Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:24, 17 July 2009

Kim Sears was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Andy Murray. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Tennis Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tennis To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles. Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards. Other : *Sign up as a member of the project. Tag more articles with our standard project template. Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scotland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject Tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ranking

Not to nitpick, but it seems a bit presumptuous to list a ranking for a date that has not yet occurred, especially when that ranking is dependent upon results of matches that have yet to occur. Rainer24 (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well as of now, this is moot, as he is guaranteed no 4 - rst20xx (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He may be guaranteed 4th, but the ATP still lists him as 6th at the moment. Imagine he had reached the final (or won it)from a start position outside the 500. He may be guaranteed a place in the top 20 as a result of that feat, but someone checking his acheivement in doing so today, would be severely misled.Liamcalling (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are people changing his nationality?

Why do people keep editing his nationality to read Scottish? Who gave them the right? Can't somebody with the correct authority make sure it stays as 'British'? Perhaps we could request semi-protection to stop people changing it to Scotland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.35.194 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read what the article says. This is based on self identification, which is a Misplaced Pages principle. --Escape Orbit 21:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

He actually identifies himself as both Scottish and British.86.168.10.214 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a similar problem with English people? I mean do they call themselves English or British? Ausseagull (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Change the nationality of anyone listed as Welsh and Northern Irish to British if the standard is that anyone successful who isn't from England has to be associated with England. Honestly he's Scottish and then British get over it please.

You have a real chip on your shoulder, you should get over that before making these offensive generalisations about 50 million people. I am from Glasgow (nationality = British) in case you are wondering.86.168.10.214 (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

people are perfectly entitled to think it should say hes British there, but wikipedia policy on this matter is very flexible. He is Scottish and he is British but one things for sure he plays for Great Britain. I think the current setup is correct, the first sentence says hes a Scottish player and is Britains number 1. That seems like a reasonable solution which mentions both. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The way it is at the moment is fine. It follows how he identifies himself. Alan16 (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Place of residence and place of birth

Place of birth reads Glasgow, Scotland, but place of Residence reads London, UK. I tried to sort this out by changing it to 'Glasgow, UK and 'London, UK', but someone decided to revert my edit. Can we get this sorted please? Either change it to Glasgow, Scotland and London, England, or Glasgow, UK and London, UK. The latter would make more sense.

--92.17.35.194 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says what it says because that is what is stated in the source material (Andy Murray's website]). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

His website need not be the only source. Logically, the two should not conflict. If you'r going have the constituent country for one, you should have it for the other, and vice-versa. Normally when talking about someone's place of birth, you list their city and their country (sovereign state), which is why I propose they should both read 'UK'.

--92.17.35.194 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You would have to find another source for his birthplace and place of residence in that case. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. London, England and London, UK are obviously the same place. It's just a matter of style. Why not just say London and Glasgow? Station1 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose if nothing else it would remove one area of potential edit conflict. I'll change to what you suggest and see if it sticks. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just have London, UK and Glasgow, UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.48.228 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Career prize money

Added Abu Dhabi prize money. Only problem with that I can imagine is that it isn't going to be counted by the ATP at the end of next season, however I think it should be included. Alan16 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Tricky one this. It is earnings but not official prize money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.245.72 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be included because prize money is the total amount of money he has one due to playing tennis. Abu Dhabi, although not an official tournament, is still a tennis tournament, and the $250,000 was the prize money for the tournament. Alan16 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Performance timeline

There is a flaw in the Performance Timeline table.
The totals for ATP Tournaments Played, ATP Final Appearances and ATP Titles appear in the career win-loss section. This is inconsistent with the rest of the table and contradicts the column header itself. I feel either a new column should be added for totals, or alternatively the table structure should be partially broken for these rows. i.e merge 'career win-loss' and 'career SR' into a single cell on each row, with 'Total: ' written on each line before the total figure.
Maybe it would be better to split the table into two or more separate tables.
Alternatively I propose the totals are removed, because although useful, it can be retrieved by manually calculating the sum of the other columns and should definitely not be placed erroneously.
80.41.61.149 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed "comfortable" from 6-1, 6-1 win

Maybe if he won 6-0, 6-0, we could include that, but 6-1, 6-1, not sure if that qualifies as "comfortable" according to my sources. Do you have a source that calls his win comfortable? Thanks, --Tom 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well let's be honest, in the final of an ATP event 6-1 6-1 is, if anything, better than "comfortable". The BBC describes his victory: "Andy Murray thrashed Kazakhstan's Andrey Golubev". So you think he "thrashed" him, but it wasn't comfortable? The International Herald Tribune describes it: "The Briton dominated the match" . The Guardian says: "an emphatic 6-1, 6-1 triumph" . So maybe you can get rid of "comfortable", but a 6-1 6-1 win in a tournament FINAL, deserves something more than than just, "Murray wins" Alan16 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks better. Why patronize? Anyways, --Tom 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "emphatic" looks better than comfortable. Apologies for previous comment. Hunger got the better of me! Alan16 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Both "comfortable" and "emphatic" are POV words, and if anything "emphatic" is even more POV than "comfortable". The problem with them is that they appear to be offering an opinion in addition to the facts. The reader can read "6-1 6-1". They do not need to be told who was the superior player in the match, the score is evidence of that. So by adding an adjective such as "emphatic", it appears to be an analysis of the match rather than a description of the score. What if a fan of the opposing player was to decide they wish the score to be described "flattering", or "undeserved"? Their opinion of the score is as valid as any other editor's. This is why we need to be neutral and just report the facts and let the reader decide.

The phrases news sources use are only relevant if we are citing them. News sources are free to offer their opinion of the match, an encyclopaedia is not. And it's not a question of what the score "deserves", the purpose of an encyclopaedia is not to talk up the article's subject. It's to report the facts. --Escape Orbit 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically agree with this assesment :) Seriously, why not just leave these "modifiers" out unless there is some good reason. I recently edited some american football reviews this way since they had included alot of "color commentary". I would be happy just to report the scores but wouldn't edit war over this. Alan16, would you be agreeable to this suggestion from two uninvolved editors? (I assume EscapeOrbit is uninvolved) --Tom 20:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Alan16 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV certainly seems to be flexible enough to allow you to provide an opinion, providing there is a virtual consensus amongst published sources ("without bias, all significant views"). It's on this basis that we're allowed to say things like "X is seen one of the best writers of his era": I see this sort of thing in FAs all the time. I'm not too bothered here, but "Let the reader decide" is just an essay. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better just to leave the "comfortable" out. It doesn't add anything important to it, and it is expressing an opinion that all might not share. So if everyone's happy, i think it be best if it was kept out. Alan16 (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who wouldn't share this opinion, to be honest, but maybe it's better left out. 6-1 6-1 is the tennis equivalent of say, a baseball team winning a game 12-2, or a soccer team winning 6-0, it's as close to a complete whitewash as you ever get in a tournament final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.158.94 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree, it would probably be shared by all, I don't think it is necessary in an encyclopaedic article. Stating the facts will surely do. Alan16 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeen Cup

Why does it say Scotland in the infobox? The Aberdeen Cup was an exhibtion event and even so it no longer exists! This is a clear case of undue weight. Scotland should be removed, it makes it look like Scotland plays in the Davis Cup or something which is clearly not true. Removing it will be NPOV and will be better for the reader.78.16.143.120 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Murray is a Scottish player, but he represents Britain when playing at national events. One exhibition event, in the distant past, doesn't alter this and frankly looks silly. --Escape Orbit 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft tag

IMO I don't think it should be on this article. The term implies that there is excessive info that non-fan wouldn't want to read - I don't see it in this article. If nobody provides a reason for keeping it, I'll remove it. Alan16 13:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fansite tag and not a fancruft tag. And as explained in the tag and through the edit summary, the reason of tagging is to decrease excessive details. Sleaves 13:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fancruft tag, see here. And I don't think that the tag is necessary. I don't think there is excessive detail. Can you please point out what you would consider excessive detail. Alan16 14:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently fansite tag now redirects to fancruft. My apologies for not knowing that. As for the excessive details, I believe this refers to unnecessary details of his each and every match in many instances and also inclusion of commentary on some of the matches. I guess the better person to comment on that would be the one who added it. Sleaves 14:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea that some of the information is excessive is incorrect. In general it follows the formula: round, opponent (opp's world ranking & sometimes nationality), result. And if you read the section 2 above (I think), there was a discussion about colour commentary. It was decided not to included it, although as someone did point out, it is not forbidden under wiki guidelines. I genuinely think that the tag is unnecessary. Alan16 15:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Description of every round match is quite unnecessary. Each tournament result should be included in form of a summary. Consider this: the player is currently in his fifth professional year and at this point the article size is 80kb. Assuming that he plays for at least 7-8 years more (considering his age at this point), the article would be gargantuan in size by then. Not to mention how dreary and monotonous the whole article read would be. Sleaves 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Well I'll go through the career section now and cut it down. Alan16 15:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For an example of what happens when you have something near this level of detail on a retired professional, see the Billie Jean King article. We need these bio articles to "summarise" the career history, not describe every single tournament appearance, every single losing or winning score etc. That should be forked into a Andy Murray's playing career history or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've been summarising it, so it is similar to Roger Federer's and Rafael Nadal's. From your suggestion, I'll make a new page with possibly tables of tournaments and results et all. I should be finished in the next hour, so keep an eye out. Alan16 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had agreed to stop the unconstructive exaggerations, TRM. Tennis expert (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

undent - I have cut down a lot of the stuff in the career like I said. Don't have time to finish the page Rambling Man suggested, so someone else can try, or I might come back to it in a day or two. I'll remove the fancruft tag for now. Alan16 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Alan, you should not be deleting stuff. If you want to cut down on the size of this article, then you should be moving stuff from this article to a new article. Aside from that, what the previous experienced editors mysteriously did not mention is that when determining the length of an article, only prose is counted and tables are excluded. There is nothing inherently wrong with an 80kb article (including tables). If it gets too long in the future, then that problem can be dealt with then. Tennis expert (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Expert (...), I think your logic is as wrong as wrong can get. The idea that you can not delete anything is amateur at best and stupid at worst. I'm going to revert your edit because it was decided that having his every victory included was unnecessary and contrary to the norm (see Roger Federer#Career, and Rafael Nadal#Career). Alan16 23:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you've decided to edit war about this. See WP:BRD. Tennis expert (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't me that is causing the problem. It was discussed and concluded that a complete summary of his every match in every tournament was unnecessary and against the norm. I then removed what was decided to be unnecessary information. Why do you continue to revert? Alan16 04:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy or a guideline but just an essay. If you have genuine issues with the article, voice them here. Don't just willy-nilly revert someone's well thought out edits just because you disagree with them. Sleaves 05:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously misinformed about the reliability of WP:BRD. The Manual of Style is just a guideline, too.... Tennis expert (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Who discussed it? You and two others, right? That's far from a consensus. And aside from that, I seriously doubt that the other two were in favor of deleting the information entirely instead of moving it to a new article. Do you see the difference? Tennis expert (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deletion of information so long as it does not affect the integrity of the article. Creating forks over minuscule, trivial details and commentary is quite unnecessary. Now if it is the question of actual statistics, then it might be fine to create a separate article if its volume is inexplicably large. And I do not doubt the reliability of BRD, but I find it irresponsible to cite an essay to support your multiple reverts of what clearly ware ell-intentioned and thought-out edits. Sleaves 05:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside assistance has been requested, here. Tennis expert (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that we're aiming for a summary style article here. Removing information from here is quite correct. Creating suitable forks, which themselves ought to be written in a summary style but on a more focussed topic, is quite correct as well. Remember though that our obligation is to make these main articles correct before getting into intricate forks. People will want to know the main facts about Andy Murray, the finals he made and/or won, not that he "defeated Tomas Berdych in three sets" (in some third or fourth match) nor do our readers need "At the Indian Wells Masters event Murray made his way into the quarter finals after a 7–6(5), 6–4 victory over number four seed Nikolay Davydenko. He then proceeded to save two match points and recover from a serious fall, in which he injured his ankle and hip, and bounce back to beat German Tommy Haas to progress to the semi-finals, winning 3–6, 6–3, 7–6(8). He could not make it to the final though, hampered by the injury he sustained in the quarter final against Haas, he lost 6–2, 6–3 to Novak Djokovic. Despite the loss, he rose to a career high ranking of 12th in the world." many sentences to say all this... In any case, thanks to GFDL, when editors remove text from articles, it is never irreversible (as Tennis expert has shown us using WP:BRD) nor is the information removed lost forever. Should the information lost be considered vital in a fork then it can easily be retrieved from an article's history and then used in the new article, assuming all GFDL attribution (permalinks etc) are used. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What the readers "need" is a matter of opinion, to be decided by editor consensus and not solely by you or even you plus LeaveSleaves. And which Misplaced Pages policy says that the main article must be "correct" (whatever that means) before being "forked"? See WP:IMPERFECT. You seem to be making up policies on the fly and ignoring WP:PRESERVE. That's a recurring problem with your edits, which in my opinion are highly disruptive. Tennis expert (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I and just about everyone who has read your comments is fully aware of how you feel about my edits, your continual need to link to your evidence seems a little desperate, and quite out of context here. Please re-read the {{fansite}} tag - it encourages the removal of excessive trivia. You are aware of WP:SUMMARY and just because an editor has been bold enough to attempt to carefully address this issue on this particular article, you are once more showing a distinct level of ownership of this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are ashamed of the links to your proven and self-admitted disruptive tactics. I also am sorry that you are back to assuming bad faith at the drop of a hat and accusing editors of trying to hurt the encyclopedia. Your world tour apparently didn't help your attitude. I am not the only editor who disagrees with your tagging rampage. And my sole interest is preventing harm to tennis articles and in abiding by Misplaced Pages policy. You, on the other hand, have a personal agenda that's hard to fathom. Tennis expert (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I seem to have caused a fair amount of the problems, I suppose it is about time I jumped into the discussion. You say that your sole interest is in preventing harm to tennis articles, yet there is clearly no harm being done with the edit which started all this. It seems that you disagree with it, and you think that because you call yourself a tennis expert we should all bow down to you and your opinions. Really it seems that your sole interest is in dragging up your disruptive past with The Rambling Man. Alan16 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect on several levels. I invite you to study WP:AGF. And don't assume anything from my user name, which I've had for years. It doesn't mean anything. The harm here is ignoring WP:BRD. You made a bold edit - nothing wrong with that, assuming it were voluntary and not coerced by The Rambling Man through out-of-control tagging and discussion page pressure from LeaveSleaves. I reverted your edit. The next step is discussion to arrive at a consensus. That step was omitted, by both LeaveSleaves and yourself. My recommendation is to go back to the original state of the article and then have a constructive discussion about what should be done next. This is what WP:BRD assumes should happen. It is how consensus-building on Misplaced Pages works best. Tennis expert (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to pepper your comments with links to articles on Wiki principles - and rather than go by WP:AGF, I go by Hanlon's Razor. I made a bold edit - which was the result of a discussion between me and another user. You reverted. A brand new editor (in the sense of new-to-the-discussion) then reverted you. We have then gotten into a mud-slinging contest. You propose reverting the page to its original state then discussing. I would however suggest, that as there are 3 in favour of the edit, and 1 against at the moment, it should remain unless you can suggest a valid reason for changing back.

Also, it seems that you disagree with the edit because it goes against the order in which WP:BRD says it should be done. I don't think you've raised any decent arguments to actually do with the content of the edit. The edit that was made seems to be generally supported, and the page is now more like the Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal pages. On their pages there is no detailed list of every single little game in every single result - and they are two of the most important players in tennis today.

And your name. I wasn't assuming you were an expert, I was trying to suggest that you use that username to suggest a higher level of understanding that others. I don't mean that to sound as malicious as it does, but I can't phrase it better at the moment. Your shot. Alan16 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Hanlon's Razor is not a Misplaced Pages principle. WP:BRD is. (2) Two or three people discussing something on an article talk page for a day cannot form a consensus when there are hundreds of editors of the article. What's the rush? There is no deadline for improving articles. (3) I have no disagreement with some of your deletions. But regardless, they need to be discussed first because they are so massive. Why are you resisting the BRD sequence? Take the article back to where it was and then we can have a fruitful, reasonable discussion. (4) What's happening in other Misplaced Pages articles isn't necessarily relevant here. The other articles could be wrong. In any event, see WP:OSE. Best regards. Tennis expert (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) I never compared WP:BRD and Hanlon's Razor. (2) IMO, there was a decision reached that the article needed changed, and I did. And there is no deadline to improve articles, but if nobody wants to discuss it, I'm not going to sit there waiting until there is a majority of every editor. (3) I think that is an incorrect statement. The idea that something needs to be discussed for the sake of discussion seems ludicrous to me. And I will not revert an edit which has been constructive simply so we can follow a sequence. (4) The other articles are not wrong though. Alan16 23:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd rather be a disruptive editor. OK. I understand you now and will act accordingly. Tennis expert (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How you drew that conclusion from my above post is unbeknownst to me. If you are determined to get on yet another persons nerves then knock yourself out. I follow guidelines and have always edited with the best of intentions - if you have an actual charge to level then go ahead. Alan16 02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've clearly stated that consensus doesn't matter to you, which is one of the pillars on which this entire encyclopedia is based. Nor does the civilized and collegial editing procedure embodied in WP:BRD. You've also assumed bad faith about me, ridiculously based merely on my user name. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you were merely reacting to pressure you've received from two editors. I appear to have been wrong about that. Tennis expert (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never stated that consensus doesn't matter to me. I have stated, however, that discussion isn't needed for discussions sake. About your name, it clearly suggests a knowledge of a subject which is greater than the average knowledge, something which I think is entirely misleading - and it could therefore possibly be considered inappropriate. And I've never assumed bad faith, but I'll admit to a certain wariness when interacting with you, because you must realise that there are some clear polar-different opinions about you. Again, if you think I have disregarded the guidelines or have been uncivil towards you, then do something about it. If not, stop this. This has gone far enough off course. The edits seem to be regarded as constructive. If you have a problem with the edits, lets here it. If you have a problem with me, take it further, but not on this talk page. Alan16 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the edits being discussed and I can only see these changes as being for the better of the article. It's a succinct piece, as opposed to the rather sprawling collection of facts previously in its place, and I think that this article is now one step closer to being accessible to a general readership and being closer to summary-style. Nice work. AlonsornunezComments 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, you say I " have a personal agenda that's hard to fathom". Let me make it really plain and simple for you to fathom. I want the Tennis Wikiproject to get a good or featured article. There you go, wasn't that hard to fathom was it? I'll repeat what I have said elsewhere about Wikiprojects I'm involved in and their varying success at FA/GA... Football (6 featured topics, 50 FAs , 90 FLs , around 200 GAs), Cricket (28 FAs, 25 FLs, 59 GAs) and then Tennis (2 FAs , 4 GAs). I don't think Misplaced Pages as a whole has a grudge against the project, but it seems shocking that the project has, essentially, failed in its task to gain "recognition" for individual articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the retitle of this discussion by Tennis expert; the whole point of the retitle appears to have been to alter the focus of this discussion, but has had the unintended effect of making early posts confusing. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinions

I've come here from WP:EAR at Tennis expert's request; I hope we can sort out the issues here. I would ask that everyone involved please drop the issue of "personal agendas" or what have you. We will never resolve this content issue if we cease discussing content, and frankly I fully encourage everyone involved to ignore any comments which attempt to attribute the problem to them, somewhat per DefendEachOther.

My understanding of this issue is that Alan16 objected to the use of the {{fancruft}} template on this article, and objected to the observation that a large portion of the article (namely, the exhaustive description of Murray's performance) qualified as "excessive detail". After a brief discussion with LeaveSleaves, he went on to trim down the article by 7920 bytes, which is quite a bit to be sure.

Tennis expert reverted this, partly citing WP:SIZE#Readability issues and furthermore that Alan16 should be moving the content to a new fork article rather than simply removing it from this article. Though some revert warring occurred, it's immaterial to the content issues here.

The Rambling Man agreed with the removal, arguing that in order to establish a summary style article, it should be. This seems sensible, provided forks are created of the material being removed.

Tennis expert disagreed with this, citing WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. I don't quite understand this however, as it would seem that WP:PRESERVE would equally support The Rambling Man's statements. It specifically says, As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. Should these details all be part of a "finished" article?

To me, that seems the conclusion of the content based arguments. The vast majority of this dispute appears to be behavioral, and I invite all the editors involved to drop it until the conclusion of this content dispute. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Murray fan site

I removed the following section because of its only tangetial relationship to Andy Murray, as it's primarily about his lawyers and some fans:

Onside Law, the legal firm representing Andy Murray's official website, made an official legal request to fan site murraysworld.com to cease and desist all use of photographs and images of Andy Murray unless given explicit permission from the copyright holders in April 2008. The lawyers claimed the use of such material constituted copyright infringement; the fan site claimed the legal request was an attempt to "suppress a website that is often critical, and in some cases damaging to Murray's image due to its journalistic principles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsornunez (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

IP editor re-added it with claim that no explanation was given. I've removed it again. I am in agreement with the above. Not only is it tangential, it is trivial. It did not involve Murray, and is not a controversy of any notability at all. --Escape Orbit 22:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

World ranking

Murray is World Number 4, and will be until the 11th of May. The infobox is for current information, and Murray is currently World Number 4. Alan16 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Scoring notation

In the runner up sections, like the US Open final against Federer, the score is written as: 6-2, 7-5, 6-2. However, when he beat Hewitt at San Jose he lost the first set, and it is written: 2–6, 6–1, 7–6(3). So is his result against Federer not written: 2-6, 5-7, 2-6. It is the result from Murray's perspective so the score should not be written as if he won. Alan16 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Results in general are written from winner's perspective. This is the convention followed in all the players articles. Sleaves 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Should they be written from the winner's perspective when it is not the winner's article? I just think it looks very odd. Alan16 09:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair question, I'd take it to the project to get a wider view... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A convention, in this case winner's perspective for scores, avoids possible confusion of the reader. Thus for the reader, the scoreline at either player's article or tournament article maintains the consistency of depiction. Sleaves 11:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alan, out of curiousity, why are you so keen to keep Andy Murrays page up to date when you clearly know nothing about Tennis?

I'll take that as the compliment you obviously intended it to be. Alan16 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the changing of information before a tournament is over

There seems to be a bit of an editing war going on between those who wish to update Murray's infobox information - on having reached the Quarter final in 2009 - and those who do not. Personally I do not see a problem with updating this form of information as it happens. The data is nominal; Murray can only reach the Quarter final of the 2009 French Open ONCE. IE it isn't some form of statistical measurement which is likely to be added to incorrectly (e.g. 'tally of season goals scored by a footballer'). The information is already going to be entered into the career biography as it is, so there's little reason why one should wait till the end of a season to place it in the info box. The beauty of wikipedia is that if Murray reaches the semi-final that information may again be changed within seconds - it's the world wide web, not a season journal waiting to be published. If there is actually a set regulation, of course, or some justifiable reason other than pedantry, obviously that's fair enough. One might note in that case that the pages of numerous other less popular tennis players are going against this rule. --Tomsega (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is standard practice on Tennis articles. If you wish to discuss it, try the Tennis Project. The point of the summary box is to summarise in the past tense the player's achievement at that tournament. Adding it while he is still progressing could be misunderstood as an indication that he has been knocked out of the tournament and this is as far as he got. Waiting until his tournament is over also ensures that the information in the summary is sync with the statistical tables further down the article, which does contain statistical measurements that are likely to be added to incorrectly. --Escape Orbit 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. At least now it has been discussed there will be fewer fights between edits. Cool beans. --Tomsega (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Murray

Regarding the sentence "His elder brother Jamie is Great Britain's highest-ranked doubles player." in the second paragraph. This is currently untrue and has been for a while as Ross Hutchins is ranked higher. 62.189.20.125 (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Ed

Be bold and change it yourself, but make sure you provide a reliable source to back up you claim.--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Made the changes. As Aodhan says, be bold and all that. Alan16 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Somebody upload a better picture of Andy Murray, at least a picture of him either looking at the camera, or during a rally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.182.22 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Highest ranked

The lead says that Murray is the highest ranked British player, but doesn't specify whether this is of all time, or just currently. The main article just says that he is the only British player of "recent times" to achieve a ranking as high as 3, but doesn't say what this means. Can someone more knowledgeable than me clarify this? I would guess that he's the highest ranked player in the modern era (does this have a clear definition?), but I'm not sure. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It should really say currently in the opening sentence. I'll change that. I don't see the "recent times" bit, but it would mean that Murray is the highest ranked Brit in the open era. Alan16 _count 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Upset

Could we have clear terms (such as beat or won or lost) rather than 'upset' which suggests emotional disappointment rather than being a clear description of the result? 92.9.158.25 (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've gone through the article replacing this emotional language with more exact and neutral terms. --Escape Orbit 08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}he's reached the semi final at Wimbledon, sort it out =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousLemur (talk • contribs) 13:19, July 1, 2009

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if it is the infobox saying QF 2008, then that is because it is convention to not update until the tournament - or his participation in it - is over. Please be more specific in the future. Alan16 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now: As noted above, we generally wait to post items until tournaments are over. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag

Great Britain needs British flag next to it.

Top right, you enter ' United Kingdom but the uk comes up. This needs changing so that the flag of the country he plays for is shown.

Done, you need to put {flagicon|GBR} rather than {GBR} so the UK doesnt pop up. Although i dont know if everyones going to accept that, certain people dont like the fact he plays for Great Britain and a flag might make them angry. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is a flag really necessary?MITH 22:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Its in line with other tennis players, so i dont see why Andy should be any different. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fan site link

Regarding the inclusion of the external link to http://www.murraysworld.com/.

Consensus was in 2006 that this should be kept. However, consensus can change (as indeed can policy). External link policy suggests that the criteria for inclusion of external links should be only for if the site linked contains information that cannot be added to the article and Fan sites links are generally discouraged. What particularly makes this link a special case? The fan site may have been a good source of information three years ago, but Murray is no longer a minor player, other authoritative sources are available, and the article itself is far more complete and well cited.

I'm also concerned that the editor most keen to retain this link may have a conflict of interest. Mark7144 appears to be associated with the fan site and in three years of Misplaced Pages membership his chief concern has been maintenance of the external link to Murraysworld.

What is the opinion of everyone? --Escape Orbit 13:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I'm somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand I think that Murraysworld is a surprisingly good, substantial site - so much so that anyone interested in Andy Murray may well consider it the kind of site they would return to. I can't believe that anyone being led there by clicking on the link in Wiki would have any cause for regret. On the other hand I am concerned that there may well be an undisclosed conflict of interest here. I've read through some (not all) of the previous posts and it appears that the user Mark7144 has been instrumental in this link being maintained. An obvious question is whether this user is the same Mark who founded Murraysworld. If so, the following para from Misplaced Pages: Conflict of Interest is pertinent.

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Misplaced Pages..

Bottom line: I don't mind the link staying but I would like the COI cleared up. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I should make a point of revealing my identity. I am indeed the founder and therefore I do have a conflict of interest so I appreciate you may want to be sceptical of everything I say. However, I do hope you can still appreciate that my arguments for inclusion have not been about opinion but instead just the facts. Please consider the conclusions of our discussions years ago where other people without COI argued on the side of keeping it which later lead to an agreement between the editors involved.

If I were to give some new arguments for its relevance, integrity and worth to Misplaced Pages readers, I would point out that since we last discussed this, the website has received television coverage on BBC and Sky News in 2008 and 2009. Articles have been written about it in several newspapers, it has also been talked about on BBC radio. Only last week it was mentioned and linked to from a BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8132893.stm). The website content is written by a team of writers, not just one person and because of this the website is an official Google News publisher. It's also worth mentioning it remains strictly a non-profit website. Mark7144 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the fan site link must be deleted. Chidel (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Chidel, please state why you disagree with the consensus reached a few years back otherwise your comment is meaningless. Mark7144 (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether you believe my opinion is meaningless is irrelevant. In any event, refer to Misplaced Pages policy #11 at WP:ELNO. Chidel (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that policy and it uses the word "normally" in the policy title for a reason - there are exceptions. The editors a few years ago came to agreement to include the link because they considered this particular case an exception, I don't think that has changed. Mark7144 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally think there is particular benefit in its inclusion. I've had a brief browse and the site seems to be a particularly good source of information regarding Andy Murray and anyone on the search for extra having read the article may find this site really useful. Furthermore, if the news is included by Google news as Mark7144 suggests and I believe they have had recent exposure through the BBC, then the site could be looked on as slightly more than a fansite. It looks a lot more media based than the average fansite which merits its inclusion. Scls1984 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark7144 has a point. There is no blanket ban on fansite links. However, its generally the case that the better the article, the higher the bar for a fansite link's inclusion. Minor articles with little content can benefit from a good fansite link, but articles can outgrow this. Murraysworld is a good site, but does this article still benefit from the link? Who is actually getting most from it, Misplaced Pages or Murraysworld? I'm leaning slightly towards leaving it in, as I don't think there's a strong case for its removal at this time. But I definitely think consensus needs re-established. --Escape Orbit 09:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You do get information on the website that is not found in this article and neither the official website. For example there are comprehensive match reports, schedule, wallpapers, a profile of Kim Sears and results dating back to 1999.

For the month of June 09, Misplaced Pages counted for 0.23% of traffic to the website. Based on that and the above mentioned, I would assume its inclusion would be more beneficial to the readers than the website. I just don't like seeing something removed after years of it being there without a convincing argument. Mark7144 (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If the site is a recognized authority it can be kept. If not, then it should not be linked. Whether it is a recognized authority may be a subject to debate, but just saying EL:NO blanket prohibits it is false. 2005 (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read through that 2006 discussion. Maybe I'm completely confused by the unfocused back-and-forth there, but I don't see a consensus. It was open to vote, maybe only two persons did so, and then Mark7144 declared that there was consensus to keep the fan link over the objections of a few editors. Could someone explain how that represents consensus? As for revisiting the issue, I just looked at the Misplaced Pages articles of some top male and female tennis players and could not find any external links to fan websites. Why should this article be the exception? (Mark said that his fan site is non-commercial or non-profit or whatever. But it is sponsored by a wagering website.) Chidel (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see a consensus." I don't see how you could not consider the 2006 discussions a consensus, just because there were only a few editors there doesn't make it less of a consensus. And I was not the person who declared it a consensus, RobbieC brought the discussions together and after everyone gave their opinions, he concluded, without any disapproval from other editors, that the consensus was for the link to remain.

"Why should this article be the exception? " The reasons have already been given in this discussion. It offers valuable content that the official website and this article does not.

"sponsored by a wagering website" PaddyPowers help pay for the running of the website, absolutely no money goes towards anything else but the server costs. But even if that was not the case, it would not change anything in regards to coming to a conclusion in regards to keeping the link included.

I quote from the advertising page: "This is a non-commercial website with no interest in profit and therefore we do not accept obtrusive methods of advertising, such as animated 'skyscraper' adverts, as it would lower the quality of the website. However, we are interested in having a company act exclusively as our sponsor and therefore pay for the running costs of the website in exchange for unobtrusive exposure for the company." Mark7144 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks." Chidel (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think "the gentleman" is fighting his corner pretty well. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Chidel is mistaken over the issue of how the fansite is funded. It doesn't matter if the website is commercial or not, that's only something to take into account when considering the motivation for adding the link. It could be 100% commercial (as a great many websites are), what's important is the quality of the relevant content and value to the article. If it was 50% adverts and had nothing that couldn't be added to the article or wasn't already there, then there would be a problem.

As it is, I think Mark7144's motivation is open to question, but that the website falls, by a slight margin, inside acceptable. It would be a different story if it was of poorer quality.--Escape Orbit 19:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the future, Mark7144 should pay strict attention to WP:EL#ADV, which says, "It is true that a link from Misplaced Pages to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Misplaced Pages policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines." Chidel (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is a consensus to keep the link, and this discussion should be ended. In favor: Escape Orbit, David T Tokyo, Mark 7144 (ignoring the COI), and Scls1984. Opposed: me. Not expressing an opinion: all other regular editors of this article, but silence does, after all, equal consent. Just like 2006! Let's start adding fan website links to other tennis articles. OK? Chidel (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Other tennis article should treat a fansite link on its merits, as policy suggests. Anything else would be "pointy".--Escape Orbit 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you brought up policy, let's look at some of the criteria: 1) "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." What "unique resource" does the fansite provide that this article would not contain if it became featured? 10) "Links to ... chat or discussion forums/groups" should be avoided. The fansite sponsors a very active discussion forum. So, how does the fansite satisfy this criterion? 11) "Links to ... most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for biographies)." What makes Mark7144 a "recognized authority"? In biographies of living people "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline." There is derogatory material about Andy Murray on the fansite. That material is not sourced. So, how does the fansite satisfy this policy? Chidel (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel we're going round in circles here....however...

1) The Unique resource is that murraysworld is a comprehensive, up-to-date website that provides a wealth of information far beyond that listed on Misplaced Pages.

2) Come on. The link isn't to the chat / discussion group - it's to the main site. The criteria is not saying that Wiki should avoid linking to any sites that have forums etc. on them (if it were sites such as the BBC could never be referenced). It is saying that links from Wiki to those areas should be avoided.

3) It's not Mark7714 who's the recognised authority, it's the site itself. As previous mentioned, the site has been referenced by a number of other, well respected media. The fact that this is happening, and continuing to happen, makes murraysworld an authority.

4) Please provide details (non forum / discussion) of what you view to be derogatory material on murraysworld.

For the record, I have absolutely no connection with murraysworld, I would simply like to see Wiki users benefit from Misplaced Pages and I believe that whole process is down to correct decisions (on issues such as this) being made.

Chidel, I'm growing concerned with your contributions here - I will contact you directly on your talk page. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1) That isn't the question. What information does the fansite provide that would not be provided in this article once it has reached featured status? 3) The fansite does not write the material on that site. People do. So, who is the "recognized authority" if not Mark7714? 4) Look under the news tab of the fansite for obvious examples. Look under the quotes tab for more examples. Chidel (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Schedule of forthcoming tournaments and matches. Detailed reviews and analysis of individual matches. Both on fansite, both not appropriate for article.

4) I don't see anything of concern here. It has some analysis and opinions of his play, some of which is critical, none of which is "derogatory". That's fine, it's not an encyclopaedia article. You'll find stuff exactly like this on every factual news site on the web, including even reputable sources. It would only "contradict the spirit of WP:BLP" if it contained things like possible libel, or intrusive unsupported personal gossip. It's a fansite, are you really suggesting that it contains unfair negative stuff? --Escape Orbit 09:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not able to post on Chidel's talk page - if I do it is deleted. I'm going to duck out of this thread now - I'm happy that the original question has been answered. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not allowable on wikipedia, nor should not even be an argument because Federer does not have this and his should be an example for others' like Murray's article, which this goes against this policy rule 11 ]. I will be deleting this content right away because this is an encyclopdia not an indiscriminate collection of links!TW-RF (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have something to add to the discussion then do so and kindly do not remove content against consensus. Rule 11 does not forbid fanlinks. What is, or isn't, on the Federer article is not relevant. --Escape Orbit 22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rule 10 Expressidly forbids twitter!TW-RF (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Federer does not have a quality fan site, this is the same for most of the top players and therefore your comparison is irrelevant to this article. You need to remember MurraysWorld came a year before the official website, it has had plenty of time to mature into an authoritative source. Mark7144 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Federer does have one ], which it is not included, and has been in existence since 2003. This is two years longer than Murrayworld! I think authoritative can be misconstrude, which I am starting a discussing at WP:Tennis to either make this a no go for all tennis player or for none of them! That's where the discussion needs to be held, not on some random players talk page!TW-RF (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I said, of course Federer has a fansite, I was talking about a quality one. The fansite you linked to could barely be considered as mediocre. This is why you need to appreciate that judgements like this need to be made on a case by case basis. One rule does not fit all hence why Misplaced Pages use the word "normally" in their policy title because they know there are often exceptions. Mark7144 (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

An incomplete characterization of Misplaced Pages policy, which says, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid...." Not "normally" avoid. Avoid. Also, I'm still waiting on an explanation of how you (or anyone else who writes for your website) is a "recognized authority". Chidel (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's already been explained earlier. The mainstream media coverage and the fact it's an official Google News Publisher suggests it's a recognised authority. The media would not regularly air the views of the website if they didn't consider it an authority on the subject. But whether it is an authoritative website or not is completely irrelevant, its inclusion is based on the fact it offers valuable content over that of the article and official website. Mark7144 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop quoting partial extracts of policy and pronouncing them law. The section you have quoted is headed, as you must know, "Links normally to be avoided". If this meant "these links are forbidden" then it would say that. It doesn't. Have you any reasoning for the removal of this link that isn't wikilawyering? --Escape Orbit 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't like the fact that I'm merely asking for the policy to be applied in this case. And I'm sorry that you and Mark7144 keep getting stuck on circular reasoning, i.e., "the website is valuable, so it should be linked here". That has nothing to do with Wikipeida policy, however. The bottom line is that Mark7144's website does not satisfy the external link criteria, regardless of how "good" it is. As for the "normally" term, that is merely in a section header and not actually part of the policy. No amount of bad faith accusations of "wikilawyering" is going to change these facts. Chidel (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You've already accepted that a consensus has been made in this discussion so why are you trying to continue this debate? Mark7144 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy is being applied in this case, and at no time has my case been "the website is valuable, so it should be linked here". My position has been reached by application of policy, in the word and spirit, as I hope a review of my arguments above would indicate. It is your continual disassembling of policy to pick over details in isolation that I mean by wikilawyering. "merely in a section header", indeed. The policy still doesn't say fansite links are forbidden. Anywhere. Please, as a new editor your time would be better spent reviewing Misplaced Pages's policies and reaching an understanding of what they are there to achieve, rather than arguing with others how they should be interpreted. --Escape Orbit 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "go away" advice that I'm not going to take. I've already studied the policy we're talking about here. I'm the only one who appears to have done so. My arguments are based on that policy. You, on the other hand, talk around it and make unfriendly suggestions. The policy specifically says to "avoid" fansite links. What does that mean to you? As for Mark7144's protestations that he doesn't really care, he cared very much in 2006 because of it's affect on his website, even going so far as to protest when his website link was placed after another one. You can read that revealing discussion for yourself whenever you get time. Chidel (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Avoid" means that in the general course of events while editing you should usually choose not to add these links. I am quite comfortable and acquainted with this guideline, which is why I raised the matter in the first place. This is quite different from a unequivocal "these links are forbidden". It would be very easy for the WP:EL to say this, and yet it doesn't. I can only surmise it doesn't say this because the guideline specifically does not intend to ban fansite links, wishing the matter to be judged on each link's merits and agreed by the overriding policy of Consensus. Just explain for you; Consensus is policy, while External Links is, strictly speaking, a style guideline. Guidelines are, of course, important, but not as central as a policy that forms part of the five pillars.

As for Mark7144's COI, I am well aware of it. Again that is why I raised the matter.

I know these policies and guidelines can seem complicated and even conflicting to a new editor. I certainly found this the case. The lead on this page explains it best, and might help you better understand what is being argued here. --Escape Orbit 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"As for Mark7144's protestations that he doesn't really care" Please refrain from making false accusations about me. Of course I care and I have never said otherwise.

This debate finished with a consensus and yet you appear to be relentlessly wikilawyering and coming up with irrelevant arguments in an attempt to add weight to your stance against the consensus reached in this discussion. To my eyes, it appears there is a possibility you have some sort of a vendetta against the website in question, please can you let us know whether you have a COI on this matter? Mark7144 (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

←Chidel (22:32): "...'the website is valuable, so it should be linked here'. That has nothing to do with Wikipeida policy, however. The bottom line is that Mark7144's website does not satisfy the external link criteria, regardless of how "good" it is. As for the "normally" term, that is merely in a section header and not actually part of the policy. No amount of bad faith accusations of "wikilawyering" is going to change these facts."(square bracket insertions and emphasis added)
Wikilawyering is the attempt to defeat principles by the application of technical rules. The underlined phrases above appear to be wikilawyering. Also WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines can overridden by consensus, policy can't except by broad consensus to a WP:IAR.

Chidel appears to be new editor who in good faith misunderstands wikilawyering. Wikilawyering is difficult to understand for most new, and many experienced editors. Many new editors are high school students whose lives are rigidly controlled by the real life version of wikilawyering ('the rules are the rules'), and they are culture-shocked by the difference at Misplaced Pages ('the rules are not always the rules').
Since Chidel has agreed that there is a consensus to keep the link, and has refused attempts to discuss on his talk page his apparent misunderstandings of WP culture, his remaining complaints here can be reasonably ignored. Milo 22:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Twitter Link

I've reinstated the Twitter link. Twitter links directly to Artist / Stars / Athletes etc,. own pages are allowed and you will find many such links already within Misplaced Pages (Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Stephen Fry, Ian Poulter etc.).

By way of clarification - Rule 10 does NOT expressly forbid all Twitter links. All 18 rules are prefaced with the caveat: Links normally to be avoided. Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject — and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

As it is "an official page of the Artist's subject", and it does not contravene any restrictions on linking, Andy Murray's Twitter feed is perfectly acceptable within existing Wiki rules. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an official site link. A second (or third or fourth) official link has to add encyclopedic value, and his seldom used twitter link does not. 2005 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC: How should Twitter and Fan Sites external links be handled for Celebrity Pages?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There seems to be some confusion regarding the usage of links to external sites, such as Twitter feeds and dedicated fan sites for celebrities, in this case, professional tennis players. SpikeJones (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Background: as seen in the discussion above, there may be a WP:COI with one editor insisting on adding their fan site to WP. Additional discussion has been held at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tennis as well. SpikeJones (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's currently a COI, not a WP:COI, because he declared it and got the required consensus. Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have already explained how Twitter links to the Subjects own Twitter feed are perfectly acceptable within current Wiki rules. Exactly what are you still confused about? David T Tokyo (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

You misunderstand the guideline. If some were to have a dozen official Myspace/Twitter/facebook pages they would not all be linked. The main oficial site is linked. If the Twitter feed offered some extensive information not available in the article, or the official site, it could be linked. However this one does not. 2005 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The key is usefulness; WP:ELNO#10 needs to be updated to reflect this. How useful is the twitter feed? Twitter by a celebrity? Sounds useful. Twitter about a celebrity? Probably not, but... Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding fansites, one of the main issues is that they frequently display copyright content without the rights holder's permission. If the fansite in question is displaying unlicensed multimedia content taken from copyright sources, it is likely running afoul of WP:ELNEVER. --Muchness (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Great point. The Murraysworld fansite has tons of youtube video links that, when clicked, actually play on the fansite itself. Linking to the site seems like a clear violation of WP:ELNEVER to me! Chidel (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No that is not a violation. Those videos are located on Youtube. 2005 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And your opinion is based on what? Even if you have correctly described policy, there is still a big problem. The videos actually play on the Murraysworld fansite. The fansite does not contain mere links to the youtube website. Chidel (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Youtube links play on millions of websites. They are still Youtube links. 2005 (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube's terms of service explicitly permit this use. There is no copyright violation here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Fansites are not encyclopedic, and shouldn't be linked from articles per WP:IAR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"WP:IAR"? Is that a typo? Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Deacon: "Fansites are not encyclopedic". This is a woefully inaccurate generalisation, one that suggests you haven't even bothered to look at the site under review before commenting here. Murraysworld contains great deal of "encyclopedic" content - far more so than the subjects own site and the ATP site. If you disagree please prove your point by providing a link to an alternative Andy Murray site that contains a greater depth of information.

Chidel: "Great point. The Murraysworld fansite has tons of youtube video links that, when clicked, actually play on the fansite itself. Linking to the site seems like a clear violation of WP:ELNEVER to me!". I'm assuming that you have actually read WP:ELNEVER - in which case please provide us with the proof that clearly shows that these videos are being illegally broadcasted. If you can't, as usual you've gone a step too far in your enthusiasm to make sure that a link to murrayworld is avoided.

Mark7144: WP:ELNEVER is a concern. Can you provide assurances about the content? David T Tokyo (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The website does not breach copyright law. I think Chidel's relentless mission to remove this link is starting to look suspicious and therefore I ask him for a second time, does he have a COI on this matter? Mark7144 (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned Chidel may be inadvertently breeching a behavioural guideline. Chidel, are you sure there's not something you should have disclosed in these discussions? Or are you waiting for someone else to say it? --Escape Orbit 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Tokyo, thanks for your opinion, but I don't hold any weight to it. I'd very much like fan pages to be banned as a rule of thumb. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a combo of myspace and hello magazine.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your position is so extreme that I'll tentatively have to dismiss it as Misplaced Pages Fiction Conflict partisanship. Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr Deacon, thank you also for your opinion which I will equally take with a grain of salt. I personally believe that Wiki is incapable of being fully encyclopedic and has no alternative but to link to other sites to provide additional information. Obviously such sites need to be of a significantly higher quality than "a combo of myspace and hello magazine" - on that we are agreed. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fansites can be encyclopedic. Asserting they can never be is fantasically illogical. If Martin Scorcese establishes an indepth fansite for Alfred Hitchcock, that would likely be an extremely high quality external link. "Fansites" just means sites set up by individuals or groups that are fans of some thing. If they have authority, then they can be great links, sometimes outstanding ones like the fictious Scorcese example. If they are anonymous and full of stolen junk, then they are not good links. One fansite, Find A Grave, has thousands of links, and while some of those links may not be very good, it is plainly obvious that a very large number of Misplaced Pages editors recoginize that fansites should sometimes be linked. 2005 (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well explained. I didn't know Find A Grave was a fansite, but if so, that suggests that banning of all "fansites" is illogical. Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking up "illogical" in a dictionary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

M-W.com "illogical": "2  : devoid of logic : senseless <illogical policies>". Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the deacon on this matter! Mark the creator is not really an authority rather just a creator of a fansite with not affiliation to a reputable source like Tennis magazine, The Tennis Channel, or the Telegraph!TW-RF (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

External links are not required to be reliable sources (or its weasely stand in "reputable sources"). Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

TW-RF: Not that it matters but becoming an authority for a niche is not particularly hard to do if you consider its been around longer than any other website on the subject. Also you do not need inside sources to be considered an authority. The fact mainstream media (BBC, Sky) regularly air the views of the website on the subject is a reasonable argument for considering it an authority. Mark7144 (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of like http://www.goroger.com is an authority on Roger Federer? NOT! I think just because you are arround for a while and some station mentions you if that is even true at some point means your an authority! This is no more an authority than a random blog about a sportsperson, which means it is subjected to this criteria of a living person Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#News_organizations and Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources and Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources, which go look at self publishing. This is the only article on wikipedia that has a fansite link that I have ever saw, which clealy should be viewed as being out of the norm! Murraysworld violates pretty much all of these rules and criteria!TW-RF (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"goroger.com is an authority on Roger Federer?" You misunderstood my post. I wasn't using its age as an argument, I was saying that being around that long means its not particularly difficult to become an authority if you do things right. My argument for it being an authority was it's *regular* media coverage, not age. "if that is even true" You can search on YouTube to see some examples of the media coverage if you are sceptical.

"clealy should be viewed as being out of the norm" Of course it's out of the norm, you should read the discussion above this one, it goes into details as to why it's acceptable to make an exception here. The policy on fan site linking specifically caters for "out of the norm" circumstances so you can't use that as an argument for removing the link. Let's try not to repeat an entire debate that happened a couple of days ago that ended up in consensus for keeping the link. Mark7144 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I did my research, and yes you did appear on BBC twice and SkyNews Once, but this must conform to the BLP (Biography of a Living Person) with respect to the article, which means it is a group blog. This is all!

Misplaced Pages Guidelines - Verbatim TW-RF (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TW-RF has quoted WP:BLP in which "sources" are discussed. Sources are used for numbered references in the article body. This RfC concerns External links. External links are not sources or references.

However, I scanned the article body for use of Murraysworld.com other than in the External links section, and there was such a use in section "Playing style". I've commented it out to avoid confusing this discussion of external links.

I have some questions for User:TW-RF (talk) and User:Chidel (talk). TW-RF made his first edit 23 June 2009, and immediately built two quite sophisticated sandboxes (contribs at bottom). Chidel made his first edit 20 June 2009. He immediately created an AfD (contribs at bottom). My question to both is, how did you get such remarkably precocious knowledge of Misplaced Pages as new users? Milo 05:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TW-RF, media coverage has only really started in the last 2 years. 2x on Sky News, 2x BBC News 5x BBC Radio, 1x The Guardian, 1x Scotsman but all of this in the last 2 years so in context, it can be considered "regular".

Milo, I completely share your suspicions, it's no secret that the website has its enemies, many from the official website. From recent discussions I can't help but jump to the conclusion we have at least Chidel as a COI. He has ignored this question three times. Straight after he stops posting, we now have a new editor with the same passion for removing the link but this time called TW-RF. Mark7144 (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Chidel wasn't so new:

14 July 2009 (Block log); 04:28 . . YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) blocked Chidel (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock on open proxies)

Milo 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hellow Milo and Mark7144, I am not Chidel, which I have disagreed with chidel on occassions, which you all can go to WP:Tennis to see that, and I am NOT chidel. I noticed sandboxes when making edits from my IP account and that alerted me to them, when I formed the account TW-RF. Now onto the validity of fansite, which an Admin Deacon said it needs to be removed from this page and all other pages on wikipedia, and I tend to trust the admins. If he or she said it was fine, I would have no problem, which if I keep seeing it up, I will have more admins weight into this discussion. I know Mark Sanger known as user Mark7144 is the one advocating for the inclusion, but this needs to be the subject of greater debate on behalf of all wikipedia not just on this page!TW-RF (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"Admin Deacon said" Admins aren't content bosses. They are more like plain clothes detectives when called to investigate bad behavior. The Deacon was just expressing his opinion here as one editor, same as the rest of us. Because his opinion is extremist, it's less likely to be taken seriously. Milo 02:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"debate on behalf of all wikipedia" Not at all, each link needs to be judged on its own merits. The policy intentionally makes it clear that there are exceptions and if you look at the thread above this, you can read the debate which lead to the consensus that the link should stay. I fear we are going to repeat ourselves, it's not necessary, this has all been discussed a few days ago. Mark7144 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This article page is not the place to stage a debate on external link guidelines. If you want to do that use the guideline talk page. --Escape Orbit 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're all on the same page here — because there seems to be an inexplicable amount of confusion — here's what WP:ELNO #10 and #11 actually say:

• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.
• Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for biographies).

The footnote says "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for biographies)."

Contrary to David Tokyo's assertion on 11 July, annd in clear support of Deacon's point, the default rule is — and has been for a long time — "no Twitter and no fansites." There are exceptions embodied in the rule, but the basic rule is "no". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. OK - one more time.

If the default is no "Twitter" why:

1) did it take me less than two minutes to find the Twitter links I was looking for on Misplaced Pages. I searched for a few specific links to prove my point (above, at the start) and I'm pleased to say that I found everything I searched for. Not one link was missing. And yet you say the default is no Twitter. Not from where I'm standing it isn't...

2) does the opening paragraph of WP:ELNO - the condition to which every rule in WP:ELNO is subject - does it specifically say that links to an official page of the article's subject are an exception to the list of "rules normally to be avoided". And why, when it says this, does it do so in bold type ?. Other than the title, this is the only part of WP:ELNO to be given additional emphasis. And before you say that Twitter isn't covered by that condition - it absolutely does not say that either. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:EL - "all external links must be justifiable." Twitter and fansites are so very very seldom justifiable the community has specifically named them as "links to be avoided". The fact that other wikipedia pages do not currently live up to our best standards is not a valid reason to allow other pages to sink in quality. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your position is that consensus is descriptive, not prescriptive. So if many other pages have Twitter links, perhaps they have not sunk in quality as defined by the changed consensus. Put another way, if many pages have chosen to have Twitter links, the WP:EL guide should be changed to reflect that it is now ok to do so.

By the way, I think too frequently unused Twitters should be avoided, but I would consense to Twitter links that have a stated schedule. Milo 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• What is the question? Could someone please attempt to state the dispute in a concise manner? Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Murray threat hits fan, The Guardian, 7 May 2008.
2. Murray net verbals to increase, The Scotsman, 30 June 2008.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• High-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class tennis articles
• Mid-importance tennis articles
• WikiProject Tennis articles
• B-Class Scotland articles
• High-importance Scotland articles
• All WikiProject Scotland pages
• B-Class United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment