Talk:Andy Murray

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 Wikipedia principle. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 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" [1]. The Guardian says: "an emphatic 6-1, 6-1 triumph" [2]. 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^talk 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^talk 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. ^LeaveSleaves 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 ^talk 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. ^LeaveSleaves 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 ^talk 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. ^LeaveSleaves 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Well I'll go through the career section now and cut it down. Alan16 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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. ^LeaveSleaves 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. ^LeaveSleaves 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Hanlon's Razor is not a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 [including retired and current players], 90 FLs [including national and third division teams], around 200 GAs), Cricket (28 FAs, 25 FLs, 59 GAs) and then Tennis (2 FAs [both video games], 4 GAs). I don't think Wikipedia 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/^2¢/_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/^2¢/_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 ^(Talk) 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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. ^LeaveSleaves 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 ^talk 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. ^LeaveSleaves 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 ^(Talk) 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 ^talk 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 ^talk_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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia membership his chief concern has been maintenance of the external link to Murraysworld.

What is the opinion of everyone? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia..

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

— Scls1984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Teahot (talk) 11:59, 26 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, Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 [[3]]. 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 ^(Talk) 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 [[4]], 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia'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 ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 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 [the] Wikipe[d]ida [guideline] 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 [guideline] 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 Wikipedia ('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)

I beleive the link should be kept as it leads to what is a valuble resource for any fan of Murray who wants to learn more about him, and to meet fellow fans. Yes , I think the link should be kept. Tommy23 (talk) 14:08, 21 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 Wikipedia (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?

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 Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources and Wikipedia: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!

“ Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources ”

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

I believe he is none other than Tennis expert. He requested his original account to be wiped clean, "to disappear" in wiki terms, so we can't see his history. That's fine as long as you leave wiki not to return. It is not fine, and against policy, if you then return and start hammering the same people you picked on before under another name. He can quote their history since it's there for everyone to see, but he then has a clean slate as if he is a virgin wikipedian. I don't know this for a fact but the dates work out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 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 ^(Talk) 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Outside responses

Inserted by Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC): This RfC is titled:

---

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

---

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),[2] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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)

I for one will continue to abide by the premise that the lowest crappy denominator will not dictate the condition of encyclopedic content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I share many of your feelings. Were it my say alone, some things would be of greater quality.

However, it sounds like you may intend to defy the dictate of consensus. If so, I respectfully request that that you depart participation at Wikipedia, and join some appropriately elitist-chartered project. Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"consensus" at a single article or project does not and cannot overide consensus of the project as a whole as reflected in the policy and guideline pages. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

After reading the full thread above, the specific justification for inclusion of this fansite appears to be that the fansite contains " Schedule of forthcoming tournaments and matches. Detailed reviews and analysis of individual matches" The upcoming schedules does not convince me that the site is justifiable - that is fan content not remotely encyclopedic. The detailed reviews and analysis of the matches would potentially be justification, but this fansite is not a unique resource in providing such analysis - such coverage is provided in hundreds of other resources. I dont see justification. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 19 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)

The question is "Should this article contain (either or both of) these two links

• Murray's Official Twitter
• Fan site

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, this is a warning that if you continue with falsely misleading behavior, in this case falsely misstating the question of this RfC – done for whatever reason – you will face some kind of WP process, such as RfC/U or ANI.

So far I haven't looked into it, since I want to focus on content, but I've gotten just a hint at WT:EL that some number of other editors would testify against you for their own reasons. Be wise and keep me disinterested with your future good behavior. Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Chromenano (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Chromenano, you've been had.

WhatamIdoing has falsely misstated the question of this RfC: At the top it clearly reads:

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

Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't this the question is about that particular fan site but rather a more general view on fan sites. If you want to talk about that particular fan site there was already a debate a few days ago and a consensus was reached to keep it included. Therefore any issues with that specific link should be expressed in the thread above. Mark7144 (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Neither link based on WP:EL. Personally, I would support changing WP:EL to allow official Twitter feeds, but that is a discussion for there, not here. Dlabtot (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot, you've been had too. See the real question above.

Mark7144 is correct that the Fan site has been consensed in a section above, and done so in a way under WP:EL that is confusing but available. The regular editors at WT:EL have refused to make it less confusing, which is violation of WP:NOT#BUROCRACY policy. Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer to "How should Twitter and Fan Sites external links be handled for Celebrity Pages?" is "As outlined at WP:EL." That's why I asked for clarification about what constitutes the actual dispute at this page. Dlabtot (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I just think they are Mark, Milo, and Tokyo are making exceptions for this one page, and why is the goroger.net not included on his page? Hmm, I wonder why because exactly its not allow, and a fansite no matter how long active cannot be recognize as an authority! I would prefer having a wikipedia and tennis players consensus, which has been for a long time no fansites or twitters. This is an encyclopedia not an indiscriminate collection of links to a fansites or twitter even though official. I prefer content and links from very reputable sources, which it is not murraysworld or even goroger for that matter. I have all the respect for the creator of this fansite Mark Sanger, but the inclusion of this as a authority on a narrowly defined basis with utter obfuscation to the entire community I think and know is wrong. Good Website but not for wikipedia consumption or linkage. I just wish people could look at things before they make unique rules for one page on wikipedia. Sorry for my rant, but I just believe in the community over narrow consenus, which means long lasting consensus and support for something not just fleeting approval. Have a nice day!TW-RF (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think has been made repeatedly clear to you that what is been followed on this page is in accordance with policy and guidelines, which have a degree of flexibility on this matter. Your attempts to establish a Tennis Project guideline on the matter is commendable, but at this moment this article is not an "exception" as no such guideline exists. It's implementation of External Links is therefore just as valid as any other tennis article. In the meantime, if you wish to establish a guideline then I suggest the proper place to do this is on the Tennis Project pages, not here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• It would appear that users here are mistakenly trying to force a discussion of general policy, in an inappropriate forum. This talk page should be devoted to discussion of the article Andy Murray. The title of this RfC indicates a matter of general policy, which, in this case, would be appropriate for discussion on Wikipedia Talk:EL. That discussion is ongoing, so why are you discussing it here? Nothing you say or do here is going to change WP consensus on this or any other subject. Eaglizard (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should this article contain as external links, this Twitter feed and/or this fansite?

Should this article contain as external links, this Twitter feed and/or this fansite? Twitter feed fansite Dlabtot (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

A previous section Talk:Andy Murray#Fan site link ended in local consensus for the fansite (July 7-13, 2009). Note the fansite was first consensed in 2006. This RfC includes an appeal to overturn local consensus for the fansite with a wider consensus. Milo 17:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

---

• no to both. In the discussions above have not seen a valid justification for including either one. The informative content in the fansite is not unique and is readily available through general searches. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should readers come to an encyclopedia and read the article, but then be forced to do a general search to get more information? Milo 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1) we are not a link farm; 2) there has been no justficiation why this particular site out of the dozens of others that can provide the same upcoming schedules and detailed analysis of previous games. WP:NPOV / WP:COI -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you can't answer my question because "readily available through general searches" is not a valid reason to oppose. Milo 18:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ELNO #1: "does not provide a unique resource". If the content is "readily available through general searches" from multiple sites it is clearly not unique.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• no to both, per WP:EL. Dlabtot (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why has a third thread now been created on this issue within a couple of weeks of each other? Arguments were given, consensus was reached. If you do not agree with the arguments then rebut them in the appropriate thread. Mark7144 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the most recent one was "closed" as dealing with the Guideline itself and not these particular links before the consensus regarding these particular links was decided. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the allowed wider consensus concept. RfC is a way of doing that. The previous RfC was titled on a different subject. Milo 18:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Mark7144 (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• No to both. I think the fansite is pretty easily covered by WP:EL, and I don't know what encyclopedic information the twitter link includes. We also tend not to link to rapidly changing sites, which I believe the twitter link would fall under. ThemFromSpace 18:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong "No" to the Twitter site, which features such gems as "hey. been a while since i sent a tweet. not much happening..." I could go either way with the "fansite", which looks like it is mostly news-type articles with a moderately high standard for writing quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• No to Twitter. If the reader wishes to read this it can be found from official website, so I would regard it as merely an extension of this site. No need to link to both. No strong opinion on Murrayworld. I previously said it could stay as had no particular problem with it. Better than most fansites, but still is a fansite. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yes to both for the simple reason that providing the links is a useful and helpful service that that fans and supporters of Andy Murray will appreciate - and I say that as a supporter of Andy Murray. . Not including the links is as good as telling me that you don't want me to see or visit these sites. Having viewed both sites you could not be more wrong - I have bookmarked murraysworld and receive Andy Murray twitter content. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"useful and helpful" are not valid reasons for WP:EL, in fact, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." What is the policy based justification? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heaven forbid that Wikipedia should stoop so low as to provide information that is considered to be both useful and helpful. The most depressing aspect of this debate has been the lack of attention being paid to what users might want. Instead we appear to have become entangled in multiple interpretations of the rules and subjected to opinions on these sites by people who, as far as I can see, would never, ever be visiting them. However, if that is how Wiki policy is concluded (and, to be fair it would be difficult to do it any other way), so be it. I'll see your WP:EL and raise you a WP:ELYES David T Tokyo (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We cannot be everything to everyone and so we have guidelines to keep us focused upon being an encyclopedia containing encyclopedic content. Which part of WP:YES do you see applying to this link in this article, because I see none. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We cannot be everything to everyone. I'd be grateful if you could show me where that is written on WP:NOT. A better line would have been If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. As for WP:ELYES, Twitter meets the criteria for "a link to the subjects official site" and murraysworld for "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ...amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics...). David T Tokyo (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"We cannot be everything to everyone. I'd be grateful if you could show me where that is written on WP:NOT." - Well, if you really cant actually tell, every word of the page is dedicated to the premise that we cannot be everything to everyone and we focus on what makes us an encyclopedia. And while the site in question does contain "professional athlete statistics", it is not "a unique resource" for those stats. And the Twitter is specifically listed as a link we do not link. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes to the fan site. Arguments given in thread above for why it is the exception. Yes to Twitter but certainly not a strong yes. Mark7144 (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2009. (UTC)
• No it is not wikipedia standard practice and it is just fluff that is unencyclopedic.TW-RF (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• No to the Twitter link IF a twitter link is the subject's ONLY official online resource, then I would support the inclusion of a twitter link as a valid EL. In this particular case, as the subject appears to have multiple "official" outlets, linking solely to the primary one and leaving out the twitter/myspace/facebook/etc links seems to me to be the most appropriate action as the primary site can act as the conduit to the others. SpikeJones (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• No to the fan site. If the site was a valid resource, it would be listed as a primary, original reference to material covered in the article. If it cannot offer any original, meaningful, can't-find-it-anywhere-else information worthy of being included inline with the article text, then the site should not be included. Sites that don't qualify on that originality is exactly what DMOZ is for.SpikeJones (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It offers valuable content that cannot be found in this article or the other linked website: Schedule, wallpapers, a profile of Kim Sears and results dating back to 1999. This is all information the typical reader would want to know about which cannot be found anywhere else. Also, it was listed as a reference to a part of this article but that was removed recently to help prevent confusion over what we are debating about here. Mark7144 (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of websites offer schedules and wallpapers. Kim Sears is not the subject of this page, so an interview with her is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion (apply this thought to the next point, however). If this information, as you say, cannot be found anywhere else, then those items should be included as inline references to the appropriate sections of this article... thereby giving that site the appropriate links as necessary for people looking for that information on WP. Frankly, WP users are not searching for wallpaper links here. A small aside: do we need to address the WP:COI conversation that was mentioned earlier, regarding your involvement with the site in question and insistance of keeping it linked here, as part of this discussion? SpikeJones (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly NOT plenty of websites offering the examples of Murray related content I just gave but even if that wasn't the case, it's not relevant - we are talking about providing information that cannot be found in this article and the official website. Kim Sears is completely relevant as the majority of Murray fans will automatically be interested in the love of his life. If she wasn't relevant then the recent Kim Sears article wouldn't have been merged into this one. Regarding my COI, it's been discussed already and it does not mean I cannot give my arguments on this subject. Mark7144 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You didnt' read my "apply this to the next point" comment. If Kim is relevant to the article, then her information would be appropriately cited. If you have an exclusive interview with her on your website that can be included inline as a reference to her section, then that would qualify as content that cannot be found anywhere else (with your site as the original source for that content) AND adds citable information to the WP article with your site as the reference. In this example, there would be no need to include your site as an additional EL beyond the cited reference. It is always preferable to include information in the WP article rather than merely link off to random external sites. To me, you are arguing for inclusion of your website under EL while nobody is questioning its use as a citable resource in certain cases. If I was trying to force any of my websites to be listed in WP, the latter would be preferable from a perceived quality viewpoint. You may be better off presenting your case similar to how The Lord of the Rings film trilogy lists TheOneRing.net. The question you'll have to answer in that case is whether your site has the same interaction with Murray as TOR had with Jackson and company... or if it's just a fan site. SpikeJones (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about external links, not references, different rules apply. Just because I cannot prove to you that all the information in the profile of Kim Sears is true, doesn't mean it doesn't count as content that is not on this article or the websites it links to. And by the way, I'm not arguing for the website's inclusion, I'm arguing for it not to be removed after it has been on this Wikipedia article since 2006 based on local consensus. Unfortunately someone has wrongly removed the link without waiting for the result of this RfC but as I have COI, I've chosen to refrain from reverting the edits as ideally another editor should do that. Mark7144 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"not arguing for the inclusion" = "arguing for it not to be removed" is splitting hairs to me. To answer the post that was added then removed - my point about TheOneRing is relevant as that fan site became the defacto information site for LotR. Is the site we're talking about the defacto information site beyond Murray's own official site? Or just a fan site no different from any other well-researched fan site out there? SpikeJones (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to the fansite. I find it astounding that people actually spend time trying to get a fansite link removed from a Wikipedia article, as though it was taking up valuable space. The argument against including the link is blatant hypocrisy. TheRedPenOfDoom said: "The informative content in the fansite is not unique and is readily available through general searches." Replace "the fansite" with "Wikipedia" and you have just described this very site. Wikipeda offers no unique content. Information is retrieved from outside sources.

MurraysWorld has plenty to offer, including (hardly an exhaustive list) objective reporting; a wealth of information on Andy Murray and those surrounding him (which would require countless independent searches); and a unique spreadsheet, that allows users to track Andy's ranking and calculate the various possible outcomes from tournament to tournament by simply filling in a single spreadsheet cell. People who visit Murray's Wikipedia page obviously have some sort of interest in the man. I don't think I'm going out on a limb by suggesting that some might want to take that interest further by checking out a fansite. Clydey (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia is not an external source, that would be a discussion of [See Also] (and links to Wikipedia as sources are NOT allowed).-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You insist that the fansite has nothing to offer as a link, since it has no original content (it actually does have original content). Wikipedia has no original content. Why bother with Wikipedia if everything can be found via a search engine? The reason is that it's convenient to have relevant information about things, individuals, etc. together in one place. The same applies to MurraysWorld. It has lots of information about the man, his family, his career, all gathered in one place. Who cares if most of the information can be found via a search engine? You would be doing independent searches all week if you wanted to find the information on your own, with no guarantee of finding all of it. It is a matter of convenience, just like Wikipedia. People visit Andy Murray's Wikipedia page for information. MurraysWorld is another source of information. Clydey (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes per what Clydey said. MurraysWorld is, in essence, no different from Wikipedia. Alan16 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes to the fansite. As it is a valuble resource for any fan of Murray and it offers unique content on Murray.Tommy23 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes to both as both contain valuable further information for anyone looking to increase their knowledge of Andy Murray Scls1984 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.36.164 (talk)

Welcome and thank you for your first contribution to Wikipedia! And what a very interesting first edit it is! [5] -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

— Scls1984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and — 84.67.36.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Teahot (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe and invariably No with regard to an official Twitter feed, the same debate has occurred on Talk:Stephen Fry#RfC: Is Stephen Fry's twitter link an exception to WP:ELNO and a further discussion on wt:External_links/Archive_24#Twitter_proposal. If the twitter feed is official then yes it can be included but should be avoided if a main official site already links to it. Fansites are invariably against wp:ELNO point 11 unless, say, there is a notable official interview published there and not available in a more reliable source.—Teahot (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Fansites are invariably against..." Not invariably, just usually. Interestingly, there seems to be no definition of "fansite" that will distinguish it from a "factsite" described as follows:

WT:WikiProject Tennis#Links to fansites: "For me, a key part of the problem here is the use of the word "fansite". Typically, fansites are poorly designed and constructed, woefully short on content, low on facts and high on opinion. I'm sure we've all seen those kind of sites and clicked away immediately. However, there is another kind of site, one that I believe is better described as a "factsite". These sites take a subject and attempt to be authoritative, objective, comprehensive and professional. In this respect they are poles apart from regular fansites." David T Tokyo 06:29, 11 July 2009

Have you actually looked at MurraysWorld.com? Milo 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at MurraysWorld.com, thank you for asking. It is a fansite. The "about" page makes it clear that there is no official affiliation. I did not use word "factsite" but I did use the words "reliable source". To avoid doubt, I shall withdraw the word "invariably" and until someone can justify that this site is a reliable source my vote is No.

I would like to point out however that including a link to Andy Murray at Curlie is actually encouraged by ELMAYBE and this ODP listing already includes a link to the fansite. This would seem like a reasonable compromise.—Teahot (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering your quoted text a second time, it seems overly circular to quote User:David T Tokyo to help support your point (by defining a non-existent word in order to get around "reliable sources") when he is contributing to this very same talk page.—Teahot (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes to both. What is the problem linking to fansites/social networking site? The BBC and most other news sites provide links to both and they provide a valuable source of facts/figures and 'follow-up' communities. The site in question is 'well' established (well before the official fansite and was a unique source of information for fans and journalists alike) and is therefore a "factsite" first and foremost.Gogsynetcord (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your first edit!-- The Red Pen of Doom</vspan> 23:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

— Gogsynetcord (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Teahot (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I smell socks. ThemFromSpace 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The above vote has now been confirmed as sockpuppet block evasion and should be ignored, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chidel/Archive for details.—Teahot (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Confirmed? No, it was presumed. As of right now no checkuser is shown (diff). Milo 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've obviously got no idea how the sock puppet thing works... Why would one user argue strongly against including the links only to resurface in different guise as someone arguing for them? David T Tokyo (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• There might be a couple of reasons - a "Good hand/ Bad hand", "opposing" but with weak and silly arguments for the other side to squash down, setting up the account with protection for future socking accusations "How can I be a sock of X when I argued against him at Y article and Z AfD". People get devious. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• He also could have been persuaded to change his mind. Not every editor is a rigid high school student or deletionist ideologue. In any case, a checkuser should be performed to reduce doubt, if possible. Milo 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• This is indeed far from confirmed, the user has been blocked based on no evidence at all, just an assumption. I would assume the case will be re-opened now there are 3 users looking for it to be properly investigated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chidel/Archive Mark7144 (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The timing and nature of the edits in question are highly suspect, see the comments at the link above and the nature of these things at WP:SPA guidance. If you are truly concerned about losing future contributions from Gogsynetcord (talk · contribs) I suggest you add a note on their talk page with advice on how to appeal against their block or reclaim the unused Netcord (talk · contribs) account rather than disrupting this RFC further.—Teahot (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack against Mark7144. WP:DE is a serious charge that requires serious evidence. A charge made without such evidence is a violation of WP:NPA. Milo 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I made no personal attack. Please take the word "disrupting" in context. I was not implying deliberate "disruptive editing" but referring to the discussion of the RFC staying on-topic rather than a discussion about a suspected sockpuppet.—Teahot (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, without serious evidence you can't write: "I suggest you add a note ... rather than disrupting this RFC further." "Disrupting" now means WP:DE, even if it didn't when you started editing WP. If WP:DE wasn't what you meant, prove your good faith by rewriting the sentence. Since we've discussed it, feel free to delete and replace rather than just striking. Milo 00:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You persist in picking out a word on a technicality rather than accepting common-sense English (i.e. wikilawyering). Asking an editor to prove good faith just demonstrates that you are assuming bad faith. The use of the word "disrupting" in a sentence is not reserved to always mean DE. The user you claim suffered a personal attack has made no such claim against me. AGF takes precedence here and I have no intention of retrospectively re-writing this RFC dialogue for out of context technicalities of wording. Unless Mark7144 complains to me directly I now consider this matter closed. Go away and do something constructive.—Teahot (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"always mean wp:DE" At WP, it now does.

You made a mistake and now you are trying to justify it. I suggest you take up my generous offer to support a delete-replace edit to reduce your search engine exposure. Write another PA and it could go hard for you, having failed to show contrition here.

Another WP-context word you misunderstand is "Wikilawyering": the attempt to defeat principles by the application of technical rules. What I'm doing is "Use of authentic legal skills by ... other persons trained and skilled in ... advocacy is welcome ... in a variety of contexts."[6] Milo 01:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

His account has now been unblocked, he is no longer considered a sock puppet. Mark7144 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (SPA) The use of sockpuppet accounts on this talk page makes the appearance of votes comments from any single purpose account a concern for bias (either way) of this RFC. This should be taken into account when reaching any decision as to consensus.—Teahot (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree the vote should be taken lightly. Mark7144 (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia (theoretically) doesnt work by "voting" anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's gainsaid but a vote nonetheless. It's contorted that way so that the ruling cliques can overrule majority votes that they don't like – sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. Milo 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to lightly; if you think this RFC is wrongly phrased or compromised in a way that will make a consensus impossible, then it seems a bit of a waste asking other editors to spend their time contributing here.—Teahot (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just agreeing with your earlier comment, I wasn't making a comment about the RfC. Mark7144 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial read of state of consensus on fansite

As I read the RfC to date, the following points appear to be common ground of consensus (feel free to edit or add other points of common ground -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

---

• The WP:ELNO guideline indicates that fansites should normally be avoided in external links.
• We are allowed to not follow guidelines if doing so improves the encyclopedia
• The fansite in question houses a lot of information
• The fansite has been included in the external links for a long period of time with some opposition previous to the current debate
• The fansite has received consensus in its favour and never against.
• The fansite in question contains information that cannot be found on this article or the official website.
• The fansite and official site are on the ODP under Andy Murray.

Comments about changes to consensus state

One addition from me that we all accept as fact:
The fansite in question contains information that cannot be found on this article or the official website. For example, a schedule, results dating back to 1999 and a profile on his long term partner, Kim Sears. Mark7144 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As a friendly edit, I've copied just your addition into the consensus state, and pushed your comment down into a comments section that's obviously needed. Milo 21:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• The fansite and official site are already on the ODP under Andy Murray and any other useful links can be added there.

Why was this added? Teahot said he only wanted to argue for ODP as addition to our current links, therefore it is not relevant to this RfC. There are many respected web directories the fansite and official website are both on, I don't see why it is worth mentioning that. Mark7144 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I raised it in the RFC (at 21:42, 21 July 2009), please look first. I am not attacking your particular fansite, just adding a plain fact to common ground. You are welcome to recommend a neutral alternate to ODP, see WP:ELMAYBE.—Teahot (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I got confused because you've brought it up twice, once to argue for ODP to replace the fansite and today you argued for its inclusion but not to replace the fansite. I realise now the latter was mentioned outside the RfC. Mark7144 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear. After being accused of making a personal attack against you (above) I feel a bit less anxious about the touch of ABF that might be going around.—Teahot (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that there has been no discussion ending in consensus to remove the site, but the dates do not match for me to agree that there has been any consensus reached in July of 2009 for inclusion. [7]

I think you're the only one disputing a consensus being reached in 2009, however I've now changed my bullet point to reflect your view. Mark7144 (talk) 08:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the editwarring point, that goes without saying for any RfC/consensus in Wikipedia. I assume it was mentioned initially just beef things up. Mark7144 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

More thoughts on Twitter

Thanks for providing the link above to Talk:Stephen Fry#RfC: Is Stephen Fry's twitter link an exception to WP:ELNO - invaluable reading. For those that haven't read it, the conclusion at the end of the debate was "the consensus view (pretty much) is that as Stephen Fry's twitter feed is part of his "official" site, it is reasonable to keep a link to it in the External Links section." It's worthwhile pointing out that Andy Murray's twitter feed is also a part of his "official" site.

I'd like to add a further comment or two on why I think the Twitter link should stay. It's perfectly correct that the majority of posts (from almost all involved on Twitter) say very little of any immediate significance. However, their cumulative effect is to build up an understanding of what drives / motivates / impresses / angers / amuses / etc. the subject. In so doing, they provide a unique insight into the subject; one that is far more honest than the finely-polished content of an official site. That said, it's not all chat: there are occasional items of importance - corrections to stories circulating in the press, views on issues in tennis etc. The feed also acts as a diary, one that is much more detailed than any listed schedule. In short, if you're interested in the subject, it's an invaluable source and the fact that the press are quick to quote tweets these days shows the importance they attach to them.

The question I know you'll all return to is: is it encylopedic? I say yes for the simple reason that it is furthering our understanding of the subject. Others will view it differently, but let's be clear: there is no correct answer to this question, it is entirely a matter of personal opinion. What one person finds irrelevant and dull, the next person may find relevant and interesting. Let's also be clear that if we don't include the Twitter link, we close the door on this source to those people who could find it relevant.

And, coming full circle, to those who say that Andy Murrays' Twitter Feed is available on his own site, so is Stephen Fry's.... David T Tokyo (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We are WP:NOTFACEBOOK or other social networking sites, nor are we here to grease the wheels for people to social network. We are an encyclopedia. We do not know what type of social networking a reader may be interested in. We are also WP:NOTDIRECTORY or linkfarm to provide links to all possible social networking pathways. We provide a link to the official website where the subject has the option to put links to whatever and however many social networking media they wish and the reader can choose from there thus keeping our focus on being what we are, an encyclopedia.-- The Red Pen of Doom 07:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

discussion about User:TheRedPenOfDoom

(comment repeated to allow non-article related discussion to be separated from article content discussion)

We are WP:NOTFACEBOOK or other social networking sites, nor are we here to grease the wheels for people to social network. We are an encyclopedia. We do not know what type of social networking a reader may be interested in. We are also WP:NOTDIRECTORY or linkfarm to provide links to all possible social networking pathways. We provide a link to the official website where the subject has the option to put links to whatever and however many social networking media they wish and the reader can choose from there thus keeping our focus on being what we are, an encyclopedia.-- The Red Pen of Doom 07:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're always so emphatic Red Pen - there's really very little room for any dialogue with you. I would say that WE are many things but the one thing WE most certainly are not is the conclusion of a single editor. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I found TheRedPenOfDoom's nosism slightly confusing as I was not sure if he/she were including all Wikipedia editors or speaking on behalf of Wikipedia itself or a sub-group of Wikipedia editors. I'm pretty sure this does not include me as I cannot be described as an encyclopedia. I tried looking for some guidance, along the lines of WP:Editors who think they own Wikipedia, unfortunately only the guidance of OWNERSHIP and EXPERT seem weakly relevant ("it is not permissible for the expert to 'pull rank' and declare victory"), perhaps a more experienced editor could point to a more apposite guide?—Teahot (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not fully apposite, but here's a rant that includes the red-linked phrase: [8] Milo 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That and worse. TRPOD (and another editor) have edit warred against the July 7-13 Talk:Andy Murray#Fan site link consensus – a unanimous consensus discounting the blocked sock vote.

The sock himself compiled and declared the consensus (classy of him): "Looks like there is a consensus to keep the link, and this discussion should be ended." (Chidel 07:46, 10 July 2009) This strong consensus remains in effect until a new consensus is established, in this case by the 30-day section above:

#RfC: Should this article contain... will close 17:09, 18 August 2009.

The first time TRPOD did this here1, I explained his mistake here2. The second time he did this here3, it was edit warring against a consensus known to him, aggravated by the false charge of misrepresentation here4 against Mark7114, who could read the no-brainer keep outcome of #Fan site link as easily as other editors did.

Unlike pre-consensus edit wars, my position is that edit warriors against well-established consensus demonstrate a lack of commitment to consensus. Accordingly, they are outsiders unwelcome to speak for the bone fide consensus of "we".

Glib reasons, too. For one example, those who have followed TRPOD for a week or two, may have noticed how as few as two links is a "linkfarm". Milo 10:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of information: I have removed the link 2 times over a period of 5 days. If that is "editwarring", then the term applies to many many many of the editors on this page. And one of those edtis was to remove the insertion of the link by the owner of the link, an action which is always a clear violation of conflict of interest especially on an article with an active talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A consensus was reached prior to this discussion. You have no business removing that link unless the current discussion leads to a change of consensus. Clydey (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Any claim that active discussions on the article talk page exhibited any version of consensus especially one to include the linkat the time I removed the link is clearly not based on any real definition of consensus.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

See the No true Scotsman fallacy. Milo 01:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

See that I was removing a link that had been added by the owner of the site. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Declared COI editors may make consensed edits. Mark7144 made an edit consensed unanimously (sans sock). You violated that same consensus by removing it. Milo 03:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no current consensus- the initial RfC was open and being debated at the same time the section that supposedly indicates consensus was being discussed. And enough brave electrons have given their life discussing the two times that I removed the fansite from the article. I am perfectly comfortable that my edits were both within the letter and spirit of our guidelines and policies. Feel free to continue to vent about the two edits if you want, but I am no longer going to bother to respond.-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The old consensus doesn't go away until a new one is valid. The initial #RFC: How should Twitter and Fan Sites... discussed the Murraysworld link as an example, but the RfC was closed without consensus as being invalidly off-venue. Therefore, #Fan site link continues as the current consensus until the end of #RfC: Should this article contain....

I like your colorful metaphor, but as you keep emphasizing, this is an encyclopedia. Unless you have a positronic computer, no electrons have died, since they may have an average life of 10³⁹ years (an unwritable number) (Orito, 1985)[9], compared to the age of the universe at merely 13x10⁹ (13 billion) years. Milo 05:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for everyone to be getting so het-up over this. Let's just leave the link out until a consensus is reached. Be cool everyone. Alan16 (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, let's not. Despite what TheRedPenOfDoom claims, it was agreed that the link should stay. That was the original consensus. If this discussion leads to a change in consensus, that's fine. Until then, the link stays. Clydey (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the link stays until the end of the RfC. Otherwise this is a fundamental attack on consensus. If unanimous consensus (sans sock) isn't a principle worth defending, then the massive free labor donated to this project isn't worth the candle. Milo 01:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - I assumed the link hadn't been there before the discussion. Alan16 (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ODP external link

Are there any objections to adding Andy Murray at Curlie to the external links section? This would be in compliance with ELMAYBE and any users keen to add other fansites or opinion articles can use the ODP process to list them there rather than having to meet the full WP:EL requirements to list them here.—Teahot (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One additional click to get to the site would seem to be an appropriate step on the way to consensus. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - this is unknown territory for me. Does this solution involve keeping the link to murrayswolrd.com on the Andy Murray page? A simple yes or no will suffice. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If the editors agree on "instead of" then we can close the RfC and all go away happy. We dont have anything that even remotely violates WP:ELNO in the article and readers are just one extra click away from the information at the fansite.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this way forward - you shouldn't have to have an additional click to get to a website that we know the reader will be pleased to discover due to the additional information it offers. There are no other Murray fansites out there of any significance at all, so this just makes it harder for the user to reach the website. It's not in the spirit of Wikipedia to put up a website so that someone can then find another website from that.

I still haven't seen any convincing arguments as to why we should overturn consensus that was reached in 2006 and 2009. When a consensus has been reached twice in a row and there has never been one against, I don't think a compromise is necessary and neither appropriate. It's clear from the RfC that there is not a strong case for appeal. Mark7144 (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Because consensus derived 3 years ago is not consensus arrived at now. And as far as I can see your claim of consensus in 2009 was not closed before an RfC (well actually a series of RfC's] were opened that clearly show there is no current consensus today. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The RfC involving the fan site came after the consensus in 2009. Even if that wasn't the case it wouldn't change anything as we would simply refer to 2006 instead. The current state has always been consensus for the link, there has never been consensus against. Mark7144 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Again with your ad nauseum claim that was exhaustively debunked in #discussion about User:TheRedPenOfDoom? You have now stepped over the line and are engaging in time-wasting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tendentious debating. Remember, it only takes two signatures to file an RfC/U on you. I think that there are at least two, and possibly as many as five signatures available.

Bottom line: drop this WP:STICK issue and move on. Milo 22:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets actually talk about the real facts here. Your "2009 consensus" Talk:Andy Murray#Fan site link has active discussions through July 13 and the first RfC about including the fansite was opened on July 11 (before any "consensus" was reached at what you have repeatedly designated as "2009 consensus"). That RfC was running with no consensus to keep the fansite in the article through July 18 when it was closed because its wording was deemed by some editors as not reflecting the actual debate appropriate for this talk page, although many if not most of the 3rd party comments requested actually do address this link for this page. The current RfC was open the next day on July 19. So for you to repeatedly claim that some sort of "2009 consensus" actually exists that should shut off all current debate to leave some content that was agreed upon 3 years ago is a signal that you do not understand how consensus works at Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Red Pen, please give it up. Consensus was reached on 9 July 2009, the original RfC and modified one came after that date, it was seen as an appeal to overturn the local consensus. The final message in the same thread as the consensus does not count as the date consensus was reached. There is no denying consensus has now been reached twice in this article in favour for the link to stay. Mark7144 (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The RfC involving the fan site came after the consensus in 2009. Even if that wasn't the case it wouldn't change anything as we would simply refer to 2006 instead. The current state has always been consensus for the link, there has never been consensus against. Mark7144 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not hijack my question. Just to remind you, I was not proposing the removal of any link here, I was asking if anyone objected to the addition of this ODP link as suggested by WP:EL itself. If nobody has a specific objection I shall add it as a relevant, non-controversial and useful external link.—Teahot (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No to the ODP link. There are only two links in it, and both already exist in the EL list. Milo 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)