Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 11

More thoughts on Twitter
Thanks for providing the link above to Talk:Stephen Fry - 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: 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 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 21:26/27, 9 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), 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 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 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)


 * 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)


 * "Looks like there is a consensus to keep the link, and this discussion should be ended." (Chidel 21:26/27, 9 July 2009) 
 * "This RfC includes an appeal to overturn local consensus for the fansite with a wider consensus." (Milo 17:56, 19 July 2009) 
 * Milo 11:49, 27 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)

Why wait to change the rank?
he's definitely going to be 2nd in the world from Monday, so why is it hidden saying do not change until then. Its quite easy to say 2nd and date it 17th. There is no reason not to change it and its silly to have that hidden note. Its like saying you can't class a football team as league champions until the end of the season despite the fact its impossible for them to be caught   chocobogamer     mine   23:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because he isn't World No. 2 yet. Have a look at the rankings. It is convention that we don't update anything until either his participation in the competition is over or until the rankings are officially released. Which they will be on Monday. Not long to wait. Alan16 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The ranking on this article needs to be official, he is only world no2 unofficially. 93.96.47.3 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Two very good reasons for not changing until it is official. Firstly; people sometimes get these things wrong.  An official ranking is not official until it happens, and you cannot cite it officially until then.  Secondly; Once it does happen, other editors have to change the edits that jumped the gun to past tense.  This is a waste of time and effort. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's about as unofficially official as it gets with the ATP site already citing him as #2 in articles, not to mention every newspaper website in the UK, but rules are rules and if the rankings themselves don't yet show it, fair enough.David T Tokyo (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim Sears, Girlfriend
Do we need to know everything about her? Shouldn't we edit her down (or out)?Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe edit down, but not out. Deserves at least a small bit in the Personal Life section. Alan16 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Birthplace?
Whilst it says in his bio he was born in Glasgow, on his profile it says Dunblane. These are both from his official site, but Dunblane is the commonly quote, so I'm thinking about changing it here too. Any objections?

78.86.222.234 (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's Glasgow, not Dunblane. See the hidden note in the sentence about his birthplace for more details. David T Tokyo (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He was born in Glasgow. No need to change it. Alan16 (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone rectify this as there seems to be some person constantly changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidC4 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * yes thats the official site, but its out of date as it says 3rd in world. the sites not managed by him or anyone actually close to him, and also try to remember the 3RR and show maturity when you see reverting.  chocobogamer     mine   18:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct Birthplace
Slight issue here as it says on the OFFICAL Andy Murray website place of Birth he says Dunblane,Scotland not United Kingdom! as in Tim Henmans place of Birth it says Oxford,England not United Kingdom!

please see link http://www.andymurray.com/about_andy/profile

Anyone have an issue with place of birth Scotland if so please state your reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidC4 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He was born in Glasgow. The cite on the infobox makes that quite clear. The profile is wrong. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason or justification for changing it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Performance Timeline - Singles table out of sync
This table is currently inconsistent with itself.

There are now errors in two columns: '2009' and 'career win/loss' where they intersect with these three rows : 'Grand Slam Win-Loss', 'Hardcourt Win-Loss', 'Overall Win-loss'.

The US-Open row appears to have been updated for these two columns after the 2009 tournament but not the columns that depend on them. The Grand Slam Win-Loss/2009 cell was incorrectly updated from 12/3 to 12/4 - but this should read 15/4

By my deduction the other columns should read

Column-2009: Grand Slam Win-Loss: 15-4, Hardcourt Win-Loss: 34-3, Overall Win-loss: 53-8.

Column-career win/loss: Grand Slam Win-Loss: 41-16, Hardcourt Win-Loss: 133-42, Overall Win-loss: 203-73.

I didn't want to enter these directly as I think they now ought to be cross-referenced with other statistics and with other editor's deductions.

Athosfolk (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How to properly pronounce "Murray"?
Some murrays are pronounced as mah-ree others as m-you-ray. Would this be useful to include the phonetic in the beginnig of the article for those who do not know the correct pronounce? thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.8.225.89 (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Residence
It says in his infobox that his residence is in Dunblane, Scotland, yet in the article it states he lives in Oxshot, Surrey. Which is it? Feudonym (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the infobox says he lives in London. I wouldn't be surprised if he owns residences in both London and Oxshot.  But in any case, the Oxshot cite is from a blog, which is not a reliable source.  So I removed it. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Updating infoboxes before a tournament is completed
I think it's not a good idea to update an infobox while a player is still competing in a tournament. For example, Murray made the QFs in the 2010 Australian Open, his best achievement to date, but may win that match and achieve an even better result. The infobox informs readers that his best ever result in a completed tournament is the 4th round, which is a good reference for anyone reading about him in the context of the current event. His current progress can be included in the main text, with the caveat that WP is not a newspaper and the entry hould be encyclopedic, notable and in accordance with other WP policy. Any thoughts? Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is accepted usual practice and applies to all tennis players. It's also done this way because the tables and stats further down the article shouldn't be updated until the tournament is over either. This is because it gets very difficult to keep track of the figures if they're updated mid-tournament.  We always want the article to be consistent within itself, so the infobox and the rest of the article should be updated at the same time, at the end of the player's tournament.
 * Unfortunately every year Murray progresses further through a tournament this article goes through the same trouble, with editors ignoring explicit requests not to update until he's finished. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Escape. Not sure I have the energy to continually revert edits from enthusiastic British tennis fans, but nice to have some support! Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A number of IP editors (or perhaps the same one using multiple IP numbers) has repeatedly ignored the usual practice with recording results in the infobox. Quite apart from what I explain above, Murray has no result for the Australian Open in 2010, because it is still ongoing as far as he is concerned. However, I am happy to hear this/these IP editor's thinking on this matter if they would please contribute to this discussion. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Scottish or British?
I know that this is an issue which may has been discussed in the past. But, the reason given for writing "Scottish tennis player" as opposed to "British tennis player" was because he defined himself as Scottish.

However, why should Wikipedia take someone's own definition of nationality. If a player from New York, decided to define himself as a New Yorker rather than an American, Wikipedia would still write American. In addition, this would mislead the reader to think that there is a separately defined nationality in professional Tennis for Scotland like there is in Football (Soccer). This is, however, inaccurate and goes against all the Wikipedia codes or accurate writing. The fairest and most accurate thing would be to the definition of the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) which are the official organization for male professional tennis players. According to the ATP Murray is a player of Great Britain: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx

If there are no legitimate objections, I will change his nationality citing that source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marfan8 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would wait for consensus for to develop before making this change. A review of WP:UKNATIONALS would assist, particularly in relation to the example of Sean Connery. Applying our own interpretation of Murray's nationality is original research, and as with similar cases, the person's preferred nationality should, IMO, take precedence. Having just watched this on BBC News, Murray was described as "Scottish" throughout, FWIW, and he happens to play for the GB Team in the absence of a Scottish national tennis team. Rodhull  andemu  17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Andy Murray's passport will definitely state that he is a citizen of the United Kingdom. Matters are more complicated in the sporting world, since there is a tradition of UK countries competing separately, as in football and rugby. The UK fields a single team in the Davis Cup.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course his passport will state he is a citizen of the UK, its not gonna say hes a citizen of Mars is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.180.63 (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why it doesn't say he's a Martian? But it does say he's a Scottish player, which is what the discussion is about. Feudonym (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There has already been a long, long discussion about this on these talk pages. Refer to the archives. The latest consensus was to lead with Scottish, as he personally identifies (see cites later in article), and use Great Britain in the infobox, as this records his status as a British tennis player.  I still believe this is a good compromise and it has held without major upset for far longer than previous attempts.  This is a frequently contested subject (tediously so), and I would suggest that we shouldn't be changing things without very good reason.


 * The example of a "New Yorker" isn't a good one, as the situation with citizens of the UK is more complex. So much so that there are specific guidelines on it. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't edit it unilaterally, but my point still stands. Scotland is not defined as a separate country by the professional tennis body APT and stating that he is a Scottish tennis player is misleading. I understand that the example of New York isn't good, but say if an Arab plays for the Israeli national team, but decides to define himself as a Palestinian football player, that would mislead the reader that he is playing for Palestine. I am not comparing Scotland and Palestine, all I am saying is that a professional player should always be defined by the country he or she is representing, the article could then explain that the player defines himself as another nationality. This may seem a trivial point to some, but when I visited the US I was surprised by how many people didn't realise that Scotland was part of Britain, and therefore writing that he is a Scottish player gives a false impression of the country he is representing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marfan8 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It would maybe different if Murray primarily played in a national team, but for the most part he is playing as himself and not representing any country. So what is important is what Murray himself personally defines himself as.  The times he does play in a team are covered by the Infobox saying GB.
 * If there is a problem with US readers understanding where Scotland is, then perhaps this article may help better inform them them. Isn't that the overall purpose of Wikipedia? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a footnote to "Scottish", hope that resolves the issue for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marfan8 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, Murray is British, scotland is not independant , there is not a scottish federation of tennis. If Murray is scotish, i will change Nadal, Balearan tennis player and not spanish ! in french section, i have put "Murray is a british tennis player, scottish." is it so difficult ?

Gwenael, Brittany, France —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.50.162.131 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that we rephrase the introduction so that it says:


 * Andrew "Andy" Murray (born 15 May 1987) is a British professional tennis player who was born in Glasgow, Scotland. I don't see how anyone can argue with this. Nottmlad (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All very factual accurate, but as you'll appreciate it's a question of where you place the emphasis by mentioning it first. As guidelines suggest, there are a number of alternatives that can be explored. But there is also the suggestion in your phrasing that despite being born in Scotland, Murray is not Scottish.   You see this often in biographies where a person's nationality does not automatically follow from their place of birth.
 * I still say that if Murray himself has declared himself "Scottish, but also British", it is not up to us to decide we should re-arrange things to lead with British.  Perhaps my suggested compromise fits the bill?
 * "Andrew "Andy" Murray (born 15 May 1987) is a Scottish professional tennis player and current British number 1."
 * It's not perfect, but makes it clear where he stands. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your final suggestion "Andrew "Andy" Murray (born 15 May 1987) is a Scottish professional tennis player and current British number 1." is probably the best compromise in this situation. --Marfan8 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree David T Tokyo (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. It's a good compromise.  He (personally) is Scottish, but is a British tennis player, so it sounds good to me.  Part of the United Kingdom, Scotland is nonetheless a country in its own right, and there is a clear Scottish identity.  I think the proposed solution works nicely. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Scotland is not an independent country. Scottish citizenship doesn't exist. Andy Murray is quite clearly British, it says so on his passport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.1.189 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A look at WP:UKNATIONALS will show the way, and consensus has been established above. His passport is irrelevant in this context. Rodhull  andemu  19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)