Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 2

Trying to pull the discussion together
OK, the discussion's been going on for five days now, and before it runs the risk of going where a lot of these discussions go, and degenerating into an edit war, I thought I'd try to pull the strands of the discussion together.

WP:EL Wangi has drawn our attention to the Wikipedia policy on external links WP:EL and how they might apply to fansites. I think we're all agreed that the big long list that we had before isn't appropriate to an Encyclopedia. On a developing page like Andy Murray's page, it's arguable that it was doing no harm, but once an edit war started there, it had to go.

From my reading of WP:EL, and from the discussion above, links to fansites are appropriate either if they are felt to be informative by the editors, or if the subject is the sort that will generate many fansites, and to give readers an example of one.

Trident makes another excellent point, which is not in WP:EL, but probably should be, which is that the editing community will gain from including fansites, because we'll pull in contributors from those sites, and avoid excluding editors committed to the subject, with access to good information.

So we should have only a few (if any) links.

How many links

Wangi, Mais Oui and Mkns have (I think) come down in favour of having no links whatsoever (As Mais Oui says: "Scorched Earth"!)

There are a good many others who see the point in having links (although I'm not sure how many links) Jamandell, Vonce, Trident13, Andycjp, Mark7144.

So how many links before we become a "link directory"? - I doubt if we should have more than 3 or 4.

Useful/Informative links The next question is then about whether the Andy Murray fansites that were on the list are useful or informative.

Trident suggests we look at what kind of information a good fansite could provide that we couldn't or shouldn't on Wikipedia, and judge whether to include specific sites on those bases. I'd suggest that some of the things a good tennis player fansite could provide would be:
 * inside information, not available on other news sources (possibly what other news sources would see as trivial)
 * collation of information which can only otherwise be obtained by trawling large numbers of sites
 * a strong community of other fans
 * detailed reports of matches (or indeed commentaries)

On that basis, I'd say two of the sites on that list fit the bill to my knowledge.

One is run by our friend Mark7144, who's not exactly helping his cause by getting blocked for Vandalism today.

However, he does run a genuinely good fansite, Murraysworld, with a large, strong community of fans, and which collates news stories about Murray incredibly well. It also has occasional exclusives, such as interviews with Andy or his team. As you can see from his contributions to this discussion, Mark's passionate about his subject and his site, so hopefully he'll be a strong contributor here as well!

The other is the "Andy Murray Message Board", which has another strong community of fans (including Vonce & myself from this page). The messageboard participants jointly provide a wealth of information that a website or blog couldn't, including live and archived web commentary on matches. Rankings calculations and collation of information on things such as his schedule, which are usually more up to date than his own site!

How to order the list

The only proposals here are alphabetical order, although I'm not sure that we should be ordering "fairly" rather than with some editorial judgement on what order is most appropriate.

Advertising (e.g. "As read by Andy Murray", "with news & commentary")

Again, I think we're all agreed that advertising isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. However, I'd suggest that a descriptive NPV comment next to a link would be useful to the reader. Maybe we should ask editors without conections to the sites to suggest such a comment?

Proposed way forward

We go ahead with a list of just two fansites, Murraysworld and the "Andy Murray Message Board", in that order, mainly because Murraysworld is a more traditional fansite than the message board, and so more what a reader might be looking for.

If the editors that included the other fansites can make a reasonable case for inclusion, then we should also consider them. The last time I checked them out, though, most had not been updated for quite some time, or were what Trident calls "MySpace or Yahoo! site/picture book listings etc,", and so I don't think this risks recreating a super- long list. In the meantime, if more links are added, or the order changed, we should delete them, direct them to this discussion on the talk page, and block the authors if they persist without making a strong case and gaining consensus.

Consensus?

Is this at least a way forward that we can all live with? - maybe not as tidy as Wangi & Mais Oui would want, but taking us away from the long list, and especially the edit war, while keeping the fansite links that many want to see remain.

Please comment/vote. RobbieC 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is an interesting opinion I got the WP:EL talk page, Wikipedia talk:External links:

Choose the best of those, considering Alexa ranking, amount of forum members, less amount of advertisment, up to date information, etc. Get consensus in all those variables, and then add it in a NPOV (not major fansite but instead plainly Fansite). If there is an "official fan site", consider it the fansite to add, if not, get consensus for one. Wikipedia is not a link directory. How many fan sites are we talking about, by the way? -- ReyBrujo 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * After checking your new link, I suggest removing the ones hosted in LiveJournal and Activeboard on sight (per 9th guideline. mountmurray at freewebs has only 310 hits, Wikipedia won't advertise their site. britainsnewhope has 377, same thought. The one hosted at TennisCrazy states that THIS SITE WILL NOT BE UPDATED INBETWEEN JULY AND SEPTEMBER BECAUSE I WON'T BE IN THE COUNTRY, SORRY. We won't be advertising them for free during three months. Even if that note weren't there, it has less than 1700 hits, not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That leaves one fan site, which seems to be the only one that (apparently) can be considered good enough for inclusion. -- ReyBrujo 22:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the sort of reasoning I'd expect from folk advocating having links, rather than just "i think it'd be good"! Based on this thorough work through the issue I'd have real problems with more than 1 link, and i'd still prefer the simple solution of simply having just the official site. Thanks/wangi 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wangi - that's again really useful - Alexa rank is not a bad objective way to go forward, and Raybrujo's research and argument makes the case for losing all except Murraysworld. I still think there's a good argument for including the activeboard site (and not removing it on sight!), as I'd suggest it's the exception that proves the rule when it comes to forums 9th guideline. RobbieC


 * Thanks RobbieC for going to the effort of typing that well thought out argument for the inclusion of fansites. I agree many of them should not be listed purely based on lack of activity. I've re-added the MurraysWorld link because I do think it is useful considering the official site doesn't even offer a message board.


 * Although someone has in the past been vandelising the link section by placing the activeboard site to the top whilst moving others to the bottom - I do think it should be considered to remain on the fansite list. It has been around for a long time covering Andy's progress and so it would seem a little harsh not allowing it to stay. Mark7144 12:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark, you'd do yourself a big favour by leaving the article alone and not constantly adding in MW until this matter is fully discussed. Thanks/wangi 12:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your suggestion but I actually think it should of been the other way around. I think it would of been more polite and reasonable for you to state your argument for removing all the fansites and for us to come to an agreement before removing them all in the first place - especially considering they have been there for over a year now. Mark7144 12:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mark, it was a shambles and against established guidelines. It makes sense for it to conform to WP:EL until such time as a workable consensus has been reached to do otherwise. Thanks/wangi 13:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What do we do now? RobbieC outlined a very reasonable way forward that I think should be voted on. Can people please reply and say whether they agree with that way forward or not? Mark7144 13:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion closes on Monday
I suggest we leave this discussion open until Tuesday morning, so that everyone who wants to can contribute, and we can make sure everyone gets a chance - many people edit on a weekend  -especially Sunday nights. I'm encouraged so far, with no howls of protest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobbieC (talk • contribs) 2006-07-14 09:20:54 (UTC)
 * Whoever you are, you forgot to sign this post. I'm not sure I follow what you encouraged about - more people still seem to favour listing only the official website than any other proposal? It's certainly not clear cut eitherway. Thanks/wangi 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting the attribution up there Wangi - apologies for not signing my original post.


 * I must say my heart sank when I saw your post - I'd hoped we'd reached some sort of compromise, and could go forward with some of the more important things that need doing on this page, and avoid spending much longer on this issue.


 * I apologise. I'd read your previous comment: " I'd have real problems with more than 1 link, and i'd still prefer the simple solution of simply having just the official site." as meaning you weren't over the moon with the compromise I suggested, but would go along with it if no- one else objected, with maybe further discussions required re the Activeboard site.


 * In fact, with the lack of response since I proposed the compromise, I'm guessing that apart from you me and Mark, the rest of the editors are thoroughly bored with the question.


 * As per my original summing up of the issue, I made it a majority (6 to 3)in favour of having some fansite listings: "Wangi, Mais Oui and Mkns have (I think) come down in favour of having no links whatsoever (As Mais Oui says: "Scorched Earth"!)There are a good many others who see the point in having links (although I'm not sure how many links) Jamandell, Vonce, Trident13, Andycjp, Mark7144."


 * Can you suggest an alternative compromise position, as I think we're stuck otherwise?

RobbieC 19:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where wangi is getting his figures from but RobbieC there is no reason to get "stuck" - you put forward your proposal and the majority are in favour. It's really that simple. Wangi had ample opportunity to appose your proposal but has left it inconventiantly late but his opinion on that matter holds little weight with him being the only opposition to the vote. No new proposal is needed - if you intend to try and persuade wangi to change his opinion on this matter, I doubt it will happen hence why we had this vote.


 * This issue is now closed whether wangi or a couple of others users like it or not. It has been dealt with sensibly and I would very much appreciate it if someone would put back the valuable links that aid the users in finding their information.


 * Thank you for putting your free time in helping to resolve this issue RobbieC. We had a vote, the majority wins and of course some people won't be happy but that's democracy. Mark7144 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Mark. Let's give Wangi the rest of the day to come back before re-instating any links.RobbieC 07:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Must say I'm confused - where is all the support for Robbie's proposal? I see only a response by myself and Mark - and that wasn't to the section inviting "votes". Mark, you're claiming there's consensus (for something, I'm not sure what going by your last paragraph) but the text above simply doesn't support that.
 * Out of all the various options discussed above the one with the most clear support is the simple official link only - i'm not saying there's consensus behind it, but you cannot count simple "me too" responses (with no reasoning) in favour of some form of links at the begining of this discussion as being support for the latest proposal. And with regards to time - well we've all got more important things in our lifes, and timed votes really aren't the "wikiway" to sort things out, because remember Wikipedia's not a democracy ;)
 * I'd agree with Robbie - most folk simply couldn't care anymore. That's what "no howls of protest", nor support point to.
 * I'll go with the reasoning above by ReyBrujo as a compromise - the following links:


 * Andy Murray - official site
 * Murray's World - fan site
 * How's that look? Thanks/wangi 08:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks like a great start. We can get the links up, and move on. I'm disappointed to lose the link to the activeboad site - wikipedia is how I found that site in the first place, and it's my main source of info & discussion re Andy. However, I think we'd need a "stage 2" discussion to get it in there, and I don't think we should not have links in the meantime.


 * So going forward, I guess:


 * we put those links up
 * we revert any additions to the list unless the editor can provide a good reason for adding them and get a consensus for doing so, pointing to this discussion to justify our actions, and treating new linkers as vandals.
 * I try to pull together enough people to support bringing back the messageboard as I can.


 * - Wangi, do have a look at the activeboard site - particularly the "Andy's schedule", the "Andy's ranking" and the "other british men" sections - see if you agree that it is a useful resource. /Andy Murray message board


 * I don't think you're being fair to the initial responses - especially Trident's, which I thought was very well reasoned.

I've now put the Murraysworld link back up RobbieC 09:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not got time to go into any more detail just now, but... don't bite the folk who add links too hard - assume good faith ;) It's useful to add welcomeip (or welcome) if it's not already there along with spam to their talk page - points them to the direction of the guidelines.
 * Sorry, yeah Trident did say more! Thanks/wangi 09:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Great to see some progress being made. On wangi's comment - I personally think the "me too" responses are absolutely valid considering most of them if not all may simply agree with previous comments so no need to unnecessarly repeat ourselves.


 * My thoughts on the ActiveBoard site are that it should be considered - it has been around for a long time and can at times offer a more serious anaylsis on a match. However I will not offer too much into the ActiveBoard inclusion discussion as I'm not a user there so I have reduced interest. Mark7144 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 progress
Is there any standard way that information about Andy's progress in 2006 should be added? I think if there was a consensus as to how the information is added, it would save the page growing to ridiculous lengths. Are there any other tennis professionals' pages that we should look at to see how it should be done? Mkns 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should put any knowledge which is specific to a particular tournament from 2005 into that tournaments page, reducing the 2005 entry to maybe only three paragraphs, but we can let 2006 run to a 'ridiculous length', as long as all the info is put somewhere at the end of the year. i might start doing some of that later today.
 * anon

2005
'I propose the following reshuffle of the 2005'' section to this page. I will also create a Murraymania page and put some quotes from him in a section at the end of the page, as long as there are no objections to this.'''


 * There are some errors needing corrected in the text, most of which can be spotted easily from reading it through. Should I just edit the text, or produce an updated version elsewhere? I'd guess at just updating it but not sure of the protocol in discussion pages... Mkns 19:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm, well I'm an anon so it'd probably be better if you, as an actual user, put these up. thanks for correcting those mistakes.

Making a name for himself: Queen's and Wimbledon
Murray turned professional in April, playing his first senior match at a clay court event in Barcelona, before playing his final junior event at the French Open. In May, he played a Challenger in Dresden. Murray then got a wild card to the Stella Artois championship at Queens, beating Santiago Ventura and the seeded Taylor Dent. Murraymania began to kick off as he took sixth seed Joachim Johansson to three sets, but after getting cramp and an ankle injury, he lost the match. This forced him to withdraw from the Nottingham Open tournament of the next week.

The LTA gave Murray a wildcard to Wimbledon Wimbledon wildcard. Ranked 374th in the world going into the first round, he comfortably beat George Bastl in straight sets. Fourteenth seed Radek Stepánek suffered the same fate in the next round. Becoming the first Scot in the Open era to get to the third round at Wimbledon, he met David Nalbandian on centre court. After storming to a 2-0 sets lead, he collapsed (literally once) to a 3-2 lead. Again, cramp was partly responsible, leading to concerns over his fitness. Nevertheless, Murraymania had arrived.

Off to America
A Rhode Island based tournament was next for Murray, where he lost to Anthony Dupuis in the last 16, having won his first round match. He then won a Challenger event in Aptos, California. Another wild card saw him enter the RCA Championships at Indianapolis, where he only progressed one round before losing to seeded Mardy Fish in Round 2. His good form in Challengers continued with quarter-final appearances at Granby and Vancouver, and a tournament win at Binghamton. Murray's first Tennis Masters Series appearance awaited with the Cincinnati Masters, where he again beat Taylor Dent. His first ever top-10 opponent, Marat Safin, beat him in second round. After having to qualify for the US Open, he beat Andrei Pavel in the first round, despite some on court vomiting. His injury worries returned in the fifth set of a match against Arnaud Clement, which he lost 6-0.

Bangkok, Belgium, Basle
In the Thai Open first round, Andrew finally achieved top 100-ranking by beating Robin Soderling. He then won againt US Open semi-finalist Robby Ginepri and then beat home-favourite Paradorn Srichapan in the final. His date with Roger Federer in the final was a predictable, but not embarassing loss, and for his troubles Andrew picked up 45,000 dollars and gained 28 ranking places.

Murray then returned to Europe to fulfill a commitment to play in an indoor Challenger Event in Mons, Belgium. Given 7th seeding, he beat Ivo Heuberger and Gregory Carraz in the early rounds, despite a 49 minute lighting failure in the second of those. His third round opponent Xavier Malisse was given a walkover win after Murray cautiously decided to withdraw from the event with injury.

His injury quickly righted, Murray was drawn against fellow Brit Tim Henman in the first round of the Swiss Indoors at Basle. In what was seen by the British media as a changing of the guards, Murray won, going on to win again in his next match against Tomas Berdych before losing to fourth seed Fernando Gonzalez in the quarter finals.

Andrew Murray thus achieved an end of year ranking of 63, higher than Roger Federer at the same age.

Residence
I see his residence has been changed from Barcelona, Spain to Barcelona, Catalonia. Surely Catalonia is in Spain therefore to be totally correct it should be listed as Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain? When I check the page for another Spanish-resident tennis player (Rafael Nadal), it lists his town and Spain, not the autonomous community that he lives. I therefore wonder whether it should be reverted back to how it was. Mkns 22:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see his birthplace is listed as Dunblane, Scotland. Surely Scotland is in the United Kingdom, therefore to be totally correct it should be listed as Dunblane, Scotland, United Kingdon? No, I'm only kidding. It looks stupid. Can we keep Iberian political arguments out of this page please? Average Earthman 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we change it to place of birth as Dunblane, Scotland, United Kingdom then anyway? (Jamandell (d69) 23:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC))
 * It just sounds daft. I'm for switching it back to Barcelona, Spain. M A Mason 23:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For the same reason that we do not put "London, England", we do not put "Scotland, United Kingdom", because it is common knowledge that London is in England and that Scotland is in the United Kingdom. When writing Wikipedia articles we have to assume a basic level of education among the readership, and not be tempted to dot every i and cross every t.--Mais oui! 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For further information on this topic, see Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. It explains that one of the beauties of links is that the writer does not have to patronise their reader with diversionary explanations and clarifications: if the reader does not understand, they can just click the link and educate themselves.--Mais oui! 23:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories
Will I start a flame war by proposing that Andy be added to the "British Tennis Players" category, as well as the "Scottish Tennis Players" category. It is confusing for a tennis fan to see less successful players such as Alex Bogdanovic on that page, while having to click on the link to Scottish players for Andy (& Elena Baltacha). Haven't made the change after seeing all the fuss over his nationality. RobbieC 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes definately! He should be in both, as he's Scottish and British, and represents both Scotland and the UK as a whole. Jamandell (d69) 17:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A bizarre category if ever I saw one. There is no English or Welsh categories as far as I can see.  Why is there a Scottish one?  There should either be categories for each country, or none at all.  And I'm Scottish myself, before you ask. Mkns 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, done! RobbieC 07:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Re- instated this. Dimadick makes a reasonable argument for not including Murray in both "British Tennis Players" and it's sub- category "Scottish Tennis Players", however as discussed above this leads the casual searcher to a page where she can find Henman, Rusedski, Fred Perry, Virginia Wade, Sue Barker but no Andy Murray or Elena Baltacha, which is just confusing.RobbieC 19:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Re- instated this again, following Mais Oui's changes. Happy to discuss.RobbieC 12:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace??
Has anyone verified that it is actually Dunblane. I come from that part of the world myself, Stirling Royal Infirmary is the most likely place for childbirth, given it has a maternity unit which serves the surrounding area. Of course it could have been a home birth... Hellinterface 11:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He was born in Glasgow, see http://www.andymurray.com/about/biography/. Thanks/wangi 11:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)