Talk:Andy Murray (tennis)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Random

Has someone got bored with updating this page? You can't list individual tournament performances up to San Jose and then have nothing after, you either have more detail consistantly or less detail and just outline periods of time. He has played countless tournaments since San Jose including the Davis Cup and several Masters series events. There are tournaments listed like Auckland where he wasnt setting the world alight, if you want those listed then you have to list the other ones where he does little as well.

Ok I have updated the 2006 record to this week, I suggest this can be condensed once the clay court season is finished. Maybe it can be arranged into US hardcourt spring and clay court sections.

OMG, he was in the Dunblane massacre! That's awful! Today though his match against Stepanek was absolutely brilliant, I hope he does well!

Wimbledon Wildcard

I am not going to remove this as I know nothing about tennis, however this sentence makes little sense to me:

Murray's strong play and the excitement created by it helped push his way into a wild card for Wimbledon.

I would have thought that he was given a wildcard because of his success in several junior tournaments, especially last year's US Open, rather than the fact that he is exciting. Rje 00:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the statement (which i put in) is ambigious and slightly wrong-sounding. But, as Wimbledon's wildcards are given out by the LTA, i.e. British Tennis Officials, i think they would try and appease the public to an extent by allowing the wild cards to go against the rankings.

For example, they let old-favourite with London's Aussie community Mark Phillipoussis, world rank 142, (wimbledon having 128 players in the main draw) in, when there were less 'glamorous' or well-known players ranked higher than him in the world, who were arguably more worthy of the wild card, having gone to more tournaments, and worked harder to have accumulated more ranking points.

Equally, they let Richard Krajicek and his sister into the mixed doubles. there are a number of reasons why, had krajcek not been an ex-champion, he wouldn't have been allowed in:

He hadn't played a single senior-level match that year, and was effectively retired.
He hadn't won a tournament since 2000, and hadn't won a doubles tournament for a whole decade, since 1995!
His highest ever ranking for doubles was 45, which even then would have barely seen him sneak into the 48-team mixed-doubles event.

So, in other words, yes I do think that the LTA play up to the public - the whole point about wildcards is to allow ex-greats or upcoming youngsters in (even youngsters with better junior rankings were not give cards). I will make the sense more clear.

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 10:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Injury

The article says that he sustained an injury - I thought that it was more due to tiredness. Any ideas?

Well,

During Johansson @ Queen's, he twisted his ankle as a result of cramp - so essentially his tiredness caused his injury.
Against Nalbandian in SW19, he was tired, but hadn't aggravated any injury - although his ankle was still hurting.

I - amazingly - am not playing Tardis Tennis at the moment. 16:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Photograph

The photograph that was previously here has been removed for what I suppose is an acceptable reason. But could someone please add a replacement picture for the article then? (Jamandell (d69) 22:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC))

3 points/questions

Number 1: I have tried to compromise the UK/Scotland debate. I have put "Country - Great Britain (Davis Cup), UK (Nationality)" in the infobox - scotland is a nation not a country, and the purpose of this is to demonstrate his davis cup team and nationality. this detail appears on tables of other top tennis players. I have then made it clear that he is a UK Citizen in the introduction, but also a proud scotsman. Oh, and by the way, i own a kilt.
Number 2: Will we eventually have to move the extensive details on his 2005 season to something like Andrew Murray's breakthrough year, or just delete it?
Number 3: Does anyone have a quote confirming that he prefers clay courts?; Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 12:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In response to Number 1, he should be listed as representing Great Britain and his nationality as being from the UK, since neither England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are official nationalities, as they are not independant nations. So I agree with you there. And for number 2, I think we should just maybe leave it for now and wait, it obviously will have to shorten eventually, but I think we should let 2005 end first. (Jamandell (d69) 13:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC))

Oh goodness, I just read what it said! I think I will edit it, as it kinda gives an impression that it is abnormal for a Scot to be a UK citizen. Since every Scot is a UK citizen, it doesn't need to be mentioned and it doesn't need to mention that he has a UK passport. (Jamandell (d69) 13:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC))

It is standard practice on Wikipedia to refer to people as English, Scottish, Welsh in biographical articles. Why the fuss over Murray? I haven't seen this kind of fuss over Scottish?British, English?British, Welsh?British for over two months, and it is largely biogrphical articles I have been reading. It seems very strange that as soon as someone is in the news they immediately get changed from English to British, etc. Why? I bet you that if Murray was No 465, or deceased (God forbid) then he would happily be left to be a Scot! (By the way: Scotland (or England, or Wales) is a nation and a country, but not a state. Subtle, but vital difference. It crops up every day on Wikipedia on one article or another.)--Mais oui! 09:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Well,

Clearly we wouldn't be having this discussion if we knew that.
By the way, I consider Alan Mackin, a hapless Scottish tennis player, to be British, and I equally consider Fred Perry to be a British - he is. There's no need to get bitter just 'cos you've got a crap football team.
Finally, Scotland is not a country, according to both me and the Scotland page, it is "a constituent country of the United Kingdom".
- The word pedant may be springing to mind right now.

At any case, thank you for your help.: Ahkayah cuarenta y siete 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If we take Tim Henman as a guide on this matter, I notice he is described as an English tennis player on this site.

Another point of note relates to the bad old days of football hooliganism. When English football clubs such as Liverpool did well in Europe, they were referred to as English. However, when their supporters (or hooligans claiming to be supporters) went on the rampage, they were referred to as British hooligans.

A final point should sum up how we deal with Andy's nationality. He is British and no-one, including himself, complains about this. However, he detests being called English just as much as Canadians detest being called Americans (despite Canada being part of the continent of America; this is something I don't understand). So as long as no-one calls him English, I don't think we should have too much to worry about ;) Mkns 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find it ridiculous that he should be removed from the category of British tennis players. Yes, he's a Scottish tennis player, and yes he should be in that category, but he is also therefore British, and it is only sense to include him in that! If we are having our tennis players kept in seperate categories, then how on earth does the British category even exist? Why not all split them up into Welsh and English and Northern Irish etc.

(Looking back I realise now that he has been reinstated, my mistake. But that still stands as my view) Jamandell (d69) 14:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jamandell - check out the "Categories" thread lower down this page. We reached a sort of consensus a few months back to keep him in the "British" category. I'm keen to keep Andy in the category, because it confused me when he wasn't there when I was looking there to find this article. However, there are good arguments for sticking with a hierarchy of categories... As for his nationality in the first paragraph - "Scottish" works well for me - Those readers who might be confused by the difference between Scottish & British can click on the word "Scottish" to find out more (this is an encyclopedia!), and I very much doubt anyone would be trying to find the article by coming from a list of Scots (which would be so long as to be unusable for that purpose).

pissing contest over murraysworld.com

is this a private thing between Mkns and anonymous? or can anyone join in?

Starting to anger me actually, I don't know whether to join in or not. I'm not sure what the official policy is on fansites and the like, and I'm not particularly interested in looking it up, but we have other fansites listed which don't get removed. So it seems to me like some personal vendetta, perhaps by a rival website builder? The user needs warning that it's considered vandalism, as far as I'm aware s/he hasn't yet; and failing that, banning. M A Mason 00:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

When I started putting the link back in I made it clear in my comment that it had been removed for no good reason. I have no idea who runs the site in question but as you say, other fan sites are linked to from the Wiki page so I don't understand why the anonymous user is repeatedly removing it. How do you consider advising someone that it is vandalism? Isn't the comment I left the first 2 times clear enough? And why is no-one else putting the link back in; up to this point others seem quite happy to stand by and let the page be vandalised! Mkns 22:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And now more links removed with no comment as to why. I give up. Mkns 21:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, sorry you semed to be doing such a good job :p. I've put them back in and will keep an eye on it. Thanks. M A Mason 21:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just left a polite message on his talk page. No excuse now. M A Mason 22:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And here we go again - just replaced a link that had been removed to the message board. I can understand that the Murraysworld person is upset when the blatant vandalism (comment: "Mark Owns You") that removed his/her link happens, but it's a shame they feel they need to take it out on the other links here.RobbieC 07:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever Mark is - he's vandalised the Murraysworld link again. I've changed it back. Seems to be on the same IP address all the time now. Will leave a message on the talk page.RobbieC 21:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested way forward

I'm really getting tired of the murraysworld.com/andymurraytennis.com game. Can I suggest a solution: Why don't the two of you agree to share the top billing evenly. Let's have murraysworld at the top of the list for one week, then andymurraytennis at the top for another week. I suggest that you also link to each other (which will improve both your Google search results), and try to get links from the official site, if necessary with the same sharing of ranking as on here.

It's a real shame that you're wasting energy on this, when I'm sure that you're key contributors to this page and many other tennis- related wiki pages, beyond being responsible for two very impressive fan sites.

Please would you both also (in good Wikipedia tradition) provide an external source for the claims that Murray and/or his team reads the sites. I've removed the claims for now until you can do so. RobbieC 07:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the battle over first place: Is it not fair to give first place to the link that was submitted to Wikipedia first? MurraysWorld was posted on Wikipedia a long time before andymurraytennis.com so it only seems fair.

And about the 'As read by' claims: Andy's current management told MurraysWorld that he reads the website. The short Q&A can be found here: http://www.murraysworld.com/messageboard/index.php/topic,1927.0.html

This Q&A was provided via email direct from his manager, I can supply the email with the header information if you can provide me with a way to privately send it to you.

Andy's previous management personally told me in a meeting that he reads the site. You can find the discussion here: http://www.murraysworld.com/messageboard/index.php/topic,340.0.html

I think that substantiates the claim as far as I'm concerned - anyon else with anyother opinions??

Thanks for coming to the talk page to discuss it. Can I suggest that you also register as a user rather than using an anonymous ip address going forward, and sign your contributions in talk, using four "tilde" characters "~" "~" "~" "~" - it shows goodwill: that you're willing to talk and not just changing someone else's edits for the sake of it.

As for the battle over first place, what I think we need is a solution that both you and the phantom andymurraytennis.org person can both live with, so that you don't have to spend all your time on changing the links on this page and getting upset with each other. I'm not sure that saying "I was here first" will have that effect. Meanwhile please remember that Wikipedia is not a repository of links and (in my opinion at least)that we're here to provide a useful reference work for people trying to find out about Andy and not to provide traffic to any of the (excellent) fan websites. See if you can think of a way of co- existing with andymurraytennis.org so that we can all concentrate on how to improve this page!

RobbieC 12:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this RobbieC.

I don't know if this "battle" will ever end unless a moderator of Wikipedia doesn't put an end to it. Personally I think it would be unfair to share the position with the other party as MW.com was at the top for a long time until they discovered Wikipedia and decided to come along and knock it off. Mark7144 12:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see it's really annoyed you - must be really frustrating when you've put so much effort into your site and, as you say, got MW to the top of the wikipedia list first. Unfortunately, my guess is that if you did take the issue to arbitration, the solution would be to take all fan site links off the page. To avoid having to go that far, we should try to reach a consensus among the wikipedians who edit this page. Ideally, by getting you and whoever it is to agree on it - and as you say, I can't see that happening if you both want to be top, and won't compromise. I've left messages on the talk page for the andymurraytennis.org ip address person, as well as on the messageboard affiliated to that site, so we'll hopefully get them to come here and discuss it. Interestingly, the link to andymurraytennis.org got removed last night when the messageboard link was brought to the top of the list by the same person who vandalised your site's reference.

I think the next step is to restore your "As read by" claim, and wait for a response - hopefully on here, rather than by just another reversion. RobbieC 13:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have put back the 'As read by' claim to the link, hope that's OK for now.

And thanks for messaging the other website owners, hopefully they will come and join the discussion here. Mark7144 13:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! I'll continue our conversation on your user page RobbieC 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Response from anonymous person putting andymurraytennis.org at the top of the list

Reply: I've changed it because I think that andymurraytennis.org and it's activeboard messageboard are by far and away the best Murray and British tennis sites on the web. I think that it's in the best interest of wiki readers to be directed to the best site on the web for Murray news. If you look at murraysworld, the majority of the discussion is non-tennis and just seems to be schoolfriends chatting like on msn. Surely, the best "tennis site" for murray news should be at the top of the list.

> This was posted on the talk page of the ip address of the person who is moving the murraysworld.org link to the bottom of the list. I am asking them to bring their dispute to this talk page, or to resolve it directly with Mark. RobbieC 15:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving MurraysWorld.com to the bottom of the list and putting his website to the no1 spot is vandalism in my eyes, no need for that. And regarding his reply, that is simply his opinion and considering his website is more focused on British tennis in general (he has said this is the case on several occasions) rather than just Andy Murray - I feel MW is a much more relevant and useful resource. Mark7144 16:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I think we've worked out what the two sides of the debate are. I've invited the user to come onto this discussion page User_talk:86.3.243.247 to see if the two of you can come to some agreement. Hopefully he/she will show willing. Please hold off on any actions for 24 hours or so to allow them to make a move.RobbieC 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know that the owner of the messageboard sent me a message saying he isn't the person making the alterations so it's a mystery to him as well.Mark7144 00:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

New IP address removing Murraysworld from the top of the list

User talk:86.17.152.20 is now removing the Murraysworld site from the top of the list. I have invited the anonymous user to come to this talk page to discuss the reasons behind his or her changes. If we don't see anything soon, I'll have to assume their changes are vandalism. RobbieC 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter Robbie ?

Hi there, thanks for bringing this issue to "talk". If you're saying that the order of the links doesn't matter, why are you changing them?RobbieC 12:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To put them in alphabetical order, I'm a stickler for these sort of things

I'm sorry, but that doesnt ring true. You've only moved the one link, and left the rest in the order they were previously in. You've also done this eight times from that email address, moving that one link to a number of different positions. I'd like to think that you're trying to be constructive here, but I'm struggling to do so. I'd be more willing to believe it if you were to register or to sign on to hopld this conversation or make the changes. IP addresses make you appear to want to remain anonymous for some reason.

Please make a reasonable case for the order you want the list to be in, or I'll have to assume that you're more interested in damaging the website involved or irritating those who chose to edit the page. RobbieC 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't got round to putting the whole list in alphabetical order before, have done now so it's as it should be

Call for a consensus on the fansites list

OK, well it seems that's all you're going to say. So to resolve this dispute, I guess we need you (IP address 86.17.152.20) to explain why it's best to have these links in alphabetical order, and have Mark to explain why the list should reflect the popularity or quality of the sites involved.

Please can I have the opinions of those who regularly edit this site:

1.Should there be a list of fansites?

2.Should it be ordered

a) alphabetically

b) by site's popularity or quality

c) by some other factor

3. If by popularity/quality how to judge this?

Yes I suppose there should be a list of fansites, I don't see a reason why now. And I've always thought that alphabetical order would be best, it's completely without bias. I also think that none of these sites should have a caption beside them, eg "As read by Andy Murray". Wikipedia shouldn't be used as advertising space. A person will find it out for themselves if they choose to visit the site in the first place. Thankyou for listening. Jamandell (d69) 22:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the list of fansites, don't see why they should be removed. As the above person said Alphabetical order is the most suitable way of sorting out the fansites. Vonce 16:16, 6 July 2006 (GMT)

I agree with alphabetical, and that's alphabetically by domain name, not by someone calling their site 'AAAAA+ Andy Murray'. A list of fan sites is perfectly OK in my eyes, but agree that the continuous re-ordering is pathetic. Mkns 12:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC) (although I subsequently changed my mind) Mkns 12:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

I notice some folk around talking about the ordering of fansites further up this talk page... Well guys, have a read of WP:EL - In reality we really shouldn't have any of them. Wikipedia is not a link directory or blog, it's an encyclopedia. The official site should be sufficient. Thanks/wangi 21:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, can we please leave comments alone on the talk page - leave them where they are. Focus on the issue, rather than the formatting, thanks/wangi 22:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - to Q1, I agree with Wangi. Technically they are not allowed on Wikipedia. However, having been part of an informal editting group on the Elton John article, I would add that it's virtually impossible to stop them without locking the page. We also have the problem of gay-haters (as a straight bloke, I find some of the comments extremely stupid - it's really been an education), so getting the fans on our side in the bigger vandal threat is useful. Some of the fan sites also run large gatherings of fans - so excluding them excludes both verified/useful information and some good editors/contributors. For instance, we have a fansite listed from Brazil (which is written in Portugese), who have added much - plus they run an annual gathering which is the biggest in Soth America. In the end, if you accept the idea of limited inclusion of fansites (we have an area in the "External links" headed "Fansites"), then I suggest you look at a set of validity criteria for including them first rather than thinking how to order them. You can't list anyone's MySpace or Yahoo! site/picture book listings etc, or something which obviously is just looking to cash-in on Murray-mania. But think what sites a real fan looking for other information on Murray would like? For instance, we have a section on lyrics and music chords - what about sites listing match statistics, which we could never do full justice to on Wiki? Good Luck - Rgds, - Trident13 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It all gets back to the fact that Wikipedia isn't a link directory. A "real fan" will already know all the fansites, or be able to find them easily via a web search. WP:EL includes the following guideline: "fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included", it does go on to say is sometimes might be appropriate to list a single fansite, or to link to a fansite directory. WP:EL is worth a good read - it's been built up due many discussion about external linking... Thanks/wangi 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Support the Wangi 'scorched-earth' solution to this particular problem. --Mais oui! 22:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I've changed my mind based on the WP:EL document, agree with Wangi. Mkns 12:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A good fan site link can only be useful in my opinion.Andycjp July 2006

I agree with Andycjp and I will continue to make sure Andy's biggest fansite remains on this page. MurraysWorld has been around for about a year now and has the largest Murray online community. I don't think it's right to deprive the user from finding that. Mark7144 00:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark, you seem to be missing the point of what Wikipedia is, and how it operates. Wikipedia has a series of policies and guidelines, one of those is WP:EL which deals with external linking. After reading through that can you give better reasoning why that site (is it yours?) should be listed? And we work together through WP:CONSENSUS, so if you continue to blindly add the link... Thanks/wangi 08:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"...However, adding a small number of relevant external links can be a valuable service to our readers."

"Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)"

Considering MW is the biggest fansite for Andy Murray and his official site doesn't even have a message board - I'd consider it the major fansite for Andy Murray which is of course a valuable service to the readers.

Also please understand that on many occasions a fansite is often better than the official site and thus should be allowed. And Wikipedia is not about sufficiency, it's about getting the maximum quality of useful information to the user. The official site in this particular case is far from sufficent anyway.

Please stop removing the link, it's wrong and you are vanderlising this page by removing a valuable resource that has been on this page for around a year now.Mark7144 01:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling your point of view isn't exactly neutral, I don't think we have agreed yet whether it is to stay yet. Jamandell (d69) 18:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Service to the user, you what? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. A link to forum content (that seems to be one of the great assets of MW in your opinion) is not encyclopedic. If you're wanting to link to that site then please read through the guidelines - WP:EL - and with that in mind explain why that site should be included contary to established guidelines. Thanks/wangi 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems most of the people in this discussion agree that the fansites should remain so I believe you have no right interveening wangi. I understand you want to become an admin but your actions are against the majority and if you continue I may feel the need to report your bad editing habits to the Wiki authorities. 86.12.249.208 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You must be reading a different discussion. Of those who have said they want fansites listed none have given a reason other that it'd be good - no detailed reason to go against the established guidelines of WP:EL. I'd recommend that you stop adding the link again and again - wait until clear consensus has been demonstrated here for including the link and then let someone unrelated add it.

PS, you forgot to login. Thanks/wangi 10:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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#Andrew Murray (tennis player):

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^[1] 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:

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.

2005 - the breakthrough year

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)

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)

Unless anyone objects

I am going to create an article entitled Andy Murray's breakthrough year to deal with the long yet useful and interesting material from 2005.

Dont hold me to a deadline but this'll happen - eventually!

Are you one of those people who can't stand it when people talk using terrible grammar? If so, I'd be delighted if you could pass the proverbial fine-toothed comb of grammar through my user page. Thanks! 00:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest this myself, but ok yeah, go ahead! Although maybe "Andrew Murray in 2005" would be a better title. Jamandell (d69) 13:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe call it Andy Murray in 2005 and then have "The breakthrough year" as a sort of side heading. Alec McEnemin 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a big enough concensus! I'm onto it.

A trial with Rangers?

I personally know Andy Murray as we were in the same tennis squad as juniors. I can assure that he never had a football trial with Rangers FC. I have played football with him on many occasions, we killed time between matches at tournaments this way and he wasn't good enough to have a trial with them :)

Someone's added in that Murray had a trial with Rangers. I think this is extremely unlikely. Unless anyone can prove this, I think it should be removed.

See Here Hellinterface 14:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, that proves that the statement on Murray's page is wrong. The quote from that site states "Grew up playing soccer and tennis and once was offered to play with Glasgow Rangers..." which is entirely different to "had a trial with Rangers F.C.". I'd still dispute that he ever was "offered to play with Rangers" - maybe someone should ask either Murray, or Rangers themselves.

Why don't you just amend the wording in the article? The page I linked certainly seems to confirm there was some sort of contact between Murray and R.F.C. as does The LTA. Given I linked the official ATP Tour website, I think that's two pretty credible sources. Why would you dispute that he ever was "offered to play with Rangers", just 'cos? Do you have a reason?Hellinterface 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, calm down dude, it's perfectly OK for people to have different opinions on something. This talk page is here to talk about stuff like this. Now, the reason I find it debateable is because there has never been a suggestion before that he has played football seriously at any level. I therefore consider that the data appearing in those websites you link to might not be particularly reliable. The suggestion I gave of figuring out whether this data is correct is still valid. And I didn't "amend the wording in the article" because I would consider that rude - you wrote it, so I figure you might want to change it if you agree that it does indeed need changing. Anyone have contacts with either Murray or Rangers? I have a greater chance of getting info out of Rangers, but I suspect if someone knows Murray, that would be even better. Or should we keep this statement in his page simply because a couple of websites have mentioned it?

Firstly, I didn't write it. Secondly, why would two seperate professional bodies of tennis make it up? I'm not getting worked up, but to claim "I'd still dispute that he ever was offered to play with Rangers" without backing it up with some justification seems rather obtuse, especially when the site I linked was the Association of Tennis Professionals, followed with Lawn Tennis Association. Puzzling. To Quote "there has never been a suggestion before that he has played football seriously at any level. I therefore consider that the data appearing in those websites you link to might not be particularly reliable." Essentially what you're saying is "I didn't know about it, so it unlikely to be true". Does Murray normally run everything by you? It's only trivia, I don't care whether it stays or goes... Hellinterface 23:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation from someone who actually knows he didn't get a trial with Rangers, then (at the top of this thread, for some reason; I'll leave it there). Time to remove the erroneous information. I'll not bother asking Rangers themselves, then.

England football team comments

This BBC article says 'having got into trouble with some earlier comments on the England football team' - what where these comments? Perhaps we can add them to the article. Skinnyweed 21:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so: the levels of outrage that the comments generated were enough to make them noteworthy, and to generate a large amount of hate mail on his website, as well as to reach the BBC etc..

I'll do some research, try to get the relevent references, and then attempt an NPOV paragraph about it (frightening thought) RobbieC 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_page_id=1787&in_article_id=389385 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis/tm_objectid=17307387&method=full&siteid=66633-name_page.html

Wimbledon

I find it odd that the section on Wimbledon 2005, in which he only reached the 3rd round, is much longer than the section on Wimbledon 2006, where he reached the 4th round. Jamandell (d69) 15:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd his article is so huge compared to marcos baghdatis' article, considering marcos is the better player. English will never fail to overhype their sports stars to high heaven.

or maybe there's just a lot more British wikipedians than there are Cypriot ones?RobbieC 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

He's NOT English for crying out loud! I'm sorry, but I hate it when people don't understand these things. Jamandell (d69) 15:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Length of article

The strategy of giving POV detailed info on each and every tournament Andy plays, will backfire very soon. He is young, and likely to be around for some time. So my advice would be to remove (at least) the first-round losses in non-Slam events. Just a suggestion.--HJ 23:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi HJensen - I'm sure you're right. I think the 2005 tournaments have already been greatly tidied up, and I'm sure the 2006 ones will be as well as the page gets longer and more unwieldy. However, this is an iterative process, and we'll find that the more recent matches will get added pretty much as they happen, and then the more difficult summarising process will begin once there's some perspective (and some editorial time) to play with.RobbieC 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could make a page called Andrew Murray's Career Results or somthing. and just have Semi- Final , Final and tournements hes won on the Main page. but also the Semi- Final , Final and tournements hes won on the Results page. Bobo6balde66 16:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives