Wikipedia

Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 10

< Talk:Andy Murray
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Milomedes in topic RfC: Should this article contain as external links, this Twitter feed and/or this fansite?
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 14

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago76 comments17 people in discussion

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

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

  • no to both. In the discussions above have not seen a valid justification for including either one. The informative content in the fansite is not unique and is readily available through general searches. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Why should readers come to an encyclopedia and read the article, but then be forced to do a general search to get more information? Milo 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
1) we are not a link farm; 2) there has been no justficiation why this particular site out of the dozens of others that can provide the same upcoming schedules and detailed analysis of previous games. WP:NPOV / WP:COI -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Apparently you can't answer my question because "readily available through general searches" is not a valid reason to oppose. Milo 18:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:ELNO #1: "does not provide a unique resource". If the content is "readily available through general searches" from multiple sites it is clearly not unique.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Because the most recent one was "closed" as dealing with the Guideline itself and not these particular links before the consensus regarding these particular links was decided. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
It's the allowed wider consensus concept. RfC is a way of doing that. The previous RfC was titled on a different subject. Milo 18:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. Mark7144 (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No to both. I think the fansite is pretty easily covered by WP:EL, and I don't know what encyclopedic information the twitter link includes. We also tend not to link to rapidly changing sites, which I believe the twitter link would fall under. ThemFromSpace 18:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong "No" to the Twitter site, which features such gems as "hey. been a while since i sent a tweet. not much happening..." I could go either way with the "fansite", which looks like it is mostly news-type articles with a moderately high standard for writing quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No to Twitter. If the reader wishes to read this it can be found from official website, so I would regard it as merely an extension of this site. No need to link to both. No strong opinion on Murrayworld. I previously said it could stay as had no particular problem with it. Better than most fansites, but still is a fansite. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes to both for the simple reason that providing the links is a useful and helpful service that that fans and supporters of Andy Murray will appreciate - and I say that as a supporter of Andy Murray. . Not including the links is as good as telling me that you don't want me to see or visit these sites. Having viewed both sites you could not be more wrong - I have bookmarked murraysworld and receive Andy Murray twitter content. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
"useful and helpful" are not valid reasons for WP:EL, in fact, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." What is the policy based justification? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Heaven forbid that Wikipedia should stoop so low as to provide information that is considered to be both useful and helpful. The most depressing aspect of this debate has been the lack of attention being paid to what users might want. Instead we appear to have become entangled in multiple interpretations of the rules and subjected to opinions on these sites by people who, as far as I can see, would never, ever be visiting them. However, if that is how Wiki policy is concluded (and, to be fair it would be difficult to do it any other way), so be it. I'll see your WP:EL and raise you a WP:ELYES David T Tokyo (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We cannot be everything to everyone and so we have guidelines to keep us focused upon being an encyclopedia containing encyclopedic content. Which part of WP:YES do you see applying to this link in this article, because I see none. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
We cannot be everything to everyone. I'd be grateful if you could show me where that is written on WP:NOT. A better line would have been If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. As for WP:ELYES, Twitter meets the criteria for "a link to the subjects official site" and murraysworld for "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ...amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics...). David T Tokyo (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"We cannot be everything to everyone. I'd be grateful if you could show me where that is written on WP:NOT." - Well, if you really cant actually tell, every word of the page is dedicated to the premise that we cannot be everything to everyone and we focus on what makes us an encyclopedia. And while the site in question does contain "professional athlete statistics", it is not "a unique resource" for those stats. And the Twitter is specifically listed as a link we do not link. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes to the fan site. Arguments given in thread above for why it is the exception. Yes to Twitter but certainly not a strong yes. Mark7144 (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2009. (UTC)
  • No it is not wikipedia standard practice and it is just fluff that is unencyclopedic.TW-RF (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No to the Twitter link IF a twitter link is the subject's ONLY official online resource, then I would support the inclusion of a twitter link as a valid EL. In this particular case, as the subject appears to have multiple "official" outlets, linking solely to the primary one and leaving out the twitter/myspace/facebook/etc links seems to me to be the most appropriate action as the primary site can act as the conduit to the others. SpikeJones (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No to the fan site. If the site was a valid resource, it would be listed as a primary, original reference to material covered in the article. If it cannot offer any original, meaningful, can't-find-it-anywhere-else information worthy of being included inline with the article text, then the site should not be included. Sites that don't qualify on that originality is exactly what DMOZ is for.SpikeJones (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It offers valuable content that cannot be found in this article or the other linked website: Schedule, wallpapers, a profile of Kim Sears and results dating back to 1999. This is all information the typical reader would want to know about which cannot be found anywhere else. Also, it was listed as a reference to a part of this article but that was removed recently to help prevent confusion over what we are debating about here. Mark7144 (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of websites offer schedules and wallpapers. Kim Sears is not the subject of this page, so an interview with her is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion (apply this thought to the next point, however). If this information, as you say, cannot be found anywhere else, then those items should be included as inline references to the appropriate sections of this article... thereby giving that site the appropriate links as necessary for people looking for that information on WP. Frankly, WP users are not searching for wallpaper links here. A small aside: do we need to address the WP:COI conversation that was mentioned earlier, regarding your involvement with the site in question and insistance of keeping it linked here, as part of this discussion? SpikeJones (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There are certainly NOT plenty of websites offering the examples of Murray related content I just gave but even if that wasn't the case, it's not relevant - we are talking about providing information that cannot be found in this article and the official website. Kim Sears is completely relevant as the majority of Murray fans will automatically be interested in the love of his life. If she wasn't relevant then the recent Kim Sears article wouldn't have been merged into this one. Regarding my COI, it's been discussed already and it does not mean I cannot give my arguments on this subject. Mark7144 (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You didnt' read my "apply this to the next point" comment. If Kim is relevant to the article, then her information would be appropriately cited. If you have an exclusive interview with her on your website that can be included inline as a reference to her section, then that would qualify as content that cannot be found anywhere else (with your site as the original source for that content) AND adds citable information to the WP article with your site as the reference. In this example, there would be no need to include your site as an additional EL beyond the cited reference. It is always preferable to include information in the WP article rather than merely link off to random external sites. To me, you are arguing for inclusion of your website under EL while nobody is questioning its use as a citable resource in certain cases. If I was trying to force any of my websites to be listed in WP, the latter would be preferable from a perceived quality viewpoint. You may be better off presenting your case similar to how The Lord of the Rings film trilogy lists TheOneRing.net. The question you'll have to answer in that case is whether your site has the same interaction with Murray as TOR had with Jackson and company... or if it's just a fan site. SpikeJones (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
We are talking about external links, not references, different rules apply. Just because I cannot prove to you that all the information in the profile of Kim Sears is true, doesn't mean it doesn't count as content that is not on this article or the websites it links to. And by the way, I'm not arguing for the website's inclusion, I'm arguing for it not to be removed after it has been on this Wikipedia article since 2006 based on local consensus. Unfortunately someone has wrongly removed the link without waiting for the result of this RfC but as I have COI, I've chosen to refrain from reverting the edits as ideally another editor should do that. Mark7144 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
"not arguing for the inclusion" = "arguing for it not to be removed" is splitting hairs to me. To answer the post that was added then removed - my point about TheOneRing is relevant as that fan site became the defacto information site for LotR. Is the site we're talking about the defacto information site beyond Murray's own official site? Or just a fan site no different from any other well-researched fan site out there? SpikeJones (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Linking to Wikipedia is not an external source, that would be a discussion of [See Also] (and links to Wikipedia as sources are NOT allowed).-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point. You insist that the fansite has nothing to offer as a link, since it has no original content (it actually does have original content). Wikipedia has no original content. Why bother with Wikipedia if everything can be found via a search engine? The reason is that it's convenient to have relevant information about things, individuals, etc. together in one place. The same applies to MurraysWorld. It has lots of information about the man, his family, his career, all gathered in one place. Who cares if most of the information can be found via a search engine? You would be doing independent searches all week if you wanted to find the information on your own, with no guarantee of finding all of it. It is a matter of convenience, just like Wikipedia. People visit Andy Murray's Wikipedia page for information. MurraysWorld is another source of information. Clydey (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Welcome and thank you for your first contribution to Wikipedia! And what a very interesting first edit it is! [1] -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
— Scls1984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and — 84.67.36.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Teahot (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Have you actually looked at MurraysWorld.com? Milo 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at MurraysWorld.com, thank you for asking. It is a fansite. The "about" page makes it clear that there is no official affiliation. I did not use word "factsite" but I did use the words "reliable source". To avoid doubt, I shall withdraw the word "invariably" and until someone can justify that this site is a reliable source my vote is No.
I would like to point out however that including a link to {{dmoz|Sports/Tennis/Players/Male/Murray,_Andy}} is actually encouraged by ELMAYBE and this ODP listing already includes a link to the fansite. This would seem like a reasonable compromise.—Teahot (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering your quoted text a second time, it seems overly circular to quote User:David T Tokyo to help support your point (by defining a non-existent word in order to get around "reliable sources") when he is contributing to this very same talk page.—Teahot (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your first edit!-- The Red Pen of Doom</vspan> 23:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
— Gogsynetcord (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Teahot (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I've obviously got no idea how the sock puppet thing works... Why would one user argue strongly against including the links only to resurface in different guise as someone arguing for them? David T Tokyo (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The timing and nature of the edits in question are highly suspect, see the comments at the link above and the nature of these things at WP:SPA guidance. If you are truly concerned about losing future contributions from Gogsynetcord (talk · contribs) I suggest you add a note on their talk page with advice on how to appeal against their block or reclaim the unused Netcord (talk · contribs) account rather than disrupting this RFC further.—Teahot (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Please strike your personal attack against Mark7144. WP:DE is a serious charge that requires serious evidence. A charge made without such evidence is a violation of WP:NPA. Milo 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I made no personal attack. Please take the word "disrupting" in context. I was not implying deliberate "disruptive editing" but referring to the discussion of the RFC staying on-topic rather than a discussion about a suspected sockpuppet.—Teahot (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, without serious evidence you can't write: "I suggest you add a note ... rather than disrupting this RFC further." "Disrupting" now means WP:DE, even if it didn't when you started editing WP. If WP:DE wasn't what you meant, prove your good faith by rewriting the sentence. Since we've discussed it, feel free to delete and replace rather than just striking. Milo 00:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You persist in picking out a word on a technicality rather than accepting common-sense English (i.e. wikilawyering). Asking an editor to prove good faith just demonstrates that you are assuming bad faith. The use of the word "disrupting" in a sentence is not reserved to always mean DE. The user you claim suffered a personal attack has made no such claim against me. AGF takes precedence here and I have no intention of retrospectively re-writing this RFC dialogue for out of context technicalities of wording. Unless Mark7144 complains to me directly I now consider this matter closed. Go away and do something constructive.—Teahot (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"always mean wp:DE" At WP, it now does.
You made a mistake and now you are trying to justify it. I suggest you take up my generous offer to support a delete-replace edit to reduce your search engine exposure. Write another PA and it could go hard for you, having failed to show contrition here.
Another WP-context word you misunderstand is "Wikilawyering": the attempt to defeat principles by the application of technical rules. What I'm doing is "Use of authentic legal skills by ... other persons trained and skilled in ... advocacy is welcome ... in a variety of contexts."[2] Milo 01:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Note: This post (Milo 01:42) originally responded to the previous post, but some context was lost when (Teahot 01:10) was re-edited to appropriately remove a PA by misunderstanding. Milo 12:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You have assigned yourself to be a mediator where no dispute exists, consequently you have no excuse for persisting with your incoherent wikilawyering. With regard to your attempt to literally censor discussion here, I have raised the use of the word "disrupting" on the talk page for WP:disruptive editing and early feedback from two experienced editors disagree with your claim that "Disrupting" now means WP:DE or would be construed as a personal attack if used in a sentence. Your behaviour is not acceptable. Please stop wasting everybody's time.—Ash (previously Teahot) (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
"wasting everybody's time" Your assertion seems hypocritical. I suggested to you that asking a number of editors by email would be more discrete. I then dropped the issue. You've now linked here from WT:DE, stirring it up again, and possibly forcing me to respond. Looks like you're the one wasting everybody's time.
My read of the so far two responses at WT:DE is that this specific issue of "disrupting" as WP:NPA can't be decided without examination of this context.
They do agree that "disrupting" doesn't always mean WP:DE. I'm ok with that 'not always' consensus, and it's good to have a link to prove it. Accordingly, I've struck that portion of Milo (01:42). Milo 21:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
His account has now been unblocked, he is no longer considered a sock puppet. Mark7144 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree the vote should be taken lightly. Mark7144 (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia (theoretically) doesnt work by "voting" anyway. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It's gainsaid but a vote nonetheless. It's contorted that way so that the ruling cliques can overrule majority votes that they don't like – sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. Milo 20:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
With regard to lightly; if you think this RFC is wrongly phrased or compromised in a way that will make a consensus impossible, then it seems a bit of a waste asking other editors to spend their time contributing here.—Teahot (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I was just agreeing with your earlier comment, I wasn't making a comment about the RfC. Mark7144 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Initial read of state of consensus on fansite

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

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

Comments about changes to consensus state

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

As a friendly edit, I've copied just your addition into the consensus state, and pushed your comment down into a comments section that's obviously needed. Milo 21:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The fansite and official site are already on the ODP under Andy Murray and any other useful links can be added there.
Why was this added? Teahot said he only wanted to argue for ODP as addition to our current links, therefore it is not relevant to this RfC. There are many respected web directories the fansite and official website are both on, I don't see why it is worth mentioning that. Mark7144 (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually I raised it in the RFC (at 21:42, 21 July 2009), please look first. I am not attacking your particular fansite, just adding a plain fact to common ground. You are welcome to recommend a neutral alternate to ODP, see WP:ELMAYBE.—Teahot (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I got confused because you've brought it up twice, once to argue for ODP to replace the fansite and today you argued for its inclusion but not to replace the fansite. I realise now the latter was mentioned outside the RfC. Mark7144 (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making that clear. After being accused of making a personal attack against you (above) I feel a bit less anxious about the touch of ABF that might be going around.—Teahot (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that there has been no discussion ending in consensus to remove the site, but the dates do not match for me to agree that there has been any consensus reached in July of 2009 for inclusion. [3]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Murray/Archive_10&oldid=1251935072"