Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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.

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! 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

"Natural Talent"

Is it really necessary to say that Murray is noted for his "natural talent" in the introduction? I think you would be hard pushed to find a tennis player who isn't.

Brad Gilbert

At many points in the match against Nadal at the australian open 2007 murray did some threatening gestures to brad. at one point he made the "we're finished", theres a video in youtube showing he actually said 'you fking twat'. now why on earth are they still together?What happened after this incident

Controversy Section

The 'Controversy' section is pretty poorly written. I tried improving it but it would be better if someone with more experience could rewrite or at least edit it. Veesicle 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

US Open 2004

The info box at the side says he got to the 3rd round at the US open in 2004. This was a suprise to me as I thought he only played in the junior competition in that year. Also, I can see no furhter mention of this in the article, which, if true should be mentioned as it's a major achievment. Can anyone confirm that this is ture or not. Evil Eye 11:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not. He won the Junior's that year, but did not play in the Seniors: ATP activity - 2004

His only entry was last year, when he went out in the second round (R64) ATP activity - 2005 I'll change the article. RobbieC 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

External links again

Previous discussion: Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player)/Archive 1#External links (and the section directly above)

Someone added the link to the activeboard website again and also put MurraysWorld to the bottom... again. As we came to an agreement over this and currently it does not allow for any more links to be added, I have removed the link. If someone would leave the user a message about this (I don't know how) then that would be great. Mark7144 20:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We must do what User:Wangi told us all we had to do (in a section now unfortunately archived): no stupid external links at all, except his official one. It is the only way to stop the buggers, and as Wangi pointed out, it is actually supported by policy. --Mais oui! 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I should also remind you, with all due respect to him, that Wangi is JUST a user and should not be considered as a person of authority. A consensus was reached even with wangi's acceptance and MurraysWorld was allowed to be added to this site. Potential inclusion of other fan sites were also addressed but it was decided upon not to add anymore links at this time. Removing MurraysWorld or adding a site without discussing it here first is now considered vandalism. Read the FULL archive to confirm this - thank you. Mark7144 21:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark, you're not a person of authority here either. I have added the Andy Murray message board back as it was the first ever Murray fansite setup in July 2003 long, long, long before Murraysworld had even before thought of and before you'd even heard of Andy Murray. It seems a bit stupid not to have that site aswell if MW is included. {Uns-ip|86.17.154.196}}

That's right, I'm not a person of authority - I represent an individual of a group of people that acted as an authority to solve this situation. Therefore all I am doing is my bit for the Wiki community and helping this page stick to the consensus.

I'm pretty confident that you haven't actually read the archived discussion as you think your personal like to a website is enough reason for it to be added. When the website launched is irrelevant we all decided that fan sites were to be judged by their Alexa ranking and MurraysWorld was the only third party Murray site that had an acceptable rank.

I advise you to bring up a new topic with your request for the inclusion of the activeboard site you posted - until then you should follow the agreement and wait until we have discussed it. I will be leaving wangi and Rob a message about your breach of the agreement and you may have to be reported to an admin if you keep ignoring the consensus that was made after extensive talks on this page.

I just want to add that I am infact in favour for your link to be added (not in the way you did by knocking down MW though) but it now needs to be done the proper way. Discussion > Agreement > Inclusion. Mark7144 22:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the archive discussion which all seemed a bit petty and stupid and I don't know why people just didn't leave it as it was. I've added the activeboard site back, you have no authority to remove it and I'll keep adding it until a person of authority arrives here. Stuff the Wiki community thing, this is a news resource not a community, and the activeboard site link is a useful resource as it provides many things which other sites don't have. Explain what you mean by Alexa ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.154.196 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

I do actually have the authority to remove your link as does any user if it is enforcing the rules here. See it as a civil arrest. I won't remove your link because you will keep adding it - we will just have to wait for the others guys to come over here and see if things can be resolved. I personally agree that nothing should of been changed but the majority have decided that the links needed to be reduced and call it petty or whatever you want - it was agreed on.

Anyway here is some Alexa information - read the second section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet

Wangi removed the link and although wangi is no admin he does have a ridiculous number of admin acquittances so it may now be a good idea to follow procedure outlined in the archive. Mark7144 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's see if User:86.17.154.196 feels they want to put in the (considerable) effort that woudl be involved in getting consensus for the addition of the link. If they do, I'd certainly support their cause, but I don't want to see this turn into a repeat of the edit war we had before: unfortunately, now that this has become an issue, the link will keep getting removed unless such a consensus is reached. Gaining the consensus will be a lot of work too, as I think most editors have found the edit wars and discussions pretty tedious, and would want to stick with the status quo. RobbieC 10:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First off the archive of the last "round" of this discussion can be accessed here: Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player)/Archive 1#External links (and the section directly above). It's a shame User:86.17.154.196 did not join in with the discussion which led to the current consensus - it was open to them to do so. They should stop adding the link to the article and instead add it to the talk page along with reasoning for its inclusion. This is the course of action favoured by WP:EL - also note that it's very much a "bad thing"TM to add a link to your own site...

User:86.17.154.196, please work with us - however if you continue to blindy add the link to the article then I will add the appropriate warning to your user page which may result in your account being banned for a period of time. So please, give the old discussion a good read through and give reasons for this link. Thanks/wangi 10:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AMMB Inclusion Request

Several points to make, [a] it's not my site, I'm just a member there [b] I've read the discussion on the archive, was without internet connection while it was taking place. Just basing sites on alexa ranking seems a bit stupid to me. It's the longest running Murray fansite, was started in 2003. Mark claims his site is the longest running but that's very much erroneous as his site started in 2005. The Andy Murray message board should be included because:

1. It provides live commentary on a lot of Andy's matches and this is often not available anywhere else - this is planned for the Moya match tonight aswell as the Murray matches in Cincinatti next week. As a non-Sky subscriber I find this very useful.
2. There's detailed information on other British players male and female plus reports and up-to-date results on a lot of tournaments they take part in. There's only a couple of other sites which do this - rusedski.co.uk and BTZ
3. It provides latest calculations of Andy's ranking, this section is updated daily and isn't available anywhere else.
4. It's one of the main places people go to for information on Andy Murray, AM.com and MW are the only other two.
5. It's had over 20 million clicks, I'm told.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.115.67 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

Thanks 62.253.115.67, that's exactly what we need. I'd add the fact that the site collates details of Andy's schedule, and other information about it that's usually more up to date than his own (damn fine) site, and (also damn fine, Mark :-))MurraysWorld, although by definition less well presented than could be achieved by a website ratehr than a board. As a result, it compliments AM.com & MW very well. Fyi, the Alexa ranking wasn't seen as the only way of deciding the issue: it's just one that's nice and objective. Unfortunately the AMMB isn't broken out of the total Activeboard traffic on Alexa, so we don't know how it compares.

It would really help us if you could get yourself a username. I've been leaving messages on the talk page for your old email address: User talk:86.17.154.196, and I'm assuming you've not seen them? Do please come and join us in wiki land!

Now, how to achieve consensus? We could probably shortcut the process if Wangi & Mais Oui were in agreement. They are the two most active in defence of keeping the page clean, and adhering to as strict a version of WP:EL as possible. But as they are both highly principled individuals, we may well not achieve this without more reasoned argument and a significant number of other editors supporting us. To do this, I suggest you go to the "history" page for the main "Andy Murray" article, and leave a message on the talk pages of everyone who's contributed recently, along with those who took part in the discussion last time around. If enough of us are in favour, then we'll hopefully bring the dissenters around.RobbieC 16:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't buy the reasoning... Remembering the key point that this is an encyclopedia, taking each of 62.253.115.67's points in turn:

1. Wikipedia is not really about current affairs (be that sport or whatever) - we should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete and it makes little sense to link to a website purely because it's got plenty of fresh news.
2. On an article purely about a single tennis player it is of no consequence that a site has content about other players.
3. That's not a unique resource - this page already contains rankings, as do other websites.
4. That might be true, but it's not a reliable resource (more on that below)
5. Neither here nor there...

Consider this guideline in WP:EL about what should be linked to: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article", and another on what should not be linked to: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard". However the real clincher is this: "Links normally to be avoided: Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline)" - that's basically given on a message board - gossip, rumours and unverified material! Thanks/wangi 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case Wangi, why on earth is Wikipedia linking to MW then ?

Also, there's no gossip, rumours or unverified material on that message board, check it thoroughly if you want. Plenty of that on MW to tell the truth. Your definition says "However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard". This IS the case with the Andy Murray message board ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.115.67 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

Hi 62.253.115.67. You must understand that wangi only agreed to have MW on the page as a concession to create consensus, if it were up to wangi, there's be only the official site on the links list: a perfectly reasonable point of view.

On the other hand, there's a very good argument that says that Wikipedia is a valuable resource for its users, who expect to be directed to the most appropriate other sources for their research.

1. That a link will only become obsolete if the site it points to is not updated. The fact that the site contains current affairs information is irrelevent, if that information continues to be updated.
2. That quite a few users who are looking up Andy Murray are very likely to be trying to find exactly that sort of info/site. (that's how I found the message board in the first place).
3. Regarding rankings, no other site that I know of provides the current, mid-week ranking, only the final ranking achieved at the end of the week. Some sad tennis fans (such as I) really do care that Andy is currently in a position to be world number 25 on Monday, if he loses to Niemenem today and Xavier Malisse doesn't make it to the final....
4. That the reliability of the source is an empirical thing - an editor has to use her experience of how accurate the source has been up to now: the BBC announced that Henman had a wildcard intro the Canadian Masters - he didn't, a fact that quickly became apparent on the board. However, I'd never accuse the BBC of being unreliable. Besides, if the link is clearly maked as being both a fansite and a messageboard, the user can exercise the appropriate discretion.
5. That archived live scoring of matches is another unique resource. Again some sad tennis fans find it valuable, if they've missed a tournament to be able to read an "as it happened" point by point report of a match in the early rounds.
6. That, above all, the Wikipedia policies are framed in such a way as to allow us to exercise our judgement as editors, and if we can create a consensus among the regular editors here that, on balance, the site should be included, then it can be.

62.253.115.67, I think it's unlikely that you'll persuade wangi that adding the link will be of value to the page (although wangi, do please check the board out - it's incredibly civilised!). However he (she?) has in the past honorably shown himself to be prepared to work with the majority of editors if they don't share his view of what's best for the page. So I'd suggest you canvas the other regular editors here for their support, and that hopefully the points we have presented here will persuade them to our cause.RobbieC 07:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought AMMB was originally about British tennis and then came Andy Murray who then took more of the focus? So sometime before 2005 it was not really an Murray message board? (sorry if this is not the case)

1. This did use to be the case with Murray playing low profile tournaments but now the commentary can be found on other fansites as the tournaments are frequently televised.

3. Other sites also have his latest rankings. Ranking speculation would be against what Wiki like to link to as mentioned above however I do think it's very interesting.

5. If you are going to use stats to back up your argument please give the average of page impressions and unique visits you get per month otherwise it's pretty much an empty statement.

Regarding the schedule: It probably is indeed more useful than that on AM.com but no more accurate or update-to-date than MW - probably about the same on that.

If that's the case Wangi, why on earth is Wikipedia linking to MW then ?

Because MurraysWorld is linked to as a fansite not a messageboard. Everything non-messageboard related on MW is accurate and considering the forum isn't directly linked to, what goes on in there is pretty much irrelevant. However in your case the message board is the actual fansite.

I'm really sorry but based on what a website should be for inclusion on Wiki I have changed my mind. Out of respect to the site for its long dedication to Murray I do think it deserves to be added but unfortunately that is not meant to come under consideration based on Wiki guidelines. I'm afriad I genuinly don't think AMMB provides anything more than MurraysWorld does in regards to Andy Murray but does provide good information about other British tennis players.

I think the site should be included for reasons that don't count towards anything but based on the arguments and how we are meant to judge the site and value to Wiki, I don't think it deserves to be added. Therefore at this time I will not support its inclusion. Mark7144 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am so glad that AMMB is no included on this wiki-page, it is a British player site now, not an Andy Murray site, by the administrator's own admission. MW and the official site are now linked and even have a shared moderator.

Urgh

Someone who clearly doesn't understand that Cincinatti is a different tourny than Rogers Masters deleted the entire Rogers Masters section, and then someone else, most probably accidentally removed the second half of Murray's year. Could someone who knows how to fix this (revert to earlier revision or something) please do?--Flute138 10:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

grand slam performance

rather than just a bit under his bar, how about the chart to show grand slam performance see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Performance_timeline for an example

Tournament Descriptions

I'm not a regular contributor to this article, but upon finding it I was sticken by the descriptions of every senior tournament Andy has ever played in. It's not the length that is a problem as such, but it is out of stpe with other tennis articles- for example Roger Federer#Career is a free-flowing description of Federer's achievements, whereas Andy's career section is much more jerky, and full of unsourced statements, for example, "After the match Murray criticized the British media for expecting too much from him at such an early age." in Andy Murray (tennis player)#Australian Open. I think that a description containing only notable tournemants (those that he performed exceptionally well in, such as where he won, was a finalist, or had a notable victory with the exception of his earliest tournaments) would not only be easier to source, but would also be much more quickly informative. When Andy did not perform well, statements such as 'Murray failed to reach past the quarter finals of his next X tournaments' could easily summarise his performance and prevent the article becoming an indiscriminate repository on information.

I'm not an expert on murray's career, and while you have had a minor discussion at Talk:Andrew Murray (tennis player)/Archive 1#Length of article, this has been archived and Ithe article still needs changing. If necessary, a separate article could be created for tournament results as suggested. In any case, I disagree with this discussion saying that 'more recent matches will get added pretty much as they happen'becuase there isn't any need to do thsi unless, as suggested before, they are notable.

To round this off, I think that users with more knowledge of Murray's career should reduce or move to a separate article the current results section, and instead create a more brief summary, mcuh like that on other tennis player articles, containing only notable tournaments. Thanks. OSmeone 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The sections covering the tournament results were starting to look like a long blog entry so I reformatted and shortened the 2005 section. Maybe a tournament table would be more appropriate.I already forgot 22:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we change the 2005 and 2006 entries into forms much like the Andre Agassi article, where each year is written in a paragraph form, detailing the players various achievements and performances, rather than a tournament-to-tournament kind of format...what say you guys to this? The current form, IMO, looks rather unprofessional, and unencylopaedic...--Flute138 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)