Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject Tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Ranking

Listed as the highest ranked British player 'ever' is not correct, nor does the reference (4 - murray's world) say such a thing. Fred Perry was number 1 for 5 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.193.203.146 (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Not to nitpick, but it seems a bit presumptuous to list a ranking for a date that has not yet occurred, especially when that ranking is dependent upon results of matches that have yet to occur. Rainer24 (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well as of now, this is moot, as he is guaranteed no 4 - rst20xx (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He may be guaranteed 4th, but the ATP still lists him as 6th at the moment. Imagine he had reached the final (or won it)from a start position outside the 500. He may be guaranteed a place in the top 20 as a result of that feat, but someone checking his acheivement in doing so today, would be severely misled.Liamcalling (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are people changing his nationality?

Why do people keep editing his nationality to read Scottish? Who gave them the right? Can't somebody with the correct authority make sure it stays as 'British'? Perhaps we could request semi-protection to stop people changing it to Scotland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.35.194 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read what the article says. This is based on self identification, which is a Wikipedia principle. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

He actually identifies himself as both Scottish and British.86.168.10.214 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a similar problem with English people? I mean do they call themselves English or British? Ausseagull (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Change the nationality of anyone listed as Welsh and Northern Irish to British if the standard is that anyone successful who isn't from England has to be associated with England. Honestly he's Scottish and then British get over it please.

You have a real chip on your shoulder, you should get over that before making these offensive generalisations about 50 million people. I am from Glasgow (nationality = British) in case you are wondering.86.168.10.214 (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

people are perfectly entitled to think it should say hes British there, but wikipedia policy on this matter is very flexible. He is Scottish and he is British but one things for sure he plays for Great Britain. I think the current setup is correct, the first sentence says hes a Scottish player and is Britains number 1. That seems like a reasonable solution which mentions both. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The way it is at the moment is fine. It follows how he identifies himself. Alan16 (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Place of residence and place of birth

Place of birth reads Glasgow, Scotland, but place of Residence reads London, UK. I tried to sort this out by changing it to 'Glasgow, UK and 'London, UK', but someone decided to revert my edit. Can we get this sorted please? Either change it to Glasgow, Scotland and London, England, or Glasgow, UK and London, UK. The latter would make more sense.

--92.17.35.194 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says what it says because that is what is stated in the source material (Andy Murray's website]). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

His website need not be the only source. Logically, the two should not conflict. If you'r going have the constituent country for one, you should have it for the other, and vice-versa. Normally when talking about someone's place of birth, you list their city and their country (sovereign state), which is why I propose they should both read 'UK'.

--92.17.35.194 (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You would have to find another source for his birthplace and place of residence in that case. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. London, England and London, UK are obviously the same place. It's just a matter of style. Why not just say London and Glasgow? Station1 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose if nothing else it would remove one area of potential edit conflict. I'll change to what you suggest and see if it sticks. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just have London, UK and Glasgow, UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.48.228 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Career prize money

Added Abu Dhabi prize money. Only problem with that I can imagine is that it isn't going to be counted by the ATP at the end of next season, however I think it should be included. Alan16 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Tricky one this. It is earnings but not official prize money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.245.72 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be included because prize money is the total amount of money he has one due to playing tennis. Abu Dhabi, although not an official tournament, is still a tennis tournament, and the $250,000 was the prize money for the tournament. Alan16 (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Performance timeline

There is a flaw in the Performance Timeline table.
The totals for ATP Tournaments Played, ATP Final Appearances and ATP Titles appear in the career win-loss section. This is inconsistent with the rest of the table and contradicts the column header itself. I feel either a new column should be added for totals, or alternatively the table structure should be partially broken for these rows. i.e merge 'career win-loss' and 'career SR' into a single cell on each row, with 'Total: ' written on each line before the total figure.
Maybe it would be better to split the table into two or more separate tables.
Alternatively I propose the totals are removed, because although useful, it can be retrieved by manually calculating the sum of the other columns and should definitely not be placed erroneously.
80.41.61.149 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed "comfortable" from 6-1, 6-1 win

Maybe if he won 6-0, 6-0, we could include that, but 6-1, 6-1, not sure if that qualifies as "comfortable" according to my sources. Do you have a source that calls his win comfortable? Thanks, --Tom 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well let's be honest, in the final of an ATP event 6-1 6-1 is, if anything, better than "comfortable". The BBC describes his victory: "Andy Murray thrashed Kazakhstan's Andrey Golubev". So you think he "thrashed" him, but it wasn't comfortable? The International Herald Tribune describes it: "The Briton dominated the match" [1]. The Guardian says: "an emphatic 6-1, 6-1 triumph" [2]. So maybe you can get rid of "comfortable", but a 6-1 6-1 win in a tournament FINAL, deserves something more than than just, "Murray wins" Alan16 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks better. Why patronize? Anyways, --Tom 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, "emphatic" looks better than comfortable. Apologies for previous comment. Hunger got the better of me! Alan16 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Both "comfortable" and "emphatic" are POV words, and if anything "emphatic" is even more POV than "comfortable". The problem with them is that they appear to be offering an opinion in addition to the facts. The reader can read "6-1 6-1". They do not need to be told who was the superior player in the match, the score is evidence of that. So by adding an adjective such as "emphatic", it appears to be an analysis of the match rather than a description of the score. What if a fan of the opposing player was to decide they wish the score to be described "flattering", or "undeserved"? Their opinion of the score is as valid as any other editor's. This is why we need to be neutral and just report the facts and let the reader decide.

The phrases news sources use are only relevant if we are citing them. News sources are free to offer their opinion of the match, an encyclopaedia is not. And it's not a question of what the score "deserves", the purpose of an encyclopaedia is not to talk up the article's subject. It's to report the facts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically agree with this assesment :) Seriously, why not just leave these "modifiers" out unless there is some good reason. I recently edited some american football reviews this way since they had included alot of "color commentary". I would be happy just to report the scores but wouldn't edit war over this. Alan16, would you be agreeable to this suggestion from two uninvolved editors? (I assume EscapeOrbit is uninvolved) --Tom 20:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly Alan16 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV certainly seems to be flexible enough to allow you to provide an opinion, providing there is a virtual consensus amongst published sources ("without bias, all significant views"). It's on this basis that we're allowed to say things like "X is seen one of the best writers of his era": I see this sort of thing in FAs all the time. I'm not too bothered here, but "Let the reader decide" is just an essay. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better just to leave the "comfortable" out. It doesn't add anything important to it, and it is expressing an opinion that all might not share. So if everyone's happy, i think it be best if it was kept out. Alan16 (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who wouldn't share this opinion, to be honest, but maybe it's better left out. 6-1 6-1 is the tennis equivalent of say, a baseball team winning a game 12-2, or a soccer team winning 6-0, it's as close to a complete whitewash as you ever get in a tournament final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.158.94 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree, it would probably be shared by all, I don't think it is necessary in an encyclopaedic article. Stating the facts will surely do. Alan16 ^talk 16:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Aberdeen Cup

Why does it say Scotland in the infobox? The Aberdeen Cup was an exhibtion event and even so it no longer exists! This is a clear case of undue weight. Scotland should be removed, it makes it look like Scotland plays in the Davis Cup or something which is clearly not true. Removing it will be NPOV and will be better for the reader.78.16.143.120 (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Murray is a Scottish player, but he represents Britain when playing at national events. One exhibition event, in the distant past, doesn't alter this and frankly looks silly. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft tag

IMO I don't think it should be on this article. The term implies that there is excessive info that non-fan wouldn't want to read - I don't see it in this article. If nobody provides a reason for keeping it, I'll remove it. Alan16 ^talk 13:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fansite tag and not a fancruft tag. And as explained in the tag and through the edit summary, the reason of tagging is to decrease excessive details. ^LeaveSleaves 13:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fancruft tag, see here. And I don't think that the tag is necessary. I don't think there is excessive detail. Can you please point out what you would consider excessive detail. Alan16 ^talk 14:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently fansite tag now redirects to fancruft. My apologies for not knowing that. As for the excessive details, I believe this refers to unnecessary details of his each and every match in many instances and also inclusion of commentary on some of the matches. I guess the better person to comment on that would be the one who added it. ^LeaveSleaves 14:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea that some of the information is excessive is incorrect. In general it follows the formula: round, opponent (opp's world ranking & sometimes nationality), result. And if you read the section 2 above (I think), there was a discussion about colour commentary. It was decided not to included it, although as someone did point out, it is not forbidden under wiki guidelines. I genuinely think that the tag is unnecessary. Alan16 ^talk 15:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Description of every round match is quite unnecessary. Each tournament result should be included in form of a summary. Consider this: the player is currently in his fifth professional year and at this point the article size is 80kb. Assuming that he plays for at least 7-8 years more (considering his age at this point), the article would be gargantuan in size by then. Not to mention how dreary and monotonous the whole article read would be. ^LeaveSleaves 15:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Well I'll go through the career section now and cut it down. Alan16 ^talk 15:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For an example of what happens when you have something near this level of detail on a retired professional, see the Billie Jean King article. We need these bio articles to "summarise" the career history, not describe every single tournament appearance, every single losing or winning score etc. That should be forked into a Andy Murray's playing career history or similar. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've been summarising it, so it is similar to Roger Federer's and Rafael Nadal's. From your suggestion, I'll make a new page with possibly tables of tournaments and results et all. I should be finished in the next hour, so keep an eye out. Alan16 ^talk 17:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had agreed to stop the unconstructive exaggerations, TRM. Tennis expert (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

undent - I have cut down a lot of the stuff in the career like I said. Don't have time to finish the page Rambling Man suggested, so someone else can try, or I might come back to it in a day or two. I'll remove the fancruft tag for now. Alan16 ^talk 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Alan, you should not be deleting stuff. If you want to cut down on the size of this article, then you should be moving stuff from this article to a new article. Aside from that, what the previous experienced editors mysteriously did not mention is that when determining the length of an article, only prose is counted and tables are excluded. There is nothing inherently wrong with an 80kb article (including tables). If it gets too long in the future, then that problem can be dealt with then. Tennis expert (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis Expert (...), I think your logic is as wrong as wrong can get. The idea that you can not delete anything is amateur at best and stupid at worst. I'm going to revert your edit because it was decided that having his every victory included was unnecessary and contrary to the norm (see Roger Federer#Career, and Rafael Nadal#Career). Alan16 ^talk 23:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you've decided to edit war about this. See WP:BRD. Tennis expert (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It isn't me that is causing the problem. It was discussed and concluded that a complete summary of his every match in every tournament was unnecessary and against the norm. I then removed what was decided to be unnecessary information. Why do you continue to revert? Alan16 ^talk 04:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

BRD is not a policy or a guideline but just an essay. If you have genuine issues with the article, voice them here. Don't just willy-nilly revert someone's well thought out edits just because you disagree with them. ^LeaveSleaves 05:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are seriously misinformed about the reliability of WP:BRD. The Manual of Style is just a guideline, too.... Tennis expert (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Who discussed it? You and two others, right? That's far from a consensus. And aside from that, I seriously doubt that the other two were in favor of deleting the information entirely instead of moving it to a new article. Do you see the difference? Tennis expert (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favor of deletion of information so long as it does not affect the integrity of the article. Creating forks over minuscule, trivial details and commentary is quite unnecessary. Now if it is the question of actual statistics, then it might be fine to create a separate article if its volume is inexplicably large. And I do not doubt the reliability of BRD, but I find it irresponsible to cite an essay to support your multiple reverts of what clearly ware ell-intentioned and thought-out edits. ^LeaveSleaves 05:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside assistance has been requested, here. Tennis expert (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that we're aiming for a summary style article here. Removing information from here is quite correct. Creating suitable forks, which themselves ought to be written in a summary style but on a more focussed topic, is quite correct as well. Remember though that our obligation is to make these main articles correct before getting into intricate forks. People will want to know the main facts about Andy Murray, the finals he made and/or won, not that he "defeated Tomas Berdych in three sets" (in some third or fourth match) nor do our readers need "At the Indian Wells Masters event Murray made his way into the quarter finals after a 7–6(5), 6–4 victory over number four seed Nikolay Davydenko. He then proceeded to save two match points and recover from a serious fall, in which he injured his ankle and hip, and bounce back to beat German Tommy Haas to progress to the semi-finals, winning 3–6, 6–3, 7–6(8). He could not make it to the final though, hampered by the injury he sustained in the quarter final against Haas, he lost 6–2, 6–3 to Novak Djokovic. Despite the loss, he rose to a career high ranking of 12th in the world." many sentences to say all this... In any case, thanks to GFDL, when editors remove text from articles, it is never irreversible (as Tennis expert has shown us using WP:BRD) nor is the information removed lost forever. Should the information lost be considered vital in a fork then it can easily be retrieved from an article's history and then used in the new article, assuming all GFDL attribution (permalinks etc) are used. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What the readers "need" is a matter of opinion, to be decided by editor consensus and not solely by you or even you plus LeaveSleaves. And which Wikipedia policy says that the main article must be "correct" (whatever that means) before being "forked"? See WP:IMPERFECT. You seem to be making up policies on the fly and ignoring WP:PRESERVE. That's a recurring problem with your edits, which in my opinion are highly disruptive. Tennis expert (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I and just about everyone who has read your comments is fully aware of how you feel about my edits, your continual need to link to your evidence seems a little desperate, and quite out of context here. Please re-read the {{fansite}} tag - it encourages the removal of excessive trivia. You are aware of WP:SUMMARY and just because an editor has been bold enough to attempt to carefully address this issue on this particular article, you are once more showing a distinct level of ownership of this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are ashamed of the links to your proven and self-admitted disruptive tactics. I also am sorry that you are back to assuming bad faith at the drop of a hat and accusing editors of trying to hurt the encyclopedia. Your world tour apparently didn't help your attitude. I am not the only editor who disagrees with your tagging rampage. And my sole interest is preventing harm to tennis articles and in abiding by Wikipedia policy. You, on the other hand, have a personal agenda that's hard to fathom. Tennis expert (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As I seem to have caused a fair amount of the problems, I suppose it is about time I jumped into the discussion. You say that your sole interest is in preventing harm to tennis articles, yet there is clearly no harm being done with the edit which started all this. It seems that you disagree with it, and you think that because you call yourself a tennis expert we should all bow down to you and your opinions. Really it seems that your sole interest is in dragging up your disruptive past with The Rambling Man. Alan16 ^talk 21:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect on several levels. I invite you to study WP:AGF. And don't assume anything from my user name, which I've had for years. It doesn't mean anything. The harm here is ignoring WP:BRD. You made a bold edit - nothing wrong with that, assuming it were voluntary and not coerced by The Rambling Man through out-of-control tagging and discussion page pressure from LeaveSleaves. I reverted your edit. The next step is discussion to arrive at a consensus. That step was omitted, by both LeaveSleaves and yourself. My recommendation is to go back to the original state of the article and then have a constructive discussion about what should be done next. This is what WP:BRD assumes should happen. It is how consensus-building on Wikipedia works best. Tennis expert (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to pepper your comments with links to articles on Wiki principles - and rather than go by WP:AGF, I go by Hanlon's Razor. I made a bold edit - which was the result of a discussion between me and another user. You reverted. A brand new editor (in the sense of new-to-the-discussion) then reverted you. We have then gotten into a mud-slinging contest. You propose reverting the page to its original state then discussing. I would however suggest, that as there are 3 in favour of the edit, and 1 against at the moment, it should remain unless you can suggest a valid reason for changing back.

Also, it seems that you disagree with the edit because it goes against the order in which WP:BRD says it should be done. I don't think you've raised any decent arguments to actually do with the content of the edit. The edit that was made seems to be generally supported, and the page is now more like the Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal pages. On their pages there is no detailed list of every single little game in every single result - and they are two of the most important players in tennis today.

And your name. I wasn't assuming you were an expert, I was trying to suggest that you use that username to suggest a higher level of understanding that others. I don't mean that to sound as malicious as it does, but I can't phrase it better at the moment. Your shot. Alan16 ^talk 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Hanlon's Razor is not a Wikipedia principle. WP:BRD is. (2) Two or three people discussing something on an article talk page for a day cannot form a consensus when there are hundreds of editors of the article. What's the rush? There is no deadline for improving articles. (3) I have no disagreement with some of your deletions. But regardless, they need to be discussed first because they are so massive. Why are you resisting the BRD sequence? Take the article back to where it was and then we can have a fruitful, reasonable discussion. (4) What's happening in other Wikipedia articles isn't necessarily relevant here. The other articles could be wrong. In any event, see WP:OSE. Best regards. Tennis expert (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) I never compared WP:BRD and Hanlon's Razor. (2) IMO, there was a decision reached that the article needed changed, and I did. And there is no deadline to improve articles, but if nobody wants to discuss it, I'm not going to sit there waiting until there is a majority of every editor. (3) I think that is an incorrect statement. The idea that something needs to be discussed for the sake of discussion seems ludicrous to me. And I will not revert an edit which has been constructive simply so we can follow a sequence. (4) The other articles are not wrong though. Alan16 ^talk 23:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd rather be a disruptive editor. OK. I understand you now and will act accordingly. Tennis expert (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How you drew that conclusion from my above post is unbeknownst to me. If you are determined to get on yet another persons nerves then knock yourself out. I follow guidelines and have always edited with the best of intentions - if you have an actual charge to level then go ahead. Alan16 ^talk 02:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've clearly stated that consensus doesn't matter to you, which is one of the pillars on which this entire encyclopedia is based. Nor does the civilized and collegial editing procedure embodied in WP:BRD. You've also assumed bad faith about me, ridiculously based merely on my user name. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you were merely reacting to pressure you've received from two editors. I appear to have been wrong about that. Tennis expert (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never stated that consensus doesn't matter to me. I have stated, however, that discussion isn't needed for discussions sake. About your name, it clearly suggests a knowledge of a subject which is greater than the average knowledge, something which I think is entirely misleading - and it could therefore possibly be considered inappropriate. And I've never assumed bad faith, but I'll admit to a certain wariness when interacting with you, because you must realise that there are some clear polar-different opinions about you. Again, if you think I have disregarded the guidelines or have been uncivil towards you, then do something about it. If not, stop this. This has gone far enough off course. The edits seem to be regarded as constructive. If you have a problem with the edits, lets here it. If you have a problem with me, take it further, but not on this talk page. Alan16 ^talk 02:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the edits being discussed and I can only see these changes as being for the better of the article. It's a succinct piece, as opposed to the rather sprawling collection of facts previously in its place, and I think that this article is now one step closer to being accessible to a general readership and being closer to summary-style. Nice work. AlonsornunezComments 00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tennis expert, you say I " have a personal agenda that's hard to fathom". Let me make it really plain and simple for you to fathom. I want the Tennis Wikiproject to get a good or featured article. There you go, wasn't that hard to fathom was it? I'll repeat what I have said elsewhere about Wikiprojects I'm involved in and their varying success at FA/GA... Football (6 featured topics, 50 FAs [including retired and current players], 90 FLs [including national and third division teams], around 200 GAs), Cricket (28 FAs, 25 FLs, 59 GAs) and then Tennis (2 FAs [both video games], 4 GAs). I don't think Wikipedia as a whole has a grudge against the project, but it seems shocking that the project has, essentially, failed in its task to gain "recognition" for individual articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the retitle of this discussion by Tennis expert; the whole point of the retitle appears to have been to alter the focus of this discussion, but has had the unintended effect of making early posts confusing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinions

I've come here from WP:EAR at Tennis expert's request; I hope we can sort out the issues here. I would ask that everyone involved please drop the issue of "personal agendas" or what have you. We will never resolve this content issue if we cease discussing content, and frankly I fully encourage everyone involved to ignore any comments which attempt to attribute the problem to them, somewhat per DefendEachOther.

My understanding of this issue is that Alan16 objected to the use of the {{fancruft}} template on this article, and objected to the observation that a large portion of the article (namely, the exhaustive description of Murray's performance) qualified as "excessive detail". After a brief discussion with LeaveSleaves, he went on to trim down the article by 7920 bytes, which is quite a bit to be sure.

Tennis expert reverted this, partly citing WP:SIZE#Readability issues and furthermore that Alan16 should be moving the content to a new fork article rather than simply removing it from this article. Though some revert warring occurred, it's immaterial to the content issues here.

The Rambling Man agreed with the removal, arguing that in order to establish a summary style article, it should be. This seems sensible, provided forks are created of the material being removed.

Tennis expert disagreed with this, citing WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. I don't quite understand this however, as it would seem that WP:PRESERVE would equally support The Rambling Man's statements. It specifically says, As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. Should these details all be part of a "finished" article?

To me, that seems the conclusion of the content based arguments. The vast majority of this dispute appears to be behavioral, and I invite all the editors involved to drop it until the conclusion of this content dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)