Jump to content

Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 14

I've reinstated the Twitter link. Twitter links directly to Artist / Stars / Athletes etc,. own pages are allowed and you will find many such links already within Wikipedia (Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Stephen Fry, Ian Poulter etc.).

By way of clarification - Rule 10 does NOT expressly forbid all Twitter links. All 18 rules are prefaced with the caveat: Links normally to be avoided. Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject — and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

As it is "an official page of the Artist's subject", and it does not contravene any restrictions on linking, Andy Murray's Twitter feed is perfectly acceptable within existing Wiki rules. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an official site link. A second (or third or fourth) official link has to add encyclopedic value, and his seldom used twitter link does not. 2005 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion regarding the usage of links to external sites, such as Twitter feeds and dedicated fan sites for celebrities, in this case, professional tennis players. SpikeJones (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Background: as seen in the discussion above, there may be a WP:COI with one editor insisting on adding their fan site to WP. Additional discussion has been held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis as well. SpikeJones (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's currently a COI, not a WP:COI, because he declared it and got the required consensus. Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe I have already explained how Twitter links to the Subjects own Twitter feed are perfectly acceptable within current Wiki rules. Exactly what are you still confused about? David T Tokyo (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC).
You misunderstand the guideline. If some were to have a dozen official Myspace/Twitter/facebook pages they would not all be linked. The main oficial site is linked. If the Twitter feed offered some extensive information not available in the article, or the official site, it could be linked. However this one does not. 2005 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The key is usefulness; WP:ELNO#10 needs to be updated to reflect this. How useful is the twitter feed? Twitter by a celebrity? Sounds useful. Twitter about a celebrity? Probably not, but... Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding fansites, one of the main issues is that they frequently display copyright content without the rights holder's permission. If the fansite in question is displaying unlicensed multimedia content taken from copyright sources, it is likely running afoul of WP:ELNEVER. --Muchness (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Great point. The Murraysworld fansite has tons of youtube video links that, when clicked, actually play on the fansite itself. Linking to the site seems like a clear violation of WP:ELNEVER to me! Chidel (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
No that is not a violation. Those videos are located on Youtube. 2005 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
And your opinion is based on what? Even if you have correctly described policy, there is still a big problem. The videos actually play on the Murraysworld fansite. The fansite does not contain mere links to the youtube website. Chidel (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Youtube links play on millions of websites. They are still Youtube links. 2005 (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
YouTube's terms of service explicitly permit this use. There is no copyright violation here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia first and foremost. Fansites are not encyclopedic, and shouldn't be linked from articles per WP:IAR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
"WP:IAR"? Is that a typo? Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Deacon: "Fansites are not encyclopedic". This is a woefully inaccurate generalisation, one that suggests you haven't even bothered to look at the site under review before commenting here. Murraysworld contains great deal of "encyclopedic" content - far more so than the subjects own site and the ATP site. If you disagree please prove your point by providing a link to an alternative Andy Murray site that contains a greater depth of information.
Chidel: "Great point. The Murraysworld fansite has tons of youtube video links that, when clicked, actually play on the fansite itself. Linking to the site seems like a clear violation of WP:ELNEVER to me!". I'm assuming that you have actually read WP:ELNEVER - in which case please provide us with the proof that clearly shows that these videos are being illegally broadcasted. If you can't, as usual you've gone a step too far in your enthusiasm to make sure that a link to murrayworld is avoided.
Mark7144: WP:ELNEVER is a concern. Can you provide assurances about the content? David T Tokyo (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The website does not breach copyright law. I think Chidel's relentless mission to remove this link is starting to look suspicious and therefore I ask him for a second time, does he have a COI on this matter? Mark7144 (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned Chidel may be inadvertently breeching a behavioural guideline. Chidel, are you sure there's not something you should have disclosed in these discussions? Or are you waiting for someone else to say it? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr Tokyo, thanks for your opinion, but I don't hold any weight to it. I'd very much like fan pages to be banned as a rule of thumb. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a combo of myspace and hello magazine.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Your position is so extreme that I'll tentatively have to dismiss it as Wikipedia Fiction Conflict partisanship. Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Mr Deacon, thank you also for your opinion which I will equally take with a grain of salt. I personally believe that Wiki is incapable of being fully encyclopedic and has no alternative but to link to other sites to provide additional information. Obviously such sites need to be of a significantly higher quality than "a combo of myspace and hello magazine" - on that we are agreed. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Fansites can be encyclopedic. Asserting they can never be is fantasically illogical. If Martin Scorcese establishes an indepth fansite for Alfred Hitchcock, that would likely be an extremely high quality external link. "Fansites" just means sites set up by individuals or groups that are fans of some thing. If they have authority, then they can be great links, sometimes outstanding ones like the fictious Scorcese example. If they are anonymous and full of stolen junk, then they are not good links. One fansite, Find A Grave, has thousands of links, and while some of those links may not be very good, it is plainly obvious that a very large number of Wikipedia editors recoginize that fansites should sometimes be linked. 2005 (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well explained. I didn't know Find A Grave was a fansite, but if so, that suggests that banning of all "fansites" is illogical. Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest looking up "illogical" in a dictionary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
M-W.com "illogical": "2  : devoid of logic : senseless <illogical policies>". Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the deacon on this matter! Mark the creator is not really an authority rather just a creator of a fansite with not affiliation to a reputable source like Tennis magazine, The Tennis Channel, or the Telegraph!TW-RF (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
External links are not required to be reliable sources (or its weasely stand in "reputable sources"). Milo 06:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
TW-RF: Not that it matters but becoming an authority for a niche is not particularly hard to do if you consider its been around longer than any other website on the subject. Also you do not need inside sources to be considered an authority. The fact mainstream media (BBC, Sky) regularly air the views of the website on the subject is a reasonable argument for considering it an authority. Mark7144 (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It's kind of like http://www.goroger.com is an authority on Roger Federer? NOT! I think just because you are arround for a while and some station mentions you if that is even true at some point means your an authority! This is no more an authority than a random blog about a sportsperson, which means it is subjected to this criteria of a living person Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources, which go look at self publishing. This is the only article on wikipedia that has a fansite link that I have ever saw, which clealy should be viewed as being out of the norm! Murraysworld violates pretty much all of these rules and criteria!TW-RF (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"goroger.com is an authority on Roger Federer?" You misunderstood my post. I wasn't using its age as an argument, I was saying that being around that long means its not particularly difficult to become an authority if you do things right. My argument for it being an authority was it's *regular* media coverage, not age. "if that is even true" You can search on YouTube to see some examples of the media coverage if you are sceptical.
"clealy should be viewed as being out of the norm" Of course it's out of the norm, you should read the discussion above this one, it goes into details as to why it's acceptable to make an exception here. The policy on fan site linking specifically caters for "out of the norm" circumstances so you can't use that as an argument for removing the link. Let's try not to repeat an entire debate that happened a couple of days ago that ended up in consensus for keeping the link. Mark7144 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I did my research, and yes you did appear on BBC twice and SkyNews Once, but this must conform to the BLP (Biography of a Living Person) with respect to the article, which means it is a group blog. This is all!

Wikipedia Guidelines - Verbatim TW-RF (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TW-RF has quoted WP:BLP in which "sources" are discussed. Sources are used for numbered references in the article body. This RfC concerns External links. External links are not sources or references.
However, I scanned the article body for use of Murraysworld.com other than in the External links section, and there was such a use in section "Playing style". I've commented it out to avoid confusing this discussion of external links.
I have some questions for User:TW-RF (talk) and User:Chidel (talk). TW-RF made his first edit 23 June 2009, and immediately built two quite sophisticated sandboxes (contribs at bottom). Chidel made his first edit 20 June 2009. He immediately created an AfD (contribs at bottom). My question to both is, how did you get such remarkably precocious knowledge of Wikipedia as new users? Milo 05:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
TW-RF, media coverage has only really started in the last 2 years. 2x on Sky News, 2x BBC News 5x BBC Radio, 1x The Guardian, 1x Scotsman but all of this in the last 2 years so in context, it can be considered "regular".
Milo, I completely share your suspicions, it's no secret that the website has its enemies, many from the official website. From recent discussions I can't help but jump to the conclusion we have at least Chidel as a COI. He has ignored this question three times. Straight after he stops posting, we now have a new editor with the same passion for removing the link but this time called TW-RF. Mark7144 (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Chidel wasn't so new:
14 July 2009 (Block log); 04:28 . . YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) blocked Chidel (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (sock on open proxies)
Milo 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe he is none other than Tennis expert. He requested his original account to be wiped clean, "to disappear" in wiki terms, so we can't see his history. That's fine as long as you leave wiki not to return. It is not fine, and against policy, if you then return and start hammering the same people you picked on before under another name. He can quote their history since it's there for everyone to see, but he then has a clean slate as if he is a virgin wikipedian. I don't know this for a fact but the dates work out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hellow Milo and Mark7144, I am not Chidel, which I have disagreed with chidel on occassions, which you all can go to WP:Tennis to see that, and I am NOT chidel. I noticed sandboxes when making edits from my IP account and that alerted me to them, when I formed the account TW-RF. Now onto the validity of fansite, which an Admin Deacon said it needs to be removed from this page and all other pages on wikipedia, and I tend to trust the admins. If he or she said it was fine, I would have no problem, which if I keep seeing it up, I will have more admins weight into this discussion. I know Mark Sanger known as user Mark7144 is the one advocating for the inclusion, but this needs to be the subject of greater debate on behalf of all wikipedia not just on this page!TW-RF (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
"Admin Deacon said" Admins aren't content bosses. They are more like plain clothes detectives when called to investigate bad behavior. The Deacon was just expressing his opinion here as one editor, same as the rest of us. Because his opinion is extremist, it's less likely to be taken seriously. Milo 02:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"debate on behalf of all wikipedia" Not at all, each link needs to be judged on its own merits. The policy intentionally makes it clear that there are exceptions and if you look at the thread above this, you can read the debate which lead to the consensus that the link should stay. I fear we are going to repeat ourselves, it's not necessary, this has all been discussed a few days ago. Mark7144 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This article page is not the place to stage a debate on external link guidelines. If you want to do that use the guideline talk page. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Outside responses

Inserted by Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC): This RfC is titled:

"RFC:How should Twitter and Fan Sites external links be handled for Celebrity Pages?"


Just so we're all on the same page here — because there seems to be an inexplicable amount of confusion — here's what WP:ELNO #10 and #11 actually say:

  • Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook),[2] chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.
  • Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

The footnote says "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)."

Contrary to David Tokyo's assertion on 11 July, annd in clear support of Deacon's point, the default rule is — and has been for a long time — "no Twitter and no fansites." There are exceptions embodied in the rule, but the basic rule is "no". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. OK - one more time.
If the default is no "Twitter" why:
1) did it take me less than two minutes to find the Twitter links I was looking for on Wikipedia. I searched for a few specific links to prove my point (above, at the start) and I'm pleased to say that I found everything I searched for. Not one link was missing. And yet you say the default is no Twitter. Not from where I'm standing it isn't...
2) does the opening paragraph of WP:ELNO - the condition to which every rule in WP:ELNO is subject - does it specifically say that links to an official page of the article's subject are an exception to the list of "rules normally to be avoided". And why, when it says this, does it do so in bold type ?. Other than the title, this is the only part of WP:ELNO to be given additional emphasis. And before you say that Twitter isn't covered by that condition - it absolutely does not say that either. David T Tokyo (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem with your position is that consensus is descriptive, not prescriptive. So if many other pages have Twitter links, perhaps they have not sunk in quality as defined by the changed consensus. Put another way, if many pages have chosen to have Twitter links, the WP:EL guide should be changed to reflect that it is now ok to do so.
By the way, I think too frequently unused Twitters should be avoided, but I would consense to Twitter links that have a stated schedule. Milo 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I for one will continue to abide by the premise that the lowest crappy denominator will not dictate the condition of encyclopedic content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I share many of your feelings. Were it my say alone, some things would be of greater quality.
However, it sounds like you may intend to defy the dictate of consensus. If so, I respectfully request that that you depart participation at Wikipedia, and join some appropriately elitist-chartered project. Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"consensus" at a single article or project does not and cannot overide consensus of the project as a whole as reflected in the policy and guideline pages. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
After reading the full thread above, the specific justification for inclusion of this fansite appears to be that the fansite contains " Schedule of forthcoming tournaments and matches. Detailed reviews and analysis of individual matches" The upcoming schedules does not convince me that the site is justifiable - that is fan content not remotely encyclopedic. The detailed reviews and analysis of the matches would potentially be justification, but this fansite is not a unique resource in providing such analysis - such coverage is provided in hundreds of other resources. I dont see justification. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The question is "Should this article contain (either or both of) these two links

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, this is a warning that if you continue with falsely misleading behavior, in this case falsely misstating the question of this RfC – done for whatever reason – you will face some kind of WP process, such as RfC/U or ANI.
So far I haven't looked into it, since I want to focus on content, but I've gotten just a hint at WT:EL that some number of other editors would testify against you for their own reasons. Be wise and keep me disinterested with your future good behavior. Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes. --Chromenano (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Chromenano, you've been had.
WhatamIdoing has falsely misstated the question of this RfC: At the top it clearly reads:

"RFC:How should Twitter and Fan Sites external links be handled for Celebrity Pages?".

Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't this the question is about that particular fan site but rather a more general view on fan sites. If you want to talk about that particular fan site there was already a debate a few days ago and a consensus was reached to keep it included. Therefore any issues with that specific link should be expressed in the thread above. Mark7144 (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Dlabtot, you've been had too. See the real question above.
Mark7144 is correct that the Fan site has been consensed in a section above, and done so in a way under WP:EL that is confusing but available. The regular editors at WT:EL have refused to make it less confusing, which is violation of WP:NOT#BUROCRACY policy. Milo 21:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The answer to "How should Twitter and Fan Sites external links be handled for Celebrity Pages?" is "As outlined at WP:EL." That's why I asked for clarification about what constitutes the actual dispute at this page. Dlabtot (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I just think they are Mark, Milo, and Tokyo are making exceptions for this one page, and why is the goroger.net not included on his page? Hmm, I wonder why because exactly its not allow, and a fansite no matter how long active cannot be recognize as an authority! I would prefer having a wikipedia and tennis players consensus, which has been for a long time no fansites or twitters. This is an encyclopedia not an indiscriminate collection of links to a fansites or twitter even though official. I prefer content and links from very reputable sources, which it is not murraysworld or even goroger for that matter. I have all the respect for the creator of this fansite Mark Sanger, but the inclusion of this as a authority on a narrowly defined basis with utter obfuscation to the entire community I think and know is wrong. Good Website but not for wikipedia consumption or linkage. I just wish people could look at things before they make unique rules for one page on wikipedia. Sorry for my rant, but I just believe in the community over narrow consenus, which means long lasting consensus and support for something not just fleeting approval. Have a nice day!TW-RF (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think has been made repeatedly clear to you that what is been followed on this page is in accordance with policy and guidelines, which have a degree of flexibility on this matter. Your attempts to establish a Tennis Project guideline on the matter is commendable, but at this moment this article is not an "exception" as no such guideline exists. It's implementation of External Links is therefore just as valid as any other tennis article. In the meantime, if you wish to establish a guideline then I suggest the proper place to do this is on the Tennis Project pages, not here. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 08:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It would appear that users here are mistakenly trying to force a discussion of general policy, in an inappropriate forum. This talk page should be devoted to discussion of the article Andy Murray. The title of this RfC indicates a matter of general policy, which, in this case, would be appropriate for discussion on Wikipedia Talk:EL. That discussion is ongoing, so why are you discussing it here? Nothing you say or do here is going to change WP consensus on this or any other subject. Eaglizard (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andy_Murray/Archive_9&oldid=1050152905"