![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=MC10When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The wiki page is showing rafa's total winning stats as 806-173 since a month in the box below his photo.The details of Brisbane international is not included. It's 814-176 as per 30 Jan 2017 after Aus Open 2017. Rajankur100 ( talk) 06:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
PrincetonNeuroscientist, please discuss why you think the ESPN rankings that you presented should be included in the article instead of starting an edit-war. I personally agree with James343e's point that there's a risk of being an element of bias there, because it's a predominantly American channel and not just based there, but more because it covers all sports and isn't a tennis-only kind of venture, and it wouldn't seem fair to include analysis that doesn't come from somewhere solely focusing on tennis. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to see someone like PrincetonNeuroscientist propose how to word a separate place in history section as opposed to adding the same stuff to the lead that has been reverted by multiple editors. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ James343e:, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We don't conduct original research, nor do we synthesize data into our own conclusions. Deciding which player is the greatest of all time is really outside the scope of the Wikipedia project. So your discussions of Nadal vs Borg, Nadal vs Djokovic, Nadal vs Laver, and Nadal vs Sampras, while they may be absolutely on-point and very insightful, really have no place in this discussion. Ours is merely to say, "Abcde Zyxwv is widely considered to be the greatest Calvinball player of all time", and then to source that statement with multiple of the most reliable Calvinball-coverage sources that back it up. Or perhaps to say, "Fghij Utsrq, a Calvinball legend in his own right, has said that Abcde Zyxwv may just be the greatest Calvinball player of all time." This may help to skirt some of the issues and arguments that are currently being brought up. J♯m ( talk | contribs) 19:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm playing around on my Nadal sandbox page, trying to make the intro a better summary and moving the majority of info and sourcing into a legacy section. Some administrators here have complained about the length of our tennis player lead sections. Feel free to comment. Maybe everyone will hate it, but I thought I'd try again to help out with the situation. I made the assumption that since all the material is sourced and presented in the legacy section that we would not need all the sourcing above in the summary. I don't do a lot of Nadal editing but I do admit to liking his mental toughness on the court. I figure the legacy section could go just above or below the rivalry section? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the sentence: Nadal is a clay court specialist in the sense that he has been extremely successful on that surface. Since 2005, he won nine times at Roland Garros
Correct one is: Nadal is a clay court specialist in the sense that he has been extremely successful on that surface. Since 2005, he won ten times at Roland Garros Diritol ( talk) 17:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the 2009: Australian Open title and loss at French Open section, the end of the second paragraph states:
"Nadal defeated Federer in five sets to earn his first hard-court Grand Slam singles title,[84] making him the first Spaniard to win the Australian Open and the fourth male tennis player—after Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, and Andre Agassi—to win Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces. This win also made Nadal the first male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time. [85]"
This is incorrect, and the cited article ([85], "Record-breaking Rafa Notches Up Another First". Tennishead. 4 February 2009. Archived from the original on 9 April 2009. Retrieved 4 February 2009.) is also incorrect, as Jimmy Connors never won the French Open, and thus only won a Grand Slam singles title on 2 surfaces. Mats Wilander never won Wimbledon, and therefore also only has a Grand Slam singles title on 2 surfaces.
Please change it to the following, and delete source [85] described just above:
"Nadal defeated Federer in five sets to earn his first hard-court Grand Slam singles title,[84] making him the first Spaniard to win the Australian Open and the third male tennis player—after Rod Laver (1969 Grand Slam) and Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1999 French Open)—to win Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces in the Open Era. This win also made Nadal the second male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time, the other being Rod Laver in 1969."
Supporting information: As of the 2009 Australian Open, the only other players to have won a Grand Slam on 3 surfaces in the Open Era are: Rod Laver (1969 Grand Slam) and Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1999 French Open). Additionally, Nadal is therefore actually the 2nd male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time in the Open Era. As Rod Laver accomplished the same feat during his 1969 Grand Slam. Source: /info/en/?search=List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions
While this is outside the scope of this article (as it does not pertain to Nadal), since the 2009 Australian Open, 2 additional players have accomplished this feat: Roger Federer has won a Grand Slam singles title on 3 surfaces (2003 Wimbledon, 2004 Australian Open, 2009 French Open) and held all 3 at once (2008 US Open, 2009 French Open, 2009 Wimbledon). Novak Djokovic has also won a Grand Slam singles title on 3 surfaces (2008 Australian Open, 2011 Wimbledon, 2016 French Open) and held all 3 at once (2015 Wimbledon, 2015 US Open, 2016 French Open).
Hi everyone.
The user Tvx1 did some changes to the page. Of course, I assume good faith and the fact that he is trying to improve the article. He wants to delete the section that initially said "with some considering Nadal to be the greates tennis player of all time". He deleted that initial sentence and according to his new changes now it only says that Nadal is "one of the greates players in tennis history" like Nadal is on the same league as Lendl or Agassi instead of Laver, Federer or Rosewall who are usually in the GOAT discussion. He deleted the sentence "with some considering Nadal to be the greates tennis player of all time" because it only included 2 references of Agassi and McEnroe. McEnroe's reference was incorrect since he said "Nadal and Federer are the greatest tennis players of all time". So in that sense his change was correct.
But then I found other references (author's opinions) and I added them to the page. Somehow, he still managed to deleted those new sources. His main objections are 2.
1) Those authors are "nobodies" or "random people" therefore Wikipedia cannnot include them as reliable evidence.
2) Wikipedia cannot include blogs as reliable sources.
Here is my answer to those objections:
1) That is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Hominem. A logical fallacy is an invalid argument. Specifically, an Argumen ad Hominem is made when a person critizes only the person who makes the argument, instead of his argument itself. In other words, just by critizicing the person who makes the argument, you are not refuting the argument itself. The user Tvx1 just says that they are "not experts" or "ordinary people" in a typical example of Argument ad Hominem.
2) Wikipedia policy allows to cite blogs as reliable sources. Check out this: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources. Here you can read that blogs as statements of opinion "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". The Wikipedia Nadal's article only says that ACCORDING TO SOME Nadal is the best, it's their opinion, so of course those are a reliable sources.
In the Federer Wikipeida page it is said that MANY (not only some like Nadal) consider Federer to be the greatest player of all time. But it is their opinion of course. Ken Rosewall can also be considered the GOAT since he has 23 Majors (8 Grand Slams and 15 Pro Slams) while Federer has 19 Majors. The same goes in this Wikipedia article. We are citing the opinion of some authors on Nadal. James343e ( talk) 21:04, 50 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose that the statement "Prior to his withdrawal, Nadal had been touted as the favourite to successfully defend the Gold Medal he won in Beijing four years earlier, despite his early loss at Wimbledon" be omitted. The source is a Bleacher Report blog. MysteryTed80 ( talk) 06:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
In the header the link for the world number 1 is wrong, use the official atp one here: /info/en/?search=List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players
It was the one used for the previous world ones such as andy murray, novak and roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.12.206 ( talk) 02:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paragraph 1 should read " His evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest tennis players ever, with some considering him the greatest player of all time." Abhisetia ( talk) 01:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/five-reasons-rafa-nadal-is-the-greatest-of-all-time/article/2008433 http://www.powersharesseries.com/agassi-says-nadal-could-be-the-goat/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/01/28/tennis-podcast-rafael-nadal-roger-federer-greatest-time-says/
-- 120.154.164.83 ( talk) 16:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Also, we have some sort of trolling or sockpuppeting going on here in this conversation. We have user James343e, who was blocked for edit warring this same topic months ago, and a bunch of first time editors (Abhisetia, 120.154.164.83, 2001:8003:645C:9200:110:86D1:9A87:C526, and now 2001:8003:645C:9200:900C:D8A8:F167:CB64). First timers citing rules of wikipedia. Very interesting to say the least. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Fyunck: Read WP:HUMAN & WP:NOTHUMAN before you escalate this any further. You are not being very civil. After one or more editors have disagreed with you, you have automatically assuming that they are 'First Timers', 'Trolls', and 'Moronic'. You attempted to remove a post made by another editor on a talk page discussion you are involved in, and made unfounded claims of Sock-Puppetry. (there is a process for investigating sockpuppets). You should be aware an edit war requires two sides, I'm not making judgment on which side is correct, I suggest you take the opportunity to get a 3O to find out. Α Guy into Books™ § ( Message) - 08:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
|
James343e, read the below section – your query was answered more than a month ago. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This confused me – while I definitely think that the removal/summarisation of the rivalries section could at least be considered, as each rivalry mentioned already has its own article, I was under the impression that articles for most big-name/long-time tennis players were supposed to be quite long. Every other section – from the section on his playing career to the sections on his image and off-court stuff (heck, we still haven't even added a legacy section yet) – seem pretty essential to me. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It is very clear from the sources that the debate over GOAT revolves around two men: Nadal and Federer. Therefore, i see nothing controversial with noting this in the article for Nadal, especially when Federer's lead has the following: "Many players and analysts consider Federer the greatest tennis player of all time." Wikipedia shouldn't support double standards. -- Mawlidman ( talk) 23:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's get back to the discussion at hand, then. The reason why I reverted the most recent addition is because the source that was added was a blog, and wasn't reliable – by the looks of things, the other sources that were later added were quite similar, however they talked about the dispute without addressing who they thought was the greatest. The statement itself has now been removed by another editor but the sources remain, so now we're back to where we started. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
77.59.248.2 ( talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a mistake in table of grand slams. Rafa has 3 losses in Roland Garros ('09, '15, '16) hence 79-3, not 2 as stated in the table's summary column (79-2). This also changes win percentage 97,5% to 96,3% and overall percentage too. Since article is locked i can not change it. 193.77.226.65 ( talk) 11:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a small point but as someone who is left handed with writing, bows, rifles, guitar and left footed with football but right handed with pretty much everything else, I don't think ambidextrous is the correct term for Nadal (if he too is of a similar disposition).
People always say to me 'So, you're ambidextrous are you?'. No, I only wish I was :) The fact is I can't hit a tennis ball to save my life with my left hand nor kick a ball with my right foot. I think the term is Cross-dominance.
The reason the career stats charts were created was to keep all the technical charts on a stats page. Originally we only had a condensed grand slam only performance timeline on the player's main article, with the rest being put on the career stats article. A few players have somehow gotten the full grand slam chart added. That's ok I guess, though I wouldn't add it. But we certainly don't need any more than that. Year-end, Olympics, Masters 1000, Davis Cup, etc.... those charts should be on the career stats article only. It should be more like Steffi Graf or Rod Laver... or at most like Justine Henin. Those are longstanding consensus. This is also being discussed at Talk:Roger Federer. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to let editors know that there is an ongoing RfC about the term "greatest of all time" (especially in the lead). The discussion ongoing at Talk:Rod Laver. Either way you bend it could affect this article. Join in if you wish. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change from ten to eleven montecarlo title in the below statement.
"Since 2005, he won ten times at Roland Garros,[247] ten times at Monte Carlo, ten times at Barcelona and seven at Rome."
Source https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/22/rafael-nadal-wins-record-monte-carlo-masters Helloprak ( talk) 22:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rank No :2 (14 May 2018) Remon.engineer ( talk) 11:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No. 2 (14 May 2018) Remon.engineer ( talk) 11:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
"By Wining the French Open, "
to
"By Winning the French Open," Helloprak ( talk) 18:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Please change the following statement to indicate that this stat only applies to the Men's game, as Sharapova had won at Wimbledon the previous year (aged 17):
"He also became the first teenager to win a Grand Slam singles title since Pete Sampras won the 1990 US Open at age 19.[40]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.134.114 ( talk) 12:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Nadal's evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest tennis players of all time.[c]
The above is the original text. This should be:
Nadal's evolution into an all-court threat and continued success on all surfaces has led some former players and tennis analysts to consider him the greatest player of all time.
Evidence: - http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/05/agassi-goat-id-put-nadal-no-1-federer-no-2/51390/
By former world number 1 Andre Agassi
By former world number 1 womens player Maria Sharapova
- http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/23784126/tennis-rafael-nadal-not-only-king-clay-goat
ESPN Tennis Analyst
Telegraph Newspaper Sports Analyst
- https://www.economist.com/game-theory/2017/09/13/sorry-roger-rafael-nadal-is-not-just-the-king-of-clay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javongarixa11111 ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You are using a double standard when compared to Laver. Federer isn't the only article on wikipedia, but if you don't like his article, fix it. I tried one and failed. I complained about a double standard at Laver and was shouted down with consensus saying the term should not be used. So don't add even more non-consensus stuff to Nadal. We can leave it as it was, or move some quotes to a legacy section, but per Laver talk we aren't adding even more subjective stuff to the lead. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
And that consensus that was reached at Laver's talk page wasn't confined to just Laver. Nadal and Federer articles were also informed so they wouldn't be in the dark about the RfC. In fact, I just tried it again at the Federer article. So leave your bias and past wiki-clones at the door. There's no room for it here. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Paulinho28: added a lead template to this page. Why? At a cursory glance, nothing seems particularly wrong. Fluous ( talk) 21:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
"five-story apartment building" should be "five-storey apartment building
I remember the lead paragrapah included the following phrase: "with some considering Nadal to be the greatest tennis player of all time.", and the reference of Agassi picking Nadal as the greatest tennis player of the golden age of tennis.
I don't see any valid reason why this was changed. It's Agassi's opinion and it should be respected. "Some" can include the opinion of one person. According to the Oxford Dcitionary, "some" means: "An unspecified amount or number of." One is a number, ergo can be used with some.
Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/some
James343e (talk) 21:04, 10th September 2017 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. I agree with you.
Parv Neema ( talk) 10:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=MC10When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The wiki page is showing rafa's total winning stats as 806-173 since a month in the box below his photo.The details of Brisbane international is not included. It's 814-176 as per 30 Jan 2017 after Aus Open 2017. Rajankur100 ( talk) 06:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
PrincetonNeuroscientist, please discuss why you think the ESPN rankings that you presented should be included in the article instead of starting an edit-war. I personally agree with James343e's point that there's a risk of being an element of bias there, because it's a predominantly American channel and not just based there, but more because it covers all sports and isn't a tennis-only kind of venture, and it wouldn't seem fair to include analysis that doesn't come from somewhere solely focusing on tennis. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to see someone like PrincetonNeuroscientist propose how to word a separate place in history section as opposed to adding the same stuff to the lead that has been reverted by multiple editors. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@ James343e:, Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We don't conduct original research, nor do we synthesize data into our own conclusions. Deciding which player is the greatest of all time is really outside the scope of the Wikipedia project. So your discussions of Nadal vs Borg, Nadal vs Djokovic, Nadal vs Laver, and Nadal vs Sampras, while they may be absolutely on-point and very insightful, really have no place in this discussion. Ours is merely to say, "Abcde Zyxwv is widely considered to be the greatest Calvinball player of all time", and then to source that statement with multiple of the most reliable Calvinball-coverage sources that back it up. Or perhaps to say, "Fghij Utsrq, a Calvinball legend in his own right, has said that Abcde Zyxwv may just be the greatest Calvinball player of all time." This may help to skirt some of the issues and arguments that are currently being brought up. J♯m ( talk | contribs) 19:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm playing around on my Nadal sandbox page, trying to make the intro a better summary and moving the majority of info and sourcing into a legacy section. Some administrators here have complained about the length of our tennis player lead sections. Feel free to comment. Maybe everyone will hate it, but I thought I'd try again to help out with the situation. I made the assumption that since all the material is sourced and presented in the legacy section that we would not need all the sourcing above in the summary. I don't do a lot of Nadal editing but I do admit to liking his mental toughness on the court. I figure the legacy section could go just above or below the rivalry section? Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the sentence: Nadal is a clay court specialist in the sense that he has been extremely successful on that surface. Since 2005, he won nine times at Roland Garros
Correct one is: Nadal is a clay court specialist in the sense that he has been extremely successful on that surface. Since 2005, he won ten times at Roland Garros Diritol ( talk) 17:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the 2009: Australian Open title and loss at French Open section, the end of the second paragraph states:
"Nadal defeated Federer in five sets to earn his first hard-court Grand Slam singles title,[84] making him the first Spaniard to win the Australian Open and the fourth male tennis player—after Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, and Andre Agassi—to win Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces. This win also made Nadal the first male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time. [85]"
This is incorrect, and the cited article ([85], "Record-breaking Rafa Notches Up Another First". Tennishead. 4 February 2009. Archived from the original on 9 April 2009. Retrieved 4 February 2009.) is also incorrect, as Jimmy Connors never won the French Open, and thus only won a Grand Slam singles title on 2 surfaces. Mats Wilander never won Wimbledon, and therefore also only has a Grand Slam singles title on 2 surfaces.
Please change it to the following, and delete source [85] described just above:
"Nadal defeated Federer in five sets to earn his first hard-court Grand Slam singles title,[84] making him the first Spaniard to win the Australian Open and the third male tennis player—after Rod Laver (1969 Grand Slam) and Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1999 French Open)—to win Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces in the Open Era. This win also made Nadal the second male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time, the other being Rod Laver in 1969."
Supporting information: As of the 2009 Australian Open, the only other players to have won a Grand Slam on 3 surfaces in the Open Era are: Rod Laver (1969 Grand Slam) and Andre Agassi (1992 Wimbledon, 1994 US Open, 1999 French Open). Additionally, Nadal is therefore actually the 2nd male tennis player to hold three Grand Slam singles titles on three different surfaces at the same time in the Open Era. As Rod Laver accomplished the same feat during his 1969 Grand Slam. Source: /info/en/?search=List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions
While this is outside the scope of this article (as it does not pertain to Nadal), since the 2009 Australian Open, 2 additional players have accomplished this feat: Roger Federer has won a Grand Slam singles title on 3 surfaces (2003 Wimbledon, 2004 Australian Open, 2009 French Open) and held all 3 at once (2008 US Open, 2009 French Open, 2009 Wimbledon). Novak Djokovic has also won a Grand Slam singles title on 3 surfaces (2008 Australian Open, 2011 Wimbledon, 2016 French Open) and held all 3 at once (2015 Wimbledon, 2015 US Open, 2016 French Open).
Hi everyone.
The user Tvx1 did some changes to the page. Of course, I assume good faith and the fact that he is trying to improve the article. He wants to delete the section that initially said "with some considering Nadal to be the greates tennis player of all time". He deleted that initial sentence and according to his new changes now it only says that Nadal is "one of the greates players in tennis history" like Nadal is on the same league as Lendl or Agassi instead of Laver, Federer or Rosewall who are usually in the GOAT discussion. He deleted the sentence "with some considering Nadal to be the greates tennis player of all time" because it only included 2 references of Agassi and McEnroe. McEnroe's reference was incorrect since he said "Nadal and Federer are the greatest tennis players of all time". So in that sense his change was correct.
But then I found other references (author's opinions) and I added them to the page. Somehow, he still managed to deleted those new sources. His main objections are 2.
1) Those authors are "nobodies" or "random people" therefore Wikipedia cannnot include them as reliable evidence.
2) Wikipedia cannot include blogs as reliable sources.
Here is my answer to those objections:
1) That is a logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Hominem. A logical fallacy is an invalid argument. Specifically, an Argumen ad Hominem is made when a person critizes only the person who makes the argument, instead of his argument itself. In other words, just by critizicing the person who makes the argument, you are not refuting the argument itself. The user Tvx1 just says that they are "not experts" or "ordinary people" in a typical example of Argument ad Hominem.
2) Wikipedia policy allows to cite blogs as reliable sources. Check out this: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources. Here you can read that blogs as statements of opinion "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". The Wikipedia Nadal's article only says that ACCORDING TO SOME Nadal is the best, it's their opinion, so of course those are a reliable sources.
In the Federer Wikipeida page it is said that MANY (not only some like Nadal) consider Federer to be the greatest player of all time. But it is their opinion of course. Ken Rosewall can also be considered the GOAT since he has 23 Majors (8 Grand Slams and 15 Pro Slams) while Federer has 19 Majors. The same goes in this Wikipedia article. We are citing the opinion of some authors on Nadal. James343e ( talk) 21:04, 50 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I propose that the statement "Prior to his withdrawal, Nadal had been touted as the favourite to successfully defend the Gold Medal he won in Beijing four years earlier, despite his early loss at Wimbledon" be omitted. The source is a Bleacher Report blog. MysteryTed80 ( talk) 06:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
In the header the link for the world number 1 is wrong, use the official atp one here: /info/en/?search=List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players
It was the one used for the previous world ones such as andy murray, novak and roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.12.206 ( talk) 02:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Paragraph 1 should read " His evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest tennis players ever, with some considering him the greatest player of all time." Abhisetia ( talk) 01:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/five-reasons-rafa-nadal-is-the-greatest-of-all-time/article/2008433 http://www.powersharesseries.com/agassi-says-nadal-could-be-the-goat/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2017/01/28/tennis-podcast-rafael-nadal-roger-federer-greatest-time-says/
-- 120.154.164.83 ( talk) 16:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Also, we have some sort of trolling or sockpuppeting going on here in this conversation. We have user James343e, who was blocked for edit warring this same topic months ago, and a bunch of first time editors (Abhisetia, 120.154.164.83, 2001:8003:645C:9200:110:86D1:9A87:C526, and now 2001:8003:645C:9200:900C:D8A8:F167:CB64). First timers citing rules of wikipedia. Very interesting to say the least. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Fyunck: Read WP:HUMAN & WP:NOTHUMAN before you escalate this any further. You are not being very civil. After one or more editors have disagreed with you, you have automatically assuming that they are 'First Timers', 'Trolls', and 'Moronic'. You attempted to remove a post made by another editor on a talk page discussion you are involved in, and made unfounded claims of Sock-Puppetry. (there is a process for investigating sockpuppets). You should be aware an edit war requires two sides, I'm not making judgment on which side is correct, I suggest you take the opportunity to get a 3O to find out. Α Guy into Books™ § ( Message) - 08:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
|
James343e, read the below section – your query was answered more than a month ago. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
This confused me – while I definitely think that the removal/summarisation of the rivalries section could at least be considered, as each rivalry mentioned already has its own article, I was under the impression that articles for most big-name/long-time tennis players were supposed to be quite long. Every other section – from the section on his playing career to the sections on his image and off-court stuff (heck, we still haven't even added a legacy section yet) – seem pretty essential to me. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It is very clear from the sources that the debate over GOAT revolves around two men: Nadal and Federer. Therefore, i see nothing controversial with noting this in the article for Nadal, especially when Federer's lead has the following: "Many players and analysts consider Federer the greatest tennis player of all time." Wikipedia shouldn't support double standards. -- Mawlidman ( talk) 23:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Let's get back to the discussion at hand, then. The reason why I reverted the most recent addition is because the source that was added was a blog, and wasn't reliable – by the looks of things, the other sources that were later added were quite similar, however they talked about the dispute without addressing who they thought was the greatest. The statement itself has now been removed by another editor but the sources remain, so now we're back to where we started. 4TheWynne (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
77.59.248.2 ( talk) 13:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a mistake in table of grand slams. Rafa has 3 losses in Roland Garros ('09, '15, '16) hence 79-3, not 2 as stated in the table's summary column (79-2). This also changes win percentage 97,5% to 96,3% and overall percentage too. Since article is locked i can not change it. 193.77.226.65 ( talk) 11:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This is a small point but as someone who is left handed with writing, bows, rifles, guitar and left footed with football but right handed with pretty much everything else, I don't think ambidextrous is the correct term for Nadal (if he too is of a similar disposition).
People always say to me 'So, you're ambidextrous are you?'. No, I only wish I was :) The fact is I can't hit a tennis ball to save my life with my left hand nor kick a ball with my right foot. I think the term is Cross-dominance.
The reason the career stats charts were created was to keep all the technical charts on a stats page. Originally we only had a condensed grand slam only performance timeline on the player's main article, with the rest being put on the career stats article. A few players have somehow gotten the full grand slam chart added. That's ok I guess, though I wouldn't add it. But we certainly don't need any more than that. Year-end, Olympics, Masters 1000, Davis Cup, etc.... those charts should be on the career stats article only. It should be more like Steffi Graf or Rod Laver... or at most like Justine Henin. Those are longstanding consensus. This is also being discussed at Talk:Roger Federer. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to let editors know that there is an ongoing RfC about the term "greatest of all time" (especially in the lead). The discussion ongoing at Talk:Rod Laver. Either way you bend it could affect this article. Join in if you wish. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change from ten to eleven montecarlo title in the below statement.
"Since 2005, he won ten times at Roland Garros,[247] ten times at Monte Carlo, ten times at Barcelona and seven at Rome."
Source https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/apr/22/rafael-nadal-wins-record-monte-carlo-masters Helloprak ( talk) 22:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rank No :2 (14 May 2018) Remon.engineer ( talk) 11:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
No. 2 (14 May 2018) Remon.engineer ( talk) 11:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Rafael Nadal has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
"By Wining the French Open, "
to
"By Winning the French Open," Helloprak ( talk) 18:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Please change the following statement to indicate that this stat only applies to the Men's game, as Sharapova had won at Wimbledon the previous year (aged 17):
"He also became the first teenager to win a Grand Slam singles title since Pete Sampras won the 1990 US Open at age 19.[40]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.134.114 ( talk) 12:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Nadal's evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest tennis players of all time.[c]
The above is the original text. This should be:
Nadal's evolution into an all-court threat and continued success on all surfaces has led some former players and tennis analysts to consider him the greatest player of all time.
Evidence: - http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/05/agassi-goat-id-put-nadal-no-1-federer-no-2/51390/
By former world number 1 Andre Agassi
By former world number 1 womens player Maria Sharapova
- http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/23784126/tennis-rafael-nadal-not-only-king-clay-goat
ESPN Tennis Analyst
Telegraph Newspaper Sports Analyst
- https://www.economist.com/game-theory/2017/09/13/sorry-roger-rafael-nadal-is-not-just-the-king-of-clay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javongarixa11111 ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You are using a double standard when compared to Laver. Federer isn't the only article on wikipedia, but if you don't like his article, fix it. I tried one and failed. I complained about a double standard at Laver and was shouted down with consensus saying the term should not be used. So don't add even more non-consensus stuff to Nadal. We can leave it as it was, or move some quotes to a legacy section, but per Laver talk we aren't adding even more subjective stuff to the lead. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
And that consensus that was reached at Laver's talk page wasn't confined to just Laver. Nadal and Federer articles were also informed so they wouldn't be in the dark about the RfC. In fact, I just tried it again at the Federer article. So leave your bias and past wiki-clones at the door. There's no room for it here. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 23:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Paulinho28: added a lead template to this page. Why? At a cursory glance, nothing seems particularly wrong. Fluous ( talk) 21:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
"five-story apartment building" should be "five-storey apartment building
I remember the lead paragrapah included the following phrase: "with some considering Nadal to be the greatest tennis player of all time.", and the reference of Agassi picking Nadal as the greatest tennis player of the golden age of tennis.
I don't see any valid reason why this was changed. It's Agassi's opinion and it should be respected. "Some" can include the opinion of one person. According to the Oxford Dcitionary, "some" means: "An unspecified amount or number of." One is a number, ergo can be used with some.
Reference: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/some
James343e (talk) 21:04, 10th September 2017 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. I agree with you.
Parv Neema ( talk) 10:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)