Talk:Rafael Nadal/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The wiki is not much elaborative.

The main page of Rafael Nadal is not much elaborative as like that of Federer and Djokovic. Earlier is was much elaborative and he was called GOAT. But now not much is being written about his greatness. I would like to make it more elaborative. Kindly grant my request. Parv Neema (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I restored the above Talk paragraph of ‘Parv Neema’, which i notice was deleted a couple of weeks ago by the user ‘4TheWynne’ with the rude Edit Summary, ‘How about no?’

It seems that 4TheWynne should not delete the Talk of another person, and that 4TheWynne should not be cruel to others, especially newcomers.

to that victimized newcomer: Perhaps the Legacy section of the article elaborates on Nadal’s greatness to an extent consistent with your suggestions and consistent with the Legacy sections of similar articles. If not, you certainly can edit or comment, despite 4TheWynne’s conduct.

Bo99 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have again restored all the above paragraphs of this 'elaborative' Talk section, which were again deleted by 4TheWynne in violation of Wikipedia policy and guideline. Reversion of 4TheWynne's conduct requires presentation of a reason, which is the following: 4TheWynne untruthfully claims in his Edit Summary 'There is already a consensus ...' that, implicitly, supports his deletions of others' Talk. The truth is that there is a consensus on this matter that expressly prohibits his deletions: 4TheWynne ‘should not ... delete the comments of other editors’, and 4TheWynne should not be cruel to others, ‘especially ... new users’. If 4TheWynne persists in deleting this Talk for a third time, i will correct his misconduct and also seek Wikipedia-enforcement’s reversal of him and thus restoration of this Talk. Bo99 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bo99, the consensus I was referring to was regarding the matter being discussed – that any "GOAT" reference was not to be included in the lead sections of any of the aforementioned players' articles – not my removal of this discussion. If you have a problem with my edits, stick to my user talk page – I could just as easily talk about your conduct, which is just a continuation of your combative behaviour at the Maria Sharapova talk page, where you were asked my more than one editor to tone it down. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

4TheWynne: I welcome your threat of personal attacks about my comments on other pages in other years; i will highlight the irrelevancy of your comments, and will detail how you continue to violate Wikipedia policy. The topic that your conduct raised on this Talk page was and is you ‘should not ... delete the comments of other editors’ from this Talk page, and you should not be cruel to others on this Talk page, ‘especially ... new users’. You appear to have finally stopped deleting from this Talk page the Talk of the newcomer and of me. So all may be resolved for you. Bo99 (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Bo99, did you actually want to focus on the matter that was brought up here in the first place and actually acknowledge that you read what I said about the consensus at this article? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

4TheWynne: Your irrelevant tangent was already resolved: i already told the newcomer, in my very first posting above, to look at the Legacy sections of similar articles. The existence of consensus or lengthy discussion in some other article talk pages (about what to put in the lead sections or Legacy sections about player greatness) gives zero justification for you deleting ‘the comments of other editors’ from this Talk page, and you being cruel to others on this Talk page, ‘especially ... new users’. Bo99 (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I think we have about played out the tit-4-tat. Look, this was started by an editor who has only made a set of edits to talk pages, demanding Nadal be listed as greatest of all-time (except for one to the talk page of Cristiano Ronaldo demanding he be listed as the greatest of all-time). I wouldn't take this topic too seriously. Nevertheless, this particular item was heavily discussed at Rod Laver's talk page and other places and consensus was that subjective material has no good place at an encyclopedia of facts... especially in the lead section. GOAT's are great topics around the water cooler and parties, but not so much at an encyclopedia. The most other encyclopedias do is list these players as a group of the greatest of all-time. No more than that. We had some players listed as goat but there were many complaints about why shouldn't all the players who have been called the greatest of all time have the same thing listed in the lead? Either all of them deserved it or none of them deserved it. Since it was so subjective a topic consensus landed at none of them. We put sourced and dated quotes on the subject in a legacy type section of a player's bio. So in the legacy section it could say something like, "in 2014 Andre Agassi called Nadal the greatest of all-time"... "in 2018 McEnroe said that Federer is the greatest of all-time"... "in 2017 Federer called Laver the greatest of all-time." As long as it's sourced those type of things should be just fine here at wikipedia in a legacy setion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

My topic is not the content of the article. My topic is the conduct on this talk page, and that conduct’s various not-yet-surfaced erroneous rationales, which are likely in future to lead to much repetition of the same conduct on many other pages. And conduct/action is a proper topic under Wikipedia policy; content is not the only proper topic. (Also, better conduct leads to better content.) Trying to change or terminate this conduct topic, before those erroneous rationales are fully surfaced, refuted, and defused, would violate the Wikipedia duty of cooperation/continuity, would be harmful to Wikipedia, and would be especially wrong from a person who did nothing about the conduct and bears responsibility. But i have defused some of the erroneous rationales, so i will add no further comments, assuming others add no further comments. Bo99 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you are the wrong place here. Articles' talk pages are intended for discussion of (improving) the articles' content. If you want to discuss conduct you need to refer it to the administrators.Tvx1 12:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I half agree with you. I disagree as follows, for good reason: the bullying of the newcomer occurred on this talk page, and the bullied newcomer’s posting and attention were on this talk page, so opposition to the bullying belonged here initially. But if i am forced to continue this dialogue, then i will indeed do it elsewhere, e.g. on the talk page of the bullying person. However, as mentioned, i will add no further comments, assuming others add no further comments. Bo99 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal French Open record

The stated record in the table can not be correct, as it says he has 2 losses. By this reasoning the win % is also incorrect in the same table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.190.243 (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It's correct. He lost once against Söderling in 2009 en once against Djokovic in 2015.Tvx1 20:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, his 2016 3rd round exit was not by way of a loss, but rather an injury walkover. Walkovers are neither wins nor losses. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2018

Please change the head to head vs Stan Wawrinka in the "Nadal vs Wawrinka" highlights section. Should be updated to 17-3 (85%) after Nadal's win in Toronto vs Wawrinka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.234.181 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2019

Removal of gross and needless advertising in thumbnail. "Nike sleeveless shirt, matching headband and wrist bands, and Babolat AeroPro Drive GT raquette at the French Open 2007". Should be changed to "Nadal celebrating at French Open 2007" 12.139.37.202 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, since the section is "Equipment and endorsements", and the picture is intended to illustrate those endorsements, I'm not inclined to just alter it to be less informative or relevant without a wider discussion on whether the section itself might be too extensive and detailed or "promotional". Such a discussion may well be worth having. As it stands, though, it's just one element of that, and not really much more "promotional" than the rest of the section contents. I'll leave this request open, though, for other opinions. -- Begoon 00:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The point of the photo in that section is to illustrate his sponsorships/endorsements. I've reworded the caption slightly (and moved the image to beside the Nike/Babolat paragraph), but removing the companies from the caption all together is pointless and unnecessary imo. NiciVampireHeart 22:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2019

The "Roger Federer" wiki page mentions "Given his achievements, many players and analysts have considered Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time." However, I consider it to be subjective and highly debatable and submitted an edit request to remove it and other similar statements. However, that request as partially accepted barring the quoted statement above. The "Rafael Nadal" page mentions ".. is widely regarded as the greatest clay-court player in history."

First, the greatest tennis player of all time and the greatest clay-court player of all time aren't the same. In that case, Federer could also be only called the greatest fast-court player of all time. Second, subjective remarks like "the greatest tennis player of all time" exists in the Federer page which is cited by news articles. Third, there are a sizeable number of news articles which claim that Nadal is not only the greatest clay-court player of all time but the greatest of all time.

I suggest to include the following statement in the "Rafael Nadal" article: Nadal is also considered the greatest tennis player of all time by many journalists and analysts.

Citations (to list a few): https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/23784126/tennis-rafael-nadal-not-only-king-clay-goat https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-rafael-nadal-the-best-tennis-player-of-all-time https://www.economist.com/game-theory/2017/09/13/sorry-roger-rafael-nadal-is-not-just-the-king-of-clay?fsrc=gp_en?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/sorryrogerrafaelnadalisnotjustthekingofclay https://metro.co.uk/2017/11/13/rafael-nadal-has-better-claim-to-be-the-goat-than-roger-federer-says-novak-djokovic-coach-andre-agassi-7076109/ Anirban2406 (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done, This has been discussed before extensively and the consensus was not have such a statement in this article.Tvx1 09:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019

This paragraph is mentioned in the 2019 season & is completely wrong

Nadal has a wildcard along with Federer for Queens but it is not certain that he will play yet. At Wimbledon he will be seeded second providing that Federer doesn't overtake him in the rankings and that Djokovic is fit.

Nadal is looking for his first appearance interview with BBC radio and television show the content of external websites

In the playing style section it was mentioned that he won Monte Carlo , Barcelona & RG 12 times but he won MC & Barcelona 11 times only the FO that he won 12 156.205.147.131 (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, paragraph removed, and title count in prose fixed. Iffy★Chat -- 14:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

King of Clay/one of the greatest of all time

Hello, there's current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#New Guideline Proposal for "Greatest of all time" Mention in Lead Sections about adding GOAT/nicknames to lead sections. Feel free to add your thoughts! oncamera 00:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Longevity should no longer be an issue

Under "Playing Style", Rafa's longevity is questioned. This is outdated and is no longer a viable statement. Of all Grand Slam Champions Rafa has the second longest span between Majors at 15 years. Only Federer has a longer span at 16. The average is less than 10. Rafa in fact enjoys one of the most protracted careers in tennis history. BTW, you can easily make the case that Rafa has been "Plagued by injuries during his long and illustrious career." Longevity is really out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dystopia1984 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It is though. He has had many injuries throughout his careers. He had to withdraw from numerous major tournaments (either before or during matches or tournaments). He had to take long injury breaks on multiple occasions. His spells of continuous activity have been considerably shorter than other of his peers.Tvx1 21:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It should probably be reworded a bit. In tennis history, most players have long since retired by Nadal's age, yet he's still playing. It should now be worded in more of a past tense. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Dystopia1984. Also, his injuries have not prevented him from winning 19 major tournaments, spanning over 15 years and second in the history of this sport only to Federer.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded the statement and added today's view on his longevity. No question it dogged him for years in the press and was part of his persona... but really not anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The longevity question was not solely about until which age he would play but also about how long he could play uninterrupted without serious injuries. I don't think it is really questionable he could have won many more majors if it hadn't been for the many injuries he incurred partly because of his playing style.Tvx1 12:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. The longevity issues I recall throughout the 2000s was that he was a star that would burn out and retire in his mid-late 20s, not that he'd play till 35 with brief periods of illness. And I don't think he would have won any more majors, exactly because of his build and playing style. They go hand and hand. He would have needed to change his playing style and physique to compete, and by doing that he would have lost more majors than he would have gained. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2019

Change text to reflect Nadal getting married to his long-time girlfriend. Anirban2406 (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done In future, please make precise edit requests (in the form of change X to Y) and include reliable sources. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 21:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Year-End Number 1

All of Nadal's records from 2017 have been beaten this year, and need to be updated. Can someone do this? Rmehtany (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

The brief profile on the right claims Nadal was born right handed. What is the source for the claim that he was born right handed? If no authentic source is found, please delete " born right-handed". 2601:646:8500:51D0:8DB7:8D29:A03E:2E07 (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The lead and infobox are summaries of the article prose. They usually do not need sourcing because it is sourced in the main article body. That is the case here where it is sourced (and confirmed) in his "Early Life" section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

5th Davis Cup

There is one Wikipedia editor 4TheWynne that keeps deleting that "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles with the Spain Davis CUp team" to put "Nadal has constributed to 5 Davis Cup titles". Other Wikipedia editors like Hitius or myself (James343e) strongly disagree with him and have tried to convince him that such changes are not justified. Yet, he keeps editing the "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles with the Spain Davis Cup team", ignoring the general consensus. The general consensus is that Nadal has indeed won 5 Davis Cup titles and the wording "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles" is the correct one.

1. In the Michael Jordan's Wikipedia page it is said that he has won 6 championships with the Chicago Bulls. So it is correct to assert that a player has won X times a team even with the X team. There is even a Twitter from the offical ITF account asserting that "Nadal hopes to win his 5th Davis Cup title", so there is nothing wrong in saying that "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles with the Spain Davis Cup team".

2. Nadal played the quarterfinals and semifinals of the 2008 Davis Cup, but skipped the final due to injury. However, it does not mean he did not win the 2008 Davis Cup title with the Spain Davis Cup team. Pele injured himself in the second match of the 1962 World Cup, and did not participate in the rest of the tournament. Yet, in the Wikipedia page for Pele it is said that "During his international career, he won three FIFA World Cups: 1958, 1962 and 1970". In other words, Pele is recognized as having won the 1962 World Cup with Brasil, despite the fact that he only played a match in the group phase. Analogously, Nadal is recognized as having won the 2008 Davis Cup despite only having played the qaurterfinals and semifinals in 2008. You do not need to play the final to win the title in a team event, you only need to contribute to the victory.

3. Since the Davis Cup is an ITF tournament, ITF sources have priority over ATP sources for the Davis Cup. The ITF is the only official source for ITF events. So, cherry-picking an ATP source giving Nadal 4 ITF titles does not mean he has 4 rather than 5. The ITF acknowledges that Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles.

Check out this tweet from the offical ITF Twitter account: https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196799309393604608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mytennis.info%2Farticle%2F5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2%2Fdavis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal%2F

It is explicitly said that "Nadal hopes to win his 5th Davis Cup title" before the final was played. As ITF sources have priority over ATP sources for ITF events, Nadal has indeed won 5 Davis Cup titles.

Please stop changing the "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup titles with the Spain Davis Cup team" unless there is some kind of consensus that it should be changed. James343e (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

How a newspaper describes a result and actuality can be two different things. Spain won Davis Cup in 2019, not an individual player. Back in 2011 Marcel Granollers played only in the quarterfinals vs the United States. He lost his doubles match. He didn't really win Davis Cup but his team did. You win or lose a Davis Cup match. Yes Michael Jordan's text says he has six NBA titles, but in reality the Bulls have six titles and Michael Jordan contributed or was part of that team. Jordan has six NBA title rings. And in Davis Cup a player doesn't always play in every round. In the NBA they do. In 2011, when Nadal didn't even play in the quarterfinals, if Spain had lost to the USA you wouldn't write today that Nadal lost the 2011 Davis Cup. So I see where 4TheWynne has a point. As for the actual sentence I don't really care much since it gets used that way in the press, but the "5" should be spelled out and there is no reason to use Davis Cup twice in one sentence in the lead. If it stays, it should be "Nadal has won five Davis Cup titles for Spain." Further additions in prose can fill in any details. Personally I think better choices would be: "Nadal has been part of five Spanish Davis Cup championships" or "Nadal has helped bring five titles to the Spanish Davis Cup team. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comprehensive reply. You argue that: "How a newspaper describes a result and actuality can be two different things."

The ITF is not a "newspaper", but rather the offical body gobernment of the Davis Cup. I found a source of the ITF saying that "Nadal aims to win his 5th Davis Cup title". If the ITF itslefs puts it that way, then there should be no probelm putting it that way.

https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196799309393604608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mytennis.info%2Farticle%2F5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2%2Fdavis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal%2F

You also argue that: "Spain won Davis Cup in 2019, not an individual player"

It is false that individual players do not win the Davis Cup. All individual players of the 2019 Spanish Davis cup team won the title. The ITF itself oficially says that Nadal has, indeed, won 5 Davis Cup titles with Spain:

https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196799309393604608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mytennis.info%2Farticle%2F5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2%2Fdavis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal%2F

The whole Spanish team won the Davis Cup, including Nadal. Nadal won the Davis Cup WITH the Spanish team. It is pretty common to say that "X player has won Y tournament with Z team, despite it being a collective achievement".

In the Wikipedia page for Cristiano Ronaldo it is said that he won 4 Champions League titles. In the Wikipedia page for Michael Jordan it is said that Michael Jordan won 6 rings with the bulls.

I fail to see what is the big deal in "Nadal has won 5 Davis Cup WITH the Spanish Davis Cup team". In the phrase it is explicitly siad that he won the titles WITH the Spanish team.James343e (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I do see a difference. It is really not correct to say Michael A Taylor won the World Series this year. You would write that the Washington Nationals won the World Series this year. Individual players do not really win Davis Cup... they are part of a team that wins Davis Cup. The team that includes Nadal won the Davis Cup in 2019. And in the lead we try summarize as much as possible so I fail to see why we "need" Davis Cup to be mentioned twice in one sentence. Shorten things for the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

And just because some are sloppy with their choice of words doesn't mean we can't be better. When you look at the Tennis Hall of Fame at a player like Roy Emerson, who lived and died Davis Cup (it's why he wouldn't turn pro), it doesn't say he won Davis Cup. it says "Member of the Australian Championship Davis Cup Team 1959-1962, 1964-1967." It says "popularly known as “Emmo,” especially among his Aussie Davis Cup teammates, who he helped win eight championships from 1959-67 while compiling a stunning 34-4 record." That's what we should probably be striving for. Same with John McEnroe's Hall of Fame bio. It says "He played Davis Cup for 12 years, helping the Americans win the Cup five times (1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1992)." And "Member of the U.S. Championship Davis Cup Team 1978-1979, 1981-1982, 1992." I would think that as an encyclopedia, that's more in line with the actuality of the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

James343e, don't make out that I've been edit warring with you, as you and I have not been editing at the same time (I have not edited your version of the sentence); is it also incorrect to say that any version is the consensus yet, as this is only a very new topic of discussion and no consensus has been reached. You tried to canvass Tvx1, which backfired, and – whether it's your intent or not – your behaviour suggests that you think you own the article. I don't see why we need to compare with other sports, personally, as terms/lingo and the sports themselves can work differently and this is about tennis, but I also think it would be more accurate to say that the team won the title/championship/whatever it may be, rather than the player. This goes back to the most recent point that I've been trying to make – I'm not arguing the number of Davis Cup titles that Nadal's been involved in, but he has contributed to the team winning (particularly given he wasn't involved in the 2008 final) on five occasions, not won five titles himself; "contributed to", "been involved in/part of", "helped bring", it doesn't matter – they all mean the same thing. I personally think that my most recent wording – "Nadal has contributed to five Davis Cup titles with Spain" – is the most succinct without saying that he "won" (and editing my own wording doesn't constitute a revert, James343e), but that's just my opinion. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me set things straight. I wasn't canvassed at all. I have this article on my watchlist, noticed the high volume of changes, checked the situation and decided to make a copyedit.Tvx1 15:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to James343e's notification on your talk page about this discussion and how it was worded – I wasn't insinuating that this person influenced your actions at the article. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Reposting this link since it is being ignored. https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196799309393604608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mytennis.info%2Farticle%2F5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2%2Fdavis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal%2F

Id go with the ITF, the organization that is responsible for the Grand Slams, Davis Cup, Challengers and Futures, rather than Hall of Fame Bios.Hitius (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Because everyone uses the proper terminology in a tweet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why you feel that way about the tweet, Hitius, as it has literally been added three times to this discussion alone by James343e. Let me summarise: we currently have four options that have been presented as to how we can word the Davis Cup sentence (James343e's current version, my version prior to James343e full-on trying to take ownership of the article, and the versions presented by Fyunck(click)). I think that we should at the very least change "...singles matches at the Davis Cup" back to "...singles matches at the event" to bring the Davis Cup mentions in the current sentence down to two, leaving us with these options to open the sentence:

A. "Nadal has won five Davis Cup titles for Spain..." (Fyunck(click)'s edited version)

B. "Nadal has contributed to five Davis Cup titles with Spain..."

C. "Nadal has been part of five Spanish Davis Cup championships..."

D. "Nadal has helped bring five titles to the Spanish Davis Cup team..."

I've already mentioned which one I prefer, so it's up to you guys. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

1st - I would go with A. All the others just seem abnormal to me even in terms of the language used. You would never say Jordan contributed to bringing 6 championship titles to the Bulls. Usain Bolt wins the relay Gold at the Olympics. It is implied and understood that it is past of a 4-man team. This becomes expecially clear in tennis doubles or beach volleyball where there are teams of 2. Mike Bryan wins the US Open doubles title, he doesnt 'contribute to the Bryans' winning the US Open. What we are arguing is basically whether anyone in any team sport ever can be said to have won any title. Where this is getting disengunuous is that earlier, the ATP article was being cited to argue 4 titles instead of 5, and once it was made clear that it was indeed a 5th title as per the ITF, the same ATP article that uses the language 'titlist' is ignored in favour of the hall of fame's 'contributes'.

2nd - I dont think the 29-1 and 29-0 streak need to be mentioned in the intro parts of the article at all. I think it is better suited in the body somewhere and mention of the titles alone is enough, unless if the streak or the win-loss rate is a record. I dont think it is. Someone can correct me here.Hitius (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to strongly disagree with that. I don't think your comparisons hold up. At the olympics these athletes are individually credited with a gold medal by the governing body. True team events (e.g. football) are treated different there. Also, doubles events at tennis tournaments are not team events. These players still primarily play for themselves and are individually recognized as winners. Hence why Mike Bryan won more doubles titles than his twin Bob. The Davis Cup, Fed Cup and Hopman Cup are treated differently entirely. During the matches, whenever the scores are announced only the nations are named. Only the nations appear on the scoreboard and the titles are officially credited to the nations, not the players. Thus I prefer a variation on D: "Nadal helped the Spanish Davis Cup team win five titles...". That is the most encyclopedically correct wording.Tvx1 15:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Doubles at the Olympics are team events.The Bryans are representing the USA. Repeating this again, the ITF (the governing body) and the ATP credited the title to Nadal. Clearly the governing body crediting the title to Nadal should be enough.Hitius (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Something along the lines of C & B are the best of these four choices. Maybe C is the very best choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hitius that the option A is probably the most suitable. After all, one can see how in the Wikipedia article for Cristiano Ronaldo, it is said that "Cristiano has won 5 Uefa Champions League titles". Only because he won the titles with Manchester and Real Madrid, it doesn't follow he didn't win those titles as did all of his teammates. The same situation applies to Nadal, and we even have a confirmation from the ITF, which is the Davis Cup organization body.James343e (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We also have the ITF saying that Spain won the title and Nadal is part of the team. It depends from article to article. I see "Spain defeat Canada to win sixth Davis Cup title" as a headline for the ITF. We also have from the ITF "Nadal anchored the Spanish team to a 2-0 victory over Canada... the results secured a sixth Davis Cup crown for Spain." More Davis Cup info "Rafael Nadal has been invincible in Madrid this week and so it proved once again as the world No. 1 notched up two more victories to help Spain reach the Davis Cup title." So cherry picking one ITF article doesn't really cut it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a false dichotomy. It only indicates that BOTH the individual players and the Spanish team as an entity won the Davis Cup. Just like both Cristiano Ronaldo and the Real Madrid won many Champions league titles, Nadal and the Spanish team won the Davis Cup. No need to put that he "helped" to win the title (as suggesting he did not win the title), when we have the ITF confirmation that it is perfectly valid to say that Nadal won his 5th Davis Cup with Spain.James343e (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You mean where it says he helped Spain reach the Davis Cup title? I'm saying if that was the ITF article we were going with it would be opposite of the other ITF article. The bottom line is Nadal did not win Davis Cup, Spain or the Spanish team did. Nadal won Davis Cup matches. Shapovalov did not lose Davis Cup, Canada did. Shapavolov lost his Davis Cup match. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Fyunck, you are presenting statements in isolation. There is a difference between 'Nadal won 5 Davis Cup titles' and a very clear 'Nadal won 5 Davis Cup titles WITH the Spanish Davis Cup team'. Also, don't see where the danger of the statement 'Shapovalov losing the Davis Cup' being used anywhere comes from. Repeating this over and over again, we have both the ITF (the organizer) and the ATP referring to Nadal as a titlist. NOT any newspaper. You can help a team win a title and be a titlist. As James343e has said above, this is a false dichotomoy. .Hitius (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Starting the sentence with "Nadal won five titles...", regardless of what follows it, makes it sound like an individual achievement, which it isn't. We aren't just going with exactly what the ITF says – we're going with what is the most encyclopaedic wording, which is that he contributed to/was involved in a team achievement. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Which is why other encyclopedias such as Britannica also phrase it better: "At the end of the 2009 tennis season, Nadal helped Spain sweep the Czech Republic in the Davis Cup final" and "In 2004 he played a crucial role in Spain’s defeat of the United States in the Davis Cup final.". Biography.com says in 2011 that "Nadal led the Spanish Davis Cup team to victory for the fourth time." As an encyclopedia we should try to be more concise in our wording, and the more I look at this the more it looks like a no-brainer. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Hitius. James343e (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

And you aren't presenting anything encyclopaedic or policy-driven as to why... 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring comparisons with other team sports (as, once again, this is about tennis), the argument of James343e and Hitius in a nutshell is that we should word the phrase a certain way because the event's governing body worded it a certain way once; if that's the path we're going to go down, then we're really losing credibility here. I think that we should eliminate wordings such as "Nadal won..." or "Nadal led the team to..." in favour of wordings that put a bit less focus on the individual, as this is a team achievement. I personally would separate "Davis Cup" and "Spain" (as I have in B), rather than have "Spanish Davis Cup...", as those are the words that we would be linking (which goes against WP:SEAOFBLUE), but am open to using something other than "contributed to", if that's how everyone feels. With that in mind, I suggest the following, a combination of B and C: "Nadal has been involved in five Davis Cup titles with Spain..." 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 06:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Whenever I have added info on a player's participation in a winning Davis Cup team I used phrasing such as Cooper played on the Australian Davis Cup team that won the cup in 1957 or Hoad was a member of the Australian team that won the Davis Cup four times between 1952 and 1956.. --Wolbo (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, sure, but that's four times in five years as opposed to five times in sixteen years – does it have the same effect? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not a bad way to word it. In this case it would be "Nadal was a member of the Spanish team that won the Davis Cup in 2019". Or the comprehensive, "Nadal was a member of the Spanish team that won the Davis Cup five times: 2004, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2019". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) 19:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

"Contributed to", "has been involved in" or "is a member of" are highly problematic as it implies Nadal did not win those titles with Spain (which is disrespectful to Nadal as he did win those titles with Spain). As Hitius already said we have both the ITF (the organizer) and the ATP referring to Nadal as a DC titlist. In other words, we have 2 sources (ITF and ATP) saying Nadal did win Davis Cup titles, with the ITF source being the most importnant one. And there is nothing "un-encyclopedic" about putting "Nadal won 5 Davis Cup titles with the Spanish National Team". It is encylopedic because:

1) it respetcs the tournament's word (the ITF explicitly says that Nadal won 5 DC titles), and

2) we can see in the Wikipedia pages for Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi how it is said that "Cristiano has won 5 UEFA Champions League tiles" or "Messi has won 4 UEFA Champions League titles". Therefore, it is an accepted practice in Wikipedia to put that "X player has won Y tournament with his team". James343e (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet Fyunck(click) has provided other ITF articles that state he helped the Spanish team win the Davis Cup 5 times. So using such wording respects "the tournament's word" just as much.Tvx1 00:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

James343e, we're not going to just word it a certain way to "respect the tournament's word" (and how's that being encyclopaedic?); you need to stop repeating yourself – that's now three times you've brought up Ronaldo in this discussion. This is the last time I'll say this: we're not wording this sentence the same way as what you might find at the articles of athletes from other sports, as terms/lingo and the sports themselves can work differently and this is about tennis, specifically the Davis Cup. Wolbo and Fyunck(click), I have a couple of issues with this particular (comprehensive) wording: "the Spanish team that won the Davis Cup five times" makes it sound like the team never changed members throughout that period (that's just what I get from reading it), and why would we list all of the years when we're not doing this for any of his Grand Slam wins or the years he finished as year-end no. 1? If we're going to be consistent, I'd rather not list any of the years (as has been the case) than list them all. I can understand (and even agree with) this wording had Nadal only been part of one title, but because he's been part of five over a longer period of time, I don't think that it's the best way we can word it (at least in this case). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 00:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Tvx1 Again, that is a fallacy/incorrect argument commonly known as false dilemma, to present a situation as either A) or B), when in reality there is also a C) option. Only because a ITF source talks about A) Nadal's ITF titles, while another ITF soruce only mentions B) Spain's ITF titles, it does not follow that both options are mutually exclusive. The ITF does not exclude C) BOTH Nadal and Spain have won the Davis Cup. Otherwise, they would not even mention A). It only indicates that BOTH the individual players and the Spanish team as an entity won the Davis Cup. Just like both Cristiano Ronaldo and the Real Madrid won many Champions league titles, Nadal and the Spanish team won the Davis Cup. No need to put that he "helped" to win the title (as suggesting he did not win the title), when we have the ITF confirmation that it is perfectly valid to say that Nadal won his 5th Davis Cup with Spain. The ATP also refered to Nadal as "a Davis Cup titlist" by the way:

https://www.atptour.com/en/news/davis-cup-2019-final-report

So we have both the ITF (organizer) and the ATP confirmation of Nadal's Davis Cup titles.James343e (talk) 0:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

4TheWynneThanks for stating your position. I am aware that you do not like the current wording for the reasons you cite, but I personally also find it disrespectful to Nadal to put that "he contributed to" (insinuating he did not win those titles) when we have the confirmation from both the ITF and the ATP that he did win those titles. Please see my reply to Tvx1, where I talk of the false dilemma fallacy with regard to the other ITF sources. James343e (talk) 0:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Going through other tennis pages, Roger Federer -'In addition, he has won one Davis Cup title with the Swiss Davis Cup team.' 'Djokovic won one Davis Cup title with the Serbian Davis Cup team.'Hitius (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Um.... no. Those were both just added by James343e without consensus. They have been removed until consensus is reached here. It may be time to bring in a full wikipedia RfC to see what everyone thinks, including non-tennis, non-sports editors. I was hoping for some flexibility consensus among tennis editors but a full wikipedia RfC can get the job done in a few weeks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I would have thought we'd be able to reach a consensus without having to resort to an RfC – I don't see how there's anything wrong with my most recent suggestion, and nobody from the experienced editors corner has offered any reason as to why it shouldn't be used – but if that's how everyone feels, then so be it. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

There are entire sections on pages of football players, listing champions league titles, world cups, league titles, league cup titles. Nothing required biography.com's language before this.Hitius (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hitius' comment is spot on. If you check Wikipedia articles for football players like Messi or Cristiano, it is said that they "have won 5 Champions League titles", so it is compatible with Wikipedia policy. Plus, we have the ITF source saying that Nadal did win 5 Davis Cup. Unless there is some ITF source explicitly stating that "Nadal has not won any Davis Cup title", there is no reason to remove it. James343e (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the previous wording prior to James343e changing the sentence initially (though I've changed "the winning Spain Davis Cup team" to "Spain's winning Davis Cup team" so that there are two links) – James343e's version is not the status quo, and if someone was to start an RfC, editors who don't watch this article should see what was there prior to all of this happening. For all we know, some editors might actually like it as it was before/is now. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

In the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry section I see this statement: "In 2009, this rivalry was listed as the third greatest of the previous 10 years by ATPworldtour.com." This should be removed; the statement is dated. The rivalry has changed so much, adding such classic matches such as the 2012 Australian Open final and the 2018 Wimbledon semifinal, that the statement means nothing. Technically it is correct as it refers to the 2000-2009 era but the significance of that era in evaluating the rivalry has vanished. 2601:641:580:7610:F879:E06F:3B42:3E35 (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Statement is sourced and seems reasonable to see how it was viewed at a specific point in time. If you think it doesn't belong, please start a discussion and obtain consensus for removal. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not sourced as the source link goes nowhere. ATP itself has removed the old article for the good reason it is dated. 2601:641:580:7610:F879:E06F:3B42:3E35 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Nadal-Djokovic rivalry section.

In the Nadal-Djokovic rivalry section I see this statement: "In 2009, this rivalry was listed as the third greatest of the previous 10 years by ATPworldtour.com." This should be removed; the statement is dated. The rivalry has changed so much, adding such classic matches such as the 2012 Australian Open final and the 2018 Wimbledon semifinal, that the statement means nothing. Technically it is correct as it refers to the 2000-2009 era but the significance of that era in evaluating the rivalry has vanished.

We are an encyclopedia and as such should not include every transient statement. What reporters had to say in 2009 about a rivalry that has gone from 2007 to 2020 is immaterial to an encyclopedia article. 2601:641:580:7610:F879:E06F:3B42:3E35 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Notifying WP:TENNIS of this discussion; while this is in progress I have marked the edit request as answered. CThomas³ (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I would not call it immaterial. It's good to have a range of quotes from different time periods and perspectives of the great rivalry. Just make sure readers understand the time period of the quote in question. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Update to Section: Heading

Adding nadal as one of the greatest players is fine as long as djokovic and Federer are mentioned. Like i said before on the djokovic page, its pretty hard to contest the top 3 slam count among the 3, especially when all 3 have time to earn more slams. Seems like it is only fair to label it this way. everyone feels this way, so even if the legacy stuff is contested the big 3 statement still stands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmoody71 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Novak Djokovic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2020

Requesting to include Rafael Nadal's status as one of the greatest tennis players of all time in the article summarization at the top of the page. "Rafael Nadal is considered to be one of the greatest players of all time" NiyolJ24 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Usually that type of thing is included in the main body of prose rather than the lead. You really made a new account just to request this at the talk page as your only post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Nadal is not a 5-time Davis Cup champion

Wiki article lists 2004, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2019.

Davis Cup says otherwise, he won 4 titles, never played in 2009 final.

https://www.daviscup.com/en/statistics/final-records.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.87.158 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add, in 2020

At the 2020 Italian Open, nine-time champion Nadal was defeated by Diego Schwartzman in straight sets in the quarterfinals. Source here.

Can someone edit the following sentence? It currently says: "In doing so, he won his 20th Grand Slam title, equalling Roger Federer's record as the man with the most number of Grand Slam titles." Can someone change it to "the highest number", instead of "the most number". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.5.169 (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

Rafael Nadal Prize Money from Paris Masters 2020 needs to be updated. His Semi-Final Appearance Prize Money is 100,000 Euros. This needs to be added to the Total Prize Money Won. Arjunnan (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 22:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Intro

Could someone reverse the intro back to its original form, now it mostly highligts Nadal's clay court-achievements. Off course, his statistics on this surface are incredible, but as is the case with other tennis players whith such legacy, his achievements are far greater than that. Novak Djokovic has won 74% of his titles on hard courts, Nadal 70% on clay courts. Roger Federer has won 69% of his titles on hard courts. These figures shouldn't dominate the intro in such way. Their overall achievements should be highligted in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao-Z (talk • contribs) 23:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

His 13 French Open titles in particular are a record at any tournament. Nadal's dominance on clay is also highlighted by 60 of his 86 ATP singles titles coming on this surface, including 25 of his 35 ATP Masters 1000 titles, and his 81 consecutive wins on clay is the longest single-surface win streak in the Open Era. I don't see what needs to be deleted. It seems adequate to include stats on his clay court considering he has 13 titles at Roland Garros as well as the bulk of his titles, including his ATP Masters 1000 titles being on clay. It's possible another editor may want to write additional material on the other surfaces for balance, but again, I don't think his tremendous clay court stats should be deleted.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That Djokovic and Federer have such a percentage of their titles on hard court is pretty logical since that’s also roughly the percentage of the tournaments that use had court. The number of clay and certainly grass court tournaments is far inferior to the number of hard court tournaments.Tvx1 12:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2021

Nadal is now world no.3 according to the ATP this needs to be updated. Jvichy4 (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

He is widely regarded as one of the greatest tennis playerrs in tennis history. 71.59.19.217 (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 18:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Nadal's Davis Cup titles

This wiki article says Nadal won 5 Davis Cup titles: 2004, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2019.

Meanwhile ITF (body in charge of Davis Cup) says Nadal won 4 Davis Cup titles: 2004, 2009, 2011 and 2019.

The title from 2008 is obviously disputed. Nadal has not played in the final tie, in fact he was not even nominated for the team.

https://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie.aspx?id=M-DC-2008-WG-M-ARG-ESP-01

He was at a vacation at the time, and healing his knees?

https://www.indiatoday.in/latest-headlines/story/nadal-forced-out-of-davis-cup-final-33202-2008-11-11

So why is he credited with 2008 title? Aren't ITF rules clear on this or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.102.122 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

He should actually be credited with none. Spain won those titles, not Nadal.Tvx1 22:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Is nobody willing to addres this obvious false data? Check with ITF and Davis Cup, they're not giving him a credit for 5 titles.

This should be Wikipedia, not fan wishful site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.214.231 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Online community trivia

@Holliniv: The edit you continue to make comparing Nadal to a rodent is trivia and isn't even pop culture. Whatever happens in online tennis communities is irrelevant to Wikipedia and it doesn't matter how many hits it has since this is a BLP: Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 10:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Record at any tournament

Both women and men have tournament records of 13 or more so what does this mean and what qualification should it have (e.g. Open Era). Antipodenz (talk) 09:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Be more specific... where exactly do you see this? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the question - looks like I got something wrong in my reading somewhere so apologies for that.

All time tournament records

Winning titles on 3 different surfaces in a calendar year first occurred for approved Major tournaments in 1913 (Anthony Wilding: Wimbeldon, WHCC and WCCC). If this is intended to refer only to the four national tournaments then the first time when it was possible to have achieved this feat was still in 1978 when the US Open changed to hard courts. Referring then to a record since 1877 is non-sense all and t should be amended as it should also for the next record listed (also 1978). As for 4 titles without losing set it appears than Sears achieved this in 1887 (unless of course you are discounting the 1881 event as a Major because it had restricted entry criteria). Either way recommend you check this is really an all time record or amend accordingly (note that the 4 titles without losing a set is also featured as an Open Era record which is confusing (e.g. Not needed if an actual all time record). Antipodenz (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This reads like WP:Original Research? Also, if your concerns are broader than what's on Nadal's article, you could always bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis for feedback.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 09:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks appreciate the recommendation, I will follow up on that site. Also with reference to my Sears comment - I have since seen other information that states he won three titles without losing a set. Antipodenz (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

I suggest placing Nadal vs. Djokovic rivalry on the first place in the list of rivalries since it is the greatest rivalry in mens' tennis for quite some time: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/greatestRivalries Ogyyy (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The rivalry needs to be widely covered in secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The linked site (ultimatetennisstatistics) only summarizes the official tournament history information, which can also be found on the official atptour site. Which source is used to update this list of rivalries?

Actual discussion in reliable secondary sources about this being a rivalry. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Highest ranking

Highest ranking n.26??? 151.47.206.176 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In doubles.Tvx1 20:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Format of nav boxes, showing on smart phone

Using my phone, I saw Nav boxes after External links. Not usually seen on the phone. However, various {{ and = are showing as well. I am not sure how to straighten it out. - - Prairieplant (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Legecy

Legecy section on see also section, Early life & personal life section suppose to be on top.Success think (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

In “off the court” it states Nadal speaks Spanish, Catalan and some English. Two changes: 1) he carries full press conferences in English, and has for years. He can be said to speak English without the qualifier “some” 2) he speaks a variant of Catalan that is distinct enough to be linked to its specific page: Balearic Catalan and he himself will always say that he speaks “mallorquí”, which he will gladly use in conversatjon with Catalans. Anyone who knows the Nadal family can confirm this non-controversial point.

As it stands, the current description is of substandard quality and accuracy. 88.10.83.104 (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have added a note and a comment querying this point, and I've reverted recent unhelpful edits, too. Billsmith60 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it really that important which regional Spanish and languages and subvariants of those he speaks? I mean, just mentioning that speaks Spanish and English should be sufficient.Tvx1 16:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done by Billsmith60 casualdejekyll 13:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Italian open 12 finals now shared with Djokovic

In the Records: Italian Open: 12 finals overall part, add "Novak Djokovic" instead of "stands alone." This can be verified by just going to the article on the Italian open and counting the number of finals for Djokovic. I am pretty sure that combined number of 24 by just two people (that too in the same era) is a record for any tourney. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done.Tvx1 20:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. But you still need add to the "Records: Italian Open: 12 finals overall" section too.99.13.228.225 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

He is now world number 3 after his recent win at the French Open. 220.246.161.86 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done He is listed at No. 4 - ref. Shuipzv3 (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Rafael Nadal at the 2022 French Open (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

walk-over = walkover

style 2603:8000:D300:D0F:ECFD:2826:F5CF:5433 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Mueller-Weiss syndrome

It must be included. This has been the major medical issue throughout his whole career. It was diagnosed in 2005; he denied anything wrong until 2021. Reading the wiki page on him I was astonished to find it was not even mentioned. Several mentions were made of an ankle problem. No mention was made that he won the 2022 French Open on a numb foot. There is mention of his denial of anything seriously wrong with his ankle. There are countless articles about M-W syndrome and its effects on him over the past year. This is critical information about what happened in his career. I also believe it should be one section up in the aricle, above rivalries.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is laden with fake news about his ankle. From the 2007 section: "In addition, there were rumors at the end of the year that the foot injury he suffered during 2005, caused long-term damage, which were given credence by coach Toni Nadal's claim that the problem was "serious". Nadal and his spokesman strongly denied this, however, with Nadal himself calling the story "totally false." In the 2005 section, it was said that he suffered an ankle injury that year; wrong, a chronic degenerative disease is not an injury. In 2005 he was diagnosed with M-W, a chronic and progressive denerative disease of the ankle, which had troubled him since he was a teenager. It was kept secret for 15 more years.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

While it should be included it might be better placed in a subheading under his personal life. There also nothing to preclude having an ankle injury on top of his syndrome. That can happen. There were repeats of the same news in the sources so it has been tightened up. Perhaps some of the old reports on ankle injuries may need to be tweaked to take into account the new info on his continual battle with Mueller-Weiss syndrome. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

He has a progressive disease of the left ankle joint; any superimposed "injury" would simply exacerbate his underlying degeneration. The current theory on the pathogenesis of M-W is that it is the result of chronic trauma and mechanical stress to a susceptible navicular bone in the ankle. Think of a football player with a torn labrum in the shoulder; any new trauma will make it worse. Same here. Yes, you are right, nothing precludes more injuries, but each one makes the disease worse. The navicular is the keystone of the ankle. There is an excellent Wiki section of this condition discussing trauma as a major factor.

I have no definitive place it should be, but I like it at least where it is if not higher in the article. It is not appropriate for the "personal life" section. This is so critical to understanding the arc of his career, it should a a stand-alone section. I will defer to a consensus on this issue. I agree that we should revise some of the older comments on his ankle problems. Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I may have had no specific idea where this topic should be put in the underlying Nadal page. But, I am against dropping it to almost the bottom ofthe article, as has been done. I would ask others to share their ideas.Mwinog2777 (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll shed my thoughts on this section. I like the way it's written and presented. It's neutral and informative. It's good that no implication is made that his effort of winning the French Open with a numb foot is in any way heroic. If anything it was utterly irresponsible and borne out of utter greed. He could have made the condition much, much worse because he was not feeling the pain and stress he was inflicting onto it. I really don't understand such an action was medically approved. Especially since the intention was to win a tournament again that he had already won 13(!) times. There was nothing to gain legacy-wise. Back to the point, I like the current position of the section. That gives it correct due weight.Tvx1 09:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I thank @Tvx for his recent edits; downplaying the glory of what he did. I avoided making similar edits to not offend the original editor; given my known trenchant views on the subject I abjured, thinking it best. But, I still think it should be higher in the article. Await consensus.Mwinog2777 (talk)

Mistake in the introduction

In the intro it says "Nadal became the world No. 1 for the first time in 2008 after his first major victory off clay, defeating Federer in a historic Wimbledon final." This is not correct in 2 ways. First, it sounds like the victory over Federer in Wimbledon was on clay, which is impossible because Wimbledon is played on grass surface. It is true that in 2008, on his way to become number 1, Nadal defeated Federer on clay in the French Open 2008 final (before playing at Wimbledon). Second, it was not after Wimbledon that Nadal became number 1, instead it was after winning the Olympic Gold medal in Beijing, where he defeated Djokovic and Fernando González. Though in the section dedicated to 2008 in the article the information is correct, I think it should be corrected in the introduction. 91.176.187.58 (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you notice the words "off clay." Wimbledon is "off clay" not "on clay." However your point is well noted about No. 1 and it has been changed. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2022

Under rivalries for Nadal there should be a section about Nadal vs Soderling which went on for a few years and was explosive arguably his most intense has fierce rivalry. Was very surprised it wasnt here. Huge price missing. Wimbledon fight the french open shock the atp tour fight and argument.

}} 51.7.197.11 (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal Personal Life

Rafael and Mery’s first child, a boy, was born in Mallorca on 8th October 2022 86.16.166.223 (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

Children: Rafael Nadal Perello 181.188.143.201 (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Already mentioned under the Personal Life section. Not sure it warrants inclusion in the infobox Cannolis (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead is laden with subjective language that violate Wikipedia principles

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"Nadal has dominated men's tennis"
'Nadal became one of the most successful teenagers"
"Nadal made a stellar return in one of the greatest comeback seasons of all time in 2013" (this one is especially egregious)
"He continued his dominance"
"As a vigorous left-handed player, one of Nadal's main strengths is his forehand, which he hits with extremely heavy topspin at difficult angles."
"He is one of the best at breaking serve"

Among many, many other issues with this lead. Assuming a child wrote this section. Divergence5 (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. This reeks of pettiness from a Djokovic fan. There are no falsities in the above descriptions of Nadal nor are they too wordy or irrelevant. That he dominated is not a matter of subjectivity. He DID and has the results to back it up. He WAS one of the most successful teenagers. Again, he has the accomplishments to prove it. He was voted the Comeback Player of The year as well as the ATP Player of The Year for 2013. In fact, it WAS a stellar return and one of the great comeback seasons. It's not up for debate unless you're ignorant, a troll, or your sensibilities are out of whack. A problem with the word "vigorous" being used to describe Nadal? This is a joke. The man is known for his high levels of energy, his endurance, and his fighting spirit. The RPMs for Nadal's topspin have been measured, have they not? Nobody else hits with anywhere near the amount of topspin, correct? And there sure are a lot of shots hit at difficult angles in his matches. I believe ATP statisticians (and likely others) have researched Nadal's success at breaking serve. If he has consistently been one of the best, then there's nothing wrong with that one, either.

I'm all for factually incorrect statements being removed and providing sources.

Additionally, lazy people with short attention spans have no business commenting on the length of Wikipedia pages. No one is forcing you to read any of them. Some of us enjoy Wikipedia for the amount of information. 2600:8800:4197:7600:FC1F:78AF:BF64:6AF (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Page just got tagged as too long.... and it is.

I used to think the Roger Federer's article was too long at 327k bytes (83k prose) . Now I see Djokovic is at 467k (124k) and this article is at 475k (137k prose). Ridiculously long to be sure. Things that are said in two sentences can easily be said in one. He has yearly articles that take up the detail yet still the sections are long. Rod Laver is 30k prose, Pete Sampras is 34k prose. Steffi Graf is 44k prose. There seems to be no discipline in adding info to some of these articles. Even Serena Williams article is too big at 112k prose. I guess it's a mentality that since we can find more info we must add more info to an encyclopedia. Michael Jordan has 59k prose and Tom Brady has 90k prose. George Washington has 95k prose. I think we can find a lot of fat to trim to keep some of these from becoming War and Peace novels. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And it is all thanks to me, haha.

But now seriously, you need to take into account a thing called "recency bias". Modern people have bigger wikis, not only in tennis, but everywhere. If Jordan was from this generation, his wiki would most likely be three times bigger.

But yeah, I might have exaggerated sightly. I mean, Nadal is currently the biggest wiki page for an human being (ahead of Boris Johnson).

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

And there really shouldn't be recency bias. We have WP:RECENTISM to try and keep things in a historical perspective. What you should be doing is perhaps expanding those older players a bit and trimming Nadal articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I intend to wait until all the Big Three have retired and then make a serious effort at reducing their wikipedia pages down to readable sizes (not only the Big Three, there are other modern players too). I believe part of the problem is that whilst players are active, some editors feel the need to list every result and elaborate on every minor point. There are many things listed in these articles that have little relevance in hindsight. If other editors object, I will launch an RfC about it. It is pointless doing it until all Three have retired as new minutiae will be added after each match whilst they are still playing. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 10:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I stopped by to look for some data on Rafael Nadal and could't get through all the nonsense. Agree totally with you that these bios are far too long. I only got through Rafa's "Early life" section and it is full of myths and untruths and is in desperate need of editing. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that but would be happy to assist someone that does. Shokpo (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is currently 22870 words, so per WP:TOOBIG guideline, it should absolutely be shortened. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)