Talk:Rafael Nadal/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Vandalism lately

the last 2 edits are vandalism:

the first one put again the results which tennisexpert took away cause so true, he didnt lose yet. the second one deleted the gladiator nickname, which is the one WE USE ON SPAIN, and added another with no proof.

Undo the last edits, please. 62.57.197.82 (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to be blocked from editing for a week? Tennis expert (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, better stay off, or you risk being blocked for longer.--HJensen, talk 23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag

The Spanish flag in the infobox should be removed per WP:FlagThatsGrand (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Doubles in Singles Performance Timeline

Why is it there? It also causes inconsitencies with the overall W-L record. IlyazNasrullah (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nadal the first player to reach the SFs or better of all major tournaments

By reaching the SF at US Open this year, Nadal has become the first player to have reached the SFs at all Grand Slams, Masters Series, TMC and Olympics. I don't have a source for this because this has not been published anywhere as of yet.

What to do? I think it's a very interesting fact that should be added somewhere in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlyazNasrullah (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT. Okay, I understood you bad before. So you mean all-time not this year. I didn't see any kind of record like that of ATP Records (or at least I don't remember it), but it may be impotant. 62.57.196.206 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good statistic - definitely encyclopedic. Maybe a news media or person will pick it up and write about it so it can be sourced here and included. Here is what you can do for now. Type it in the appropriate section, either in a record page, if one exists, or achievement section, or just the 2008 section - and then type: {{fact|date=September 2008}} and then eventually someone should be able to source it with a relevant article. Since this seems like an important note, it is better to give it this "citation needed" tag than to not include it at all. I hope you did your research well! ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice GoldenGoose. Sorry for not signing my previous comment by the way, I was in a rush IlyazNasrullah (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While this may be an interesting statistic, without mention from a reliable source, this addition is original research. It should be included once a third-party source has verified its accuracy. GlassCobra 07:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GlassCobra. Tennis expert (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't respect consensus we don't care anymore about your words. 62.57.213.3 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

2007 statistics wrong? 71-15 instead of 70-15?

I keep checking the tournaments on the apt webpage for Nadal on 2007 and they're appear 71 wins and 15 losses but still says the 323-74 statistics matches, so I think theres or anything wrong or anything that I don't understand.

The atp webpage for Nadal's 2007: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?prevtrnnum=0&year=2006&query=Singles&selTournament=0&player=N409&x=7&y=8

It may be the 3R match on Master Series Miami (2007) , which was a WALKOVER against Olivier Rochus and maybe isn't counted as a win?

62.57.196.206 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you blocked from editing for a month? Tennis expert (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked into the details of Nadal, but walk-overs doesn't count as wins.--HJensen, talk 16:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you so much. 62.57.197.114 (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ERROR on singles finals runner-ups

3. July 9, 2006 Wimbledon, London, United Kingdom Grass Flag of Switzerland Roger Federer 6–0, 7–6(5), 6–7(2), 6–3

this is wrong, since we are seeing nadal, this should be 0-6, 6-7, 7-6, 3-6. Otherwise he should have won. 81.184.38.28 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not wrong. This is the style we use for tennis scores. Tennis expert (talk) 00:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? the style is "player which we are talking about-rival" right? Then I've reason in what Im saying, that score gives Federer the win...

Anyways I found another mistake: (singles wins)

16. May 14, 2006 Masters Series Rome, Italy Clay Flag of Switzerland Roger Federer 6–7(0), 7–6(5), 6–4, 2–6, 7–6(5)

The first tie break was a 6(7)-7, not a 6(0)-7. Source: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?prevtrnnum=0&year=2006&query=Singles&selTournament=0&player=N409&x=20&y=6 . Btw yes, strange you didn't say it this time, im blocked for a month lol. 81.184.38.28 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Heritage

Is common fact that Nadal is the best Latino tennis player in history and freedom fighter for his people, no? Why must such statements be erased? Nadal is the Latino gladiator fighting for all the oppressed people of Latin America, I must insist that such statements be made. Only other option is censership, no?

If it's such a "common fact", then it shouldn't be difficult for you to source that "fact". Tennis expert (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Is common sense. Who is more better of Latino race? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.179.50 (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia about verifiable facts. Not about coomon sense.--HJensen, talk 10:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when has wikipedia been a reliable resource that people reference? No one asks to reference the fact that the earth orbits the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.179.50 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT a fact, nor is it common sense that Nadal is "the best Latino tennis player in history and freedom fighter for his people." First off, Nadal isn't even Latino. He is Spanish, yes, so Nadal is a Hispanic, but that does not make him a Latino—he is European. There is a distinction between being Hispanic and Latino:

"Though often used interchangeably in American English, Hispanic and Latino are not identical terms, and in certain contexts the choice between them can be significant. Hispanic, from the Latin word for "Spain," has the broader reference, potentially encompassing all Spanish-speaking peoples in both hemispheres and emphasizing the common denominator of language among communities that sometimes have little else in common. Latino—which in Spanish means "Latin" but which as an English word is probably a shortening of the Spanish word latinoamericano—refers more exclusively to persons or communities of Latin American origin. Of the two, only Hispanic can be used in referring to Spain and its history and culture; a native of Spain residing in the United States is a Hispanic, not a Latino, and one cannot substitute Latino in the phrase the Hispanic influence on native Mexican cultures without garbling the meaning. In practice, however, this distinction is of little significance when referring to residents of the United States, most of whom are of Latin American origin and can theoretically be called by either word."

Plus, citing Nadal as "a freedom fighter for his people" would denote some direct involvement in politics and socioeconomic issues. Nadal has not performed any overt political or social actions that can be easily referenced from outside sources. (Alger82 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

Rafael ''Link title''

He is a really good tennis player..............

How about a new and way more cleared statistics table?

Since Nadal has a different statistics table than usual, like Federer, Djokovic and Murray, I've been testing and I think this table would be lot easier to understand and states thing way more clean, say your opinion:

(Basicly, I've mixed empty columns to take out as max as possible N/A spaces, ive made a different section for the statistics of the matches AFTER the tournaments statistics, now it looks more cleared, and for last I tried putting colors to each one of the 4 surfaces, at first I thought it would look really bad but it ended looking really good in my opinion, for that I'm asking you your opinion about this minimal change style.):

Tournament	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Career SR	Career W-L
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	A	3R	4R	A	QF	SF	0 / 4	14–4
French Open	A	A	A	W	W	W	W	4 / 4	28–0
Wimbledon	A	3R	A	2R	F	F	W	1 / 5	22–4
US Open	A	2R	2R	3R	QF	4R	SF	0 / 6	16–6
SR	0 / 0	0 / 2	0 / 2	1 / 4	1 / 3	1 / 4	2 / 4	5 / 19	N/A
Win-Loss	0–0	3–2	3–2	13–3	17–2	20–3	24–2	N/A	80–14
Year-End Championship
Tennis Masters Cup	A	A	A	A	SF	SF		0 / 2	4–4
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	Not Held		A	Not Held			W	1 / 1	6–0
ATP Masters Series
Indian Wells	A	A	3R	A	SF	W	SF	1 / 4	16–3
Miami	A	A	4R	F	2R	QF	F	0 / 5	14–5
Monte Carlo	A	3R	A	W	W	W	W	4 / 5	24–1
Rome	A	A	A	W	W	W	2R	3 / 4	17–1
Hamburg	A	3R	A	A	A	F	W	1 / 3	11–2
Toronto / Montreal	A	A	1R	W	3R	SF	W	2 / 5	16–3
Cincinnati	A	A	1R	1R	QF	2R	SF	0 / 5	6–5
Madrid	A	1R	2R	W	QF	QF	SF	1 / 6	13–5
Paris	A	LQ	A	A	A	F		0 / 1	4–1
ATP Tournaments Played	1	11	18	21	16	18	18	103
ATP Finals Reached	0	0	2	12	6	9	10	39
ATP Tournaments Won	0	0	1	11	5	6	8	31
Statistics by surfaces
Hard Win-Loss	0–0	1–2	14–10	28–6	25–10	31–12	44–9	N/A	143–49
Clay Win-Loss	1–1	11–6	14–3	50–2	26–0	31–1	24–1	N/A	157–14
Grass Win-Loss	0–0	2–1	0–0	1–2	8–2	8–2	12–0	N/A	31–7
Carpet Win-Loss	0–0	0–2	2–4	0–0	0–0	0–0	0–0	N/A	2–6
Overall Win-Loss	1–1	14–11	30–17	79–10	59–12	70–15	80–10	N/A	333–76
Win (%)	50%	56%	64%	89%	83%	82%	89%	81%
Year End Ranking	200	49	51	2	2	2	1	N/A

.Korlzor (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything that reduces the statistical overload this page has (and most other tennis bio pages have) would be welcomed. The tennis project is in disarray right now, no direct tennis-related featured content and a single tennis-related good article? Disaster. However, with your more streamlined tables, please consider the use of standard English capitalisation of nouns, i.e. "Year End Ranking" should just be "Year end ranking" (etc), but otherwise it looks better. Good luck getting a consensus with which the "experts" in this project will agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus? it's fun because last wednesday I was reading all the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Future_.282009.29_changes_on_tennist_players_articles. and it seems (just check the first lines of the discussion) the same people (Tennisexpert) keeps doing the same than before. There is no future trying to get anything here, so i'm just reverting continuously his changes and reporting him if he goes outlaw. It's too bad a page with such high number of visitors has such a poor quality, just because a few people (that should be perm banned here) keeps doing "legal vandalizing". Korlzor (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That is alright, but the current one is bad. Too many colours clashing; it's like looking at the page on acid (not that I'd know...). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What is going on? colours are horrible! Can't we have a consensus about some basic stuff in the articles, like infoboxes, tournaments, a performance timetable? If all others perfor.timetables look the same, why is this one different that must be unique? --Göran S (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The tennis articles are currently in a state of chaos. Let us wait and see if things settle down. I believe it is impossible to get anything fuitful out of discussions at the Tennis Project. We have tried, and failed, on a couple of occasions recently. I don not want to waste time on it as some user has an outstanding idea about consensus. I wish you luck! --HJensen, talk 20:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting issues

There is a pending request for page protection but I hope you can sort out the questions of spaces between cites and wikilinks here on the talk page. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

He won the doubles in Monte Carlo

Nadal won the doubles competition in Monte Carlo, which is pretty important, because he won singles there as well. It's very hard to win the singles and doubles at an event, particularly a masters series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.191.68 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Information on this here (sourced): 2008 Monte Carlo Masters. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive results info in article

I have recetly removed the independent table of Grand Slam results from the article. The reason is that he results are already presented in the main text and formally in the singles result table. Moreover, Grand Slam performances get extra focus in the performance timeline. I have everytime explained my edits but have been reverted now a few times by an anon IP (the one starting with 62.57), that recently states

62.57.197.15 (Talk) (74,172 bytes) (Undid revision 251863825 by HJensen (talk) Hjensen stop vandalizing, you're the ONLY ONE that don't want them. I will report you.)

I don't think my edits are even close to vandalism. I have not in any reversion been met with one argument for having information repeated in the article. I doubt that such repetitions will help that article at some point becoming a GA. But I am all ears: Is repetition of information a good idea in this article? What are the compelling arguments? --HJensen, talk 19:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Grand Slam finals should be given greater precedence, and made more easily accessable, because they are often people's yardsticks for judging the very best players. Many people use Wikipedia as a fact-checking resource, and often ignore the prose and infobox in favour of results (which are usually lower down), on sports articles. The Masters Series' table can go, they are too much—there are so many more of them, they're assigned a lower worth, and people who don't know much about the sport won't care. Retain the status quo until there is some wider input—neither of you are vandalizing but digging your heels in will not help matters. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Yohan euan o4. Tennis expert (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that GS results are already given extra emphasis in the performance timeline. And there, even more clearly, as one can visualize a player's entire GS career accomplishments immediately. The tables with only finals offer a very limited view, and is repeated. Why then not take them out of the longer table, and call it "other finals"? I think the current presentation is just making the articles longer than needed. I really can't see that repetition of GS finals results serves the purpose that you rightly seek Yohan euan o4 (i.e., to provide a yardstick).--HJensen, talk 22:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not many seems interested in this issue? Except the Nadal fan who carried on above (and the masters series are back, as well as a separate Olympic section). Well, I guess repeating info is better than not presenting info, but still, it will probably never survive a GA or FA nomination, when experienced editors get to look at it.--HJensen, talk 23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I don't care if its GA/FA or whatever. I preffer it being like now: helpfull. Korlzor (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but many editors want to improve articles. And aiming a little higher is often a good path towards improvements. Why is it helpful to have the same information twice? Because our readers are dumb?--HJensen, talk 18:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with HJensen. There is no need at all for either the separate GS, Masters and Olympics results. The complete overview is helpful (so renaming this to Other Finals isn't a good idea IMO) because it shows the order in which the titles were won. IlyazNasrullah (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency on singles performance timeline's table W-L section

On the ATP website, Nadal current W-L is 335 - 77.

But making the sum of what's currently on the "Overall Win-Loss row", we get 335 - 78

Moreover, on 2004, Nadal loses 11 matches on court, 3 on clay, and 4 on carpet. Total 18, but it was marked 17.

If we mark 18 instead of 17 there, we get a global of 335-79 now..

Moreover, on 2008, the W sum makes 83, but it was marked 82. If it's 83, then the global would come now to 336-79...

Too many errors on this table. Any good source to solve them?.

62.57.199.239 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it's great, Hjensen, instead of replying or something, just posts that I'm ipsock on the ip pages (just forgot to login). You are a great helper for this community! 62.57.199.239 (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, and you come up with this on the day where an article on which I am main contributor was Today's featured article on Wikipedia! --HJensen, talk 06:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

His record for helping this community is far more favorable than yours (including Wikitestor, Korlzor, and all your IP sockpuppets put together). Tennis expert (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TE. The feeling is mutual. Nice to see that despite our huge disagreements over other matters can be in agreement over such basic matters.--HJensen, talk 06:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency on the W-L section on the singles timeline performance table (2)

(The same post that above, just without the troll comments of those 2 retards.)
On the ATP website, Nadal current W-L is 335 - 77.

But making the sum of what's currently on the "Overall Win-Loss row", we get 335 - 78

Moreover, on 2004, Nadal loses 11 matches on court, 3 on clay, and 4 on carpet. Total 18, but it was marked 17.

If we mark 18 instead of 17 there, we get a global of 335-79 now..

Moreover, on 2008, the W sum makes 83, but it was marked 82. If it's 83, then the global would come now to 336-79...

Too many errors on this table. Any good source to solve them?.

62.57.239.212 (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the new timeline performance table erroneous?

Tournament	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Career SR	Career W-L
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	A	3R	4R	A	QF	SF		0 / 4	14–4
French Open	A	A	A	W	W	W	W		4 / 4	28–0
Wimbledon	A	3R	A	2R	F	F	W		1 / 5	22–4
US Open	A	2R	2R	3R	QF	4R	SF		0 / 6	16–6
SR	0 / 0	0 / 2	0 / 2	1 / 4	1 / 3	1 / 4	2 / 4	0 / 0	5 / 19	N/A
Win-Loss	0 – 0	3–2	3–2	13–3	17–2	20–3	24–2	0 – 0	N/A	80–14
Year-End Championship
Tennis Masters Cup	A	A	A	A	SF	SF	A		0 / 2	4–4
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	Not Held		A	Not Held			W	NH	1 / 1	6–0
ATP Masters Series 1000
Indian Wells	A	A	3R	A	SF	W	SF		1 / 4	16–3
Miami	A	A	4R	F	2R	QF	F		0 / 5	14–5
Monte Carlo	A	3R	A	W	W	W	W		4 / 5	24–1
Rome	A	A	A	W	W	W	2R		3 / 4	17–1
Madrid	A	1R	2R	W	QF	QF	SF		1 / 6	13–5
Toronto / Montreal	A	A	1R	W	3R	SF	W		2 / 5	16–3
Cincinnati	A	A	1R	1R	QF	2R	SF		0 / 5	6–5
Shanghai	NMS	Not Held		Not Masters Series					0 / 0	0 – 0
Paris	A	LQ	A	A	A	F	QF		0 / 2	6–2
Hamburg	A	3R	A	A	A	F	W	NMS	1 / 3	11–2

-

As we see here, Nadal hasn't won any Shangai. Which is false, he has won one (Since he won Madrid before). He also will have 1 Madrid now (the Hamburg one). They actually are SUBSTITUTIVE! It should be like this:

Tournament	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	Career SR	Career W-L
Grand Slam tournaments
Australian Open	A	A	3R	4R	A	QF	SF		0 / 4	14–4
French Open	A	A	A	W	W	W	W		4 / 4	28–0
Wimbledon	A	3R	A	2R	F	F	W		1 / 5	22–4
US Open	A	2R	2R	3R	QF	4R	SF		0 / 6	16–6
SR	0 / 0	0 / 2	0 / 2	1 / 4	1 / 3	1 / 4	2 / 4	0 / 0	5 / 19	N/A
Win-Loss	0 – 0	3–2	3–2	13–3	17–2	20–3	24–2	0 – 0	N/A	80–14
Year-End Championship
Tennis Masters Cup	A	A	A	A	SF	SF	A		0 / 2	4–4
Olympic Games
Summer Olympics	Not Held		A	Not Held			W	NH	1 / 1	6–0
ATP Masters Series 1000
Indian Wells	A	A	3R	A	SF	W	SF		1 / 4	16–3
Miami	A	A	4R	F	2R	QF	F		0 / 5	14–5
Monte Carlo	A	3R	A	W	W	W	W		4 / 5	24–1
Rome	A	A	A	W	W	W	2R		3 / 4	17–1
Madrid	A	3R	A	A	A	F	W		1 / 3	11–2
Toronto / Montreal	A	A	1R	W	3R	SF	W		2 / 5	16–3
Cincinnati	A	A	1R	1R	QF	2R	SF		0 / 5	6–5
Shangai	A	1R	2R	W	QF	QF	SF		1 / 6	13–5
Paris	A	LQ	A	A	A	F	QF		0 / 2	6–2

IMPORTANT: Notice that for example, on the Shangai line, the links until 2008 have links to MADRID still! on 2009 they will start linking to Shangai.

This should be commented before changing all the players timelines... 62.57.197.191 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong on the singles performance timeline table? on the W-L matches sections

There it says the current record for Nadal is 335-77, but if I had sum all the total W-L of the 4 surfaces, the total was 335-78. I went into the ATP website and found that there was an error, that the total hard W-L record of nadal is 145-50 instead of 145-51 (source: http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/playerprofiles/matchrecord.asp?playernumber=N409). Now the sums of the global W-Ls for each surface does 335-77 so the totals are OK.

The problem becomes now, making the sum of all the W-Ls on hard surface on each year, it sums 145-51 instead of the correct 145-50, and I can't find any source with the correct data. Keita24 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it, nadal played 12 tournaments on 2007, he won 1 of them (Indian wells masters), so he lost a match on the other 11. So it sums 11 loses on hard on 2007 instead of 12. May be this?. Keita24 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, it was 12 because he lost 2 matches on the Tennis Master Cup (a RR-match and the SF). I've found that the error was on 2004, he lost 10 matches on hard, not 11. Keita24 (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

There was also a typo on 2007 total ATP tournaments playeds, he played 20, not 18 (souce: http://www.atpworldtour.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?prevtrnnum=0&year=2007&query=Singles&selTournament=0&player=N409&x=17&y=11). Keita24 (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)