Talk:Rafael Nadal/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Steroid Accusations in Public Image Section

Let's not ignore the elephant in the room now and pretend that steroid accusations haven't dogged Rafael Nadal since he came on the tennis scene. In fact, tennis great, Yannick Noah, publicly accussed Rafael Nadal last year of being on steroids and Skip Bayless of ESPN made an accusation on the air as well. Even more controversy was generated when a French tv show ran a parody of Nadal using steroids. Combined with Nadal's very public criticism of PED testing procedures, the steroid controversy has been very critical throughout Nadal's career. Why isn't this section in the article? It wouldn't be accusing Nadal of being on steroids, it would just bring up the very obvious fact that the steroids accusations have dogged him throughout his career. TennisExpertIV (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nadal has been constantly and frequently tested since he came onto the tour by the ITF, which conducts one of the most stringent testing in all of sports. Not once has Nadal tested positive for any steroids or failed any test for that matter. Thus, any steroid accusations against him are completely baseless, unfounded and unsubstantiated. Mentioning it in this article would constitute the inclusion of pure speculation and WP should stick to facts only. Bloom6132 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he is or is not using steroids, however, there is a public perception that he is on steroids or performance enhancing drugs which would be fitting for inclusion in the Public Image Section of his article. TennisExpertIV (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as you have multiple correct and reliable sources to back up the argument, I think that will be fine. Feel free to go ahead and add it. Cheers and welcome to WP! Bloom6132 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Comedy skit on French TV hardly validates as noteworthy. What next, writing that there have been claims that all South African people are dicks? :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v439zTOJVho
Mrmarble (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that you remind me that it was from a comedy skit, I think it'll be better just to scrap the whole idea. And besides, Yannick Noah made the steroids claim with no proof whatsoever. Innocent until proven guilty. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as it is only a few unsubstantiated rumors it is hard to make the case that it should be included in a BLP. On that basis we would probably have a "doping allegations" section in the BLP of every professional cyclist that has won a few races. In the case of Lance Armstrong we have such a section, but then there were a lot of allegations and even a federal investigation. If more doping allegations about Nadal appear and get carried by several reliable sources, then we would have to start thinking about a section for it. But not yet imo. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur, to add this to the article would be to give undue weight to one person's accusation. 77.250.97.191 (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So Rafael Nadal withdrew from the Olympics after the WADA chief issued a warning to potential dopers stating that they should just stay home as this will be the most tested Olympics ever and there will be an array of new tests designed to bypass prior deficiencies. This warning was issued on July 10th. A few days later after this Nadal makes first mention of possible "injuries" and a few days after that Nadal officially withdraws from the Olympics.

Now that's not all. Nadal has in the past been a very vocal critic of the ITF's anti doping policies saying that they are an invasion of privacy. Nadal is also a staunch defender of convicted doper Alberto Contador. It gets even more intriguing when you consider that Dr. Emmanuel Fuentes, the Spanish doping doctor, states that his list of clients included unnamed Spanish tennis players. I remember the last time Nadal missed a major event (Wimbledon 2009) after being upset by Soderling in the 2009 French Open citing knee "injuries" and he came back to win 3 out of 4 majors the following year. Could he have been starting a PED/steroid regiment then? Maybe. More reason to start another one now that he lost to lowly Rosol in the second round of Wimbledon.

Now Nadal has been known to flirt with the rules constantly as he has used fake medical timeouts in the past to break an opponents momentum and to receive illegal coaching during matches from his Uncle Toni.

Nadal's withdrawal from the Olympics alone is not reason to believe he is on PEDs, but coupled with the above there is strong circumstantial evidence. For those to say that he passed all the tests, keep in mind Marion Jones passed all her tests too showing that the tests can be beaten. As far as circumstantial cases go, there is no other case in tennis stronger than Nadal's. Him pulling out of the Olympics was the final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned. I do believe that Nadal is roiding it up however, there will never be any hard proof unless Nadal admits to it one day or goofs up and gets caught. So is he roiding? Most likely yes, but will it ever be proven without a doubt? Probably not. As a result, unless it's proven entirely without a doubt that he is on performance enhancing drugs, there should be no mention of it in the article, no matter how the circumstantial evidence points to it. Thedaxw097 (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

article bloat

Wow... 165+k for this article. Wiki recommends 60k and not over 100k and yet we still have to allow this article room to grow. Other articles on wikipedia have been chopped by editors not as familiar with a topic (hence losing what many here might consider vital information). We need to do something about this pronto. I just worked on Andy Murray's article so I'll take a look at this one and see what I can do. At least we have a couple of yearly subpages where most of Nadal in 2012, 2011, 2010 can go. I didn't have that luxury with Murry since he hasn't won a Major and isn't worthy of the wiki yearly pages yet. But then that was only 130k+ and this is 160k+... quite a challenge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much detail

Yet another tennis article with far too much detail of match-by-match results and obscure statistics. This sort of information is virtually unreadable when presented like this in prose. If we want to include match results at such a detailed level, they should be spun off to a separate table, leaving the prose here to focus on a more interesting and accessible and higher-level treatment of his career. I'm sure everyone appreciates the effort that tennis fans put into articles like this, but the end result is far too long and, as I say, practically unreadable. It does not do the effort justice. 86.179.1.71 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the best way to make Nadal's article less detailed would be to group his years into different eras on this page and create separate pages for his individual seasons (much like the format on Federer's GA). Currently, only his 2010, 2011 and 2012 seasons have separate pages. Yet, there is still so much excessive detail on his main page regarding these years, so it would good to amalgamate his years into eras. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nadal has not won each slam at least twice, he has certainly only won the u.s once — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.10.53 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sneaky Vandalism, or Just Errors?

This claims that Federer and Nadal held the 1-2 rankings until Sept 14 2009, but Murray's article says he was #2 in August 2009.

"They held the top two rankings on the ATP Tour from July 2005 until 14 September 2009, when Nadal fell to world no. 3 (Andy Murray became the new no. 2)"

Could someone double-check this. 96.25.189.9 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, Murray was number 3 for three weeks in August 2009 - the dates on this article are a month wrong --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2013

Please change 17 to 19 because Rafael Nadal beat Roger Federer for the first time in 2005 French Open on his 19th birthday, it says he was 17. Smodrop (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: - the "2002-2004" section states "Nadal played his first match against world no. 1 Roger Federer at the 2004 Miami Masters, and won in straight sets." GoingBatty (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2013

Please change "Nadal is not the first player (and only up to date)to win three consecutıve Majors on three different surfaces" to "Nadal is the second player (the first Martina Navratilova) to win three consecutive Majors on three different surfaces". He is the only male player. In 1984 Martina Navratilova won 3 consecutive Grand Slam tournaments. French, Wimbledon and US Open. Clay, Grass, Hard. 78.190.110.235 (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I cannot find the text in question. You may reopen this request if you phrase it in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2013

Please change the prize money sum with an extra million added on because that was what he won from winning the Indian wells masters. Zakieb12345 (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for Good Article

Ingdalevri (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up

I propose a clean-up of this article. Individual articles on each season are a must, and I will start them. I have done one for 2008, and I'll do the rest as well, from 2005 through 2009. The only problem is this one editor seems to think individual season articles aren't required and has put all of those up for AfD. Ingdalevri (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Introduction query

I'm not a contributor so I apologise if I'm not doing this correctly, but I wanted to alert whoever monitors this page to what I believe to be an inaccuracy in the introduction paragraph. The following sentence:

"By winning the 2012 French Open, he became the second male player and is one of three to win any Grand Slam tournament seven times (Pete Sampras's and Federer's seven Wimbledon titles)."

appears to imply that one of either Sampras or Federer is not a male player. I assume it should read that "...he became the third male player..." (rather than second).

For the record, it should perhaps also qualify that statement with 'in the open era' (as an example, William Renshaw also won 7 Wimbledon titles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon_Championships)). Also, the wording could be seen as misleading given that women have also won the same Grand Slam tournament at least seven times (same source as before, Martina Navratilova won a total of 9 Wimbledon titles). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.185.2 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013

Please change "Nadal is the first (and only player to date) to win three consecutive Grand Slam titles on three different surfaces." to "Nadal is the first male (and only second player after Martina Navratilova)to win three consecutive Grand Slam titles on three different surfaces." Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martina_Navratilova#Records and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martina_Navratilova_career_statistics 78.191.33.167 (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Question: - I took a look at the linked sections, and I don't initially see a corresponding statement at either of them. WP:OR seems to prevent me from trying to extrapolate your point from what is there. We can't use Wikipedia as a reliable source, anyway. Is there a statement in a reliable source somewhere that backs up either the statement in this article, or the amended statement? Without it, I wonder if it might be easiest just to remove the statement, since it feels to me we might be doing our own research here. "To date" should be made more specific, maybe with {{As of}} if we intend to retain the statement. Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. Begoon ^talk 03:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Marked as answered. We can't really have it in there, because it is original research so I've removed the statement - if you can find a source please let us know. But added a reference to the next sentence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If I am doing something wrong, I am so sorry. I believe this is the best expression. Nadal is the only male player to win three consecutive Grand Slam single titles in three different surfaces, and also the only one to do it in a single year (2010). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.33.167 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Nothing wrong at all. It's great that you'd like to improve the article. It's difficult to make sections containing various such "records" read consistently, and ensure they are well sourced. The problem is, that, as an encyclopedia, we can only report what reliable sources have said about this matter, so to include it you'd need to point us to somewhere in the media or in a published book that referred to this fact, and established it as notable. We are not allowed to look at the record of the player and decide for ourselves that this is a fact, and notable, because that would be original research. I understand this can be confusing for new editors. I've put some links on your talk page that might help you further. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 00:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If all the facts are available, you may extrapolate the records. If there are sources showing that Martina won consecutively on three surfaces, you may say that she won consecutively on three surfaces, using 3 sources, and this shows that Nadal is not the only player to do so. Just quote all three win sources. You are taking the original research prohibition to extremes with the above comment.  The Steve  08:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm possibly being strict in my interpretation, but I don't think I'm being extreme. Here's what WP:SYN says:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

To my mind, what you describe is doing that - creating our own "factoid" from multiple sources, and judging it notable without any source so judging it. Having said that, I probably wouldn't revert an edit like that, because I agree it's borderline here, I just wouldn't make the edit myself. Feel free to, and if consensus is with you, then I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Begoon ^talk 08:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a big difference in coming to an obvious conclusion and coming to a new conclusion. I will demonstrate what I mean using actual sources:

• Martina Navratilova won 3 Grand Slams. <- undisputed
• Martina Navratilova won 3 consecutive Grand Slams. <- if this counts as a new conclusion, wikipedia is in trouble...
• Martina Navratilova won 3 consecutive Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces, the 1984 French Open (clay), 1984 Wimbledon (grass) and the 1984 US Open (hard courts). (http://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/martina-navratilova) <- you see, here you are merely stating what the source already says, you aren't coming to a new conclusion at all. The fact that they are consecutive is pretty obvious, and if you don't know the surfaces for the Grand Slams, you probably shouldn't be editing tennis articles.  The Steve  04:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the education (and the strawman). That's the good thing about wikipedia - there's always someone willing to turn a civil discussion into an argument. Here's the thing: we disagree that this edit is desirable. That's cool, reasonable people can disagree. As I said above, it's probably borderline, and you're welcome to make the edit if you wish. I wouldn't revert it - it's just not an edit I'd make. There seems little point in ad-hominems, but if that's what makes you happy, I'm fine with that too. Happy editing. Begoon ^talk 04:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That statement wasn't meant as an attack, and I certainly didn't think it applied to you. It was only meant to reinforce how common the GS surface knowledge is. It isn't necessary to find a source every time you say "The sky is blue", and it isn't really necessary when you say "The French Open is played on clay." That's what I mean by obvious, and that's how I arrive at the conclusion that OR doesn't apply.  The Steve  08:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the whole proposed statement. "Nadal is the first male (and only second player after Martina Navratilova) to win three consecutive Grand Slam titles on three different surfaces." My biggest question is -

• "yes, but why do we want to say so ourselves, without relying on a reliable source which has deemed it worth mention?"

Here's a thought experiment for you. You have implied that I should not be editing tennis articles. Let's put that aside, and imagine I'm not - but I am instead a reader of wikipedia who has chanced on this article. Imagine I have a basic interest in the sport but am not an expert or big fan. I read the statement and wonder if it is true, or important. How are you going to present the sources to me to show the statement is correct and noteworthy?

We are combining many things into one handy little "factoid":

• We are saying both these people did it. Needs multiple sources, but you feel this is OK. Maybe it is.
• We are noting similarity in (and/or comparing) achievement for a male player in male tournaments to a female player in female tournaments. Maybe this is a non-issue.
• We are saying they are the first people to do it. Implying we have researched that nobody else did it previously. Just "obvious" again?
• Why is 3 important? Why 3 and not 2 or 4? That may be petty - but without a source it's still a notability judgement we are making.
• Are we asking the reader to take our word for all of that, because it's "obvious"? That's not what we normally do. Where does he check if he doubts us? Not all of our readers are qualified to write or edit tennis articles, but it is incumbent on us to make our sources obvious for them if they wish to dig deeper, and to make that process straightforward.

These are my issues, and whilst you don't have to share the concern, as you obviously don't, they are valid concerns to discuss nevertheless. I'm sure I could manufacture any number of "records" by sifting through data, but does that make it notable, because Begoon thinks so? I just don't believe that manufacturing these sorts of "factoids", as opposed to reporting on their coverage in reliable sources, should be our business. Others will disagree. No offence taken by the way, although your phrasing could maybe use some work if you don't want people to be offended. Begoon ^talk 11:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2013

Please change the broken link ATP Tour records#Earnings to ATP Tour records#Prize_money_leaders 77.227.15.28 (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 16:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - lead sentence

The lead inappropriately says, "He is regarded as one of the, greatest players of all time." I am a huge fan of Nadal's, but we are editors of an encylopedia, so that sentence should be changed to the neutral and more accurate, "He has been called one of the greatest players of all time." Saying he "is regarded as" improperly puts it in Wikipedia's voice and states it as if it's fact (not opinion) and as if there's been some official declaration. So instead of using the words "is regarded as", please change it to "has been called".

Also, one of the three sources (ATP) is not reliable). It is just a puff piece from one of men's tennis' governing bodies. The other two sources are: (1) a 2010 article from the Mirror, titled "Mighty Nadal is one of best four players ever, says John McEnroe". So it's simply the opinion of one former player saying Nadal is in the top four; and (2) a Sports Illustrated Top 10 Players of All Time list, again from 2010, which placed Nadal at #4 and says Nadal "has established himself as not only one of the best players of today, but one of the all-time greats".

Yes, Nadal has indeed been called one of the greatest players of all time; no one can debate that and it certainly can be reliably sourced. But the wording in the article must be completely neutral and attributed properly, and there needs to be several more sources added. If a lot more sources can be found to show that other notable tennis people (players, analysts, etc.) or sports sources have called him one of the greatest of all time, then the beginning of the sentence can later be changed to "Many have called him..." instead of "He has been called...". In fact, more sources should be found anyway to validate any version of the sentence being lead-worthy. There should be at least a half dozen sources attached to that sentence to verify it. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find such sources. But for now, all we have are just two reliable sources, from three years ago, that show opinions of Nadal being #4 or among the top 4.

So please change the sentence to, "He has been called one of the greatest players of all time.". And remove the ATP cite Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Partly done: I've changed the wording as you requested. I don't really see a reason to exclude the ATP source, though - I wouldn't call it unreliable, and it does speak to the sentence it's sourcing. --ElHef (Meep?) 04:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, ElHef. Regarding the ATP cite, it's completely unreliable because it's basically like a press release or marketing piece disguised as a news article. It's just pure puffery (even if there's accuracy in it). As an example, it says, "What is the secret of his success? Many things, of course, but above all a unrivaled mental toughness and unrelenting determination to keep getting better." It's just a promotional tool essentially. Most importantly, there's no true editorial oversight in posts on the ATP site, as we require, such as those of a newspaper or magazine, etc. The purpose of the ATP site is just to promote tennis and its players. Do you see what I'm saying? Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm convinced! Done --ElHef (Meep?) 16:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Have a good week. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Details of fulfilled edit request - new sources for "one of the greatest players of all time"

Details of fulfilled edit request

The lead says, "He has been called one of the greatest players of all time." Any time a huge statement like that is made about an athlete, it should have a lot of reliable sources to verify the claim. Currently, though, there are only two. And both are from three years ago. Therefore, I have found eight excellent sources to add to that sentence. Please add them. To make it very easy to complete this edit, you can simply copy-and-paste them from this edit page: References Thanks, --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Details of fulfilled edit request - King of Clay/greatest clay court player ever

Details of fulfilled edit request

I've found a lot of great sources to support this sentence in the lead: "His success on clay has earned him the nickname "The King of Clay" and has prompted the majority of tennis experts to regard him as the greatest clay court player in history. Again, this is a huge claim to make about an athlete, so it requires a lot of soures to support it. I found nine sources. Five of the sources I found are for the first part of the sentence (about him being the "King of Clay"). The other four sources I found are for the second part of the sentence (about him being the best clay court player ever). The problem with the current four sources is that only one of them mentioned the "King of Clay" part. So all of my sources will correct this problem by having sources that verify the first part of the sentence and separate sources that verify the second part. I replaced the term "the majority of" with "many". "Majority of", while likely true, cannot possibly be verified. So we need to tone down our wording on that a bit. I also removed two of the old sources (from three and five years ago) that only questioned whether Nadal was the greatest clay court player only; they don't actually say that he is the greatest. So, here is the revised sentence with all of the sources in their proper place: His success on clay has earned him the nickname the "King of Clay" and has prompted many tennis experts to regard him as the greatest clay court player in history. The above is complete, with fully-completed sources. You can simply remove the current sentence/cites and then just copy-and-paste my updated version in it's place. To make it very easy, you can just copy the sentence with cites right from this edit page. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Update: An editor has just changed the wording of the sentence to, "His unprecedented success on clay has earned him the nickname 'The King of Clay' and has led many tennis commentators to regard him as the greatest clay court player in history". That needs to be changed. The words "unprecedented" and "many tennis commentators" should be removed. They're out of context and therefore inaccurate. He was called the "King of Clay" long before he won his eighth French open, and it is not just tennis commentators who've called him the best clay court player ever; it's also former and current players, and sports writers, etc. And "unprecedented" is clear POV in the context of this sentence; while it's true he's now won more French Opens than anyone, the sentence is about his overall clay court play (around the world), not just about the French Open. Also, it should read the 'King of Clay', with "the" outside the quotes. And per MoS, the word "the" in mid-sentence should be lower case. I have no problem with changing the word "prompted" to "led". That's actually good. One other important point regarding the term "tennis experts". First, "experts" is vague and subjective. Most importantly, it's not only "tennis experts" who've made these comments about Nadal. It's former and current players, and those who cover sports in general, not just tennis. It includes sports journalists, TV/radio sports anchors/hosts, sports analysts, etc. So this is reflected in my revised wording below. So, here's the revised version of the sentence, which you can just copy/paste from this thread's edit page. Please change to: His success on clay has earned him the nickname the 'King of Clay' and has led many sports journalists and commentators, and former and current players, to regard him as the greatest clay court player in history. References Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement in personal life section

I'm usually just a passive reader but I cannot believe that the most important thing about Rafael Nadal's personal life is that "Nadal owns an Aston Martin DBS.[262]" I am sure Nadal owns lots of nice things, including cars. This smacks very much of advertising, of which Wikipedia should be free. (see WP:SOAP) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.184.64 (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

IP 194, you are absoultely correct. It's nonsense, trivial content and should be immediately removed. Naming an expensive toy that someone owns is most certainly not encylopedic. I suppose the editor who added that also thinks we should include the type of refrigerator and lawnmower Nadal owns. Haha. I've added an edit request template, so hopefully someone will remove that sentence soon. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mlpearc (powwow) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The Lead

The lead is two great solid slabs of text, quite off-putting to read.

The rest of the article is well-written. But the lead is both too long, and not broken up into paragraphs enough. It needs most of its text moved to later in the article; and what is left breaking up more. Maproom (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just discussing the lead with another editor today. Right now, we're trying to fix some coding in the lead (see this help desk thread) to create notes for the sentences that contain numerous (necessary) sources. Anyway, you're right... Per WP:LEAD, the lead should only contain a summary of the article's most important aspects. However, please note that the article is about 172,000 characters, which is huge. Therefore, because of it's very large size, having three or four lead paragraphs is perfectly appropriate. See WP:LEADLENGTH, which shows that an article need only have 30,000 characters to justify three or four paragraphs. But all of a lead's content still must be lead-worthy, so it's not required that there be three or four paragraphs; it's just that it's allowed to have that many. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Maproom, for now why don't you just split the first paragraph after the sentence that ends with "regard him as the greatest clay court player in history.[20][21][22][23][24]". Make the rest of that paragraph (starting with "Nadal has won twelve Grand Slam singles titles") the second paragraph. Then, someone can trim the entire lead and remove any content that's not important enough to be in the lead. If you want, you can also split the current second paragraph; make the part starting with "Nadal was ranked world No. 2" a separate paragraph. So if you split the two current paragraphs as I suggest, that'll leave four small paragraphs, which is fine, instead of two huge ones. Then, let the trimming begin from there. ;) In the end, it'll probably end up being two medium-sized paragraphs or three small ones. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Map, I see you split up the lead into separate paragraphs, for now (until someone starts trimming the content). Nice job. However, five paragraphs is too many. Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the maximum number of lead paragraphs should be four. So can you please re-work the lead and turn five into four? In your edit summary, you can just reference WP:LEADLENGTH to explain why you're condensing from five to four. Thanks. Btw, there are some very rare exceptions where five paragraphs is acceptable, such as Michael Jackson, which obviously necessitates it. And that article is a whopping 226,000 characters! Interesting, Rafi's is 172,000 and Roger Federer's is 123,000. Federer has three lead paragaphs, although the third one is very long. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - lead length

Please see above discussion. Can someone please condense the lead into fewer paragraphs? (And, if you feel like it, relocate or merge non-lead-worthy content to the body of the article?) Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

God willing, I will address in a couple of days, for you annon editor.HotHat (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This is what I would change it to, so tell me what your opinion is of the situation.HotHat (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that great draft! It made this matter much easier to resolve. I have taken your version and made some revisions to it to remove some finer details that I don't think are necessary for the lead, and also did some other minor gammar and MoS fixes. Please see your sandbox for my version, right below yours.

In the first paragraph, I removed the last sentence that said, "Nadal is the only player to win four French Open's consecutively twice, and the other player to accomplish this once is Björn Borg" because it is already mentioned in the previous sentence that he won the French Open eight times, so there's no need to say (in the lead) that he won four consecutive two times; it's basically just repeating a similar record in a different way. The fact that he won the French four times in a row, twice, can just be mentioned in the body.

I also kept the exact wording for the following sentences in the opening paragraph, that are in the current version of the article: "He is considered one of the greatest players of all time.[a] His success on clay has earned him the nickname the "King of Clay"[b] and has led many sports journalists and commentators, as well as former and current players, to regard him as the greatest clay court player in history.[c]" Several editors worked very carefully to create that specific wording, particularly the part about sports journalists/commentators/players. (Very similar wording is used in the Federer article.) It's very important that we don't use the type of wording you chose: ("so this makes him the greatest clay court player in the history of tennis"), which improperly puts it into Wikipedia's voice (POV), rather than attributing the comments to those who made those statements, per the sources. We of course cannot say he is the greatest clay court player ever (even if we believe it to be true), but we certainly can say that others have said it by attributing it to them and attaching the sources, which we do. That is why we have 19 sources to verify those sentences.

I also removed the part that says "(winner of the Career Grand Slam and the Olympic gold medal)" because it's not necessary to explain what a Career Golden Slam is; that term is wikilinked, so readers can just click on the link if they don't know what it is and they'll see the definition.

In the third paragraph, I added the part about him holding the record for most consecutive wins (eight) at a particular tournament (the Monte-Carlo Masters). That's a significant record and so deserves to be in the lead.

Finally, for the part that mentions his two biggest rivalries - against Federer and Djokovic - I removed the parts about the various tournaments where they had great matches; at that is needed for the lead are the names of the two players with whom he has the big rivalries. The details/tournaments can just be put in the body of the article.

Overall, you did a fantastic job of removing content that isn't important enough to be in the lead; you removed almost everything I would've removed also. Great job. Anyway, take a look at my version in your sandbox and you'll see my version. If my version is acceptable to you, please go ahead and paste my changes into the lead. If not, we can work out any differences here. Thanks for your wonderful help on this, HH! --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I love your addition by subtraction.HotHat (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very nice of you to say. It was great working with you on this and I appreciate your help very much. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So that we'll have a record of the development of these change, here is the final archived sandbox page. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Other records inclusion

Hi can an editor who is auto confirmed please add Nadal's career record against top 10 players to his records. He has overtaken Bjorn Borg as No 1 in the list by the ATP it is w/l 132-52 72.30% many thanks --Navops47 (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually the record is now 142-52 73.19% according to this linkTop-10-Records this was valid up to the Monte Carlo tournament he has in fact had additional wins against top 10 players up till June. The data on the ATP World Tour Records page is also out of date some what--Navops47 (talk) 09:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please add the missing punctuation mark ending the sentence "beat Mathieu" (search this to locate it in the page). Thanks.

Done I actually combined that sentence and the next for better flow, but punctuation is correct now in any case. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2013

As of 19 August 2013, he is ranked No. 2 by the ATP. Link 1 Link 2 Rgirish281 (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Those sources do not mention his ranking. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2013

Rafael Nadal also joins Novak Djokovic as the only player to have won 5 Masters 1000 titles in a single year. Rgirish281 (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Grammar issues in fourth paragraph

Can someone please edit the fourth paragraph so that its grammar is correct? I'm particularly bothered by this sentence, which was presumably not written by a native speaker:

" He is the only Spanish player, male or female, to have won career golden slam, first Spanish male player to win Australian Open and second Spanish male player to have won Wimbledon and US Open."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.93.223 (talk) 30 October 2013

WP:TENNIS discussions

I thought I should mention the ongoing discussions going on at WP:TENNIS; we are discussing how career statistics list should be modelled, it would be nice if any of you would participate in it. --TIAYN (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

3 different surfaces

Can someone please enter into Nadal's wikipedia page that he is the only male player ever to hold 3 majors on 3 different surfaces in the same calendar year? Rod Laver had a calendar slam but the majors then were played on only 2 different surfaces and Roger has never held 3 majors on 3 different surfaces in the same calendar year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.109.12 (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014 to change Picture of Nadal.

I think Nadal's page Picture( purple shirt in competition at tournament in Japan) should be removed and changed with Photo that reflects Nadal and his style of play. Simple change to Getty image contained in 2012 French Open article titled "Nadal overpowers Ferrer on way" sports.nationalpost.com 70.118.70.56 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - That image is not in the public domain as it is owned by Clive Brunskill/Getty Images. Wikipedia uses images which have been released into the public domain. If you find one more suitable, bring it up for discussion here to see if others agree with you. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

Second request concerning Nadal picture at top of Wikipedia page. Should be changed to http://coldbeats.blogspot.sk/2011_06_01_archive.html, first picture under article heading Rafa wins Sixth French Open Title. With trophy in Blue. 38.99.121.202 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: images found on the internet cannot be used on wikipedia unless they are explicitly listed on free images. The image you are requesting to be uploaded does not say it is free, therefore it is likely copyrighted, and will not be uploaded. NiciVampireHeart 16:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

first picture of Nadal i will say once again should be changed to http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/photos/2013-06-01/201306011370108652180.html. If this is not a FREE photo then one should be found and replace the one in Purple shirt that currently is 1st picture with birth height age etc. 206.173.221.32 (talk)

Then do the leg work and find one and submit it for us to judge. Don't just show up complaining. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

2014 Australian Open final

Just a reminder to add details on Nadal's loss in the 2014 Australian Open final. Try not to make it sound like Nadal only lost because he was injured, obviously feel free to mention he had an ailment but make sure it doesn't sound like you're making excuses for him because that would be unfair on Wawrinka and Nadal himself made no excuses for the defeat.2.28.47.46 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Still no update? Here's what you could put in there: "Nadal played Stanislas Wawrinka in the final knowing victory would equal Pete Sampras's total of 14 grand slams and make him the first man in the open era to win all four grand slam tournaments at least twice each, but Wawrinka unexpectedly defeated him for the first time, 3-6 2-6 6-3 3-6. Nadal showed signs of a back injury during the second set but insisted the better player had won." Or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.47.46 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Following on from the new update, I can't help but fear that it sounds like it is in fact trying to make an excuse for Nadal and comes off as too negative. I know technically it's telling the truth, that he was injured while a set and a break down, but I'd prefer to see the result first then just include the injury as a footnote while also pointing out that Nadal didn't try to use it as an excuse. Also, the phrasing is incorrect ("he faced to Stanislas Wawrinka"). Incidentally, it might be worth locking the Wawrinka page as it's been targeted by trolls today.2.28.47.46 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2014

Rafa's latest loss at Monte Carlo should be added to the overall loss total, raising it from 132 to 133. The winning percentage should be adjusted accordingly. Thanks. 155.41.97.174 (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Image change request

Found some new free-use photos of tennis players on Flickr, which from my investigation aren't copyvios. So among other shots available there is a gorgeous shot of Rafa doing an interview at the 2014 Italian open - IBI14 Rafa Nadal. Tabercil (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Nadal main picture on Wikipedia

Nadal Main picture should be changed to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rafael_Nadal_2011_Roland_Garros_2011.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.5.179 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Text in the opening paragrah ' with Agassi saying he beats Federer'....

Am I the only person who feels this sounds awkward? What was wrong with 'held by some to be among the greatest'?

It just sounds out of place, why mention Agassi specifically? It seems poorly worded, 'beats Federer' it should at least say 'surpassing Federer' or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.66.99 (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014

Am I the only person who feels this sounds awkward? What was wrong with 'held by some to be among the greatest'?

It just sounds out of place, why mention Agassi specifically? McEnroe has also said this at Wimbledon last year. It seems poorly worded, 'beats Federer' it should at least say 'surpassing Federer' or something like that?

I think it should say 'held by some to be the greatest ever', or 'help by some to be among the greatest, surpassing Roger Federer'

176.252.173.138 (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 176.252.173.138 (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please see WP:NPOV and WP:PUFFERY. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

'World no. 1'

I hate to say this, but Nadal isn't no.1 anymore (he's second). I'm surprised this issue wasn't corrected earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.193.10 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I hate to tell you, but until Monday he is still number one. That's when the new rankings become official. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I know this issue has already been corrected, but then why did Djokovic's profile say he was no.1 before it was 'official'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.193.10 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Because we can't catch everything. Some I revert and 3 hours later it gets put back. All we can do is try. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

unverified information

The sentence "On 16 October 2010, Nadal traveled to India for the first time to assist in the transformation of one of the poorest and most needy areas of India, Andhra Pradesh." is incorrect in the sense that Andhra Pradesh is not "one of the poorest and most needy areas" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:D502:A400:A00E:9620:23B9:1E84 (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done You appear to be correct. I tweaked the wording a bit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence to make it more concise and less PR-puffery and added a reference.--Wolbo (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014

Please correct the date beside his current ranking. It should be 7 July 2014. 197.121.143.39 (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done ATP rankings are almost always updated on Mondays. Updated infobox to reflect that and added a reference.--Wolbo (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2014

Yes, both McEnroe and Agassi have now said that Nadal is the greatest ever - this should be reflected in the opening paragraph. Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.92.83.105 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Error in Nadal-Federer rivalry

There are several sentences that shouldn't be there at the beginning of the section. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.19.214 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

yep... Done. Thanks for spotting it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

First para

The opening to this bends so far backward to qualify its statements that it actually reads terribly. Can we get rid of that ugly "Furthermore" on the third sentence? And how about this as a simpler second one: "He is widely regarded as the finest clay court play in history and has been nicknamed 'The King of Clay.'" Seriously, there's no need to preface this with "...many sports journalists and commentators, as well as former and current players..." Let the references speak for themselves. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Playing Style

Can someone correct this false piece of information, "Nadal employs a full western grip forehand, often with a "lasso-whip" follow through, where his left arm hits through the ball and finishes above his left shoulder – as opposed to a more traditional finish across the body or around his opposite shoulder" ?

Nadal does not employ a full western grip forehand. It is true that his grip has changed over the course of many years, but his forehand grip is not a definitive 'western' grip. Rather, the grip he employs is more of a semi-western grip. There are numerous videos and pictures of Nadal's forehand to come to this conclusion. In addition, many professional players rotate their grip slightly depending on the shot. Therefore, there may be some evidence to show a more western grip and a more eastern grip. However, Nadal's resting forehand grip should be classified as a more semi-western than a full western grip.

The rest of the sentence discussing the follow through is correct. Penguyen17 (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done with added sources. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Number of clay-court titles?

In reading the article on Tony Wilding, I was somewhat surprised to see that he still holds the record for number of career clay-court titles (75, 1905–1914).

How many does Rafa currently have?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015

Nicholas03334 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

"10 years in a row" = "10 consecutive years."

66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 3/20/2015

(Please replace first sentence with second. There are two versions to choose between.)

"He is widely regarded as the finest clay court player in history" = "He is widely regarded as the finest male clay court player in history"

OR

"He is widely regarded as the finest clay court player in history" = "He is widely regarded as the finest clay court player in men's tennis history"

(Current language is sexist. It is not Chris Evert's fault that she wasn't born male. She also holds an arguably even more impressive clay resume than Nadal's, although that debate is contentious to the point of it being impossible to place one over the other because they're two different sports while being the same sport. People need to stop chauvinistically treating male tennis players as superior to females by default. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.93.239 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well done you agree completely apart from the 1 loss to Tracey Austin in the Italian Open in 1979 (125 straight clay match wins) 44 more than Nadal's 81 run she then followed that up with a (64 match streak) until the 1981 French Open in all she actually went 189-1 from 1973 to 1981 incredible! she won 11 Major's from 12 finals on clay both USO and FO and 70 career titles from 81 finals Nadal needs to win another 25 clay titles to pass her. Only 2 men in tennis history have 70 or more titles the Australian Tony Wild and Jaroslav Drobny 90 titles I'd sort of call that impressive.--Navops47 (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015

When traveling, Nadal's uncle, Tony, has been known to approach attractive women in restaurants and ask, "would you like to sleep with Rafael Nadal tonight"? Which to some speculation, resulted in the breakup of Rafael Nadal and Maria Francisca Perello. 70.181.86.111 (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 09:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2015

To whom it may concern,

I do believe that Rafael Nadal is widely regarded as the greatest clay-court player of all time, not one of many. He is said to be one of the best players ever but when it comes specifically to clay it is not a debatable subject at all and nobody argues with that so I do believe that it should changed, since all the sources agree with that, just like Roger Federer on his page is described as the best player ever. I hope that my request will be positively considered. Thank you.

Kind regards.

31.205.46.165 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please cite reliable sources to back up your request. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, Federer's article lead says "Many commentators and players regard Federer as the greatest tennis player of all time." It does not say widely regarded as the greatest of all time, or most say he is the greatest of all time. For Nadal we could use the term "many"... but with Borg, Decugis and Lenglen, I'd hate to have to choose between any of them. Just as I'd hate to have to choose between Federer, Tilden, and Laver. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think it should be reverted back to how it was before, hell even Borg himself has given this accolade to Rafa. I do agree it should say 'the finest' not 'one of the finest' as nobody else is within his reach on the dirt and other former players and current hold the same view. It's not about 'choosing' between certain players, it's about using the facts and figures and opinions of others, such as Borg himself. Check the source. What was wrong with the way it was before? If you don't agree using the term 'many regard him as the finest clay court player' would be a fair compromise.

Incorrect last sentence in First paragraph

Based on the references, it should be changed to: "... with many considering Nadal to be the greatest player of all time.[23][24][25]." 67.71.81.144 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased edits?

'Formally' known as the King Clay? 'Dethroned' as King of Clay?

Are these really necessary? Seems like bias.

'One of' the finest clay court players in history? Of the sources cited, most of them consider that he is the greatest of all time on clay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.111.147 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of these edits were unsourced, premature and unencyclopedic and have been reverted.--Wolbo (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

incorrect paraphrasing of source

His evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest players in tennis,[c] with some considering Nadal to be the greatest player of all time on clay.[4][5][6]

it should be

His evolution into an all-court threat has established him as one of the greatest players in tennis,[c] with some considering Nadal to be the greatest player of all time.

those sources .[4][5][6] sited state that they believe he is the greatest of all time, not just on clay, as that's already been stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italia4eva1987 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed the offending part of the sentence so those 3 sources better fit the sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2015

Please change "is a Spanish professional tennis player currently ranked world No. 7" to "is a Spanish professional tennis player currently ranked world No. 10" Reference:http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx 182.68.115.43 (talk) 05:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2015

In the 2013 summary please either remove the sentence "Darcis is the lowest-ranked player ever to beat Nadal in a Grand Slam tournament" or change it to "Darcis becaame the lowest-ranked player ever to beat Nadal in a Grand Slam tournament at the time"

This is dated and now incorrect information. This very article points out that Nick Kyrgios was ranked 144 in the world (to Darcis' 135) when he beat Nadal at Wimbledon a year later.

 Done - I removed it entirely, as otherwise we could have a succession of "at the time" statements - Arjayay (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015

Please change, " is a Spanish professional tennis player currently ranked world No. 10" to "is a Spanish professional tennis player currently ranked world No. 9" Ref:http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles

Rkhanna011 (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal ATP singles ranking - Update required

Rafael Nadal is currently world number 8 as per the latest ATP singles rankings but the article lists him as number 9. Kindly update this at the earliest. Regards, AR

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2015

image's not good change for Rafael Nadal (16207904747).jpg Rourou1212 (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2015 (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. which image do you think is better? Cannolis (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015

Rafael Nadal is currently ranked World No 7 on the ATP Singles Rankings not World No 8 as what is stated in the article. David Ferrer is now World No 8 on the tennis rankings http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles Could this be fixed please. 75.177.166.161 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Wolbo (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2015

Change "is a Spanish professional tennis player currently ranked world No. 8." to "is a Spanish professional tennis player currently ranked world No. 7." http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/rankings/singles 75.177.166.161 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Wolbo (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Rafael Nadal ATP singles ranking - Update required

Hi, Current ATP singles ranking of Rafael Nadal is No.7 as of 12-10-2015.Kindly update this at the earliest. 117.192.110.91 (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks and Regards AR

 Done Gap9551 (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

Rafae Nadal was #5 in 2015 (Nov)

24.69.42.122 (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific where this has to be changed? Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090202120557/http://www.australianopen.com:80/en_AU/players/cmatch/atpn409.html to http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/players/cmatch/atpn409.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110110002933/http://rafaelnadal.com:80/content/rafa-wins-doubles-will-delay-trip-australia to http://www.rafaelnadal.com/content/rafa-wins-doubles-will-delay-trip-australia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Will remove source for claim that Nadal is the GOAT because McEnroe changed his mind.

I filled in some parameters for a source in which John McEnroe claimed that Nadal was the Greatest Of All Time, but I will remove that source because McEenroe changed his mind last year and admitted he was wrong [1]. He now thinks Federer is the greatest. Dontreader (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Will remove a source that does not claim that Nadal is the greatest player of all time (Sampras made different claim).

There's a dead link which supposedly makes the claim that Nadal is the greatest player of all time. Reading the archived page here, Sampras merely stated that Nadal will eventually win more Grand Slam titles than Federer, but this article says that Sampras believes that Federer is the greatest player ever. So the source must be removed from the article. I suppose there are other sources for that claim that could replace the ones I have removed, but at this point in time Sampras cannot be used. Dontreader (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Rafael Nadal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120119172852/http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/1/en/2008news/nadal_newno1.asp to http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/1/en/2008news/nadal_newno1.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081022030531/http://www.atptennis.com:80/1/en/2008news/nadalno1.asp to http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/nadalno1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090409030222/http://www.tennishead.net:80/on-tour/Features/2009/record-breaking-rafa-notches-up-another-first/ to http://www.tennishead.net/on-tour/Features/2009/record-breaking-rafa-notches-up-another-first
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100815030653/http://www.tennistalk.com/en/match_report/Rogers_Cup/2010/Rafael_Nadal_-_Philipp_Kohlschreiber to http://www.tennistalk.com/en/match_report/Rogers_Cup/2010/Rafael_Nadal_-_Philipp_Kohlschreiber
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101218024516/http://www.rafaelnadal.com:80/content/i-tried-my-best-roger-was-better-me to http://www.rafaelnadal.com/content/i-tried-my-best-roger-was-better-me
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110307041206/http://sports.yahoo.com:80/tennis/news?slug=ap-indianwells to https://sports.yahoo.com/tennis/news?slug=ap-indianwells
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110406042156/http://www.rafaelnadal.com:80/content/hard-final-miami to http://rafaelnadal.com/content/hard-final-miami
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110420021526/http://www.rafaelnadal.com:80/content/nadal-wins-7th-straight-montecarlo-title to http://www.rafaelnadal.com/content/nadal-wins-7th-straight-montecarlo-title
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110420021526/http://www.rafaelnadal.com:80/content/nadal-wins-7th-straight-montecarlo-title to http://www.rafaelnadal.com/content/nadal-wins-7th-straight-montecarlo-title
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110420021526/http://www.rafaelnadal.com:80/content/nadal-wins-7th-straight-montecarlo-title to http://www.rafaelnadal.com/content/nadal-wins-7th-straight-montecarlo-title
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120602231252/http://www.mubadalawtc.com/NewsDetails/11-12-28/LEGENDS_LOOK_FORWARD_TO_MUBADALA_WORLD_TENNIS_CHAMPIONSHIP_FOR_THE_START_OF_GLOBAL_TENNIS_SEASON.aspx to http://www.mubadalawtc.com/NewsDetails/11-12-28/LEGENDS_LOOK_FORWARD_TO_MUBADALA_WORLD_TENNIS_CHAMPIONSHIP_FOR_THE_START_OF_GLOBAL_TENNIS_SEASON.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090205003824/http://www.tennis.com/uploadedImages/Features/Photo_Galleries/TENNIS_Gallery/2009_01_22_pg22.jpg to http://www.tennis.com/uploadedImages/Features/Photo_Galleries/TENNIS_Gallery/2009_01_22_pg22.jpg
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110624060423/http://www.rafaelnadal.com/content/rafa-nadal-quelys-embassador to http://www.rafaelnadal.com/content/rafa-nadal-quelys-embassador
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110711114321/http://www.rafaelnadal.com:80/content/rafa-and-his-foundation-india to http://www.rafaelnadal.com/content/rafa-and-his-foundation-india

When 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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Records"

Just a note that records should not be added unless they can be sufficiently referenced. A "record" was added for "3+ finals at all four Majors", which is not a record given that Federer has reached 5+ finals at all four Majors, and stands alone in holding that record. Thetradge (talk) 8 June 2014, 18:20 (UTC)

Has the most Madrid Open titles (4) Willmorris44 (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

You got a source for that? Can you even tell us which years Nadal won the Madrid Open in? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(2005, 2010, 2013, 2014) How is that done? What do I need? (I'm new sorry) Willmorris44 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Past Champions is right here. Of course it was almost a totally different event before 2009. Different venue, different playing date (October vs May), different surface (cement vs clay), and indoor vs outdoor. The only thing the same is the name. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2016

There appears to be a spelling mistake in the second sentence of the last paragraph of the Early Life section. "At 18, he helped pace Spain over the US in the junior Davis Cup…" surely this is supposed to read "At 18, he helped place Spain…", that is pace should be changed to place.

81.136.58.126 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Gap9551 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2016

The Early Life section contains a single sentence about Nadals participation in the Junior Davis Cup. But unfortunately it contains some wrong information and could be clearer. The current sentence reads: "At 18, he helped place Spain over the US in the junior Davis Cup in his second, and final, appearance on the ITF junior circuit."

The International Tennis Federation's (ITF) website Juniors players profile on Nadal (already quoted earlier in the section) and the Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup by BNP Paribas Roll of Honour show the factual errors. The the Junior Davis Cup is for players up to 16 years of age. And Nadal played in the final in September 2002, so he was definitely 16 not 18.

The ITF sources also makes it clear that Spain didn't just place above the USA in 2002 Junior Davis Cup, in fact Spain won the competition.

I therefore suggest the entire sentence needs to be re-written to correct the factual error and be clearer. To preserve the sequence of events the sentence should probably be moved to the end of the preceding paragraph. The cross reference should probably more correctly be made to the Junior Davis Cup page not the Davis Cup page. I also suggest adding the Roll of Honour PDF file a an additional source. My suggestion is below. I've included two additional sentences unaltered, just to be clear about where I think the changed Junior Davis Cup sentence should be placed:

In 2002, at the age of 16, Nadal reached the semifinals of the Boy's Singles tournament at Wimbledon, in his first ITF junior event. In the same year he helped Spain defeat the USA in the final of the Junior Davis Cup in his second, and final, appearance on the ITF junior circuit.

By the age of 17, he beat Roger Federer the first time they played and became the youngest man to reach the third round at Wimbledon since Boris Becker.

References

81.136.58.126 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you very much!  Rules of enpagement Paine  23:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

"century of finals"?

The lead contains the following:

The left-hander is the sixth player in the Open Era to reach more than a century of finals on the ATP World Tour.

What does "century of finals" mean? Is it a poetic way to say more than hundred? If so, why not just say hundred? --89.0.239.47 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Gap9551 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: While I won't challenge this edit, both of you should know that "a century of" is a common phrase in sports. "Century" essentially means "one hundred", and while its most common meaning is a shortening of "a century of years" to just "century", and while in this article it does refer to "a hundred finals", it does have different meanings elsewhere, for example in the game of Cricket. And by the use of "a century" rather than "a hundred" or "100", it gives a bit of extra psychological weight to the achievement, which is probably why it's used in sports so much.  Rules of enpagement Paine  00:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Nathal?

Just double-checking that Rafa's paternal surname is traditionally pronounced Nathal, as suggested by the Catalan and Spanish pronunciations detailed in the article lead. Even Spanish interviewers seem to pronounce it Nadal; though they could be eschewing Nathal to cater for the prevailing English pronunciation, provided Nathal is plausible. 110.142.225.47 (talk) 06:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)