Talk:Roger Federer/Archive 2

Second Archive:Dates Vary

Weight?

The German Wikipedia states that Federer weighs 85kg. A 5 kg discrepancy is greater than normal fluctuations of human body weight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.8.250.237 (talk)

His official website says 85kg [1] and his ATP Tennis player profile says 80kg [2]. Since most of the stats for the info box comes from ATP, I think that's why the numbers are different. oncamera^(t) 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Birth town

Federer was born in the town of Binningen (near Basel, Switzerland), to Swiss-German Robert Federer and South African Lynette Federer. He grew up 10 minutes from Basel proper, in suburban Münchenstein. Federer has an older sister, Diana. He considers his main language German, but he also speaks French and English fluently

Is it really proper to say Federer was "conceived" in the town of Binningen? That's a bit odd, especially when I really think we all mean to say he was "born" there. If we really intend to say conceived, then since this would be unusual knowledge, it should be footnoted.

2006

Concerning this line: Along with Justine Henin-Hardenne who lost the women's final of the U.S. Open, it was the first time in the history of tennis that both a man and a woman had reached all four Grand Slam singles finals within a calendar year.

Shouldn't it be explicitly pointed out that it was the same man and the same woman who made it to the finals of all four majors? Not just a man and a woman?

Saying the "same man" and "same woman" will probably make it clearer, but even as it stands, what else could the sentence mean?AmritTuladhar 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Article size

This article needs to be significantly down-sized to be in accordance with WP:SIZE. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How do u suggest we change the size of the article; deleting info or create more articles about him? --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, you do both, yes. Federer seems to have far too much written about his draws and the tournaments he played in when they would be better just summed up as a result. Instead, you get sprawling paragraphs that detail sometimes the most trivial of minutia.Ernham 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia? or personal life

Some of the trivia could be absorbed, prose-style into the Personal life section if it reduces the trailing feel of the trivia list. If there are no objections in a few days I could do that. Julia Rossi 12:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you go ahead and do that according to WP:TRIV. I think you can be bold and do it without waiting for confirmation. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 05:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think his Golden Bagel Awards have nothing to do with his personal life... they just don't go together with the other things mentioned in that section, and this way these awards seem to be of an extraordinary importance. Why shouldn't they be mentioned only among the other awards? Pumukli 13:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Titles won in the open era

The article says Federer is the only male player to win 10 or more singles titles in three consecutive years in the Open Era.

This is untrue. Rod Laver won 11 in 1968 (the first year of Open tennis), 18 in 1969 and 14 in 1970, as stated in his Wiki biography. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.35.3 (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

You'll find that those were not 'official tournaments' and as such are not covered in the first section of laver's title list. OSmeone 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Winning Streaks

"Federer won his 31st consecutive match over American players ..." Since when did streaks against players of a particular country come into reckoning? People could then come up with tons of other records against say British players, European players, Australian players.. Suggest this be deleted.

Simliarly, "Federer holds the record for most consecutive singles wins in North America" Again the same rationale. There is too much US/ North American Bias. Suggest this too be deleted

Ashishgala 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"As of January 28, 2007, Federer has won 30 consecutive sets beginning with his 2006 Tennis Masters Cup roundrobin match against Andy Roddick and extending through the 2007 Australian Open final (ongoing as of January 28, 2007)." should be removed. The streak ended at 31 sets, but it is not a recognised streak.

Record (10-1)

Now we're putting the record into tennis articles instead of splitting it up into wins and losses? This makes little sense. Now you have to search through in order to see which one he lost. It is simply unclear, and someone who doesn't know much about tennis would not know how to tell the difference. Where was this change discussed and agreed upon? Supertigerman 23:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It was never agreed upon. These changes have been made unilaterally in several tennis articles today, probably by the same user. Although the IP address changes and probably is dynamically assigned, it appears that this user has been attempting to make these changes for several months. Many of the talk pages of the various IP addresses of this user have had the appropriate "please discuss in advance before making changes inconsistent with the standard" notices placed on them, without effect or response from this user. Tennis expert 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the best decision to show his Grand Slam Finals record as 10-1 instead as 10 wins and 1 runner up. also showing that he lost to Nadal 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7 in the 2006 french open is better than showing that Nadal beat him 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6

No, neither of these is the best decision. And stop making the changes without first obtaining consensus. Tennis expert 15:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the first guy to do this, Ive seen it both ways, but after the first guy changed the format I helped him. The NEW format is hear to stay. And who are you to make up the rules? Just cause your name is TENNIS EXPERT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.12.149 (talk) 17:30, February 20, 2007 (UTC)

I side with Supertigerman and Tennis Expert on this one. So I cannot see how one can conclude that a new format is "hear (sic) to stay". Another thing: Please sign up with a user name. Lots of confusion can be cleared up if people sign up, ans anon IP edits are particularly hard to understand and take seriously as many inadvertly becomes hidden behind multiple numbers. Regards, --HJ 14:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The format that's been in place on this and many other tennis players' articles on Wikipedia is clear and easy to understand. I see no reason to change it. I don't think any of the recent attempts to do so are an improvement. Zaxem 04:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to change the format. The vandal's IPs and sockpuppet accounts should all be blocked. Mgiganteus1 13:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Supertigerman#tennis_score_format. "we will never back down. Me and my buddies are capable of haveing thousands of IP accounts [...] we expect to change EVERY pro tennis players score format soon. not just these few [...] This war will never end, unless Tennis Expert and his pals agree with us." Anyone want to take this to WP:ANI? Mgiganteus1 13:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A compromise proposal: Keep the Wins and Runner-ups as two separate subheadings, but change the scoring format of the losses to be from the perspective of the player who lost. Therefore, the loss to Nadal would read 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7 (4). Supertigerman 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that compromise is not acceptable to me. I've discussed this before on innumerable occasions on various talk pages, many (if not all) of which appear to be the sock puppets of this extremely disruptive user we are dealing with now. Best regards! Tennis expert 18:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all these discussions that affect more pages should be taking place on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis talkpage, no? And I also disapprove the recent format changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scineram (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Semi-protection?

Why is the page semi-protected? The article is not a target of continuous vandalism and it is a widely watched article. None of the wikipedia semi-protection guidelines seems to apply here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panp (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Have a look at the history page for the article itself (not the history page for the discussion page). The article was the subject of repeated vandalism by anonymous IP accounts before the semi-protection was provided. The semi-protection has helped tremendously. Tennis expert 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

I would like to get this article up to a Good Article quality. Some of what Wizardman mentioned in their assessment should be done: the Records and trivia section should be made into a new article to reduce the size of this article. And once that is done, every record included should have a reference like on Brett Favre. Here is a reference generator to make that task easier. Any trivia that could be re-written into his main article should also be done (with a reference, of course).

His Playing style section especially needs more references to show it's not original research and to cut back on some of the peacock and weasel words, just like how he considered one of the best tennis players has many references to it. Throughout this article, there should be a reference to go with the statements. Like how he had no coach for a while? ... Almost every paragraph should have a reference to back up the information.

Anyway, those are issues, when "corrected," would really improve this article. oncamera^(t) 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I already did part of that: see Records held by Roger Federer; if that needs to be changed I could move it to Roger Federer:Records and Trivia or some such. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 14:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed that section and added a see also template leading to his records. I think the trivia section could be mostly removed or incorporated into other sections... somehow. oncamera^(t) 14:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Does ayone else think this article is starting to be of Featured Article quality? Barnjo 21:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've had it at Wikiproject Tennis' assessment for some time; either way, we may want to run a WP:PR on it just to see. --tennisman 04:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Playing Style

The seventh paragraph in the "Playing Style" section seems to be more concerned with other tennis players rather than Federer's playing style: "One overlooked aspect of his game is his stamina. This is compounded by the fact that opponents will often run and serve much more than he during a game. Rafael Nadal is one player that can cope with this, while most other players cannot. For example, Andy Roddick was visibly tired in the fourth set of the 2006 U.S. Open final."

The second and third sentences are totally unneeded; there is no need to talk about Nadal or Roddick and the sentences themselves carry no information about Federer's playing style. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.163.120.38 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I took out the paragraph you were mentioning. That section really needs some references. oncamera^(t) 06:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

Any criticisms in his playing style etc ? what about images ?

You may criticise him for becoming more and more wealthy, whilst those who sew his line of trainers and t-shirts remain in poverty. This article suggests some Federer fans are not the biggest Nike fans, maybe some fans would criticise him for his endorsement of the company.

Just a thought...

Has anyone ever thought of taking the whole match records/tournament wins section and moving it? On one hand, it is nearly half, if not more, of the page; on the other hand, there would be little of the page left after moving that whole part. Any thoughts anyone? --tennisman ^{sign here!} 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it too, when I was suggesting things for the page; and because of what you said about little being left without it, I thought it should stay. I guess we can't help that he wins so many tournaments. oncamera^(t) 17:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, I suppose it's not his fault that he's so good. Seriously though, this article could use some direction in its editing. The things that are being done to it need to be seriously considered and the merges/splits/reformats need to be done with some care. Also, we definitely need more refs on this page. I've done my best to find sources for some of the points made in the article but it is rather hard to find good information for many of the statements. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had a little fun with references today. Hmm, maybe if his tables of wins and whatnot could be smaller if the font-faces were made smaller like on de:Roger Federer; aesthetically, 90%-95% might be more pleasing than as it is currently. Although, I don't know if that would really solve anything if in the future he continues to win. ;D Anyway, I agree with you about the editing needing more direction. oncamera^(t) 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean with de:Roger Federer. It does look much cleaner in that format, so if we could change this page's formatting to that I believe that section could look much better. As for how many tournaments/matches he wins, well, we can only guess. Whether he has an Agassi-length career or retires after supplanting Pete Sampras at the top of the major wins remains to be seen and guessed at. I think that if we could get some sort of discussion going about how exactly we want to edit this page, that would be a great help. Maybe if we enlarge the size of the GA discussion at the top? --tennisman ^{sign here!} 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the fact that many consider him to be the greatest tennis player ever be in Intro?

I'm wondering if the sentence and its references "Many experts and his own tennis peers believe Federer may become the greatest tennis player in history" should be placed in the intro instead of the Playing Style section? I think it'd make more sense in the intro section, I think that people who don't know much about Federer and come to this article to learn more about him, they'd understand his significance easier and quicker if it were placed in the Intro section. Anyone agree, or disagree? Dionyseus 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be mentioned in the intro. Mgiganteus1 21:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the intro as well, as it makes more "sense" there than in his playing style section. oncamera^(t) 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Tennis expert 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, I have now moved the statement into the intro. Dionyseus 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please add to article

"He's a wonderful supporter of golf and I think it's pretty neat when you have probably the most dominant athlete on the planet in your gallery." from http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1601487,00.html70.247.192.110 16:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be included to the article. It is already mentioned, and sourced, in the trivia section of the article that he is on good terms with Tiger Woods. --HJensen, talk 16:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Federer photo

In the image selected, why is the NIKE logo bigger than his head? This article should be about Federer, not an advert for NIKE!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.201.86 (talk) 21:00, March 28, 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I'll go ask Federer why he makes the choices in fashion as he did in that photo... Honestly, because that's the best photograph that Wikipedia has that follows the policy on images, I suppose. oncamera^(t) 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NIKE sponsors Federer. He gets paid a ton to wear their clothes. Therefore, its not an issue of personal taste or fashion. Its business. By leaving this image up we are supporting his sponsor, Nike, not him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.138.87 (talk • contribs) 17:41, March 30, 2007 (UTC)

The picture is different now. oncamera^(t) 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well personally I think the original one is better, since it shows his face better without headband. And he's smiling instead of scowling. And the picture's more life- like since he's off- court. Plus, how many sports stars' photos don't show their sponsor's logo then... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.8.16.89 (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Right... I mean, in the new photo, I can count three, maybe four, Nike symbols. Maybe the old photo can be put somewhere else in the article? oncamera^(t) 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at where I am about to plavce the old picture; what do you think? Also, I am adding the current picture to the Records page. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 18:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, forget that. I don't like anywhere that the old pic could be placed that would look okay. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I like how you put it on Records held by Roger Federer, at least it looks good there. oncamera^(t) 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do like how it looks on the Records page. It just does not really have a place on this page unless someone replaces the picture in the infobox. As for the IP editor's complaint about how the old picture has a large Nike logo, well, that is his sponsor. I think that that one is a better picture (shows him better, better expression). I think we would do well to put the old, red-Nike-sweatshirt-wearing picture back. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My humble opinion: I like the current photo (Federer in receiving mode). He has a racket, he looks determined, he looks serious. It is a very nice photo for a bio of a great tennis palyer. The photo in the red Nike sweatshirt is nice as well, and could be placed further down in the article. The two photos are both superior to the rest of Federer, and I personally don't care about the Nike logo. We can't afford to be "picky" on these matters, when good free images are usually rare. --HJensen, talk 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I almost cannot believe that a comment about a picture is blowing up into something of this size. However, I agree with your comment in that it is a good picture of him as a tennis player. But, the way I see it is that if we wanted a page that was Roger Federer: Tennis Player, the current picture would be better off there. The thing is, this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias, IMHO, are about people, not necessarily their jobs. Maybe in the Tennis Player page we could have a picture such as this, but as this is a page about the person named Roger Federer, who happens to be a great player, the reasoning you put forth does not hold true. Call me uncivil, but this is my opinion. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It takes MUCH more than that to qualify as "uncivil". I see your points, but to be honest, Federer as a person is probably more interesting to his friends and family than to readers of an encyclopedia. To them, it is his status as a tennis player that counts. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the incivility. Just thought I'd be careful. Anyway, you are correct about who exactly would care about Federer. I just thought that, given it is an encyclopedia, it made sense to market, especially as an image, the person themselves, not the common view of them, as in their profession or activity. But I do agree with the fact that most people would care more about the player than the person, so I concede the point, mostly. Still, I can barely believe that this whole discussion was about a PICTURE! What are we coming to that we have a long discussion about the simple matter of what photograph we use? And did you know that this started out because an IP thought there were too many/too big of a Nike logo in the photo? Oy vey! --tennisman ^{sign here!} 21:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On back to back losses to same player

In response to this edit that reinserted a fact tag instead of further examples of Federer losing twice in a row to the same player: [3], I made this edit: [4]. I.e., I removed the whole thing about how many times Federer has had back-to-back losses to the same player. While the examples in addition to Canas were correct, I thought it was to much to add, as many instaces were in Federer's early career (Agassi, Ferrero, Kuerten). Also, such a "record" is quite much dependent on chance rather than skill (e.g., Sampras never beat Federer, but they also only met once). If mentioned, it could be while Federer was no. 1, but I wouldn't insist on it.--HJensen, talk 17:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition (with further addition) He also lost three times in a row to Kafelnikov early in his career, and twice he had back-to-back losses to Henman. There may be more instances. So, he has had back-to-back losses to the same player at least eleven times in total: Canas, Agassi, Ferrero, Hewitt (twice), Kuerten, Henman (twice), Kafelnikov, Nalbandian, Nadal. So shouldn't we lose this when talking about Canas' wins? --HJensen, talk 17:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

... and Arnaud Clement also did it in 1999-2000. I will stop searching for more now :-) --HJensen, talk 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea where they get the number 5 from then, because since he's been number one only Nadal and Canas have beaten him more than once, so that would be back to back loses to the same player twice only since being number one. It would be possible to find all of them however by going to the official website and checking all his matches every year, but I can't be bothered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.21.14 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Image issues?

It was brought to my attention by Errabee that there is an issue with Image:Federer_Serve.jpg that should be resolved before the article can be considered GA or FA-class. I have two questions:a) how can we solve the issue? b) why exactly is an image keeping an article from becoming a higher class? Thanks, --tennisman ^{sign here!} 21:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your first question: you need to look into whatever issue was brought up about the image and see if it is possible to fix it. Example: origin of the image is not clear; ascertain origin and clarify on image's page. Images with unknown origin, uncertain copyright status and similar situations simply cannot be kept on Wikipedia. If the problem cannot be fixed, then the image would need to be deleted.
Now about your second question: because attaining Featured status means that the community considers that the article has reached a point where it can be considered as good as it gets, for lack of a better term (that I can think of right now). Articles with problems as obvious and, frankly, unacceptable, as carrying images with uncertain status, possibly a copyright violation, clearly have not reached that level where they can be considered to be on a higher level. An article carrying any image whose status is not crystal clear is certain not to be considered as Featured on Wikipedia. Redux 05:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)