Talk:Roger Federer/Archive 1

message: Like I have mentioned on the talk pages of other articles regarding big name tennis players, everyone agrees that the header should not descend into a list of streaks, statistics, and random achievements. However, there is nothing wrong with highlighting one or two major career attributes unique to a particular player. Why is okay for "repetitious trivia" about Sampras's long and impressive stay at number one and his Wimbledon record to be kept in his article's header, but similar information ought to be deleted from Federer's? Just because something is repeated deep within an article does not mean it is not valuable enough to include in the header. Federer has piled up a mound of eye-popping stats and statistics; not every one should be at the top of the page. But a couple of unique ones do deserve inclusion in the header, and I am putting them back in. BrandoPolo 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header career highlights

message: I deleted "He became the first player to win Grand Slam events (Wimbledon & US Open) the year after having won three Grand Slam events in the same year." from trivia as Roy Emerson (64/65), Lew Hoad (56/57) and Fred Perry (34/35) acchieved that before.
84wb 12:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add the qualifier "in the Open Era" and it becomes a true statement again. --Dantheox 05:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Records and trivia

message: Should we add something about the current rivalry between Federer and Nadal?  I scanned the article and couldn't find a section on it. Akshayaj 16:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do believe that we are leading to that and most tennis experts are already talking about such a rivalry. However, I think to prevent any dirty works done on such an article/section (e.g. lots of cleanup, questions about neutrality, lack of sources), we should at least have an article about "tennis rivalry" in general. At least, that article will ground what a rivalry is. There are some good articles discussing this and some notable examples online, which we can use as references. The general premise of what a rivalry is (and Roger Federer I think agreed about some of these points--just search for the news articles) is that the two players have contrasting styles and personalities, always meet at the later stages of very important tournaments, and their head-to-head matches tend to even out in the long-run (i.e. if the head-to-head is one-sided, then it is not a rivalry). Hence, the current Federer-Nadal rivalry, if there is such a thing, qualifies for the first two, however, it may take lots of effort for Federer to catch up on their head-to-head records (and for Nadal to perfect his game on other surfaces). Ultimately, what this leads to is the potential of a rivalry, not really a rivalry that is already existing. Hence, that article might be subject to speculation, and we know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... (Although I am still for the composing of an article discussing about tennis rivalry in general and historic examples). Joey80 12:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and I think articles of such nature, instead of just articles discussing players (i.e. short biography, titles) will better reflect the sport of tennis, providing readers with a more in-depth perspective of the sport. And aside from the rivalry article, what about an article about the Russian Revolution. I know that everyone has been talking about the rise of Russian players for a year or two (although you might say that the achievements of Russians in 2004 are just due to the absence of notable players, just take a look at the Tier I finals this season, which each featured at least one Russian player), but I haven't found a comprehensive, or even a decent, article about it. Statistics such as the number of Russians ranked, the finals reached and won (including Fed Cup), and even the overall effect of the trend on Russian tennis can be discussed. Thanks! Joey80 12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rivalry

message: Wilson's advertisement has reappeared in the players page. I have removed it. Inventingfacts
Contrary to popular belief, Federer plays with a racquet with a "paint job" to make it look as though he uses the n6.1 Tour. It is believed that he might use a custom mold of a racquet similiar to the n6.1, but he seems to have a wider string pattern. "Paint jobs" are rather common in tennis, and the sponsor, of course, markets the supposed racquet as the one the player uses. Lleyton Hewitt does not use the RDX500, and Safin does not use the Liquid Metal Prestige (infact, nearly all pros that "seem" to use the Liquid Metal Prestige, do not). A modification to present the facts to the reader would be appropriate, but if this is not possible, the page will not self destruct. :p There are several threads about this at . Any person(s) interested in investing time to research the topic beyond my knowledge would be greatly appreciated for the article. I would gladly do so, but I think that my approach would be rather skeptical, and I do not have adequate Wikipedia experience. Thank you for reading!
Hi, some time ago i wrote an article explaining this, the section dealing withteh paint job was removed unwisely by an editor.  i have put it back however.  thank you for your concern.  --Nanonugget
Yes, I'm a member of Talk Tennis I saw your thread. This is quite outrageous and should be handled as necessary. To the moderator removing, could you please refute your deletes?
:Check out the #Equipment speculation section below as it contains the rationale for the deletes. I am not an administrator, I'm just a Wikipedia member. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk Tennis is a Bulletin Board forum.  It's not a valid source per se, and the contents of messages posted by the people who contribute there are not a reliable source that we can refer at Wikipedia.  However, if, somewhere in some message, someone names a reliable, verifiable source for the claims being made, that'd be different.  But in that case, the source would not be Talk Tennis, but rather this other source referenced.  Any data added that is based solely on any particular thread from Talk Tennis, or any general opinion that happens to be circulating over there, will need to be removed from our article.  For more on our policy for inclusion and sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite your sources.  Redux 00:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Be bold! Even IP users can remove questionable sections. That little "edit this page" button works for everyone. :) --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right.  We cannot state that Federer "officially" uses any given material unless we can verify this information.  If it's still in the article, it will need to be removed.  It is also possible to add a temporary template right after the text,the  template, so as to allow users to find a source to support the affirmation.  That's a very short measure though, maybe a couple of days.  If no one names the source, then the data will be removed.  Redux 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the citation templates to both paragraphs in the Equipment section. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the promotional material from the first paragraph, but we still need citations or more info about the racquet changes (or supposed racquet changes) so I left the citation template in.For the second paragraph we need citations for the power pads information. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federer's Racquet

message: I moved the below here as no copyrighted source was found. Is the text familiar to anyone here? -- Infrogmation 19:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A large amount of rather effusive text has been added over the last couple of weeks by an IP user. It doesn't particularly smell of a copyvio to me, just someone who likes Roger Federer. It needs major cleanup anyway, to make it more NPOV. Matthewmayer 19:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]]

message: *Roger Federer#Style.  I could not locate the possible source, but the very structure of the text strongly suggests that it was plain copied from somewhere else, possibly a specialized publication. Redux 23:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A large amount of rather effusive text has been added over the last couple of weeks by an IP user. It doesn't particularly smell of a copyvio to me, just someone who likes Roger Federer. It needs major cleanup anyway, to make it more NPOV. Matthewmayer 19:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: November 22

message: I'm told by people (and I agree :p) that I look a lot like this guy, but I don't suppose that's interesting information, since I'm no celebrity :-) Wouter Lievens 13:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless Information 

message: One of my checks says 302. Can you confirm or quote source?
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://zeus.zeit.de/text/2003/30/Sport_2fFederer Ram (FedererMagic)  20:04, 5 April 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply: Source: http://www.stevegtennis.com/rankings/1998/s1998.htm User:128.151.226.106 01:41, 14 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Federer ranked 301 on YE 1997? 

message: Is Roger just Swiss, or since his mother is South African, and he spends a great deal of time there, should he be listed as: Swiss-South African? WikiDon 22:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Her mother has Swiss passport too... And in Switzerland, you have the nationality of your father and Federer play for the Swiss team ;) User:195.186.233.94 10:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, your saying Lynette's mother has a Swiss passport? Do we care? We know he "is" Swiss, a) He was born there. b) He lives there. It's no "dah" that he plays for the Swiss team. BUT 1) Can Roger claim South African citizenship? 2) Does he recognize his South African heritage? 3) Could he play for the South Africa team if he wanted to? (I say that he can and does, and can.) WikiDon 16:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with South African immigration legislation, but in all likelihood, with him being a direct descendant of a South African citizen, he should be able to get citizenship if he wanted to (maybe he already has it even); Second question: I've seen interviews where he recognizes his "South African heritage", as you put it, time and again. And about playing for South Africa, I assume you mean in the Davis Cup.  No, he couldn't.  Davis Cup rules state that for a player to be eligible to play for a country, he must prove that he has resided in that country for a certain period of time prior to the year in which he hopes to represent the country in the Cup.  Constant, long visits do not count.  The Davis Cup requires proof of residence, and Federer certainly does not reside in South Africa.  And finally, about his citizenship, the Geneva Convention on Citizenship states that, in cases of individuals with multiple citizenships (de facto or potential), the person shall be identified by the nationality (s)he chooses.  I see no indication that Federer ever chose to be identified as a South African, on the contrary, he is always listed as a Swiss in tournaments, and I believe he only travels with a Swiss passport.  Does that answer everything?  Regards, Redux 18:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swiss or Swiss-South African...??? 

message: The size of this article has passed the limit of normal Wikipedia managability. The Roger's "stats" will most likely need to be moved to a separate article. Thoughts? 
WikiDon 11:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To shorten the article, one thing that could go (and I mean deletion), is that "Head-to-Head" section.  That's a trivia that really adds nothing to the encyclopedic information on Federer.  Besides, what are the criteria for listing: are we going to list every single player Federer ever played?  Or just those who are or have been in the Top 10?  Sorry, but that section adds nothing to the article.  Regards, Redux 18:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: How about the yearly summaries? Is there any way they can be condensed or at least mention only the highlights of the year? I don't think they have to contain references to every single title Roger won during the year. The ATP website already has a full listing of tournaments Federer has played. Noelle De Guzman 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size Matters...!!!! 

message: Jimbo Wales himself came over to this article and removed the image that used to be here, he then proceded to delete the image from the servers.  He did that, as explained by him on the summary in the Deletion log, because the copyright holders of that image (or someone who represented them) contacted him directly to complain about the image being used here.  People, please do not upload copyrighted images, they cannot be used on Wikipedia.  I realize there's a lot of newcomers who contribute to this article, so I wanted to explain here why the image was removed and why it cannot be reinserted — as well as that other images with similar copyrights status also cannot be used.  In the case of this particular image that was just removed by Jimbo, if it resurfaces on this article again,  I'm sorry but I will delete it again on sight, so please don't do it (don't re-upload it, and certainly don't post it on this or any other article).  Regards, Redux 22:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted image 

message: In the past day or two, IP address 165.123.150.62 has added statements about Federer being one of the greatest players of all time. I reverted the first change because the statement was unsupported by sources. 165.123.150.62 then made two revisions about the "greatest of all time" tag, the latter adding a qualifier to the statement by stating John McEnroe and Rod Laver as the source of that assessment. The last revision by the IP address reverted to the version I had earlier reverted the article to.
I think statements about "greatest of all time" tend to make the article not NPOV, especially since it's only been five years since Federer began playing on the pro tour. Noelle De Guzman 02:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty much established that we cannot, under our WP:NPOV policy, be calling anyone "the greatest of all times", "genius" or anything along those lines, unless this is a WIDELY accepted concept  — meaning: citing a fansite, or any other clearly biased website will not  do.  Regards, Redux 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: McEnroe, Laver, Hewitt, and Roddick's POV is still a POV. If Laver edited this page himself, it would constitute a violation of the NPOV rule. Wikipedia is not the place for discussions about Roger's potential. That's ESPN's job.BrandoPolo 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greatest of All Time 

message: Since this article is already quite long, I'm not sure adding match scores to the year's summary of activities is going to do anything except lengthen it.
I suggest the relevant sections just have a link to Federer's ATPTennis.com activity sheet. Noelle De Guzman 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match Scores 

message: People, seriously: DO NOT add copyrighted images or images with uncertain coyright status to this or any other articles.  Wikipedia cannot carry does images and they will be removed from the articles and deleted from the database.  This is not the first time the subject has been brought up on this article.  Copyright violations will be removed on sight; images with uncertain status will be tagged as such, and come seven days, they too will be removed without further warning.  Please, cooperate in keeping Wikipedia in compliance with the applicable legislation.  Thanks, Redux 22:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: here are some CC-licensed images of Federer that could be added to the article. No nice headshots though. Jacoplane 16:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Is there any way someone with better wikipedia skills than I can get a caption under the image? Something like: "Federer serving at the 2005 U.S. Open Final, which he won in 4 sets." Thanks! ~~User:Stanley011.
:Done.  Cheers, Redux 04:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently Added Creative Commons image

message: Famous matches does not necessarily translate to a 5-set match, a tournament finals match, or even a personal milestone. These matches are what fans remember long after. I couldn't comprehend why such matches as the one with Tommy Haas in the 2006 Australian Open became famous... If one would just reason out that because it is his 400th career win, then we might as well include his 300th, 200th, 100th and even 50th career win. If one would say that it is because he is seldom stretched to a 5th set in a match, then this particular match pales in comparison to the 5th set win over Nadal in the Miami final, or the 5th set loss to Safin in the previous year's Australian Open, and to Naldandian in the ATP Masters Cup. It didn't necessarily show anything special, like Federer's mental mettle (like him coming back from a tiebreak in the 3rd set in the Miami final against Nadal). The achievement because of winning the match (i.e. a milestone in career win, a "double" with respect to winning a previous tournament, or winning that tournament multiple times) does not necessarily translate to that match being famous. For example, his victory over Philippoussis for his first Wimbledon title is not that memorable. We remember Federer winning the title, but his opponent across the net, even the quality of the match is hardly remembered. I would have a better memory recalling his semifinal match against Roddick. The comment for the match is not even appropriate, "This was Federer's first Grand Slam final win, and the beginning of his dominance in men's tennis." It is true that it was his first Grand Slam, but it didn't marked his dominance, for Roddick dominated the rest of the year and ended as #1. It would be more proper to place the comment in association with his Masters Cup victory later on the same year, when he beat the reigning Australian, French and US Open champions.
:Hi Joey. This article has long been in need of a clean-up; some sections are redundant and simply restate the results (which are in tabular form at the end of the article). I hope someone can be bold enough to help make it a more concise but more informative article. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it would be a good idea to dispense with the Famous Matches section and simply retain the Milestone Matches. After all, whose opinion is it that these matches are famous? --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a posibility, but it would return to having one large list of matches as opposed to two! At some point I will try to work out the 50th, 200th match win etc, to be placed in milestone matches, while the famous matches could be defined as those which have attracted comments of their greatness by notable tennis personalities? This would prevent simple 5 set matches from being lumped into that category. OSmeone 11:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Matches 

message: The infobox was broken so I filled it in with Federer's career singles win-loss record (from his ATP page). The doubles w-l record isn't available per se on the ATP site but I manually counted his doubles results from here. Please feel free to check my arithmetic: I counted 101-66 but I might have gotten cross-eyed on something. :) --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubles record 

message: The following section seems to be original research and speculation. It also has no sources. 
:There is a great deal of speculation amongst tennis enthusiasts, however, that his racquet is not the standard nSix-One Tour 90 but rather a custom built racquet that is painted to look like the nSix-One Tour for promotional purposes.  Proponents of this theory cite slight differences in the racquet he uses on court compared to the stock nSix-One Tour.  One such visible difference is seen in the handle (or pallet) of Federer's racquet, as it is significantly shorter than the handle of the stock model.  This could be due to his one-handed backhand (thus not requiring the extra length) and as such the handle had to be elongated on the model available to the public to accommodate players with two-handed backhands.  The second visible difference is a slight variation in string pattern: The Perimeter Weighting System (bumps at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the frame) on Federer's frame has 4 grommet holes in it, whereas the stock nSix-One Tour has 5 grommet holes.  The racquet purportedly used by Federer before the nSix-One Tour (the ProStaff Tour 90, the forerunner fo the nSix-One Tour) also has the same disparities between his model and the stock model, while his ProStaff and current racket are visually identical aside from the change in paint scheme.  This topic is a subject of much debate, and is primarily speculation, with confirmation neither from Roger Federer nor from Wilson. However, tennis enthusiasts who support the theory claim that he isn't the only player to use a racquet that differs from what the markets say, as many players such as Andre Agassi, Marat Safin, and Lleyton Hewitt have racquets that have been exposed by enthusiasts to be different racquets.
How should it be improved? Should it even be kept? Discuss. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tennis enthusiasts"?? And the text even states explicitly that those "enthusiasts" "speculate".  If we can pinpoint the author of this passage, we can ask him/her to provide [expeditiously] a source (which would need to be impressive, and that would name those "enthusiasts").  In the absence of an impressive source, there is no doubt whatsoever that this needs to be axed, asap.  Redux 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it from the main text of the article. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia requires that verifiable sources be provided (possibly the 2004 ESPN article on paintjobs). See Wikipedia:No original research. While it is possibly true that Federer is not using a stock nCode 90, there are no other sources for this information. It first has to be published by a credible source (newspaper, industry magazine). As an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia simply reflects what information is out there; it is not meant to disseminate new information. I've quoted below what you re-inserted to show that it is, without sources, simply assertions. They may have a factual basis, but they are not verifiable."While Roger's racquet seems to be based on the standard nSix-One Tour 90, it clearly is customized by Wilson to Roger's specifications. There are slight differences in the racquet he uses, such as the shorter handle (or pallet) of his racquet, a slight variation in the spacing of the cross strings (most apparent in the Perimeter Weighting System at 3 o'clock and 9 o'clock on the hoop: Roger's racquets have four grommet holes in this area, whereas the stock nSix-One Tour has five), and a slightly different grommet strip and bumperguard to match the altered spacing of the cross strings. Length, weight, balance, swingweight, beam width, and head size are the same on Federer's racquet as on the standard version. The racquet purportedly used by Federer before the nSix-One Tour (the ProStaff Tour 90, the forerunner of the nSix-One Tour 90) also has the same disparities between his model and the stock model, while his ProStaff and current racquet are visually identical aside from the change in paint scheme."--Noelle De Guzman (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment speculation 

message: This user has only added useless, and slightly offensive, comments to this article,such as:
'Roger is a very cocky tennis player, he thinks he is the king, eventually he always got beaten by Rafael Nadal on clay court.'
How can they be blocked or preventing from adding to this article? I don't know much about that process, so could someone please help out? Thanks. OSmeone 15:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have continued to add more comments as can be seen in the history.OSmeone 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply revert them and give the IP a warning. Skinnyweed 00:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 203.126.40.254

message: I saw that someone took down the australian open logo from the list of men's champions citiing unfair excessive use in a template. I know that this should be added to a template discussion, but I don't think that anyone actually checks them and the editors here have been very helpful. So should the logo be replaced, or should all the logos be removed from the template boxes> Thanks OSmeone 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that one should be consistent with the use of the logo. If one Grand Slam template contains the logo, then the others should also do to make it more visually appealing and consistent. Then again, one should also consider fair use; some editors are quite weary of this and hence, prefer not putting the logo.Joey80 06:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well does the same fair use apply to all 4 logos? If so, I could take down the other 3. But they look better with the logos, and if someone can clarify to me whther they are fair use on a templater, then I can put the AO one back.OSmeone 15:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation Templates images 

message: I think that Federer's overall performance here deserves elaboration (though I'm not sure if this elaboration should be placed under the Milestone category or the general article). This marked the beginning of his dominance (though this might need some articles to fully be established). It included victory over Roddick, Ferrero and Agassi--the other reigning Grand Slam champions for the year. It saw him climb the rankings from #3 to #2 (his year-end ranking). And he defeated Nalbandian and Agassi for the first time in his professional career.Joey80 06:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done it already. But maybe someone can further streamline the match details. I got confused on whether to use just the surname or the full name of a player when mentioning them multiple times (e.g. on newspapers, they mention only the surname when making a repeated reference). I also got confused with linking the name. Do you link all names of "Andrea Agassi" and "Agassi" to his page, or just the first appearance of the name?Joey80 09:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine. Well done and thanks for contributing. OSmeone 09:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennis Masters Cup 2003 Final update and elaboration 

message: This section has been repeatedly added by User:Classfriends and 58.186.33.101 and then deleted. the section is as follows:
LIST OF PLAYERS DEFEATED BY FEDERER 2006
    
Ivo Minar, Fabrice Santoro, Marko Baghdatis, Tommy Haas, Gael Monfils, Denis Istomin, Florian Mayer, Max Mirnyi, Nikolay Davydenko, Nicolas Kiefer, Stanislas Wawrinka, Mohammed Al Ghareeb, Robin Vik, Mikhail Youzhny, Nicolas Massu, Olivier Rochus, Richard Gasquet, Ivan Ljubicic, Paradorn Srichaphan, James Blake, Arnaud Clement, Dmitry Tursunov, David Ferrer, Alberto Martin, Benjamin Balleret, David Ferrer, Fernando Gonzalez, Juan Chela, Potito Starace, Radek Stepanek, Nicolas Almagro, David Nalbandian, Diego Hartfield, Alejandro Falla, Tomas Berdych, Mario Ancic, Rohan Bopanna.
I don't think that this section is necessary; anyone who wants to know who has been beaten by Federer can look on the ATP Website. Anyway, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is why I sugest that this section should not be a part of the main article. OSmeone 16:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I don't see the point of listing down the players he has beaten. Comparing this unusual section to the one that was placed in Martina Hingis' article before, it seems that editors then were so much obsessed with her comeback that they listed down every player she has beaten or has lost to. But such is impractical. It's like putting a section in every player's article of their annual performance--down to every match played. If such is the case, then just provide a link to the ATP/WTA website (and even the official websites of some players). Not only will you save your energy and time entering those data in wikipedia, but the official website provides a more complete information. No need for wikipedia to serve as a mirror site of that.--Joey80 04:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LIST OF PLAYERS DEFEATED BY FEDERER '''2006''' 

message: I just remembered this match while watching a replay of these players' match-up in last year's Wimbledon, although I am not well-informed about this Davis Cup match (i.e. didn't watch it, didn't follow it, etc.). What I remember though was Federer was leading 2 sets, then 5-3 in the third, before Hewitt came back and win it in 5. I am not sure though if this can be included in his significant matches (i.e. it is a significant one for Hewitt and for Australia, being a Davis Cup match--not to mention being his last win over Federer). In any case, I need your feedback if this should be included. Since this is a loss, then it will likely be placed as a memorable/milestone match in the page of the victor, not the loser. Then again, if the circumstances and quality of the match was superb, even for the side of the loser (e.g. Federer's loss to Safin in 2005 Australian Open, his loss to Nalbandian in 2005 Tennis Masters Cup--despite coming back in the fifth set, his loss to Nadal in 2006 French Open--although Federer was not quite himself there, the place of that match in history is unquestionable so that it should be placed even in the article of the loser), then that Davis Cup match can be included in this page.--Joey80 04:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a famous match- one of his most notable defeats, if he had not lost Switzerland could have been davis cup champions. the fight with which Hewitt came back was remarkable, so it shoudl definitely be mentioned. OSmeone 16:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davis Cup 2003: Hewitt def. Federer in five sets 

message: I've changed 'New Zealand International Sportsperson of the Year' to 'New Zealand People's Choice International Sportsperson of the Year' per discussion with User talk:Wallie (source ). I don't, however, know if this award is important enough to include. Ziggurat 22:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 award 

message: Who has time to do this?  I suggest the site be edited after every game point.  Juveboy 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing After Every Game 

message: Roger Federer is the greatest player alive.  Fittingly, he beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, and will win the most Grand Slam titles of all time.  In 2007, he will become only the 3rd player in history to win the Grand Slam in a calender year.  Roger Federer rules!
Amit 23:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages aren't designed to discuss the topic generally. Skinnyweed 23:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment by Amit fits more in chat rooms and blogs rather than in a site like wikipedia. Although personally, I also display the same sentiment as Amit does, wikipedia deals with facts--things that have happened. Or if they'll be taking place, then supporting facts, analyses and other details from credible sources and individuals must be supplied. --Joey80 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please work on improving your spelling skills..  by the way, it's analysis, not analyses. lol (130.113.226.6 18:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great One 

message: In the case an editor decides to include Roger's first round win in Wimbledon 2006 against Richard Gasquet, note that it was not just a milestone match in terms of earning the longest grass court winning streak, but also his 100th Grand Slam win. I'm not really sure how important his 100th Grand Slam win is--maybe it can be put into perspective (i.e. some players have their 100th win because of longevity, others because of their dominance). Also, note that he himself commented that his recent match against Mario Ancic was "incredible", though I still have to read some comments among tennis fans and experts how well that match stands out in terms of the quality (I wasn't able to watch the entire match due to the rain).--Joey80 10:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  100th Grand Slam win 

message: Roger Federer defeats Rafael Nadal for his 8th Grand Slam title, and his 4th consecutive Wimbledon title.  Federer defeated Rafael Nadal in 4 sets.  Roger Federer eyes his 9th Grand Slam title in August in New York City at the US Open. --Amit
This victory (and score) is mentioned three times in the subsection "2006 and beyond" and one is a detailed, very POV-like description. Not good for an encyclopedic article.--HJ 23:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually very common around here.  Every time Federer wins a tournament, and especially a Grand Slam, his entry on Wikipedia (this one) gets hit with POV'd contributions, usually praising Federer in one way or another.  Be bold and fix those on sight.  Redux 03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I zapped the match report. It's still in the history of course so the user can take it somewhere else. It's not NPOV/encyclopedic/for us. Metamagician3000 13:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wimbledon 2006

message: In the past, I have contributed to sections like this in biographic articles of tennis players (I don't believe I did here, but I've done it in other articles).  Since then, however, and in light of discussions held on unrelated topics, but which involved the nature of POV, I've come to understand that this listing of "famous matches", or "memorable matches", or however it is being called, is actually a POV-ridden section.  Quite simply, in order to list a match as "famous", "memorable" or anything of the sort, we need at least one reputable source attributing this "status" to the match, or else this is a Wikipedia user's own interpretation of a match, which constitutes POV and original research, thus being inadmissible in our articles.  It's simple: if anyone is to attribute a match the status of "famous", or "memorable", Wikipedia cannot be the primary source attributing this characteristic to the match, regardless of aspects such as the match's duration or score.  We need external sources to be linked from the article, or I'm afraid the entries will need to be removed.  Thank you,  Redux 03:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So we need to find citations for the matches. In any case, your point is likely to be only applicable to the famous matches section, not the milestone since that is more objective in terms of streaks and numbers achieved or established.--Joey80 05:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this applies to the "famous matches" section.  Redux 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a section called 'Grand Slam and Masters Cup Finals' is made, as this would work for the GS finals at least. OSmeone 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would that be detailing the matches, as the current "famous.." already does?  I mean, the titles board already gives the essential information, such as the date of the match, the opponent and the score.  I could see only an extra description such as "Federer saved three match points", or "was able to come back from 0-5", or something of the sort, which may not be really necessary for us to have in the article.  We would still need to steer clear of claims such as "in a memorable performance", or "Federer did the impossible", for obvious reasons.  Redux 13:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is there would be a section for Major Tournament Finals, which would take twelve of the twenty five matches into one jusifiable section, with more brief descriptions. His 7-6 7-6 7-6 victory, his 6-0 6-0 victory and the first match milestones could remain in athe milestone matches, along with his 100th win etc if I can find them. That leaves a few left over, which I can delete/ find a reason to keep with sources if I can. Of course, only a brief description of each match is needed. I'll do this once the holidays start, unless someone else will... OSmeone 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and don't forget his Wimbledon semi-final win--the most lopsided in the Open Era (I'm not exactly sure if that qualification is within that tournament, or among the Grand Slams), in any case, there are lots of sources for this one since it is a recent match. --Joey80 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous Matches and the like

message: "As of July the 10th, 2006, Federer has held the #1 spot on the ATP rankings for 128 consecutive weeks. This is the third longest streak in history, surpassing the total of Pete Sampras (fourth), who held that spot for 102 weeks from 1996 to '98. Only Jimmy Connors (160 weeks) and Ivan Lendl (157 weeks) have had longer uninterrupted runs at the top."
"he holds the fourth-longest consecutive stay in the World No. 1. Only Pete Sampras, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl have had longer unbroken streaks at number one."
Contradiction =) Doidimais Brasil 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humm, if the information is sourced, check against the source and fix it.  If not, we can try to Google it and find out which one is the accurate one.  If we can't find a reputable source to establish the truth, then we'd have to remove the section altogether.  Redux 13:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is becasue some users keep on ignoring the consecutive part of the wording- Pete sampras DID NOT have a longer streak at number one. OSmeone 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  streak 

message: "Federer was born in Basel, Switzerland in the small city of Binningen, to Robert Federer and Lynette Federer. He grew up 10 minutes from Basel properly, in suburban Münchenstein."
On his official page and other biographies it is said he was born in Basel, and a list of Basel hospitals does not list Binningen as having an appropriate hospital. So where does the Binningen information come from? --Railk 06:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace

message: Are these sections really necessary? It doesn't contribute to the overall article except in terms of lengthening it. These sections contain the venue, the opponent (with the accompanying flag) and the score in the final, which is exactly similar to the Titles section. Then again, I prefer the Titles section, with its color coded scheme and well as a summary table before detailing his title by tournament classification and surface. I understand that a Grand Slam singles finals section might be necessary, even though those matches are also contained in the titles section because of the importance of such titles (i.e. how many Grand Slam one has won is always included in the introductory paragraph of a tennis player's article, not to mention that in this case, there is an assertion that Federer is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, tennis player, hence, such a section complements and emphasizes that). Joey80 12:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem necessary, as you said.  I would like also to bring back my statements in the thread titled "Famous Matches and the like", above.  The "Famous matches" and "Other milestone matches" sections will be removed unless reputable sources naming them as "milestones" or "famous" are provided, per my reasoning above.  As far as simply listing Grand Slams and/or Masters Series finals, I would agree with Joey that it only repeats the Titles board, which already lists them, with the finals' scores and opponents -- and the descriptions, such as calling the match "grueling", "epic", "amazing" and so on, again, falls within the category of unsourced claims that Wikipedia cannot make primarily.And also concerning a section of Joey's comment, assertions of Federer (or anyone else) as being "the greatest" or "one of the greatest" also must be sourced, with a specific remark that this claim is according to something (and please, zeitgeist does not suffice for this, the point remains that Wikipedia cannot make those claims as a primary source).  Without that, those assertions will always need to be removed from the article.  Redux 04:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tennis Masters Cup and ATP Masters Series singles finals sections 

message: I have a magazine which states that his favorite flavor is strawberry.  I stated the interview in the references part.  If anyone can reference it better than I did just ask and ill give any info.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bearingbreaker92 (talk • contribs) .
:Please, let's not include Federer's favorite icecream flavor in the article.  This is irrelevant, and doesn't even qualifies as admissible trivia for an encyclopedic entry.  Long discussions were held regarding this on account of the article on the Olsen twins.  No favorite food, no favorite color, and so on.  In a nutshell, Wikipedia is not a fansite.  Regards,  Redux 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verified the icecream fact

message: 80.200.221.128 reversed the timeline here and on other pages, placeing more recent years on the right. Someone says it is more intuitive this way, but I disagree. Most timelines I have seen had recent years on the right, and I think this should not have been changed, especially if we consider the Agassi timeline. However I have not reverted yet, but want to see some opinion from others.
There is also a new earnings table with the number of different titles, but it is redundant, the titles are in the timeline. The yearly earnings could also be placed in the timeline, but I think it is unnecessary and unimportant. I will remove the table if there is no good objection. Scineram 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline is fine now. It always did strike me as weird to have it facing backwatds. It's now more informative and logical. It think the direction is now correct. OSmeone 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction of timeline and earnings 

message: I deleted this:
"Recently during a match at the Pilot Pen Open in New Haven, Connecticut, Federer yelled, "S**T!" so loud that everyone at the stadium and anyone watching the match on television could hear. This rare outburst drew several chuckles, and Federer quickly apologized and was not penalized for the rare outburst."
from the trivia section.  Federer doesn't play the Pilot Pen, there was no citation, and I couldn't verify it online with a quick google check, so I assume this was about another player or made up.
- Jai
:So much for your flawed and dumb research .... (130.113.226.6 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such an info is too mundane to be added to the Trivia section. It's like saying that since he said this or that word for the first time, then it ought to be a trivia. Besides, such didn't cause so much a controversy as to disrupt the game (e.g. like Jankovic's complaint in US Open 2006 semis which could have contributed to her loss; when Safin pulled down his pants during a French Open match to celebrate a point, only to be penalized by the umpire for such misbehavior). In other words, even among trivias, it is too mundane that the word "encyclopedic" is inapplicable to it. (This goes as well to that entry of favorite ice cream flavor, I agree with an editor commenting that this is not a fan page to merit such an entry. Because if such is, then we might as well include his favorite perfume, favorite food, favorite song, favorite singer, favorite actors, favorite things, favorite day, etc.) In other words, the danger with trivia is that by its definition and nature, it is something that is mundane, hence, we might go overboard if we didn't have any criteria for it to merit an encyclopedic entry. Joey80 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cursing at the Pilot Pen Open 

message: Your apology for flying off the handle and unthinkingly accusing me of vandalism is accepted - this time.  Don't let it ever happen again.  Tennis expert 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for accepting my appology.  I should also note that the version you reverted to, with footnotes, is far superior to the previous version.  What happened was I looked at some numbers after your subsequent edits (such as the year he turned pro being 2001 when in fact it was 1998), and, as you said reacted completely inappropriately and I realized almost instantly after my tirade that this was nothing more than an innocent mistake.  I will never let it happen again. Stanley011 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stanley011 

message: He clearly will be number 1 for many, many months to come, even if he never plays again and/or dies in that timeframe. Might as well just extrapolate and say he will be first until at least X date, Y amount of weeks. etc.Ernham 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone should just do the math on his ranking

message: On the French version of this article, they have highlight International Series tournaments differently to the International Series Gold tournaments, which are slightly more prestigious. Do you think that it would be a good idea to do so here? OSmeone 13:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Series/ International Series Gold 

message: Source: atptennis.com, rankings pages, calendar pages and tournament profile pages.
As of Nov 13, 2006 Federer is 8120, Nadal is 4270. He has already won one match in the Master's Cup and so his minimum for that event is 100. Nadal's maximum is 650 (he lost one match).
Even if Federer wins nothing and doesn't even play any further matches, and Nadal plays and wins everything on the ATP calendar (Doha, Sydney, Australian Open, Marseille, Memphis), Nadal can't catch Federer through Feb 26, 2007.
Federer: 8120 + 100 (Master's Cup) - 250 (Doha) - 1000 (Australian Open) = 6470.
Nadal: 4270 + 650 (Master's Cup)+ 250-20 (Doha replaces Stockholm in best 5 other) + 175-55 (Sydney replaces Queen's Club in best 5 other) + 1000 (Australian Open) + 200-90 (Marseille replaces Marseille 06) + 250-175 (Memphis replaces Sydney in best 5 other) = 6455.
So as of Monday Feb 26 when Dubai starts, Federer will still be ahead of Nadal. His streak will be 161 weeks by then, beating Connors' world record of 160 weeks.
* I (someone other than the person who posted the above) put in a note on this on the page today, and it was removed, citing it as 'original research'. It's not really original research if anyone can count up the ranking points ... in any case, it should have been marked as 'reference needed' or, at the very least, reverted to the previous version, so I feel this was a very poor edit by whoever reverted it. In any case, this was referred to in the post-match interview after his win against Roddick; see e.g. . 88.105.71.230 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federer breaks 160 consecutive weeks at #1

message: I am surprised. Roger Federer does not deserve this utmost respect! He is a downful sin to man kind. He his rood, arrogant, and dumb once he loses. When he wins, however, he loves to brag and find faults to blame on the other opponent.67.86.24.40 15:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federer 

message: I added a section titled above as an expansion of trivia section to include the list of players that have got a bagel set from Roger Federer. It is now removed ironically with the comment that it is a trivial section! Can you explain why? It has the potential to expand as Roger is giving bagel sets to just about every player he now meets.
* Actually, I must admit that such a trivia is quite "trivial". But I don't blame you. No standard was set on how "trivial" should a trivia be in order to be included (or excluded) in the article. For example, there was a trivia entry once about his favorite ice cream flavor. So what? In any case, I have come to dislike this article, wherein infos (and trivias) keep on piling up, without being checked to be up to standards. Joey80 13:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bagel Club

message: I'm going to try to resolve this here, there's no reason to engage in an edit war.  The dispute is whether it should say "Federer began 2007 by losing in the final of the Kooyong Classic, an exhibition tournament, to Andy Roddick 2-6, 6-3, 3-6", or "Federer began 2007 by losing in the final of the Kooyong Classic, an exhibition tournament, to Andy Roddick 6-2, 3-6, 6-3." I'll explain why the first option is the correct one.  The primary subject in the sentence is Federer, therefore it would be incorrect to say that the first set was 6-2 because that would mean Federer won the first set, which of course did not happen.  Here you can find a source which agrees with my argument:  Dionyseus 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The overwhelming majority of tennis articles in the media use the "6-2, 3-6, 6-3" form.  And this is what we use in hundreds of Wikipedia tennis articles.  If you will read the Federer article closely, there are many scores in this form.  Do not revert the score again as you will be going against consensus.  Tennis expert 11:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concensus has not yet been established.  So far I have laid out my reasonings, and you have laid out your reasoning.  Now we wait to see which reasoning other editors agree with.  Dionyseus 12:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. The scores of the winner used to come first in a neutral enviroment, but if there is an emphasis on a player, his scores are the first. The ATP also uses this format in the player activity sections, not surpisingly. Scineram 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Score format 

message: There are currently 2 separate "Trivia" section on this page, one before the match lists and one at the end.
Also, what is meant under the first trivia section by "In 1999, Federer became the youngest player (18 years, 4 months) in the ATP ranking's year end top 100." Youngest how? 18 years shouldn't be the youngest to reach top 100 in ATP rankings.
:Its probably a error or some vandalism, just change it back. Aaron Krickstein was the youngest player to enter the top 100 at 16 years old. --|K.Z|Z.K|  Do not vandalize... 06:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means that in 1998 he was the youngest player in the top 100. So that either needs clarification, or to be deleted. OSmeone 09:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2006 

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