Talk:Roger Federer/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Other tournaments

How about adding 250,500 and Masters tournaments and just write number of timees he has won it. Including this each tour category would be covered and there would be a total number of his tournaments won by each category together with grand slams and tour finals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toni021 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the infobox header of "other tournaments"? It was decided not to clutter up the infobox any further with lesser events. the header was originally meant for old-time players who won events equivalent to today's 4 majors. Somewhere along the line we added the current two most important events outside the majors, the Tour Finals and the Olympics. I don't think we need anymore than that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

139.216.138.86 (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 07:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

Please add in the '2018: 20th Grand Slam title and return to world No. 1' section the following: In the US Open, Federer comfortably won the first three rounds without dropping a single set. In the fourth round, John Millman, ranked 55 in the world at the time, shocked Federer, and won in four sets.

Source: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/australia-s-john-millman-victorious-against-roger-federer-at-us-open-20180904-p501ot.html 139.216.138.86 (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done but, I have added the reference you provided. Many thanks, NiciVampireHeart 07:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

Please disregard this.

139.216.138.86 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Closing per request from op. NiciVampireHeart 12:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• FedererRolandGarros.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Living legend

Maybe in § Legacy and cultural impact link "living legend" to living legend (person). --77.173.90.33 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 00:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019

Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈrɔdʒər ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is currently ranked world No. 6 change to Roger Federer (German pronunciation: [ˈrɔdʒər ˈfeːdərər]; born 8 August 1981) is a Swiss professional tennis player who is currently ranked world No. 7. 64.30.91.207 (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done with thanks, NiciVampireHeart 06:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Greatest of all time mention in lead" readditions

Hi everyone, since recently some editors have been adding back the section saying Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time into the lead even though a discussion in July 2018 (titled "Experts are on record saying Federer is "the greatest of all time," NOT "one of the greatest of all time"" and is now in Archive 6) established this was subjective for the lead (and that the same applied for other articles with a legacy section e.g. Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal). I don't have a huge problem with its mention in the lead personally as long as it is sourced even though I agree it is a bit subjective but at the same time, it should only be readded if a new consensus is established here first because a consensus can always change and the above mentioned dicussion in July 2018 gave a consensus that it should not be mentioned in the lead and kept in the legacy section. The reason why it was considered subjective for the lead is that many opinions (whether from experts or not) differ on whether Federer really is the greatest of all time and so it is a debatable matter, especially since Nadal or Djokovic both potentially could take that title if they overtake Federer's Slam record. So I do advise other users to please discuss the matter here first and only readd it into the lead if a new consensus is established otherwise I and other editors might have to keep reverting it's readdition, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately the above advice is not being followed, and perhaps is not being seen. So someone could simply add to the lead section, 'His greatness is detailed in the Legacy section below.' That would help everyone. Bo99 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think its something which can be done (maybe with a notice for editors not to add it in the lead section without consensus here) if it goes out of control again but for the time being it seems to have settled a bit, partially due to the protection now in the page. Broman178 (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Federer-Hewitt rivalry.

Vandalism needs repairing for comment about, 'scoring a bagel'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.14.243 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

All looks well to me. I guess it could be written differently, but I see no vandalism. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

I believe this might be the proper citation source for 275. FiReFTW comment here where he gives his opinion about the improved backhand topspin and serve, but weaker backhand slice - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/should-federer-have-switched-to-a-97-racquet-sooner.601915/#post-11710400 --MattJohnson5 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC) MattJohnson5 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@MattJohnson5: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 275, but internet forum postings are not considered reliable sources, especially in articles about living people. See Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources for more information. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, footnote 275 I guess I should say - where it says 'Citation needed.' But, no problem - I can understand about forums not being reliable sources. That just seems to be the most original source for that opinion. --MattJohnson5 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2019

Federer now number 4. --46.193.4.125 (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

I'd like to change Roger Federer's nationality status from "a Swiss professional tennis player" to "a Swiss-South African professional tennis player" as he is a dual citizen. Lalonde02 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done We don't espouse nationality based on citizenship. If he lived in South Africa or was raised primarily in South Africa it might be different. But some people are citizens of 10 countries and we don't add 10 different items to their bios. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

For more than a decade, the first few paragraphs of this article have included a reference to Federer's acclaim as the greatest/one of the greatest tennis players of all time. Recently, user:Fyunck(click) removed this reference (see here for diff). I ask that it is reinstated, in line with longstanding consensus among the editors of this article as well as common wiki practice relating to similar articles (consider Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Pelé and Ronnie O'Sullivan, for example). גיא (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting cherry picking since that same section had been added a couple weeks before before I found and removed it. Tennis Project had been dealing with all kinds of subjective "greatest" statements to so many players that the leads were not very encyclopedic. Most were placed further down in a legacy section, as was Federer's, where those same sources are all still there. Federer has not been singled out in this. Perhaps you missed the legacy section? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2019

In the "2019: Hopman Cup title record, 100 titles, 1200 match wins" section, last sentence of third paragraph, "Federer than played at the Italian Open" should be changed to "Federer then played at the Italian Open". Giwrgosk2003 (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Highway 89 (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2019

In two different sections of this article, it is mentioned that Federer is considered the greatest of all time by many analysts. However, nothing as such is written in the wiki article for Nadal or Djokovic. Whether Federer is the greatest of all time is still an open debate and doesn't correctly and unbiasedly characterize the player. Wikipedia is and has been a very neutral media of reading facts. Opinions are controversial and unless backed by a sizeable chunk of the human population or unless not debatable anymore, should be removed. I hope this edit can be fixed. Thanks.

I suggest to remove the following statements: 1. Many players and analysts consider Federer the greatest tennis player of all time. 2. He has also been called the greatest athlete of his generation. 3. Given his achievements, many players and analysts have considered Federer to be the greatest tennis player of all time. Anirban2406 (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly change #1 to: "Some". One thing, Nadal absolutely has a similar thing in his article with the "is widely regarded as the greatest clay-court player in history." That would fall into the same subjective problems. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Interesting that the last two requests have been polar opposites of each other. One saying that the Federers greatness is portrayed far less than other similar Wikipedia articles and should be plastered in the lead, and the other saying it's far too subjective and should be removed in it's entirety. It makes me think that the project compromise of including those subjective things minimally and only in a legacy section, is just about right. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The biggest problem with these sort of statements is that these players are still active and their records and thus status are rapidly evolving. As a result many of these "he's the greatest" opinions by so-called specialists get very outdated very rapidly. Just look at the last few weeks. Four weeks ago Nadal simply dispatched Federer at the French Open causing all the Nadal fans to shout out that he's the greatest, only for Federer to silence them again by outclassing the former at Wimbledon today. None of these very subjective opinions should really be given much weight as long as these players are active and there achievements are not final.Tvx1 19:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think its okay for the legacy section as long as its not described in too much detail, however, some editors seem to be readding this detail to the lead even though the discussion last year established that it is too subjective for the lead (the latest of which I have just reverted since User:BeastJ18 reverted my edit without an explanation in his/her edit summary after I removed it's readdition to the lead) which means it is being added back without any consensus. Its mention isn't a huge issue to me in the lead but I still prefer following a consensus, and the consensus last year established it is too subjective for the lead. Broman178 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Just added a notice to the lead so that people editing the Roger Federer article are aware that "greatest of all time" should be kept to the legacy section and not be readded to the lead without another consensus here (and with a link to the discussion last July) as I'm tired of constantly reverting these edits, might do a similar thing to Nadal and Djokovic's articles (or other tennis articles with this issue) too. Broman178 (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I really disagree with the policing of the leads sections here. Not just Federer’s but Nadal’s and Serena’s as well. (I haven’t seen evidence of it as much on Djokovic’s but wouldn’t be opposed to his lead being beefed up as well.) The current leads are way too bland and do not capture the essence of the impact these players have had on the sport in the way that the leads for the pages of other revered and highly successful athletes do. There’s a reason people keep trying to revert these edits. The leads should better reflect the impact these athletes have had on their sports and adding the contextual information of their legacies right up front would do that. The context of their widely regarded greatest is not subjective and shouldn’t be buried. DavisB (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees with you. Subjective things like the amount of greatness are not very encyclopedic. Britannica doesn't use it either. Their extensive accomplishments in the lead sections should speak for themselves without the need for subjection analysis. The reason we came to this conclusion was that every dick and harry article could find some tiny little greatness comment to throw in. We were having endless edit-wars over the terms "widely", "some", "many", and "most". Every decade or so we have a new goat personage whether it's Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Kramer, Budge, Tilden, etc... Newspapers love to sell copies so they further the debates. That's just not lead-worthy for an encyclopedia. It's barely article-worthy but at least in a legacy section it makes some sense to bring those subjective debates to the surface. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Given you guys are continually having to revert these edits I would say the consensus isn’t settled and a new one needs to be reached. The current leads don’t accurately or effectively convey the most pertinent information about who these people are. If someone were to ask me “Who is Rafael Nadal?” I wouldn’t begin by reciting how many master series titles he’s won. I’d say he’s generally considered to be one of the greatest tennis players of all time and widely regarded as the greatest clay court player ever. Same thing for Federer and Serena and Laver. After Sunday, Djokovic now, too. The fact that these players are continually being referred to as either the greatest or among the greatest players in the history of their sport is the most pertinent and relevant information about them. (No one is saying the same about David Goffin, much to my poor Belgian heart’s disappointment!) I recognize the somewhat insufferable GOAT debate is a pain in the neck to regulate on here, but most other articles for athletes of this caliber (from Pelé to Bode Miller) lead with the perceived greatness of their subjects and the impact they had on their sport. Or even look at the article for Meryl Streep! There is a wider Wikipedia consensus when it comes to the leads of articles for individuals who are widely considered to be among the “greatest ever” of their field. Until these tennis articles are brought in line with that broader Wikipedia consensus I have a hunch people will continually be making these edits. DavisB (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Good article" status vs citation needed tags

This article currently has 69 citation needed tags(!), which were almost all added by @Whywhenwhohow in this edit. Having this many tags means that if re-reviewed against the criteria for being selected as a "Good article", it would be given an "immediately fail" per criterion 4. Should it then have its rating downgraded, or are these tags unjustified and need to be removed? Calbow (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

Hi everyone, since the lead has been changed again and the notice I added has been removed by User:Hippo43, I'm just wondering if we could keep the lead as saying "He is widely considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time." without mentioning there that he is the greatest tennis player of all time? Because it seems to me that there is currently no agreement on what really is best for the lead, some are saying this should be kept in the legacy while others just keep adding it back to the lead. I also looked at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy and it seems to say that we could to some degree mention "one of the greatest" in an article (as long as he/she is "the greatest" is not used) but it doesn't state whether it should be mentioned in the lead or main section of the article. So I'm wondering if we can just keep the mentioned sentence in the lead, remove it again or reword it from "greatest" to "best" as there should be an agreed consensus on this matter by most Wikipedia users. Many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

It will always be changed, that's the nature of wikipedia. Encyclopedia Britannica shies away from those terms. It's not like we couldn't put in that Federer is one of the greatest, but it also causes issues with other articles. Where is the cutoff? There will be hundreds of players that we need to add that to their articles. McEnroe, Connors, Hewitt, Wilander, Murray, Becker, all these players fit into that category. Many many pre-ww2 players also are among the greatest. And my guess is that when you add "He is widely considered one of the greatest tennis players of all time" someone will soon erase "one of". Then another compromise to "He is considered by some to be the greatest tennis players of all time." Then someone will add that to the Rod Laver article lead and the Nadal article.... more arguments...and we are back at square one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with what you have said but at the same time, I think its best that these details are removed from the leads and relocated to a legacy/place in all time greats section in all the other tennis player articles in Wikipedia otherwise these issues will just carry on as some users will see no reason not to add it back on if it is still mentioned in the leads of other tennis player articles. I have recently done this in some of the other male player articles (like Sampras, Becker, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi etc.) but in many of the female tennis player articles like Margaret Court, Navratilova etc. this is still mentioned in the lead, so I might relocate them from the leads in those articles later if I am free (although I would be grateful if anyone else can do it before me). Broman178 (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the notice again and restored "one of..." – it is just ridiculous to leave this out of the lead. It is one of the most significant points about Federer, and any reader coming here who doesn't know who he is needs to see this in the lead. I don't know what is the best way to word it, and we can discuss that, but leaving it out entirely seems untenable to me.

Re burying this in a 'Legacy' section, it is just not acceptable. The lead, per WP:LEAD, needs to summarise the main points of the article, which includes summarising what is in the Legacy section.

Re other players, it is fairly straightforward. If multiple reliable sources describe Hewitt or Sampras or Navratilova or whoever as "widely considered one of the greatest players of all time", or something similar, then it should be included in the relevant article. It doesn't really have anything to do with this article. I will take a look at other player articles if I have some time and will restore relevant material to the lead there if needed. This isn't the place to try to reach consensus about other articles. --hippo43 (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

These are in the articles, just not that subjective stuff in the lead. It's not encyclopedic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what 'subjective' means, and it's not clear what you mean by 'encyclopedic'. These statements are well-sourced. --hippo43 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you are the one confused with the consensus, and have been reverted by other users, you need to convince this talk page and tennis project that your way is better, instead of just inserting non-consensus text. You don't see Britannica add that stuff in the lead, or actually anywhere in their article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Can you please provide a link to where you think consensus was reached? I haven't seen it. To be clear, the text that I have re-inserted has been added by numerous other editors in the past, which suggests that your preferred version does not have the consensus you think it does.

Britannica has nothing to do with Wikipedia. There are guidelines and policies here that reflect wide consensus in the community (such as WP:V, WP:MOSBIO, WP:LEAD etc). They supercede more narrow consensus that is sometimes reached on talk pages or project pages.

Are you able to answer any of the points I raised above? --hippo43 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well part was reached in the wikipedia-wide rfc on Rod Laver. Weasel words like "widely" or "many" were thrashed for all the players. I was actually among those who thought that phrases like "Roger Federer has been called one of the greatest players of all-time" was perfectly fine in the lead as long as it wasn't at the top. Preferably at the bottom of the lead. There were also suggestions such as "has been included by tennis historians in lists of the greatest players of all time." That type of thing. But then several ongoing disputes as to exact wording led to constant edit wars and conversations such as This One.

My biggest beef is consistency among tennis bios for our readers. If all the players are allowed the same latitude regardless of time period, I'm ok with it. The problem has been that editors go wild with removals and additions, and former players change their goat quotes every other day. Depending on how they wake up McEnroe or Agassi could name 5 different players. Every decade or two we anoint another goat... I see it over and over again. The term "widely" is so subjective as to be useless. I think that's why editors started removing the terms altogether from the leads, to keep the subjective views of former players in a legacy section and out of the lead. It isn't very encyclopedic as we see with Britannica. But as before, I can always compromise with "among the greatest" as long as we have fairness in that term with all other tennis players. But I certainly don't believe it belongs in the first few sentences of the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Rod Laver, every discussion is Wikipedia-wide. The RFC you linked to generated comments from a handful of editors, so does not represent broad consensus, even about Laver. Secondly, it doesn't even reach consensus about this question regarding him. Most editors there supported including the fact in the lead, but wording it carefully. I don't see where there is consensus for including this at the top or bottom of the Laver article's lead. As I said already, we can discuss how best to word this, but there is no good case for leaving it out of the lead.

Second, discussion of Rod Laver has no real relevance to this article. Reliable sources treat them differently, as they do Becker, McEnroe, Tilden, whoever. Each article needs to reflect what reliable sources say about the relevant player. It simply doesn't matter what an ex-professional decides to say one day, it matters what reliable, published, independent secondary sources say in each case.

There is wide consensus on Wikipedia to include a statement about the subject's greatness in their field. As well as the policies and guidelines I already mentioned, see William Shakespeare, Tiger Woods, Don Bradman, Garfield Sobers, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln etc.

Regarding what other editors might do, Wikipedia articles change all the time. Other editors are entitled to disagree with your opinions, and you don't have any right to try to set in stone what can be included in this article.

Finally, in this diff you wrote "tennis project consensus..." Can you show where that consensus was established, as I can't find it anywhere in the project talk pages? --hippo43 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course opinions change over time. But if several editors revert your change it should be brought here to change minds. That hasn't happened yet. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I note again you haven't answered the points I raised. Can you show where "tennis project consensus" was established? Or were you being dishonest?

I've restored the statement that he is "considered one of the greatest...", which is significant, true, verifiable and in line with policy. Numerous other editors have added similar statements over a long period, so clearly there is not consensus for your preferred text. I have asked several times for you to show where you think consensus was established, but you haven't. I'm open to discussing the wording, but you haven't even tried. --hippo43 (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I noticed you keep adding non-consensus stuff and removing text. Remember also that consensus is long standing compliance. You need to convince others if you add something that gets reverted. You have not done so even with us asking you to do so. This opens up a can of worms to many articles with long-standing consensus and it's frustrating that subjective opinion lines get added to the lead as opposed to facts. I had originally been fine with "one of the greatest" being added to hundreds of articles but was overruled by consensus edits. I have no problem either way but I also follow the rules of wikipedia which says if you add something and it gets reverted you don't re-add it without discussion and convincing. You seem to want to skip that step. I have yet to see you convince others and in fact have seen the opposite. I'll let others revert you and simply report it if you add it back without that convincing. A self-revert by you would be better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I also didn't mind the "greatest of all time" or "one of the greatest" mentions in the lead at first until the discussion last July (even if you say there was no consensus for it, most of us in that discussion DID still agree towards the end of the discussion that it should be removed from the lead section and kept to the Legacy section) and the ones on this talk page after that on this matter, which have made me understand more why it perhaps should be kept off the lead section unless there is an agreement that is can be mentioned in the lead, so I am also one of those editors who believes in following any agreement/consensus which has been made. Bear in mind that while you keep wanting it readded in the lead of this article, these statements were removed from the leads of most of the other tennis player articles (including Nadal, Djokovic, Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Serena Williams, Navratilova, Margaret Court etc.) to keep consistency across the tennis articles in Wikipedia on this matter so if you want it readd it in the lead here, you'd have to do the same for all the other tennis articles here. Because you keep reverting our edits and giving it mention in the lead again from time to time without an agreement here (along with both ignoring and removing my notice which clearly states discuss the matter here and reach a consensus before readding it), I have been forced to leave a warning for edit warring in your own talk page because your editing now definitely is falling in that category, so either you keep discussing it here until there is a agreement on mentioning it again in the lead or take it to the main tennis project talk page (the latter of which would be better for the other articles with this issue) because you could risk getting blocked for edit warring if this carries on. Broman178 (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Since its no good constantly reverting edits over this matter (so I won't personally remove it from the lead for now) and I'm practially done with that for now, I've decided to raise this issue myself in the main WikiProject Tennis talk page now, hopefully there we can reach a decision as what to do regarding mentioning "greatest of all time" in the lead sections. Broman178 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Greatness" Discussion in WikiTennis Project talk page

Hi everyone, there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis regarding adding GOAT/nicknames to lead sections of tennis player articles. Please free to add your opinions in that discussion/survey. many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 09:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2019

Following his new sponsorship deal with UNIQLO, Federer was urged by Public Eye and Clean Clothes Campaign to call UNIQLO to resolve disputes with workers over compensation. They were criticising UNIQLO for failing to live up to its social responsibility towards the affected women and men by refusing to negotiate with Indonesian trade unions over compensation for former factory workers. Keeza123 (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this is relevant enough on his page. Public Eye made a video with almost no views and the Clean Clothes Campaign don't seem to be urging Federer, instead they seem to be focusing on UNICLO itself. Has Federer's involvement in this gotten any widespread attention? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

The team competitions section should include the Laver Cup, which Federer has been on the winning team for twice now. The Laver Cup is officially recognized by the ATP Tour, putting it on the same footing as the Hopman Cup and Davis Cup. Alexandergrant19 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The Laver Cup is not a recognised parameter of Template:Infobox tennis biography. It was added to and removed from the template, so it would need to be discussed before re-adding. I suggest you start a discussion at WT:TENNIS. NiciVampireHeart 17:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Section "Nicknames"

So are we going to put every single name he ever has been called by anyone in the article? even though most of the mentioned nicknames are without any reference / credits? --LH7605 (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty silly, I agree. I dumped most and updated the links to those remaining. There was an edit conflict so I may have messed up a spacing change or two. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2019

I would like to edit the roger federer page because of his rankings change. Kind Regards, Lukas. Lukas Jose Krepcik Robayo (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course, but it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. :) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

"2012 Summer Olympic Games" = "2012 Summer Olympics" 2605:E000:9149:8300:8C87:DF05:4CAC:CAFF (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• If you meant the part under Federer vs Murray...  Done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing on Roger Federer's pages, 5 November 2019

Hello guys, my name is CharisTra and I started at 2016 editing on Wikipedia and more often on Roger Federer pages. I've done a lot of new things. I have many new ideas and formats in my mind during the years and sometimes I can't write them as it should be, in a proper way. But the point is that I give you the new formats and possibly you can make perfect. Some things that I've made had deleted during the years but most of them have stayed and I am happy for that. My goal is to make Roger Federer's pages better and better, and all tennis players' pages in general. First of all, I absolutely agree with Alexandergrant19 to put Laver Cup on the same footing as the Hopman Cup and Davis Cup. Because it's officially recognized by the ATP and wins/losses count at the players' career. I also think that we need to put the inaugural ATP Cup on the same footing with the other three, as well. I also suggest to create for the 'career statistics' page for all the players a table for Team Tennis Leagues. Because are something different from Team Tennis Competitions and Exhibitions. Are Team Tennis Leagues and must have their own category. Team Tennis Leagues: 1) World TeamTennis (WTT) 2) International Premier Tennis League (IPTL) 3) Champions Tennis League (CTL) 4) Odisha Tennis Premier League (ODPL)

IPTL, CTL and ODPL are not abolished but ceased. For now are not active tournaments but maybe in the future will continue. Also there are players that have won those leagues and would be unfair if we don't put on their career statistics page.

Also we should make it clear in National and international represantation the hierarchy and the right order. National and international represantation (Men): 1) Olympic Games 2) Davis Cup 3) Laver Cup 4) ATP Cup 6) World Team Cup 7) Hopman Cup

National and international represantation (Women): 1) Olympic Games 2) Fed Cup 3) Wightman Cup 4) Hopman Cup

I know that the Wightman Cup and World Team Cup are abolished but there are players that have won those tournaments. Also the Hopman Cup is not abolished. Is ceased for 2020, but from 2021 possibly will continue in another country.

Also we need to add some words in the main page of Roger Federer for the third edition of Laver Cup 2019 Laver Cup in the International representation category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharisTra (talk • contribs) 15:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It's fine in prose, and there is no real issue against guidelines to keep it out of an International section. Though it should be very brief and other wise relegated to the career Statistics article. But the Federer Career Statistics article, and specifically the performance timeline is a different matter entirely. That would be an article-wide debate, not just a Federer debate. It would need to be brought up at the Tennis Project talk page to change consensus and guidelines for every article of this type. There are things that are deemed less important and are not included in the performance timeline, lest they get way too big and unwieldy. 500 and 250 series level events, ITF events, Hopman Cup, etc... They are included in the article, just not the performance timelines. Laver Cup is almost an exhibition with an unknown lengevity. ATP Cup hasn't even started yet so the longevity and importance is unknown. That will take years perhaps. Davis Cup and the Olympics are well-known very important entities in tennis, and it's why those to events were approved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image is cropped too tightly. Something between these two versions would be better:

Actually, for the infobox, we usually only use a shoulder and head shot... not a whole body shot. That said I don't have a problem with what we have now or even a version that is slightly wider. It's no biggie to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Roger Federer Austrian Stamp.jpg
• Roger Federer Swiss Stamp.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed the offending images from the article and the likely similar candidate coin image. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Davis Cup

The Wikipedia editor @Fyunck keepds deleting that "Federer has won one Davis Cup title with the Switzerland Davis Cup team". Such a deletion is, I believe, not justified. In team sports, it is usually said that a player has won X tournament with his team.

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

Even on tennis, the ITF said that "Nadal aims to win his 5th Davis Cup title with Spain"

https://twitter.com/ITF_Tennis/status/1196799309393604608?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1196799309393604608&ref_url=https://www.mytennis.info/article/5dd48a2b6b7a1f27892bf1e2/davis-cup-finals-25-0-siege-die-mega-story-des-rafael-nadal/

So please, stop changing that "Federer won one Davis Cup title with the Swiss Davis Cup team, unless there is some consensus to change it. James343e (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Keeps deleting???? I changed it once to a more accurate term without the redundancy of the term "Davis Cup." What's the big deal here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I personally do not see it as redundant. What is your suggestion? You want to write "Federer has won one Davis Cup title with Switzerland"? I feel like the wording "Swiss Davis Cup team" is crucial to clarify that he won it with the team not alone.James343e (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact that countries are competing as teams in the Davis cup makes the statement, 'Federer won one Davis Cup title with the Swiss Davis Cup team', tautological or at least self-explanatory. I agree with Fyunck's change. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2020

On the part where it says he has won a record eight Wimbledon singles titles, can that be changed to saying a male record because of course the women's record is nine set by Navratilova as a statement of accuracy 86.185.165.133 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

Under the section labeled "Philanthropy and outreach" and subsection "World's most respected, admired and trusted personalities", there is a line stating:

"As millions lost their livelihoods, hundreds of thousands got sick, and tens of thousands of people across the world died because of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, Federer complained that he felt “devastated” upon learning that The Champions, Wimbledon, had been canceled. “I can't wait to go back next year,” he said.[282]"

This is COMPLETELY irrelevant in regards to the section and subsection, and is extremely misleading. Instead of stating a fact about the above title, it denigrates the individual and is an assassination of character written by assumedly a tennis troll. Please remove this line.

Thank you for your time and patience. 108.34.161.211 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Agreed that it was simply an attack hit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Note: marked as answered Majavah ^(t/c) 09:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

It's listed as a page in British English yet there is disgusting American English spellings in it. 2A02:C7F:8A94:C800:655C:2702:2EFA:7831 (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

There may be some American English, but there is no disgusting American English in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit request in table of records

I'd do it myself but I'm not good with tables and I don't know the policies for this particular article, but in "20 (Grand Slam) men's singles titles overall", where it says "Stands alone" it should be updated to "Rafael Nadal", who just equalled this record. This should also be updated in the List of career achievements by Roger Federer article. Not A Superhero (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

GOAT and etc. - 'protecting' a page of popular interest...

It is absolutely ridiculous that the Federer page has been edited by somebody who knows little to nothing of tennis and makes no mention of the fact that Federer is widely regarded by experts, players, pundits etc. as the greatest of all time. LordTennison (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@LordTennison It is still mentioned in the article if you go to the "Legacy and cultural impact" section so your explanation that there is no mention of the "greatest of all time" in the article isn't true. The reason it got removed from the lead section was because it was considered too subjective a statement to be mentioned in the lead even if it is true (especially with Nadal now level with Federer in the Slam count and Djokovic also likely to catch up with him if he stays healthy not to mention they both could overtake that and also be regarded as the greatest of all time). I would suggest you look at this discussion here in Talk:Roger Federer/Archive 6#Experts are on record saying Federer is "the greatest of all time," NOT "one of the greatest of all time" because it was through that discussion the "greatest of all time" statement got removed from the lead. If you still believe it should be mentioned in the lead, I suggest you discuss it here and see if you can establish a consensus over it. Broman178 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a consensus has been established by the number of times Federer has won a fan-fauvirite LordTennison (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that got sent in prematurely*

LordTennison (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a consensus has been established by the number of times Federer won a fan-favourite (it's going on 2 decades now) - IF the fans are considered the arbiters of that sort of thing, and they're most likely to frequent this Wikipedia page or make edits to it atleast; experts have said it enough times for it to warrant a mention in the introduction - there are countless mentions linked on this Will page alone to support that assertion, so I won't waste your time by adding more links onto it... LordTennison (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki page* has*

It's poorly edited now, and the assumption that Federer that some sort of "effective(ness) both as a baseliner and a volleyer, his apparent effortlessness and efficient movement on the court have made Federer highly popular among tennis fans" also reads like reductive more than deductive reasoning...

Fans might find innumerable other things to like in a tennis player, such as personal or charitable gestures more generally, made on and off the court - personally, I wouldn't care if a good player happened to be an axe-murderer in their spare time, but the idea that Federer's appeal might be limited to some shortlist of qualities that appeal to and constitute a good sort of player in a popularity contest as compiled by the one poor writer on a Wiki page with access to edit is slightly absurd... LordTennison (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Below it says that he was recovering from back surgery in 2016 when infact it was arthroscopic knee surgery from an injury obtained right after the Australian open 2016 49.184.87.114 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Legacy and Cultural Impact.

The second para needs to be changed. He now shares the 20 Majors record with Nadal as is stated in the lede. Also the record for holding the world No.1 spot will need to be deleted very soon, in a weeks time Djokovic will equal it and from then on surpass it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil6875 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Monterezia (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Roger Federer is one of the most loved tennis players in the history of the sport.

 Not done: While you may feel this way, this sentence breaks our neutral point of view policy, so it doesn't belong in the article. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I do not believe that it is a subjective point of view. Most tennis players, sports commentors and fans agree on that. If there is one thing that clearly differentiate Federer to the others male players, it is the fan support and "love" that he receives from the public. It is a measurable metric by the number of fans he has on the online platforms as well as by the intensity of applauses he receives when entering a tennis court. This is his legacy. Not mentioning this on the Wiki page is not mentioning the legacy of Federer, that clearly is not based only on his titles.

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_World_Foundation/83372/who-of-the-big-three-is-the-most-loved-tennis-player-by-fans-and-crowds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monterezia (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

In the equipment and apparel section it says that Federer has no shoe sponsor, recently he has started a partnership with "on running" which he can be seen wearing in his matches starting 2021 and on his website that he now endorses. 49.183.160.183 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021

In apparel it states that Federer has no shoe sponsor and chooses to wear nike, which was true up until 2020 but now with a new partnership with on running he helped design and wears "the roger pro" which he can be seen wearing in his matches starting in 2021. Sources below.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timnewcomb/2021/03/10/roger-federer-debuts-on-court-on-tennis-shoe-the-roger-pro/amp/

https://www.on-running.com/en-au/articles/welcome-to-on-roger-federer-refresh

https://www.rogerfederer.com/index.php/sponsors 49.184.170.213 (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 17:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"all time" as a noun is not hyphenated

"All time" mentioned in the context of the "Big 3" in the lead should not be hyphenated, as it's a noun in that case not an adjective.Cdg1072 (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Management firm

Federer's management firm/agency should be added: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1887134-federer-launches-management-firm-with-his-agent Lena Key (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

In this section: 2021: Australian Open withdrawal, return to tour with mixed results and French Open retirement

Delete the comma in the second sentence of the last paragraph. "Federer, was playing against the 20-year-old for the first time." Sorry sir, that's classified information (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Greatest player ever

In the "Legacy and cultural impact section", it says "...with many players and analysts considering him to be the greatest player ever", sourcing references which are from 2017 or older. However, at that time, Federer was the sole leader in GS titles and weeks spent at number 1; the first record is now equaled by both Nadal and Djokovic, while the second record is now held by Djokovic. This sentence is outdated and should therefore be removed or edited to address the issue.

 Not done It is still relevant. The total number of major titles isn't the sole basis for greatest ever. Rod Laver and Pancho Gonzales are still considered the greatest ever by a number of tennis historians, yet their major totals are far less. Things can be tweaked where dates for the quotes can be given to make things more clear. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Second most of all-time

The term "all-time" can be misused and it most appropriately applies to the entire era of tennis, qualified for certain reasons e.g. Gender. It is not appropriate to use it in the context of an ATP record for which a relevant term such as 'in ATP history' can be used. Antipodenz (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Tournament Records

Records that would be impossible to attain until key changes occur e.g. a second tournament being created to be able to get 2 titles, the ability to enter all four Major tournaments etc. need to have a date recorded that makes sense by being actually attainable. Antipodenz (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022

I suggest placing Federer vs. Djokovic rivalry on the first place in the list of rivalries since it is more competetive that the other rivalries listed, as it can be seen: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/greatestRivalries Ogyyy (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The rivalry needs wide coverage in secondary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChilIy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This page needs to be updated.

This page needs to be updated since it’s been a long time since his records have been surpassed. 108.5.16.91 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2022

In Achievements section, need to update number of of Grand Slam titles won by Nadal from 21 to 22: Federer and Novak Djokovic have won the second most Grand Slam tournament titles (20), trailing only Rafael Nadal (21). 116.86.220.52 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Roger and djokovic

They have played 17 grand slam matches which was exceeded by Nadal and Djokovic's 18 after the 2022 French open. 2605:8D80:6E1:6D0B:1168:8806:7133:EC5 (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Records need to be updated

As of August 25, 2022 Nadal has 22 grand slam titles. Djokovic has 21. This means Federer's 20 cannot be second (as the article claims). 2601:200:C000:1A0:F128:3DA5:B358:8B47 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Career titles

Federer 103 titles are the 2nd most in the open, not of all time. Please, correct it in the opening paragraph. 138.99.112.54 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done It says ATP titles, not simply titles. 103 ATP titles is the second most all-time. Players who won more were before the ATP was formed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

2022 section of history should include a mention of his retirement announcement via twitter. src https://twitter.com/rogerfederer/status/1570402045085253632 Inzikind (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

exact edit text to add should be "On September 15th Federer announced via twitter that he will retire following the Laver Cup ATP event." [cited tweet]

This should go immediately after the previous mention of the Laver cup in first paragraph Inzikind (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw that he is retiring from the ATP Tour and Grand Slam tournaments. That leaves open exhibitions, Laver Cups, Hopman Cups, etc... Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

Roger is still a professional tennis player. He’s playing in the Laver Cup right now. 73.11.13.188 (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

And now he's retired. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

How he began tinnes

How he began tinnes 156.221.117.78 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction

Article says "Federer did not play after Wimbledon 2021", but then later that he played in the 2022 Laver Cup. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:5C62:257E:F843:3380 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"greatest and most successful Swiss sportsperson in history"

Currently in the lead: "In his home country, he is regarded as "the greatest and most successful" Swiss sportsperson in history."

Is this opinion really appropriate in the first paragraph of the lead? Divergence5 (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2023

Should be changed from "is" a professional tennis player to "was" :(. Much sadness but the inspiration of my lifetime sadly retired last year... Pzonage (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: "Was" is only used when the subject is deceased. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 00:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)