Talk:Novak Djokovic/Archive 10

Recent edits
Please discuss the matter here instead of edit-warring. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  03:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I also oppose the edit-warring, and I'm unconvinced by the rationales provided in the edit summaries. In particular, I think the lead content on his missed 2022 tournaments is about as brief as it could get without violating WP:DUE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to elaborate here. Please consider carefully. I will go line by line.
 * (1) "Djokovic has completed a non-calendar year Grand Slam in singles by being the reigning champion of all four majors at once across three different surfaces."
 * and...
 * (2) "He is also the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam in singles by winning each of the four majors at least three times"
 * These sentence, as constructed, are poorly written (by being and by winning). More egregiously, they explain what a "non-calendar year Grand Slam" (a made-up term) and a "triple Career Grand Slam" (another made-up term) mean in the first paragraph of the lead for a male tennis player.
 * Because the lead is too long, the first made-up term should be dropped from the lead and second made-up term (acceptable because Career Grand Slam is mentioned elsewhere) should be combined with the sentence that follows.
 * This is the corrected version: "Djokovic is the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam in singles, and the only player to complete the career Golden Masters in singles by winning all nine ATP Masters tournaments, a feat he achieved twice."
 * (3) "By 2010, Djokovic had begun to separate himself from the rest of the field and, as a result, the trio of Federer, Nadal and him was referred to as the 'Big Three' among fans and commentators."
 * This sentences fails by Wikipedia's standards (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Seriously, how would you react if you read "Djokovic had begun to separate himself from the rest of the field" in an encyclopedia? You wouldn't know because you will never read such poorly written prose in an encyclopedia...
 * The "Big Three" is another made-up term whose inclusion in the lead is dubious. If it must be mentioned, the first half of the this sentence needs to be rewritten.
 * (4) "He remained the most successful player in men's tennis for the rest of the decade."
 * This sentences fails by Wikipedia's standards (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Completely inappropriate.
 * An objective version of this sentence (communicating the same idea) would be: During the 2010s, Djokovic won more Big Titles in singles than any other male player.
 * (5) "In 2015, Djokovic had his most successful season"
 * This sentences fails by Wikipedia's standards (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view).
 * (6) "His dominant run"
 * This sentences fails by Wikipedia's standards (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view).
 * (7) "Djokovic has continued to be a dominant force on the tour since then"
 * This sentences fails by Wikipedia's standards (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Perhaps the most egregious violation of the principle.
 * I have other issues with the lead as constructed, but the above are in need of the most immediate attention. Please consider carefully. Divergence5 (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * One quick note. I have no idea what you mean by "non-calendar year Grand Slam" "triple Career Grand Slam" being made up terms. They are used by tennis authorities, especially non-calendar year Grand Slam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And you want to define these colloquial (read: unofficial) terms in the first paragraph of the lead for a male tennis player? Divergence5 (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They are as official as winning a Grand Slam. I don't think you'll find that in most tennis manuals either. And they are huge deals. Non-Calendar Grand Slam is pretty rare .... it was a "Navratilova Slam" or "Serena Slam." Is it as good as Laver winning two Grand Slams... not even close. But since the ATP came into being over 50 years ago, no other male has done it, so it's pretty darned great. So yeah... that has to be high up in the lead. And while the "triple Career Grand Slam" could easily be lower, generally they are talked about at the same time in a paragraph as other Grand Slam records. Winning each major at least 3x is also pretty special. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not following. Mentioning and defining are not the same thing. Defining, in this context, is dubious. Divergence5 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. No we do not need to define these terms in the lead. The definition should be left to the main body. Those items could be linked to the proper article. Also I count 19 refs in the lead. Ideally there should be ZERO per MOS. The lead is a summary of the most important writings in the main body. Things should be sourced in the main body, not in the lead if at all possible. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think moving definitions and citations to the body (or deleting if they're already there) would be an improvement. None of the citations match with the exceptions at MOS:LEADCITE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion, please see the edits to the lead. Divergence5 (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the non-calendar Grand Slam, the triple career Grand Slam or the Big Three is a made-up term. I don't see an issue with mentioning the "Big Three" in the lead. There is also no issue with defining the achievement without going into much details. They're like half a sentence each, so why would anyone remove it when it's short and helpful for readers? "X achieved a Career Grand Slam by winning all major titles in his/her career", there is nothing wrong with a sentence like that. It's clear, short, well-explained and concise. And how is Djokovic's 2015 season not his most successful one? it's an objective fact. Him being the most successful player in the 2010s is not subjective either. During the decade he won the most slams, masters, atp finals, titles, big titles, and had the most weeks at #1, most ranking points and most prize money, isn't that what it means to be the most successful player? His run of winning 3 slams, 6 masters and the atp finals was dominant, I'm not sure how else you can describe it and you can find many sources describe that way. None of your edits were constructive to be honest so please refrain yourself from further editing until there is a consensus at least. For now, we disagree with your edits and reasonings. Dropshotwinner (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * First, please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.
 * Now after, you'll understand:
 * SUBJECTIVE: "He remained the most successful player in men's tennis for the rest of the decade."
 * OBJECTIVE: "During the 2010s, Djokovic won more Big Titles in singles than any other male player."
 * Etc., etc., etc, etc. Just read my comments above.
 * So many other issues this lead it is embarrassing. Terribly, terribly written. What is with tennis fans who edit on this website? Obviously Novak is unmatched. You can state that objectively by simply listing his achievements . Divergence5 (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also somewhat amusing that you used the pronoun "we" after both Fyunck and Firefangledfeathers agreed. Divergence5 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't change anything until there is a consensus. The discussion is still going on and I disagree with your reasoning. An editor or two thought we could leave the feats without defining them, but we are still discussing. Dropshotwinner (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay boss, whatever you say. Time for another line by line reading.
 * (1) "Overall, he has won 94 singles titles, including a record 67 Big Titles, which comprises his 23 majors, a record 38 Masters titles and a joint-record six year-end championships."
 * Do you think it's a good idea to have a sentence using both "including" and "which comprises"? It isn't. Also, see if you can find the faulty parallelism in the above the sentence!
 * Corrected version: Overall, he has won 94 singles titles, including a record 67 Big Titles (23 major titles, a record 38 Masters titles and a joint-record six year-end championships).
 * (2) and (3) "Djokovic has completed a non-calendar year Grand Slam in singles, becoming the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors at once across three different surfaces . He is also the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam in singles by winning each of the four majors at least three times "
 * The problem with (2) and (3) is that you are explaining something in the first paragraph of the lead for a male tennis player that should not be explained in the first paragraph of the lead for a male tennis player (that's what links and body paragraphs are for!).
 * Corrected version: Djokovic is the only male player in singles to have completed a non-calendar year Grand Slam and a triple Career Grand Slam. He is also the only player to have completed the career Golden Masters in singles by winning all nine ATP Masters tournaments, a feat he achieved twice.
 * Sorry for being short, it's a bit tedious explaining prose to Wikipedia editors. I'll fix the rest of the glaring issues (wildly subjective language) with the lead after this is resolved. Divergence5 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also forget to mention the cute personal possessive pronoun in that first sentence -
 * "Overall, he has won 94 singles titles, including a record 67 Big Titles, which comprises his 23 majors, a record 38 Masters titles and a joint-record six year-end championships."
 * So many issues with that sentence, it's hard to keep track of them all! Divergence5 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Late to the party, sorry. I think we should mention all his major achievements in a short way, like Divergence5 is proposing. However, i disagree with Divergence5 when he removes the tournaments where Djokovic could not play because he did not accept to receive COVID vaccine shots, those are relevant to the lead imho. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  21:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree they need to be mentioned. I'll working correcting (read: improving) that information after we move on from this first paragraph. Honestly, I am a bit puzzled by the resistance from some of the editors on this page. I understand people can be protective of things they've worked on, but this lead really has issues that merit addressing. Divergence5 (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (1) I might be fine with your parentheses suggestion actually.
 * (2) I don't think it should be changed at all. It's one of his most unique feats and it's sourced.
 * (3) As I said before, why should defining those feats with a couple simple words be an issue, there isn't really much details and it's helpful to readers. It's half a sentence each (<#1>  by winning each of the four majors at least three times , <#2>  by winning all nine ATP Masters tournaments ). It's better to have them than not in my opinion. Dropshotwinner (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "(1) I might be fine with your parentheses suggestion actually."
 * Aw, thank you! So open-minded of you.
 * Re (2) and (3): As I said before, the problem with (2) and (3) is that you are explaining what a "non-calendar year Grand Slam" and a "triple Career Grand Slam" are in the first paragraph of the lead for a male tennis player. Think about it. It doesn't make any sense. As I said before, that's what links and body paragraphs are for.
 * Don't waste words in the most visible paragraph of the entire article. Divergence5 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by don't waste words? There is no limit and neither the lead nor those two half sentences are long anyways. The links provide more context and info about the feats and their achievers. I like it the way it is to be honest but let's see if others also think removing those two half sentences is actually an improvement. Give it some time. Dropshotwinner (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Independent of dropping this misplaced information, these sentences are very poorly written. No offense to whoever wrote them -
 * "Djokovic has completed a non-calendar year Grand Slam in singles, becoming the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors at once across three different surfaces."
 * "He is also the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam in singles by winning each of the four majors at least three times, and the only player to complete the career Golden Masters in singles by winning all nine ATP Masters tournaments, a feat he achieved twice." Divergence5 (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You suggested "which comprises" to be removed and it was removed, "along the way" was also removed. I guess it's safe to say that working on improving the wordings is much more appreciated than wholesale removal of everything. So, any ideas? What should be written there instead of "by winning" in your opinion? Dropshotwinner (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Djokovic has completed a non-calendar year Grand Slam in singles, becoming the only man in tennis history to be the reigning champion of all four majors at once across three different surfaces. He is also the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam in singles by winning each of the four majors at least three times, and the only player to complete the career Golden Masters in singles by winning all nine ATP Masters tournaments, a feat he achieved twice."
 * Three details here:
 * (1) only male player to complete a non-calendar year Grand Slam in singles
 * (2) only male player to complete a triple Career Grand Slam in singles
 * (3) only player to complete the Career Golden Masters
 * Could be combined as -
 * "Djokovic is the only male player to complete a non-calendar year Grand Slam and a triple Career Grand Slam in singles, and he is the only player to complete the career Golden Masters, a feat he has achieved twice."
 * I don't like repeating "to complete" here twice, but I don't have a better construction at the moment. I think this reads much better than the sentences pasted at the beginning. Divergence5 (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Four details actually
 * 1) Completed a non-calendar year Grand Slam. (not unique to him only)
 * 2) The only reigning champion at once across three surfaces. (unique)
 * 3) The only to complete a triple Career Grand Slam in singles. (unique)
 * 4) The only to complete the Career Golden Masters in singles. (unique)
 * 1 & 2 are significant for different reasons, and they go hand in hand in my opinion. They should be left as they are in one sentence.
 * 3 & 4 are the same concept of winning each title in a series of tournaments but at different levels, one at Grand Slams and one at Masters so it makes sense to have them in one sentence. If a consensus is reached to remove the defining half sentences, it can be written as follows
 * He is also the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam in singles, and the only one to complete the career Golden Masters in singles, a feat he achieved twice.
 * I was hoping you provide an alternative to (by winning) since you think of it as a bad choice of words but it seems you find it easier to remove than to improve. :(( Dropshotwinner (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) The only reigning champion at once across three surfaces. (unique)
 * this is much, much, much less important than the other three records and doesn't belong in the first paragraph of the lead. Divergence5 (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, i disagree, this is an astonishing achievement, hence Novak Djokovic is the only player in history to have done that (players like Rod Laver won the four grand slam straight, but on two surfaces only, grass and clay). ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  16:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * no, the astonishing achievement is that Novak completed a non-calendar year Grand Slam. It is implied that in the modern era, this achievement covers three surfaces. Divergence5 (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have to imply anything, this has to be said explicitly for our readers.  ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  20:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with that view. If the non-calendar is special, then him being the only one to win them all at once across three surfaces is extra special. It's still a peerless achievement in tennis and one of his biggest ones. It doesn't need to be implied and I think it’s where it should be. First paragraph is for his biggest feats. The second is a very short career summary. The third is for what he accomplished representing Serbia and the fourth for his most notable off-court activities. Dropshotwinner (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first paragraph of the lead. Will working on the remaining paragraphs when I have time. Go read the Federer lead. The Djokovic lead is atrocious by comparison. Divergence5 (talk) 00:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

First, I like that it is being discussed here before making continued changes on the main article. While I do think that 3 surfaces is very important the sentence is quite clunky. Maybe more like "Djokovic stands alone in completing a three-surface, non-calendar year Grand Slam in men's singles." Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * so, so, so clunky. Shrug. Divergence5 (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My compromise attempt is clunky? If so I'd like to see your sentence that includes three-surfaces, because it is important. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do find the alternative a bit clunkier than the original, but I made an attempt without changing much. I think it should be fine now. Dropshotwinner (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * change
 * "He is also the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam in singles by winning each of the four majors at least three times, and the only one to complete the career Golden Masters in singles by winning all nine ATP Masters tournaments, a feat he achieved twice."
 * to
 * "He is also the only man to achieve a triple Career Grand Slam in singles, and the only player to complete the career Golden Masters in singles, a feat he achieved twice."
 * and I'll move on to the rest of the issues with the lead. Divergence5 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Believe me, as an ardent tennis fan, I'd love to have the one you suggested but you as an editor should take all readers into consideration. I am sure most of readers who are non-tennis fans or even casual fans have no idea what these terms mean and to keep them hopping from link to link seems to be unnecessary. The links provide more context and info about the achievements, and they are there for everyone who is interested in the history of the achievements themselves but for those who open this article because they're only interested in the player, they should be able to understand what he managed to achieve clearly just by reading his article. Two half sentences which explain his unique feats certainly don't feel too much for the lead. That's how I see it and I am sure the majority would agree should you create a request for comment. Dropshotwinner (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Those items can be in the article in a bit more detail... in the main body. The main body in this encyclopedia in a short summary of his career. But the lead section is a very short summary of the main body. I don't think is serves the article by placing the full description in the lead section at all. Just like at wikipedia we do whatever we can to keep refs out of the lead. They should be in the main body only if possible. That way the lead stays uncluttered because the details are down below. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And per our own guidelines at MOS:PRONPLACEMENT the pronunciation we have right now in the lead of Djokovic has a big X through it as what NOT to do. It is best if put in a footnote so as not to clutter the lead. Franklin D Roosevelt is used as the example in MOS of what should be done. I can't see why this is a problem. If there is one little pronunciation in English guide, that's one thing, but once we get multiple items it clogs up the reading of the lead. No other encyclopedia does this, and our own guideline shows us the best way to handle it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All of you guys need to stop fixing what’s not broken. Just leave everything as it is and don’t remove his native name. [Redacted by Iggy the Swan] 00:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Title wins
He has won 23 as of June 11th 2023 2A00:23C7:730D:5201:45B:BAAF:F62A:39CE (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Another world record that must be mentioned for two reasons. The greatest record against a single player in history 20 and 0 against Gaël Monfils. This is most interesting in the Gaël has wins over all top players and currently has a dominating winning record against #1 and master winner Daniel Medvdev who plays a similar strategy to Djokovic.

In Federer wiki you mention that Fed is number 2 or 3 behind connors … If you are taking about being behind others then Djokovic is number three on tournaments won and counting, and just one Wimbldon away from Fed and counting and equal to Sampras and counting

another record that must be stated is all time winnings. And don’t start by saying Fedal are two and three.

Try to be unbiased, for you it’s very hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.25.114 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Djokovic has finished year end number one a record Eight times as of sep 11/23 as he is so far ahead nobody can catch him in 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.210.217 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 US Open
The link to Novak's win at the 2023 US Open in the Performance Timeline table links to the 2018 win. Please, someone fix it. 2804:1020:6C11:B300:8F0:E172:2A20:9E83 (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Designatoon
many sports page on Wikipedia about all time greats include somewhere in their page that they are some of the greatest of all time. Usually near the top. Should that be done here? 74.207.92.86 (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In discussion we usually shy away from the water-cooler stuff in the lead section and leave it to a legacy section... which was done here (you might have missed it?). If we do anything in the lead it would be like Encyclopedia Britannica does and use "one of the greatest men’s players in the history of the game." The trouble arises when editors want to refine just how great in respect to their peers, forgetting tennis' long history where we've had many astonishing players over 150 years. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023
singlesrecord = “change 1076 to 1077”–211 2A0E:41B:AFAD:0:55DD:BA8F:B1A1:EF53 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gap9551 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Under 15k of words
All right, guys. We need to start conjuring up plans to make this page go to under 15k of words, so that we can get rid of that ugly template that says "too long".

I think that our best course of action would be to split the content into sub-articles. Perhaps we should follow the footsteps of our dear rival Roger Federer, who has the likes of Roger Federer junior years.

Another topic that I believe would give a great sub-article is "coaching and personal teams". I mean, that section literally has TWELVE paragraphs, and it still has the potential to be further elaborated.

So, if you are in favor of creating Novak Djokovic junior years and Novak Djokovic coaches and personal team, please raise your hand and help this project by providing insight and guidence.

If you are not in favor, then please provide alternative solutions to this problem.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be amazing if we could even get it to Federer article size, which would chop it from 124k to 83k. A coaches and personal team article is way too specific for an article, but a jr years is possible. Coaching should be chopped to a paragraph or two at most. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you intend to turn those 12 paragraphs into only two? If we were talking about Nadal then I would understand since he only had two coaches in his entire life, but Djokovic had 5 senior coaches, plus two notable co-coaches (Becker and Stepanek), plus two coaches in his childhood who were highly influencial in his game (Gencic and Pilic), not to mention all of his fitness coaches, physiotherapists, agents, and that nutritionist who discovered his gluten intolerance, all of whom shaped Djokovic and were as crucial to his success as Djokovic himself, and therefore should be mentioned. So yeah, good luck trying to condense all of that into just two paragraphs.
 * Furthermore, they all helped Djokovic develop certain aspects of his game, something that is not even mentioned in here, but it could be analyzed in this new page.
 * By the way, you might wanna check out Federer because he is no longer 83k prose... Our goal here is to make Djokovic page go under 100k prose and under 15k on words. Barr Theo (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's back the way it was! What the heck? You see there are issues with length yet you add more? Stop please. This is an encyclopedia, not a book on their lives. I would have no trouble making Djok's coaches a paragraph or two long. I would start by deleting any fitness coach, physiotherapists, agents, and nutritionists. They may have added to his success but that's a story for a book, not an encyclopedia. His actual coaches should be mentioned for sure.... but mentioned is not the same as whole paragraphs on them. Our goal here should be closer the 50k in prose but that may be tough with so many editors adding things. Federer's article is too long also but if we could get the big three to 75k each it might be good enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, you might wanna check out Federer because he is no longer 83k prose... Our goal here is to make Djokovic page go under 100k prose and under 15k on words. Barr Theo (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's back the way it was! What the heck? You see there are issues with length yet you add more? Stop please. This is an encyclopedia, not a book on their lives. I would have no trouble making Djok's coaches a paragraph or two long. I would start by deleting any fitness coach, physiotherapists, agents, and nutritionists. They may have added to his success but that's a story for a book, not an encyclopedia. His actual coaches should be mentioned for sure.... but mentioned is not the same as whole paragraphs on them. Our goal here should be closer the 50k in prose but that may be tough with so many editors adding things. Federer's article is too long also but if we could get the big three to 75k each it might be good enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Add "considered by many to be greatest male player of all time" to lead
Even the staid, stolid, New York Times says so: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/08/sports/tennis/2023-tennis-season-djokovic.html "He is considered by many in the game as the greatest player ever." 2607:F140:400:141:91D6:37CF:AA3C:313B (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC

More: NYTimes: https://theathletic.com/5177051/2024/01/10/australia-novak-djokovic-open/ 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/67863463 2607:F140:400:141:4D5A:1B68:C3E:EFFE (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

ESPN: https://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/39294746/australian-open-2024-ranking-top-players-novak-djokovic-iga-swiatek-carlos-alcaraz-naomi-osaka
 * Then we wind up having to add the water cooler stuff to all the others like Federer, Nadal, laver, Tilden. The NYTimes is there to sell papers and sensationalism is a forte. We have it in the prose already. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We collect what others report. NY Times is a reliable source, so is the BBC. 2607:F140:400:141:4D5A:1B68:C3E:EFFE (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an extremely subjective subject, especially when looking at the entire 140+ years of tennis. The last thing we need is to report the subjective water cooler stuff in the lead when we already discuss it in the main body legacy section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * NYTimes, BBC, ESPN etc are not water-cooler material. They are reliable sources, what we rely on to build an encyclopedia. "Being considered by many as the GOAT" is already present in the text, which means we already have settled the subjectivity part. Whether he is the GOAT is subjective; whether many consider him so isn't.  2607:F140:400:141:559C:D8F7:8AC2:7D22 (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the lead is not where the subjective stuff goes. This is an encyclopedia for goodness sake. They usually don't put water-cooler stuff in at all but somehow this has found a place in the legacy section. We have legitimate sources for Serena Williams shoe size but don't include it in the article, and certainly not the lead. The topic is water-cooler stuff. Fun but no more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not the Wikipedia consensus. Check Tom Brady, Pele, Muhammad Ali, Michael Jordan, . . . 2607:F140:400:141:FC18:53C9:1D3B:E198 (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Knock it off with this "goat" nonsense. That subject is nothing but pure fantasy.  It doesn't exist because it cannot be proven.  Ever.  Just because talking heads in the media and certain toxic fanbases (ahem) keep pushing this discussion on others doesn't mean the subject has any basis in reality.  It's simple-minded conjecture used to bait a response and it used to be limited to bars and the inebriated.  Requesting this be put in the lead is something only a Djokovic fan would do.  Make no mistake about it, his fans have been on the warpath for many years.  They're desperate for attention and are determined to shove their opinion down the throats of others.  And in this day and age, the NY Times and ESPN ARE water-cooler material.  Long gone are their days of substance. 2600:8800:4197:7600:1815:F916:53D9:E5FF (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Some doubts about Novak Djokovic's biography
Is Novak Djokovic truly of paternal Serbian descent? According to some sources, his paternal family comes from Jasenovo Polje, a village near Nikšić, Montenegro. Here are some links:

Vijesti: https://en.vijesti.me/fun/interesting/590945/Djokovic%2C-I-am-proud-of-my-family-roots-from-the-ash-field#:~:text=The%20best%20tennis%20player%20in%20the%20world%2C%20Novak%20Djokovic%2C%20said,of%20his%20vacation%20in%20Montenegro.

CDM: https://www.cdm.me/english/decided-liberation-of-niksic-award-to-novak-djokovic/

Yardbaker: https://www.yardbarker.com/tennis/articles/photo_first_novak_djokovic_novaks_great_grandfather_goes_viral_due_to_resemblance/s1_17131_39143254

I think we need to deepen this aspect. 80.94.121.124 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes he is, please check archive discussions 8 and 9, check what WP:RS and discussed sources on WP:RSN are neither of those you posted belong to that category, also this was extensively discussed for several years as per WP:CONCENSUS.Theonewithreason (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You could have replied to me earlier, instead of deleting my topic over and over 80.94.121.124 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I can Novak Djokovic?
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests on 13 March 2024

 * 1) In the lead, please change "the trio of Federer, Nadal and him" to "the trio of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic". "And him" is not encyclopaedic language.
 * 2) In the Opposition to COVID-19 vaccine section, please change "and the main favourite to win" to "and the favourite to win". There can only be one favourite. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:113B:8474:8FDA:E331 (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

"central back" ?
In the Sponsorships subsection, we have " During the 2021 US Open, some people in Djokovic's player box wore hats and shirts bearing the logo of Raiffeisen Bank International, the central back of one of the two largest banking cooperatives in Austria." Central back? This makes no sense. It can’t be a mis-type of central bank, either. Boscaswell  talk  22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)