Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Hsu Chi San

Last night I created a page for the Taiwanese golfer Hsu Chi-san. I am not sure if a standardized spelling or name order for Mr. Hsu has been established across the internet and even Wikipedia. If you have seen relevant articles about the man with a different spelling or name order please let me know.

Sincerely, Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

@Oogglywoogly: As you've done it seems fine, per WP:NCBIO. When creating biographies, please also try to remember to add {{Infobox golfer}}, categories, and write a brief summary for the lead section. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you the advice. I wanted to create "Categories" but didn't really know how to do it. Another wiki member has helped me however recently. I also do not know how to create an Infobox (or "Template"). With a lead section, most bios I have seen usually just say "John Smith is a [Nationality] golfer." So I've just followed that model. However, I will definitely make sure to have a full-length (or close to full-length) paragraph up top now.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
For the infobox, it's simply a case of copying the blank template from the infobox documentation (follow the link above) and completing the details. See Help:Infobox for more. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins

See: Talk:List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins#Proposed major revision. Nigej (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tournament Players Series

The Tournament Players Series was a series of second-tier events that didn't count towards the PGA Tour money list. It was created in 1983 when the tour switched to the all-exempt format, to provide non-exempt players with more playing opportunities. It ran for 3 seasons. [1] The following events are indicated on Wikipedia articles to have been part of it:

Other sources I've found:

pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 07:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I compiled the seasons a while ago: User:Wjemather/TPS Tour. Shouldn't be too difficult to source everything. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Status of PGA Tour of Australasia state opens

I have noticed that victories at a lot of the state opens (Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland) have been integrated into the players PGA Tour of Australasia win tables. I think we are a bit premature doing this. I feel like they weren't consistently part of the tour calendar. Do we have evidence that they were part of the tour and for what years?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I would imagine that if you are able to find results of them via old newspapers e.g. Canberra Times, then it was more than likely part of the schedule. Obviously there is no hard evidence to suggest this, but I feel like if the wins were to be removed from a players wins table, then there should be hard evidence to suggest that that event was not part of the schedule for that year. Jimmymci234 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 15:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree at all. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the other way around. If you are making a claim you must have hard evidence for it, especially for an encyclopedia.
wjemather is busily at work creating a PGA Tour of Australia calendar for its early years. A big reason he hasn't published it yet it is because, I believe, there isn't good evidence to distinguish what were Order of Merit events and what were not. Not all well publicized events were part of the tour, at least not consistently. wjemather, I would like to hear from you on this matter.
02:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
It would be better to find those references than. Many articles will have been initially referenced from official profiles on earlier versions of the tour website (or from media guides, etc.) but without citing those sources – unfortunately not unusual – or they have been removed as dead links (it's worth checking old revisions, and seeing if those profile pages exist on archiving services). wjematherplease leave a message... 08:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Changing headings

I have some questions about headings...

1) We use a "Winners" heading for the golf tournaments table. However would an "Events" heading be more appropriate? The table includes a lot more than just who won.

2) Do we need an entire section entitled "Amateur career" for golfers? I feel like it is too short to constitute an entire section.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

For many articles it is just a list of winners, but there probably is a better heading we could use (something like "results", maybe).
Yes, there should absolutely be a section dedicated to players amateur career even if there is only sufficient content for a couple of sentences – sections are allowed to be short. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Magnolia State Classic

Do we know the status of the Magnolia State Classic between 1968 and 1993? I started integrating it into the PGA Tour calendars and labeling it a "Satellite event." However I heard from pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi that there is no evidence it was affiliated with the PGA Tour. Does anyone have any information to help determine its status?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

We likely don't know the status without researching it for each year – and that status may well have been retrospectively changed. The difficulty is that the PGAoA used to count all kinds of tournaments; and some counted for wins only, but not for the money-list, or for Ryder Cup qualification. Then in the mid-1980s, the PGA Tour reassessed everything, and counted tournaments that were not counted by the PGAoA and discounted others that were.
As above, we do know it was a Tournament Players Series (satellite tour) event from 1983 to 1985, and we also know status for a few other years where it has been cited. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

OWGR restart

It has been announced that the OWGR will restart from "June 14, 2020 (week 24)", having been frozen since "March 15, 2020 (week 11)". However it is still unclear from the announcement whether, for tapering purposes, week 11 will be regarded as 1 week before week 24 (resulting in a gradual change) or 13 weeks before (resulting in a bigger change). Nigej (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Found this official tweet (in reply to "Do the weeks between stoppage and resumption count toward Rory’s “weeks at number 1” tally?" https://twitter.com/brianphillipsu1/status/1268201809518252032) "No, they will not. It will be as if the last 12 weeks never happened. The ranking period will stretch over 116 actual weeks, making it 104 weeks of play (as normal) plus the 12 weeks during which there was no play." This seems to imply that week 11 will be 1 week before week 24. The last week when results in an event count, which is normally 104 weeks ago, will actually be 116 weeks ago (if that makes sense). Nigej (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
However, for the European team selection for the 2020 Ryder Cup "Any points gained from PGA Tour or Korn Ferry Tour events this month and next—up until the restart of our season—will not officially count on the Ryder Cup World Points List" Nigej (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 Australian PGA Championship

I just recently noticed that the 2020 Australian PGA Championship has been scheduled for 3-6 Dec at a change of venue with prize fund TBA. Obviously there is no announcement from the European Tour about this, so would it be safe to suggest that this event will not be sanctioned by the ET this year, especially that that date is now still part of the 2020 season. Thoughts? Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • It is the same dates as the Nedbank which is a Rolex series event so would be very unusual for the European Tour to co-sanction another event at the same time as hosting one of its Rolex Series events. However the website for the tournament itself still states "The tournament is co-sanctioned by the ISPS HANDA PGA Tour of Australasia and European Tour" (see https://championship.pga.org.au/) Tracland (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

2021 Masters Tournament

With the PGA Tour restarting and new winners getting invites into the 2021 Masters instead of the 2020 Masters, should we start a new page or wait until the 2020 tournament is over? Either way is fine with me, just thought I'd ask before creating the page. (Brandonlw97 (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

I'm ok with this being created if there is information that needs to be included on this page.Tracland (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Given the official Masters website has doesn't even have any information, I'd probably say WP:TOOSOON. In any case, whenever it does get created, can whoever does it please ensure the invitation categories are correct? – it seems we may have been lax in that regard recently! wjematherplease leave a message... 09:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Most categories for the Masters stay the same, aside from the Olympics gold medalist, but that's only every four years. Its the other three majors that need to be updated regularly. (Brandonlw97 (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC))
True, but we just need to verify we are replicating the current criteria accurately. Recently, aside from the addition of the Olympics, the ordering of the other majors categories seems to have changed (I assume we have them correct previously) from PGA-USO-Open to USO-Open-PGA, plus a few other minor details. With regards to the 2021 tournament, it would not be unreasonable to expect some tweaks to compensate for less qualifying tournaments and no Open. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally I'd prefer to leave it until after the 2020 event or at least until there is some concrete indication about what the 2021 qualifying criteria will be (although it's no big deal for me). Its not really our job to prejudge the qualifying criteria and it may be that the majors take the opportunity of the current hiatus to rejig their criteria. After all there have be plenty of changes over the years, although its true that the Masters criteria have remained largely unchanged for quite a few years. Nigej (talk) 09:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Safari Circuit

Finally got round to creating this article. Can someone please look over it? Would be great if some of the gaps could be filled! Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll have a look through but I suspect that there'll be little I can add. I think we'll have to accept the limit to our knowledge. Perhaps in time more information will come to light. What you've produced it certainly much much better than the random vague statements we had before. Nigej (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Rose Ladies Series

Do you think we should have a page to cover the Rose Ladies Series events that a taking place at the moment during the period of postponement of the Ladies European Tour. In themselves they are no particularly high profile events without ranking points and with only a modest prize fund. However, there has been significant media attention attracted to the series (see below) and I think the series is notable enough to warrant a page as it is an unusual one off replacement for normal tour events. Would appreciate thoughts on this. [1][2][3][4][5]

References

  1. ^ BBC Sport - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/53100309
  2. ^ Sky Sports https://www.skysports.com/golf/news/12176/12009972/charley-hull-wins-first-event-of-justin-rose-ladies-series-in-hampshire
  3. ^ Golf Channel https://www.golfchannel.com/news/charley-hull-takes-down-liz-young-win-inaugural-rose-ladies-series-event
  4. ^ Daily Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/womens-sport/2020/06/18/charley-hull-victorious-inaugural-rose-ladies-series-event-womens/
  5. ^ Ladies European Tour https://ladieseuropeantour.com/play-off-win-for-charley-hull-in-first-rose-ladies-series-event/

Tracland (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it passes the significant coverage threshold. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I've made a first stab at the page. Please do contribute to improve my initial work. Thanks Tracland (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about 1993 Air New Zealand Shell Open

I recently created a page for Australian golfer George Serhan. While creating the page I came across his performance in the 1993 Air New Zealand Shell Open.

It states here that Serhan and Peter Fowler were three strokes back after three rounds. Richard Green (golfer) and David McKenzie were in the lead. (It doesn't specifically state this was the Air New Zealand Shell Open but it is obvious from the date, course, etc. that the Canberra Times is referring to this event.)

The following day it is noted that Terry Price (golfer) won the event. They mentioned that Brad Faxon, Michael Campbell, and Wayne Riley finished one back. The article does not mention Green, McKenzie, Serhan, or Fowler.

The OWGR page largely adheres to the Canberra Times text (i.e. it says that Price won with Faxon, Riley, Campbell in second).

According to the OWGR page, by the end of the tournament, Fowler tied for 5th, Green tied for 15th, Serhan tied for 33rd, and McKenzie is not even mentioned.

Basically, some things don't match. I feel like Monday's Canberra Times article would have at least mentioned Green and McKenzie collapsing in the final round. Instead, nothing. Meanwhile, the OWGR page doesn't even mention McKenzie's placing. I know the OWGR page isn't perfect and McKenzie may have withdrawn, but it doesn't totally add up. Any thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

There are many players who have been anonymised by OWGR. Looks to me like McKenzie could be one of them (T5 - "BBBBB BBBBBB") 51.6.163.164 (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I guess that is probably the case. I guess now it makes more sense - still a little surprising that the article didn't even mention the overnight leaders playing so poorly.
Also, good to see you back 51.6.163.164! (assuming you are same person as the similar 51 IP address who was active before). I thought you might have been stricken with COVID-19.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

A question of nomenclature: PGA of Australia v. PGA of Australasia

I have noticed that pre-1991 information pertaining to Australian golf is usually referred to as PGA of Australasian rather than PGA of Australia. But the names didn't change until 1991. Just seems like common sense to use PGA of Australia when referring to pre-1991 information. (And yes I think it's ok to defer to "PGA of Australasia" when referring to timespans that straddle to 1991 demarcation line.) What is the consensus?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I would say the concensus is that because it is a ‘tier 1’ tour it’s name stays the same under the professional wins section at least anyway. The same can be applied to the Japan Golf Tour. It was known as the ‘PGA of Japan Tour’ before 1999, but we use ‘Japan Golf Tour’ wins as the header in the Professional wins section. Basically, for consistency use the header ‘PGA Tour of Australasia wins’ even for golfers who have not won on the tour after 1991. Jimmymci234 (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Fiji Open

I was looking to make a page about the Fiji Open. However, I need more information.

It states on the wiki page of Simon Owen that he won the 1972 event.

I have a reliable third-party source that says that Frank Phillips (golfer) won the 1975 event.

I have a primary source that states that George Serhan won the 1977 event.

It states on the wiki page of Greg Turner that he won the 1985 event.

Any more information would be helpful.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I have created a sandbox page for the Fiji Open page. Anyone is free to add or edit to it.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Winners list should now be complete, although there is at least one error in the source for 1970–2008, so probably best to verify the rest if possible. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)]]
Thanks for all of your hard work wjemather! Just wondering, but what is the mistake?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Plenty of editions are covered in the Aussie press (particularly The Age & SMH), and as it was consistently held in the first week of August (bank holiday weekend I believe) it's easy to browse for them via Google News Archives. The obvious error was 1985 – it has Brett Officer instead of Greg Turner, verified as Turner via news reports. Also worth mentioning, some of the other winners may be amateurs. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Capitol Hills Open

I am looking to make a page about this event. It was a tournament on the 1964 Far East Circuit. It received a decent amount of media coverage: the Straits Times has a link and even the New York Times does too. However it appears there are no other events. Does anyone have any more information?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Asia Golf Circuit wins in infobox

I recently created a page for Taiwanese golfer Hsieh Yu-shu. He won once on the Asia Golf Circuit so in the infobox under "asiawins" I put "1." However, on the page it is displayed as "Asian Tour wins: 1." Obviously, this is inaccurate. Can we create an "Asia Golf Circuit wins" row in the infobox?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The tag 'asiawins' is for Asian Tour wins. A different tag would need to be added in the infobox to allow 'Asia Golf Circuit' wins to be displayed separately from 'Other wins', e.g. 'agcwins'. May need to see what other members think about this, especially as it is a defunct tour. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Well... confusingly, the Asia Golf Circuit was actually called the "Asian Tour" during the 1990s, long before the Asian PGA adopted the name in 2004 (a few years after the AGC ceased). So for Hseih Yu-shu it is actually technically correct, although probably misleading for everyone who doesn't know the history of the two tours (not helped by the likes of the OWGR not differentiating between the two). An alternative to a new variable would be to use the "Asian Tour" for both and clarify which tour is meant when appropriate, inserting a line break if detailing both tours – this is what I have done on some articles (Hsieh Yung-yo, Lu Hsi-chuen). wjematherplease leave a message... 14:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes true, but for example Lee Westwood, he has won once on AGC and 8 times on the Asian Tour. The method used for Hsieh Yung-yo for example, could not be applied to Lee Westwood's infobox as all his Asian wins did not come on the same tour so to speak. Also, we differentiate the two tours in the professional wins section, so I feel like a separate tag for 'Asia Golf Circuit' wins should be added to the infobox to avoid confusion between the two tours. Jimmymci234 (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Not arguing against an additional value, but a line break would do the job; i.e. "8 (Asian Tour)<br/>1 (Asia Golf Circuit)" – sure I've done this somewhere, can't think where though. I do have reservations about listing wins in the infobox for tours that players haven't been members of, but that's a different issue for another time. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding "tour" column to golf tournament pages

There are some golf tournaments that consistently change tours every few years. The Singapore Open and New Zealand Open are good examples of that. I was thinking of adding a column on their wiki page to demonstrate what tour the tournament was associated with during particular years. I think it would look more fluid than having a heading above the table.

A reason I bring this up is because I attempted to add a "tour" column to the Iskandar Johor Open in January. User: Tewapack reversed these edits. (I did not reverse his edits.) It would be nice to have some consensus.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The two tournaments you mention are a great example of why tour-sanctioning info shouldn't be done that way – any breaking-up of the tables causes parsing issues, but when there are multiple changes in tour-sanctioning, it makes the information difficult for readers to access. My view is that it is something we should definitely get away from; indeed, I have merged tables in a few cases. There's also a danger of adding too much data to the "winners table" and given tour-sanctioning is very much secondary to the tournament itself, I'm happy not to have it in that section at all – we don't for the majority of tournaments – and it should be adequately covered elsewhere (primarily in the body, and also the infobox). wjematherplease leave a message... 11:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
My 2 cents is I much prefer a single table, hence the changes I made to pages like Nedbank Golf Challenge Jopal22 (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. A small table/legend above the winner's table displaying what years and tours etc. would be suffice and would look a lot neater. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC) 16:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Although I'd prefer the legend to be underneath the table – when it's above it can overpower the material information below, especially on smaller displays and/or when there are lots of variations. There is another problem with shading; while it can also be a distraction from the material information, more importantly, per WP:TABDD & MOS:COLOR, on its own it is not accessible (there should really be corresponding text, e.g. a dedicated column). wjematherplease leave a message... 18:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer to have the "tour status" to be in a column in the table. It is more prominent there. The quality of an event can change drastically once it changes tours (e.g. when an Asian Tour event is co-sponsored by a European Tour event). Of all of the columns in the "Winners" table I think "Tour" would be the third most important behind "Winner" and "Year." It's just seems pretty important.
Also the "parsing" seems to blatantly violate the stipulation here listed on WP:TABDD which states "Don't split up sortable tables."
Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
I added a "Tour" column for the Singapore Open and New Zealand Open. Please let me know what you think.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
It would be better to agree on a standard before introducing yet more variations. Clearly having the full tour names takes up far too much room, and standardised abbreviations are required. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly having a single table is generally preferable, with as much information as is useful. However, we need to be aware not overdo it. Most users now look at Wikipedia using mobile devices - phones, tablets etc and even those using desktops/laptops don't want fields wrapping onto more than one line unnecessarily. Another aspect is that mobile users will often only see the first few columns without panning right. So these columns should contain the most important information - ie year, winner. So common sense is required. Personally my own view is that columns that are wide and/or contain much duplicate information are not a good idea. For instance, adding venues is generally a good idea. However if we add the full name, the table will often get excessively wide. This is why I like the idea used in eg Canadian Open (golf) where the results table contains a compact version of the venue name and there is separate "venues" table giving more details. A similar principle is used in Nedbank Golf Challenge to show the tour in a compact form. However this particular example is contrary to the MOS since the use of colors-only is not allowed - the "tour" table there is ok, it's just the coloring aspect that is not. Strictly speaking some sort of text or symbol is required. Nigej (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

See example at Sabah Masters, where tour sanctioning is given using abbreviations (replicating those used by OWGR where possible) with a note to explain/expand.
Excessive detail is definitely an issue which impacts accessibility/readability, so here a couple of other ideas to streamline tables:
  1. remove full "country" details from the winner and replace with simple flagicons infront of the name, since it isn't really pertinent in the vast majority of cases.
  2. merge "total score" and "to par" columns. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Is Nedbank Golf Challenge contrary to the MOS? All the information is provided without the use of colour, with colour being used as an additional method to assist a reader. I thought that was exactly in line with MOS? Jopal22 (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no corresponding text/symbol(s) in the table to cross-reference; all the dates are listed in the "legend" table, so the color coding is redundant (decorative); and I expect most readers would have a hard time differentiating being white and almost-white. With width at a premium, I also don't see the value of a "count" column. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, maybe your right. The information is provided elsewhere, albeit in a different form. Nigej (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I suppose this partly comes down to personal preference. To me the colour coding is a very simple way of identifying the status of each edition, and is in additional to the key. I compare this to say the Honda Classic and host venues. It takes me a lot longer, and is less intuitive to work out which player won at which venue. I think this is a greater point about how we show golf tournaments. I think we generally have a set up which works well for the PGA Tour but in world events the prestige of the event can vary over time (OWGR points), and the tour - it's not easy to demonstrate this. Although overall I think the tables are generally good, we could have a general discussion about tables - although generally accept what golf editors who have been on here for a lot longer than me have set as a precedent. I do not like the idea of editing tables to be less optimal generally, to cater specifically for mobile users. I added an edition column first of all to The Open Championship, as this is how the organiser describes the tournament (e.g. the 149th Open Championship), and milestones like the 150th edition are important. Jopal22 (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Saying that I am in favour of reducing the amount of space country identifiers take up, either by replacing  United States with  USA, or using the flagathlete functionality (e.g.  Kevin Kisner (USA)). I think having just a flag without additional identifiers (e.g.United States) would contravene wiki rules. Jopal22 (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Using {{flagathlete}} would not be appropriate unless players are actually representing their country, which is not the case for most tournaments – for this reason, it could also be argued that listing the country in full is undue anyway. Using {{flagdeco}} would be problematic, however I believe {{flagicon}} (which we use a lot) is ok because it includes alternate text (& link) for accessibility. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so I intend to edit the New Zealand Open and Singapore Open in accord with the "Tour" column for the Sabah Masters. I think wjemather's decision to use OWGR abbreviations is perfect. Please see Greg Norman's 1993 page which has a lot of the abbreviations: http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=512&year=1993. Please let me know what you think.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Ok, I again created columns for the appropriate tours for the Singapore Open and New Zealand Open but used abbreviations this time. Please let me know what you think. In addition I did not combine the tables as I do not really know how to do that. If someone could help me out that would be great.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Ok, I've merged the tables and corrected the errors (think I caught them all). wjematherplease leave a message... 09:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi wjemather, I added a tour column for the Indonesia Open. If you could merge the tables again that would be great.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Requested move: United States Women's Open Championship (golf) to U.S. Women's Open

Along with all individual tournaments, categories, etc. Please see discussion here: Talk:United States Women's Open Championship (golf)#Requested move 2 July 2020. Thanks wjematherplease leave a message... 09:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Should we be referencing the wins on player / competition pages?

I've noticed over the past few weeks that a number of pages which I created where I had included inline references in respect of each of the professional wins of the place have had the references removed. I want to have an open discussion here about whether we should or should not be referencing wins on the player pages. I think there are two points to consider here:

  • Including references to each win in each table either adds an additional column or additional content to what are already fairly busy tables.
  • Not including references means that a significant amount of the content on each page (the winners / professional wins section often being the biggest section of any page) is unsourced and does not have inline citations which would appear to be out of line with general recommendations that all information of Wikipedia should be verifiable and sourced.

This is not by any means a moan at my sources being removed (I'm happy to go with the consensus) but just a desire to ensure that we are doing the right thing in the way we present articles. In particular noting comments elsewhere in this talk page where users have found it hard to find information on historical tournaments and discrepancies between Wikipedia articles and sources where results have been unsourced on the relevant article.Tracland (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You are correct – everything contained within an article should be referenced; inline citations are usually preferable, but external links are also acceptable (e.g. tour/owgr profile pages). It is also not strictly necessary to duplicate references held elsewhere (e.g. from a tournament article) but it's not best practice. There would need to be a good reason to remove any citations (e.g. unreliable sources, citation already included in the prose (perhaps), etc.) otherwise it would be deemed disruptive/vandalism. Do you have any specific examples? wjematherplease leave a message... 16:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If Player X's win at the Greater Winnemucca Open is referenced in the article, the player's win box doesn't need one....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Recent examples:
I think the latter may already have had all the references in the text (thanks User:WilliamJE for the pointer on this) but I don't think the references were anywhere else on the former example.Tracland (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If the citations/links in the tournament article don't cover the complete details (brief reports often don't) contained in the player bio, additional citations would be required for them (either in the bio or the tournament article).
For both, I can't see that the full details of the minor tour wins are covered elsewhere (only partially covered by the prose citations in Palmer's case), so those citations should not have been removed.
It's also worth noting that we don't tend to give expanded details for minor tour wins. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - appreciate the guidance Tracland (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 Open

Looks like the 2020 Open has been cancelled. Should we keep the article page? I know we didn't for the 2020 WGC Match Play, and am debating with myself what would be best for this (as it is much more notable than the WGC). Jopal22 (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we certainly should keep it for now. For instance, we don't know how qualification will work for the 2021 event - will 2020 qualifiers be given some preferential treatment? Anyway, it might be interesting as a historical record of those who did qualify. Nigej (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Moving to 2021 Open Championship probably makes sense, as that will now be the 149th Open Championship. This would leave a redirect and the 2021 article will also be the best place to note any special conditions that may be devised, and also things that persist/change from the original plan for this year (e.g. will anything be done for amateurs who would have played but turn pro in the interim). wjematherplease leave a message... 15:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, probably makes sense. We can retain the section on the qualification for the 2020 event for now until we see how things pan out. I think it's probably too early to simply delete it. Nigej (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I suppose the question is whether they qualified for the 2020 Open Championship or did they qualify for the 149th Open Championship (which will now be in 2021). Nigej (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The PGA Tour (US) memo states the players in as of 6 April 2020 are still qualified for "The 149th Open Championship". The logo for the event and the flags the players photographed say "149th Open Royal St. George's." No date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:EE4A:BD00:354D:4081:6672:20B4 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yep, can leave most of the content as-is and rewrite/reword as appropriate – maybe put in a "2020 Open" section? – until more is known. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Better to say "Qualified before COVID-19 Pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:EE4A:BD00:6112:E59A:DB6D:E8C (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I think it might be better to make a separate page for the 2021 Open Championship (eventually, not right away), and keep the 2020 Open Championship intact. Even one of the curling events was made that way in Wikipedia. This way, it will at least show the information for the 2020 Open if anyone wants to see it, while giving the standard link in the info box to the 2021 event. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Actually, to go along with the canceled 2020 WGC Match Play event, there should be consistency. The WGC 2020 WGC Match Play page was emptied, and presumably will stay that way with a 2021 page being made separately from the 2020 page. If we keep the 2020 Open Championship page filled up with the information, then we should also have the 2020 WGC Match Play page filled up with its own information (by restoring it to the way it was). Having two different ways of logic for these two different pages doesn't seem to make sense. So, either we need to restore the information to the 2020 WGC Match Play page, or we need to empty the 2020 Open Championship page, leaving a redirect to the main Open Championship page. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The two are not analogous; once revised, the WGC article clearly violated policy (WP:NOT), whereas it's much less likely the Open article would. Anyway, The R&A have yet to announce how they will be treating it, so how 2021 Open Championship gets created should really be deferred until then. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Per R&A, all tickets have been deferred to 2021, so change the article to 2021 because the exemptions will stay the same. A recent memo by the US PGA Tour to players announced any players who had already qualified for 2020 as of 6 April will be exempt for the 2021 tournament. "Qualifying for the 2021 Open will include all players who were already eligible for this year’s championship as of April 6," meaning all players who qualified by Open Qualifying Tournaments are in. There are golfers whose exemptions would have expired after 2020 because of age or their exemptions would have expired will automatically be exempt. https://www.golfchannel.com/news/pga-tour-memo-players-says-play-could-resume-or-without-fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:EE4A:BD00:354D:4081:6672:20B4 (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussions

Please take the time to review the following discussions:

Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Changes made to Memorial winners table

AlanM1 recently made some major edits to the winners table on the Memorial Tournament article: making the table sortable, and abbreviating all instances of "United States" to US in order to minimize wrapping. It seems like we need to discuss this here, because if those changes are retained, it has major implications for many other golf articles. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is related to earlier discussions (e.g. #Adding "tour" column to golf tournament pages and plenty more in the archives) that have not come to any agreed consensus and documented a standard. As such various articles currently follow countless different standards. Maybe it's time a project MOS was agreed?
Per the above discussion, country has little relevance (outside of a few representative tournaments) so I'd happily see that column removed & replaced by a simple flagicon (same as runners-up). wjematherplease leave a message... 17:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy with just the flag icon, or replacing  United States with  USA etc as mentioned above. Jopal22 (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm entirely fine with just the flag icon; IIRC we agreed on the current style not too long after I joined the WikiProject in 2014 and I can't remember why the country name was thought necessary. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
To save searching, that discussion is here (I assume that's the right one?). From what is there, I'd suggest losing country, shifting course/location right (or left) so that winner-scores-runnerup are sequential, flipping purse/winners share, and inserting tour after year (per the above discussion). wjematherplease leave a message... 20:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I used  US, not  USA, per MOS:USA.
Neither sortability nor reducing all the line-wrapping with the abbreviation to US seemed particularly controversial, and both substantially improved usability, so I didn't feel it needed to be discussed. I'd suggest they be included in a standard if one is adopted.
I'll note that PGA television coverage does not always mention nationality or show it in graphics, and I wouldn't mind seeing it removed entirely from tables when not particularly relevant to the tournament. I'm sure there are all the usual issues of birth v. residence (a lot of "non-US" players live and spend most of their time in the US), other and multiple citizenships, etc..
I originally had added sortability to the runner-up column but had to roll it back since a major change would be required because of the flags in front, and I wanted to discuss it first (Phinumu beat me to it ).
Another issue with the runner-up column is that there are usually multiple entries, which according to the MOS should use list markup (e.g., {{Ubl}}). However, there is the question of which to sort by. The most useful (if you wanted to group all occurrences for a given player together) would be to use rowspans instead (example to follow later). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Rowspan example:

Year Winner Country Score To par Margin of
victory		 Runner(s)-up Winner's
share ($)		 Honoree(s)
2019 Patrick Cantlay  US 269 −19 2 strokes Adam Scott Australia 1,638,000 Judy Rankin
2018 Bryson DeChambeau  US 273 −15 Playoff An Byeong-hun South Korea 1,602,000 Hale Irwin, Jock Hutchison, Willie Turnesa
Kyle Stanley United States
2017 Jason Dufner  US 275 −13 3 strokes Rickie Fowler United States 1,566,000 Greg Norman, Tony Lema, Ken Venturi, Harvie Ward
Anirban Lahiri India

Of course, removing the runner-up column is also an option. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Example from Wjemather:

Year Winner Country Score To par Margin of
victory		 Runner(s)-up Winner's
share ($)		 Honoree(s)
2019 Patrick Cantlay  US 269 −19 2 strokes Adam Scott Australia 1,638,000 Judy Rankin
2018 Bryson DeChambeau  US 273 −15 Playoff An Byeong-hun South Korea 1,602,000 Hale Irwin, Jock Hutchison, Willie Turnesa
Kyle Stanley United States
2017 Jason Dufner  US 275 −13 3 strokes Rickie Fowler United States 1,566,000 Greg Norman, Tony Lema, Ken Venturi, Harvie Ward
Anirban Lahiri India
While not generally of direct relevance, nearly all coverage includes flags to denote country representation (not necessarily nationality), so it seems natural to reflect that here. It may be a bold assumption, but I don't think there will be support for removing the runner(s)-up. I'm not seeing any reason for wanting to sort on most fields; year (probably), scores and prize money (maybe), but anything else, I'm unconvinced. Also, it's worth noting that making tables sortable often increases line-wrapping by significantly widening column headers (I've duplicated the table above without sorting to illustrate). wjematherplease leave a message... 10:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I would agree, there is not really much need for the tables to be sortable. In terms of flags, the country name should probably be removed as a flagicon is sufficient, but flagicons should be placed to the left of the players name, not to the players right. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I added the sorting to answer the question "what were the worst/best winning scores" after what seemed like a relatively high score this year. The other columns are reasonable to me as well. I agree the way the sorting is currently implemented should be improved for space usage considerations, but that's a different problem, and not a reason for reduced functionality IMO. One solution I've seen somewhere has the sort icons centered on a new line in the table header, but I can't figure out how to do it at the moment. That would answer the space concerns.
I placed the flags to the right in the example above as one solution for the sort key issue; there are others. To me, it is less important information than the name, and makes sense after it, not before. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 20:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Sort buttons can be placed in a separate row, but there are issues; see here. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Charles/Ollie Osborne

Since the majors he's likely earning an exemption to don't have articles yet, I'm putting this here. While the USGA site refers to him as Charles, SMU (which I'd consider to be the best source absent any personal social media) calls him Ollie, as do the PGA Tour and the OWGR. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 01:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Tournament names in result tables

We always drop presenting sponsors from tournament names in tour season articles (e.g. Memorial Tournament rather than the Memorial Tournament presented by Nationwide). How does everyone feel regarding "at [name of course]" or similar? My personal preference – which I've acted on in many occasions – would be to drop that on most occasions (CJ Cup @ Nine Bridges, Michelob Championship at Kingsmill, U.S. Bank Championship in Milwaukee, etc.) and only keep it when it's necessary for disambiguation (Chrysler Classic of Tucson vs. Chrysler Classic of Greensboro) or the tournament name doesn't work without it (A Military Tribute at the Greenbrier, U.S. Bank in Milwaukee). pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Reliable sources should lead us, and there seem to be only a few exceptions where the venue is almost always included. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Pre-2003 Senior British Open

Originally, I thought only Senior British Opens from 2003 onwards only counted as senior major championships and official wins on PGA Tour Champions, and editions pre-2003 were regular European Senior Tour wins only. However, while looking at Gary Players' PGA Tour profile his 3 Senior British Opens in 1988, 1990 and 1997 were counted as Senior PGA Tour wins, giving him a total of 22 wins rather than 19 as we have on WP. What do we make of this and are the earlier editions now counted as official wins and are they now considered to be senior majors? Thanks Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Think I recall reading somewhere about Player lobbying the tour to have his Senior Open wins recognised as Champions Tour/senior major wins. I expect there should be a source somewhere to confirm the change. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
see https://garyplayer.com/gary-players-senior-british-open-championship-victories-recognized-as-majors-by-the-pga-tour-in-usa/ Nigej (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
This was briefly discussed here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 6#Gary Player and the Senior British Open. Think quite a few pages need updating. Jopal22 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
The PGA Tour now recognizes Bob Charles two Senior British Open wins as official per his PGA tour webpage[10]. Player's page has been changed. Now the page for Charles has to be redone also.
Which raised another point. Player's first SBO win was 1987, the second year of the tournament. Charles first SBO win was 1988. PGA made their wins official, it should be the same for all SBO champs. A bunch of pages are therefore in need of modifying....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

European Senior Tour new name

With the announcement that the European Senior Tour is now changing their name to the 'Legends Tour', this causes a conflict as the Senior Ladies Tour is called that as well. How do we move the page name and disambiguate it between the Senior Ladies Tour? Jimmymci234 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Seem pretty odd to me having two tour with the same name. Anyway, for now I suggest we keep the same name for European Senior Tour. After all there's no hurry. Nigej (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
At present, "European Senior Tour" remains the WP:COMMONNAME and the US-ladies circuit remains the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Legends Tour", so we should probably keep the articles where they are and reassess in a few years. I've also added a hatnote to Legends Tour. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12520960 shows that the legal name is "European Legends Tour Limited", and perhaps that gives a possible future name of European Legends Tour, should that be commonly used in the future. I certainly suggest we leave Legends Tour as the LPGA tour for now. Nigej (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion notice

Opinions sought at Talk:U.S. Open (golf)#Addition of current broadcast information. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability of golf clubs and courses

Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the notability of golf clubs and courses. Category:Golf clubs and courses has some 1,400 clubs and courses. As a comparison there are some 40,000 golf clubs in the world, and many more defunct ones. Of our 1,400, roughly 750 are in the US, 300 in UK/Ireland, 80 in Canada, 50 in Australia and about 200 in the rest of the world. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Golf/archive shows that clubs/courses come up regularly at WP:AfD and mostly get deleted. I'm sure that there are plenty of others that probably would be deleted if there were AfDs; Achasta Golf Club is an example. We also have a few lists like List of golf courses in the United Kingdom, List of golf courses in Canada and List of golf courses designed by Jack Nicklaus which are generally poorly maintained and seem outside our scope. I was just wondering if we might have produce some agreed criteria as to what makes a course/club notable, or whether such a thing is impossible and we should just carry on treating each AfD separately. Nigej (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say if a course has held a major (mens/womens/senior), or a tournament sanctioned by the major golf tours then it is notable, otherwise it would have to meet to general notability guidelines of having significant media coverage. Jopal22 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
That's my own view. Generally notable courses host notable tournaments. When I look through the Australian list, for instance, the courses that stand out as clearly notable have hosted the Australian Open (golf). It also makes sense from an encyclopedia point of view: tournament articles generally link to the venue. Nigej (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I think Trump International Golf Links, Scotland is an example of a course that hasn't hosted a tournament, but the page can be justified based on notable coverage in the medis. Jopal22 (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Also courses like Royal Dornoch Golf Club should be included, so maybe a "ranked highly in a major golf publication" should also be a reason. Jopal22 (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as a guideline goes, we would need to be reasonably sure the majority would meet GNG (I'm aware different people have different ideas about how sure, range 51%–95%). As such, I think we'd probably have to limit to majors (men's, LPGA, Champions), WGCs, World/Ryder/Solheim/Walker/Curtis Cups, Olympics, regular (as in frequent) stops on the PGA Tour and European Tour, and hosts of flagship events on the Australasian and Sunshine Tours (and maybe a few others). I don't think we need to worry too much about other clubs/courses that easily meet GNG (such as most well known/highly rated courses) unless we have a specific publication(s) in mind. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we have a current AfD of Deer Creek Golf Course. This hosted the Deer Creek Open on the 1990 Ben Hogan Tour (the first season of that tour), but personally I wouldn't think that sufficient for our purposes.
This might also be interesting and relevant to this debate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Event_Venues/Sports_task_force/Notability#Golf_courses). My view is along the lines of the above but with the view that anything that has hosted a European Tour or PGA Tour event should be considered to be notable and that certain other courses should be notable based on historical reasons, high ratings (e.g. in world's top 100 by a reliable golf magazine), or where they have hosted significant amateur tournaments (e.g. walker cup, the amateur championship, US amateur).Tracland (talk)
Thanks I wasn't aware of that. Seems broadly similar to my thoughts. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks I wasn't aware of that. Seems broadly similar to my thoughts. Nigej (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The first two sections of Notability#Golf_courses are a good starting point for debate but the final section: "Has won some sort of award related to golf courses" is clearly much too vague to be useful. If we're following on the lines of WP:NSPORT (which primarily relates to biographies) we should be aiming for criteria that mean that it is highly likely that the club/course is notable. My main worry at the moment is that well-meaning editors add articles for rather run-of-the-mill clubs/courses where the general consensus (from many previous AfDs) is that most of these are not notable. As with NSPORT, failing the criteria wouldn't mean it's not notable, and vice-versa (passing wouldn't mean notability), it would just provide a easy-to-define starting position for debate. The Sports task force seems to be inactive so I'm thinking we could change the Notability#Golf_courses criteria to something we agree here. Personally I'm a little nervous about "world's top 100", and the like. I'd rather leave that sort of thing out and leave it to individual debate at AfD (if it came to that). Nigej (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree – top-100 is probably too loose anyway, and at the top end (top-20 or so) ratings tend to be broadly similar across the major publications, and there's very few of them that haven't held major tournaments at some point. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Nationalities in the field

The "Nationalities in the field" section that has crept through various individual tournament articles seems to reflect something that is not (AFAIK) routinely (if ever) reported upon and as such cannot be reliably sourced; nor can we verify it's significance, if there is any. As such, it seems nothing more than meaningless stat cruft and a violation WP:NOTSTATS. Also, while it may be nothing more than a counting exercise, it is enormously tedious to verify, and possibly borders on WP:Original research. It's worth noting that consensus has agreed that such tables are not added to other sports articles, e.g. tennis. Thoughts? wjematherplease leave a message... 19:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I've never seen the necessity of it (similar to the "Past champions in the field" section which is in the process of being phased out). pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
They do also have it for the darts 2020 PDC World Darts Championship#Representation. Jopal22 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yikes! wjematherplease leave a message... 22:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
We have own examples at 2019_WGC-Dell_Technologies_Match_Play#Breakdown by country etc. Nigej (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Perhaps doesn't serve much of a useful purpose in an individual sport. Nigej (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Note for they olympics we have it represented by a table and maps Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Participating nations Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual#Participating nations Jopal22 (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The Olympics is a special case as players are representing their countries, with nationality a big factor in determining participation, and it's something that has been reported in mainstream media (so easily verifiable [11]). As such, I would exclude that (and other such tournaments) from the proposal to remove these tables. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
However, we are one of those sports "where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality" (to quote WP:INFOBOXFLAG) and, as such, the table is simply a summary of the available information on the leaderboard. Nigej (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
True, but it seems no-one outside of WikiPedia is counting those flags. Could this therefore not also violate WP:UNDUE? wjematherplease leave a message... 14:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is that summarising information in wikipedia in a table is fine, and does not break wikipedia rules. I am not overly attached to it, but do sometimes like seeing a summary, although I prefer the darts format (albeit with only one row) as think that would take up less space. Jopal22 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Its literally a list of flag with numbers beside them with no context. Golfers do not represent their countries in these tournaments. For those tournaments where countries are being represented, the list would be fine. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Format of tournament field sections

It seems from this "In the news" nomination that some feel the field sections of individual tournament articles is unwieldy and contravenes MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. There is a suggestion that this may result in opposition to these articles from appearing on ITN in future, despite there being no such criteria for inclusion. Looking for suggestions on how we can reformat without losing detail while improving readability/accessibility. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

From 2020 PGA Championship, it seems that a solution may be to split out the field, e.g. 2020 PGA Championship field, and replace with a short section describing how the field is made up, notable participants/withdrawls, etc. Thoughts? wjematherplease leave a message... 11:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I've taken a look at 2020 PGA Championship and had a brief skim through the lengthy discussion in the In the News Nomination and it is my view that the changes that have been made to include a brief narrative on the field in the main article with a detailed list of the competitors in a separate article does improve the flow of the main article whilst retaining all of the former detail. For the avoidance of doubt I think it is important that we do retain this detail on Wikipedia.Tracland (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The same approach has been taken with the 2020 U.S. Open (golf), with the full field being split into 2020 U.S. Open field. Should this now be the template for future majors, etc.? wjematherplease leave a message... 11:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I suppose we could have 1 "field/qualification" article per year, covering all 4 majors. Someone created this: List of qualifiers for 2018 men's major golf tournaments. Personally I like the style of the current "field" section. Nigej (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
A comprehensive article covering the fields (including detailed criteria, etc.) of all four majors would possibly run into size issues (and need splitting) or have significant clarity/ambiguity/readability issues (as that 2018 article does). The issue with how field sections have been laid out previously is that is massively violates MOS, and often takes focus away from the main subject when all details are included in the main article. Another alternative would be something line 2020 ANA Inspiration, which retains all detail in the main article. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
If we have to change from how we've done it in the past, I'd much prefer just splitting each major's qualifiers off into a separate article (I just saw how you've formatted the U.S. Open one, and I really like it). The "List of qualifiers..." article is awkward, especially with the "Primary means of qualification. Notes on performance." column. The ANA format leaves a lot out that I (and presumably others) would consider important. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, I think that the List of qualifiers for 2018 men's major golf tournaments can probably be deleted. Nigej (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a source with a breakdown of the categories players qualified under for the ANA. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Does [this https://www.lpga.com/tournaments/ana-inspiration/tournament-entries] work? I haven't looked it over. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear – sources only seem to give the first category under which they qualify, not the full breakdown. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I added the field, hoping that it might encourage someone to add the detail. Nigej (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm toying with the idea of changing the "additional categories" from parentheses to superscripts. This would enable different information to appear in parentheses without confusion, as in Category 27. Thoughts on this? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Superscripts may also be unclear with all the notes and references. I've added the ordinals, which may help? wjematherplease leave a message... 19:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Medal table in infobox

Currently we don't support medal details in the {{Infobox golfer}} template. Justin Rose, for instance, has a separate box below the infobox golfer. We would need to change: 

| below       = {{#if:{{{awardssection|}}}|''(For a full list of awards, see [[{{{awardssection}}}|here]])''}}

to: 

| data63       = {{#if:{{{awardssection|}}}|''(For a full list of awards, see [[{{{awardssection}}}|here]])''}}

| header64  = {{Infobox medal templates
 | title  = {{{medaltemplates-title|}}}
 | medals = {{{medaltemplates|}}}
 | expand = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{show-medals}}}}}|no||yes}}
}}

See:{{Infobox golfer/testcases}} where I've added Rose's medal to the end of Tiger Woods (1st testcase, for simplicity): 

| medaltemplates =
{{MedalCountry | {{GBR2}} }}
{{MedalCompetition|[[Golf at the Summer Olympics|Olympic Games]]}}
{{MedalGold|[[2016 Summer Olympics|2016 Rio de Janeiro]]|[[Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual|Golf]]}}

Options available (which we have the option of not including): 

| show-medals = no (default is yes)
| medaltemplates-title = zzzzzzz (default is "Medal record")

Compare with Justin Rose article. Nigej (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Done a survey. We have about 100 of these boxes (covering Olympics, Youth Olympics, Asian games, Southeast Asian games, Pan American games, Summer Universiade, Mediterranean games, European Golf Team Championships, Maccabiah Games, Deaflympics). Most (like Rose) use {{MedalBox}}. Some use the {{MedalTableTop}} (eg Daniel Sawyer, but some of these also with {{MedalBottom}}, eg Allen John, which is deprecated) and some use {{MedalTop}} (eg Douglass Cadwallader, this is also deprecated). MedalTableTop is an infobox whereas MedalBox is more meant for mid-article use. Nigej (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It takes up an awful lot of space, giving it WP:UNDUE prominence. Are we able to incorporate just {{medal}} with bespoke coding for other values? I'd investigate myself, but it's nearly ten years since I created the templates and it may take a while to refamiliarise myself! wjematherplease leave a message... 09:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I take your point, since medals are not the most important thing in golf. One option is to hide the medals (like eg Chris Froome), reducing the impact. I've changed the {{Infobox golfer/testcases}} so that the Medal record is hidden by default. Another option is to just stick with MedalBox as our preferred method. Nigej (talk) 10:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Hidden is better; looks ok. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Informal move request Rafa Cabrera-Bello

In case you missed it, there was an informal move request of Rafa Cabrera-Bello to Rafa Cabrera Bello. See Talk:Rafa Cabrera-Bello#Move Request. Nigej (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

John Catlin (golfer)

I have moved the previous John Catlin to John Catlin (politician) and created a WP:DAB article at John Catlin. The golfer has had 50 times more hits since his article was created in July (see page view stats) and, realistically, an even higher ratio about that, since many of the John Catlin hits are people looking for the golfer. Currently, however, it's a little difficult to argue that the golfer is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since the article was created so recently. WP:2DABPRIMARY gives some advice "From a utilitarian perspective, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be have a different (i.e., lower) standard in WP:TWODABS cases." but "WP:RECENTISM applies, and Wikipedia does not move articles around on the basis of what is temporarily popular/notorious right now, which may result in sharp but short-lived pageview and news-coverage spikes." However, the politician is so obscure I'm wondering whether there is an argument that the golfer is the primary topic. Nigej (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's too early to say that the golfer is the PT, and it's likely he will be just as obscure as the politician without further successes. As you've done it seems about right. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
One merit of the current setup is that it'll be clear in the coming months how many are looking for each; previously it wasn't obvious how many of the politician's hits were people really looking for him. Nigej (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree entirely with the suggestion. There is nothing to date which suggests that the golfer will necessarily become the PT in the long term (recent hits will likely be due to recent performances). If it is clear that this has changed then we can look to move at a later date. But making the golfer the PT now would be too soon.Tracland (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

J. J. Taylor

There is a move request at J. J. Taylor which you may be interested in. Originally J. J. Taylor was a redirect to Jack Taylor (golfer). Nigej (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Graham Marsh's "win" at the Bay Classic

Under Graham Marsh's "Other Australasian wins" section it says he allegedly won the "19?? Bay Classic (Not listed on PGA Tour bio, year unknown)." This has been up there forever with no verification that he won this event (whatever it is). I think it should be deleted but would like additional opinions for further information on this alleged event.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Appears on his own website http://www.gmgd.com.au/tournaments.php without a date. Nigej (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Having failed again to work out what this refers to, I suggest we remove it. Nigej (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Given that the wins on Marsh's website are largely in chronological order, it would suggest late 1983. However, as there were no gaps in the schedule, it could possibly be a duplication of the Gold Coast win? wjematherplease leave a message... 10:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd thought the same being unable to find anything at that time. Nigej (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes the guy who designed Marsh's website could be conflating it with the Gold Coast event or the NZ PGA (held near the "Bay of Plenty"). I don't know of any other event he won in between (only a 5 week timespan in 1983). I will get rid of it. Thank you for your help.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

New Zealand PGA Championship

I added a "Tour" column to the New Zealand PGA Championship. However separate tables that were created to distinguish when the event was played on a particular tour still exist. (I don't know how to combine these tables.) If someone could combine these tables, including the match play table, that would be great. Thanks!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Please note — entries in the tour column should either link to the relevant season article (where one exists) or not be linked; linking to the tour serves no purpose. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about that - I knew that. Just fixed it. I did include links where the tour is mentioned for the first time. Thought that may be necessary.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Please see the changes made at Kirin Open for an example of what was meant. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry once again! I got it! Thank you for your help. I will make sure to do it this way in the future.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Kurt Cox

I am trying to publish the page of golfer Kurt Cox however I am having trouble. It is under this URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oogglywoogly/Kurt_Cox. There is no "Publish Page" button as far as I can tell. Can anyone help?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

You'll need to cut and paste it to Kurt Cox first. Nigej (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Probably could do with the prose being a bit less WP:FLOWERY; e.g. replace phrases like "played excellently" with "had success" (it's not unusual to have success without playing well). wjematherplease leave a message... 09:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The page is up. If you have any information about his guy's career in the 1970s please add (maybe some Q-school stuff). Can't find anything.
Ok, I changed "excellent" to "success." I try my best to avoid "flowery," descriptive prose. However, sometimes it may come out to avoid redundant language. For example, I might write "In the 3rd round Smith shot a 67 (-3) to place in the top 5. On Sunday he fired a 68 to finish in a tie for fourth." Rather than a more redundant sentence like: "In the 3rd round Smith shot a 67 (-3) to put himself in a tie for 4th. In the 4th round he shot a 68 (-2) to finish in tie for fourth." Thoughts?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

"World ranking" sections in lady golfers articles

We have quite a few "World ranking" (or World rank) sections in lady golfers articles. eg Kim Sei-young#World rank. 46 by my count. They mostly consist of year-end rankings. Personally I'm struggling to see the point. There's a ref given for each entry. However, the "Form Table" at https://www.rolexrankings.com/players/4110 lists them in one place (year end rank column). In any case it's not immediately obvious why we need this. We seem to be simply replicating something readily available in www.rolexrankings.com Personally I'd be happy to delete them all. Nigej (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

We edit to provide encyclopedic information, for which the OWGR is a relevant, conspicuous metric informative for common users. I don't see a basis for the objection. Zefr (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a mirror of indiscriminate statistics (even though many sports related articles seem to look that way). Threshold for inclusion should be widespread discussion of such things by independent reliable sources in the context of the individual player – which would confirm relevance and importance – as that is not the case with year-end rankings on an individual basis, we probably should not be including them. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The world rankings are, indeed, a useful metric. However, a table simply listing year-end rankings which are readily available on the official site (for which we provide a link), is not providing anything very useful. Lydia Ko#World ranking (missed from the above list) does actually contain some additional information, but this is a rare exception. Nigej (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Annual year-end ranks over a career for one player provide a snapshot of progress among peers, and a current year rank is commonly used to compare players in the dynamics of competition. The Rolex rankings are globally accepted, which indicates they are not an "indiscriminate statistic", but rather a reliable benchmark for the LPGA industry discussed in all major golf and news coverage. All pro golf standings in tournaments and world rankings are "readily available", while adhering to WP:RS; it's unclear what Wjemather objects to for source quality. Let's keep focused on the big picture, WP:5P: world rankings are encyclopedic, neutral, and up-to-date when maintained throughout the pro season. The golf project should be more collaborative in maintaining at least the top 20 on individual articles week by week during the current season. Think first of the common user who may not be accessing the Rolex site for information - the table provides that quick informative summary. Zefr (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
My 2 cents, I agree with Zefr Jopal22 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I made no mention of quality, it is the context that is important. There are thousands of stats we could reliably verify – but we don't include them because WP:NOT clearly legislates against indiscriminate statistics and mirroring of information readily available elsewhere. Ultimately we set criteria for inclusion – and it makes sense to follow what independent reliable sources (i.e. not rankings or tour websites) routinely report on, and the context in which they report it. Unless such sources (e.g. a golf publications or mainstream news/sports publications) cite year-by-year year-end end rankings in the context of the individual (as presented in these articles), not just a year end list of many/all players – and I haven't seen any evidence that they do – then it probably isn't a worthwhile inclusion. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

An issue with citations

I have an issue with linking a particular citation with the relevant newspaper article. Here is the process:

I go to Google News Archive and find the relevant article. I then click on the relevant article heading and create the citation. However, after this is all complete, when you click on the citation link it directs you to page 1 of that day's newspaper, not the appropriate article (usually in the middle of that's day newspaper). It makes it very difficult for the reader as he or she has to scroll through the entire newspaper to find the relevant article.

I have two examples of this:

- on George Serhan's page with the sentence, "The following year he finished in 6th place at the 1985 Australian Open, tied with Tom Watson and Mike Harwood." Check the citation link. This is a classic example.

- on the 1980 Masters Tournament page with the sentence that begins with "Greg Norman was invited to play..." This is a little different in that I copied that citation from Paul Foley's page that referenced an article about his victory in some event, rather than the 1980 Masters article on the other page. However, when creating my citation I did highlight the title of the 1980 Masters article on the other side of the page ("Henry turns pro..."). Nonetheless, the citation link reverts to the Paul Foley article.

Can anyone help?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

@Oogglywoogly: Done – I'm guessing you forgot to click "link to article" first? BTW, the 1980 article on Norman is referring to the Australian Masters (28 Feb–2 Mar) which clashed with the HK Open (i.e. not the US Masters) so I've just removed that statement. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Clicking on the article header (goes blue - generally) is not sufficient. You need to click on "link to article" (rhs) first, then click on the article header. You can then ctrl-C to copy it and ctrl-V to paste it into your article. Of course, sometimes the header doesn't go blue and you have to wander round finding something that does go blue. Nigej (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok thanks! I will refer to this next time I try to create a citation using Google News Archive.
Also, you must be right about Norman skipping the Australian Masters. The event was held the same date as the HK event. The (US) Masters is always held in April. Now that I am aware of it, it is a bit odd to think Norman and Ginn would skip their first appearance at the Masters for an event on the AGC...
Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf/Archive_11&oldid=1057901829"