Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Argentine Masters - "Amateur Winner" column

I recently made edits to the Argentine Masters page. I noticed there is an "Amateur Winner" column. I am not sure if it should exist. I know the "low amateur" status matters at some professionals tournaments (i.e the Masters, US Open, and British Open). But even at these it still doesn't look like we note it anywhere on the table. Basically I don't think this column should exist for the Argentine Masters - a clear example of WP:OR.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

No, seems pretty trivial to me. Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably it got included because it was in some source. That's not necessarily sufficient reason for us to include it. Personally I'd be happy to see it removed. Nigej (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, got rid of it. I did the same for the Coast Open. I also noticed there is no source for either event - if you can find one please add it.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Double standards on listing the Olympians' gold medals

Inbee Park's Wikipedia page does not have her Olympic gold medal listed under "Other". It has its own listing. But for Xander Schauffele, his gold medal is listed under "Other", meaning that his gold medal does not have its own listing. Doesn't it make sense to have both the men and women either both have their Olympic wins listed under "Other", or have neither one of them listed under "Other"? Why have two different standards for men's and women's Olympic gold medal winners? See this ...http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Inbee_Park#Olympic_Games_(1) Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Justin Rose has it listed under "Other" too. Personally I'd rather have it under "Other" since it's a non-tour event, as I understand it, and the sub-sections normally relate to tours. Also seems unlikely that anyone will win more than one of these, so an "Olympic Games" section will have always just the 1 win. Of course, the Olympic medals do appear in the infobox. Nigej (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree with Nige on this one. Will amend Inbee Park's accordingly. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The special listing for Park's medal had been there for five years. Strange how no one else noticed until now. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The reality is that there are a number of differences in style between the men and ladies articles, largely because they tend to be edited by different people. Sometimes it's only when there's a debate about an issue (as here) that we get consistency between them. The fact that something's been there for 5 years is not important. Nigej (talk) 05:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Highlighting of Olympics in tour and player articles

An IP user has been highlighting the Olympics in   this color in results tables on tour season articles and win tables in player articles. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but there has been extensive edit warring so it needs to be discussed here. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 05:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I suppose this relates in some ways to the "Double standards on listing the Olympians' gold medals" section above. Personally I don't really see the point, this is a win so why highlight it in gold. Also MOS:COLOR says "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information." etc, so strictly speaking it needs a note if we go with it (although this is a rule we break all the time). Nigej (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It just seems pointless to me. It’s an unofficial event with no real significance above other events as of yet (if it did it would at least count as a PGA /European Tour win). Maybe in the future it will be and therefore it may be appropriate to highlight then, but as of now I think it’s unnecessary. Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There's always a suspicion with these sort of edits and comments, that it's our favourite sock-pucket User:DooksFoley147 back in action again. Correct me if I'm wrong. Nigej (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably more likely to be than not. Jimmymci234 (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I missed that saga... Is this the same user that, back when we had separate tables for when an event changed tour status, added unnecessary duplication of information to those headings for their own purposes? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. At one time he was determined that when an event changed from one tour to another we must create a separate table for the results. Nigej (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly the same individual is also attempting to change results table formatting to have tournament names in a new end column, e.g. diff1, diff2. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Another "give away" is the obsession with the {{nowrap}} template. If he has something wrapping on his own device that he doesn't like, he adds a nowrap. The idea that other users might be seeing things differently on their devices, doesn't seem to occur to him. Or, indeed, that if he used a smaller font it wouldn't wrap for him. Nigej (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

OWGR changes from August 2022

Looks like the OWGR is going to have a revision. see http://www.owgr.com/news/2021/august-press-release/governing-board-announcement and the PowerPoint presentation http://www.owgr.com/Archive/Announcement/OWGR%20-%20Updated%20System%20Information%20-%20FINAL.pdf. Shouldn't really affect us too much, except that the OWGR page will need an update. Nigej (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Olympics

What happened to the nationalities chart? It was mentioned on this page months ago that it would be there. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It is at Golf at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification. There seems to be a dispute about the form of it, but it is still there. Nigej (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It is NOT there. It has been repeatedly taken down. People like to go back on their word. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It might not be there in the form you want it, but it clearly there. Nigej (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not there. The nationalities chart had been there for weeks, and it was agreed on months ago, and now it is not there. Plus, the nationalities chart had been on the previous Olympics for five years, and now that one is gone too. People like to go back on their word. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that Golf at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification#Qualification summary is a "nationalities chart". What else is it? Nigej (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

To reiterate; the breakdown of qualifiers by nationality is in the article(s), just not in the format you prefer and it's not titled "nationalities in the field". Should you wish to change this, you will need to gain consensus. And to be clear, in the earlier discussion I did express an opinion that favoured the streamlined summary format ("I'd suggest the composite table (i.e. the one not split by continent..."). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Amateur table

Last night I created a page for the Pennsylvania Amateur Golf Championship. I used the table for the U.S. Amateur as a template. Overall, I like the table for the U.S. Amateur. However, I noticed that "Venue" is the second column, before winner. To me, the "Winner" column should definitely be before "Venue." In addition, I think that "Venue" should be relegated to the final column. Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Yes, absolutely. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, just made the changes. Also, per discussion, I deleted the "Flag Country" category (or whatever it was called) for the winners and moved the flag next to their name in the "Winners" column.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Oh, and one last thing. Ross Somerville, the 1932 US Amateur champion, was from Canada. I don't have the flagicon for Canada pre-1965. If anyone knows what it is please add it.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

See {{Country data Canada}} for a list of options. Nigej (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Small font re no. of wins in tables

Tewapack is suggesting that small brackets shouldn't be used within winners tables to show multiple wins per MOS:SMALLFONT. Is everybody else in agreement with this? If so, then why have we been using the small brackets coding up until now if it goes against MOS? It also means that so many pages are going to have to be updated if this is proposed. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am looking at the Los Angeles Open page right now. I personally prefer the smaller font for the parentheses next to the names of multiple winners Bubba Watson or Adam Scott. However, in the MOS section you referenced it says "Avoid using smaller font sizes within page elements that already use a smaller font size" and "In no case should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size." Looks like we are violating that rule here.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I’d be of the same opinion Oogly, but can’t really argue against it. Just a shame it’s been done like that for ages and now we’ll have the change so many pages in order to correct them. Jimmymci234 (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I've tended to use the small font too, although I've used the larger font for "(a)". Nigej (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Could this be an example of WP: IAR? To me, it looks so obviously better with the small font and it seems like other golf editors agree. Perhaps we should just maintain the way we were doing things...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I would agree Oogly, but I feel it would be better if we could get a few more opinions on this in order to gain a proper consensus, at the minute it feels like a 2 v 1 situation. Wjemather do you have any thoughts on this, I know you’re quite good with the WP policies. Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There would have to be a good reason to ignore MOS and continue using small tags, and I can't really think of any in this case as it seems to be purely an aesthetic thing. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

But isn't this a "purely aesthetic thing" to begin with? The reason why I (and others) like the small tags is solely because it looks better. Is there a functional reason why these parentheses should be the same size as they are for other text?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

South African Amateur Championship

I recently made a page for the South African Amateur Championship (golf). It's pretty complete but there are a few issues:

• Early flag info: this is relevant as the tournament began way back in 1892. Through the SA's country data (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Country_data_South_Africa) wiki site I see the flags. But I am unsure what the early flag flagicon codes are. (For the early "red ensign" flag I just copied and pasted from the South African Open wiki site.) Also, I am unsure what some of these early flag designations actually refer to (e.g. Orange River Colony). Was South Africa not a unified country until 1910?

• I used the 2018 event's brochure for most the information. The source has information about this Proudfoot Trophy which goes to the medallist of the qualifier. They have a detailed list of the winners. However I am unsure if I should include the whole list on the page or just mention the Proudfoot Trophy somewhere in the text.

• The main source lists all of the winners and most of the runner-ups but they don't list first names for either. I know User: Nigej knows a lot about the history of the amateur game. If you know any of these players' first names and have time to add them, please do.

• This may seem like a little thing but I think the nationality of 1983 champion CC Yuan may be wrong. On the main source it says "China" so I put the Chinese flag next to his name. However, I think he may actually be from Taiwan ("The Republic of China") as golf was barely legal in the PRC back then. Nonetheless, I can't find anything on him in search engines so have no way of knowing for sure.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

http://history.saga.co.za/index7e46.html?id=128 is a useful source for the early events. I used it to add details to South African Open (golf). Nigej (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I may use this in the future.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Captains in team event player lists

Currently the Ryder Cup player tables include the captains. For the Presidents Cup, assistant captains are also included. I would like to suggest that captains of any kind not be included in these tables... after all, the tables are labeled "Players", not "Players and captains". pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you; captains (and vice-captains) can be simply listed in prose (and usually are already). Indeed, I'd probably go further and trim down the excessive stats that proliferate these tables. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be fine with eliminating the match records, I suppose. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 00:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with what Wjemather wrote....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree too. We've had playing captains, captains as reserves, etc. but the same principle applies. Honestly I wonder what the vice/assistant-captains do anyway. Something of an honorary position I suspect. Nigej (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

What do vice/assistant captains do? According to golf blogger Geoff Shackelford, somebody has to drive around on a golf cart and look like they are doing something....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Since it seemed like a clear consensus here, I just went through and removed captains from the tables for the last few Ryder Cups. These changes were reverted by User:Tomrtn. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 03:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Japan Golf Tour wins tables: including majors?

According to the infoboxes, the major championships have been sanctioned by the Japan Golf Tour since 1998. Yet I've noticed that we have not included these wins in the Japan Golf Tour subheading within the "Professional wins" sections for any of the players. For example, we have included the major championship wins in the "European Tour wins" subheading for Mark O'Meara and Payne Stewart despite the fact that they were never members of the European Tour (though won on that tour). Relatedly, I think we should include the major championships in the Japan Golf Tour subheading if major winners have ever been a member of the Japan Tour or ever won on that tour.

However, I think we should maintain the precedent of not creating new tables for wins at co-sanctioned events by non-members. For example, major championship winners Adam Scott and Graeme McDowell have never been members of the Japan Tour (as far as I know) and therefore we shouldn't create a separate table for them. But a number of major championship winners (e.g. Harrington, Clarke, Garcia, Koepka) have also won events on the JGT and already have a table. So I think we should add their major wins to that table the same way we have added major wins to the "European Tour wins" subheading of ET champions (irrespective if that person is a member of the European Tour).

Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I just checked the JGTO profiles for Todd Hamilton and Hideki Matsuyama. In neither case is the major win counted or listed. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 05:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

While they are sanctioned by the JGTO, the majors are not counted as official tournaments on the tour. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 06:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the information. I don't think the majors should be included in the players' Japan tour subheadings now. However, perhaps we should include these events in the annual calendar pages (e.g. 2002 Japan Golf Tour). I have noticed that we have done this on the European Tour pages even before the American majors were sanctioned by ET.

In addition, I have a question about sanctioning. I believe both of you that the majors are not "official" events of the Japan tour. But usually when a tournament sanctions (or co-sanctions) an event it usually means that it's an official event of the tour. Not sure what "sanctioning" means in this case...

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The majors were retroactively given official win status on the ET, although not official at the time (there should be notes explaining this in the articles), hence their inclusion. There are many events on the tours that have been officially sanctioned but unofficial as far as wins and money go, e.g. team events, shootouts, skins, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you wjemather. Given the information, I think the majors championships should be added to the Japan Golf Tour's post-1997 calendars. They seem to be similar to the European Tour's "special approved events" in that they were "sanctioned" by the tour but not counted as "official" wins. (However, we should be clear in the "Notes" column that these were not "official" events.)

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Got the ball rolling with this bad boy... should be done by the end of the week.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

"Nationality" parameter in Infobox golfer

I'm thinking we ought to change the "Nationality" text used in {{Infobox golfer}}. We're not actually saying anything about a player's nationality, we're simply replicating the flag that sits next to the golfer in leaderboards, etc. Perhaps "Sporting nationality" or "Golf nationality" or "Sporting nation" or "Golf flag" would be more apt. Suggestions? Nigej (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

“Sporting nation” sounds the best to me. But happy to see what others have to say. I do think it’s something that needs amended as it seems to confuse some non-golf editors. Jimmymci234 (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Understandably so, as editors are insisting on using it for a sport where people usually compete as individuals, not as representatives of a nation; and where they have represented a nation, it's a different one to the one that's in the infobox. And the nation hasn't had a flag in 49 in years. This is completely illogical. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not really us that are making the rules. We are just mirroring the accepted golf situation. Whether a golfer is actually "Northern Irish" nationality (whatever that means) or whether there's an official flag of Northern Ireland, is neither here nor there to us. Take Rory Sabbatini. He took on Slovakian nationality sometime back, which was no interest to us, but when the Slovakian flag appears next to him on the main golf websites, instead of the South African one, we then regard him as Slovakian and not South African. Nigej (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious how we can square that with our use of the Taiwan flag. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally I used the Taiwan/Chinese Taipei flags pretty randomly since I was never sure what the correct approach was. I'd be more than happy to go with the Chinese Taipei flag for C. T. Pan etc and then argue for its use on the same basis. Nigej (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Although the PGA Tour, European Tour and OWGR use the traditional Taiwan flag on their leaderboards. The only time Chinese Taipei is used is in team events i.e. Olympics, Asian Games etc. I think the way we have used the Taiwan/Taipei flags so far here is reflective of how it is represented on in an individual and team basis. Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. See https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.29908.c-t--pan.html https://www.pgatour.com/competition/2022/fortinet-championship/leaderboard.html and http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=15475 etc which all use the TPE flag. Nigej (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, my bad. They must’ve changed that recently because I thought they definitely used to use the Taiwan flag. Maybe I’m just making that up. But if that is the case now then we probably will have to make amends and use the Taipei flag instead. Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The flag of Taiwan is a political issue, and governments and organisations are commonly willing to fall in line with China's wishes. This isn't a new thing either – e.g. I remember reading that Yomiuri Shinbun withdrew their tournament from the Asia Circuit in 1972 due to the involvement of Taiwan as they sought to open an office in Beijing. Anyway, our usage (in bios, at least) should probably reflect the individual's usage at home, rather than venues where politics are at play. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course, the Irish flag situation is not new either. Philomena Garvey withdrew from the 1958 Curtis Cup when the LGU decided to have just the Union Jack (and no Irish flag at all) on their official blazers. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zCs1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=1qULAAAAIBAJ&pg=5297%2C7161689

• Golf flag seems most accurate, as apparently the flag assigned by the PGA and European Tours is arbitrary and applies even where a nation doesn't have a flag - e.g., golfers from Northern Ireland. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps just follow MOS:SPORTFLAG: "representative nationality". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Representative nationality sounds good actually. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:56, 27 Setember 2021 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXFLAG talks about "where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality". I think confusion might then arise, with readers thinking that the golfer has actually "represented" the country, rather than the flag/country text being "representations of sporting nationality" which is something rather different. Nigej (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The same is the case in most, if not all, individual sports. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that Tennis use "Country (sports)" (eg Roger Federer). Snooker uses "Sport country" (eg Steve Davis). Some (eg {{Infobox cyclist}} don't have it in at all. Some (eg {{Infobox sportsperson}} have "nationality" and "country". Nigej (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that the Wikipedia rules and most users like "representative nationality." Maybe we should defer to that but, in my mind, the phrase "representative nationality" is way too vague and somewhat tautological. I prefer "sporting nationality." I feel like it is closer to what we are getting at. Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

"Sporting nationality" works. "Representative nationality" doesn't, as golf is most usually an individual sport. The Olympic tournament is the only one where golfers represent their country, that I can think of? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There are hundreds of events where golfers could be said to be representing their country. However, as in most sports, the reality is that players are representing either themselves or a sporting body rather than their (perhaps adopted) country or other geographical entity. But since that is not how it is generally viewed or reported (and nor do sportspeople wave the flags/banners/logos of their sporting body) we end up using "nationality" when that isn't technically correct. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Outcome

Based on the above discussion, I think that "Sporting nationality" just about comes on top. It also has the merit of being the term used at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and the term that we've generally used in a number of previous discussions here about this issue. See {{Infobox golfer/testcases}} for what it would look like (don't bother about the actual content there, which is way out of date). It doesn't generally make the infobox any wider, so should have minimal impact. Nigej (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I've also added "sporting_nationality" as an optional name for the "nationality" parameter, which is used in the first example in the testcases. I'm assuming that we'd want to make a gradual change to this. Nigej (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure we have found a consensus? I know that I briefly vouched for "sporting nationality" but given wjemather's comments, now I am not so sure. Not to drag this on forever but I just don't feel like we are at consensus...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

legitimacy of skins games and qualifying events wins

I was wondering if these events should be included in the "Professional Wins" or "Amateur Wins" section. I assume so for skins games but I assume not for medalists in qualifying events. I don't believe this has been confirmed yet, however.

In addition, I know we have referenced this in passing, but I would like to directly confirm with other editors that we do NOT include wins in these categories: schoolboy championships, junior championships, trainees championships, pro-ams, purse events, and club championships. If anyone disagrees, however, please state that.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Finishing first at qualifying events, like 2000 PGA Qualifying School, is not a win. The first place person(s) is a medalist. None of the Tours list these as win on player's bio page. Many qualifying school medalist WP pages had these mentioned them as a win, but I took them out as seen in edits here[1], here[2], and here[3] of just many other similar edits....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you William for the help. I figured qualifying events didn't count but the confirmation is helpful.

But what about skins games? And if they are to be included in the "Wins" categories should they be put under an "Exhibition Wins" subheading? Or have their own subheading?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Jimmymci234, what is your response to the skins games questions?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It sort of depends. Skins tournaments such as Telus World Skins Game and the Skins Game (PGA Tour) are counted as pro wins as the PGA Tour counts these as additional victories and I believe these events were sanctioned by the PGA Tour in some way. Overall I think it depends on the event, if it is sanctioned or organised by a tour then I would be more likely to say it’s a pro win, whereas if it’s not organised or sanctioned by a tour then it probably is an exhibition win. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe "Skins Games" should have its own category. Lumping it under "Other wins" seems lazy as it seems to be a well-defined concept. And, as you said, it doesn't always fall under "Exhibition Wins."

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Las Vegas tournament title

(split from above) I notice the tournament in Vegas is now the Shriners Children's Open, a much-needed shortening of the name. That's one of the few PGA Tour event articles we have under a sponsored name when a non-sponsored name (Las Vegas Invitational) is available, so it seems like the sensible thing would be to move it there. However, I'm not convinced that this is a clear primary topic for that title over the basketball tournament, so Las Vegas Invitational (golf) may be best. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I definitely agree with pʰeːnuːmuː. The Shriners Hospitals for Children name has been used - in a number of variations - since 2007 but still, the more common name has been the "Las Vegas Invitational." In addition, I believe we try to ensure that we don't violate WP:RECENTISM. Although the more recent, sponsor-influenced titles for the Houston Open and Los Angeles Open have changed quite frequently we have maintained the stable, location-specific title. Likewise, I think we should re-title the "Shriners Hospitals for Children" page to the more stable, location-specific title, the "Las Vegas Invitational."

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Bumping this discussion since the tournament is next week. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Las Vegas has had nine different names since 1983. New England Classic went by ten different names in 30 years. So Las Vegas is still playing catch up. I so miss the B.C. Open....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah my feelings are the same as they were before. This is going to be the 39th edition of the event. Including this year, the event has had "Shriners Children's" in its title for the past 15 years. However, the phrase "The Las Vegas Invitational" (under a few variations) has existed for a slightly longer time period (17 events). More importantly, sponsorship tends to be ephemeral while the location of the event usually doesn't change. (If Shriners Hospital continues to sponsor the event for another ten years or something then maybe we can consider changing the name. But right now I think the "Las Vegas" title is better.)

This concept is true for other events. I mentioned the Houston Open and Los Angeles Open before. The phrase "Los Angeles Open" (in any variation) hasn't been used for the actual title of this event since 1994 and yet we maintain the historical title. (I think this is a good thing.) We also maintain the location-oriented titles for the Canadian Open (golf) and the Phoenix Open despite the fact that they have had sponsors' names in their titles for quite some time. So I think the title of this upcoming event should be "Las Vegas Invitational."

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It seems like Las Vegas Invitational is consistent with our standard practice. But as I said before, I think Las Vegas Invitational (golf) would be best since I don't think it's a clear primary topic over the basketball tournament. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I would include "golf" in parentheses for the title. I will admit I have never heard of this basketball tournament before. And just skimming the page of Las Vegas Invitational (basketball) it doesn't seem like a particularly big event (lots of lower-tier schools). But nonetheless, it isn't obvious to me that the golf tournament is a bigger deal.

Do other editors have any opinions? I feel like we need to make a decision fairly quickly as the tournament technically began today with the warm-up practice rounds.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Though only pʰeːnuːmuː and I have responded it seems clear that a consensus has been reached. It looks like the title of the event should be "Las Vegas Invitational (golf)." (Other golf editors were given no shortage of time to respond.)

pʰeːnuːmuː, I think you should change the title soon.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It requires some extra cleanup, creating a disambiguation page and piping links that currently go to Las Vegas Invitational. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 06:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Since Las Vegas Invitational is a redirect to Shriners Hospitals for Children Open, no disambiguation would be required. However, unlike other tournaments which have been moved to generic names, I not convinced we have LVI as the common name here; SHCO (or similar) has been the title for almost as long, and (unlike Colonial for example) it doesn't ever seem to be referred to by the old name. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, wjemather, but I still think it should be re-titled. My reasoning is pretty much the same as before.

You brought up the Colonial National Invitation. I feel like this comparison is a bit unfair as the event is held at Colonial Country Club. A big reason your hear "Colonial" a lot during media coverage is because it is played at a course called "Colonial."

The Los Angeles Open has not had this phrase in its title in almost thirty years. Occasionally you hear phrases like "when it was the old LA Open" but it is rare. Yet me maintain the location-oriented, historical title. With the Las Vegas event, as I stated above, it has still been referred to as the Las Vegas Invitational more than Shriner's. In addition, in the rare occurrence when it hasn't been referred to as either it usually has "Las Vegas" in its title (e.g. Invensys Classic at Las Vegas). If the event maintains the Shriner's sponsorship for another 5-10 years maybe we should change it but for now I think the Las Vegas Invitational title is best.

Also, the actual tournament has just began. I think we need to make a decision soon.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Firstly, there is absolutely no urgency here – the tournament being in progress is irrelevant. Secondly, I'm really not seeing a compelling argument for renaming this article – the current title seems to meet WP:COMMONNAME (and WP:OFFICIAL), irrespective of a general desire (which I share) to remove sponsors from article titles. As far as colonial goes, "Colonial National Invitation" is what it says on the trophy, and both the tour and third-party sources have used this name relatively recently regardless of prevailing title sponsorship; that is not the case with the LVI/SHCO/SCO. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, it should be moved to the new (shorter) name. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The Match

With The Match continuing, first without Tiger, and now without both Tiger and Phil, and since the individual editions (except maybe the first) are not notable on their own, as I see it we have two options:

1. Move The Match: Tiger vs. Phil to The Match (golf) and rewrite as a generic article.
2. Write a new generic The Match (golf) article and keep The Match: Tiger vs. Phil as this meets notability standards on its own, but significantly reduce the detail of later editions.

I lean towards option 2 but before going ahead, I'd like to hear what others think. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Difficult one without knowing the future. I prefer option 1 but also happy with option 2. Can't help feeling that the The Match: Tiger vs. Phil (the bits that relates to the original match) is quite bloated at the moment. Do we need hole by hole scoring? The Broadcast section seems excessive too. Nigej (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think option 2 would be better. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so I've executed option 2 – copied content across to the new article and trimmed the Tiger/Phil one. Plenty of scope for expansion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ramifications of the 2022 PGA Tour schedule

The PGA Tour isn't making Wikipedia's job easy. With the apparent demise of the WGC Invitational, TPC Southwind moves to its third different PGA Tour event in the last five years. It's called the FedEx St. Jude Championship, not to be confused with the WGC-FedEx St. Jude Invitational or the FedEx St. Jude Classic. Theoretically, the FedEx St. Jude Championship is the tournament formerly known as the Westchester Classic and not the tournament formerly known as the FedEx St. Jude Classic and the Stanford St. Jude Championship. Simply put, this is a mess when it comes to tournament history and article titles.

I don't know if this would help us any, but should we consider splitting the articles for the first Playoffs event and the Westchester Classic? The fact that they're considered the same event by the Tour isn't necessarily a determining factor... we have separate articles for the BMW Championship and the Western Open, which have a similar situation and are considered the same tournament by the Tour. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I would favour splitting the Westchester Classic. We also need to decide whether the Mexico Championship is new event or continuation of the WGC-Mexico, I would favour a separate article here too. Jopal22 (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Instinctually, I strongly support separating the The Northern Trust into two different pages: the Westchester Classic and the Barclays (or whatever it's called now). I had been watching the Barclays on TV for about ten years before I realized that it was a continuation of the Westchester event. To me, it has obviously evolved into a completely different event. It moved onto different courses in New Jersey, last year it was in Boston, and next year it will be in Tennessee.

Nonetheless, we don't make our own rules. If the PGA Tour says it's the same event it seems like we must defer to that. It strikes me that this proposal is a clear example of WP:OR. What was the basis for separating the Western Open and BMW Championship (PGA Tour) other than we felt like it?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Not sure it's OR. We can make our own decisions about whether to split articles or not. So we can split BMW Championship (PGA Tour) from Western Open if we have a good reason. Of course, we need to make it clear what the "official" relationship between the two is. Nigej (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

They’re definitely challenging us this year! I would support splitting the Westchester Classic and The Northern Trust, if that makes the most sense to do so. I also think the Mexico Championship will require a new page as although it is supposed to be a continuation of the WGC-Mexico Championship, to me that doesn’t mean it’s a continuation of the WGC Championship (if that makes sense). Also not to be confused with the Mexico Championship on the Korn Ferry Tour! Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Tournaments change all the time, and gaining or losing WGC or playoff (or major, or invitational, or open/closed, etc.) status is not in itself a good reason to split an article. We follow the sources, so should wait and see how they are treated by the wider golfing world (not just the PGA Tour PR department) before doing anything − it's simply too early to make an educated judgement on what will happen with these changes right now. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree, wjemather makes some nice points that I forgot to make. We should be cognizant of WP:Crystal Ball. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not know how the Mexico Championship or current FedEx St. Jude event will be treated in the future. We should wait and see how reliable third-party sources treat these events, even if it takes years.

@Nigej: What was the basis for splitting the Western Open and BMW event? Are there any third-party sources?

Also, are there any clear business/legal demarcations that distinguish one tournament from another in these cases? That would help us a lot. I would strongly assume so but I have no clue how tournaments are run.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Sometimes an article gets too long and it can make sense to split it into two. For instance we have Professional golf career of Tiger Woods, split from the main Tiger Woods article. We don't need any third-party sources for this, it's just the design of the encyclopedia. Content needs sources, of course. Seems that someone created the separate Western Open article in 2007: Special:Permalink/100130649 with the comment "A history of the Western Open from 1899 to 2006, to be separate from the BMW Championship, a PGA Tour FedEx Cup event)". Perhaps the Western Open article ought to be called History of the Western Open. Nigej (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It feels like the tours sometimes make it up as they go along and even contradict themselves sometimes. Like even this week on the European Tour with the Hero Open. They are saying it is a continuation of the Hero Open from last year and Sam Horsfield is the defending champion. Even though last year when the Hero Open was added to the schedule it was the English Open which was then being sponsored by Hero, but this year it is being played in Scotland and is obviously not part of the English Open, as that is now called the Cazoo Classic for this year. So it’s hard to follow the treatment of tournaments by the tour(s). Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that one is a right mess!! My initial thoughts were that this year's Hero would be a continuation of last year's Scottish Championship. Now I'd say that, even though the original intentions were for them to be editions of the English Open, last years Hero wasn't an English Open at all and nor is this year's Cazoo (noting their histories have been detached). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you think there needs to be any changes/amendments to the pages re Hero Opens etc or is it best left the way it is? It’s hard to have a true idea of which is which. As soon as sponsors names starts replacing the common name of the tournament then it can become a real shower. Jimmymci234 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Hero Open should be a standalone article for the tournament starting last year (and continuing this year), with some explanation in the English Open article, and the same for the Cazoo Classic (the announcement stated it "replaced the English Open", whereas the Wales open was "renamed", so not the same tournament). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

All these tournament names and histories are getting confusing. Does it remind anyone of this? I don't know. He's on third!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I was just watching the WGC-FedEx St. Jude Invitational and at the final green they announced Harris English as the "2013 Memphis champion". I thought that was interesting. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

So... is there a better solution than retitling Safeway Open to Fortinet Championship? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

So how are we going to deal with the FedEx St. Jude Championship? The current situation is really unacceptable. Readers reading the article on the 2021-22 PGA Tour who click on the wikilink for the FedEx St. Jude Championship are led to an article that does not mention anything whatsoever about a "FedEx St. Jude Championship". Meanwhile, the lead of FedEx St. Jude Classic has a whole paragraph connecting it to the new FedEx St. Jude Championship. In my view, we should either deal with the FedEx St. Jude Championship in the article of the Classic, after all it is more or less the same tournament, or create a whole new article for the FedEx St. Jude Championship. The current situation though is an unacceptable mess and cannot remain. Therefore, just waiting is not an option.Tvx1 23:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You’re missing the point. We have absolutely no sources to suggest that the FedEx St. Jude Championship is a continuation of the St Jude Classic, and there was never any information in that article to connect it to that until you added in unsourced information, violating WP:OR. The only sources we have at the minute tell us that it is a continuation of The Northern Trust, so until sources confirm otherwise this is how we reflect that here. Waiting is an option though per WP:NOHURRY. If we need to add info onto The Northern Trust page then that can be done in due course to reflect the new naming of the event. Jimmymci234 (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources are pretty vague on how the "new" St. Jude event will be treated - a continuation of the "Memphis event" (e.g. "Memphis’ PGA TOUR event will continue") or the Northern Trust (e.g. "replacing the current title sponsor"), the announcement is not clear. I've amended/added some simple referenced prose to the relevant articles that should resolve the issue until there is more clarity. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

And what are these many sources that state this will be the next edition of the Northern Trust? What we do know though that it certainly is not a mere change of sponsor. It's a new event with different organisers at a different venue.Tvx1 11:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The PGA Tour release (linked and quoted above) somewhat contradicts what you are saying. If you have found reliable sources which say different, please link them here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It doesn't claim it's only a sponsor change at all. It quite clearly states that there is a different venue as well. It claims that the opening round of the play-offs will now be held at a different venue with a different sponsor, not that The Northern Trust tournament itself is moved and renamed.Tvx1 14:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Quote: "will relocate" (in other words, moved), "will serve as the title sponsor of the event, to be known as the FedEx St. Jude Championship, replacing the current title sponsor" (in other words, renamed). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes exactly as I said, the first event of the play-offs will relocate. Not The Northern Trust will relocate. And FedEx St. Jude is the new sponsor of the first event of the play-offs. New sponsor, new location, new organizers. Much more than only a sponsor change. You are also igoniring that The Northern Trust and Northern Trust are two different things.Tvx1 15:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

New sponsor and new location/venue does not mean in any way that this is/will be a new tournament and not a continuation. In terms of organisers, aren't all of these events organised by the PGA Tour? You have yet to put forward any reliable sources to back up any of your arguments, you might want to try that if you intend to keep arguing against the main source that we are working off here. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Although on the PGA Tour website schedule, Tony Finau is listed as the defending champion of the FedEx St. Jude Championship - which I know is not clear cut but does give us some sort of clue. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Where? Can you provide a link to that? I can only find a list of "past champions" of the first play-off event, but nothing that explicitly states that Finau will defend his title going into the 2022 St. Jude Championship.Tvx1 11:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The tour schedule lists Finau as defending champion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Anything else beside that? That's not a plural sources. That one schedule is thin evidence by itself.Tvx1 14:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The only sources I can see come from the PGA Tour, with 3rd party reports being little more than regurgitations of those media releases. Unless you have found anything different? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Matt/hew Fitzpatrick

Should we move his page to be Matt Fitzpatrick rather than Matthew. His European Tour, PGA Tour and OWGR all refer to him as Matt. Jimmymci234 (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I've been thinking the same. Nigej (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

early Connecticut Opens

I recently created a winner's table for the Connecticut Open (golf). My main source says the event began in 1931. I also have another source, from 1955, that lists champions beginning in the year 1932. So it looks like the modern event began in the early 1930s.

On the bottom of the page, however, there is a link says that the famous English golfer Jim Barnes won the 1916 event and that it was a PGA Tour-level event that year. However, I cannot access that link to get more information. Also, for what it's worth, this is confirmed on his Wikipedia page under "PGA Tour wins" (no citation however). Not sure what other editors make of this.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Seems it did start in 1931, although there were at least two earlier professional events, in 1915 and 1916, with the same or similar name. Nigej (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Barnes also won in 1915, see https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-4NRAAAAIBAJ&pg=3377%2C4243383 and his medal here: https://sports.ha.com/itm/golf-collectibles/miscellaneous/1915-jim-barnes-connecticut-open-winner-s-gold-medal/a/7065-81292.s Not a PGA win, since the US PGA wasn't founded until 1916, however should presumably be in his list of other wins. Confusingly we have his Western Open win in 1914 as a PGA Win, perhaps they backdated that event. As usual with these early events its all completely confusing. Nigej (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Retained the title in 1916: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-4NRAAAAIBAJ&pg=3377%2C4243383 See also https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9P9IAAAAIBAJ&pg=4010%2C6389170 which shows that an unofficial event was planned in 1930 but cancelled. Nigej (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej. I think I am going to make a page of this event. Jim Barnes is obviously a notable golfer, it seems like all of the players on the leaderboards are famous, and it received a decent amount of media coverage.

In addition, I think the event may have been held more than twice. I have an article that says the 1910s "unofficially designated the Connecticut open championship" was held for "three or four years" though it only mentions Barnes' two victories.

It may have been played for some years in the 1920s. In 1923 there were qualifying rounds an "annual state golf championship." I also have a link that Barnes again won the event, this time in 1925.

In general, however, during this era there seems to be a lot of references towards renewing the event. See a 1922 link here. There is also some discussion in a 1927 article. Not sure what you make of this...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The 1923 event was the Connecticut Amateur which had been going since 1899 (https://www.csgalinks.org/championships/amateur/content/connecticut-amateur-past-champions). Can't find any others before WW1 despite the "3 or 4" reference. One report (https://www.newspapers.com/image/468895461/?terms=%22connecticut%20open%22) in 1915 says: "No attempt has ever been made to hold a Connecticut Open". Doubtful about the 1925 reference too. Perhas he was just the reigning champion (from 1916). Nigej (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej. Yeah it looks like the event did not continue after 1916. I think will make a page later tonight. Incidentally, we don't have a page for the Connecticut Amateur yet. I think I will make a page for that too soon.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Issue about Red Links

I am going to make a table for the Connecticut Open (golf) later today. I noticed on the current page, under the "Winners" section, we have red links for every player that does not already have a Wikipedia page. Unless there is something I don't know, these red links imply there is a good potential that these players could have a Wikipedia page. If this is the implication, it is obviously false; most of these players are super-obscure and will never have a page. This is an issue on many other pages too (e.g. South African Amateur Championship (golf)). Not sure what other member's thoughts are about "red links"...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Per WP:RED "In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article" Obviously "plausibly" is quite vague. Recently I've been adding some articles for women golfers. In many cases it's clear that there could/should be an article, it's just that our coverage of women's golf is very thin at the moment. In the cases you describe, it's more likely that the players are not notable enough for an article (per WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:NGOLF (although that's pretty vague too in some aspects). The advantage of red links is that they help when creating an article. Another advantage (or perhaps a disadvantage too) is that they encourage editors to create articles. Generally I'm quite a fan of red links but if you're convinced that the person will never deserve an article, you can delete the link part. However it's not really satisfactory to simply delete all the red links, although some editors do this, partly because they think red links look untidy. It's all a bit different if you're creating the article yourself, I think your allowed to leave out links as you please. Nigej (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

To me, a list full of redlinks is created because the creator thinks there could be a chance that an article might be written about the people / places / things some time in the future. However, in cases such as the one you cited, the passage of time tells us that the people (in this case) probably won't meet our notability standards. I would recommend unlinking the redlinks, especially for the winners of the oldest tournaments. Regards, PKT(alk) 18:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. They were very helpful. For the pages I referenced above, I think I will unlink most of these red links as it seems clear that most of these people do not deserve pages. Again, thank you for your help.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Ooggywoogly

The South African Amateur Championship (golf) table actually needs more red links towards the top, in my opinion. Anyone successful in amateur golf recently has a decent chance of becoming notable enough for an article. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 00:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that's fair enough ...... perhaps the names from the last 10 years or so? I dunno, it's a matter of judgment. However, the redlinks from back in the 1970s and older should be unlinked, IMO. PKT(alk) 14:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. Given it would seem there is very much less than a 50% chance of them ever generating sufficient coverage to warrant an article, it's better to leave amateur golfers unlinked until such time that an article gets created. The British and US Amateur championships may be the only exceptions to this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone like Doug Proudfoot clearly deserves an article. There's one at nl:Douglas Proudfoot. See: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601235320/http://www.golfhalloffame.co.za:80/inductees/inductee_2009_DouglasProudfoot.asp Nigej (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I firmly agree with wjemather. I feel like most of the contemporary golfers mentioned in the tables will never warrant a page. I don't think redlinks apply to them. I did provide redlinks for Lewis Chitengwa and Won Joon Lee, two guys who recently finished high up, as they were the only modern players I've heard of, but that's it.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Thriston Lawrence was one of the players I had in mind when I commented above, and he's definitely notable now. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 14:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Creating all the Espirito Santo Trophy and European Ladies Team Championship articles, I've noticed that in many cases, the same female players appears under different red links, after coming back with a new last name. I think it's valuable for the reader to identify players correct. Usally in golf historical publications, female players are identified in the same way through their careers. EEJB (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

In player articles we use the same surname throughout the article, generally the name in the article title, even when we are talking about a point in their career where they actually had a different surname. However, in tournament articles we use the surname they had at the time of that tournament. That makes historical sense and avoids the problem of changing large numbers of articles when a female golfer changes her surname. Nigej (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe that's a reason to be restrictive with red links, but thats's easier with players from earlier years. You can't be sure who will be a star of those at recent amateur championships.EEJB (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yale Golf Course edits

I recently put up a tag for this article. It is the "third party" tag - being too closely related to the subject.

Basically, I think someone a bit too emotionally invested in Yale Golf Course created a relatively nice but overly detailed page. The page feels more like a work of journalism (or even advertising) than an encyclopedic entry. I am thinking about severely condensing the tournament section and deleting most of the college golf stuff. In addition, I am thinking of deleting the Course section (which includes a sub-section for each hole). Also, I will probably change a lot of the effusive language (WP:FLOWERY) in the intro and history sections (e.g. "Yale is notable for its scale").

The reason I am bringing it up here is because I have never made such extensive edits to a page like this before (or, I think, to any page). I wanted to get some consensus first about what I want to do and perhaps some advice. Any help would be welcome.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Yep. Ridden with WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues, with far too much niche interest content unsuitable for WP (WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:PROMO). A couple of things stand out:

1. Keep the New Haven/Connecticut Open stuff; the rest of the tournament/competition detail can be trimmed to a sentence or two about hosting USGA Juniors, NCAA regionals, Macdonald Cup, Spring Invl., etc. (all the results can go - these are not notable events).
2. The "Course" section can be reduced to what it is: a scorecard; keep the photo.

The rest of the article could also do with a going-over and it certainly needs more independent sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Got started on this one. Mainly condensed the tournament stuff.

Wjemather, you mentioned that the Course section should be reduced to a "scorecard" but also "keep the photo." I don't quite understand - aren't they the same thing?

I forgot to mention this earlier but the Rankings section also seems very promotional. (They even mention the world rank of the course's custodian.) Is it common for other golf course pages to include rankings?

Will work on improving this page over the next few days as I have time.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I am assuming the layout has changed somewhat since that early scorecard in the photo. The rankings stuff can be reduced to a sentence somewhere (i.e. keep any significant one(s) and don't have a dedicated section). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

pages for deletion?

There are two golf pages I recently came across that I think should be deleted.

The first one is Connecticut Golf Hall of Fame. I'm not sure if a golf hall of fame for small state that is not really known for pro golf should have its own page. In addition, there seems to be an inadequate amount of reliable third-party citations.

The other page is List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours. Strikes me as obvious WP:OR and "synthesis."

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I would agree with you, but the problem we have at the moment is that "deletion is not cleanup" is flavour of the month. For example, OR applies to the content of an article. Someone's going to say: maybe the current content is OR but actually its a potentially useful article, we just need to find suitable content. I tried to get rid of Women's golf in the Republic of Ireland recently but my PROD was contested even though its a completely useless article. Nigej (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

One possible way forward is to turn some of them into redirects, eg create an article State golf halls of fame or whatever, which might be a worthwhile article, and redirect Connecticut Golf Hall of Fame etc to that. Nigej (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej for your response; it was clarifying. If there is a "clean-up over deletion" policy is then I have to say I think this policy it is absolutely terrible. In theory it might be ok but in reality it is just terrible. The inadequate pages that proliferate WikiProject Golf are almost never improved upon. Please look at the pages of Roger Mackay and Dana Quigley. Both of these pages were created around 15 years ago. Mackay's page only has five citations and almost all were added by me or Nigej the past two years. Quigley's page has precisely zero citations. These are not random examples - the inadequate golf profiles are absolutely everywhere.

This isn't to say that people like Mackay or Quigley don't deserve pages (they obviously do). But nonetheless if they start out as terribly done and are never improved upon over the course of a decade (or more) then it seems clear to me that this is trend. It is likely they will never be sufficiently improved upon and therefore should be deleted.

And in general this "cleanup over deletion" trend strikes me as a big deal and an enormous problem. As an administrator, Nigej, do you have any influence on fixing this problem?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

OR isn't much of a problem at this WP. Baseball articles, which I work on too, is another matter. Sticking to NPOV is too. Please define what is a good or bad year? Unless the assessment is referenced, it shouldn't be in the article. If you want to see some really creative golf article writing, look at this reversion[4] I did some years ago....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

As the originator of List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours, I'm here to defend it. WP:OR says, ""original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist," which is not the case in the list because all of the wins are a matter of record and are referenced. WP:OR goes on to say "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources," which cannot be the case here because the sources say Brooke Henderson has 10 wins, George Knudson and Sandra Post and Mike Weir have 8, etc, etc. Regards, PKT(alk) 01:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi PK,

While you do use a number of reliable third-party sources for List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours you are, in my mind, "synthesizing" them to create an entirely new, "original" page. If, say, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (or any other reliable third-party source) had a consolidated webpage that listed all of these Canadian PGA and LPGA winners on a singular article then we could use that as a template for a Wikipedia page. But, from what I've searched, there is nothing like that on the internet. (In addition, you have not provided one so far.) Hence my advocacy for deletion. If you can provide a reliable third-party link which references all of these Canadian golfers and their wins on these tours that would be helpful and maybe that would save the page. But so far it looks like this is clear WP:OR.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

To me the main issue with it is that it purports to be a complete list. I think that's the OR part. Nigej (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

More importantly, is being Canadian and a tour winner actually a notable intersection (actually 2 intersections) that has (have) been widely discussed in independent secondary sources? There are precisely zero sources in the list to suggest that it might be (the only source along those lines is a PGA Tour produced media guide, which doesn't count). Same problem with the CT HoF – plus, as it stands, it isn't an article; do any sources exist discussing the hall in depth? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I can see the synthesis argument. Still don't agree that it's WP:OR (heck, any decent article requires some level of research) but to Nigej's point - thanks to help from other editors, the list is complete as we could get with their collaboration. Anyway, act as you see fit. If and when the list is deleted, it is linked from Sports in Canada#Golf, so we will have to manage that issue. Regards, PKT(alk) 23:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I intend to attempt to delete these pages very soon. However, I haven't done this before and don't know the protocol. Does anyone have a link with instructions?

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It's all covered by the WP:AfD process. See WP:BEFORE which tells you what to do before you nominate an article and has the instructions on how to nominate it afterwards (I, II, III). Nigej (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Just created the deletion page: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Canadian_winners_on_the_PGA_and_LPGA_Tours. I would like other members to contribute.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I would appreciate it if other golf editors like Nigej, Tewapack, Jimmymci234 responded on the deletion page for List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours. In addition, PK, you are free to defend your page - right now it is 2-0 against you.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The user Locomotive207 just "relisted" the aforementioned deletion page "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" because not enough people responded. Kind of the same thing I just said before. Could users like Nigej, Tewapack, Jimmymci234, and PK please contribute to the deletion page?? It's fine if you disagree with me. Several of you basically responded to this earlier on this talk page. So all you would have to do is copy and paste those comments; it should only take a few seconds.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Yale Golf Team page

First off, I was wondering if a page like this should even exist. There are not many college golf team pages like this on Wikipedia (though there are a few). I could not find separate wiki pages for leading college golf teams like Oklahoma State University–Stillwater, Arizona State University, or UCLA. Even the golf team of Stanford University (where Tiger Woods went to college) doesn't have its own page. Not exactly sure if Yale deserves one...

Nonetheless, let's say that the Yale Golf Team does deserve their own page. (It does look like they were pretty good in the early 20th century.) This page is still awash with third-party issues. I checked out the page history and, as I suspected, it was created by the same guy who created Yale Golf Course. This user created a nice page but, like Yale Golf Course, it is far too detailed and written in an overly "journalistic" style. In addition, there are a few other small problems. For example, most of the infobox is in bold (I assume this is against something in WP:MOS) and he even uses Wikipedia as a citation at one point - flagrantly against our rules.

I put up a tag and will start making edits later in the week. But if anyone wants to get a head start on this be my guest.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

For starters, I've removed the excessive use of bold from the college infobox. Nigej (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This article's title definitely doesn't follow the standard formatting for college sports teams. I'm surprised there's no overarching college sports Wikiproject, but we can take some cues from WP:WikiProject College football and WP:WikiProject College Basketball when it comes to style. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 07:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on usage of the infobox (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_college_golf_team) we have about 30 separate articles, sometimes men and women combined, sometimes both separately, sometimes just one. Sometimes content is just in the parent article eg Oklahoma State Cowboys and Cowgirls#Golf, which is a perfectly acceptable approach. Nigej (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the link User:Nigej. Far more universities have golf team pages than I knew about. And now that I think about it, even though Yale hasn't won a NCAA title since 1943, given that they were so dominant in the early 20th century (21 NCAA titles) it seems clear that they deserve a page. (We must respect WP:RECENTISM here).

My only real remaining reservation dealing with the general viability of the article has to do with including both the men's and women's teams on the same page. All existing golf team pages that I see here distinguish between the men's and women's teams. This makes sense because - as far as I know - the genders are never integrated in college golf. This Yale page should probably be split in half.

Otherwise, though the article should generally stay, there are many other problems, mainly on the same lines as Yale Golf Course. The history section needs to be trimmed and its journalistic style has to go. The tables, like the tables on the golf course page, can be deleted. The notable players section strikes me as obvious WP:OR and should also be deleted; some of the worthwhile information can be merged into the history section.

Lastly, pʰeːnuːmuː, you mentioned that the title did not adhere to Wikipedia's standards. I changed the infobox title to the appropriate title, "Yale University Bulldogs golf," but I don't know how to change the page title. I tried using "Source editing" but did not see any option. Any help would be much appreciated.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Click on "More" (to the right of "View History"). You should find "Move". Follow the instructions there, giving a reason. Nigej (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I've moved it to Yale Bulldogs golf. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 07:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the help with the title guys.

I am also thinking about creating an independent page for Yale University women's golf team. As I stated before, I noticed that some of these college golf teams have the genders combined on one page. However, usually these pages are separate (as they should be in my opinion - these teams are never integrated in any sense). I am not sure if the Yale women's team is notable enough for their own page, however. I was wondering what other people thought.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Updated OWGR abbreviations

Following on from discussion at Wjemather's talk page. The OWGR has updated tour abbreviations for PGA and European Tours to PGAT and DPWT respectively. I suggested updating the PGA Tour's new abbreviation on all event winners tables etc, but not for European Tour abbreviation in line with WP:COMMONNAME as ET is still the common name for the tour and not DP World Tour so we should still keep using EUR abbreviation for now. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. DPWT is just confusing at the moment. PGAT makes a lot of sense I think and seems a natural abbreviation. I don't think there's any need for us to follow OWGR is this area. The abbreviation we use should be the one that makes most sense to our readers. Nigej (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also support using PTLA for PGA Tour Latinoamérica... I don't know if we have any articles that use an abbreviation for PGA Tour Canada, but I'd advocate distinguishing it from the Canadian Tour. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Something like "PGAT" definitely seems more intuitive to me. I think when we started the tour columns last year I originally I put in "PGA" rather than "USA" as it simply seemed more natural. (I have definitely never heard anyone refer to the PGA Tour as the "USA Tour" - or anything like that - in my entire life.)

I think we should definitely stick with the "EUR" abbreviation. Sponsorship can be fickle - who knows how long this organization will stay with DP World.

It looks like the OWGR abbreviation of PGA Tour Latinoamerica is "SAM." This doesn't make much sense to me. First off, a significant portion of events on this tour are not even in South America. In addition, this abbreviation has nothing to do with the actual title of the tour. So I agree with pʰeːnuːmuː and think we should change it to "PTLA."

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The justification for PTLA seems fair enough from what I originally thought. I know Tewapack tried to change this before but I reverted it as I thought we were supposed to use OWGR above anything else. I will amend accordingly as it seems PTLA is the more favoured abbreviation. On another note, the Hassan II Golf Trophy will be played on the PGA Tour Champions this year. I had put the acronym in the tour column as 'PTC' which I’m not sure is that great as it could easily be confused with PGA Tour China or PGA Tour Canada. Would anyone have any better suggestions for a PGA Tour Champions acronym? Jimmymci234 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Historically, the OWGR have used regional/country abbreviations which have not distinguished between different tours, so we really cannot follow them religiously. Following on, it makes sense to use more natural abbreviations whenever possible anyway. I'd suggest something simple like CHMP or CHAMP for Champions Tour, and PTLA/PGATLA, PTCHN/PGATCHN, PTCAN/PGATCAN for the satellites (to differentiate from earlier tours in those countries/region). It would be useful if we maintained a list for reference. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Tim Rosaforte

I just created a draft for Tim Rosaforte, an American golf journalist who recently died. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The main issue will be demonstrating that he's notable, see WP:N, WP:GNG, especially WP:JOURNALIST. You'll need to provide enough sources to demonstrate that. Nigej (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NGOLF) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NGOLF] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion."If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Minnesota State Junior Boys’ Golf Championship page

I am in the process of creating an article for a professional golfer and came across the page for Minnesota State Junior Boys' Golf Championship. I am not sure if all of these tournaments should be listed on the same page as they may not all be referring to the same event. Some of these tournaments are continuous with the others but there are sizable overlaps for some other tournaments (e.g. the Minnesota Jaycee Junior Golf Tournament goes from 1947 to 1975 while the MGA Junior Golf Championships runs from 1961 to 2001). Perhaps separate pages should be created for some of these tournaments.

Any advice would be helpful as I am unfamiliar with these junior tournaments and do not have a good idea how some of these tournament titles may relate to others.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Even if there is enough coverage for such tournaments to pass GNG, we probably don't need tables of winners for such minor events – just mention the notable ones in the prose. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't suggest splitting into more than one article. The event itself may be notable but almost certainly the winners aren't and probably individual years aren't either. There's no requirement for us to cover all events in the same way and this is an example of where we should cover mostly the event itself (as done at the start here) and direct readers to external sources that have the list of winners, etc. Nigej (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you. When I have time - probably not for a few months - I will begin to revise it. Whoever created the page made a nice start but I suspect this will be a lot of work.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Tournament Wins section

I noticed for leading amateur golfers like Francis Ouimet and Bobby Jones (golfer) we have a comprehensive Tournament Wins section that compiles all of their wins. However, it seems to be consensus that we maintain separate Amateur Wins and Professional Wins sections for all golfers. Therefore separate sections should probably be created.

I have one reservation however: the continuity of their triumphs would be broken up. For most golfers that is not a problem - most play as amateurs during high school and college and then turn pro in their early 20s and remain pro from thereon in. With Ouimet and Jones and other notable amateur golfers, however, the chronology would definitely be broken up if we create separate sections. Not sure what other members think we should do and if there is some already established consensus regarding this issue for lifelong amateur golfers.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

My own view is that players who were amateur their whole careers don't need separate sections. I think it would be confusing to have a section called "Professional wins" for them, although I suppose we could have "Wins in professional events". Jones was a professional when he came back to play in the Masters but I'd put him in that category too. Nigej (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I think you are right. I don't really see the point of creating different sections if they maintains the "amateur" title their whole career. It's just pointless and confusing.

If members have noticed the wins sections of lifelong amateur golfers separated like this, please revert them to an overarching Tournament Wins category. I just did this on the page of the amateur golfer Dick Siderowf.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Minnesota State Open / National Car Open

I have been doing some research on a page for a pro golfer from Minnesota. In the course of the research I have been trying to identify whether the Minnesota Open was entitled the National Car Open during the late 20th century. According to this link it says that George Shortridge won the National Car Open in 1966 and 1981. And on our Minnesota State Open page it says he won the state open those years. It also says that Bill Israelson won the National Car Open in 1991 which aligns with the Minnesota Open page.

Basically, I'm pretty confident these titles are referring to the same event but don't know for sure yet. If anyone can provide verification that'd be great.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Long article in the Star Tribune July 21, 2017 page C2 " which says it was called the National Car Open from 1980 to 1997 and the Best Buy Open from 1998 to 2001. Nigej (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej. I found the article and used it to begin a history section. I also created the table.

My only remaining issue with the page is with integrating the titles within the table. We do this with most of our tournament pages when the name changes (e.g. New Zealand Open - titles like BMW ISPS Handa New Zealand Open and BMW New Zealand Open are integrated within the table). I would do this myself but don't know how (source editing?). If anyone knows how that would be nice.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

One last thing: if anyone knows amateurs that won the event in the 20th century please add the amateur label. I added it for the few amateurs that I know won the event (e.g. Johnston, Ulrich) however I suspect that many others won it back then. If you know anything please add away.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly