![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A couple of issues come up in relation to these tables:
1. On a number of occasions (2009, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019) the tournament has used the third round cut: MDF – made cut, did not finish. See eg https://www.theplayers.com/past-results.html . This has also happened in the FedEx Cup Playoffs, eg 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs where we use a T74† style with a footnote. We need to decide on the contents of the cell in these cases. Various options come to mind.
Perhaps (c) seems best to me, following the FedEx Cup Playoffs style.
2. In the 1983 Tournament Players Championship bad weather meant that the second round was only completed on Saturday and two rounds were planned for Sunday. To achieve this, only 67 players made the cut (at 149) rather than the normal 70 + ties. The 8 players on 150 received prize money. https://www.theplayers.com/past-results.html for 1983 has these as "T68" rather than "CUT". Rather similar to the MDF above except that the 8 players only played two rounds, not three.
Perhaps something like (c) seems best but would need a different style of footnote. Nigej ( talk) 17:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The winner tables in the articles for the five current alternate events ( Sanderson Farms Championship, Puerto Rico Open, Corales Puntacana Resort and Club Championship, Barbasol Championship, Reno–Tahoe Open) all have a column with a link to the specific WGC or major that was played the same week. I've never understood why it's necessary to (for example) link to every single edition of the Masters from 1969 to 1993. I'd prefer, where necessary, to have a smaller table like this:
Year(s) | Tournament |
---|---|
2014–18 | WGC-HSBC Champions |
1994–98, 2011–13 | The Open Championship |
2008, 2010 | Ryder Cup |
2007 | Presidents Cup |
2003–04, 2006 | WGC-American Express Championship |
1999–2002, 2005 | Tour Championship |
1969–1993 | Masters Tournament |
1968 | Colonial National Invitation |
pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 22:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I am currently in dispute with Tewapack ( talk · contribs) over Women's PGA Championship articles. The editor argues that the articles for the tournaments themselves must first and foremost refer to the events under its sponsored title, the KPMG Women's PGA Championship, in the lead. I had moved them to remove "KPMG" from the actual titles, but the editor has undone by changes to remove the sponsor title from the lead.
The editor has argued that names which do not recognize the naming rights sponsor as being inaccurate and an invented name "never used in reality". I object to this, as it contradicts our historic handling of these names (which often credit the sponsor in a "branded as x for sponsorship reasons"-type remark), especially within the same tournament (where all of the past iterations, branded as the LPGA Championship, do not mention their individual sponsors on the pages at all). I argued that this is more concise and consistent.
Are there any opinions on this within the WikiProject? ViperSnake151 Talk 19:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm assuming we want to change {{ Infobox golfer}} to reflect the recent name change from the Web.com Tour to the Korn Ferry Tour. Currently we have:
| label28 = Web.com Tour
which would become:
| label28 = Korn Ferry Tour
See {{ Infobox golfer/testcases}} where I have given Greg Norman a fictitious win on the tour. Nigej ( talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Our current norm for golf articles is to list the winners from most recent to earliest. A non-golf editor recently put in a cleanup template at Kansai Open, with the note "dates in reverse chronological order, contrary to WP:DATELIST." That guideline states, "Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order." The only golf tournament article I know of that does this is Masters Tournament Par-3 contest, which a non-golf editor got hold of and ordered the table that way (bizarrely, the "to par" column heading has a link to Par (score), a footnote explaining the term, and a reference to a webpage explaining it).
It may be argued by some that that guideline only applies to standalone lists, but this isn't clearly stated. What does everyone think about this? pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 19:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This is very irritating. A month ago someone posted a tag requesting the order be changed to chronological order. Someone in this project posted here about it and there were a couple of days discussion. But the tag requesting change to chronological order was left there, it wasn't edited to say it was being discussed, and nothing was placed on the article's talk page (which I wouldn't have seen even if it were there, but it wasn't.) So I saw the tag requesting reversing the order, did it, removed the tag...and had it reverted. At least the tag is gone which is what I really care about but it would have been faster if the change-the-order step were skipped. Just saying: if this happens again please remove the tag requesting the change or edit it so people know to see that there is a discussion going on. Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 18:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm planning to get the Category:Web.com Tour and it sub-categories moved under the WP:C2D procedure. Nigej ( talk) 13:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The article Pipestone Golf Course has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Totally ordinary municipal golf club, this article has no independent sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Bearian (
talk)
19:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Just thought it would be useful to share. The Open has released a comprehensive media guide this year, with tonnes of info which is sometimes difficult to find. I definitely think it is the best 1st port of call if you are looking for info on the open.
It can be found here
Click on The Open Championship, and then The 148th Open 2019 Media Guide.pdf at the bottom of the page. Jopal22 ( talk) 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Nearly every time a major has concluded, some of us go to the Wikipedia page of the winner to enter the updated information, and we get edit conflicts and other inference from jokesters who come along and foul things up while we are only trying to get the task done. It's aggravating. (You probably saw many of those silly edits last night on Gary Woodland's page).
So I have an idea. How about, when at the conclusion of the 3rd round of a major, we consider the player who is in the lead, and we then go to a Wikipedia administrator's page and request page protection for that golfer's page, in advance. That way, if that leader in fact goes on to win the tournament, we can be free from the unregistered accounts doing vandalism while we try to edit that golfer's page for the win. If all of us ask for that protection, an admin is likely to take it seriously and cooperate and put protection on the page in advance. Even the US Open page needed protection overnight last night.
Johnsmith2116 (
talk)
10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll add that even if we don't do this idea, surely we have to do something. We all update here voluntarily (I assume) and it's not right that nonregistered vandals can come along and mess things up for us while we are trying to complete the task. It's maddening to get that "edit conflict" message only to find out it was a vandal that messed up your effort. I don't mind the message when it's a legitimate edit in which another editor simply beat me to it, it's only when it's a vandal that it's upsetting. Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 10:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Originally I created Adrià Arnaus per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 6#Adrià Arnaus Antúnez. Since then OWGR have switched to Adri Arnaus so I'm thinking that would be the best option now. Will move if no one objects. Nigej ( talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The new format for the Tour Championship complicates things in several areas.
— pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Jopal22 ( talk) 22:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the 2019 FedEx Cup Playoffs page, with the new playoff format, it seems like adding the same information twice by having both a leaderboard for the Tour Championship and having a "Final" leaderboard at the same time. Should we keep both? Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 10:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The AFD can be found here [1]. Please come over and join in the conversation. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The new https://www.europeantour.com/ seems to have gone live. I have changed {{ EuroTour player}} so that it uses eg http://www.europeantour.com/players/2586/ rather than http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/players/playerid=2586 This seems to work for the few cases I've tried. Doubtless there will be plenty more issues. Nigej ( talk) 18:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that a "European circuit" label I have used to categorize some golfer's pre-1972 wins has been deleted. For example, it was removed under Bobby Locke. I also placed Bob Charles' 1963 Open Championship victory under the "European circuit" which was removed. Nonetheless, the "European circuit" category for Peter Townsend, Tony Jacklin, Kel Nagle, and Cobie Legrange was not been modified. Is there a consensus that the "European circuit" is a legitimate concept or not? Also, what about the other "circuits" (Australia, South Africa)?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 23:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywooggly
The Olympic Golf competition is shown as "official" on wikipedia for the European Tour, when it has no R2D points or prize money. Justin Rose has 11 ET wins according to the ET ( https://www.europeantour.com/players/justin-rose-1941/) compared to 12 on wikipedia. I think we should move the olympics to "unofficial". I think the confusion is because the PGA Tour uses the term "official" and "unofficial", and wikipedia has mapped that to the ET which doesn't really use the same terminology. Anyone against the change? Jopal22 ( talk) 18:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Could we create firmer boundaries for the "Professional Wins" category in the template? Under professional wins it includes just about everything the particular golfer has won as a professional, including exhibitions. For example, Padraig Harrington's "professional wins" include his two British Opens and six Irish PGAs. Fred Couples' 62 "professional wins" includes his Masters win, his Dubai Desert Classic win, his victory as a teenager in his local state open (the 1978 Washington Open), and all of his Skins Games wins. It's total apples and oranges. This pattern is true for just about any big-time golfer. I was thinking under "professional wins" to include maybe including only events sponsored by a tour or provide OWGR points?
Also, could the category for "Number of Wins by Tour" be tightened? There is a lot of overlap. For example, it says that Dustin Johnson has won 20 PGA Tour events and 7 European Tour events so it gives the impression he has won 27 combined US/Euro events. However he has actually won 21 between tours. It also says Brooks Koepka has 7 PGA Tour wins and 6 European Tour wins - but again, this is very misleading. He has a combined 8 wins between tours. With Rory McIlroy it is same deal; it says he has 17 PGA and 13 Euro PGA but is actually 23 combined. It also says he has an Asian Tour victory which gives the impression of another win but it was co-sanctioned by he European Tour and is already included in the European Tour category. This is common among European golfers who play a lot of co-sanctioned events giving them the impression of more wins than they actually have. Obviously I think the Asian Tour information should be included somewhere in the article but I don't think a separate row is necessary in the template.
For those that have won between the two big tours could we create a category "US/Euro wins"? Also, if golfers have won on other tours, maybe we could include "Official Wins" beneath it? So in McIlroy's case we could include his Australia Open win. McIlroy's could look something like:
US/Euro wins: 23 Official wins: 24
Now I am aware that there are no firm boundaries between what is an "official" tour and what is not (I am also very aware of the pushback I received from my "Official Tour wins" page). I am not saying that boundaries need to be drawn between those six tours (PGA, Euro, Japan, South Africa, Australian, Asia) but boundaries need to be drawn somewhere. To bring it full circle, on Fred Couples "Number of Wins by Tour" section notes his "32 other wins" which include all of his victories during the aptly titled "Silly Season." Firmer boundaries need to be drawn somewhere. I am not saying it needs to be with the six "big" tours but maybe with events that include OWGR points.
Thoughts?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 00:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
To 51.6.155.29: the win total you and Wikipedia have created for Greg Norman is the very definition of WP:OR. I cannot believe you are sticking with this. You have subtracted from other sources to create your own win total (88). Even if there is a website floating around on the internet that lists Greg Norman's total wins at 88 it still would not strike me as particularly reliable as most other websites have different numbers.
To other golf editors including ...William, Nigej, Tewapack, and Jopal22: what are your opinions? I believe I have made a strong case to delete "Professional Wins."
My ideas on how to move forward re: the "Professional Wins" category:
- We could delete "Professional Wins" and leave that place blank
- If "Professional Wins" is deleted another option would be to replace it with "PGA Tour wins," "European Tour wins," "Asian Tour wins," or whatever category is most relevant to that particular golfer.
Earlier I also mentioned how I would like the "Wins by Tour" category to be "tightened" due to the level of overlapping, "co-sanctioned" victories between tours. I mentioned how we could include a combined US/Euro wins category and then an "Official Wins" category that encompasses all major tours. So it would look something like this:
Rory McIlroy US/Euro wins: 24 Official wins: 25 (includes Australian Open win)
However, I must say that I have not found many reliable sources that reference these categories. The closest I got to the US/Euro category was this article in Golfweek. I don't believe there are any for the six big tours or eight big tours or whatnot. So unless someone can find more reliable sources for these categories I must admit defeat.
However I believe this area of the template to be misleading. As I stated earlier, it states that McIlory now has 18 PGA Tour wins and 14 European Tour wins which implies that he has 32 wins between tours; in fact it is 24 wins. It is a similar problem with most other big name golfers. It implies that Dustin Johnson has 27 wins (20 US, 7 Euro) when it is actually 21. This is also a problem for lesser known golfers. Danny Lee's first win at a professional event was the Johnie Walker Classic, a European Tour event co-sanctioned by the Asian and Australasian Tours. He has only won once at the regular tour level since. Yet on his "Number of Wins by Tour" it implies he has 4 wins rather than 2 wins on regular tours. This is quite an increase considering that golfers rarely win events. Similarly it implies that Dylan Frittelli has 5 rather than 3 victories on the regular tours. This is quite common among a lot of European Tour golfers because there are so many co-sanctioned events.
So what to do here??? I don't think the options are great because "US/Euro wins" and "Official wins" don't seem to be viable. Other options could be:
- to only include victories on the most competitive tour among the co-sanctioned events. Because Lee's co-sanctioned victory was on the European Tour it could just state "1 PGA Tour win" and "1 European Tour win."
- for players like McIlroy or Johnson we could create additional rows that refer to WGCs or Majors where we could avoid overlap. So, for example, with McIlroy it could state:
Regular PGA Tour wins: 11 Regular European Tour wins: 7 WGC wins: 3 Major wins: 4 Australian Tour wins: 1
For Johnson it could state:
Regular PGA Tour wins: 13 Regular European Tour wins: 1 WGC wins: 6 Major wins: 1
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 00:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Now that this tournament is going to be an invitational, is it okay to keep the page name Los Angeles Open? Or, should the name of the page be changed? Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 13:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing quite a few drafts for golfers that play in the second or third tier golf tournaments such as PGA Tour Latinoamérica, Nationwide Tour, European Challenge Tour. Are any of these acceptable for WP:NGOLF's "They have won at least one professional golf tournament"? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 19:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems that Danish sources go for Højgaard, eg https://www.golf.dk/nyhed/rasmus-h%C3%B8jgaard-har-kurs-mod-europatouren, https://www.tv3sport.dk/sport/golf/nyheder/rasmus-hojgaard-slar-elendigt-bunkerslag-men-se-lige-hans-sublime-reaktion etc. so I'm thinking that would be our best choice. Nigej ( talk) 13:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I've changed them all to "aa", which seems to be correct. Nigej ( talk) 14:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I have requested the move of Four-ball golf to Four-ball (golf). Please see the discussion. Thanks. 51.6.161.113 ( talk) 20:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have requested the move of Foursome (golf) to Foursomes. Please see the discussion. Thanks. 51.6.161.113 ( talk) 23:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
An page has been created called Scandinavian Mixed redirecting to Scandinavian Masters, yet it is described as a new (mixed gender) tournament. Shouldn't the Scandinavian Masters be reverted to say the tournament had been discontinued?...and a proper Scandinavian Mixed page set up? Jopal22 ( talk) 22:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I recently added or modified the "Playoff Record" tables for John Inman, Anders Sorensen, and Jean van de Velde. However I do not know how to add color to these rows (which denote win or loss - I believe it is green for a win and red for a loss). Could someone explain how? (And yes I prefer if someone just explained it to me rather than did it... teach a man to fish...)
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 07:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
It's a matter of adding the color to the "|-" that start each row. So:
|-
becomes:
|- style="background:#D0F0C0;"
or:
|- style="background:#F2C1D1;"
"D0F0C0" is a greeny color ( Tea Green) for a win while "F2C1D1" ( Fairy Tale (color)), a reddy color for a loss. This is my preferred color scheme (which you'll find for the European Tour playoff sections). However most PGA Tour playoff sections use a different color scheme, using "F5DEB3" ( Wheat (color)) for a win and "B0E0E6" ( Powder blue#Web colour) for a loss, which personally I find a little obscure.These are the two main color schemes. I have noticed some use of "F08080" ( Light Coral) as a reddy background color but personally I find it too heavy for a background color, see eg Rocco Mediate#PGA Tour wins (6). Nigej ( talk) 08:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence that Bobby Cole was invited to play at the 1971 Masters? He seemed to qualify (finished within top 16 at 1970 US Open) but there is no evidence that he was invited to play at the Masters.
Now I know that the Masters is technically an "invitational" and they don't have to "invite" everyone that meets there published qualifying criteria. In addition, back then international players only automatically qualified if they had won the tournament previously (Gary Player being the only one in this era). Otherwise, they had to rely on a "special foreign invitation." Nonetheless, I am not aware of a foreign player who met the published qualifying criteria who did not receive a "special foreign invitation." Bobby Cole's absence from the 1971 Masters is the only potential example I am aware of.
So is there any evidence that Cole played? It doesn't look like it. Otherwise, is there any evidence that he was invited but did not play for some outstanding reason (e.g. injury)? Usually it would say this on the 1971 Masters wiki page but it does not.
Secondly, are you aware of any (other) international golfers that met the published qualifying criteria but were not invited?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 00:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
A couple of issues come up in relation to these tables:
1. On a number of occasions (2009, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019) the tournament has used the third round cut: MDF – made cut, did not finish. See eg https://www.theplayers.com/past-results.html . This has also happened in the FedEx Cup Playoffs, eg 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs where we use a T74† style with a footnote. We need to decide on the contents of the cell in these cases. Various options come to mind.
Perhaps (c) seems best to me, following the FedEx Cup Playoffs style.
2. In the 1983 Tournament Players Championship bad weather meant that the second round was only completed on Saturday and two rounds were planned for Sunday. To achieve this, only 67 players made the cut (at 149) rather than the normal 70 + ties. The 8 players on 150 received prize money. https://www.theplayers.com/past-results.html for 1983 has these as "T68" rather than "CUT". Rather similar to the MDF above except that the 8 players only played two rounds, not three.
Perhaps something like (c) seems best but would need a different style of footnote. Nigej ( talk) 17:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The winner tables in the articles for the five current alternate events ( Sanderson Farms Championship, Puerto Rico Open, Corales Puntacana Resort and Club Championship, Barbasol Championship, Reno–Tahoe Open) all have a column with a link to the specific WGC or major that was played the same week. I've never understood why it's necessary to (for example) link to every single edition of the Masters from 1969 to 1993. I'd prefer, where necessary, to have a smaller table like this:
Year(s) | Tournament |
---|---|
2014–18 | WGC-HSBC Champions |
1994–98, 2011–13 | The Open Championship |
2008, 2010 | Ryder Cup |
2007 | Presidents Cup |
2003–04, 2006 | WGC-American Express Championship |
1999–2002, 2005 | Tour Championship |
1969–1993 | Masters Tournament |
1968 | Colonial National Invitation |
pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 22:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I am currently in dispute with Tewapack ( talk · contribs) over Women's PGA Championship articles. The editor argues that the articles for the tournaments themselves must first and foremost refer to the events under its sponsored title, the KPMG Women's PGA Championship, in the lead. I had moved them to remove "KPMG" from the actual titles, but the editor has undone by changes to remove the sponsor title from the lead.
The editor has argued that names which do not recognize the naming rights sponsor as being inaccurate and an invented name "never used in reality". I object to this, as it contradicts our historic handling of these names (which often credit the sponsor in a "branded as x for sponsorship reasons"-type remark), especially within the same tournament (where all of the past iterations, branded as the LPGA Championship, do not mention their individual sponsors on the pages at all). I argued that this is more concise and consistent.
Are there any opinions on this within the WikiProject? ViperSnake151 Talk 19:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm assuming we want to change {{ Infobox golfer}} to reflect the recent name change from the Web.com Tour to the Korn Ferry Tour. Currently we have:
| label28 = Web.com Tour
which would become:
| label28 = Korn Ferry Tour
See {{ Infobox golfer/testcases}} where I have given Greg Norman a fictitious win on the tour. Nigej ( talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Our current norm for golf articles is to list the winners from most recent to earliest. A non-golf editor recently put in a cleanup template at Kansai Open, with the note "dates in reverse chronological order, contrary to WP:DATELIST." That guideline states, "Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order." The only golf tournament article I know of that does this is Masters Tournament Par-3 contest, which a non-golf editor got hold of and ordered the table that way (bizarrely, the "to par" column heading has a link to Par (score), a footnote explaining the term, and a reference to a webpage explaining it).
It may be argued by some that that guideline only applies to standalone lists, but this isn't clearly stated. What does everyone think about this? pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 19:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This is very irritating. A month ago someone posted a tag requesting the order be changed to chronological order. Someone in this project posted here about it and there were a couple of days discussion. But the tag requesting change to chronological order was left there, it wasn't edited to say it was being discussed, and nothing was placed on the article's talk page (which I wouldn't have seen even if it were there, but it wasn't.) So I saw the tag requesting reversing the order, did it, removed the tag...and had it reverted. At least the tag is gone which is what I really care about but it would have been faster if the change-the-order step were skipped. Just saying: if this happens again please remove the tag requesting the change or edit it so people know to see that there is a discussion going on. Thank you. RJFJR ( talk) 18:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm planning to get the Category:Web.com Tour and it sub-categories moved under the WP:C2D procedure. Nigej ( talk) 13:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
The article Pipestone Golf Course has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Totally ordinary municipal golf club, this article has no independent sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Bearian (
talk)
19:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Just thought it would be useful to share. The Open has released a comprehensive media guide this year, with tonnes of info which is sometimes difficult to find. I definitely think it is the best 1st port of call if you are looking for info on the open.
It can be found here
Click on The Open Championship, and then The 148th Open 2019 Media Guide.pdf at the bottom of the page. Jopal22 ( talk) 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Nearly every time a major has concluded, some of us go to the Wikipedia page of the winner to enter the updated information, and we get edit conflicts and other inference from jokesters who come along and foul things up while we are only trying to get the task done. It's aggravating. (You probably saw many of those silly edits last night on Gary Woodland's page).
So I have an idea. How about, when at the conclusion of the 3rd round of a major, we consider the player who is in the lead, and we then go to a Wikipedia administrator's page and request page protection for that golfer's page, in advance. That way, if that leader in fact goes on to win the tournament, we can be free from the unregistered accounts doing vandalism while we try to edit that golfer's page for the win. If all of us ask for that protection, an admin is likely to take it seriously and cooperate and put protection on the page in advance. Even the US Open page needed protection overnight last night.
Johnsmith2116 (
talk)
10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll add that even if we don't do this idea, surely we have to do something. We all update here voluntarily (I assume) and it's not right that nonregistered vandals can come along and mess things up for us while we are trying to complete the task. It's maddening to get that "edit conflict" message only to find out it was a vandal that messed up your effort. I don't mind the message when it's a legitimate edit in which another editor simply beat me to it, it's only when it's a vandal that it's upsetting. Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 10:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Originally I created Adrià Arnaus per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 6#Adrià Arnaus Antúnez. Since then OWGR have switched to Adri Arnaus so I'm thinking that would be the best option now. Will move if no one objects. Nigej ( talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The new format for the Tour Championship complicates things in several areas.
— pʰeːnuːmuː → pʰiːnyːmyː → ɸinimi → fiɲimi 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Jopal22 ( talk) 22:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Concerning the 2019 FedEx Cup Playoffs page, with the new playoff format, it seems like adding the same information twice by having both a leaderboard for the Tour Championship and having a "Final" leaderboard at the same time. Should we keep both? Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 10:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The AFD can be found here [1]. Please come over and join in the conversation. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The new https://www.europeantour.com/ seems to have gone live. I have changed {{ EuroTour player}} so that it uses eg http://www.europeantour.com/players/2586/ rather than http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/players/playerid=2586 This seems to work for the few cases I've tried. Doubtless there will be plenty more issues. Nigej ( talk) 18:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that a "European circuit" label I have used to categorize some golfer's pre-1972 wins has been deleted. For example, it was removed under Bobby Locke. I also placed Bob Charles' 1963 Open Championship victory under the "European circuit" which was removed. Nonetheless, the "European circuit" category for Peter Townsend, Tony Jacklin, Kel Nagle, and Cobie Legrange was not been modified. Is there a consensus that the "European circuit" is a legitimate concept or not? Also, what about the other "circuits" (Australia, South Africa)?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 23:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywooggly
The Olympic Golf competition is shown as "official" on wikipedia for the European Tour, when it has no R2D points or prize money. Justin Rose has 11 ET wins according to the ET ( https://www.europeantour.com/players/justin-rose-1941/) compared to 12 on wikipedia. I think we should move the olympics to "unofficial". I think the confusion is because the PGA Tour uses the term "official" and "unofficial", and wikipedia has mapped that to the ET which doesn't really use the same terminology. Anyone against the change? Jopal22 ( talk) 18:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Could we create firmer boundaries for the "Professional Wins" category in the template? Under professional wins it includes just about everything the particular golfer has won as a professional, including exhibitions. For example, Padraig Harrington's "professional wins" include his two British Opens and six Irish PGAs. Fred Couples' 62 "professional wins" includes his Masters win, his Dubai Desert Classic win, his victory as a teenager in his local state open (the 1978 Washington Open), and all of his Skins Games wins. It's total apples and oranges. This pattern is true for just about any big-time golfer. I was thinking under "professional wins" to include maybe including only events sponsored by a tour or provide OWGR points?
Also, could the category for "Number of Wins by Tour" be tightened? There is a lot of overlap. For example, it says that Dustin Johnson has won 20 PGA Tour events and 7 European Tour events so it gives the impression he has won 27 combined US/Euro events. However he has actually won 21 between tours. It also says Brooks Koepka has 7 PGA Tour wins and 6 European Tour wins - but again, this is very misleading. He has a combined 8 wins between tours. With Rory McIlroy it is same deal; it says he has 17 PGA and 13 Euro PGA but is actually 23 combined. It also says he has an Asian Tour victory which gives the impression of another win but it was co-sanctioned by he European Tour and is already included in the European Tour category. This is common among European golfers who play a lot of co-sanctioned events giving them the impression of more wins than they actually have. Obviously I think the Asian Tour information should be included somewhere in the article but I don't think a separate row is necessary in the template.
For those that have won between the two big tours could we create a category "US/Euro wins"? Also, if golfers have won on other tours, maybe we could include "Official Wins" beneath it? So in McIlroy's case we could include his Australia Open win. McIlroy's could look something like:
US/Euro wins: 23 Official wins: 24
Now I am aware that there are no firm boundaries between what is an "official" tour and what is not (I am also very aware of the pushback I received from my "Official Tour wins" page). I am not saying that boundaries need to be drawn between those six tours (PGA, Euro, Japan, South Africa, Australian, Asia) but boundaries need to be drawn somewhere. To bring it full circle, on Fred Couples "Number of Wins by Tour" section notes his "32 other wins" which include all of his victories during the aptly titled "Silly Season." Firmer boundaries need to be drawn somewhere. I am not saying it needs to be with the six "big" tours but maybe with events that include OWGR points.
Thoughts?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 00:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
To 51.6.155.29: the win total you and Wikipedia have created for Greg Norman is the very definition of WP:OR. I cannot believe you are sticking with this. You have subtracted from other sources to create your own win total (88). Even if there is a website floating around on the internet that lists Greg Norman's total wins at 88 it still would not strike me as particularly reliable as most other websites have different numbers.
To other golf editors including ...William, Nigej, Tewapack, and Jopal22: what are your opinions? I believe I have made a strong case to delete "Professional Wins."
My ideas on how to move forward re: the "Professional Wins" category:
- We could delete "Professional Wins" and leave that place blank
- If "Professional Wins" is deleted another option would be to replace it with "PGA Tour wins," "European Tour wins," "Asian Tour wins," or whatever category is most relevant to that particular golfer.
Earlier I also mentioned how I would like the "Wins by Tour" category to be "tightened" due to the level of overlapping, "co-sanctioned" victories between tours. I mentioned how we could include a combined US/Euro wins category and then an "Official Wins" category that encompasses all major tours. So it would look something like this:
Rory McIlroy US/Euro wins: 24 Official wins: 25 (includes Australian Open win)
However, I must say that I have not found many reliable sources that reference these categories. The closest I got to the US/Euro category was this article in Golfweek. I don't believe there are any for the six big tours or eight big tours or whatnot. So unless someone can find more reliable sources for these categories I must admit defeat.
However I believe this area of the template to be misleading. As I stated earlier, it states that McIlory now has 18 PGA Tour wins and 14 European Tour wins which implies that he has 32 wins between tours; in fact it is 24 wins. It is a similar problem with most other big name golfers. It implies that Dustin Johnson has 27 wins (20 US, 7 Euro) when it is actually 21. This is also a problem for lesser known golfers. Danny Lee's first win at a professional event was the Johnie Walker Classic, a European Tour event co-sanctioned by the Asian and Australasian Tours. He has only won once at the regular tour level since. Yet on his "Number of Wins by Tour" it implies he has 4 wins rather than 2 wins on regular tours. This is quite an increase considering that golfers rarely win events. Similarly it implies that Dylan Frittelli has 5 rather than 3 victories on the regular tours. This is quite common among a lot of European Tour golfers because there are so many co-sanctioned events.
So what to do here??? I don't think the options are great because "US/Euro wins" and "Official wins" don't seem to be viable. Other options could be:
- to only include victories on the most competitive tour among the co-sanctioned events. Because Lee's co-sanctioned victory was on the European Tour it could just state "1 PGA Tour win" and "1 European Tour win."
- for players like McIlroy or Johnson we could create additional rows that refer to WGCs or Majors where we could avoid overlap. So, for example, with McIlroy it could state:
Regular PGA Tour wins: 11 Regular European Tour wins: 7 WGC wins: 3 Major wins: 4 Australian Tour wins: 1
For Johnson it could state:
Regular PGA Tour wins: 13 Regular European Tour wins: 1 WGC wins: 6 Major wins: 1
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 00:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
Now that this tournament is going to be an invitational, is it okay to keep the page name Los Angeles Open? Or, should the name of the page be changed? Johnsmith2116 ( talk) 13:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing quite a few drafts for golfers that play in the second or third tier golf tournaments such as PGA Tour Latinoamérica, Nationwide Tour, European Challenge Tour. Are any of these acceptable for WP:NGOLF's "They have won at least one professional golf tournament"? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 19:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems that Danish sources go for Højgaard, eg https://www.golf.dk/nyhed/rasmus-h%C3%B8jgaard-har-kurs-mod-europatouren, https://www.tv3sport.dk/sport/golf/nyheder/rasmus-hojgaard-slar-elendigt-bunkerslag-men-se-lige-hans-sublime-reaktion etc. so I'm thinking that would be our best choice. Nigej ( talk) 13:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I've changed them all to "aa", which seems to be correct. Nigej ( talk) 14:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I have requested the move of Four-ball golf to Four-ball (golf). Please see the discussion. Thanks. 51.6.161.113 ( talk) 20:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have requested the move of Foursome (golf) to Foursomes. Please see the discussion. Thanks. 51.6.161.113 ( talk) 23:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
An page has been created called Scandinavian Mixed redirecting to Scandinavian Masters, yet it is described as a new (mixed gender) tournament. Shouldn't the Scandinavian Masters be reverted to say the tournament had been discontinued?...and a proper Scandinavian Mixed page set up? Jopal22 ( talk) 22:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I recently added or modified the "Playoff Record" tables for John Inman, Anders Sorensen, and Jean van de Velde. However I do not know how to add color to these rows (which denote win or loss - I believe it is green for a win and red for a loss). Could someone explain how? (And yes I prefer if someone just explained it to me rather than did it... teach a man to fish...)
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 07:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
It's a matter of adding the color to the "|-" that start each row. So:
|-
becomes:
|- style="background:#D0F0C0;"
or:
|- style="background:#F2C1D1;"
"D0F0C0" is a greeny color ( Tea Green) for a win while "F2C1D1" ( Fairy Tale (color)), a reddy color for a loss. This is my preferred color scheme (which you'll find for the European Tour playoff sections). However most PGA Tour playoff sections use a different color scheme, using "F5DEB3" ( Wheat (color)) for a win and "B0E0E6" ( Powder blue#Web colour) for a loss, which personally I find a little obscure.These are the two main color schemes. I have noticed some use of "F08080" ( Light Coral) as a reddy background color but personally I find it too heavy for a background color, see eg Rocco Mediate#PGA Tour wins (6). Nigej ( talk) 08:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence that Bobby Cole was invited to play at the 1971 Masters? He seemed to qualify (finished within top 16 at 1970 US Open) but there is no evidence that he was invited to play at the Masters.
Now I know that the Masters is technically an "invitational" and they don't have to "invite" everyone that meets there published qualifying criteria. In addition, back then international players only automatically qualified if they had won the tournament previously (Gary Player being the only one in this era). Otherwise, they had to rely on a "special foreign invitation." Nonetheless, I am not aware of a foreign player who met the published qualifying criteria who did not receive a "special foreign invitation." Bobby Cole's absence from the 1971 Masters is the only potential example I am aware of.
So is there any evidence that Cole played? It doesn't look like it. Otherwise, is there any evidence that he was invited but did not play for some outstanding reason (e.g. injury)? Usually it would say this on the 1971 Masters wiki page but it does not.
Secondly, are you aware of any (other) international golfers that met the published qualifying criteria but were not invited?
Oogglywoogly ( talk) 00:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly