Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

2022 BMW PGA

Curious to see if anyone thinks we should create an article for 2022 BMW PGA Championship. Of the individual yearly pages we currently have, spanning from 1990-2021, when it was the OWGR flagship event of the European Tour. I believe most sources are still referring to it as the 'flagship event'. Any thoughts on how to treat this event this year and going forward would be great. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy - I'm not clear on why this year's event might be treated differently from the past years' events. Please explain? .... PKT(alk) 17:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Its lost its flagship status on the OWGR (like all the other except the Players) 2. Perhaps we should get rid of all the others too. Nigej (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

OK - in that case, I'm on board with not continuing with articles for each year's tourneys........ PKT(alk) 19:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally I'd be happy to NOT have an article. Previous articles are generally quite dull and just stats (eg 2021 BMW PGA Championship). Only the Players gets special treatment in the new OWGR system so from that perspective the BWM PGA is nothing special. Nigej (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure many (if any) PGAs have had long lasting coverage that would warrant standalone articles for each year. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'd be ok to see them get binned. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say the coverage probably exists to expand these yearly articles, it just a matter of who takes the time to do it - the round-by-round scoreboards are relatively easy to do - it takes more effort to write prose about each round. Tewapack (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

There was an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 BMW PGA Championship in 2012 but it didn't attract any interest and ended "no consensus".

That the BMW PGA is not on the same level as most other events that get yearly article treatment should be evidenced by the fact that none of the articles attempt to list the field – and if they did, it would be obvious just how many eligible players decline to play (more even than in the WGC-HSBC Champions). pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Louisiana State Open

I have been creating a page for Jerry Stolhand who won the Louisiana State Open in 1958. (A primary source link is here.) This has aroused my curiosity and I have thought about creating a page for this event. However, I have had difficulty finding information on Louisiana's state open on the internet.

On the website of the Louisiana Golf Association they list a number of tournaments they organize but a men's state open is not listed. I suspect this is because this state open may have evolved into a developmental tour event. We have a page for the currently entitled Chitimacha Louisiana Open, a Korn Ferry Tour event, which began in 1992. Perhaps these two are the same events?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As ever there seems to be much confusion about these events. See this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/109225192/the-shreveport-journal/ which seems to indicate it started in 1937. However this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/109225373/the-times/ seems to indicate is started in 1936 (won by Freddie Haas https://www.newspapers.com/clip/109225217/the-times/). See also https://www.newspapers.com/clip/109225477/the-times/ from 1946 when the event was restarted. Probably some confusion between open and professional only events. Nigej (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nigej, Thank you for the links. The first link you sent me is a great starting point. You mention there is some "confusion," however. Just to be totally clear, do you think the list of champions in the first link is accurate? Or do you think, even in that link, that they could be conflating the champions of the open event and the professional event?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I wasn't being too precise, just confused by finding a list starting in 1937 and then finding an event in 1936. Looking at https://www.newspapers.com/clip/109537663/the-daily-advertiser/ it seems that it was revived in 1979 having ended in the mid-1970s I think. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/109537920/the-daily-advertiser/ from 1990 refers to the "12th" edition of the event. Can't find one in 1991 but perhaps that makes sense with the 1992 event being in March, they might have missed a year. At Les Vieux Chenes perhaps in those 12 years. Seems that "Louisiana Open, Inc" was started in 1985 and has run it since, so probably the 1979 to 1990 could be regarded as earlier versions of the current event. Nigej (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nigej, I think I will create a page for this event soon using the 1969 champions list as a starting point. Feel free to add stuff. Thank you for very much for all of the links.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Standardized note for parenthesized win totals

I notice that Jimmymci234 has been adding a standardized note to tour schedule tables saying "The number in brackets after each winner's name is the number of ____ Tour events they had won up to and including that tournament. This information is only shown for ____ Tour members."

Besides the fact that any U.S.-centric article should say "parentheses" instead of "brackets", I have to question in some cases whether the second sentence is accurate. For example, to my knowledge, no Korn Ferry Tour winner's win total is hidden on account of non-membership. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok - didn't realise re parentheses. I can amend that in due course if needs be. I only added these notes as other pages had them, so felt for consistency it was best that the note was added for all tours. However, I would not be opposed to removing this note if the consensus is that it may add very little information and perhaps creates more cruft per say. Jimmymci234 (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah we had a conversation about this a couple of years ago. We came to the consensus that non-members total wins should not be tabulated on these calendars. However, it was never fully convincing to me. What was basis that these win totals for non-members should be hidden? For example, in 1991 and 2005 non-members Ian Woosnam and Michael Campbell won events on the PGA Tour. I just noticed on the PGA Tour's tournament schedule pages that their total wins are not in parentheses but neither are there for any golfers (the remainder of whom were members). What was original consensus for conducting it this way?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Re-instated amateur status line in infobox

There are a number of professional golfers who regained their amateur status after they turned pro. I have been having conversations with User:Nigej about adding a line to the infobox denoting the year they got this status re-instated. (For reference, the conversations are here and here.) So far, we often include the re-instated amateur status date within the "Turned professional" line. But to me, it looks awkward and jumbled up. (See, for example, the infoboxes of Joe Stansberry and Allen John.) I think a new "Re-instated amateur status" line would make things clearer.

In addition, there are a few golfers who turned pro a second time after getting their amateur status re-instated in the middle of their career. I think an additional line (like "Second pro career") should be added to these infoboxes. I would like to hear other thoughts, however, before making any changes.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

No one has responded. If I don't hear a contrasting response to my proposal soon I think User: Nigej and I will move forward and make the aforementioned amendments to the infobox.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Korn Ferry Tour Finals

So the PGA Tour, starting in 2023, will be using the same name for a series of four tournaments that looks similar but works completely differently. The revamped "Korn Ferry Tour Finals" are no longer separate from the regular season. I feel like we're going to have some problems differentiating between the two incarnations of the Finals. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wampanoag Country Club's designer

I recently made a lot of edits to Wampanoag Country Club. On the club's website they endlessly brag that the famous golf course architect Donald Ross designed the club. Meanwhile, almost every review website states this too. However, in all the primary sources I found - many of which are quite detailed - there is really no evidence that Ross did much. The only mention of Ross is in this 1925 article which states that the engineer Fred Dale, who was involved in constructing the course, worked as an apprentice for Ross.

I suspect that Ross was only tangentially involved and that the club is exaggerating his involvement because he was famous and had a good "brand." Does anyone known anything about this? If not, I will email the Ross Society and the club for more information.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverage

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Long Island Open

I recently made a lot of edits to the Long Island Open page, in particular adding details from primary sources. I wasn't able to get primary sources for every year however. If anyone could find any more sources with some missing details that would be helpful.

I also have a few questions. On the wiki page it says the tournament is organized by the Long Island Golf Association. On the tournament's history page it has an emblem for both the Met PGA and LIGA. In my research for Rick Hartmann I believe the newspaper reports just referenced the Met PGA. Basically does anyone know what organization this tournament belongs to? (or perhaps both?) In addition, for the table I originally included one blue link per golfer on the table. I read some place on the site that there should only be one blue link per page per person. However, another user added a blue link every time a golfer's name is referenced. What are the rules?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The LI Open is run by the LIGA. The LIGA partners with the MetPGA (as does the Westchester GA) - see https://www.mgagolf.org/about. The LIGA and WGA webpages are sub-pages of the MetPGA. For the repeated links, see MOS:REPEATLINK. I contend that in a table as long as the winners table, it is helpful to the reader to have multiple links to winners/runner-ups, especially when some entries are more than a decade apart. Tewapack (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Tewapack for the information about the organizations. In addition, I will keep the blue links.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Combining and adding chronology to the "Current tours" and "Former tours" parameters in the infobox

Right now we have "Current tours" and "Former tours" parameters in the infobox for golfers. I don't like it as I think the text is too condensed (it's all on one line) and chronologically imprecise as they don't include dates. I think these parameters should be combined and we should note the timespan these golfers played in these particular tours in chronological order. It would be similar to what I see in in the infoboxes for other sports. See, for example, the "Career history" parameter of basketball player Vlade Divac or "Teams" parameter for baseball player Ichiro Suzuki. (In addition, these parameters seem to be consistent with the infoboxes of other professions; see, for example, the employer parameter for Jamelle Bouie.) I think it would make the golfer's career arc look more fluid. I would like to know other opinions.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My issue with these parameters is that I'm often uncertain whether a player was on a particular tour or not for a particular season. For many sports (eg basketball, baseball) the infobox lists the seasons where a player played for a team, even if that was just one match. However for golf we don't simply add tours when a player played one event. Many players played in a few tour events in a particular season but were not on the tour. They might have sponsors invites, prequalified, etc. Co-sanctioned events have players from two tours but players who play in these events are not generally on both tours, only one of them. If I look at Craig Maltman on the European Tour: https://www.europeantour.com/players/115/career-record?tour=dpworld-tour how do I tell which seasons he was on the tour? I just don't think we have the knowledge to add this sort of detail. Nigej (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It becomes more clear-cut after the start of the all-exempt era (1983 for the PGA Tour, 1985 for the European Tour). But there's still a lot of gray area, especially on the European Tour. On the PGA Tour it's generally clear whether someone is a member or a non-member (and if they win a tournament or make 150 cuts, they never stop being a member unless they choose to). Meanwhile, the European Tour's "ranked membership" categories extend well into the Challenge Tour membership (for 2023, Challenge Tour category 8) and many of those players will get into very few European Tour events and end up choosing not to enter any and to only play the Challenge Tour. And then there's affiliate membership, which is taken up by a wide variety of players including both those with no status and PGA Tour stars. It seems reasonable not to count affiliate membership in an infobox, but then when a PGA Tour player with affiliate membership finishes in the top 110 of the Race to Dubai (or worse, 111–145) they generally become a ranked member the next season and still play very few non-major European Tour events.

Affiliate members have generally not counted in determining the top 110/125/145 for membership the following year; in recent years the tour has begun also excluding players in the OWGR top 50 who've played fewer than 25 non-major events in their careers. One might suggest that such members shouldn't have the European Tour listed in their infobox in most cases, but there are definitely exceptions such as Jon Rahm. A bigger problem would be non-PGA Tour affiliate members who finish 111–145 or Challenge Tour players who finish 21–45 (previously 16–45) and receive conditional status; some of those do play regularly on the European Tour and even work their way to full status (Ángel Hidalgo being a recent example) but many don't. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As pʰeːnuːmuː alluded to, I think it will be way easier identifying a PGA Tour player's timespan. We have all the data related to q-school, developmental school, and we have all the media guides going back to the late 1960s. Identifying their start date will be a breeze. Ascertaining their end date will be slightly more difficult - as we discussed recently golfers don't really "retire" - but I think it can be done for almost all players within a year of losing status. With recent European Tour players it should be roughly the same.

As Nigej notes, early ET stuff will be harder. However, I don't think it will be impossible. (Your example with the membership status of Craig Maltman seems uniquely complicated.) Do we have ET q-school and top 60 OoM information from the 1970s and early 1980s? If so, that would make it much easier.

Is it possible that we start with PGA Tour players since we have all the information? And then perhaps move on to European Tour and other tours as we gain more information and understanding? I think adding a chronology makes everything much clearer to the reader. In addition, it follows precedent from almost all other sports I am aware of. Though there are some challenges I think this can be done.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I agree that the PGA Tour is the place to start (and perhaps the only tour where there's sufficient interest to justify the effort). Personally I'm not keen on doing this on an ad hoc basis. If we go down this route we'd need to aim to cover all players who've played on that tour (not sure of the start date) which seems to me to be a pretty big task. Nigej (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree we should start with the PGA Tour. I think we should start with the 1960s. Q-school did not begin until 1965 so it might be difficult getting start dates before then. In addition, an independent modern tour didn't really begin until the late 1960s/early 1970s. Though the tour says it started in 1929 we know how loose they are with the records - therefore it may be technically inaccurate to say that mid-century American players were really playing on the PGA Tour.

As pʰeːnuːmuː implies, finding the exact end date will be hard though. Golfers never really "retire" and their status in their final season is usually ambiguous. But, as a I stated earlier, I think it will be easy if we can determine their final status within a year of departing tour as I think that's the best we can practically do. As a rule of thumb, if they played at least 15 events (the historic limit for PGA Tour membership) then they were probably a member that year; if less, than probably not.

Personally, I would be ok doing this on an ad hoc basis but if we want to do this systemically that's ok too. If we do it systemically I would like to focus on the pre-All Exempt era as I created all of the q-school pages from this era and know a decent amount about it. Any additional opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Team appearances section

I have noticed on the pages of American golfers that we have a "U.S. national team appearances" section. However, for most international golfers the section is entitled "Team appearances." I think we should have one consistent section title for all golfers and I think a "Team appearances" section makes the most sense. When American golfers play team events it is not always representing the United States. In addition, even if some American golfers have only played nationalistic events the "Team appearances" title is still applicable.

Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

No one responded. Unless I get a response sometime this week I am going to start changing this section for American golfers to "Team appearances." I think my argument above is completely tenable. Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I think the status quo works best. If you change American golfers section from "U.S. national team appearances" to "Team appearances" then you need to add "(representing the Unite States)" to each entry. That seems like an unnecessary cluttering of the section. The only place I can think of where American golfers didn't represent the US was the Lexus Cup in women's golf - and in cases like that, for example Cristie Kerr, "Team appearances" is used. Tewapack (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tewapack, Ok thanks. I won't try to change anything. The whole reason I brought this up is because I just created the page of Jerry Stolhand. His only team appearances were at the International Goodwill Golf Tournament and he did not not represent the United States (or any nation) during his career. I have this heading labeled as "Team appearances." If we see more examples like this please change the header to "Team appearances."

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

One last thing... in the Team Appearances section we usually create separate subheadings like "Amateur" and "Professional" even if the golfer only participates in one category. If he/she is only involved in one category then it seems extraneous to include a subheading. I think we should delete subheadings in cases like this. Thoughts??

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Hi, I think it is good to clear categorize team appearances in Amateur and Professional. All readers may not know if for example "Ladies European Team Championship" and "European Championships" are amateur or professional tournaments. The first one is amateur, the other one professional.

It is also common that an article describes an amateur golfer who later turns professional.

Please keep the subheading.

Regards, ~~~~ EEJB (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi EEJB,

Thank you for the response. I actually had a conversation with User: Nigej about this on his talk page a couple of months ago. We came to the consensus that if a golfer clearly remains within a certain category for his/her entire career then there is no need for a subheading. For example, if a golfer turns pro at an early age (e.g. Peter Alliss) then there is no need to include the subheading as it is clear he/she only participated in pro team events. Likewise, if a golfer remains an amateur for most of his career (e.g. Bobby Jones) then there is no need for the qualifier. I hope this helps!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Women's majors and women's senior wins

I've done a lot of work completing the Annika Sörenstam article, for example all facts on LET wins, added SGT wins and added "Affilations, honors" headline.

However, there are quiet confusing in women's golf to 1) correctly describe what a career slam is, with acknowledged majors changing over time (even more confusing if some majors were recognized by the LET and few years later by the LPGA) and 2) count wins including senior wins.

I did chose the following solutions. I saved earlier written information that she achieved a career slam with the 2003 British Open win, but added that it included the four majors recognized during the main part of her career (even if it had been possible for her to win the du Maurier Classic in her early pro career and she made a late come back, aiming the senior tour, after the Evian Championship was recognized as a major). It's also of interest that she actually won both those tournaments, but at the "wrong" time. I also deleted information about LET recognizing the British and the Evian as majors before LPGA did. I can't verify they really did so.

There are information about the Evian and British being co-sanctioned. In men's golf we don't see majors as co-sanctioned, as they are just majors, but in women's golf we have to, because all majors are not co-sanctioned and some haven't always been. Correct?

Concerning senior wins I haven't find separate information in info box about senior wins for any elder female golfers (Laura Davis, Helen Alfredsson, Juli Inkster) like it is for male golfers like Bernhard Langer. I just seperated "Other wins" in info box between "Regular" and "Senior", but we need a separate line for Legends Tour wins in info box.

Please review the article and make relevant comments and updates.

Regards EEJB (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello EEJB,

Sorry but I cannot help you as I don't know much about women's or senior golf. Are there any users out there that can help EEJB with this issue?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

New York State Open

I recently created a winners table for the New York State Open. My only issue with the page is the list of winners under the "Earlier events with the same name" statement. Does anyone know anything about this alleged early-20th century event? I assume it's a totally separate thing. (Sort of like the early 20th century Connecticut Open (1910s event) and the modern day Connecticut Open (golf).) Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Clutch Pro Tour + Tartan Tour

Does anybody feel that these relatively new tours warrant an article each, given their new status as feeder tours to the Challenge Tour. Effectively meaning both tours may be regarded as “satellite tours” replacing the EuroPro Tour. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

If there is enough independent coverage in reliable secondary sources to support full articles, then yes. If not, and until there is, a sentence or two in the Challenge Tour article with redirects will suffice. I suspect the Tartan Tour is the more likely of the two to have received the necessary coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

We need to be careful since there's the PGA's "Arnold Clark PGA in Scotland Tartan Tour" which is long standing and has been called the "Tartan Tour" since the 1980s, although the "tour" really predates that name. The new Paul Lawrie "Tartan Pro Tour" seems to be something completely different and doesn't seem to be related to the PGA's Tartan Tour. I assume we're talking about the Lawrie tour. I see they're expanding to 54 holes, presumably so that they can get OWGR points at some point. As wjemather says it depends on the sources but personally I would think there's probably enough for a single article but I'd be reluctant to go down the seasonal article route at the moment until it lasted a little while as a feeder tour. Nigej (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

adding a couple tournaments to "Former PGA Tour events" template

Over the past year I created pages for the Connecticut Open (1910s event) and Cape Cod Open, early 20th century PGA Tour events. I would like to add to the "Former PGA Tour events" template. (See, for example, the bottom of the Dow Jones Open Invitational page.) I would do this myself but don't know how. If anyone could either provide me a link with instructions or just do it that would be great.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Templates are in "Template space" (as opposed to "Main space") and so their names are prefixed by "Template:" You need to edit Template:Former PGA Tour Events. Nigej (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej. I will take a look at it as I have time.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Long Island PGA Championship

I just created a table for the Long Island PGA Championship. I'm still missing most of the runner-up information, however. Normally I wouldn't be so hung up on including the second place finisher stuff but this is a match play event and I think including the finalist is of indispensable importance. If anyone can find more information that would be great.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

creating New York State Open disambiguation page

Hello all,

I want to create a disambiguation page for the New York State Open tournaments. I recently created pages for the early 20th century golf events, the Bellevue Country Club Open and the New York State Open (1920s event). In addition, there is a local modern event, New York State Open. I also noticed that there is a contemporary tennis tournament with the name New York Open (tennis).

The reason I am bringing it up here is because I have never created a disambiguation page before and wanted to know if there were any special procedures before doing so. It seems totally clear to me that these events deserve a disambiguation page.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There's plenty at MOS:DAB. We already have a New York Open disambiguation page. Maybe you could extend that. I suppose a New York State Open (disambiguation) page would be a possibility. Nigej (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey thank you Nigej. I added the early 20th century events to the disambiguation page.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

1924 Met PGA Championship

I recently created a table for the Metropolitan PGA Championship and have begun making edits. According to the original list on the page Walter Hagen won the 1924 event. It is also noted on his Wikipedia page and PGA Tour page. However, the general source for the tournament does not state this. I looked for information about this event on newspapers.com but found nothing. I suspect that Hagen won an antecedent event with the same title but was nonetheless different (perhaps similar to the 1920s New York State Opens we recently discussed). Does anyone know anything about this alleged event?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116451874/the-gazette/ from 1926 says it was the "first annual championship". The Hagen win was almost certainly this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/116453071/the-yonkers-herald/ on 12 May 1924, described as "the first one-day tournament" of the new Met PGA. Difficult to tell but it was perhaps a 36-hole event reduced to 18 by bad weather. Probably worth a mention in the article but there's no indication that it was a "championship". Nigej (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej for the clarification. I included this information in the history section.

I also recently added details to the table. I found most of the details for the middle of the history of the event but not much for very recent years or very beginning of the event. Not sure if anyone could find anything.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Flagship events

Now that the OWGR flagship event designation no longer exists (except for the Players Championship), it seems like we need to rethink the amount of emphasis they've been given on Wikipedia in recent years, especially with several of the tours moving the designation around arbitrarily. It seems like in many cases, it would be sufficient to include a footnote in the OWGR column of the tour schedule if the winner's points were based on the flagship status. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Clearly needs mentioning from a historical perspective, in the text and/or through footnotes. Otherwise I don't see a need to emphasise this status. Nigej (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Braemar Golf Course

This is article has been proposed for deletion, which is likely is merited based on its present form. Braemar is a large public course in Edina, Minnesota (inner Twin Cities suburb) with an 18-hole course, 9-hole course, driving range, golf dome, and other amenities. There once were sources which may establish notability but it appears that some are no longer readily available. See this source, which may not itself be reliable but cites to publications that likely are, but which I cannot access. (According to that piece and the course's website, a Golf Digest ranking was March 1981 one in Golf for Women was August 2000.) I removed the PROD for the time being to allow anyone interested to save the article, but if no one comes forward it likely will be deleted. Any assistance with these sources, and otherwise, will be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

www.pgatour.com

I am not able to get the PGA Tour website to load. I don't know if this is a widespread problem, or if the problem is in my location only. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

They have done a redesign. It is working for me, although I can see that some of the pages have been renamed. See: https://www.pgatour.com/article/news/latest/2023/02/07/welcome-to-the-new-pgatour-com As ever the hype is doubtless different to the reality. Nigej (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, I cannot even get that article to load, nothing about that website will load for me now. Maybe it is my computer. Unless they do something to change it, I will no longer be able to see that website. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• This really isn't the place; see WP:NOTFORUM. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Halls Head Western Open

I recently created a page for Mike Cahill (golfer). In 1982, he won an event called the Halls Head Western Open. It is probably an independent event. However, I noticed in 1985 Halls Head became the sponsor for the Nedlands Masters. There is a slim chance that the Halls Head event bled into the Nedlands Masters. Again, it is probably not the case but I noticed that New South Wales PGA Championship was "incorporated" into several other events during this era. It could be a situation like that. If anyone knowns anything please let me know.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Seems that there was a housing development called Halls Head Estates which sponsored the Nedlands Masters in 1985 and 1986. See: User:Wjemather/Australasian Tour which seems to shows that the Halls Head Western Open ran from 1981 to perhaps 1983. There was a Mandurah Classic which was played in 1979 and 1980 which may well be connected. Halls Head, Western Australia is a suburb of Mandurah. https://www.gogolfing.net.au/mandurah-country-club says that Mandurah Country Club was the host of The Halls Head Western Open from 1981-1983 but I can't find anything out about the 1983 event. http://www.tagolf.com.au/about.html mentions the Halls Head event from 1979 to 1982 so there may well be confusion with the Mandurah Classic. Perhaps confirmed by this https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Mf5jAAAAIBAJ&pg=6726%2C4649479 from 1981 which says the Terry Gale won "this tournament for the third consecutive year". Nigej (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nigej for the information. And Wjemather, do you know anything about the continuity between the Mandurah Classic and the Halls Head event. And do you known anything about the (potential) continuity between this event and the Nedlands Masters? I will not make a page unless I have complete information.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I don't think there is any connection between the Nedlands Masters and the Mandurah Country Club events. The 1981 and 1982 Mandurah events had prize money of A$30,000 and 35,000 and were presumably Order of Merit events. The 1979 and 1980 events had prize money of 9,000 and 10,000 and were therefore presumably not OoM events. Not much coverage of the 1979 and 1980 events so difficult to be certain, we don't even have the scores for the 1980 event. Probably the 1983 event never took place. Nigej (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I am almost done creating a page for the Mandurah Classic/Halls Head Western Open. There are a few details that need contextualization however.

According to an American newspaper, Peter Fowler finished in second place at the 1983 event. However, I could not find any evidence about this alleged Halls Head event. Any information would be helpful. In addition, according to another American newspaper, an event called the Mandurah Classic was held in the year 2000. It's highly unlikely but does anyone know if it is continuous with the 1970s event?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

adding languages to drop-down

There is this new language drop-down that shows Wikipedia pages in other languages. I wanted to add the Dutch wiki page for Charlie Bolling on his English-language page. The Dutch page is here. I don't know how to do this though; does anyone know how?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Managed to do it through the nl wikipedia. You'd think it could be done through wikidata but I couldn't manage it. Nigej (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Mass draftification proposal on Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

1970s NZ events not on Aussie OoM

I have a link here that states that New Zealand events did not become part of the PGA Tour of Australia's Order of Merit until 1981. The source is from The Age, the top newspaper in Australia, and from a reporter I find credible, Trevor Grant. If this information is true we should modify the wins tables for a number of golfers (e.g. John Lister (golfer), Bob Charles (golfer)) who won events in New Zealand during the 1970s. This may be most pertinent to User:Jimmymci234 as he has created most of these wins tables.

Other thoughts?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Are we able to see the source without needing a subscription i.e. is it available on Google News archives? I wasn’t aware of this and taking your word for it then these wins will need to be taken out of PGATA tables and categorised as New Zealand wins instead. Jimmymci234 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have the Google News Archive link here. Please see Grant's article on page 38, "Norman to be ruled out." The relevant information is in the seventh paragraph.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It should be noted that tours often retroactively consider tournaments as official, and primary sources of the day won't help with this. Anyhow, we should only ever reflect whatever the tour (or reliable sources) say in this regard. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. But do we have any evidence at all that these events were retroactively given tour status?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Quite an interesting area I think. The NZ "tour" was amazingly successful in the 60s/70s. Sometimes events clashed, which caused conflict: see https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/106945447 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=FgkRAAAAIBAJ&pg=4744%2C3891080 from 1966. Later the tours seem to have come to a compromise so that they didn't clash and as the NZ tour faded (to roughly 3 events) it was absorbed into the Australian tour. Personally I'm pretty unclear as to the exact dates. Nigej (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be true that the NZ Order of Merit was abandoned in about 1980 and that a single combined OoM was then produced. What's not so clear is which NZ events were also in the Australian OoM before that date. This https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19771029.2.127 seems to imply that the Air New Zealand Shell Open was included in the Australian OoM in 1977 (last paragraph) and presumably in the NZ OoM too. Nigej (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I have another link here that says the New Zealand Open was part of the OoM in 1974. So it looks like the NZ Open and NZ Airlines events were mainly part of the Order of Merit during this era. We have no evidence, however, that any of these local "city" or charity events (e.g. City of Auckland Classic, Otago Charity Classic) were ever part of the Aussie Order of Merit. Given that they seem like small events, I'd be quite surprised if a foreign tour ever incorporated them.

My main question now is about the New Zealand PGA Championship. It was one of the top three events in NZ at the time but we have no evidence of when it merged into the Australian tour. Does anyone know?

Lastly (and this is somewhat incidental): User: Nigej, I thought Past Papers only went to 1950. Did something recently change?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

PapersPast generally only goes to 1955 but The Press has been added recently and goes to 1979. Nothing else in that period I think. Nigej (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so do we have consensus that only the New Zealand Open and Air New Zealand Shell Open were the only NZ events on the Aussie Order of Merit in the 1970s?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

We are not the arbiters of what is/was an official tour/OoM event. What we need are reliable sources. If we don't have them, we should be more vague (and accurate) by dropping the tour categorisation, e.g. "Australia and New Zealand wins", or "Australia wins" and "New Zealand wins". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That's what I'm getting at.

Among 1970s New Zealand golf tournaments, it appears we only have evidence that the 1974 New Zealand Open and 1977 Air New Zealand Shell Open were part of the PGA Tour of Australia's Order of Merit. Perhaps we should modify pages accordingly.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Agree too. It seems easier to make sense of the NZ circuit than the Australian one. See e.g. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19710910.2.171 and https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19720818.2.188 which show that NZ had a well-defined "circuit" of 7 events for 1971/72 and 6 for 1972/73 (User:Wjemather/Australasian Tour gives more details) Nigej (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok it seems clear that most of the New Zealand golf tournaments during the 1970s were not part of the PGA Tour of Australia. User: Jimmymci234, since this seems to be in your domain, do you mind making edits?

The only anomalies seem to be the top three events: the New Zealand Open, Air New Zealand Shell Open, and New Zealand PGA Championship. We have evidence that the NZ Open became part of the Aussie tour in 1974. I suspect it has had Order of Merit status continuiously since the beginning of the Aussie tour (1973). And we know that the Air NZ event became part of the tour in 1977. I suspect it remained part of the tour for the rest of its existence. We also have this note from The Age that says that the other NZ events became part of the tour in 1981. Perhaps the New Zealand PGA Championship became part of the tour that year.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Oogglywoogly can do when I find time. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks to me as if 1979/80 was the last season of the NZ circuit. This https://www.newspapers.com/clip/120011582/the-akron-beacon-journal/ from late 1980 refers to the "new combined Australia and New Zealand Golf Circuit" and "two from Australasian Order of Merit". This https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19791108.2.124.13 talks about a NZ circuit of "only three" (for 1979/80) while https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/125629330 has Rodger Davis as the leading money winner "on the New Zealand circuit last summer" (which would be 1979/80, Davis was 3rd, 2nd and 2nd in the 3 events) indicating that there was still a separate money list for those 3 events in 1979/80. Nigej (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

1963 is perhaps the first season of a formal NZ "circuit". 7 events were held, see https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19630308.2.42 https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19631001.2.181 The NZ PGA was not part of the circuit that year. There are references to a circuit of 3 events in 1962, eg https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19620531.2.153 but I haven't found any evidence of a money list/Order of Merit. Nigej (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I had a quick scan through McCormack's annuals, and he talks about the NZ tour being squeezed by the strengthening Australian tour in the late 1970's, but nothing about a formal merger or when the NZ events were added to the Australian tour. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

So what exactly is the consensus here? Do we assert most NZ Open and NZ Airlines Open from the 1970s were part of the Aussie OoM? Or do we just state that the 1974 New Zealand Open and 1977 New Zealand Airlines Open - the only years we have reliable third-party sources for - were the only events that had PGA Tour of Australia status?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Neither I think. If we have nothing encyclopedic to say, I'd have thought it was best to either say nothing or to say we don't know. My comments were solely about the NZ circuit and I'm thinking an article on that might be possible, and that article may help readers understand the issues here. Nigej (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about the message you about creating an independent New Zealand circuit page. With Past Papers extending to the 1970s and User: Wjemather's sandbox we can probably do it.

What should be done, however, is to delete any reference to these 1970s NZ as part of the PGA Tour of Australia. Players' wins tables and tournament tables should be modified.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

We've agreed on that already. Nigej (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand circuit

Just to say that I've started to create a list of tournaments for the NZ circuit, User:Nigej/sandbox. Give me a couple of weeks and hopefully I'll have something useful. Nigej (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Nigej: FYI I have made a couple small edits to the sandbox. What you have looks pretty good.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

major championship pages

I was editing 1974 U.S. Open (golf) recently and a couple things crossed my mind. First off, we have an entire country column in the round-by-round tables. We have come to a consensus that this column is extraneous in the tournament pages. On the year-by-year major championship pages I think we should delete these columns as well and put a little flag next to their name as we do now on the tournament pages.

Secondly, and more importantly, we have independent tables for every round of the tournament. I think we all agree there are too many tables on WP:Golf and this seems like a classic example. I believe all these tables except the final round table should be deleted and replaced by prose. (Fwiw, this may not be applicable for more recent majors - maybe starting in the 21st century or 1990s - where the reader might be more interested in round-by-round details.)

Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes country column should be removed. Don't think we need to discuss that anymore. Personally, I would think that if an in depth narrative or summary of each round can't be added to each of the leaderboards, then a summary of the final leaderboard would be better. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As regards the first point, I wouldn't recommend a manual approach. I've some experience with WP:AutoWikiBrowser, a semi-automated editor. Takes quite a bit of setting up but works well when there's a lot of files to edit (as I'm assuming here). As to the second point, we have aimed to have prose as well as the leader boards. Obviously effort is limited and we're no where near achieving that. Personally, I'm probably inclined to keep them for now. Ideas like WP:NOTTEMPORARY take the view that once something is notable it remains notable for ever, ever if there's no one interested in it now. Nigej (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Nigej, if you could somehow apply the flags to the first column in an automated fashion that would be great. Doing it in a piecemeal way - applying every little flag one by one - would be unbelievably tedious.

The second point is far more complicated. I agree that notability does not need to have continuous, ongoing media attention and I agree that the first three rounds should be mentioned in some form. However, despite the dearth of prose on these pages, there is still usually some pertaining to the early rounds. In addition, I think these separate tables each for rounds #1, #2, and #3 imply a sense of permanence as if they've already won something. I feel like it's kind of creating an independent table for the first quarter of a football game or first set of a tennis match. While starting well in any game does matter most people only really care about the final results. In addition, a lot of the early round information is already integrated into the final leaderboard as the score of each round is included.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

One possibility is to restrict the early majors to end-of-day scores. Most early majors had 36 holes on the final day, some 36 holes on two days. Newspaper coverage was generally based on end-of-day scores. We already do this for Opens up to the 1902 Open Championship. Difficult to find too many sports that have the multi-day aspect. I'm not sure that Football/Tennis are a good comparison since those matches are mostly done in a single day. Cricket is (traditionally) multi-day, but only a few individual matches have articles, mostly they're organised by "series". Road cycling is also multi-day and they cover the top 10 (day's result + General classification) after each day in articles like 2022 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11, so that's broadly similar to our approach. Nigej (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I still would prefer to delete the early rounds tables. I know the day-to-day leaderboards are reproduced by the media but I'm not sure if they're necessary here. I just think they suggest a sense of crystallization that is not in accord with reality (i.e. the precise standings are usually totally forgotten after the round). And I'm aware of WP:NOTTEMPORARY but that doesn't mean that everything that was once notable needs to be covered here. We can briefly summarize these rounds with prose. In addition, I think we all agree that we have too many of these statistical tables on WP:Golf and this would be a good start towards getting rid of a lot.

Nonetheless, I will not make any edits on this issue if we don't have consensus. User: Wjemather, do you have an opinion about this?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I've had a go changing the The Players Championship articles to {{flagicon}} style. A few glitches with unexpected editing styles (eg || '''[[Hal Sutton]]''' (c) || {{USA}} || - bolding and extra text) but hopefully I've corrected those. Nigej (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej. I like these changes.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Nationalities in the field

Just wanted to confirm that the consensus is against these tables. We currently have about 100 of these spread amongst majors (men and women), WGCs, BMW PGAs and senior majors. Latest is 2021 BMW PGA Championship. Personally I'm against them. Nigej (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes happy to see them be removed. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was very clear consensus from multiple discussions for removal of these flag-counting tables (rationale: pro golf is individual, non-representative, etc.) – and it's been on my list of things-to-do for some time. There was also consensus for removal of "Past champions in the field". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we came to consensus a couple years ago that the tables "Nationalities in the field" and "Past champions in the field" should be deleted. Obviously extraneous.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I'm including "Breakdown by country" sections in this discussion, which appear in some of the match-play events, eg 2017 WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play. Occasionally (as here) we have both. Nigej (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they should go too. Consensus was that we should only have such tables in articles on events where nationality is relevant to participation, e.g. the Olympics; and even then, one table will suffice. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleted all I could find. Nigej (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Good work! _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Asian golfers' first names

I recently had a conversation with User:Nigej on his talk page about the first names of some Asian golfers. A lot of these golfers have English-language nicknames like Masashi "Jumbo" Ozaki, Tsuneyuki "Tommy" Nakajima, and Joo-hyung "Tom" Kim. However, I noticed they are not consistently spelled on Wikipedia. Some use the entire name, some use just the native language name, and some just the English-language nickname. Nigej noted the rule Wikipedia:Piped link#When not to use where we should make links as simple as possible and have the name as short as possible. Given that the Anglo-Saxon nicknames comes up for frequently in the media (e.g. Tom Kim) I think we should just use that rather than sometimes including the Asian first name. However, I would like to hear other thoughts.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there's two issues here which are not connected. 1. What is the correct name of the player's article and 2. What name should we use for the player in other articles where he is mentioned. 1 is covered by WP:TITLE and WP:NCBIO and the like. 2. is a separate issue. I've always thought that name used in a particular article should be the name used at the time that the article relates to. So if there's a Mary Smith who becomes Mary Jones in 1980, then articles about her before 1980 should call her Mary Smith and those after 1980 should call her Mary Jones. We have WP:DONOTFIXIT, WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE which tell us how to handle this situation (basically use redirects where possible). Similar issues apply to whether we use Kim Joo-hyung or Tom Kim. So if he was called Kim Joo-hyung at the time then we should use that and if he was called Tom Kim we should use that. Obviously sometimes things are not clear cut. Some sources might use one name and other sources might use the other. If it's a minor difference like Matthew Fitzpatrick or Matt Fitzpatrick I guess we're not too fussed about the situation. Nigej (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Overall, I am fine with the title of most of the Asian players' names. My only reservation is with the order of the Japanese players' names. From what I know in their language (like most Asian languages) the surname comes first and then the given name. But here we're still using English-language conventions.

Regarding the second issue, in theory, I would be ok with using whatever the reliable third-party sources uses. But in practice this could be problematic. The example of the married female golfer is interesting and creates an easy and useful demarcation line between the use of one surname and another. But with the example of Naomichi Ozaki earlier, the media did not use his Japanese-name and English-language given name consistently. It could be a bit confusing if we always deferred to what they third-party source referred to at that particular week (or day).

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

table for World Series of Golf exhibition era

On the NEC World Series of Golf page there is table for the exhibition era of the event (1962-1975). I think the table should stay however I find it overly complicated. We have a parentheses next to the players' names indicating which major championship they won that year. However, I don't think this abbreviation would be obvious to most of our readers. In addition, when a player won multiple tournaments in a year we have the abbreviations next to each other. For example, in 1972 Jack Nicklaus won the Masters and U.S. Open and we have (MU) next to his name. To me, this is making things even less clear to the reader. In addition, the word "unofficial" is used to characterize this era of the event - I think we have come to a consensus that this categorization is untenable.

I'm not sure what exactly to do to improve things though. Do you think we should we color code? Like putting "green" for Masters, "gray" for US Open, etc. Or should we just use the Notes option? Please let me know.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Somehow we've lost the footnotes about the (M) stuff which existed at one time, making the table completely unintelligible. I certainly wouldn't go down the color route, WP:COLOR requires that we "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method". Since we already have the other method, color would have to be an addition. Options seem to be 1) put the notes back in, or 2) get rid of the (M) stuff. Personally I'd go for 2, we don't generally indicate in these tables how people qualified, although some text about how the alternates got in would be useful. Nigej (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the precise reason why the golfer qualified for the World Series of Golf isn't that important as it had no effect on the results itself. So I agree with User:Nigej that we just totally get rid of these parentheses as they are so distracting. In addition, I think it would be better if we refer to this tournament as an "exhibition" rather than "unofficial event." (We decided that "unofficial" is not a valid category.)

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

PGA Tour's Tournament Winners criterion

I recently created an "Eligibility requirements" section for early 2000s Players Championships. For the 2004 Players Championship there is a "Tournament Winners" criterion (requirement #4). The 2004 media guide is not particularly helpful. The most detailed information I found was on page 17 of the media guide which lists the Priority Rankings. On the media guide, criterion #33 refers to "Team Tournament Winners" but I suspect the Players Championship criterion refers to something different. I also went down to the Index of the media guide but found nothing. I also intend to create Eligibility requirements for subsequent Players Championships and it looks like this criterion also exists for those years. So it's pretty important if someone could help me out.

I assume this category refers to golfers who won events in recent years that is not covered by criterion #1, the major championships criteria, or the WGC criteria. I suspect a lot of golfers that I have in criterion #12 on the Players champ pages actually qualified within the category. However, I have no evidence for this. If anyone could give advice that would be nice.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Struggling to find anything concrete. Seems to cover multiple seasons (perhaps 3-ish). Also may not cover all tournaments, possibly not the "fall series". Who knows? Nigej (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, thank you for trying. I think in general it must cover exemptions for recent wins. Golfers tend to get a two-year exemption for a regular tour win; three years for the Players and WGCs; and five years for the majors. This criterion probably refers to guys who tournaments in this timespan and did not earn eligibility otherwise.

Criterion #12 for the 2004 Players Championship eligibility requirements seems to confirm this. These golfers have weak money list rankings but most (5 of 6) won tournaments in recent years. They probably got in the Tournament Winners way.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

table for WGC Match Play

I have a few issues with table in the Winners section for the WGC Match Play. First off we have a "Seed" and "Rank" column for each the winner and runner-up. Other than 2001, however, the tournament seed and OWGR rank are always very similar if not identical. I think we only need one column for each the winner and runner-up.

In addition, we have a "Tours" column. I think it is valuable when an event (e.g. New Zealand Open) changes tours frequently. But here it's simple; it's the same two tours every year. Can't this information be easily referenced in the prose? In addition, it's a WGC event and almost all the WGCs are co-sanctioned by the European Tour and PGA Tour anyway. This column just feels redundant as well.

Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Not instantly obvious that we need either column (Seed/Rank). In the "somewhat interesting" but not "encyclopedic" category IMO. Nigej (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd keep one or the other, probably the seed. Although the Tours column provides links to the respective tour seasons, that column could be removed. Tewapack (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at other match play events (i.e. Volvo World Match Play Championship, Australian Match Play Championship) I don't see any Rank or Seed columns. Given the lack of precedent, I would prefer both to be deleted. Additionally, the tour column, to me, is obviously extraneous.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The WGC Match Play is unique in that the field is based solely on the OWGR. Tewapack (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok I will keep the Seed column but delete the Rank column. In addition, I will delete the Tour column.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

What wins to include in the Wins sections??

I recently had a conversation on the talk page of User:Wjemather about including purse wins and pro-am victories in the Wins sections. He seems to lean towards inclusion whereas I towards exclusion. It would be nice to form a general consensus about whether or not we should include these events. In addition, it would be nice to come to a firm consensus on what tournaments in general should be listed in the Amateur wins and Professional wins sections. We have had a number of discussions like here and here and here over the years but, again, it appears we have yet to achieve firm consensus. Any opinions are welcome.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Senior Open Championship

I created the article 2023 Senior Open Championship on 13 April 2023. The tournament will take place 27--30 July 2023. I included info box with venue, coordinates, location map and prize fund. My intention was that the article would be continuously improved, by me or by someone else, with qualifying sites, exempt players, final field and finally results.

The article was deleted (with a direction to the main article) with the motivation that it didn't include anything beyond the main article Senior Open Championship. I suppose we should create separate articles on all major golf championships, even senior majors. How far in advance would it be recommendable to put up these tournament articles? There is a lot of job creating them and they will be improved when new facts continuously appear, why it's not easy to wait until the last week. Regards, EEJB (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It was not deleted; it was redirected to the main article, and your work remains in the history. We should not create individual event articles until there is substantially more to write about than just the dates, venue and defending champion – these details are covered in the main article. Additionally, there should ideally be some significant coverage in independent sources to use as references. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

ok. Thanks, EEJB (talk) EEJB (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Designated players

In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Players Championship had a Designated Players criterion to get in. It looks like the PGA Tour media guides, however, don't provide a definition. (See for example, the literature for 1981 or 1992.) Does anyone know anything about this criterion?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I found that in the 1979 Media Guide there is a definition on page 16 within the document. I can't seem to copy anything over to here, but it involves 30 of the prior year's money leaders, winners of recent majors, most recent members of the US Ryder Cup team and the prior year's tournament winners....... PKT(alk) 20:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi PK,

Thank you very much for this media guide with the Designated Players criteria. I used this for the 1992 Players and will use it for later eligibility requirements.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

2023 PGA Championship

Would just like to point out that the 2023 PGA Championship does not yet have an article. Coming up in a few weeks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

As with the Senior Open (above), there isn't much content to write (beyond what there is in the main article; dates, venue, holder, etc.) until the field is announced, and it doesn't really benefit anyone to have a shell article as a placeholder. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to alert the project if editors didn't know. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Paul Purtzer red link

I recently made some edits to the page of Tom Purtzer. His brother, Paul Purtzer, was also a (somewhat) notable golfer and I was trying to put a red link for him on his brother's page. However, all I get is a blue link redirect to Tom's page. Can someone change this?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

When a subject is unlikely to warrant a standalone article, they may be covered adequately in a closely related article and a redirect provided for ease of navigation. That is what has been done in this case, which seems reasonable to me. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with wjemather. Recently I created redirects for Hedley Muscroft's two sons. There's nothing to stop the creation of a separate article in the future if there's enough content to justify a separate article. Nigej (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User: Wjemather and User: Nigej for your responses. Given your advice, I don't think this redirect should change.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

EDGA (Disabled Golf Association)

I submitted a draft for EDGA EDGA Draft, for some reasons it was not present yet. Please have a look and accept the submission. Pierre Dumas (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Erasme Dipur: I have copy-edited a little, but as it stands there is little chance of it being accepted. Please review Help:Your first article for guidance on what is required. Specifically, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject are needed in order to demonstrate suitability as an encyclopedic topic – a concept known as notability. Good luck. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a couple external refs as well : Royal and Ancient, Ping, European Tour, LET Pierre Dumas (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any of those sources are independent. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I probably don't undertand the "independent" term. The Royal and Ancient is the world authority regarding golf rules (along with usga). It is a third party, not linked with EDGA in any way. They collaborate on common subjects from time to time.

I can't think of anyone/thing outside golf that would refer to EDGA.

Anyway, I don't care after all, I will let the edga guys manage it, if they care.

Thanks for the help. Pierre Dumas (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that they collaborate makes them not independent. Magazines, newspapers, books, journals are usually best. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Bobby Locke's military career

Under the Professional career section of Bobby Locke we have an entire "Service in World War II" subsection. The subsection includes a couple paragraphs of prose with five different tables about what he did for the South African Air Force. This is clearly way too much detail for Locke who was famous for being a golfer, not a soldier. I don't know anything about military-related pages, though, and was looking for advice on how to edit this.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it and reduced it to a summary. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User: Wjemather.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Incorrect weeks at No. 1 for Jin Young Ko

While it is correct that the Rolex Rankings were frozen for eight weeks in 2020, those weeks still count toward Jin Young Ko's total weeks at No. 1. Coming into the 2023 KPMG Women's PGA Championship, she has been at No. 1 for 158 weeks, tying Lorena Ochoa's mark. She will break the mark if she is at No. 1 when the Rolex RAnkings update on June 26.

https://www.lpga.com/news/2023/jin-young-ko-ties-record-for-most-weeks-spent-at-rolex-rankings-no-1 88cml88 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

photo for Paul Barjon

I was looking to upload a photo for the professional golfer, Paul Barjon, whose page I started a couple of years ago. Could someone please provide advice on how to do this or a link with instructions? Any help would be much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yale Bulldogs women's golf

I recently made a lot of edits for the Yale Bulldogs golf team page. There is some information for the women's team but not a lot so I was thinking about making a separate page for it. However, when I do searches for "yale women's golf" (or any variation) on the searches engines I'm not finding much. I'm not sure if there's enough to qualify for an independent page.

No matter what we decide, I think the women's golf information should not remain on the current Yale Bulldogs golf page. Unlike in some college sports (e.g. sailing) the genders are not integrated in golf so I simply think it illogical to have them on the same page. However, I would like to know what other people think, especially from pʰeːnuːmuː who does a lot of work with college sports.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Nationalities and past champions in the field

User:Jamahiriya has been re-adding these sections and saying that no consensus was reached to remove them. Do we need to re-establish consensus? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 07:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

We also need to reach consensus on a well-advertised and neutral forum instead of on a WikiProject. Take myself, for example, I edit golf-related article, but I am not involved in this WikiProject and I would not even be replying right now if I weren't tagged. At the very least, ongoing discussion need to be posted on article talkpages. I have no opinion one way or another on the "nationalities" section. However, golf is a legacy sport. How "past champions" do in major championships is one of the top things people care about the most.--Jamahiriya (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, we do not need to re-establish consensus and I have reverted their changes. Jamahiriya needs to desist until and unless there is a new consensus to include these tables. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they are steadfastly refusing to accept consensus, and seem intent on edit-warring instead while also reverting all intervening edits, reintroducing countless errors and other issues (e.g. MOS) and removing added content and citations. I welcome input from others. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a false representation of what's going on and I already called you out for your deceptive/misleading edit summaries on numerous articles. Please retract immediately and apologize--Jamahiriya (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You never tried to establish consensus by posting on article talkpages. As I wrote in my edit summaries, there are no record of discussion/consensus on article talkpages, no notice on article talkpages about discussion on your WikiProject, and no record of notifying original content creators (User:Johnsmith2116, User:Compy90, User:Dale Arnett User:Mjhammerle123 among others) of your attempt at altering longstanding decades-old consensus. Editors don't have to join this WikiProject to edit golf-related articles, so this clearly isn't where you gain WP:CONSENSUS, especially with no notice whatsoever on article talkpages (see Wikipedia:Canvassing Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP Wikipedia:Meatpuppetry). If Phinumu didn't tag me earlier, I wouldn't even be replying here because I wouldn't know you're attempting to canvass behind my back. I won't be replying here further either unless I'm tagged again because I'm not part of this WikiProject and do not follow this page.--Jamahiriya (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it true that consensus can only be reached through article talk pages and not Wikiproject talk pages? If so, do we need to re-open this discussion and link to it on all the affected articles' talk pages? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not true. In fact it's probably better to use a WikiProject Talk page that can be referred to on an article's talk page, when necessary, IMO. PKT(alk) 18:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It's clearly not a sensible approach (in this case) to try to get consensus on individual articles when there are hundreds of article with the exactly the same issue. Even adding a link to a discussion seems excessive to me. All the articles are tagged as being in WP:GOLF so surely WT:GOLF is the appropriate forum for this sort of discussion. Nigej (talk) 06:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

After my WP:ANI post, Jamahiriya has been blocked from mainspace for 48 hours. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The admins recommended making sure we have consensus before reverting. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 01:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I still support the previous consensus that these sections should be removed and no new ones created. Nigej (talk) 06:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Likewise. Nothing has changed to convince me that these sections add anything encyclopedic. Past champions is an exemption criteria so all are listed there, and their performances are detailed in the final results - duplicating this in a dedicated section is undue and nothing more than fan/statcruft. Flag counting remains utterly irrelevant in non-representative sport and it's simply more fan/statcruft. What is needed in these articles is decent prose content. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Going to go ahead and revert them now. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late to party here but I have to say I agree with all other members here who are against the "Nationalities in the field" and "Past Champions" tables. We formed a clear consensus over the years about this issue. Just for context, Jamahiriya, I would like to give you a chronological list of all of the discussions I could find about the issue:

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf/Archive_6#Treatment_of_amateurs_in_2019_Masters_Tournament_and_similar_articles

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf/Archive_11#Nationalities_in_the_field%7C

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf/Archive_12#Issues_with_the_%22Field%22_category_in_major_championships

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf/Archive_13#Past_champions_tables,_I_support_them._Join_me_in_developing_%22Consensus%22_for_them.

5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf/Archive_16#Nationalities_in_the_field

I hope this helps!

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Update

Following Phinumu's WP:ANI (now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#Edit warring on over 80 golf articles), Jamahiriya opened a discussion at WP:AN (now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive354#Misuse of WikiProject to canvass?). This rather fizzled out, partly because Jamahiriya took no part in the subsequent discussion, perhaps partly because he's the subject of a (still open) sockpuppet investigation. However two points came up which are worth bearing in mind for the future:

1. To achieve a consensus in contentious situations (or indeed to overturn a consensus reached here) it might be appropriate to initiate a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or one of the other options noted at Wikipedia:Consensus.

2. Discussions here relating to particular articles should be noted in the appropriate article talk pages. Nigej (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Golf page

Just checked out WP:Golf page. Within the membership section, I've never heard of more than half of these people. Not sure if it functionally matters but it seems clear that not everyone here is a member. In addition, some other sections (e.g. Goals, Scopes) are quite limited. I know it may be a big undertaking in adding stuff but just wanted to bring it up. The main issue is the membership list which I think can be easily truncated. Any opinions are welcome.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

We started a new list in 2014 to remove ex-contributors and the like. We could do that again, but maybe it's simpler to just delete it. I'm not sure "membership" is a suitable concept anyway. The same applies to the "goals" section which is currently pretty meaningless. Nigej (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure if the Members section is necessary as well. Any Wikipedia user (or even non-user) can edit golf-related pages. "Membership" just doesn't have much precise descriptive value here. The other sections I mentioned, Goals and Scope, could be deleted as we have such paltry text beneath them.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I would definitely keep the "Scope" section. We do get disk golfers and the like being added to WP:GOLF and it's sometimes useful to be able to point to something saying that they are excluded. Nigej (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Nigej about Scope - it's important to keep parameters around what we're about vs what we're not. Anybody who's managed a project knows the concept of "Scope Creep", which is to be avoided. Cheers, PKT(alk) 16:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej and PK. So do we have consensus to remove "Members" and "Goals" and maintain the Scope section?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Agree. It's been pretty much a week, so I think we can go for it. Nigej (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Nigej for making these changes.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Course(s) in info box in articles on golf tournaments spanning over years

I think it's unnecessarily to specify last hosting golf club in info box and change it every year. For example at the article Girls Amateur, I've noted "Various in United Kingdom" instead of "Ganton and Fulford" which anyway appears under the Results headline. Views? EEJB (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Relates to {{Infobox golf tournament}}. Tend to agree. I think we should limit the use of these parameters to events played on the same course (always or at least for a considerable period). The yardage and perhaps even the par parameters seem completely useless. No event is played on a course with a fixed yardage. "Month played" is another parameter that should go. Nigej (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Connecticut Golf Hall of Fame: photos

I recently did a lot of work for the Connecticut Golf Hall of Fame page. On the site, there are photos of Georgianna Bishop and Gene Sarazen both of whom were inducted into the HoF. I'm inclined to delete them, however, as neither of these photos have anything directly to do with this organization. (In fact, both were taken decades before the HoF was created.) Nonetheless, I would like to hear other responses as I'm not sure what the wiki rules say about this issue.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The senior women's major golf championships

I've recently tried to improve the articles on female senior golfers Trish Johnson and Laura Davies. One thing remains. For male senior major winners we have different colors on different senior majors to separate them under the senior majors headline. Which colors should be used for the senior women's major golf championships? Regards, EEJB (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Another RfC on capitalization of all our articles

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)