Talk:Jack Nicklaus

---

exemption rules

Nicklaus turned 65 in January 2005, which is the last year that he will be joining a PGA tournament as an exempt player.

I think that's wrong, since "one of the traditions of the Masters is that their past champions can play in the tournament anytime they want." See http://www.golfobserver.com/features/sal_casper.html

I also wonder about the rule this year for the british open. but Nicklaus would have been 66 and past champions are exempt only until the age of 65. is found at http://www.jsonline.com/golfplus/jul05/340591.asp But he was 65 in January of 2005, before he played as an exempt player in the british open.... --NealMcB 01:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nicklaus was invited back to the open on compleating his final round. This was perhaps deferance to an all time great and outside the normal rules.Djarra 12:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

All Open champs are exempt from qualifying for the tournament through age 65. The article referenced above talked about how Nicklaus' exempt status for the Open would expire in January 2006, as he would turn 66. Thus for the 2005 Open, the tournament was moved to St. Andrews so that Nicklaus could play there in his last exempt year. In other words, the organizers wanted Nicklaus to finish his playing career on what they consider the best of all the Open courses and on what Nicklaus considers his personal favorite. This was a fantastic gesture to honor Nicklaus' amazing career! As for the above mentioned Masters exemption, there has also been talk among its organizers about their exemption expiring at age 65. Anyone who remembers Billy Casper's embarrassing 106 in round one last year will understand why. 68.154.148.99 22:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Majors information

Question for Tewapack - I am amazed that you found the information to fill in the major championship table. I did extensive research to find the information about the specifics of his major championship victories, but was unable to finish it. Can you tell me where you got the information, so I can use it for other golfers? Thanks in advance. Supertigerman 21:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

www.golfstats.com - "The Majors" link for round by round scores. 54-hole info requires some calculation. Tewapack 21:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That site was very good, but I noticed a couple days ago that it stopped working.Is there another comprehensive site like that? Supertigerman 00:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

Can we at least have an image of him playing golf?--Lucy-marie 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for that, but I don't know the procedure to get an image approved. Supertigerman 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article candidate

This article is currently nominated for GA status - • The Giant Puffin • 19:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Summary of major championship performances :" should be ==Summary of major championship performances:==. Real96 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Hold

I am putting this article on hold mainly for referencing issues. It passes all other criteria at WP:WIAGA. Fix these missing references, and I will pass the article:

• Many paragraphs of "Record setter" section. Especially sentances or paragraphs that make assertions of fact (the section on orders of his golf clubs is one that is DEFINATELY needed, though it is not the only paragraph in need of refs in this section)
• "Close of playing career" is entirely unreferenced.
• "Records in major championships" makes several claims that are unreferenced.
• "Other records" does as well

Other than all of that, it is a VERY well written article. Congrats, and I hope to see these fixes made so I can pass it. Please get these fixes done within seven days. --Jayron32 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

It looks like nearly all of the major referencing issues have been dealt with. I am passing this article. Congrats! --Jayron32 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations in 1st paragraph

Nicklaus is widely regarded as one of the best by all that play golf, this fact really does not need to be cited. The next statement about being highly competitive does not need to be cited also. The facts below, including 18 major championship wins and 8 senior majors verify this fact. I do agree however on the next two sentences. These need citing, but will be hard to find. They may have to be deleted sometime down the track. Grover 08:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The facts need to be cited or else they could be complete rubbish without a citation. It could be written Nicklaus once dressed up a the green eyed monster in a match against Lesley Neilsen and this is considered the greatest farce in golfing history. That statement would have as much place as the truthful but un-sourced assertion about being the greatest golfer. Citations are essential or both statements have as much right to be (or not be) in the article.--Lucy-marie 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Is Nicklaus still regarded as the very best? I think it's becoming more and more a matter of debate as Woods pulls closer in terms of Majors won, given that Woods has had a shorter span of time thus far.

I also think that it cannot be asserted as fact that he's the best of all time. Is this a fan page? Mikevegas40 (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the wording in the first paragraph is okay, as it does not assert that Jack is the best of all time...it merely asserts that Jack is widely regarded as the best of all time. The Nicklaus vs. Woods debate will probably last forever unless Woods wins 19 major championships (but even then I imagine there will still be debate...lol). Jtroska (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

MacGregor ad should be deleted

The following sentence seems like it was inserted by someone associated with MacGregor Golf and should be deleted:

Nicklaus won the 1986 Masters using the Response ZT putter. Its manufacturer, MacGregor Golf, received 5,000 orders the next day; it had planned to sell only 6,000 copies of this model for the entire year.[12]

While this may be true, is it 1) at all important, or 2) not a blatant effort by someone connected to the company to drop their own name?

I would delete it right now, but I don't want to have to go back and reformat the rest of the article and footnotes. (The Masters is on today) Would someone else like to do it? 76.118.151.167 (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually put that in about a year ago, and i'm in no way associated with the MacGregor golf company (i'm a uni student). Grovermj 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So why put it in there? I mean, I'm sure Mr. Nicklaus changed clubs innumerable times during the course of his career. And I'm sure some of those changes were made just prior to a major win. What makes that one change important? 76.118.151.167 (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it deserves a mention because of those statistics. The same sort of thing happened with Zach Johnson's win last year. They are fairly amazing stats. Grovermj 01:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Playing style - taking measurements

I read somewhere that Jack poineered measuring each shot more accurately. He used more detailed coursae guides and paced each distance down to the yard. I think he was one of the first - if not the first - to do this. Either way I think its a relevant addition to the playing style section. Metallion (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal Information Textbox

I think we're being very kind by showing Jack's current weight at only 185 lbs, but I guess we can be flexible regarding this minor detail...lol! Jtroska (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs personal information

The "amateur" section mentions where he grew up, but there's not much else. Even that doesn't mention how that led to his nickname. If I were reading only this article, I'd have hardly any clue about even such basic information as to whether he was married or had children. There is one sentence that mentions "his children and grandchildren". And then, of course, there is the mention of the 2005 Masters, which leads the article to briefly mention son Steve and grandson Jake. But that seems to be pretty much it. 216.10.193.21 (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is little in this article to describe him as a person. ROxBo (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Jack Nicklaus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of serious issues that need to be addressed.

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is patchy, maybe a 5/10.

The lead is quite short and does not really adequately summarise the article.

Every section from "Close of playing career" to the end is patchy and poorly written. These have to be organised and expanded to contain all relevant information on his retirement and personal life and they have to be written in organised paragraphs and properly sourced.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

There is at least one tag. Also see above about poorly written and incomplete sections.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

See above about retirement

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe all your points have been satisfied, but tell me if i'm wrong. :) Grovermj 02:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks good, as I was reading through though I noticed that in the "Career downturn (1968-1970)" section there is a mix of citation styles, with one sentance referenced by (My Story) in parenthesis while the others have inline citations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a few more of these and you need to select one style or the other and stick with it. Convert one or the other so they are all consistant.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok all converted. Grovermj 01:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements, this now qualifies for GA. There are still problems with prose and I think that for such an important figure in his sport there is probably a lot more that could be said about him, but it is at least good enough to remain a GA. Thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Off-course Career?

"Nicklaus devotes much of his time to golf course design and operates one of the largest golf design practices in the world."

Golf course design is very much an on-course career. Its not a major issue, but perhaps the title could be less misleading. Either that or make a separate section for course design.

--Potatobreath (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Jack Nicklaus infobox does not match any other golfer except Tiger Woods, which this means it needs to be put back to the previous version to put consistency in the encyclopedia. It would be easier to rectify this by removing these two inconsistent ones on these two pages rather than change thousands upon thousands of others. Thanks Bluedogtn (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Golf WikiProject talk page is be the best the place to discuss this, rather than creating a discussion in several different places. (see Talk:Tiger Woods#Info Box). _wjemather^bigissue 11:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The infobox on this page and the Tiger Woods page are the correct ones, the others are not proper templates, so as stupid as it sounds, eventually the other infoboxes should be changed to the one on this page. Grovermj 11:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Golf course list

I think the list of golf courses Nicklaus he designed could be moved to a separate article, such as, List of Jack Nicklaus designed golf courses. This would be similar to List of Tillinghast courses. - Tewapack (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a huge list to have in an article. Grovermj 14:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Another format to use could be like List of Donald Ross designed courses - Tewapack (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Please move it. It is far too large. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

yes it should have its own page. very deserving! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihistoryusa (talk • contribs) 05:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

Jack Nicklaus

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted per discussion below. This article passed a reassessment about 2 years ago, and at the time it was concise and well-cited. Since then, the article's size has roughly doubled, most of the new content is not cited, there are concerns about focus (3b), and the prose could be improved. This discussion has run for a month, no one has given a reason to keep, and including the nominator there are 2 votes to delist and no votes to keep. To the extent that the guidelines suggest waiting a couple more days, I am guided by WP:SNOW Aaron north (T/C) 22:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel this article does not deserve to have GA status as it has nowhere near enough references for starters and also has quotes with no references. I will list the problems below:

• "the fact is that he keeps adding to his legend, at the design table and in the business world. Despite a worldwide course development slowdown, Nicklaus’s design firm has over 40 courses in development around the globe...And he remains perhaps golf’s most respected spokesperson on a wide range of issues." This is a quote without a reference.
• An example of bad prose is "and the top 10 67 times".
• There is also another quote "When God created Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer, He turned to Nicklaus and said: 'You will be the greatest the game has ever seen.' Then He turned to Palmer, adding: 'But they will love you more.'" This has no reference

I will now put it against the Good Article Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is defenitely not capable of GA in my view anyway but it's up to everyone else. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 10:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Delist If the problems were limited only to the quotes mentioned above, I might be tempted to just look them up myself to help this article pass reassessment, but those quotes are only the beginning. I'm not extremely picky about citation, but there are huge areas of the article filled with uncited claims. The work that would be required to get this back to GA status would require a dedicated editor. That is unfortunate, because when I look at the version of the article that passed reassessment 2 years ago, the article was more concise and well-cited. In the last two years the article bloated out to expand about two-fold, but whoever added all that additional content apparently did not cite much of what was added. Whether all that added content was focused on the subject or unnecessary fluff is also debatable. Aaron north (T/C) 17:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its a bit of a shame to see the article now. I was the editor that did the main push to GA status, but after that it got a little neglected, since I haven't been spending much time here. I should go through the article and improve it again. Grovermj 11:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Huge article

This article really has gotten too big. More importantly, what is being put into the article is not cited, which is what cost it the good article status. I attempted to shorten the article a few months ago but a few months later it was back over the original size. Just want some discussion here before I try and shorten it again. Please, if you're adding things, reference them. Grovermj 03:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)