Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 812: Line 812:
|}
|}


On the right, the results stand out much more easily. Thoughts? 09:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
On the right, the results stand out much more easily. Thoughts? [[Special:Contributions/81.142.107.230|81.142.107.230]] ([[User talk:81.142.107.230|talk]]) 09:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:46, 19 June 2012

WikiProject iconGolf Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject on Golf
Shortcut
Main pages(edit · changes)
Main project talk
Core Articles talk
Requested Golf articles talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Other
Featured/Good Articles
Categories
Templates
Popular pages
Articles for Deletion

Welcome to the Wikiproject Golf talk page. This is the place for questions, answers, and telling the rest of the group some of your accomplishments. New members should put their name down in the appropriate spot on the main page. Comment away!

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rodgers

Resolved

This page about the Asian Tour golfer has been fooled around with and I would ask you to please look into it and take the appropriate corrective measures. I am relatively new as a Wikipedian and do not know exactly what to do about it. Sahitana (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Sahitana[reply]

W. H. Diddle

Another editor has started an article on W. H. Diddle (1882–1985), a designer of golf courses. If any member of this project could improve the article, that would be great. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone rate these

Resolved

I just finished creating two PGA European Tour events here they are.

Thanks alot. Antoinefcb (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I rated them both as stubs, but you are doing a good job! Keep up the good work on wikipedia!BLUEDOGTN 00:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Assessment#Requests for assessment is the place to list these for assessment. wjematherbigissue 09:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major championship wikitables!

They are all done for all of the slams in the mens, womens and seniors! Good Job!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golf at the Summer Olympics

Hi, I'm knew here, so please take my post with that in mind. I have been reading the article about the Golf Event at the 1900 summer olympics. Under Participating nations (sic) it states, "17 golfers competed in 1900, including 10 women and 12 men." Based upon other entries, I believe the corrected sentence should read, "22 golfers competed in 1900, including 10 women and 12 men."

Marmstrong1211 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions regarding Template:Infobox golfer?

Hello, I know that PGA and LPGA majors are included, but I think just as relevant are the Senior or Champions Tour majors, which are just as notable in the infobox. If we are going to include even the slightest personal information about spouse, partners, and children, we need to include senior majors. I even think we should be putting caddies in the infobox if we are going to allow for those three categories that I mentioned in the previous sentence. If we are not going to include senior major we should take out all irrelavant info in the infobox not pertaining to the golfers golfing careers. Thanks!BLUEDOGTN 15:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs on the infobox talk page. wjematherbigissue 16:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Championship yearly navboxes

Wjemather seems not to like them, but they are done with less mark-up and storage issues that the current ones! Plus they are much easier to edit!

Tell me what you think!69.137.120.81 (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it was the unnecessary width changes that was the primary reason for the reversion. wjematherbigissue 11:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you only have approximately 12 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either choose to have awards apart of the infobox for all golfers or non at all! Double Standards!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Moved to Template talk:Infobox golfer

This is about Template:Infobox golfer and the awards section and awards sections apart of golfers articles. I think we need to develop consensus one or the other not both or to allow both for all golfers!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the intention is that for golfers with a small number of awards, they can be listed in the Infobox. For golfers with a longer list, they should be listed in a separate section. --Crunch (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put all in awards section and remove from infobox for even the smaller ones because you are diminshing the significant golfers careers in the infobox when you do that!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think deletion from the infobox of the awards and achievements section is completely and entirely necessary because it is not only that but it is ambigous and the information is better left to the body of the article for all golfers!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All my gripes would be over if we go with this template User:Bluedogtn/Sandbox, No Senior Majors, No Flagship events, No Awards, No Problem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this discussion to the template talk page, where it belongs. wjematherbigissue 09:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article that needs help!

Resolved

Vaughan Somers (Golfer) is a potentially notable article that is currently tagged for PROD as ureferenced BLP. There are plenty of news articles about the subject here and here, but I don't really know anything about golfing, so don't feel that I can sufficiently improve the article. Please help! PrincessofLlyr royal court 03:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain John Porteous

Resolved

At Talk:Captain_John_Porteous#Golf someone has asked if the Captain John Porteous who was lynched in Edinburgh in 1736 in the Porteous Riots so vividly described in The Heart of Midlothian is the same person who played "A solemn match of golf" in 1724. Many web sources say it is the same person but have clearly copied Wikipedia, often without attribution and sometimes usurping copyright. [1] says it is the same person with an appearance of authority (but copying may have occured to or from WP). However [2] which might be preferred says the match was in 1659 so this must have been a different Captain JP (or mistaken!). Can anyone help? Thincat (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, I believe. wjematherbigissue 09:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golf related article at AFD

The article Ultra lob wedge has been nominated for deletion. Someone who knows about golf should participate in this. Dream Focus 15:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golf instructors

I created Sean Foley (golf instructor) and Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer. Got references and links, but still trying to get properly licensed photos.--Nuares (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ricoh Women's British Open - call for photograph requests

Hi,

I am going to Southport to watch Women's British Open in a weeks time. Just as last year (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2009_Women%27s_British_Open) I am taking my photo gear along so I hope to bring back lots of photographs. If you have any special requests for photographs of players who miss quality images on wiki then please submit suggestions on my profile until next Sunday. Thanks, Wmigda (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Men's major golf championships -> Major Championships

I just tagged a proposal at major championships in case anyone actually feels like participating in the discussion this time. Starwrath (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page labeled "men's major golf championships" is incorrect - the correct title of the page (a page which redirects to this) should be "Major Championships" as that is the term applied to these events. I put a discussion over on that page a year ago to which no one responded, and then did the move but wjemather reverted it saying we need a discussion, so here I am.

Arguments for the move: the term "golf" is redundant as this term is no used for any other purpose in the English language (as noticed by the fact that "the majors", "the major championships" and "major championships" all redirect to this page already) and putting the term "men" in the title is flat out wrong as there are no rules barring women from playing, which is specifically noted on the page itself, and women have indeed attempted to qualify for the U.S. Open. This move would also mean that related pages would need to be switched to be using the correct terminology. Many pages already do, as all 4 majors note that they are "a major championship" not "a men's major golf championship" but certain other pages also would need to be fixed.

On another note, the word "golf" should also be removed where it is redundant. Having something like "U.S. Open (golf)" or "Bobby Jones (golf)" makes perfect sense for disambiguation purposes, but something like "LPGA major golf championships" is completely redundant, because that is actually saying "Ladies Professional Golf Association major golf championships" - you're using the word "golf" twice. Starwrath (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An example I just found is that the pages for the specific US Opens are labeled as "YYYY United States Open Golf Championship" which is inconsistent with it's tennis counterpart (which is labeled "YYYY U.S. Open (tennis)" and the main page labeled ("U.S. Open (golf)") as well as being incorrect in that the word "Golf" should not be in the title of the championship itself. It's things like this that I would also be correcting. Otherwise we mind as well add the word "golf" to everything, such as "2010 Ryder Golf Cup" and "2010 Open Golf Championship" etc. It seems like many pages have the term incorrectly inserted into them for some unknown reason which I intend to fix. I just need some WP:GOLF people to give me the go-ahead, otherwise wjemather is just going to go around reverting every change I make "because it wasn't discussed." Starwrath (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent my actions by quoting out of context. Firstly, you attempted to perform a controversial move without discussion. Secondly, you did not move the page but cut and pasted the contents, which loses the page history. Thirdly, you isolated a single article disregarding the many related articles, templates and categories that for consistency's sake would also need to be changed. Now you are just adding more stuff to your list as you happen across it, which makes it too chaotic to have a proper discussion about your suggestion.
Anyway, it is not incorrect or redundant for the word golf to be included in many of these cases – there are events that are considered major championships in many other arenas (a quick google search makes that obvious), for example soccer (FIFA World Cup, European Championships, etc.), motor sport (the FIA have a list of designated major championships), etc. Also, the word golf is often included as a necessary qualifier by third party sources as it alerts the readership as to the fact that it is golf that is the subject.
The major championships are a notional thing and as such should not be capitalised, even though the phrase sometimes is. Finally, if it is agreed that something does need to be done, then a full list of affected articles should be drawn up before any action is taken so that any changes can be done in a planned and coordinated manner. wjematherbigissue 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, there is a fair argument that "The Majors" (and "the majors") could equally refer to Major League Baseball so should be a disambiguation page. wjematherbigissue 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I did put in a discussion. No one responded, and still haven't responded. I'm not sure what you expect me to do if I put something up for a year and no one answers. I was following the BE BOLD WP guideline since no one answered.
  2. I was following the instructions for merging which says to copy and paste. Maybe I did it wrong, and if you could explain the correct way that would be helpful.
  3. While I would argue that the term "the majors" only refers to MLB when talking in the context of baseball and more generally would refer to the golf majors, meaning it does not "equally" refer to MLB in common usage, you are essentially correct and would have no problem with that. Maybe a compromise would be what the Open Championship page does where at the top there is a disambig telling the reader that "The Open" redirects there.
  4. If the term golf is being used for disambiguation purposes, which there are many needs for, the common standard is the correct title followed by "(golf)" such as "U.S. Open (golf)" or "Bobby Jones (golf)". But, it should not be used as part of the title as if that was the actual title, such as "YYYY United States Open Golf Championship". That event does not have the word golf in the name, and so the article should not be written in such a way that it implies that it is. You are correct that sometimes media will insert golf into the reference. However, this is an encyclopedia. We should not be labeling things how they are sometime "referenced" but rather as their actual name. Hence, for example, the page is "The Open Championship" not "British Open Championship" even though the PGA TOUR and AP both reference that tournament was the "British Open" in many official publications. This does mean that the term should become a redirect, but should not be the name of the actual page. Also, the term golf really is redundant in some cases, like the category "LPGA major golf championships" - the G stands for golf, so the term appears twice. As well, pretty much every article the word golf appears in the first sentence, and so people would immediately know it is a golf event. There's no need to be putting the word in the title unless a) it's actually part of the title (such as PGA) or b) there is a need to disambiguate from something else.
  5. A Google search of the term "major championships" returns overwhelming results for golf related articles, and from what I saw the only non-golf related articles had a qualifier in addition to "major championships." The events you listed don't show up on the first several pages that I saw, nor, for example, with the heavy coverage of the recent World Cup did I ever hear it referred to as "a major championship." I think what you're referring to is what the definition of the term "major championship" would be if it wasn't related to these golf events, i.e. "a championship event that is of greater importance." If you really feel that is necessary, we could again create a disambiguation page (which already exists, actually, but only has the 3 golf majors articles) for that term, but it should by default be the golf page.
  6. You are right that it is unorganized. I can start coming up with a list, but basically I'm just clicking through and finding articles where the title isn't consistent with titles of other articles. There are a huge number of articles, and it would take time to find them all. I don't think it's necessary to find all of them before starting work on ones we do know about though.
  7. On a side note to the actual proposal at hand, what do you think? On my talk page you stated multiple times that you do agree, is that still the case? On capitalization, "Major championships" is fine. Hope this helps, Starwrath (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that was your first ever contribution, it is not surprising your initial statement was ignored. New editors who insist that things are wrong and need changing do not usually get paid much attention. WP:MERGE explains how to merge content from two pages into one, not how to rename pages, which is essentially a page WP:MOVE. Another guideline that may be of help is WP:TITLE. wjematherbigissue 18:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, although it is sad if people ignored the argument which really was the first two bullets of reasons for moving a page in that the name of the article is "misleading or inaccurate" because women can (and have) attempted to play in the events and "...that it is not the common name of the subject or is overprecise" because the common term does not include the word golf, and is overprecise in that the term is not used for other purposes, so the word "golf" is not needed (this is, by the way, what I meant by redundant).
WP:MOVE states that "If the new title already exists and isn't just a redirect to the old title, with no history, and you are not an administrator, the wiki will tell you that you can't rename the page. You'll either have to manually merge the two pages, ...." which is what I did. My apologies if I did it incorrectly and/or misinterpreted this statement. Starwrath (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To people who play and watch golf regularly, golf may well be a redundant word, but we must think about the majority who do not follow golf in any way. As for the word "men's", they are generally considered to be men's tournaments in the same way that regular PGA Tour events are still considered to be men's events regardless of whether women (Sorenstam, Wie) have actually played in them or not.
BTW, WP:MOVE clearly states that WP:RM would be the place to go should it not be possible to perform a move over a redirect. wjematherbigissue 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That is why redirecting terms have both "men's", "golf" and combinations in them. As an encyclopedia, shouldn't the correct terms be used though? Isn't the purpose of redirects that people can find what they regard things as even if that is not the correct term? Particularly when the term you say people regard it as is factually incorrect? There is a difference between "considered" and "actually are." In the U.S., it is considered (by many sources) the British Open but actually is The Open Championship. Besides, what people "consider" things varies by region, which is again the point of the redirects, but the actual page is the correct/proper name that is not misleading.
  2. As for the term "golf," it is explicitly stated in the first sentence that they are golf tournaments. Considering, already, if someone types in "major championships" they will be redirected to this page anyway, having it also in the title is unnecessary, as if they didn't already know what it was, reading the first sentence will immediately tell them. I wasn't aware pages should be named according to what people might not know about them, but rather what they actually are and then people read about what it is. Otherwise, shouldn't pages be named "The Open Golf Championship" or "Ryder Cup Golf Matches"? Either way, it seems very inconsistent to me. If you are truly worried about it, the page could be named something like "Major championships (golf)" which is, from what I've seen, the correct way to do disambiguation, although the problem with that is there are no other major championships in a different sport that you are disambiguating from, and the "Major championships (disambiguation)" just has links to other golf terms. I understand that people might not know - the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform. This is why the redirect system exists, but also why pages should be named properly. A person who didn't know previously upon reading the correctly titled page would understand that these are a collection of golf tournaments that are referenced in common parlance and official publications as "major championships" that are primarily played by men, but have no specific gender restrictions on them. Also, the move page says to do either OR. I picked the one I had control over. Starwrath (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On another note, regarding PGA TOUR: the name of the article is "PGA Tour" not "PGA Men's Tour" or "Men's PGA Tour" or something similar even though the case is as you describe (and the case you appear to be advocating (or playing Devil's Advocate) for keeping the title, although you haven't been clear on that subject). Also, the first use of the word "men" is a sentence specifically stating "Similar to other major league sports, there is no rule limiting PGA Tour players to "men only."" Perhaps this sentence also belongs in the majors article? Starwrath (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 up and 2 up versus 1 hole and 2 holes in Ryder Cup articles

I've noticed that all the matches in Ryder Cup articles that ended not in the 2&1, 3&2, 3&1, are said to be scored 1 hole or 2 holes.

As long as I have followed Ryder Cup golf, when a match was decided by just one or two holes and went the full 18 holes in length, the winner was said to win 1 up or 2 up, not 1 hole or 2 hole as the Ryder Cup articles say.

News accounts on Ryder Cup matches back me up.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Yq4qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lmQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5064,2165115&dq=ryder+cup+1+up&hl=en from 1943

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=USYxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HAEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4953,6382470&dq=ryder+cup+1+up&hl=en from 1961

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/28/sports/ryder-cup-europe-defeats-us.html- From 1987

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/5375176.stm- in 2006

The matches are reported to finish with the scores of 1 up or 2 up, not 1 hole or 2 holes. I think the Wikipedia articles should reflect this.

I will also note, that Solheim Cup articles use the 1 up or 2 up scores. I'll do the edits but prefer to hear some opinions first.- William 23:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either is correct, with holes being the more traditional expression, but I don't have a strong opinion as to which is used here. Interestingly, the official Ryder Cup website uses holes in it's historical summaries for matches prior to 1997 when it changes to 1up/2up. wjematherbigissue 07:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Berg and Yani Tseng and who was younger when they won their third major championship

I saw Crunch needed to ammend what I wrote about Yani Tseng. First of all, I wrote that Tseng was the youngest in the modern era. Second of all, Berg's Titleholder wins count as Major Championships by the LPGA even though the LPGA wasn't founded then. I emailed Mike Scanlan at the LPGA to notify him of the discovery. Six months ago I found out via an old news article on the internet that Kathy Whitworth won the same tournament five times just like Se Ri Pak, Annika Sorenstam, and Mickey Wright. The press reported Pak, Sorenstam, and Wright as only doing it. Guess what? The LPGA record books were corrected after the right information was passed on to them.

Are wikipedia articles supposed to have wrong information because a source or sources are mistaken when at the same time another source is out there with the verifiable correct information? I mean articles on Whitworth, Minnie Rojas, and Kristin Gilibrand would all have to be changed. You'll find dozens of articles or blog posts written in 2009 after Nick Adenhart died that said Minnie Rojas was paralyzed in 1968 or 1969 when in fact you search Google news and find out it happened in 1970.- William 00:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In short yes, if that is the information given by reliable sources. Per WP:V "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Of course if we know some reliable sources are wrong then we need to find alternative ones that are correct. I find the European Tour website has been incorrect on a few occasions with historical tournament results, but it is generally easy enough to find a source for the correct information. wjematherbigissue 08:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If WilliamJE can provide a link to the verifiable source showing the LPGA record books were changed, we should update the Yani Tseng article. He claims "The LPGA record books were corrected after the right information was passed on to them." I am eagerly awaiting a verifiable link that shows this is true. --Crunch (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current LPGA record book
http://www.lpga.com/content/Alltimerecords.pdf- Today
http://web.archive.org/web/20071202000836/http://www.lpga.com/content/Alltimerecords.pdf- The LPGA record book in 2007
Check out page three at both links. The LPGA changed their record books.William 16:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Top foo male golfer navboxes nominated for deletion

Navboxes listing the top 10 golfers from any given country have been nominated for deletion. Discussion can be found at: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 5#Top foo male golfers. wjematherbigissue 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of wrong facts in Golfer articles

I'm not talking typos either.

  • There wasn't a two shot swing between Hale Irwin and Forrest Fezler on the 72nd hole of the 1974 U.S. Open
  • Dave Stockton didn't make birdie on the 72nd hole of the 1976 PGA Championship
  • Orville Moody didn't win $300,000 as a PGA Tour rookie in 1967
  • Kenny Perry didn't make double bogey on the 72nd hole of the 1996 PGA Championship
  • Len Mattiace didn't hit his drive behind a tree on the first hole of sudden death at the 2003 Masters
  • Julius Boros and Arnold Palmer didn't have a playoff at the 1965 Ryder Cup
  • Lee Elder didn't need police escorts at a Memphis golf tournament
  • Dave Barr didn't have many 2nd and 3rd place finishes unless you count less than one per every two years on tour as many
  • Russ Cochran didn't have the lead after 54 holes at the 1992 PGA Championship
  • Tommy Tolles didn't have his best career finish at the 1997 Masters
  • The 1962 Sahara Invitation, not Orange County Open, was Tony Lema's first PGA Tour win
  • Don January wasn't chosen for two Ryder Cup teams, he qualified for them.

That is just some of the mistakes I've read and corrected in Wikipedia golf articles. Some of these mistakes have been up for years.

When writing or editing articles, I suggest you use google, and more importantly google news archives to double check facts. Golf stats at the website Golfobserver is also an excellent source.

Also be careful about articles that interview a golfer about something years ago. Golf writers and golfers have been known to embellish stories rather than tell the facts. That's how the Lee Elder Memphis story has become distorted and I can cite other instances. So do a Google news archive search.-William 18:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article up for deletion

2010 Players Championship has been nominated for deletion. This is a relist due to lack of participation. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Players Championship (2nd nomination). wjematherbigissue 09:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for photographs and images

To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of golf people if it contains the template {{WikiProject Golf}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golf articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Golf articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template up for discussion

Template:Open golf tournaments is up for discussion. Please have your say at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Open golf tournaments. wjematherbigissue 15:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of golf

There is no Outline of golf.

To create one, click on the redlink above and add this line:

{{subst:BLT|golf|Golf}}

Then press save and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

For a relevant discussion see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40#What do you think about making an Outline of Birds?

Here's the outline they created: Outline of birds.

The Transhumanist 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with the last time you spammed this project, I ask what would be the value of outline of golf article? Well written and linked articles do the same job and more, and better. wjematherbigissue 23:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they do different jobs. One is a prose article, while the other would be more like a table of contents or site map of the coverage of the subject on Wikipedia. The two are used in different ways. One is for reading, the other is for selecting what to read and seeing at a glance what the subject is comprised of and how it all fits together. Prose articles are slower to use for navigation and scanning, and do not necessarily show the relationship between topics (what belongs to what) as an outline does. Being lists of topics, outlines generally cover more of the subject than articles, because there is usually more room for links due to the lack of prose. Even when annotations are included (to assist in topic selection), links on outlines are faster to browse because they are generally listed to the left of the prose. Outlines show the extent of coverage for a subject on Wikipedia. Prose articles generally do not.
For example, compare:
The outlines above offer a much faster way to familiarize oneself with the names of the topics of the subject, and a faster and more convenient way to access those topics. By virtue of their tree structure outlines show you what there is without you having to read paragraph after paragraph to find out. When you aren't sure what aspect of a subject you want to study, or if you want a survey of the whole subject in minimal time, outlines are the way to go.
The Transhumanist 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sports-related outlines currently under development include:
Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?
For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.
Here are some examples of developed outlines:
The Transhumanist 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golfers by state categories

I created a set of new categories for golfers to match other sportspeople. They are golfers by state, I.E. Category:Golfers from Texas. There are more than a thousand articles which need an appropriate state category, so if you could go through and add one, it would improve the quality of the golf-related categories.--TM 06:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of golf courses

An article about The Park Country Club was deleted recently - the club hosted the PGA Championship in 1934. It looks like all other courses which hosted the event have articles, but several are stubs with no references. Are there any relevant guidelines on whether these are always notable? Peter E. James (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality in Infobox golfer

Does the nationality represent the sporting nationality or just the nationality of the player? Mo ainm~Talk 19:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to be found at: Template talk:Infobox golfer#Nationality or Sporting Nationality. wjematherbigissue 19:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is it I removed the other one as this will get more eyes Mo ainm~Talk 20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized navboxes

In this page you have instructions about using standardized navbox templates. Actually they are not in use, and usual Template:Navbox is much better for those. You can also share your thoughts here. I suggest removing the introductions aswell. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New template Template:Student athlete

Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions and advice

A recently discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome. --Geneviève (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golf's Early Major Championship: The Western Open

What do you think about this source?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alister MacKenzie

Is anyone interested in improving the article on Dr. Alister MacKenzie ? I would like to collaborate with someone on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogala (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Seve Ballesteros/ Severiano Ballesteros Sota

In case anyone hasn't heard Seve Ballesteros has died. Haven't seen any vandalism in recent edits, just some good faith unencyclopaedic edits that needed to be reverted. More watchers may be needed as the news spreads. Regards, 220.101 talk\Contribs 09:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Golf/Flogton

The New York Times ran on article today (09 May 2011) on Alternative-rules golf or "Flogton", which can be found here. Do we think this warrants inclusion in the project? Or is there already an article on the phenomenon that I missed? Justintbassett (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template proposal

I propose making a change to Template:Infobox golfer along the lines of what is used in Template:Infobox ice hockey player at present golf pages display flags beside the Nationality field which is in breach of MOSFLAG namely "Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death." I know that members of the project will argue that it is the sporting nationality that is being represented so I propose we make a field along the lines of the National team field to ensure that no readers are confused as to what the flag is representing. I am proposing it here as the template doesn't get much traffic the last post on the talk was myself back in March. Mo ainm~Talk 22:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying use National team, as I said along the lines of it and I'm open to suggestions. Curious are you actually saying that the reason flags are used here is to denote the nationality of the player? Mo ainm~Talk 23:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying it represents the "Country", of the player, whatever that means. For Stephen Ames, the PGA TOUR profile shows his country as Canada, which is clearly different from his birthplace. For Luke Donald, the country is shown as England, despite there being no such thing as "English nationality". Per policy, Wikipedia should simply reflect what reliable sources show, and don't attempt to interpret the meaning. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree Country is an incorrect field. Not knowing Stephen Ames why is a Canadian flag shown for him? Mo ainm~Talk 00:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that "Country" is the best name for that field, because that's how it's described in golf's reliable sources (they don't call it "Nationality" or "National team"). If I click on Stephen Ames' name from a page like 2006 Masters Tournament, his biographical article explains precisely why the Canadian flag is next to his name. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is Trinidad and Tobago also used on his article? And you said "...represents the "Country", of the player, whatever that means" so obviously it confuses you to because I don't know what it means either. Mo ainm~Talk 01:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe either flag ought to appear in his biographical infobox (for other reasons), but I see no issue with a flag icon next to his name in a list or table of tournament results—per the style so commonly used in golf's reliable sources. My confusion is irrelevant, as it would be original research for us to speculate why the PGA TOUR decided to list his "country" as only Canada. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree The MOS is somewhat flexible in this matter and does not apply an outright ban. Flags add useful information in a way that if used sensibly can supplement the text. They tend to give a quick overview of the nationality spread in a way that text could never do. WizOfOz (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiz what are you disagreeing with because your comment makes no sense to what is being discussed. Mo ainm~Talk 09:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am disagreeing with your propsal of course. That's because if there's a field called "national team" the flags will disappear against the names of most golfers, since most of them aren't associated with a national team. WizOfOz (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Crunch but try remove a flag from any golfers infobox and see how long before it is reverted. Mo ainm~Talk 11:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most people probably aren't aware of the policy. I don't even agree with it. --Crunch (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree The flags are not being used to represent locations of birth, residence, or death. The association of a golfer with a nationality has a long history in golf circles; we should just be reflecting that. Also, per usual convention, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are separate "nationalities". The guideline used to say "Flag icons should never be used in the birth and death information in a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality", so someone has been tweaking the text with different meanings now. Basically, any reading of MOSFLAG which says flags are inappropriate for golfer infoboxes should be wrong -- fix the guideline. Basically every golf outlet associates the flags with golfers when broadcasting events or when profiling golfers; we should be no different. It does represent a "national team" of a sort already, though actually wording it that way implies there are actual teams when there really aren't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag consensus

As most if not all articles on golfers have flags in the infobox, is the consensus that all the flags that the player has represented appear in the infobox, see above section were Stephen Ames was brought up in discussion and this golfer has 2 flags in his infobox. So what is the consensus with this project in regard to the use of flags in infobox when the golfer has played for more than one country? Mo ainm~Talk 19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There will generally be one country, with that country determining membership on teams in international competition -- for example, we should not be adding the European flag to all golfers which competed on the European team in the Ryder Cup; rather their de-facto nationality determines which team they play for. Various competitions slice geographical team makeup in different ways. For example, in some competitions Great Britain & Ireland are one team, and in others England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and Northern Ireland are separate teams (and some competitions have changed team membership over time). Stephen Ames is a special case, of someone who emigrated, and has represented teams based on two different de-facto nationalities. That doesn't occur too often. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Annika Sorenstam is another article that has 2 flags in the infobox has she competed for America? Or is it in breach of MOSFLAG on 2 counts, flags in infobox and not using to denote nationality. Mo ainm~Talk 15:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest golf complex

Hello golfers. The sister project of the worlds largest golf complex is currently under construction and located in Hainan. I just started Mission Hills Hainan to represent it. But, I'm confused. I just moved it to Mission Hills Haikou. I'm not sure if the latter is a different place. Some facts:

  • The website has info on "Mission Hills Haikou" and say 2 courses are open. (Maybe this is the big one, has opened, but only with 2 of the expected 22 courses ready.)
  • The website says Mission Hills Haikou is 15 minutes away from Haikou, just like the media says of Mission Hills Hainan.
  • There is conflicting info on which is the largest, this one or the sister project in Shenzhen.

So, does anyone know what the real story is? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it. Huge, with only two courses open. But, it sure doesn't look like 1.5x the size of Manhattan, as claimed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns About a Photo

The photo in the article Chris DiMarco is incorrect. The picture obviously shows Lucas Glover. The photo itself seems to be mislabled by a Pvt pauline from Holland. I'm relativley new to wikipedia. Should I just delete the picture, or should I tell the original uploader about their mistake? Advice would be greatly appreciated. Aviator569 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the first time that user has mislabeled a picture, but deletion is overkill. Besides, all pvt.pauline has done here is cropping, the original is here. Go to the picture discussion at either that page or this one and make a note Paaln (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frietjes changing color on navboxes

Hello Wikipedia golf community, I just wanted to draw your attention to color changes by this user on the following Navboxes The Open Championships, U.S. Open Golf Championships, and PGA Championship. I have no earthly ideal why the editor has not even touched Masters Tournaments. I just want you all to discuss it here to come up with a consensus for your project rather than two editors having an edit war. Thanks, SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Steel

Hello. On my userpage I have compiled a list of notable Buckinghamshire cricketers. While compiling the list I came across Donald Steele (here), which says he was a notable golf course designer and journalist - a google search seems to back up notability. He made no major appearances in cricket, but did play for Buckinghamshire at a minor level. Given that I don't follow golf and therefore would have no idea what I'd be on about, I was wondering whether someone here could create the article? Thanks. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drive (golf)

Somebody might expand this further,♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Open or the Open and PGA or US PGA Ch'ship (golf)

I started a discussion at Finnish Wikipedia about whether the name of British Open shouldn't be translated, and which name to use, British Open or The Open Championship? One opinion was not to use the Open, because it's too British way to call that tournament. I agree about that, but on the other hand I'd like to use the same name than in English Wikipedia.

We must remember, that the Open is really quite a British way to call that tournament, PGA Tour calls that tournament as British Open Championship. We have also the same situation with PGA Ch'ship. It's arranged by the PGA of America, and European Tour calls it US PGA Championship. Britain and Ireland's PGA have their own PGA Ch'ship, BMW PGA Championship.

Of course I understand that The Open Championship and PGA Championship are the official names of those tournaments, but those name are a bit misleading.

--August90 (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For English Wikipedia, which serves all English-speaking countries, I (and many other editors) follow the WP:ENGVAR guidelines -- since the tournament is a UK tournament, we use the title it is most commonly known as in that country (and British English spelling in the article), and mention any other commonly-used names from other places. In U.S.-centric articles, I would use "British Open" in the text, as that is what it is commonly known as there, generally as a disambiguation from the U.S. Open (which was also officially known as the Open Championship or the National Open Championship for decades, I'm pretty sure, I think into the 1960s). Naturally, there are edit wars from time to time over the names, but given that we are the "home" wiki for the US, UK, and all other English-speaking countries, we would divide the usage as equitably as possible when there are regional discrepancies by following those guidelines. Similarly, as you note, there is a need to disambiguate "PGA Championship" from the UK or Ireland perspective due to those other tournaments, and "US Masters" as well due to the old British Masters and European Masters tournaments. For you... what is the tournament commonly known as in Finland? That would seem to be the best answer, to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a great answer. That explained a lot. In Finland British Open is the commonly used name, on the other hand the Wikipedia article has a translated name. We have to discuss about this in Finnish Wikipedia. --August90 (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I gotta say that despite British Open is a UK tournament, I think it's an internationally significant event. There are many international users at English Wikipedia. I understand, that national events' articles use language typical to that country, but I think that internationally significant events' articles should use neutral language. But that's just my opinion. --August90 (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Johnston

I created this and under your guidelines for notablity she won a professional event. So, is this article notable or not, and why?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:777sms created three templates for use in the "External links" section of golfer bios: {{PGATour player}}, {{LPGA player}}, {{OWGR}}. These templates provide an external link to the official organization web page for that player. He started converting articles to use these templates and I've completed all the PGA Tour ones and the OWGR ones for the top 100 ranked players. I also created {{SunshineTour player}} and converted all the appropriate articles. More of these templates need to be created and articles converted. This is the list I envision:

Any comments on the names I've suggested or others needed?

The other issue to be decided is the format of the text that the template produces. Currently they produce the following:

I'd like to reach a consensus on the format. My suggestion would be something like this:

Tewapack (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The templates looks good. I suggest using the format:
The use of possessive form seems unnecessary. --Crunch (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Women's British Open - help needed

Hi I am currently attending WBO at Carnoustie with a media pass and taking photos there. The goal is to create wikinews articles for each round. I've already attempted to create one for the final qualifying round (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/18_players_complete_the_field_for_the_2011_Ricoh_Women%27s_British_Open) but so far it hasn't been accepted. I'll be trying to start one for the first round myself but if anyone wants to kick in then I'll be happy to pass along. Thanks, Wmigda (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golfers

Hello! I'm user from Latvian Wikipedia. I really want to write some articles about the most known golfers in Latvian language, but I don't know about whom should I write about. So could somebody tell me please who could be considered the most famous and greatest players (current and all-time) – some 5–10 (if more users could tell me diffrent players then it would be much better).--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 12:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help you on this, which makes me feel humiliated by the fact I could not think of just a mere one. The only golfer I know is Natalie Gulbis, which she is an American of Latvian decent. I would advise you to seek out the help of Tewapack, Crunch, WilliamJE, Hietanbs, NapHit, Boddefan2009, EJBH, and Michfan2123. Any of these great editors will be eager to assist you if they can think of any golfer.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that You have misunderstood me. I was thinking world famous and greatest golfers, not from Latvia.--Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 07:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see! I will most certainly be able to tell you a great multitude. I thought you were wanting latvian golfers, which sadly since golf is not as a global game as tennis there's not many if any prominent latvian golfers like tennis players such as Ernests Gulbis. So, I need to know do you want more current golfers, more golfers from the past, or a mixture. It is rather hard to dig up information on the older ones, but I could give you a helping hand on that if need be. Just tell me what you want, and I will be more than willing. See, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, and Annika Sorenstam all have articles in your language, but on the English Wikipedia we would call those articles stubs and in dire need of expansion. I would say if you want to start an article on a currently famous golfer, I would advise Yani Tseng and you will quickly be able to discern the reason, why I am suggesting her. I love your enthusiasm for wanting to make golf biographies more prominent on the Latvian language Wikipedia. I could give you more, so just ask here or go to my talk page for quicker assistance.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New pics of clubs

Hi, I uploaded a few pics of hybrids and cavity-backs, and a driving range. The files can be found here:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Golf_equipment

many birdies! Fpedraza (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Steel

Hi. I've created an article on the golfer and golf course designer Donald Steel, which completes my mini-project to get an article for all notable people who played cricket for Buckinghamshire. I know little about golf, so my ability to make a good article about Steel is limited. I thought I'd post here to so people who know more than I do about golf can expand it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monday qualifier

Someone should create an article (or a redirect) explaining the meaning and significance of Monday-qualified or Monday qualifier; I know the basics about golf, but I don't know why Wikipedia editors would say someone "Monday-qualified for an event" as opposed to "qualified for an event on Monday" or simply "qualified for an event". Its clear from Google there's a reason for this wording; here are some examples already in articles:

  • Fred Wadsworth was a Monday qualifier who won a PGA Tour event
  • In 2010, Rod Spittle Monday-qualified into the AT&T Championship
  • Later that year Lexi Thompson Monday-qualified for the Navistar LPGA Classic

I think the average reader would benefit from a wikilink on this subject. Thanks. 67.101.6.72 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshes Golf Club article at AfD

The article Marshes Golf Club is at AfD. You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshes Golf Club Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion in currently in progress on Solheim Cup dealing with formatting and linking from the overall team event article (Solheim Cup, Presidents Cup, Ryder Cup, etc.) to individual articles for each year's event.

Talk:Solheim_Cup#Links_to_individual_events

Please weigh in with your opinion. --Crunch (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some golf editors have two sets of facts wrong.

1- Sergio Garcia isn't tied for the most top 10s in major championship by someone who hasn't won one. Harry Cooper and Ed Dudley have more.

2- Wire to wire Masters winners. The Craig Wood and 2008 Masters article both cited Wood in 41, Palmer in 60, Nicklaus in 72, Floyd in 76, and Immelman in 08 as the only ones to do it. If Immelman, who was tied after 18 holes is included as a wire to wire, Seve Ballesteros in 1980 and Arnold Palmer in 64 must also be counted. They were tied at the 18 hole marks but had solo possession of the lead the rest of the way.- William 02:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Golf will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in golfing. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Older PGA Tour events

User:WilliamJE has removed older events from PGA Tour tournament histories of the U.S. Bank Championship in Milwaukee and [Shell Houston Open], here and here, claiming that the tournament histories should only start with the current version of these events. This is despite the fact that the older events are included in the PGA Tour's own histories of these events, here and here. I ask that he refrain from editing other articles in this manner until a consensus is reached here. Opinions? Tewapack (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tewapack conveniently fails to point out that the tournaments themselves do not recognize the tournaments in Milwaukee's case[3] of prior to 1968 and Houston prior to 1946[4]. I'm talking about media guidebooks and the tournament's own website. The media covering these tournaments has also recognized both tournaments history going to the years I mentioned above. Tewapack seems to think he knows the Milwaukee tournament better than the Milwaukee News Journal that reported in 2007 said it started in 1968.Thrilling ride remembered...William 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another point- The Houston Golf Association, which runs the Shell Houston Open, at its website says it has been conducting pro golf tournaments in Houston since 1946.[5] The HGA has been affiliated with the tournament from the get go, the PGA Tour hasn't. The PGA Tour wasn't formed till 1968.
Why tewapack is taking a stand here when in other cases when the pro tours have been proven wrong, and articles have been edited to reflect information that contradicts a pro golf tour but is proven through multiple sources to be correct, is beyond me. If you're asking me for examples- Check Damon Runyon Cancer Fund Tournament and Moss Creek Women's Invitational and compare what the articles have the tournaments named and what the LPGA Tour does. Tewapack was well aware of the changes I made, because I told him. No objection to them either.
Three other examples are Juli Inkster's playoff record at WP is listed at 6-4 not 6-3 as the LPGA has it. Doug Sanders playoff loss to Jack Nicklaus at the 1970 British Open is included in his playoff record at WP while the PGA Tour still omits it. George Archer article says he took 94 putts at Heritage one year, the PGA Tour record books say 95. All cases are backed up with references from reliable sources if necessary and Tewapack was aware of what I did with the Sanders article.
A heads up, I've made three separate articles for the Milwaukee tournaments that aren't the U.S. Bank/GMO. The one that ran from 1955 to 1961 had a sponsor change in 1960 but media reports said the 1959 winner was defending champ. The other two Milwaukee area pro golf tournaments have separate articles. There is nothing in the media to acknowledge one had anything to do with the other. Houston needs the same done for the pre 1946 tournaments. I'll do it....William 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop and wait for a consensus to be reached before changing or creating other articles. I feel that the articles can be written to include the older tournaments as before with text added stating that the current sponsors only consider tournaments from a given date. Let's have others weigh in. Tewapack (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only just noticed this one. It's a tricky issue. The tour's designation and history of tournaments is certainly eccentric, at best, which is why we have separate articles for the Western Open and the BMW Championship (PGA Tour), but only one for the much-travelled and multi-named Booz Allen Classic, amongst others. But I'm not entirely convinced by the use of the current tournament's histories as a better source; it wouldn't be unheard of for a current organising committee to only consider the "tournament" to have started when they took over, even if it was essentially a continuation of something longer running. The best way to judge might be if anyone can find contemporary news reports, which would likely state whether the tournaments in 1968 and 1946 were considered "new" or continuations at the time. I'd be inclined to go with whatever they showed, but appreciate it might be hard tracking down the sources. The most important thing, to be honest, is not whether we have one article or two, but keeping all the information somewhere; so if we decide to start the history from the later date for any tournament, making sure we create articles for the previous incarnation(s). It looks like William has got on top of that side of things, which is good. EJBH (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ferrier

Jim played in the 1974 PGA at Tanglewood in Clemmons, NC. (His article incorrectly lists him as "DNP.")

I know because I caddied for him in the event. In those days, professional golfers could not bring their regular tour caddies to the four "major" events. I believe that was because it was considerd an unfair advantage for the handful of players who could afford to pay for regular caddies to accompany them to tour events. Having to take local caddies was considered a leveler on that factor.

That worked well for most venues, because there were plenty of experienced caddies at private clubs and the few public courses (like Pebble Beach and Pinehurst in the U.S. and the courses in England and Scotland) where major tournaments were held. Tanglewood, however, was a rarity for a major: a relatively new public course where virtually every golfer either rode in a cart or carried their own clubs; i.e., no caddies.

To handle this, the call went out for volunteers and I came out of caddy "retirement" (at age 32, I had not caddied for fifteen years), and many decided to take up caddying for this event. We went through a couple of training sessions and then had one heck of an exciting "bag draw" to see which player each caddy would have.

I drew Jim Ferrier, who had won the tournament in 1947 and had a lifetime exemption as a result. Jim did not make the cut, but caddying for him was a great experience and he later helped me get onto some great courses that I might not have otherwise played, including Cypress Point and Riviera.

The long bermuda rough at Tanglewood was wet and particularly difficult (most players had to hit a wedge back into the fairway), partly because there were several inches of rain in the preceding few days and partly because the major tournaments were "set up" to avoid anything like Johnny Miller's final round of 63 to win the U.S. Open the year before (Hale Irwin won the Open in 1974 at four over par).

Lee Trevino won by one stroke over Jack Niclaus as Jack bogied the last hole.

Jon Anderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.76.184 (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account is not consistent with the PGA's media guide for Jim Ferrier or the 1974 PGA Championship. I also couldn't find any reference to Ferrier playing in newspapers from the time (google news archives). Tewapack (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Ferrier but this guy is wrong on two other counts in what he wrote above.
  • 1-Nicklaus didn't make bogey at the 72nd hole of the 74 PGA Championship
  • 2- Hale Irwin shot seven over not four over at the 1974 US Open
Next thing this guy will say is that Gary Player's caddy didn't drop a ball in the rough at the 71st hole of the British Open....William 17:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the little tiny flag icons on win/losses need to go

They're in violation of WP:MOS. Jtrainor (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSFLAG, under "Appropriate use", this applies "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." Tewapack (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain to me how the nationality is pertinent to the purpose of the table? Is there some obscure golf rule that I've never heard of where your nationality allows you to trim a stroke or win a tournament? Chillllls (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The standard in golf reporting is to use the nationality (usually just a flag) with the golfer in leaderboards for tournaments, see examples at PGA, European, and Asian Tour events for this week. Win tables are essentially extractions from these leaderboards, hence nationality is pertinent. Tewapack (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, we should use every piece of information in the tables including individual scores for each round or, e.g. in the case of the Volvo Chinese Open (your second included link), each golfer's progress toward the "Race to Dubai." Obviously, that information is not included in the tables in the articles about tournaments or in the articles about individual golfers. The purpose of all these tables is to record tournament wins, not to resemble the leaderboards. Further, the standard that we're supposed to follow is the MOS, not the standard in golf reporting. Chillllls (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taking Hale Irwin as an example, the wins table includes his individual round scores, total score, to-par score, margin of victory, and who he beat (second place finishers). That is essentially the top of the each tournament's leaderboard without going overboard and including the runner-ups scores and other transitory info. So the table includes what tournament's he won, how he won (scores, etc), and who he beat. I'm claiming the nationality of "who" he beat is pertinent and thus not a MOSFLAG violation. What is included on tournament pages varies from a simple winners list (Atlanta Classic), expanded table with total score and prize money (Sea Pines Heritage Classic), to full winner's score (Frys.com Open), and runners-up (KLM Open). Tewapack (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, nationality is pertinent for players on major tours (PGA, LPGA) who are earning points in tournaments that determine their qualification for nationality-based tournaments, like the Ryder Cup and Solheim Cup. --Crunch (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Tewapack: In your Hale Irwin example, you state, "I'm claiming the nationality of 'who' he beat is pertinent and thus not a MOSFLAG violation." You then failed to state why it's pertinent (I could also question why who he beat is included at all unless he won in a playoff, but I'm not going to shift the goalposts). Why does the nationality of the player who finished behind him need to be listed in Wikipedia tables beyond the fact that golf scoring tables outside the encyclopedia tend to have little flags next to each player?
The reason that I believe that flags shouldn't be included in these tables is that they add a negligible amount of information while creating another opportunity for nationalist conflict. Luckily, golf is most popular in parts of the world that tend not to overlap with the worst nationalist conflicts on Wikipedia (excluding The Troubles). Ethnic conflicts in South Asia and the Balkans tend to breed the worst kinds of edit warriors, those who fight day and night to impose their version of how they see the world on the encyclopedia. That's why MOSFLAG exists: to prevent the use of superfluous flags that have no real purpose. If someone wants to know the nationality of the golfer that another golf beat in a tournament, they can go to that golfer's article to find out. If that golfer doesn't have an article, then one should be written. There's no reason to put a flag next to every name in a golf table.
What I found utterly bizarre is this tendency in golf articles to put flags next to ANYTHING that possibly could take a flag, such as next to a country name. What understanding are you possibly adding by putting an American flag next to "United States" in a table? It is incredibly redundant and unnecessary.
To Crunch: I understand your point about the Ryder Cup, but I disagree with it in player's articles for two reasons (I'm agnostic about it in most tournament articles and actually think that the flags should remain in Ryder Cup articles and similar nationality-based tournaments because the nationality is relevant there). First, the flags don't really indicate qualification for nationality based-tournaments. All they really indicate is that one player scored more points than another player who they may or may not be competing against for a spot. The flags don't really reveal anything about qualification except that they presumably scored points toward qualification, which is something intrinsic to the win and not clarified by the flag. Secondly, scoring points is not always the only way to qualify for some of these tournaments. As I'm sure you know, the Ryder Cup allows captain's picks where the captain could presumably choose any player he wishes. I am aware that not all nationality-based tournaments have this structure but I think it's a fairly weak position to insist that these flags remain on the names of players defeated in tournaments in a "wins" table in the articles of other players. Chillllls (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The flags are commonplace in golf coverage; Wikipedia should be no different. MOSFLAG allows their use in sporting contexts where it is common (i.e. Wikipedia should not use flags in contexts were normal media coverage does not -- coming up with the flags to use would be original research, but in this case there are plenty of references). MOSFLAG certainly used to allow this, and if it no longer does, it should be changed back. Use of flags in a golfing context is not remotely controversial. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I agree that the flags should be removed; they place undue emphasis on nationality. They're also against WP:MOSFLAG in most cases. (If the flag is for somebody who's actually playing on a "national" team, I could live with it, but my understanding is that most golf events aren't split into national teams). Does WikiProject Golf have any written guidelines on these flags?
  • There's also a separate problem; applying subnational labels to players. For instance, this - even though the manual of style rules it out and the source says they're British rather than English/Scottish/Welsh. Did Dai Rees carry a Welsh passport or pay Welsh income tax? If not, why insist on putting him in a Welsh national pigeonhole? bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In golf, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are separate countries. Just the way it is -- same with soccer/football. The first "international" golf matches were those between Scotland and England. If there are other subnational divisions which typically field their own teams in group events, then sometimes the subnational flags would be used. Go to the PGA player page etc. to find the correct one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about Chi Chi Rodriguez? Chi Chi, who was born in Puerto Rico, represented the United States in the 1973 United Ryder Cup but is often listed with Puerto Rican flag. Yes Chi Chi represented PR in the World Cup but Puerto Ricans pay some US taxes. There are articles here that have him as US and others where he is PR.(Yes I've reverted the later)
    • I don't care either way about whether the flags should be in player or tournament boxes. Just they be consistent if they are.!...William 12:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The notion that "In golf, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are separate countries" is not only absurd at face value - countries are countries, and they're generally not run to the whim of golfers - but it's also directly contradicted by the source on the article I mentioned. Have a look; this edit made golfers into "English", "Welsh", "Scottish" &c yet the source calls them all British. Presumably The Open's website is considered a reliable source on golfers? bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • True but when Paul Lawrie won the 1999 Open Championship he was called the first Scottish golfer to win it since. Or when Catriona Matthew won the 2009 Women's British Open winner, she was labeled the first Scottish winner of the tournament. The golfing media does it. Again I don't care one way or the other just that the articles be consistent....William 16:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In WP:MOSFLAG, subsection "Use of flags for sportspersons", quote "Subnational flags (e.g., England rather than UK) are traditionally used in some sports, and should not be changed to the national flag without consensus." Golf is one of those sports. If you don't know enough about golf to know this, then frankly you shouldn't be editing golf articles. The European Tour, the highest level of professional golf in Europe, uses England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, not Great Britain or United Kingdom, just look at the "Players by country" drop down menu on their web site here. Same with women's golf, Ladies European Tour, here, and amateur golf here. Now to the The Open Championship's website www.theopen.com. They started adding historical leaderboards in 2008 or 2009. The first efforts did not list players' nationalities and often only had an initial instead of a first name. As these leaderboards have been updated over the years, obviously by more research, they have added more first names and countries, but, the default country seems to be GBR. The further back in time one looks, less players are listed as ENG, SCO, WAL, NIR and the more are listed as GBR, but there is almost always a mix of usage. They even list non-British people as British, Walter Travis in 1940 and Bill Shankland in 1939 to name two. The wikipedia articles are generally much better researched with regards to nationality than www.theopen.com. So this site is not a reliable source when it comes to golfing nationalities if they are listed as GBR. - Tewapack (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that flags of this type, even in cases where they are "discouraged", are not forbidden, especially where there is a strong precedent for using them. Also the part of WP:MOSFLAG that claims that flags are "unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many" was added to the MOS arbitrarily and with no consensus that could later be produced in a very long discussion about it a while back. Restructuring of the MOS was deemed desirable by most, but no consensus on how to manage it was reached. As long as they reflect a golfer's representative nationality, not legal nationality, I think that a measured use of flags is fine. Also, subnational flags satisfy the MOS in the case of golf, where the terms English / Irish / Scottish etc are widespread - like football, but unlike motorsport for example. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The MOS strongly discourages them and when citing exceptions, none of them support using them. This discussion should be taking place at the MOS talk page because a small group can't declare themselves exempt from the MOS because they have a "consensus". Why should golfer infoboxes not be consistant with all the others? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidelines have always included exceptions where they make sense, like this. The discussion has taken place there many times. A small group of editors at MOSICON should also not be attempting to change long-term usage such as this. Flags as part of media coverage of particular sports is well-entrenched, and Wikipedia should be no different. MOSICON is definitely well-intentioned, and Wikipedia should not be introducing flags into areas they are not typically used (which is most cases), but neither should it be imposing itself as law in situations where flags do make sense. The exceptions in their guideline used to be more explicit, but people have changed the wording with little consensus in order to obscure that. As with any case where there is a broad rule, there are places where exceptions make sense, and this is one of them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (e/c - I agree with Clindberg) Golfers are not among the examples of articles in which flags are expressly forbidden. Discussions have taken place at the MOS talk page, but they have stalled, last time I looked. Golf is not the only example of a WikiProject that uses flags. The MOS needs rewriting, and until then, the least antagonistic thing to do is to leave flags where have existed for a long time, but not to add them to pages where they have not existed before. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does adding a flag to a golfer`s infobox truly add to the article? I ended up here because I removed a flag from the infobox of a lower level PGA pro. He's not representing the US, not on a "national team" and we're not talking about any sort of national championship. He just happened to be born in the US. How does that flag enhance the article or creat more understanding? It's nothing more than bling. If this were some Olympic thing or something like that, it would seem different to me. This isn't. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not alone in holding those views, and that's one side of the argument. Of course there are those with various opposing views, and that's why it's not clear cut. I've never seen a discussion about flags that didn't get heated and protracted. It's definitely one of those Wikipedia issues that may never really be resolved one way or the other. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that "golfers aren't specificially prohibited" is off-base. The speed limit sign doesn't specify you either, but it still applies to you. The exemptions are what need specified in a case like this and golfers certainly aren't listed as exempt. Still, the basic question remains: How does it enhance the article aside from being some bling? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are examples cited of special prohibitions, and golf isn't one of them. Sure, there should be either exceptions or prohibitions, not both - that's one of the MOS's many problems. There's nothing to say which takes precedent. As for your last question, you'd best ask someone who really wants to keep them. I'm more someone who keeps an eye out for occasions where MOSFLAG and other similar guidelines are used to try and enforce concepts that aren't technically enforceable - per WP:BURO and WP:CREEP. If there was a real consensus to get rid of flags, then the MOS would just forbid them, straight. But that consensus has never existed. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, exemptions are listed. If not exempted, it's not allowed. Your wiki-lawyering aside, how about the basic question: How does it enhance the article? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what part of my post you didn't understand. I don't give a toss about the pros and cons of flags. I wonder why people who are losing an argument, or just don't like an argument, always accuse the other side of wikilawyering? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the list of exemptions is not exhaustive - i.e. examples of exemptions are listed. Therefore your claim of "If not exempted, it's not allowed" is garbage. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are representing the U.S. in a way. While an individual sport, there are national ramifications even at the individual events (it's a constant topic of discussion), and there are team events as well -- some where the sporting nationality will determine which teams they qualify for (Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup, Women's World Cup of Golf, Walker Cup, etc.). Golf coverage virtually always includes them, even on individual player bio pages. Wikipedia's coverage would be the worse off without them. If they were actually valueless, then all the other major media outlets would not use them either, but they basically *all* do. Again, it's a good idea to be more familiar with the sport of golf before claiming to know what is best for the related articles. The MOS is a *guideline*, not a policy let alone a law like a speed limit; there are always going to be exceptions. By definition, they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. WP:IAR is policy as well. To me, this is an example where a well-intentioned guideline is trying to be enforced to a point where it breaks common sense. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a golf editor who's done a great deal of work on articles, I don't care one way or another about the flags. I will point out. The LPGA has flags up for which country a player represents and in this case[6], Catriona Matthew is listed as Scottish not British. On the other hand Candie Kung, A Taiwanese immigrant to the United States, has a Taiwan flag on her LPGA page[7] even though Candie says she is a US citizen and doesn't have dual citizenship.[8]...William 20:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, distinctions between Scottish/English/Welsh/Northern Irish is typical in golf -- the UK flag is basically never used. Candie Kung may be an interesting case -- she is not eligible for the U.S. Solheim Cup team (unless they change the rules), so the sporting nationality may be tougher. She did play on the Asian team in the 2005 through 2008 Lexus Cup. On the other hand, she may be eligible to represent the United States at the Olympics when golf is brought back in 2016. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see anyone clearly respond to the question, "What is the purpose of the flags in tables that don't directly relate to nationality-based tournaments?" The argument for inclusion of the flags seems to be that because a small number of golfers compete in a few tournaments every year where nationality is relevant, then every time a golfer or country is mentioned in any table in any article that relates to golf, there needs to be a nationality flag there. Also, that's what the golf sources do. The corollary to that argument is, to quote Clindberg, "It's a good idea to be more familiar with the sport of golf before claiming to know what is best for golf articles." The first argument is questionable and the corollary clearly goes against the spirit of the encyclopedia. I shouldn't have to pass a test on golf history in order for you to deem me (or anyone else) worthy to contribute my opinion here. No one has ignored the point about nationality-based tournaments.
Further, my understanding of IAR is much different from the use cited earlier. From my point of view, IAR is for avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy. This is not the case here. Myself and other editors have shown that nationality flags can be a contentious and difficult issue (even Clindberg's post above mine indicates that it's problematic). Some editors contend that these flags are NOT an improvement to the encyclopedia, so IAR really has no place here. Concerning the exceptions to policy issue, that's already been discussed: the exception is that flags are allowed when they are pertinent to the purpose of the table. To me, that means the information that the table is trying to communicate, not that the table deals with a golf issue so it must have flags. Chillllls (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In some contexts, nationality flags can be contentious, yes. Generally not in golf, tennis, and other certain sports where they are common. If I'm interested to see how Americans did in the 2012 Alpine Skiing World Cup, for example, the flags make that jump out very quickly, *much* better than text would, and it does it in a much more space-efficient manner -- I can get a quick impression of how Americans did overall, and focus on individuals. A canonical example of appropriate use on the MOSICON page itself is List of WPA World Nine-ball champions; that is also an individual sport. I fail to see how use in golf tables is different than that. The guideline itself explains why it is useful. This information, for certain sports, is also useful in infoboxes. The MOSICON guideline used to basically say they were OK for nationality fields -- just forbidden for any location or other non-nationality field since people assume on seeing them they are for nationality -- then a a year or so ago, someone saw fit to change that, a substantial change with little consensus gathered, then others go around trying to enforce their new rule. I can understand some editors may not like them, perhaps colored by experiences elsewhere, and I'd agree that use in general infoboxes even for nationality fields in many types of infoboxes is not a good idea, but they are standard in coverage of certain sports and not a problem there (plus, there are plenty of reliable sources to determine the flags). Trying to inject flags in contexts where they are not usually seen can be distracting and problematic yes, but that does not mean those problems exist everywhere, and trying to apply a broad guideline which is helpful in some cases can be harmful in others. The example I gave above is not at all contentious or problematic; the field is for their sporting and representative nationality, and there are sometimes unique cases where there is more than one flag. If there are multiple flags in that field, the article should explain why. Tennis is basically the same; I know there have been some editors trying to remove the infobox flag on Roger Federer, for example, from time to time. Some editors may not like them, yes, but there is hardly a consensus to removee them in these sporting-nationality contexts -- rather they have been this way in tennis/golf/etc. articles for years, so trying to change the guideline to force all these other pages to change is really going against long-term consensus on those pages. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that once again, the basic question of why these flags need to be in the tables has been sidestepped, this time with a variation of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale. I'm fully aware that my efforts here will be ultimately futile as no matter what anyone says, the pro-flag editors that exist in all of the sports Wikiprojects will dig in their heels and refuse to acknowledge policy-based arguments. Do you realize that in the first two examples you list above, nationality actually is relevant? Can you understand the distinction between nationality-based tournaments like the Ryder Cup and just plain tour events? Do you realize that just because material in an article hasn't been challenged it is not the result of consensus? And the only reason consensus never changes is because editors who work in all areas of the encyclopedia are filibustered by Wikiproject editors working in their own walled garden areas who feel that they can ignore site-wide policies and guidelines and create their own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Chillllls (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MOSICON guideline says they are useful in the tables. Always has. If you are reading it differently, then the rest of that guideline needs to be fixed. The guideline says, right at the top: Repeated use of an icon in a table or infobox and They are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationalities). That's what the guideline says right now. It cites List of WPA World Nine-ball champions as a prime example of appropriate use, which is exactly what we are doing on most golf articles. In the original MOSICON guideline, it was worded this way: They can be aids to navigation in very long lists of countries: the flag of the individual country one is looking for may 'stand out' to the eye more immediately than the name itself. That's basically what I said above. The guideline was originally about removing flags from inline text, and attaching them to just about every location-based bit of text in an article -- there were bad abuses, and the guideline makes sense. But the use in tables, the subject of this entire section, is fully in line with the guideline and removing them is actually against the guideline. That has always been consensus on that guideline, unless some folks are trying to change that recently. Golf is an inherently international sport, like tennis or skiing or 9-ball (which are not team-based either, no more than golf -- every example I gave above was involving individual competitors not on teams), and that aspect is definitely relevant in almost any regular tour event, whether it be U.S.-based, European, or other. You are saying it's not, like it should be obvious -- but to my mind that's flatly incorrect. You are accusing some editors of filibustering, when really, that type of use has been standard practice across many sports on Wikipedia basically forever, and the MOSICON guideline did not prevent that at all, until perhaps recently -- that looks from afar like a few editors basically deciding they don't like flags *at all*, and trying to remove them entirely, changing the guideline well beyond its original intent without much consensus (or possibly just misreading it), and claiming it's the *law* that everyone else must now follow. The use of flags in the coverage of many sports is commonplace and basically standard, in and outside of Wikipedia. I can understand why the general guideline would discourage flags in the infoboxes of say CEOs of companies, but the guideline has numerous references to a sportsperson's sporting nationality being exceptions, which is what we have here. You claim there is a distinction between golf and other sports like tennis or skiing; I don't see it. Really, if there is resistance to removing this type of flag from multiple sporting communities on Wikipedia, that would seem to indicate a wide consensus to use them in sporting contexts, and the guideline should really reflect that. If you feel it should be changed, fine, state your reasons -- but most every reason I've seen (flags are contentious, flags distract from more relevant information) I don't think apply at all in these sporting contexts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the overall issue and, as a result, the current status quo will stand. You do raise some cogent points and, additionally, I'm of the opinion that flags should not be removed from all golf tables but on a case-by-case basis (depending on the relevance that nationality has on the event in question in the table). My views are also probably colored by my experiences witnessing nationalist disputes in other areas of Wikipedia, something that admittedly does not frequently spill into sports articles in the encyclopedia. We're essentially debating two sides of the same coin: you say they're not really doing any harm, so leave them in; I say that the potential that they could do harm exists and I think they're not really adding anything useful, so why not take them out?
Also, just to clarify one point, I'm not saying that there is a distinction between golf and other sports like tennis or skiing. I'm saying there's a distinction between a skiing world cup event where the competitors are de facto representing their country under the auspices of their national skiing organization and a normal tour event where it would be silly, e.g., to say that Bubba Watson won it for America. I've tried several times to explain the distinction that I'm making and I don't know if I can make it any clearer than that. My inability to communicate that to you in a way that you can understand must be related to the way that we perceive sporting events differently.
I respect the fact that the points that I and others have made haven't generated any consensus that the flags should be removed and I'm not going to go on a massive spree of removing them from golf tables. This will be my last comment in this thread and I appreciate the opportunity to share my view. Chillllls (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough :-) If I may also respectfully say, nuances like "team events are OK but individual events are not" probably don't belong on the general MOSICON guidelines. Each sport can have its own nuances that way, and that seems to be getting a little too detailed there. Yes, for people scarred by nationality disputes elsewhere on Wikipedia, I can completely understand. But, in some areas, such concerns really don't crop up since they are in such commonplace use elsewhere. In fact, I'd say there has been more problems with the flag vs no flag debate than nationality issues ;-) (title of the Open Championship article aside). I understand the distinction you're trying to make, but it's not that simple -- it's not that Watson "won it for America", but it certainly could be "Watson just the second American winner in the last five years". The nationality aspect is always there in golf -- if isomeone from a country which hasn't won before wins, that would be a big topic -- say, an Australian finally winning the Masters, which would be huge news after all the close calls they've had over the years (Greg Norman in particular). And I'm not so sure skiing is all that different -- they compete and qualify as individuals. Countries do have national organizations to help with training and logistics sure, but I think they compete as individuals. Bode Miller left the U.S. Ski team for a while and created his own, but he'd still have the American flag on the related articles when he competed, and be counted in the "USA" stats. They do keep track of nationalities and tally up the points there too, but it's mostly an individual event. The Olympics are different true -- they try more for greater international participation, limiting the number from a country, rather than just using the top N skiers in the rankings (much like, say, the U.S. Open primarily uses the World Golf Rankings to determine who qualifies). Something like the "medal count" at the Olympics is not official either, but common in Olympics coverage, thus it shows up on Wikipedia articles too. My point is just because a national aspect is not specifically part of the competition, doesn't mean the topic doesn't exist and should not be mentioned. Really, sporting is one of those areas which is a safer outlet for nationalistic fervor; it's usually more fun than harmful. And I do think the flags add something, not just that they do no harm ;-)
  • Does WikiProject Golf actually have any rules or guidelines written down anywhere which recommend/encourage widespread use of flags or which otherwise opt-out of WP:MOSFLAG? I asked before but it might have got lost in the avalanche. bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in the infobox

I guess it is worth separating this discussion. My concern has been with the use of flags in the infobox of individual golfers, not with the win/loss tables. Saying "golf isn't specifically prohibited" or "discouraged doesn't mean prohibited" isn't a valid argument. Why, specifically, should flags be exempted and allowed in the personal info box? What do they add to the article besides decoration? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is their representative nationality -- some people will recognize the flags a lot faster than the text, and it is a significant element with golfer bios -- there is a reason to make it noticeable. And yes, "discouraged doesn't mean prohibited" is a valid argument -- that is a very general guideline, and in most cases adding flags can easily inject some nationalism issues where they don't belong, but there are also going to be areas where that aspect is really not a concern. If you want to pick an example, let's go with Luke Donald. His PGA page has the flag, his ESPN page has the flag, his Masters bio has the flag, his European Tour page has the flag. The point is that it's a common element in golf coverage; if it was truly useless, other media outlets wouldn't bother using them either. The guidelines had always stated to avoid use of flags for birth and death locations (and residence); that I strongly agree with, as flags tend to indicate nationality. Thus, there was always the sense that using them for nationality was OK in specific circumstances -- not general bios, but things like sportspeople's representative nationality, particularly when it is commonplace in media coverage of said sport and there is an abundance of reliable sources to back it up. The strict prohibition came less than a year ago, after a conversation between 2-3 editors, and to my knowledge never got any buy-in or consensus from any of the groups actually using them for years. They may have assumed that was always the "rule", but I don't think lots of editors agreed. Trying to then enforce a fairly unilateral change like that is going to be contentious. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The guidelines had always stated to avoid use of flags for birth and death locations (and residence); that I strongly agree with, as flags tend to indicate nationality" That is exactly what were are talking about here. This section has NOTHING to do with tournaments etc. I don't care about that. This is solely about the golfer bio infobox. In the case that got me involved, the golfer was born in the US and an editor insists that using the flag icon, in the box marked nationality, is proper. In this case the "discouraged doesn't mean prohibited" doesn't apply because the MOS uses a specific example of how "sportspeople" infoboxes shouldn't use the flag. Golf is a sport, right? Shouldn't means should not, right? Why does golf feel it needs to be special and exempt? Do you see flags as the norm in NFL player infoboxes? NASCAR drivers? NBA players? No. Are those articles lacking because they don't have a little flag icon in the infobox? No, because the flag brings noting substanative to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can agree to disagree. It depends on the circumstances of the sport to me. Golf, tennis, skiiing, Formula 1, and other more international sports do tend use flags in the infoboxes, as the field is more important in that context than for the typical person. Most bio infoboxes on wikipedia -- flags are probably out of place, thus the guideline. Even for many sports where the vast majority of players are from one country, it's not typically used in media coverage, so it's not even an overall "sportspeople" idea. For certain sports though -- the situation is different. This is why MOSICON is a guideline, not absolute law. The flag is there because it's the sporting nationality, which is usually (but not always) where they are born. If you are talking about a specific field of "Born" or "Residence" and not "Nationality", that is different. Yes, I disagree with the guideline in the context of golf, and several others sports. You appear to be under the impression that there can never be any disagreements with the usual guidelines, and whatever is written in MOSICON must be followed everywhere with no exceptions. That is not what guidelines are there for. There is a specific reason to ignore the general guidance in this case, I feel (as have many other editors here over the years, and editors for several other sports). Yes, Wikipedia would be lacking compared to other golf media coverage by not including the flags. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am talking about it being in the infobox solely because he was born in the US. Not "representing" the US on some team, just born here. I know there can be disagreement (and you saying I am not aware of it is insulting), which is why I'm hear discussing it! But the guideline already exists. It is incumbent on those deviating from it to justify why. Thus far, none of you have come up with a reason I buy. Triathletes are international in nature and they don't use flags in the infobox either. I find it difficult to believe that many English speakers will need a little flag to clue them in on which country the US is. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he doesn't currently represent the US on a team doesn't matter; attempting to qualify for such teams is a part of every golf event. All professional golfers have the opportunity to qualify for a Ryder or Presidents Cup team, and also for the World Cup. Most will never achieve that, but all will try to, which is why the nationality is relevant. So if we assume nationality is relevant, the issue is whether flags should be included in the nationality line. I agree with Carl Lindberg that they impove navigation considerably on the infoboxes; there may not be many people who need a flag to recognise nationality, but for many, me included, it is much quicker to glance at the flag to establish nationality than to have to locate text. And as has been pointed out, using flags to denote player nationality is standard practice in all other golfing literature outside of Wikipedia; there is no reason for WP to differ from this practice. Triathletes may not use flags, but tennis players do, as do snooker players, so it quite clearly isn't a recommendation that is actually adhered to across WP generally. EJBH (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (ie tennis players using it) is not a valid reason. The lack of representing the US DOES matter since that is one of the listed exemptions. Clearly is matters or it wouldn't have been listed as an exemption. This notion of needing a little picture because you are too lazy to shift your eyes a fraction of an inch can find it a fraction of a second faster in a confined area than you can find a word is pretty weak. Hell, let's get rid of text completely and illustrate the articles with pics and stick figures. That would save us from those pesky words. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are basically arguing that little flag pictures are bad no matter the context. If that's the case, MOSICON should forbid icons in almost all circumstances, because the text is better. Normally they are discouraged because they may bring undue attention to the field -- however, in golf's case, it's not undue attention. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't what I am arguing and I'll thank you to not lie put words in my mouth. Thus far, your supporting reasons have been 1) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, 2)It makes it easy for the lazy and 3) It looks pretty. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I misinterpreted your argument, I'm sorry. But I would also ask you don't put words in my mouth, because I have argued none of those three things. But if you are going to miscategorize my arguments as being those reasons and those reasons only, this discussion won't get anywhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it matters if the player hasn't represented the country, as he can possibly play for someone else so as such the flag is only being used to represent their birthplace. Mo ainm~Talk 10:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no. There are some eligibility expectations that exist for stuff like the Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup, etc. regardless of whether they have actually participated or not. They players cannot choose which side of such teams they are going to play for. The concept of golf's sporting nationality is well established, and that is what is being illustrated, *not* the birth place. Obviously there is going to be a strong correlation between that and where they are born, but it is not the same thing. It's also not something that Wikipedia is making up their own rules for. The guideline says to not use flags on fields which document the actual birth place (town, etc.) for good reason -- flags imply nationality. In this case however, it is explicitly a field for sporting nationality. If they were born somewhere else but their sporting nationality has changed, then this field gets updated. That does happen, though obviously it's rare. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They would represent the United States in the Ryder Cup, etc., if they managed to qualify -- that is what that field means. Their sporting nationality doesn't change just because they qualified for a Ryder Cup team or finished one spot out in the rankings (or were a captain's pick or not). The concept is well established, just as it is in certain other sports. Basically... there are reasons why things are in the guideline in the first place -- in most situations, a flag would call out undue attention to the nationality, and friction can result, that sort of thing. That situation really doesn't exist in golf, so the reason for it being in the guideline doesn't really apply here. Secondly, the concept is fairly important in golf and completely standard in golf coverage. A similar situation exists in a number of other sports, so it's not golf-only. This is not OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at all -- it is just a situation where the flags are called for, even as part of the infobox, as an exception to the normal case. It's not even all sports, but it's also not just golf either. A general guideline on "sportspeople" doesn't even cover it -- such things are not typical in coverage of American football, etc. but they are in a number of sports which are more international in nature. They are not there just because we like the cosmetics -- they are there because it's basically standard in golf coverage. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the general prevailing opinions in a neutral point of view -- barring the flags in infoboxes would actually stand out a bit compared to other golf coverage; i.e. it can seem that Wikipedia is trying to push a point of view that others shouldn't be using the flags either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sporting nationality"? Really? Again, I came here initially because a golfer who has never represented the US and has never even played in a notable tournament outside of the US has it in his infobox solely because he happened to be born in the US. It's a decoration dude, nothing more than digital bling. It doesn't "help" the lazy those who can't be bothered to shift their gaze. It doesn't clear up anything. It only shows he happened to be born in the US. The fact is, the "sporting nationality" of the majority is not in question. Making a big deal about it with your "shiny object" makes what was not an issue into one. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, sporting nationality. For example, any member of the PGA tour is going to be eligible for one of the Ryder Cup or Presidents Cup teams -- either U.S., Europe, or "International". Their sporting nationality will determine which one -- it's not a choice. Similar for the LPGA and the Solheim Cup. Even for amateur golfers, there are a number of tournaments where eligibility is based on nationality as well, or the teams are broken down by country, so it's which team are they *eligible* for. The fact if they play or not is not really material; they are always competing to play in those tournaments but they only qualify based on how well they play, the result of which does not change their sporting nationality. There is a correlation to where they were born, obviously, so that usually will determine the sporting nationality. But it's not necessarily the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about Stephen Ames played for 2 countries? So it does happen. Mo ainm~Talk 19:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does happen -- so they get two, and there should be article text to explain that. Arguably Canada should come first, since that is the current one. Again, the concept exists in golf regardless of whether they have actually competed in the tournament. We are documenting that concept, not whether they have competed or not. The distinction in the guideline may make sense for some sports, not sure, but doesn't for golf. The argument has not been over the existence of the field -- the question is really if flags should be used next to the country name or not. In golf coverage, that is absolutely typical, and would be atypical to omit them. In this particular situation, it does not draw undue attention to the field, which is really the only aspect that the MOSICON guideline is trying to cover. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said above "Their sporting nationality doesn't change..." so how can you have two sporting nationalities? Mo ainm~Talk 21:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sporting nationality does not change just because they participated in a tournament. In other words, if someone finishes 9th on the American Ryder Cup points list, it doesn't mean their nationality is unknown just because they didn't qualify (and the person who finishes 8th doesn't suddenly become American because they did). The point is who is eligible for that list in the first place -- every one of those has a United States sporting nationality. Ames moved to Canada and became a citizen during his playing career; that is relatively odd but it does seem to have given him the ability to represent either country. Thus, two countries mentioned. If someone is born overseas (say like the Bruce Willis example in the guideline), then where they are born would not be the sporting nationality, I'd think. If someone has actually represented two nations during their career, that may provide enough reliable sourcing to have both countries in the infobox, but there's always going to be at least one, which can generally be determined by doing to the pga.com profile or similar. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a lot more to add at this stage, as Carl Lindberg has more or less argued exactly my views since my last contribution. What I would add is that this isn't just a Ryder Cup thing (otherwise we'd have lots of Euro flags), there is an explicitly national competition for professional golfers in the World Cup (men's golf), which follows the nationalities we've been using here (with the exception of Ireland/Northern Ireland, which is standard golf media use). And it absolutely doesn't matter whether a player has actually been in one of those events yet, or ever will - they are all aiming to get in the events, which is the point. If a golfer has a successful season, a user may well want to check which team they'd be on should they manage to qualify. And the distinctions are most definitely used by the golf authorities regardless of whether a player has actually represented a team, otherwise the whole basis of the points lists for the Ryder and Presidents Cups would be flawed. One other thing - Nightlist, it's a bit rich to discount the point that tennis players use flags because of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm well aware of that argument, albeit its politer version, but the tennis players point was only brought up in response to your own parallel one regarding triathletes. EJBH (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nightlist? It is that lack of attention that leads you to think golfers are somehow exempt. Just because some other project decided their athletes were special and exempt compared to the majority of the sports doesn't grant you license to do the same. In other words, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And yes, I brought up triathletes to show that everyone in this "sporting nationality" situation doesn't decide they are special cases and start declaring themselves special exempt. Is that saying other crap exists? Or is it really saying it doesn't exist everywhere? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, knew there was something else. The suggestion that the flags just represent birthplace - no they don't, Clindberg is correct on the question of players born overseas. See for example Marco Dawson (American born in Germany), Jarmo Sandelin (Swede born in Finland), and Alex Čejka (German born in the then Czechoslovakia). EJBH (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The example I am talking about here DOES only represent where they were born. Just because you guys decided to drop it to a box labelled "nationality" doesn't change the fact that the guy was born in the US, never represented the US and doesn't even list a notable tournament outside of the US. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It also doesn't change the fact that the sporting nationality just happens to be the same as the country they were born in, which is the usual case. Birthplace is a different field, and flags should not be used there, which is per the guideline. But this is a Nationality field, not birth location, so it's different. Are you arguing that the MOSICON guideline says the golfer infobox can't have a "Nationality" field at all, or are you arguing that the infobox can have such a field, and it can have the text "United States" in the field, but it's just that the associated flag cannot be there unless the golfer has actually participated in a team tournament? If the latter, how does that make any sense at all? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't give a damn what I'm arguing, so why pretend that you do? It's clear that you and some of your buddies have decided that golfers are so special that they are to be exempted from the standard that the majority of sports adhere to. Continuing this is pointless, not because I'm incorrect, but because the numbers won't allow common sense to prevail over the desire to decorate your boxes with tiny icons. Maybe one day a bigger part of the community will realize that your little kingdom has declared itself independent of the guidelines. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to know if there is actually a good reason to disallow the flags in this circumstance. I haven't seen one yet. The reasoning on the MOSICON page (while it makes good sense in many cases) doesn't really apply here, in my opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to associate myself with Carl Lindberg's comments - he explains it extremely well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my mistake Niteshift, that was careless on my behalf. I still don't think it excuses your belligerent tone throughout this discussion, however. EJBH (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard usage

For the benefit of editors unfamiliar with golf and golf coverage, I've compiled the following table. It summarizes how "golfing nationality" is used by the top professional golf tours world-wide. I've included, from the official tour websites, players lists, player profiles, and leaderboards, and noted how each tour uses country/nationality, flags, and both to describe players. The links are to the player lists, sample profiles, and recent leaderboards.

Tour Player list Profile Leaderboard
PGA Tour both both flag
European Tour both1 both flag
Asian Tour country country flag
Japan Golf Tour2 neither neither neither
Sunshine Tour both3 both3 country
PGA Tour of Australasia n/a country country
Canadian Tour flag flag flag
Tour de las Américas neither flag flag
Korean Tour both both flag
OneAsia Tour (country)4 n/a flag3,5
LPGA Tour flag flag flag
Ladies European Tour country country flag

Notes

  1. click on a letter, or use the "Players by Country" drop down menu
  2. English language version of links not working at the time I constructed table
  3. Animated flags
  4. Order of Merit list, no player list
  5. Choose "Select a report" from the Volvo China Open and select "Round 4 Scoreboard"

I hope from this information editors can see that 1) yes there is such a thing as "golfing nationality" 2) flags are used widely by the tours to represent nationality, with and without the country name associated with it, and 3) England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are used not Great Britain or United Kingdom. I hope that this makes clear why 1) it is appropriate for the infobox golfer template to have a "Nationality" field, 2) flags and country name are appropriate for such field, and 3) sub-national flags are the standard for UK golfers. - Tewapack (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aritcles for Deletion- 2011 BMW PGA Championship

You can find the page here.[9]. The reasons- Isn't a Major Championship, or the small group of other events where a yearly tournament merits its own article...William 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion- 2010 Players Championship

You can find the discussion here[10]...William 19:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major championships summary tables

The current way the major championships summary tables are displayed is not that easy to read - all the "DNP"s can make it difficult to pick out the results. It would be better to leave those cells (almost) blank, e.g.:

Tournament 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
The Masters DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP
U.S. Open DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP T23 CUT
The Open Championship T67 T16 DNP DNP CUT T7 T38
PGA Championship DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP DNP
versus:
Tournament 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
The Masters - - - - - - - -
U.S. Open - - - - - - T23 CUT
The Open Championship T67 T16 - - CUT T7 T38
PGA Championship - - - - - - -

On the right, the results stand out much more easily. Thoughts? 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf&oldid=498313902"