Talk:2019–20 PGA Tour

Player handbook and 2019-20 Tour Schedule

FYI, the PGA Tour has released the 2019-20 player handbook, which is useful for updating various things

https://qualifying.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/uploads/2019-2020-pga-tour-handbook--regs-09_10_19.pdf

Jopal22 (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of September 16th 2019, the PGA Tour's 2019-20 Tournament Schedule has been updated to include total purse figures for all official events on the schedule.

Fgf2007 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For Any Editors: New PGA Tour 65-place Prize Money Distribution

ATTENTION ANY EDITOR OF WIKIPEDIA GOLF PAGES

For 2019-20, a new 65-place tournament prize money distribution has been introduced to go along with the new Low 65 and ties cut rules. There is a special notation about the new 65-place distribution that you -MUST- be aware of.

On page 55 of the just released 2019-20 PGA Tour Player's Manual (PDF), a 65-place distribution is presented. You are shown both percentage figures and dollar figures. When calculating 65-place distributions for other purse amounts, you must use the percentage figures (1st place: 18% or .18 / 2nd place: 10.9% or .109 / 3rd place: 6.9% or .069 / and so on down to 65th place: 0.215% or .00215) for such calculations.

If you are adding a 65-place distribution chart on any given golf page, may I respectfully recommend you do so using a show/hide format, so as to make page readability easier.

EXAMPLES

Total Purse | | 1st place | 2nd place | 3rd place | 5th place | 65th place ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ $ 3,000,000 | 0.60x | $ 540,000 | $ 327,000 | $ 207,000 | $ 123,000 | $ 6,450 **1 $ 4,000,000 | 0.80x | $ 720,000 | $ 436,000 | $ 276,000 | $ 164,000 | $ 8,600 $ 5,000,000 | 1.00x | $ 900,000 | $ 545,000 | $ 345,000 | $ 205,000 | $ 10,750 (default) $ 6,000,000 | 1.20x | $ 1,080,000 | $ 654,000 | $ 414,000 | $ 246,000 | $ 12,900 $ 6,600,000 | 1.32x | $ 1,188,000 | $ 719,400 | $ 455,400 | $ 270,600 | $ 14,190 **2 $ 7,000,000 | 1.40x | $ 1,260,000 | $ 763,000 | $ 483,000 | $ 287,000 | $ 15,050 $ 7,500,000 | 1.50x | $ 1,350,000 | $ 817,500 | $ 517,500 | $ 307,500 | $ 16,125 **3 $ 8,000,000 | 1.60x | $ 1,440,000 | $ 872,000 | $ 552,000 | $ 328,000 | $ 17,200 $ 9,300,000 | 1.86x | $ 1,674,000 | $ 1,013,700 | $ 641,700 | $ 381,300 | $ 19,995 **4 $ 10,000,000 | 2.00x | $ 1,800,000 | $ 1,090,000 | $ 690,000 | $ 410,000 | $ 21,500 $ 12,500,000 | 2.50x | $ 2,250,000 | $ 1,362,500 | $ 862,500 | $ 512,500 | $ 26,875 $ 15,000,000 | 3.00x | $ 2,700,000 | $ 1,635,000 | $ 1,035,000 | $ 615,000 | $ 32,250 **5 **1: Bermuda, Puerto Rico, Corales Puntacana **2: Safeway, Sanderson Farms, RSM-Love, Sony-Hawaii, 3M Open **3: Greenbrier, Houston, Farmers-San Diego, Rocket Mortgage **4: Genesis Inv., Arnold Palmer, Memorial **5: Players Championship

Fgf2007 (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved but Randy Kryn is correct: all the other PGA Tour articles are named with a single year — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 PGA Tour → 2019–20 PGA Tour – Per official name: [1] 217.30.192.8 (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at a minimum, if this RM passes, the years should be the full (according to your link) '2019-2020', and please consider amending your nomination wording to the full year. Thanks. As to the question, are all of the articles on other years titled with one year (the few I've checked have been)? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Per MOS:DATERANGE: Two-digit ending years may be used in any of the following cases: two consecutive years. In sports, all season articles are with the 2019–20 format: 2019–20 Premier League, 2019–20 NBA season, 2019–20 figure skating season, 2019–20 Biathlon World Cup, 2019–20 FIA World Endurance Championship etc. I think, all articles since 2014 PGA Tour should be renamed accordingly (the seasons which started from Sep or Oct). 217.30.192.8 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a reasonable change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopal22 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unofficial Events

I notice the PGA Tour now shows the Ryder Cup as part of the 2019-20 PGA Tour schedule, whereas we don't. TBH I've always thought of the Ryder Cup as part of this season, as colloquially it is usually described as happening at "the end of the season", and qualifying is primarily based on the 2019-20 events. It does happen after the season has ended though. I think part of the reason we put it in next season is to have consistency with the Presidents Cup. The obvious answer is to be consistent with the PGA Tour website, but they don't necessarily remain consistent. Thoughts?

On another note, I think we should make the "Unofficial Events" clearer. On first glance it might seem the events are scheduled after season in 2020, rather than 2019 as they are. Probably worth putting in some clarity around year. Jopal22 (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The moniker of "unofficial events" has always been a bit mis-leading as most are "official" or "officially-sanctioned" – I think it probably evolved from "unofficial money events" (a problematic byproduct of the trend for abbreviating everything). Something along those lines may be more accurate/appropriate; e.g. "FedEx Cup events" and "non-FedEx Cup" for recent seasons? We don't necessarily need to be consistent with the PGA Tour in how the information is presented, especially if we can provide additional clarity. And yes, it definitely should be made clear what year events are played in. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 12:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree. The term "official" shouldn't be used and it should be more descriptive. This confused me a lot when I first began looking at golf wiki pages. The are officially sanctioned events which do not count as PGA Tour wins, official money, and FedEx Cup points. I would prefer the "official" and "unofficial" list to be combined, but the non-FedEx Cup events to be highlighted (e.g. italics). It is harder to see the chronological order when we split the lists. Jopal22 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable with them being presented either way (together or separate), but it should definitely be clear when they are/were played and why they are "unofficial" (describing each and every way they "don't count"), and at the moment that is not the case. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 19:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, adding those to the main table can open up a can of worms. Look at the list on 2006 PGA Tour, for example. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled Events

Would it be beneficial to move canceled events into a separate table? As a reader of this page, I find the presence of canceled events to be a distraction as they tend to make it more difficult to find what I typically look for when I visit this page. They should remain on this page, but they may be better presented in a separate table. Dually, If I were interested in finding which events were canceled during this anomalous season, that too would be easier done were these events in a separate table. BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For (probably) every other season, I'd definitely say keep them in the same table as it makes it much clearer how the season unfolded – tours tend to erase or rewrite history of such things from their websites (e.g. I recently went through all past European seasons and found dozens of tournaments & cancellations of which there is now no evidence on the tour website). However, this season is obviously quite different, and the sheer number of cancellations may warrant a different approach. That being said, most of the cancellations are bunched together (to answer your latter point, sorting by winner puts them all together) so I don't see them as having an especially detrimental affect on readability. Do you have a specific example of how the current layout is causing issues? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is more of a minor annoyance. I have two examples related to date sensitive searching. 1) How many (and which) events remain before the playoffs? 2) Who has won a tournament since a specific date? The first is largely moot, since we are now past the cancellation clutter in the schedule. I wish I had thought of sorting by winner, as that quickly provides the desired sub-list of remaining events. The second is the one that triggered the idea. I was trying to scan winners since Jan 1, to see who has already qualified for the 2021 Tournament of Champions. I ended up deciding it would be easier to answer the question using the owgr.com website. Many invitationals (Genesis, API, Colonial, Memorial) have a similar 'winners within the past year' qualification criteria.

A secondary issue is the amount of date clutter in the current table. The dates for the cancelled and rescheduled events are more difficult to read due to the strike through. If the cancelled events were in a separate table, we could eliminate the strike through for them. For rescheduled (and cancelled) events, it may make sense to move the original date to the notes column to eliminate the use of the strike through.

Alternatively, we could add a column for the original dates (and fix the table so that sorting on dates works properly) and we could quickly toggle between the original and revised schedules within the same table. BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree about it being too cluttered. It seems like the focus of the table should be more on what happened and less on what didn't happen. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 21:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table with sort idea. Default is existing table order (except that I swapped Deere and Workday for aesthetic reasons). Sorting by "Actual Date" ascending will provide event schedule as played. Sorting by original date (ascending) provides original schedule. The divider row is sorted into the correct location for all three configurations. Changed text on divider row to hopefully make sense for any of these three configurations. BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes reverted as they caused other issues, such as massively increased wrapping; would it be better to move the original dates for events that have been rearranged into notes rather than retain in their full form, or detail elsewhere (such as a list of covid changes like 2020 European Tour)? I would have left the date sorting but it was bundled with the problematic/contested changes, but his can be re-done without issue (sorry, I just don't have the time right now). It's probably going to be best to sandbox potential solutions before implementing anything. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, a simple question. Is there an easy way for me to extract the source for the table from before your reversion to put it into a sandbox?

Next, on the two devices that I have ready access to (iMac, iPad), I did not notice a material difference in the total amount of wrapping between the two versions. The location of the wrapping differed. In my version, there was no wrapping in the date columns and some additional wrapping in the winners column. There was additional wrapping in the notes column due primarily to added text. I am of the opinion that my edit solved one problem (invalid date sorting) but introduced another (increased wrapping in other parts of the table). In addition, the ability to easily see the schedule without the canceled events or to see the original schedule before the massive disruption is a net positive. So, there are multiple benefits and one (fairly minor) drawback. Why is reverting an appropriate response? There are other ways to address the issue of text wrapping within the table as future work. In particular, do we really need the notes column? There is very little useful information in that column. The information there that is useful may be annotated more compact ways to ameliorate the wrapping elsewhere. BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For ease of viewing different options together, I've placed the version with two date columns here: Talk:2019–20 PGA Tour/Schedule, and will add a couple of alternatives for comparison as soon as I get chance (unlikely to be today). However, as noted, the date sorting should be reinstated. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll be interested in seeing what you try when you get the chance. I do not have much available time. I will likely not try anything until the weekend. In any case, since I have not been able to replicate a massive increase in the wrapping, I really have no means to address your stated concern. BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On my larger screen there isn't much of an issue, but on the smaller one almost every row wraps onto at least two lines, with several wrapping onto three. Only a few wrapped previously (with some of the caused by dates which can easily be fixed). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a second option; this has specific notes for rescheduled dates, plus a column for other tours (Zozo). This reduces wrapping to nil on my larger (1440) screen (bar the manual break for the Zurich), and remains minimal on the smaller (1280) one. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any further thoughts on this? My preference is for alternative 2 (which I've updated) and will look to implement that unless anyone objects. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like alt2 too. Jopal22 (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]