Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Golf (Rated 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Nuvola apps kolf.svg WikiProject on Golf
Main pages(edit · changes)
Main project talk
Core Articles talk
Requested Golf articles talk
Assessment talk
Featured/Good Articles
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!

Korean Tour external link template[edit]

I'm thinking of creating a {{KoreanTour player}} template missing ID. on the lines of the others at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golf/Templates#External_link_templates. This would link through to , eg K. J. Choi would be . The only issue is that pages are in Korean but the "translate to English" in my Chrome browser is helpful, although occasionally obscure (eg height = 신장 is translated as kidney. The page contains a lot of good stuff. eg the second option (결과 = results) gives season by season results.

Full 2020-21 PGA Tour Schedule published[edit]

Noticed that the PGA Tour have published the full schedule for 2020-21 today [1].

2020 ANA Inspiration[edit]

I am wondering why no one has updated the details of the field in this LPGA Major after it was released on September 4. I have a link which lists the final field here: Also the 2019 winner will not be competing in this year's event.

New Zealand circuit[edit]

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

@ Nigej: FYI I have made a couple small edits to the sandbox. What you have looks pretty good.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

major championship pages[edit]

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

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


Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes country column should be removed. Don't think we need to discuss that anymore. Personally, I would think that if an in depth narrative or summary of each round can't be added to each of the leaderboards, then a summary of the final leaderboard would be better. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As regards the first point, I wouldn't recommend a manual approach. I've some experience with WP:AutoWikiBrowser, a semi-automated editor. Takes quite a bit of setting up but works well when there's a lot of files to edit (as I'm assuming here). As to the second point, we have aimed to have prose as well as the leader boards. Obviously effort is limited and we're no where near achieving that. Personally, I'm probably inclined to keep them for now. Ideas like WP:NOTTEMPORARY take the view that once something is notable it remains notable for ever, ever if there's no one interested in it now. Nigej (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Nigej, if you could somehow apply the flags to the first column in an automated fashion that would be great. Doing it in a piecemeal way - applying every little flag one by one - would be unbelievably tedious.
The second point is far more complicated. I agree that notability does not need to have continuous, ongoing media attention and I agree that the first three rounds should be mentioned in some form. However, despite the dearth of prose on these pages, there is still usually some pertaining to the early rounds. In addition, I think these separate tables each for rounds #1, #2, and #3 imply a sense of permanence as if they've already won something. I feel like it's kind of creating an independent table for the first quarter of a football game or first set of a tennis match. While starting well in any game does matter most people only really care about the final results. In addition, a lot of the early round information is already integrated into the final leaderboard as the score of each round is included.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
One possibility is to restrict the early majors to end-of-day scores. Most early majors had 36 holes on the final day, some 36 holes on two days. Newspaper coverage was generally based on end-of-day scores. We already do this for Opens up to the 1902 Open Championship. Difficult to find too many sports that have the multi-day aspect. I'm not sure that Football/Tennis are a good comparison since those matches are mostly done in a single day. Cricket is (traditionally) multi-day, but only a few individual matches have articles, mostly they're organised by "series". Road cycling is also multi-day and they cover the top 10 (day's result + General classification) after each day in articles like 2022 Tour de France, Stage 1 to Stage 11, so that's broadly similar to our approach. Nigej (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still would prefer to delete the early rounds tables. I know the day-to-day leaderboards are reproduced by the media but I'm not sure if they're necessary here. I just think they suggest a sense of crystallization that is not in accord with reality (i.e. the precise standings are usually totally forgotten after the round). And I'm aware of WP:NOTTEMPORARY but that doesn't mean that everything that was once notable needs to be covered here. We can briefly summarize these rounds with prose. In addition, I think we all agree that we have too many of these statistical tables on WP:Golf and this would be a good start towards getting rid of a lot.
Nonetheless, I will not make any edits on this issue if we don't have consensus. User: Wjemather, do you have an opinion about this?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
I've had a go changing the The Players Championship articles to {{flagicon}} style. A few glitches with unexpected editing styles (eg || '''[[Hal Sutton]]''' (c) || {{USA}} || - bolding and extra text) but hopefully I've corrected those. Nigej (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Nigej. I like these changes.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Nationalities in the field[edit]

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

Yes happy to see them be removed. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there was very clear consensus from multiple discussions for removal of these flag-counting tables (rationale: pro golf is individual, non-representative, etc.) – and it's been on my list of things-to-do for some time. There was also consensus for removal of "Past champions in the field". wjematherplease leave a message... 11:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we came to consensus a couple years ago that the tables "Nationalities in the field" and "Past champions in the field" should be deleted. Obviously extraneous.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

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

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

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

Good work! wjematherplease leave a message... 08:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asian golfers' first names[edit]

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

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there's two issues here which are not connected. 1. What is the correct name of the player's article and 2. What name should we use for the player in other articles where he is mentioned. 1 is covered by WP:TITLE and WP:NCBIO and the like. 2. is a separate issue. I've always thought that name used in a particular article should be the name used at the time that the article relates to. So if there's a Mary Smith who becomes Mary Jones in 1980, then articles about her before 1980 should call her Mary Smith and those after 1980 should call her Mary Jones. We have WP:DONOTFIXIT, WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE which tell us how to handle this situation (basically use redirects where possible). Similar issues apply to whether we use Kim Joo-hyung or Tom Kim. So if he was called Kim Joo-hyung at the time then we should use that and if he was called Tom Kim we should use that. Obviously sometimes things are not clear cut. Some sources might use one name and other sources might use the other. If it's a minor difference like Matthew Fitzpatrick or Matt Fitzpatrick I guess we're not too fussed about the situation. Nigej (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overall, I am fine with the title of most of the Asian players' names. My only reservation is with the order of the Japanese players' names. From what I know in their language (like most Asian languages) the surname comes first and then the given name. But here we're still using English-language conventions.
Regarding the second issue, in theory, I would be ok with using whatever the reliable third-party sources uses. But in practice this could be problematic. The example of the married female golfer is interesting and creates an easy and useful demarcation line between the use of one surname and another. But with the example of Naomichi Ozaki earlier, the media did not use his Japanese-name and English-language given name consistently. It could be a bit confusing if we always deferred to what they third-party source referred to at that particular week (or day).
Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

table for World Series of Golf exhibition era[edit]

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

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


Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somehow we've lost the footnotes about the (M) stuff which existed at one time, making the table completely unintelligible. I certainly wouldn't go down the color route, WP:COLOR requires that we "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method". Since we already have the other method, color would have to be an addition. Options seem to be 1) put the notes back in, or 2) get rid of the (M) stuff. Personally I'd go for 2, we don't generally indicate in these tables how people qualified, although some text about how the alternates got in would be useful. Nigej (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah the precise reason why the golfer qualified for the World Series of Golf isn't that important as it had no effect on the results itself. So I agree with User:Nigej that we just totally get rid of these parentheses as they are so distracting. In addition, I think it would be better if we refer to this tournament as an "exhibition" rather than "unofficial event." (We decided that "unofficial" is not a valid category.)
Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

PGA Tour's Tournament Winners criterion[edit]

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

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


Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Struggling to find anything concrete. Seems to cover multiple seasons (perhaps 3-ish). Also may not cover all tournaments, possibly not the "fall series". Who knows? Nigej (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevertheless, thank you for trying. I think in general it must cover exemptions for recent wins. Golfers tend to get a two-year exemption for a regular tour win; three years for the Players and WGCs; and five years for the majors. This criterion probably refers to guys who tournaments in this timespan and did not earn eligibility otherwise.
Criterion #12 for the 2004 Players Championship eligibility requirements seems to confirm this. These golfers have weak money list rankings but most (5 of 6) won tournaments in recent years. They probably got in the Tournament Winners way.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

table for WGC Match Play[edit]

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

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


Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not instantly obvious that we need either column (Seed/Rank). In the "somewhat interesting" but not "encyclopedic" category IMO. Nigej (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd keep one or the other, probably the seed. Although the Tours column provides links to the respective tour seasons, that column could be removed. Tewapack (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at other match play events (i.e. Volvo World Match Play Championship, Australian Match Play Championship) I don't see any Rank or Seed columns. Given the lack of precedent, I would prefer both to be deleted. Additionally, the tour column, to me, is obviously extraneous.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
The WGC Match Play is unique in that the field is based solely on the OWGR. Tewapack (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I will keep the Seed column but delete the Rank column. In addition, I will delete the Tour column.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

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

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

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

What wins to include in the Wins sections??[edit]

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


Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Senior Open Championship[edit]

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

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

It was not deleted; it was redirected to the main article, and your work remains in the history. We should not create individual event articles until there is substantially more to write about than just the dates, venue and defending champion – these details are covered in the main article. Additionally, there should ideally be some significant coverage in independent sources to use as references. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok. Thanks, EEJB (talk) EEJB (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Designated players[edit]

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


Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found that in the 1979 Media Guide there is a definition on page 16 within the document. I can't seem to copy anything over to here, but it involves 30 of the prior year's money leaders, winners of recent majors, most recent members of the US Ryder Cup team and the prior year's tournament winners....... PKT(alk) 20:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi PK,
Thank you very much for this media guide with the Designated Players criteria. I used this for the 1992 Players and will use it for later eligibility requirements.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

2023 PGA Championship[edit]

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

As with the Senior Open (above), there isn't much content to write (beyond what there is in the main article; dates, venue, holder, etc.) until the field is announced, and it doesn't really benefit anyone to have a shell article as a placeholder. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, just wanted to alert the project if editors didn't know. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Purtzer red link[edit]

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


Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When a subject is unlikely to warrant a standalone article, they may be covered adequately in a closely related article and a redirect provided for ease of navigation. That is what has been done in this case, which seems reasonable to me. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with wjemather. Recently I created redirects for Hedley Muscroft's two sons. There's nothing to stop the creation of a separate article in the future if there's enough content to justify a separate article. Nigej (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you User: Wjemather and User: Nigej for your responses. Given your advice, I don't think this redirect should change.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

EDGA (Disabled Golf Association)[edit]

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

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