Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Canadian flag in the 1960s

Does anyone know the precise date (or at least year) that the Canadian flag changed in the mid-1960s? This is relevant to me as I am creating Q-school pages starting in 1965 and there are some Canadian golfers. (The relevant link is here:

Oogglywoogly (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Flag of Canada says "Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, proclaimed the new flag on January 28, 1965, and it was inaugurated on February 15 of the same year at an official ceremony held on Parliament Hill in Ottawa ..." Nigej (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! This is very helpful.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
Also, I forgot to ask... What do I have to type to add the old Canadian flag? Like something, {{flagcountry CAN 1918}} ???
Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
That would be {{flagicon|CAN|1918}}, {{flagathlete|CAN|1918}}, {{flagcountry|CAN|1918}}, etc. depending on what output you are looking for. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you!
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

McCormack rankings

Did Mark McCormack's world golf rankings have any rankings beyond the top ten? I bring this up because on the South African Hall of Fame website for Cobie Legrange it states that he peaked at #15 on some "world ranking." The website of course could be wrong (some other information on the site looks dubious) but it nonetheless piqued my interest. If anyone has any relevant information please bring it forward.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)OoggylwooglyReply[reply]

See eg which shows that for 1974 it included the top 25, so #15 for him at some point is plausible. Nigej (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have about 15 annuals from between 1975 and 2001 (with some gaps) and the pre-OWGR ones all list top-25. I'd guess Legrange would have been ranked highest in the end of 1969 rankings (1970 annual). I'd also concur that the reliability of the SA Hof website is questionable. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much.
I was also thinking about including adding the full top 25 to the wiki page Mark McCormack's world golf rankings. We currently only have the top 10. I also thinking about creating new wiki pages for each year McCormack published a top 10 or top 25. Thoughts?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
We should look at what is/was reported by independent sources, which isn't much because the rankings were unofficial and served no practical purpose. I'd say the top ten is probably too much, and we should be looking to reduce rather than expand. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're probably right. And the changes you just made to that page were an improvement actually. Just too much going on with that page.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

West Australian championship

I was looking to create a page for this tournament. I have a link for the 1968 event. I was wondering if it was a one-off. I cannot find any information about other events. (FYI this tournament is different from the Western Australian Open.)

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Probably a one-off. Not a championship at all, called a "tournament" in most sources. "Over the years the reputation of the golf course grew in stature and in 1968 it played host to the PGA run event ‘The Western Australian Ten Thousand’. The event attracted a quality field including several international golfers such as Peter Thomson, Kel Nagle and Peter Townsend. The event was won by Peter Townsend and the trophy was presented to the winner by the then Premier, Sir David Brand." also: The Australian Open was played in WA the next week, so presumably it was taking advantage of players being in the area. Nigej (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the information. I have a couple questions before I make the page. Is the Cottesloe Open a continuation of this West Australian tournament? They just had their 53rd event so the dates line up perfectly.
And what is the difference between a tournament and a championship?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Notability of purse events and pro-ams

I have been informed that these events are not considered notable. This crossed my mind when checking out the page of Alan Murray (golfer). Looks like he has dozens of these wins noted on his page. I believe they should be deleted. Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Looking at Murray as an example: 1958 Roseville Gold Mashie Cup, gets some coverage but only 1 round. On the other hand "PGA Golf Assistants State Championships" was actually the NSW Assistants Championship which is probably worthy of an article: . Similar issues with Jack Harris (golfer) where someone's added a long list. Again, some of these are actually important, eg Victorian Close Championship (the equivalent of the New South Wales Open (golf) at one time) but as with Murray most are below the level we would include. Not a simple problem to resolve since we don't have an exact boundary between what we include and what we don't. Nigej (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although tournaments/events may not meet GNG requirements for a standalone article, they do still meet WP:V requirements for inclusion in other articles, such as player bios. We just need to determine how we include them (as with "challenge matches" in an earlier discussion). wjematherplease leave a message... 09:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because it is verifiable doesn't mean we need to include it. We can make judgments on that. I'm doubtful we'd want to include David Shacklady's 300+ PGA/Pro-am wins. Nigej (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly not individually (even if we could list them), but we can still note that he has won such events. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. We can include them, not include them or summarise them. That's the nature of an encyclopedia, making judgements about these sort things. Nigej (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, looks like we don't really have a consensus. I guess if a prominent news source covers the win we can include it though.
With Murray's page I may start deleting these wins if citations are not added soon. (I will use the links you provided, however, to cite those particular events.) In general, as you know, I am stickler for citations and any statements that are not cited should probably be deleted anyway.
A similar issue came up recently. Within the "Other wins" section of Mark Tullo it has a number of bullet points that list groupings on wins on a year by year basis (e.g. "2004: 3 wins in Chile"). But it doesn't name the specific wins. (In addition there are no citations.) There was an almost identical issue with Geoff Parslow. On his European Tour page it says he won 19 trainee events during his youth but it only lists two of them. I decided to only include the events actually named (the 1964 and 1965 Australian Trainee Championship) in his "Professional wins" section. (I did briefly mention that he won 19 young professional events in the text.) In my mind, if we don't even have the titles of specific wins we should question its notability.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]


Hi. I was wondering if something from the golf career of Andrew Giuliani - which is only part of his career - belongs in his infobox. Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:8C2A:84CA:D15B:3FEC (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The only other examples I can think of this would be John Brodie and Ellsworth Vines. They are given an additional infobox for their golf career, below their main career. Jimmymci234 (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brodie and Vines are notable as golfers; Giuliani isn't, so it probably does not warrant mention in the infobox. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1995 Asian Masters

I was wondering if this tournament was an Asian Tour event. The tournament's OWGR page says it is. However it is not included on the 1995 Asian PGA Tour page and not listed as such on the page of Corey Pavin, the champion of the event. What do you think?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

The Asian Tour didn't offer OWGR points until 2000. Anything marked as Asian Tour on the OWGR site before 2000 would've been Asia Golf Circuit. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 06:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I believe the Asian Masters was an Asia Golf Circuit event – the tour was called the Asian Tour at the time (the Asian PGA Tour was called the Omega Tour). I have compiled the seasons here, but missing a few events and sources to confirm my research. Also worth noting that the OWGR contains many errors/omissions for tour sanctioning, especially pre-2000. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks guys. I suspected that the OWGR site was wrong but had no way to know for sure.
Also, wjemather, most of your calendars for 1990s AGC seasons look pretty good. And if you publish it there is a good chance that the incomplete information will be filled in.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

1986 Nedlands Masters

I recently created a page for the Australian golfer Lyndsay Stephen. He won the 1986 Nedlands Masters however I couldn't find anything on Trove about that event. If anyone could find some information for me that would be great - I noticed the detail was filled in on his "Professional wins" table so the info must be out there somewhere.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

citing podcasts and videos

I intend to cite a podcast soon. I was wondering if anything special needed to be done for this citation.

Also, I have cited Youtube videos before. I just did it the same way as I do with all URLs - wondering, however, if anything special should be done with those.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

1965 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates


I intend to make annual pages for the early PGA Tour qualifying school graduates. I have begun work on the first one. The link is here: It largely follows the template set out by User:Phinumu who created pages starting for the 1990 q-school. I would like feedback from other members.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

My personal preference (though I can't think of a specific policy to back it up) would be to start in 1982, when Q School started awarding playing privileges rather than just qualifying privileges. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the difference between playing privileges and qualifying privileges? And why does the former matter more than the latter?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
Before the 1983 season, there were only about 80 exempt players on the tour, and everyone else had to qualify for every tournament. Thus, graduating Q School didn't actually guarantee any tournament starts. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 08:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, in the early 80s it did change to an "All-exempt tour." Nonetheless, I don't see why that distinction is so all-important. Pre-1982 Q-schools still received a decent amount of media attention and was perhaps the most important step for young players in their path towards membership. I don't have the book (Q-School Confidential) on me right now but I don't think the author draws a huge distinction between pre-1982 and post-1982. All Q-schools are covered.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)OoggylwooglyReply[reply]

FYI I have started making pages for Q-schools starting in 1982. I have created pages for the 1982 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates and 1989 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates. I will complete the ones in between soon. Please makes edits to existing pages if you see room for improvement.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Subang National Golf Course

I was looking to a make a page for this club. However, I noticed that a page actually exists but under its Malaysian name "Kelab Golf Negara Subang." Because the "Subang National" name seems to be consistently used in English-language media I think we should change the title of the article. Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Yep. Moved now. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

1971 World Friendship

According to this link the first World Friendship tournament was in 1971. On our page we only have information for the 1972 and 1973 events. If anyone has information about the 1971 event that would be much appreciated. Also, thank you User: wjemather for making related corrections to the page.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Spalding Park Open

I was looking to make a page on this event. I have a link here that lists the champions. A number of notable golfers won the event however I can't find any newspaper articles from Trove or other sources reporting on it. I will probably not create the page unless I get some independent sources to validate the importance of this event.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply] takes us to 2012. Below our usual level I suspect, although it clearly attracts some useful pros.. Nigej (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the site! Yes, if we can't find independent sources validating the importance of this event then I don't think it is worthy of a new page on Wiki.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Barry Vivian's wins in the Pacific islands

Hello all,

I recently created a page for New Zealand golfer Barry Vivian. He won a number of minor tournaments in the Oceania region in the 1970s and 80s. I have citations for the wins but I don't have any primary sources reporting from the event. I would prefer those.

User: Nigej, you provided me with a link for his win at the 1976 Western Samoan Open a few months ago. Unfortunately it is no longer on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf page. If you could provide that link that would be great.

Here is the list of events that I need:

1976 Western Samoan Open 1976 Fiji Open 1977 Pacific Harbour Open 1978 Pacific Harbour Open 1980 Pacific Harbour Open 1984 Tahiti Open

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Tough work. See archive 12 at the top for the previous discussion. (up a bit and one column right) has the bare-bones of the 1977 playoff win. I'll have another go tomorrow. Nigej (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I included the 77 playoff win. I don't know where "archive 12" is. Can you help me?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
It's this----->way.[1]]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I actually found it a bit before and used it to add stuff to the Fiji Open page. Again, any more information about Vivian's Oceania wins would be great.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
Nigej, did you find anything?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

order for "Winners" table??

I created a page for the Royal Fremantle Open last night. For the "Winners" table, I organized it from the first event to the final event. However, I've noticed that a lot of these tables are organized in reverse chronological order (starting with the most recent event). Is the consensus that we organize these tables it by reverse chronological order?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Yes. Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally speaking we use the reverse chronological order, on the basis that readers are more interested in the recent winners (and it's generally better to stick to a common style). However for some much older events (those that went defunct more than about 50 years ago) we sometimes use the forward order eg Daily Mail Tournament). Nigej (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the responses. Two different standards were given and the Royal Fremantle event seems to be in between them; it is not currently played but not insanely old. I'm just going to keep the order the way it is. If you are inclined, however, do make changes.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

title change for "Spring 1968 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates" page

I recently created a page for Spring 1968 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates. However, the title for the page was changed to 1968 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates. The title should not have been changed as there was a fall qualifying school that year. (It is here.) I would change the title myself but I don't know how. Could someone change it?

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Thank you to whoever fixed this problem.

I have another related issue. This one is my fault. For "Spring 1975 PGA Tour Qualifying School graduates" I mistakenly omitted the word "Spring" from the title. If someone could fix it that would be great. The page is here.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

PGA Tour Qualifying School pages 1965-1981

I have been creating pages for q-schools within this timespan recently. Tags have been posted on most of the already created pages, however, stating that more sources are needed. Like the recently created 1980s q-schools where users added sources (mainly from I was wondering if users could add sources to the earlier q-schools. I don't have so it is difficult finding many reliable third-party sources.

Thank you, Oogglywoogly (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Ryder Cup/Presidents Cup/Solheim Cup navboxes

Just wondering if anyone has any views on these. I'm referring to eg these from Tony Finau's article:

These are navboxes (WP:NAVBOX) meant to aid navigation between related articles. Personally I never use them for navigation. We have the "team appearances" section which contains links to the events, which in turn has the teams. I can see that if you want to jump from Tony Finau to Rickie Fowler the navbox is somewhat easier, as long as you know that they both played in the 2018 Ryder Cup. However it seems to me that users interested in those who played in the 2018 Ryder Cup are much more likely to navigate from that article. We have well over 100 of these navboxes. Nigej (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are useful, but there is a caveat. Navbox clutter on some articles has got to the point where they are no longer an aid to navigation. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2021 WGC-Workday Championship

Does anybody know where we usually find details of the field and the breakdown of it, i.e. Category 1 - Top 50 in OWGR, Category 2 - Top 10 FedEx Cup standings and so on. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Often, with difficulty! Unless there are significant changes, the eligibility criteria don't get widespread coverage. For this one, this is the best I could find from quick basic searches. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bit of confusion there. I assume that all references to 2020 should be 2021. Nigej (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Classic copy-paste job. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The eligibility criteria is in the media guide. I have added a link in the wiki page in the external links section Jopal22 (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert Shaw at 1968 q-school

A golfer named "Robert Shaw" graduated at 1968 APG Tour Qualifying School graduates. I likely put the American flag next to his name because I believe there was an American address next to his name in the book (don't have the book with me now so not totally sure). However I'm pretty sure this guy is the Australian golfer Bob Shaw (golfer). Looks like he started playing on the PGA Tour the next year. He didn't graduate at the other q-schools in 1968 so I don't know how else he could have gotten on tour. Nonetheless I need verification. Does anyone have anything?

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Yes, the Australian. See Nigej (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Just changed the q-school page and added it to his wiki page.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Copy-paste attribution

When creating new articles, or filling content, by means of copy-paste from existing articles, the original author(s) must be attributed correctly (per WP:CWW). This can be done by entering the source article in the edit summary and/or by placing a completed {{copied}} template on the talk page. Copy-paste seems to happen quite often with season and (individual) tournament articles but the required attribution seems to be neglected. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do we have view on honors in infoboxes? Some infoboxes eg {{Infobox person}} have parameters honorific_prefix and/or honorific_suffix, but {{Infobox golfer}} doesn't. As a result some editors add it the name parameter, see eg Justin Rose where we have name="Justin Rose<br><small>[[Order of the British Empire|MBE]]</small>" (or see Nick Faldo which is even worse). Personally I'm not keen. Generally the honor is mentioned in the lede, in the text and in the categories, which in my view is sufficient. Adding it to the name field gives it undue importance. I'd be happy not to have it in the infobox at all but it could go further down I suppose, in the "Achievements and awards" section which perhaps makes sense. Nigej (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, seems pretty trivial and for someone like Justin Rose having MBE beside his name means very little to people outside UK. Being mentioned in the lead is sufficient enough. Jimmymci234 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But Jimmy just because someone outside the UK is ignorant to the title of the person's peerage it is not OK. It is also not ok to say being mentioned in the lead is sufficient. I presume you are not European when you spell "Honors" without the u. If you are a Sir you are called "Sir Nick Faldo" if you are Rory Mcilroy. You are "Rory McIlroy MBE". It is part of British culture that is recognised the world over. The reason the title is included is to show a person has excelled in their field ok (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is utter rubbish. When someone in the UK talks about Rory they say "Rory McIlroy" not "Rory McIlroy MBE". Only 1 in a 100 would know he had an MBE anyway. Nigej (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@, you shouldn't assume very much. I am actually from and live in the UK and it doesn't mean a while lot to me about who's an MBE and who's a Sir. Let alone anybody from outside the UK. Just my opinion, as I'm sure you have yours. Jimmymci234 (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honorifics and postnominals seem to be included in the infobox header more often than not in a wide array of sportspeople's biographies outside golf, although not always. MOS gives no guidance other than formatting, so while I wouldn't add them myself, I don't object to their inclusion. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because Wikipedia is edited by lots of people interested in these relatively unimportant things. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument but a weak one in this case. Also take Tiger Woods where his Presidential Medal of Freedom is neatly included in the Achievements and awards section. Much better in my view and not WP:UNDUE. The reality is that Rory McIlroy's name is Rory McIlroy, and you can look at a 100 random articles about him in which he'll always be called Rory McIlroy and not Rory McIlroy MBE. Nigej (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't it ever! But honours such as these are arguably more important than the majority of trivia and statistics that get added. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My issue is not that it gets mentioned, it's the fact that it's in bright lights. Nigej (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flagstick in infoboxes

(in consultation with wjemather) I've changed the flagstick icon in {{Infobox individual golf tournament}}. See {{Infobox individual golf tournament/testcases}} which shows the new and old icons next to each other (both with and without relief). The basic issue is that the old icon was confusing in that the location of the course was not where the hole was, but halfway up the flagstick. See an old discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 5#Royal Porthcawl Golf Club in the sea?. Currently I haven't changed {{Infobox golf tournament}} and {{Infobox golf facility}} which also use a flagstick icon. Nigej (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The change looks good to me. Suggest bringing the other infoboxes into line, unless anyone sees a problem. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the other two templates to also use the new icon. Royal Porthcawl Golf Club is no longer in sea, although you might need a "purge" to see the new version. Nigej (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The remaining issue is whether to tune up the new icon. Below are (1) the old one (2) the new one (3) another I've created, based on 2. (note that I've increased the size of the new images from 25 to 35 to take into account the fact that the new flagstick only fills the top half of the image - the hole being in the middle of the image) Personally I find 2 a little wishy-washy especially with the relief option turned on. 3 is basically 2 with bolder colours and thicker lines. See {{Infobox individual golf tournament/testcases}} for a comparison of 2 and 3. Nigej (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1: 2: 3:

Bolder/clearer colours/outlines are probably better for accessibility. The only thing I would say, is that the hole could probably do with being a bit smaller. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking the green thing was the green. :) Nigej (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, could be. I was going by size relative to the flagstick, rather than colour. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nigej: If you have time, could you possibly update {{Infobox team golf tournament}} to include embedded location maps, please? I'd do it myself, but it's been ten years since I did any coding for these things. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do. Nigej (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wjemather: I've added it. 2018 Ryder Cup looks ok, so hopefully not messed up anything. See {{Infobox team golf tournament/testcases}} for examples of use. I've added the "Location Map" header as elsewhere (in lavender). Strangely this infobox didn't use headers before. Let me know if you want any changes. Nigej (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

adding reference column to players' tour wins column

I think we should always have a reference column within the players' tour wins table. First of all, all claims should be cited. This should go without saying but it seems like most claims on WikiProject Golf are not. Secondly, it is so much easier to find the source if it is cited in the same column as the win. I know it is occasionally cited below the table under "Source:" but I think it is much easier to find if we include the citation in the table (and I think it is somewhat aesthetically nicer). Now I know we are adding an entirely new column and I assume there will be reservations about that. However, this new column takes up very little space so, again, I don't see why not.

Examples like like this were actually recently created on the page of Gary Player. They were created under headings like "Other European Wins," "Other Australasian Wins," etc. I believe Jimmymci234 created these.

It seems like including a reference column has become a standard on recently created tournament pages (e.g. Air New Zealand Shell Open, Nedlands Masters). I think we should we continue that trend on players' tour wins tables.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

See Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Had no idea there was a full discussion of this issue as I wasn't on WikiProject Golf last July.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Handling of 2020 Players Championship

Just wondering how we're handling the 2020 Players Championship (canceled after 1 round) as regards the "Results in The Players Championship" sections: eg Paul Casey#Results in The Players Championship. I was assuming that we'd be using a grayed out "NT" for it, which is what we use for say the war-time events, eg Henry Cotton (golfer)#Results timeline. However I notice that for the canceled 2001 WGC-American Express Championship (the 9/11 one) we use a different style eg Chris DiMarco#Results in World Golf Championships - no grayed out and with a note. Personally I'm quite keen on the gray. Can't get too excited about the issue - just think we ought to try for some consistency. Nigej (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like consistency here[2] and here[3] in golfer playoff boxes?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, which is why it's better to discuss in advance and come to a consensus beforehand. Nigej (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say that NT (no tournament) wouldn't be technically accurate. Maybe greyed out with a "C" for cancelled, or "A" for abandoned? wjematherplease leave a message... 15:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article says "canceled". The only trouble then is that the note "Tournament canceled/cancelled" would need two versions for the two spellings of the word; not too hard perhaps. Nigej (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably "C" for cancelled would make the most sense. A note would be needed below with that though as "C" could stand for something else... Jimmymci234 (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See MOS:SPELLING. Looks like it's mostly the Americans using the "canceled" version. Probably no-one will be too fussed about what version we use in Kim Si-woo's article. Nigej (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes according to MOS:SPELLING we Americans do spell it with just one "l" unlike the rest of the world. Though to be honest I feel like I see it spelled with two "l"s more often than not. See, for example, this link which also references this specific event.
Also, I noticed that we aren't quite consistent with the terms "Abandoned" and "Canceled." The 1976 South Coast Open was "abandoned" while 1996 Pebble Beach Pro-Am was "canceled." In one of the primary sources for the South Coast event it does say "abandoned," but still, we're not exactly being consistent. Not sure what others think...
Oogglywoogly (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

1980 Zimbabwe Open

On the page of Hugh Baiocchi it states that he won the 1980 Zimbabwe Open. It looks like something is off as, on our page of the event, it states that the Zimbabwe Open did not begin until 1984. Baiocchi's win may have been at an identically titled event that served as the antecedent to the more "real" event. Any clarity would be helpful...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

My suspicion is it that the 1980 event was a continuation of the Rhodesian Dunlop but haven't found the sources to verify – based on Simon Hobday winning the Rhodesian Open/Zimbabwe-Rhodesia Open/Zimbabwe Open (different name depending on the source) in 1979, and the Rhodesian Dunlop Masters/Rhodesian Open (again, different name depending on the source) in 1978. The new Zimbabwe Open was then founded later. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you. I just put a note on Baiocchi's page in his Professional wins section that verification is needed. This may be not be the right way to do it; I have seen more "hidden" notes in cases like his but I'm not sure how to create those. Any more information on this event would be appreciated as well.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Are golf tours "leagues"?

I see that an editor has added a number of our tour pages to Category:Multi-national professional sports leagues perhaps on the basis that they use an infobox {{Infobox Sports league}} (when they have an infobox at all). Sports league says "A sports league is a group of sports teams that compete against each other and gain points in a specific sport." which would seem to imply that golf tours are not leagues since they don't involve teams, although I'm not sure that's too accurate a definition - can't individuals be in a league? Surely they can. List of professional sports leagues includes a number of golf tours - although much of the text is decidedly inaccurate (eg "these season-long competitions with set events are very similar to league structures in team sports... Examples are ... golf ..." - which is nonsense since golf tours are not at all similar to "league structures in team sports"). Personally I'm of the view that golf tours are not "leagues", "winning" the tour is unimportant compared to winning the individual events. The other question is whether we need a specific infobox for golf tours - not sure we do, since Infobox Sports league seems to cover what we need - it's just the name that's confusing. Not a big issue - just thought we ought to come to a consensus. Nigej (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the categories where they were added to golf tour pages....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say they are not "sports leagues", and there seem to be very few reliable sources that have ever used that description, except in relation to the PGA Tour's non-profit/tax-exempt status. However there are organisations like Premier Golf League (not heard anything about that for a while) have/had "league" in the name. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Breakdown by country

What is your opinion on continuing the country breakdown, found at the bottom of the WGC match play page? It shows the progress of the countries as they advance through the tournament.
Here is an example of what it always looks like:

Country 64 R16 QF SF F Ch
 United States 29 4 4 2 2 1
 Denmark 2 1 1 1
 Italy 1 1 1 1
 South Africa 3 2 1
 Spain 3 1 1
 England 10 3
 Australia 3 1
 Sweden 2 1
 China 1 1
 Northern Ireland 1 1
 Japan 2
 South Korea 2
 Argentina 1
 Ireland 1
 Mexico 1
 Scotland 1
 Thailand 1

Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following earlier discussions, it was decided not to include such tables due to the lack of relevance and context in a sport where competitors are not representing their country. The only exceptions would might be events such as the Olympics, where the country is actually being represented. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I was the one who started this many year ago. But nowadays I'm not so keen. Not really relevant in an individual sport. My general thoughts nowadays are that our articles are rather too full of stats, when what we need is encyclopedic text. Nigej (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. More and better prose is what we need. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reclassification of Von Nida Tour events

I notice that for Aaron Townsend we have his 2008 NSW Open win as an Australian Tour win. It was clearly a Von Nida Tour event ( however this ref: says "was Townsend’s second Australian Tour victory, after winning the 2008 New South Wales Open title." We used to have a comment "Event was originally an event on the Von Nida Tour and was not classified as a PGA Tour of Australasia during the 2008 season. However following the merger of the two tours in 2009 the win was reclassified as a win on the PGA Tour of Australasia." in the Townsend article (dating from the creation of the article in 2015). For other 2008 VNT winners we have them as VNT wins (User:Wjemather/Australasian Tour#2008) so I'm thinking Townsend's win should be just a VNT win, since there doesn't seem to any real evidence for this "reclassification", as far I can see. Nigej (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't recall seeing anything about reclassification outside of WP. Without anything explicit, we should reflect the weight of reliable sources, so this should be just a VNT win. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed his page. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on format of results tables in WGC Matchplay articles

Please see discussion at Talk:2021 WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play#Results tables regarding a proposed change to the format of these tables. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia(talk) 01:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

European Tour scoring record

I noticed while looking at the page for English Championship (golf) it mentions that Andy Sullivan broke the aggregate scoring record for the European Tour with 257. It is backed up with this source:[1] I then noticed that Sergio García shot 257 at the 2011 Castelló Masters. Is there any reason why the tour haven't got this in on their website or is it simply a mistake that should be there? Thanks Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like there were preferred lies: Would be worth noting in the article. Nigej (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "European Tour Statistics, All Time Records & Achievements, Low 72". European Tour. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Ah that makes sense, thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Past champions tables, I support them. Join me in developing "Consensus" for them.

Hello. Here's the start of developing "consensus" to reinclude Past Champions tables. They never hurt anything in the past and would clearly hurt nothing now. Make your voices heard Johnsmith, etc. People who have never had a problem with these on the page. Stop wjemather and his 1 other person that agrees with him from being the "consensus." Jeff5768 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I'd like to see a number of things return. The past champions leaderboard, the nationalities in the field chart (which I started), the breakdown by country chart. These are things that no one had a problem with for several years, until recently. The rationale given is that those things are only for aesthetics and trivia. Going by that logic, we could simply do away with almost all of Wikipedia, because the information in Wikipedia could mostly fall into the "trivia" category. Even pictures of famous people in Wikipedia call fall into the "aesthetics" category. Wanting to continuously take things away from Wikipedia is not constructive. The yearly PGA Tour pages have had several things added to them in the last few years, and I personally never complained about that. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I disagree with you guys. I have advocated in the past to delete the "Past Champions" table and the "Nationalities in the Field" table. I unsolicitedly brought up the "Past Champions in the field" table in WikiProject Golf discussions months ago not knowing that other members had already very strongly challenged the existence of that table before. So I don't think I'm the only one other than User: Wjemather who dislikes this concept.
My contention is that "Past Champions in the field" is basically a made up category that does not defer to reliable third-party sources. The Masters reveres its' past champions ("a tradition like no other") and holds a Champions Dinner every year. But the other major championships don't reference "Past champions in the field" very much at all. I just did a quick Google search. From what I gathered, outside of the Masters, it is not referenced in the other major championships at all. Also, I don't really understand the point of it. It seems like half of these past champions don't even make the cut; they are washed-up old stars that don't have a significant effect on the tournament. Basically, half of these guys received next to no media coverage for this specific tournament.
The "Nationalities in the field" category seems a little more relevant but, still, largely made up. Doing a simple Google search I didn't find anything for "Nationalities in the field" outside of results that derived from Wikipedia. In almost all of these tournaments the golfers are playing for themselves, not representing some country. (There are some exceptions like the Dunhill Cup, Olympics, Ryder Cup, and World Cup (men's golf). But outside of these nationalistic team competitions it is rare.) Basically, I just don't get the point other than it is somewhat interesting to you.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
  • Wikipedia reflects what is found in reliable sources. I don't recall ever seeing a mini past-champions leaderboard anywhere (outside here and mirrors of here), for any of these events. Past champions are covered adequately in the relevant exemption category/criterion (as a basic list). The articles will ultimately contain the full leaderboard, so they could be indicated by means of a note there if desired without issue, but a dedicated table gives them undue attention. We should be expanding these articles with well sourced relevant prose, which most are desperately lacking, not filling them with statistical cruft and tables for things that we have invented, in violation of policies such as WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The same applies, but even more so, to flag counting tables. wjematherplease leave a message... 04:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Seems to me that the Past Champions tables are largely a made-up idea. Since the plan is to have full scores at the end of the event the only purpose of these seem to be as something of interest during the event - turning us into a newspaper. Not sure how it got started but the fact that we've done it for years and it's not hurting anyone is not good reason to have them. We're an encyclopedia and not a random selection of interesting statistics. If there's something interesting to say about ex-Champions then that should be added as text, as someone has done already: "Defending champion Dustin Johnson opened with a two-over round of 74 ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talkcontribs) 07:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Worth reading Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf/Archive 6#Treatment of amateurs in 2019 Masters Tournament and similar articles (May 2019) which turned into a discussion on this topic. See "So is it agreed that the "Past champions in the field" section is unnecessary? I want to make sure before I delete it from 2019 PGA Championship" etc in which a number of other users commented. Nigej (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of majors

I put the order of the men's majors back to the way they were before 2020, to make it less confusing. 2020 was a one year situation. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was discussed on the article talk page. See Talk:Men's major golf championships#Major championship winners section. Fundamentally the problem is not just with 2020, it's that the order of the majors has changed many times over the years and just sorting out the last couple of years doesn't resolve that problem. Indeed the table gives the impression that the order up to 2018 had always been the same, making this option just about the most confusing possible. Nigej (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reverted, per the previous talk page discussion. Reordering in this way is misleading and reordering all years would be a mess. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion continues at Talk:Men's major golf championships#Major championship winners section, so comments there please. Nigej (talk) 07:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hyphen or endash in summary scores

I notice that someone has used a script User:GregU/dashes.js to change our summary scores in the 2021 Masters Tournament from "69-71-65-73=278" to "69–71–65–73=278", ie hyphens to endashes. Clearly we have thousands of articles using hyphens. Couldn't find anything particularly relevant in the MOS, eg MOS:HYPHEN. Personally I've always preferred the hyphen; I find the endash a bit clunky. Has come up before, just thinking would should have some consensus on the issue. Nigej (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it should probably be an ENdash. Maybe best to ask at MOS, and we'll just go along with advice there? wjematherplease leave a message... 09:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The examples under the endash section don't apply - the scores are not a "range between numbers". The script doesn't appear to be smart enough to recognize this. Tewapack (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olympic nationality grid

Do you think the Wikipedia pages for the 2021 Olympic golf tournament should keep the nationalities in the field grid as it had in 2016? Those pages can average 10,000 viewers per day, and many of them are fans of multiple sports. I think we should keep it. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably reasonable to have something, since the players are representatives of the countries. The problem is that we need to avoid this rather unimportant information growing and growing, when the important thing is the actual golf. For 2016 we have this composite table: Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Participating nations and then two more tables Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual#Qualification and Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's individual#Qualification for the men's and women's events. It's all too much, one style or the other but not both. I've got to say that all the maps (File:Men'sGolf2016Olympics.svg, File:Women'sGolf2016Olympics.svg) seems completely unnecessary. In summary: let's have something but not go over-the-top with it. Nigej (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree. As I've said before, it's reasonable to have something for the Olympics but it should be kept to a minimum. We don't need duplication of tables and the maps seem excessive. I'd suggest the composite table (i.e. the one not split by continent) without maps is sufficient. wjematherplease leave a message... 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it seems sensible NOT to have it at all (or the maps) in the Golf at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's individual and Golf at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's individual so that these can focus on the actual golf, especially since we already have a qualification article. The question then is whether to have it in Golf at the 2020 Summer Olympics or Golf at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification (the latter seems more logical to me). As to the "split by continent" aspect, I tend to agree although the qualifying system ( does say "Each of the five continents of the Olympic Movement will be guaranteed at least one athlete in each of the Women’s and Men’s Competitions respectively, ..." On that basis, if we do "split by continent" we should combine North and South America, since they count as one continent as far as the olympics goes. Nigej (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the qualification article seems like the logical place. Continent could be added as an additional column to provide this detail and would maintain full sortability of the table. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with "List of Swedish professional golfers"

I think there are many problems with the wiki page List of Swedish professional golfers:

First off, I would like to say that I think the list is interesting. In general, I like stuff like this. However, I think there are many problems, most importantly and conspicuously I think that it violates WP:OR. It does not defer to any reliable third-party source.

There are also more detailed problems:

  • The first column is the "Major" column. Henrik Stenson is only the Swede to win a major; I just don't see why an entire category for this exists. There is also an "(RU)" abbreviation that refers to "Runner-up." I have never seen an abbreviation like this and I think it looks awkward. In general I feel like these notable finishes, including the other top ten finishes in majors, could be referenced in the "Awards and Notes" section.
  • The next column is the WGC column. This is probably even more unnecessary. Stenson is the only Swede to win the event and few other Swedes have done anything of note in the WGCs. I think this column should be deleted.
  • The "Other wins" section... The "AS / AF / LA" section referring to the minor tour wins looks made up... never seen anything like this. In addition, few Swedes have won on these tours and they are minor tours anyway so I'm not sure if these wins need to be noted at all.

Again, in general I think this list is interesting but I feel like there are several specific problems and, most importantly, the general idea of it violates WP:OR. Please let me know what you think.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Probably a case where WP:USERFY is appropriate. 20:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Skimming WP:USERFY it looks like you mean you think this might work as a good reference in some user's private page but not good enough for a wiki page. If so, I agree.
Look, I think it is clear this page should probably be deleted. While interesting, it somewhat obviously doesn't meet our standards for an encyclopedia entry. Thoughts?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
I intend to put this page up for deletion. I have never done this before however. Are there instructions on how to do this somewhere on Wikipedia?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
Instructions are at WP:AFD, but I suspect "Keep; AFD is not cleanup" will be a common theme. I suggest first starting discussion on the talk page with the intention of removing all the cruft/trivia and reducing to a useful list without all the WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wjemather is right I think. AfD is about whether the article should exist and not with its content. It could be argued that List of Swedish professional golfers is a sensible article to have; it's just the content we're concerned about, which is a different matter. Nigej (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I will heed your advice and not try to delete this page. I think we should definitely make improvements though.
Wjemather, you suggested that I start a discussion on a talk page about how to improve List of Swedish professional golfers... I'm not sure what exactly you mean as I think this thread should be good enough...
Otherwise, if you guys want to make improvements go for it.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
I just got the ball rolling with this. I largely adhered to the suggestions I posted in my original note. I didn't edit the "Female Golfers" section as I don't know much about women's golf. There is also a section called "Participation in international team tournaments" that, in my mind, is way overblown with elaborate tables. However, I wasn't sure where to start with edits so I didn't touch it. Please make edits where you see fit.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

2021 PGA Championship Past Champions

Hey there all,

So far I don't see 2016 Champion Jimmy Walker listed as entered, but it would shock me if he isn't entered when the time comes next month. Comments? Jeff5768 (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, he's almost certainly going to play but it would seem he hasn't entered as yet. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's sad that Rich Beem, a past PGA Championship winner never gets mentioned as such on the PGA Championship website. Jeff5768 (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-copyright images

Where is the best place to find non-copyright images as it seems like they are hard to find. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hayden Buckley

So it appears that a single-purpose account repurposed the Hayden Buckley article from talking about a football coach to talking about the golfer. This obviously went against proper procedure. I'm not sure what needs to be done now; they should presumably both have articles, but I don't know what the articles should be titled, and I don't want to lose the history of the football coach's article. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 00:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I switched it back to an article about the coach. Somebody needs to do an article on the golfer. I can do it but it won't be till tomorrow....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hayden Buckley (golfer) has been created. Anybody feel free to fix the article up....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Het Rijk van Nijmegen

Hello, I created a draft for Het Rijk van Nijmegen, a golf course in the Netherlands. I’m not sure if it is notable enough for inclusion. Any help with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forme Tour

I've created an article on the Forme Tour which starts today. Gets OWGR points so presumably worth creating on that basis. I haven't created a separate 2021 Forme Tour article since it seems to me that there's a sporting chance this will be a one-off season (it's a redirect currently). The tour has some loose connection to the Canadian Tour but in reality the vast majority of the players will be Americans with no connection to that tour, making it primarily a third-tier tour giving access to the Korn Ferry Tour. See: Nigej (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's pronounced "form" rather than "for me", Nigej (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability of early career wins

I was considering the notability of early amateur wins and very early professional wins. Specifically, I was wondering about the notability of the schoolboy championships, apprenticeship championships, and trainees tournaments. I have included wins like these, respectively, in the pages of Bob Tuohy, Barry Coxon, and David Galloway (golfer). However, I'm not sure if these wins are notable enough to be included under the "Amateur wins" and "Professional wins" sections. I think it is fine to include it in the text but I'm having second thoughts about enfolding it under the aforementioned categories. I feel like we came to consensus that pro-am and purse wins could be included in the text but probably not in the "Professional wins" section. Likewise, I feel like these could be included in the text but are not notable enough for any "Wins" section. Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

This is always a tricky area for us. Bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia and that the content needs to be "encyclopedic" (whatever that means). We're not writing full-blown biographies of people, so the content should reflect that. Just because we have referenced information, doesn't necessarily mean it should be included; we use our judgment to decide whether the information is "encyclopedic" enough to be worth adding. See eg Brian Bamford who died last week - a short article maybe, but actually long enough for someone who's only really known for winning a single event under rather strange circumstances. Nigej (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Usually, the best way to cover such things is in a single sentence; something like "won x tournaments at the junior/apprentice level" or "won x minor tournaments on the local PGA circuit/mini-tours"; anything more would usually be undue in relation to their career. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I generally agree with you. With the Tuohy, Coxon, and Galloway I only have isolated examples of one or two of these early victories so I include the primary source. However, if I had a source that said "x golfer won 10-20 events as a junior" I would probably just use that and maybe an example of a specific win (if I had any).
A good example of this is the page of Geoff Parslow which I created. In the beginning of the "Professional career" section I wrote, "He had success as a young professional, winning the 1964 and 1965 Australian Trainee Championships.[3] Overall he won 19 young professional events during this era.[1]"
Anyway, I will probably delete these minor wins from the "Wins" sections but keep it in the text.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Status of 1971 B.C. Open

Across Wikipedia and the internet I have noticed an inconsistent status for this event. Some say a "satellite event" and others say "Butch Harmon, a PGA Tour winner." Basically, I don't know... any help?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

It was a one-round satellite event. Neither the win nor the money was official. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 01:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much pʰeːnuːmuː.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Last night I created a page for this tournament. As you will see, I discovered a list of the champions from 1986-2012 and a few champions for a few years thereafter. However, most of the columns in the middle are blank. I will do some more digging and see if I can find more info. However, if people could help find more stuff that would be great. And if we can't find much then I think I will just delete the middle columns as it looks so incomplete the way it is now.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

I've had a go at this article. Just four entries now with just the winner and venue. I'm not that keen on seniors events but this one is clearly the most important in Australia and has generally had significant prize money and a good standard of entries, so worth keeping I think. Nigej (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Nigej very much for your help. Your additions are of indispensable importance. Sometime in the future I will look for the empty information but right now it looks as complete as it could get.
Some final comments/questions are...
Should we add purse/winner's cheque information?
Sponsorships information. It looks like the 2010 event was fully entitled the Fiducian Legends Australian PGA Championship. In addition, according the the Wikipedia page of Noel Ratcliffe, the 2008 event was entitled the Polygiene Australian PGA Seniors Championship (no citation for this on his page however). Perhaps we should add this stuff.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
The prize money has varied considerably over the years and has clearly had an affect on the qualify of the field, especially the non-Australian entries, so would be interesting. Nigej (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks. I will add will probably add prize money and title information later.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Walt Disney World National Team Championship

Showing my ignorance here but I'm a little confused about the Walt Disney World National Team Championship, a pairs event from 1974 to 1981. Seems it was an unofficial money event. See eg for 1976 which has a * after the event (* = Unofficial Event). His official money for 1976 was just $1,859, so clearly didn't include this win. In Woody Blackburn we have this as a PGA Tour win and we note the playoff details. However, the playoff is not noted for runners-up. Is this all deliberate? Nigej (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at Ben Crenshaw's PGA Tour profile ( He won the event in 1979 and in his results section it has an * beside it. However, the win is included as part of his 19 PGA Tour victories. It's just incosistency from the tour, but if Crenshaw's win was counted then they all should be. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. But what's the playoff situation. Official playoff for the winners but not for the runners-up? Nigej (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would assume it should be in for them as well, it's just discrepancies that have happened. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's poor PGA Tour record keeping today. Like they having Billy Casper's playoff record as 8-7. Is the 1968 Bing Crosby now unofficial? No, its a case of PGA Tour sloppiness. Concerning the playoff losers, the 1991 PGA Tour guide book I possess has the 1976 as playoff loss for Gay Brewer and Bobby Nichols....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems as if they make it up as they go along! Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The LPGA has made similar goofs. In 2006 after Se-Ri Pak won in Toledo for the 5th time, it was told that only Pak and A. Sorrenstam had won the same LPGA event 5 times. Oops, all time LPGA winner Kathy Whitworth had won in St Petersburg 5 times....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Rounds of 59 ..." navboxes

I see that we have a number of navboxes for golfers who've had a round of 59, see Category:Golf records and rankings navigational boxes. It seems to me that these are the decorative style of navbox that plague a number of other projects, but which we've generally managed to avoid here. Strictly speaking, the sole purpose of a WP:NAVBOX is to aid navigation between articles. But see eg Bobby Charlton (open the Awards banner at the bottom of the article). There's no way that his "awards" navboxes aid navigation, they are entirely decorative. Many of the "Rounds of 59 ..." templates also fail the unofficial "rule of five" (per WP:NENAN), although some eg {{Rounds of 59 on the PGA Tour}} do pass that rule. Seems to me that we have two options. (1) Delete all these navboxes and use the "See also" section instead, adding Lowest rounds of golf. This has worked well with the Korn Ferry Tour Finals graduates (see eg Richy Werenski) (2) Replace them with a bigger navbox with all the entries in Lowest rounds of golf#Official tournaments on major tours. Personally I'd go for (1), since I'm doubtful that anyone is going to navigate between these golfers using a navbox, without using the Lowest rounds of golf article. Nigej (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. It's not really a defining achievement and these templates just increase navbox clutter (TCREEP), so I'd happily delete them all. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah I’d agree number 1 would be the best way forward. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just opened a deletion discussion[4] for the NAVBOX in question. Please come on over....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UAP European Under-25 Championship

I've created an article UAP European Under-25 Championship, which ran from 1988 to 1994. This seems to have been something of a follow-up ot the Cacharel World Under-25 Championship which was last played in 1983. Currently very bare but I'm planning to add to it if I can find anything useful. Note that the final winner, P Talbot, perhaps wasn't Philip Talbot, the son of David Talbot (golfer), since Philip was born in 1964 (according to and would therefore have been roughly 30 in 1994. Philip was playing on the 1994 Challenge Tour and had a couple of runner-up finishes. Perhaps they changed the entry criteria that year and it was him, no idea. Rather oddly there's a dutch wikipedia version of this article, but it doesn't add much that's useful. Nigej (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC) It seems that in 1994 it was some sort of unofficial Challenge Tour event, presumably with no age restriction. Nigej (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've filled in all the details I can (quickly) find on BNA. Coverage seems fairly sparse, but the 1994 event was certainly still reported as the European Under-25 Championship that year. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems a little odd since both winner and runner-up were 30. The Dutch source I found simply has "UAP Open" which seems a little more plausible. Nigej (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Aberdeen Press and Journal source also has "UAP Open", but the Irish Independent ( reported "European Under-25 Championship". wjematherplease leave a message... 11:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interestingly, this poster from 1991 (subtitled "Under-25 European Championship" or similar, depending on how you translate it) and Paul Lawrie's caddie’s bib from 1992 both have "Open UAP". And this very fuzzy poster from 1990 too:, so perhaps it was always called "UAP Open" but the press preferred "European Under-25 Championship" as being more useful for their readers. Not the first time his sort of issue has come up. Nigej (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something for us to work together on?

Most deceased former PGA golfers don't have a photo in their bio. I just had a conversation with an administrator who does a lot of copyright around here. We can use photos in old media guide books like this for the player articles with the help of screen capture software. First we have to make sure there is no free photos available for these people. I have the screen capture software, what I need help with is determining if there are free photos available. Wouldn't it be nice that articles on players like George Knudson, Miller Barber, and many others had photos in them?

Please reply....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had a go with images when I first got involved with WIkipedia (cricket mostly), but I gave up because lots of them got deleted. Obviously I wasn't doing the right things. Clearly an area where you need to know what you doing. As you, it's an area where we're very poor. Bit confused by your comment. Are you saying that we have to make sure there are no free photos available before we can use the old media guides? Nigej (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Administrator Justlettersandnumbers wrote here[5]- "Hi, WilliamJE! Yes, images of dead people for whom no free image can be found may uploaded (here, not on Commons) as non-free content, provided they're for use in a page about the person and not over about 100,000 pixels. The requirements are (rightly) pretty strict; this template helps get that right. Happy to offer help/advice if you need it." In a followup query, JLAN replied- "That looks like a perfectly acceptable project, WilliamJE. I chose one (Miller Barber) at random and had a quick look; there's nothing on Commons, no image in the page on him, he died in 2013. I can't see any reason why you shouldn't add a low-resolution version of the image of him in the book to our page. But please note: I'm not an expert on this, and it's an area where people are pretty vigilant, so probably important to cross the eyes and dot the tees. Good luck!" Here's a link[6] to the media guide book I showed to JLAN....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canadian or British newspaper search engines

Do these countries have these like Australia has with Trove?

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

British Newspaper Archive has a couple of nationals and lots of regionals; it is free to access from a British library network but subscription otherwise. The Guardian/Observer is on; The Times has it's own archive (free through library membership), as do some other nationals. Several Canadian papers from different provinces/territories are on Google News Archive. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I may get these subscriptions in the future.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Non-PGA Tour members wins in PGA Tour seasons

I'm following this discussion on from User talk:Tewapack where myself, Tewapack and user:Oogglywoogly were discussing about Michael Campbell's 2005 U.S. Open win being annotated as a "(1)" in the 2005 PGA Tour season page. The procedure in European Tour season pages and other tours is when a non-member of that tour wins it is listed as "(n/a)". E.g. in 2021 European Tour; Phil Mickelson's 2021 PGA is annotated as "(n/a)" rather than "(11)" as he is not a European Tour member. In the case of Michael Campbell, I was simply following on the same procedure, but this has created opposition from a user. I think consistency should be applied here, but was curious as to if there were any other takes on this so we create some sort of consensus? Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure I can comment sensibly, since I've always found it problematic as to whether someone was a tour member or not. I suppose our general principle should be to follow the system as used by the specific tour, if that be worked out (or makes any sense). Nigej (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think any tour makes that kind of distinction. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 23:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's my two cents:
Instinctively, I don't care much about the non-member / member distinction. I am not sure why that distinction has become a standard on the European Tour seasonal pages. As implied by the statements of Nigej and pʰeːnuːmuː, I think we should defer to what the tours value. If the tours value the non-member / member distinction then we should adhere to it. If not, then we should not.
If the tours do care about this distinction then we should maintain this practice. Just because only two golfers (Ian Woosnam and Michael Campbell) won on the PGA Tour and never became members doesn't mean we should jettison a distinction that has already become commonplace on seasonal pages for other tours. But we must determine whether the tours value this distinction.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
My friends, any more ideas?
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
No one has produced evidence the tours' distinguish between members and non-members when tabulating wins. I know I have gone both ways on this but I think the earlier status quo was correct, denoting Woosnam's and Campbell's total wins in parentheses. In addition, I will be adding win totals to European Tour victors who were not members unless some provides evidence that ET cares about this distinction.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Well when the European Tour publishes results for each event. The non-members are not listed as having a Race to Dubai ranking. See here for 2021 Open results [7] i.e. Spieth, Fritelli, Hughes, Koepka etc. So evidently the European Tour does make that distinction between members and non-members. Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, clearly it distinguishes between member and non-members. The question is whether it does so when producing lists of winners, lists of most wins on the tour, etc. The problem is likely to be that the tours themselves are rather inconsistent in their approach. See eg this archive from the 2016 European Tour (dated 23 August) . Under "First-Time Winners" it lists Leishman and Walker (Walker won the 2016 PGA Championship) but not Fowler and Day (who won a WGC event). Although see which incldues this win and which includes Fowlers win and which includes his WGC win in 2016. Nigej (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems that they are quite inconsistent but at the same time a wins a win. Irregardless of whether you were a ET member or not. It would be factually incorrect for the ET (or on wiki) not to include non-members in all time wins etc. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a side note as well, the annotation of “(n/a)” on a non-members win count on season pages has also been applied on Asian Tour pages, Sunshine Tour, Japan Golf Tour, PGA Tour of Australasia and others. The PGA Tour’s effectively the odd one out. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the comments but your points don't really clarify mucb. I will defer to the advice of User: Wjemather: You created annual calendars for the European Tour... did you notice a distinction between members and non-members on ET's seasonal calendars? This will probably help resolve this issue.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

1970 Tasmanian Open

I have a link here that says Tony Mangan won the one-round Tasmanian Open in 1970. This article was published on January 29, 1970. It was published by a reliable source, The New York Times. However, it looks like a four-round Tasmanian Open was won by David Graham days later. The second article was published on February 2, 1970. It was also published by a reliable source, The Age.

I strongly assume that the "one-round Tasmanian Open" was really the pro-am. Any verification would be nice however.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald for 30 January (page 12) calls this the "$750 Golden Crumpet Purse" It was played at Kingston Beach but was just a prelude to the main event. Nigej (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Found it on Google News Archive. Added it the page of Stolhand and to the pages of David Graham (golfer) and Terry Kendall who finished in a second place. Again thanks!
Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Olympic summary tables of number of golfers by country

There is a discussion at Talk:Golf at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification which some of you may be interested in. Nigej (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand the Golf section? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just looking at this. The stereotype is that golfers are super-straight folk who avoid pot like the plague. Even if they do use it they are the last people in the world to acknowledge it. I noticed that Robert Garrigus and Matt Every were referenced in the article. They are the only golfers I can think of that have been publicly associated with marijuana. I know in the early 1990s John Daly (golfer) made a big stink about fellow pros doing "drugs" but I think that was mainly about cocaine. Sorry I can't be more of a help.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Tour column for major championships?

Do you think a "Tour" column should be added to the major championship winners table? Historically, the American majors were only sanctioned by the PGA Tour and the Open Championship by the British PGA and European Tour. But since the mid-late 1990s I believe all of these majors have been sanctioned by both tours. In addition, I believe the Japan Golf Tour has sanctioned some (if not all four) for a while.

We created a "Tour" column for all of the other events that have been multi-sanctioned. I don't see why the majors would be any different.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

I would say no. The majors transcend the tours and (aside from the PGA) the tours have no direct involvement in their organisation. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also say no. The majors are not run by the tours in the same way as most other tour events, and the concept of co-sanctioning is not really there. Individual tours decide whether to include majors in their prize money totals, order of merit, wins totals, etc but that's a different issue it seems to me. Nigej (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I’d agree with both those takes. However I would imagine it may be beneficial to create tour columns for the WGCs as they are organised by the tours. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I will defer to the "no" consensus for the majors.
Jimmy brought up the WGCs. I have to say I've always been a little confused about the tour status of the WGCs. At one end they've all been authenticated by the International Federation of PGA Tours which governs the top 6 tours. But according to the already-existing "Tour" column for the four WGC events (not created by me, fwiw) they're usually only sanctioned by the European Tour and PGA Tour. I'm fine with this column so long as it is true. But have these events (usually) only been sanctioned by the two big tours? Just looking for verification...
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]
Yes, they’re organised by the International Federation of PGA Tours, but are only official events and carry official money on the PGA and European Tour. Jimmymci234 (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Jimmy!
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]

Naming of the New Course

Hi all Wikipedians,

I am beginning to put together a new article for the New Course at St Andrews. However I would like your opinions as to what to name it. "New Course" is already in use. Therefore in my opinion I have two options:

  1. New Course at St Andrews, which is consistent with the Old Course at St Andrews, or
  2. New Course, St Andrews (as per naming conventions), in which case to be consistent I would then also need consensus to rename the Old Course at St Andrews to Old Course, St Andrews.

I prefer No. 2, New Course, St Andrews, but if that is also the opinion of others, I would also need consensus on whether to rename the Old Course at St Andrews to Old Course, St Andrews, what do you think? SethWhales talk 07:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose the first question is whether the New course needs a separate article or whether an expansion of St Andrews Links is better. I notice that Jubilee Course at St Andrews redirects there. Normally, if a club has more than one course we don't have a separate article for each course, but St Andrews has a different structure and so should probably be an exception. Nigej (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the New warrants a standalone article, then New Course, St Andrews would follow naming conventions, and New Course at St Andrews would then redirect there. I would also say the Old Course article could probably be moved to Old Course as disambiguation does not seem to be needed. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Normally I would think we should just follow naming conventions. However, the Old Course is so famous that and the phrase "Old Course at St. Andrews" is used so often in the media that, by corollary, perhaps we should use "New Course at St. Andrews." But either way I don't really care.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)OogglywooglyReply[reply]