Template talk:Infobox golfer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Majors

Added US Amateur and British Amateur to majors championships section, as appropriate for pre-ww2 golfers, e.g. Bobby Jones. _wjemather^bigissue 15:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

More Tours

Can we add a Tour category for Futures Tour? It's the top women's developmental tour. If the Nationwide Tour is included, the Futures Tour should be included.

... and the European Seniors Tour and an "Other senior wins" label. I think the Seniors Tours wins should come after all the main tours (and Other wins).Tewapack (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And if we're going to be that inclusive, add
KLPGA Tour
JLPGA Tour
--Crunch (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just make these freeform, and allow up to 5 to be specified. Otherwise this could get very long indeed. But do these really all need to be manually specified in the infobox? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the Nationwide and Challenge Tours because they carry world ranking points. Similarly, I agree it may be equally appropriate to have the five main Ladies tours and the Futures Tour, and the European Seniors Tour.
Personally, I would prefer less tours as I don't believe there is much value in having the breakdown of wins by tour in the infobox at all – I think just the total wins will suffice. Having said that, if it's not there there are editors who will just add it in parentheses after the total.
Additionally, I would like to add "Former tours" and "Amateur wins" fields. _wjemather^bigissue 12:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the freeform idea. It provides flexibility without cluttering up the template. All the women's tours also carry world rankings points, by the way. I'm opposed to an Amateur wins category because it's hard to define. Certainly it would include major Amateur tournaments like the US Amateur, but what about college wins? What about a state amateur championship? What about a local club championship? Junior win? Weekend charity tournament at the local muni? It's too slippery. --Crunch (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with making them freeform is that they can and will be used inconsistently.
True, defining the level for amateur wins may be difficult, if impossible, so it may be best left out. I really just wanted some way of conveying success for amateur golfers. Incidentally, the way the totals are expressed in biography section headers is somewhat misleading as it is – having the number in brackets, eg Amateur wins (4), gives the reader the impression that that total is inclusive and accurate (same also applies for pro wins). _wjemather^bigissue 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so it sounds like we're back where we started. Can someone who has the skill to edit this template please add the other women's pro tours, specifically -
KLPGA Tour
JLPGA Tour
Futures Tour
I've got several articles that I'm holding off working on until these changes are in place. thanks. --Crunch (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fields added. _wjemather^bigissue 11:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we need "Other wins" of any kind listed in the infobox? I would suggest not, and these fields be removed. Total wins and number for each major tour is enough, I think. Views? _wjemather^bigissue 19:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed other senior wins, as I think it easy enough and neater, to separate regular from senior with a line break as done on Gary Player._wjemather^bigissue 16:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ExTour and Total Pro Tour Wins removed from Female Golfer Box?

There is now Pro Tour Wins been removed from the Female Golfer Box and no Ex Tour field. Was this intentional or an oversight? --Crunch (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The fields are both still there – I just seem to have got a bit cut and paste happy when doing the documentation! I shall sort it now. Regards. _wjemather^bigissue 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciate all of your hard work.--Crunch (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Status field

I have added a status field to show Amateur or Professional status, essentially for use with Amateur golfers, but also when the year that a player turned pro is unknown. It will not display when yearpro is specified. _wjemather^bigissue 21:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Earnings

The total earnings a player accumulates at tournaments is public information often included in reputable sources, e.g.:

• According to Golf Digest, Woods made $769,440,709 from 1996 to 2007 ("The Fortunate 50". Sports Illustrated. 2007.)
• In 25 professional seasons Jones won 13 titles and nearly $8.4 million while playing on seven U.S. Solheim Cup teams ("After Women's Open, Jones calls it a career". ESPN. 2006.)

I propose adding an optional "earnings" field to the infobox. Anyone have a reason not to do so? 68.165.77.80 (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC).

Quite simply, for the vast majority of players, total earnings cannot be easily calculated or more importantly verified. _wjemather^bigissue 01:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The examples given suggest that "vast majority" could be an overstatement, since they are two notable players of widely divergent accomplishments yet they both have that information available about them. And as an optional parameter, it would only be used where a source exists. 68.167.252.5 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC) (I edited earlier as 68.165.77.80)

Also look at {{Infobox Person}}, which includes both salary and networth as optional parameters, in spite of any issue with how many of the notable people in Wikipedia have that information public. 68.167.252.5 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC).

It is not an overstatement. The key is verifiability. It would be possible to verify earnings in tour events, but there are also a myriad of unofficial tournaments and pro-ams which would be impossible to factor in. In addition, it would just be something else that would need to be kept up to date every week, that I really don't think would add any value to articles anyway. _wjemather^bigissue 08:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that verifiability is necessary, but such an issue can be avoided by simply specifying a reference for the earnings number, as in the examples used in the initial comment. Your new issue about keeping it up-to-date could be a problem, but the examples suggest that the amount can be timestamped with "(as of 2007)" as appropriate. As to your last point, having it be optional lets editors decide whether it adds value to articles. 68.167.252.4 (talk) (same editor as above) 00:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC).

I am saying that it would not add value to any article, and creating an additional field just for the handful of golfers you may be able to reference seems pointless. The infobox should be as up to date as possible, not stating career earnings from ten years ago. In addition, I am dubious as to the accuracy of said references, suspecting that they only include tour earnings, ignoring appearance fees, challenge matches, skins games, team events and other unofficial tournaments. _wjemather^bigissue 08:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"it would not add value to any article": I'll see if other Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf agree with that opinion; if they do, it'll mean the very people interested in maintaining player bios wouldn't use it even if its present. If that's the case, I'll back off. WRT "dubious as to the accuracy of said references": the sources are Sports Illustrated and ESPN, not Joe's Golf Blog— as WP:V makes clear, it doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks. To quote the first line of the WP:V policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." 68.167.253.239 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

I'm broadly in agreement with wjemather. This smacks of recentism and will usually not be verifiable to any real degree of accuracy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this being a case of Wikipedia:Recentism (as that essay describes it): the two examples were a stat from 2007 on Woods and the career earnings of a golfer retired several years ago. And you bring up verifiability even though that issue was clearly addressed earlier (the WP:V policy in a nutshell says "attributed to a reliable, published source" and the two sources from the example are Sports Illustrated and ESPN. 68.167.253.239 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

I am well aware of what WP:V states. Can you verify the earnings of the majority (of even a reasonable sized minority) of players? Answer: No.
The SI article does not clearly specify the source of Woods earnings (whether it is solely tour winnings or not) just that they are from the end of 2006, and it would have to be clear and consistent across bios if it were to be included in the infobox. It also states that all figures are estimates. The ESPN article states "...nearly $8.4 million..." in winnings for Rosie Jones. Are you really suggesting that should be in the infobox? It just does not make sense. _wjemather^bigissue 11:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reply distills down to (1) availability of earnings data on a "reasonable sized minority", (2) "SI article does not clearly specify the source", (3) "clear and consistent [earnings] across bios" are required, and (4) estimates in infoboxes don't make sense. To counter claim (1) that not even a "reasonable sized minority" has earning data available about them, consider this source:

http://www.greatshot.com/pgaearnings/careerearnings.aspx

That website took about as long to discover as typing in a few words in Google, and it has earnings on all the male golfers since 1938. And sites like these:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/6800794/

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/25/tiger-woods-golf-business-sports-top-earning-golfers.html

http://list.canadianbusiness.com/rankings/golfearnings/2008/Default.aspx?sp2=1&d1=d&sc1=-1

make it clear that the information is out there. (2) is just another way to raise the issue of truthfulness (as opposed to verifiability), but that's addressed already by the first line of the WP:V policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" In your specific case, SI is the source, so it doesn't matter how SI figured it out. As to (3) and (4), I already cited {{infobox person}} as a broadly used infobox that contains both salary and networth as optional parameters. Want another example? Many films use {{infobox film}} which contains a field for box office and budget. Do you think any of these numbers are anything but estimates? Do you think there's consistency in their use across bios or across films? These broadly used infoboxes demonstrate that the use of inconsistent estimates in infoboxes is not an issue. 68.165.77.15 (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

Your all encompassing website is an out of date version of [1], i.e. PGA Tour winnings only.

Remember your starting point? "Quite simply, for the vast majority of players, total earnings cannot be easily calculated or more importantly verified." Except for the "total earnings" vs. "tour earnings" aspect, you end up invalidating your own point: they can be verified. And I'm quite content to make it clear that infobox "earnings" would mean tournament earnings.

As to your comparison to other infoboxes. How do you measure success for movies? Box office takings. Business people? Salary & net worth. Golf? Tournament wins. _wjemather^bigissue 10:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The real issue here is that only you and I care. None of your fellow wikiproject members have joined us.

Here's my one sentence version of your ever-shifting but current argument: The only earnings that can be calculated for most players are his or her tour winnings, its tour wins, not earnings that measure success in golf, and since we have tour wins in the infobox, who needs it to contain any other measure of golf success. Rosie Jones, who never won a major and is one of the two examples from the beginning, refutes that, and it would be easy to find others. As to your films and business people argument: money-losing films garner awards and DVD sales/rentals, influence future films and television, etc; people whose net worth and salary are known can be more acclaimed for things unrelated to those measures. Yet in both cases that information is cited in infoboxes and bios. I'm happy to agree that tournaments wins are an important measure of success, and for argument's sake let's say that they are the most important measure, but I'd claim that a player who constantly places in the top five of major tournaments without ever winning one has his or her status among fellow golfers and golf fans better captured by tournament earnings than by

tournament victories: 0

By as I said, only you and I care. 68.167.252.232 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC).

I stand by my original point. Yes you can get individual tour earnings for the major tours but try doing that for other tours, some of which are now defunct, and various mini tours. Then try finding earnings for non-tour sanctioned events. You can't, to any degree of accuracy. _wjemather^bigissue 19:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Style overrides

Let's discuss this edit:

1. The width override means this template arbitrarily deviates from the {{infobox}} norms. It's unnecessary.
2. The font-size override means that not only does this template arbitrarily deviate from the {{infobox}} norms, but the text size is different in side-by-side comparisons of the default configurations of Firefox and Internet Explorer. {{Infobox}} defaults to 88% precisely because this is the largest size at which both browsers have identical default output. Again, unnecessary.
3. The line-height override on the title bar is again an arbitary deviation from the {{infobox}} norms. It's unnecessary.
4. The de-bolding of the various competition labels is hackish, increasing the size of the template code, and serves no practical purpose. There is no particular reason that the number of PGA Tours a golfer has won is less important than, say, the names of his children. Again, this is unnecessary.

We should be overriding the {{infobox}} norms only where there is an obvious advantage to doing so. None of the above changes fall into this category. The pre-revert version of the template should be reinstated.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As we discussed on your talk page, during the conversion to infobox base class, some of the overrides were added to allow the infobox to look presentable. The others were probably left overs from the conversion, and for sure some of your changes may be reinstated without problem (font size maybe), but it was simpler to revert your entire edit.

1. Needed for display purposes to prevent a hideous amount of wrapping in the data column, due to the nowrap that is set on the label column. See testcases. Until recently, 25em was the standard width recommended by MOS (can't find a discussion as to why it has since changed to 11em, I have asked the question there), so can see no problem with this.
2. Could probably revert to default values without issue.
3. Allows for better spacing, which I think makes it more legible.
4. The breakdown of tour wins is less important than the total wins and should be unbolded. Likewise, the majors performances and awards/achievements. (Bold labels here can also increase wrapping to a degree).

While I agree with your principle goal of having things as standard as possible for simplicity's sake, unless it displays satisfactorily, there have to be deviations. _wjemather^bigissue 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the test cases, I'm happy for the width, line-height and bold changes to be kept, but I think we should lose the font-size and padding changes. If you think that the above element requires more padding to make it "more legible", you should suggest that at template talk:infobox so that all infobox templates benefit from it, rather than just overriding it here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree with that. _wjemather^bigissue 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Children" field

This isn't really necessary; it's not present in infoboxen for similar types of sport personality. I reckon this should be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. It's not relevant. --Crunch (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we good to go on this? I'll remove it later if there's no objection. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is relevant for some, for example Craig Stadler (son Kevin), Bernard Gallacher (daughter Kirsty), Antonio Garrido (son Ignacio), etc. I am not sure if it needs to be in the infobox, and would not miss it if it wasn't there, but I would prefer to err on the side of inclusion. _wjemather^bigissue 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a comparative value - it's just a random factoid. And in the vast majority of cases it is trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The spouse/partner field is equally irrelevant. --Crunch (talk)

Significant wins

Discussion moved from User talk:Wjemather

I was just wondering could be include a section for other significant wins and put into that section the Players Championship, Tour Championship, WGC Events, and the FedEx Cup and the European tour counterparts to list the years like in the major championship ones? This would be similar to the tennis infobox._BLuE^DOgTn 23:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am going to go try this now, and we'll see..._BLuE^DOgTn 18:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely unnecessary. The majors are all that is needed, as agreed when the infobox was created, otherwise where would you stop? Also, what the tennis infobox does is irrelevant. _wjemather^bigissue 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your are correct, and I agree!_BLuE^DOgTn 18:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey why don't we take out spouse and partner out of the infobox and the children as well because it is not meritorious to their respective golf careers!_BLuE^DOgTn 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I.E., Do others sporting infoboxes have this, I have not seen it before!_BLuE^DOgTn 18:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the relevant guidelines with regard to infoboxes, such as WP:IBX. And to answer your second question, some do, some don't. These fields are not compulsory and are most often left blank, however they convey important information for some people – see discussion above. _wjemather^bigissue 18:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:IBX the point of an Infobox, is to provide a summary or overview of the article. Including a section for other signficant wins seems to go beyond just summary of the article. That information can and should be entered in the article itself. --Crunch (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the spouse and kids should be left out of the infobox because it has not been used for any other sporting articles infoboxes such as Tennis, NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB, Soccer/Futbol. Is golf an exception to this rule, I think not, which means the spouse and kids fields needs to be deleted. It has no reference to the golfing careers at all WP:Notablitiy, this violates in the infoboxes. If golfers were actressess and actors, I would be for the inclusion of the spouse but not the kids, period.^BLUE_DOGTN 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Masters Tournament instead of The Masters?

Why was it chosen to put The Masters, which their are many masters events in golf to begin with, so this could be quite confusing to the casual reader. I think the title Masters Tournament is more apt to be less misconstrued because their is just one Masters Tournament.69.137.120.81 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing these fields is necessary!

If we are not going to include golfing senior majors, I see no reason to include personal info about these subject spouse, children and partners to the infobox about golfers!BLUE_DOG^TN 15:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The senior majors have no where near the same standing as the regular majors and it would serve no purpose including them in the infobox. There is already a thread above regarding the other fields. _wjemather^bigissue 16:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions regarding Template:Infobox golfer?

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

1. Removing Spouse field is necessary!
2. Removing Partner field is necessary!
3. Removing Children field is necessary!
4. Senior majors is definitely necessary!
5. Putting in a caddie field is definitely necessary!
6. Removing US Amateur and The Amateur wins from infobox because they are not notable enought!
7. These are just a starting point!BLUE_DOG^TN 16:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that User:Wjemather has Own this infobox template because anytime anyone wants to do anything to it he or she dissents!BLUE_DOG^TN 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 have been addressed above, but essentially they are standard biographical details, and in many cases are left blank anyway. The senior majors have substantially less coverage devoted to them that regular tour events, so they are certainly not significant enough to warrant the additional clutter. A players caddie is absolutely not necessary and in most cases is not even mentioned in the body of the article. The amateur championships were previously regarded as majors so are obviously needed. _wjemather^bigissue 16:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if wjemather and BLUE could tone down the vitriol. It's not helping the discussion at all. Now, back to the issue of the Infobox changes. wjemather claims that, "The senior majors have substantially less coverage devoted to them that regular tour events." There is no such thing as a "regular tour." Maybe you mean the PGA Tour. I don't think whether or not to include Champions Tour majors should be based on how much "coverage" they get. We include LPGA majors, as we should, and they also get less coverage. The deciding factor should be whether these wins are an important part of the player's career to be pulled out in an sidebar. I think they definitely are. Also, if you are going to add the British am and US am to the infobox, you should add the British women's am and US women's am. Also, I would merge all the women's majors under one heading and call it "Women's LPGA and LET Majors" or something like that." --Crunch (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed this in my sandbox example, which this sentiment I can agree with, and I am sorry for having a harsh discussion with Wjemather, but it came to it when he/she delete my edit from last night, and I awoke to a curt response from the editor!BLUE_DOG^TN 21:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your significant coverage and clutter arguments does not hold water with terms to these majors on the senior tour and must be included if that is all you got because they have enough to have articles on wikipedia in the first place, coverage arguments done! Clutter is not enough because you don't like something, all you say is clutter, which my way of presenting the senior majors are clear, concise, and clean in the infobox and not all in one homogenized zone like the men’s and women’s are right now! I think the amateur one has received significantly less coverage than the senior majors, but they are included because they have articles on wikipedia. I think their needs to be a section of Amateur majors, and even Tiger Woods should have them listed in his infobox under a subsection of Amateur majors like it is in the article of say Bobby Jones. It should be listed as Amateur majors for Tiger Woods as well!BLUE_DOG^TN 17:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Go look here and see a way better infobox than this clutter of one.BLUE_DOG^TN 18:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, why do we even put senior tour wins in the infobox if they don't even receive significant coverage for the majors? I think they both are worthy!BLUE_DOG^TN 18:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The US & British Amateurs are included because pre-WWII they were majors. Since the rise in professional tournament golf, they are no longer seen as such and the fields should not be completed for the likes of Woods (please read the majors article). Once again, relatively speaking the senior majors are insignificant. Please review WP:IBX and Help:Infobox for further guidance before making any more suggestions. _wjemather^bigissue 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is the only reason to include these amateur tournaments, then leave them out. Hardly anyone with one of these infoboxes was playing in these events pre-WWII. If you are including them because they are the most important amateur events in golf, that's another thing. And while you're at it, add in the most important women's amateur tournaments as well. --Crunch (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuses, Excuses, and Excuses! I am tired of you suggesting because of WP:IBX and Help:Infobox, things are to be excluded and included! I don't see anything on them that would restrict senior majors being included.BLUE_DOG^TN 18:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see why you would disagree with the amateurs on Tiger Woods since he is a professional, but as for Senior majors you have no real point because they are covered significantly on NBC, CBS and other outlets in the states!BLUE_DOG^TN 18:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I can site this for the relevancy of including the senior tour majors in the infobox as well senior majors! So, what do you have to say to that?BLUE_DOG^TN 18:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way the LET considers the Evian Masters and The Ricoh Open to be the only majors on their tour, which the infobox is biased towards the LPGA major championships! I think the infobox as is presently composed is fatally flawed and needs a major championship of a overhaul to get it into line with wikipedia standards!BLUE_DOG^TN 18:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically this may be true, about the LET, but that doesn't mean the LET or its players consider the Evian and the British Open to be the only majors in women's golf. There is a big difference. --Crunch (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You are not addressing the issue that the (Champions Tour) senior majors are absolutely insignificant in comparison to the globally recognised (regular) majors. The infobox should be concise and not include endless detailed statistics, and lists of high finishes in relatively insignificant tournaments is excessive. The LPGA is the ladies tour, so of course it is their majors that are in the infobox. _wjemather^bigissue 19:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was not clear. The Champions Tour majors are not as prominent in the national media and they don't get as much attention or pay as much in purses as the PGA Tour majors. This does not make them "absolutely insignificant" and certainly not "absolutely insignificant" when summarizing a player's career, which is the entire purpose of an Infobox. --Crunch (talk)

I am addressing the flaws in your exclusionary statements, and insignificant is not one again, which it is covered significantly thru the press, so wrong on that one again. Another excuse, excessive is in the eye of the beholder, which is because I strive for accuracy not simplicity that misses the mark because what use is an encyclopedia if it just covers the so-called big stuff by your words. Who’s to say the LET tour is insufficient to the LPGA Tour? I am afraid that I will have to take this template to a discussion on the Templates for Discussion board!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. The article body should encompass the whole subject, the infobox provides an overview. Again please read the help and guidelines thoroughly. _wjemather^bigissue 19:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Because I have better points and rationales you're accusing me or charging me with WP:POINT, which I am guilty of none of them! I have dissected your arguments and provided better ones, but you cannot come up with any better one! We all have opinions and that is what an argument is in the first place!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We are never going to see eye-to-eye on this matter, so I will try to seek out an arbitrator or mediator to resolve the issues between you and me!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, TfD would be pointy. Why not just wait for others to comment? Given the trivial nature of your suggested changes, I cannot see the need to rush anywhere else. _wjemather^bigissue 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

They are trivial to you not to me, lets put it that way! I did not mean Templates for Deletion, I meant the Discussion one! I guess all that I have been on here is a trivial little idiot of an editor to some, but I think most of my contributions on here have a great deal of merit, just go look at all of the champions tour majors wikitables for a start, which I am darn sure bet you will want to remove or delete because of insignificant coverage issues and concerns!BLUE_DOG^TN 20:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In the overall scheme of things they are hardly major concerns. I assume you are being sarcastic, but it's hard to tell. _wjemather^bigissue 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I am not being sarcastic. I just think if we mention one set of majors from the PGA Tour and LPGA Tour, we must include those from the LET, Champions Tour and Senior European Tour, just for fairness sakes! So golfers like Allen Doyle did not play competitive golf until after the age of 46, but never won a PGA Tour major, which means we are diminishing his infobox just because of a technicality!BLUE_DOG^TN 20:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

By your reasoning we should include the Japan Golf Tour majors, LPGA of Japan majors etc., etc., etc. — I understand that you would like to be all-inclusive, but that is just not practical. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and it seems obvious to me where that should be. When you talk about the (men's) majors we all know which four tournaments they are. Likewise for ladies golf, with the LPGA being by far the leading tour, it is their majors we are talking about. _wjemather^bigissue 20:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously. As I stated above, the purpose of an Infobox is to summarize the highlights and keypoints of a person's life and career without having the whole article. Results in majors on the tours on which the golfer played clearly fit this definition. --Crunch (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

As above. _wjemather^bigissue 20:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

All it is, is a few more details in the infobox nothing that would expand it to infinity, just majors and stop it at that. I am not arguing for WGC wins, now am I!BLUE_DOG^TN 21:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I am trying to make these senior tour players articles able to verify this standard easily, which is why it is important to put the champions tour majors in the infobox!BLUE_DOG^TN 21:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes are never used to determine notability. _wjemather^bigissue 22:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn/Sandbox New Infobox Golfer is done with, and now you all can use it!BLUE_DOG^TN 21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. What's the procedure for formalizing this? --Crunch (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. There are some fundamental issues with it, not least of which is recentism with regards the majors since the Amateurs were recognised majors prior to the 1950s. It is also unnecessary to qualify that they are PGA and ET majors, given that they are recognised as such globally. Formally, there is no such thing as an Amateur Major, and there are many other prestigious amateur tournaments that could possibly lay claim to such status if there was such a thing. It also doesn't stand scrutiny to intimate that the LET is equal to the LPGA or even of higher standing than the Japan or Korean ladies tours. The LPGA is far and away the dominant tour, and their majors massively outrank any other tour's. Performances in senior major's is irrelevant in comparison to the regular majors. _wjemather^bigissue 22:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On amateur majors they will not be listed for professional golfers, I only wanted them to be in their own section for golfers like Bobby Jones to make it look tidy along with the article go look. The majors on the womens side are in dispute amongst the tours, which makes it biased towards the LPGA and we are to have WP:NPOV. The senior majors are extremely relevant to the infobox and not just the article itself which means it must be apart of the infobox!BLUE_DOG^TN 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

When Jones et al played them they were viewed as majors, period, had similar standing to the Opens and should be listed alongside them as they are currently. There is no NPOV issue, with the LPGA being so dominant, the only majors that matter are theirs. You are grossly overstating the importance of the senior events. _wjemather^bigissue 22:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion about "grossly overstating importance of the senior events", which by the way they are majors not just mere events, which is this equation Wjemather=Mere Senior Events and Bluedogtn=Majors of Repute and Recognition. If it was the standard to include only majors in the infobox you are wrong by even the standards of creating the infobox in the first place! They are called majors and must be include thusly! On the fact of the womens, the only one that would have to be done in order to not violate the WP:NPOV is the Evian Masters, which is just to include it.BLUE_DOG^TN 23:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I can give in on the separate section for amateur majors, but I will not relent on the senior majors or the evian masters inclusion, which I hope you see the errors in the judgment you have. Majors are Majors regardless of tour affiliation, and that if they are not many articles on here must be rewritten!BLUE_DOG^TN 23:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I took out the Amateur Majors if you would go and look at my example, which all I have to do is to add the amateurs back into the mens section and I have changed the tours and instead of putting LPGA Tour majors which is WP:NPOV, I put Ladies' major championships which is now neutral and includes the Evian Masters. Thus, Champions Tour majors have been converted to Senior major championships in order to avoid bias of tours in the infobox!BLUE_DOG^TN 23:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You all fight it out and please let me know when this Infobox is ready to use. Thanks. --Crunch (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Crunch, please continue to use this template. Any changes made to it will not affect any current or future transclusions.

Sorry bluedogtn, but you are still missing the point and seem not to understand the history and structure of professional golf, and the fact you keep jumping one way and then the other illustrates that perfectly. The British and US amateurs need to be included alongside the modern day majors in order to properly reflect the achievements of pre-1950s players, including the likes of Bobby Jones. There is no neutrality issue by listing just the LPGA majors since that is by far the dominant tour. Otherwise, since the LET has no particular standing over and above the Japan and Korea tours, what about the World Ladies Championship Salonpas Cup, Japan LPGA Championship, Japan Women's Open Golf Championship, Japan LPGA Tour Championship (Japan LPGA); Korea Women's Open, KLPGA Championship, Hite Cup Championship, KB Star Tour Grand Final (Korean LPGA). Note, I am not suggesting these be included, but that we only include the LPGA majors for a reason, and it should be noted that they are LPGA majors. Likewise, should the senior majors be included (which I still see no reason for), it should be noted that they are Champions Tour majors, but there would be no need to include other tour's majors. _wjemather^bigissue 09:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of the harsh incendiary rhetoric of Wjemather, but I will continue to work with you on this matter to come to a conclusion and resolution. So, I am wondering are you telling me to re-input The Champions Tour majors back into the infobox, which I would be glad to title it Champions Tour majors like the LPGA Majors for the women. I will leave out the Evian Masters, but I really see no reason not to put it in, but if you don't want it, I will give in on that point!BLUE_DOG^TN 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

HERE is the updated example, as per Wjemather's suggestions!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the infobox is fine the way it is:

1. The LPGA Tour majors are definitely the only ones that have standing worldwide. For instance, the WGHOF criteria for non-LPGA international female golfers gives extra weight to the LPGA majors but not the LET (or JLPGA, etc) majors.
2. The women's U.S. and British Amateurs have never had the standing that the male counterparts had.
3. The senior majors are just not important enough to a player's overall career to warrant inclusion in the infobox. One can argue that only two players have been inducted into the WGHOF based in large part on their senior tour career - Juan "Chi-Chi" Rodríguez and Bob Charles (golfer). But Charles never won a senior major and Rodríguez only won two. For both golfers, there combined PGA Tour/Senior PGA Tour/international careers were what made them stand out.
4. The men's U.S. and British Amateur's definitely were held in as high regard pre-WWII as the men's majors are today - otherwise Bobby Jones's 1930 grand slam would not be regarded as such an amazing feat.
5. Caddies are not notable enough in general to be included in the infobox - I don't think any caddy would even have an article on Wikipedia (few do) if they didn't caddie for the very top golfers. (Which caddie has the most majors wins? maybe Steve Williams but these records don't seem to have been kept).

Bottom line - leave the infobox the way it is. Tewapack (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say if you think all senior majors are non-important because of the PGA Tour careers of these golfers, you're simply wrong, just go look at Loren Roberts, Miller Barber, Doug Tewell, Allen Doyle, Gil Morgan, Jay Haas, Mike Reid, Eduardo Romero, Fred Funk, Graham Marsh, and Peter Jacobsen. This list alone justifies the inclusion of The Champions Tour majors in the infoboxes, which is a better synapses of the golfers careers. So, are these golfers less imporant to have their majors, which they are in fact majors, as part of the infobox?BLUE_DOG^TN 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Champions Tour majors are a big deal to the HOF, go look at even the article you cited for the women's majors!BLUE_DOG^TN 20:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say they were non-important, I said "not important enough to a player's overall career to warrant inclusion in the infobox". Yes there have been golfers whose senior careers were much better than their regular careers - but there has been no rush to induct these players into the WGHOF or even get them on the ballot:

• Marsh only got 20% on the International ballot in 2009
• Barber only got 10% on the PGA/Champions Tour ballot in 2009
• Haas got only 3% in 2009
• Morgan was dropped from the ballot after 2 years
• Roberts needs one more win to even get on the ballot
• Doyle would have to win another senior major to get on the ballot
• Tewell, Reid, Romero, Funk, and Jacobsen are nowhere close to getting on the ballot

For international players, a CT major counts the same as a regular CT event. Tewapack (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Tewapack good job, bravo! This is how Wjemather you get me to back off of an idea not just making assertions and rhetoric because I like objective evidence! I am a tough wikipedian to deal with and please because anything that goes on in life and on wikipedia must be challenged, critiqued, and criticized with vigor, in order to make wikipedia and our world a better place! WP:Civil does not mean you don't engage in tough conversations for the sake of niceties because they are a fact of life because without them we would not have half of the content on this encyclopedia the way it is right now.BLUE_DOG^TN 01:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like a thing in the wins column under champions tour wins to include champions tour major wins with a number of total major wins!!BLUE_DOG^TN 01:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is easily accomplished. Say for Loren Roberts put in "| champwins = 11 (4 majors)" in the infobox. Tewapack (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I like Jay Haas example! What do you think?BLUE_DOG^TN 01:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I will be gone for a couple of days because I just started and new temporary job! I will be back soon, so if you all can get to it, go ahead and fix the infobox with the new standards. We need to highly encouage that if any user updates the articles they link the numbers with the relevant part of the article like Jay Haas.02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tewapack's suggestion is much neater, should it be deemed absolutely necessary to highlight CT majors in the infobox.
Please stop using live articles for testing – as you know sandboxes are available. Incidentally, I do not generally feel it is necessary to spell out the patently obvious, and it is especially difficult when you keep moving the goalposts. _wjemather^bigissue 09:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to work out a middle ground compromise because champions tour majors deserve to be highlighted in the infoboxes if even in so a mininsucle of a way!BLUE_DOG^TN 02:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Flagship events inclusion in the infobox?

The european tour believes it a necessary part to highlight so-called Flagship events in their biography sections in their media guide, which leads me to believe, we should do that on wikipedia if a major golf tour does so! The link to the PDF document is here. They put the majors,wgc's, BMW PGA, and Race to Dubai in this section, which the pgatours flagship is the players' championship! I just believe wjemather is highly wrong on significance of events, which the european tour is on my side in this matter!69.137.120.81 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Senior major, I will bring it back up because I forgot to look at the HOF site and they highlight senior major it the scorecard, which they title it Professional majors. I think that they should be included if the HOF thinks to includes them, which it does not exactly matter how you get in they site them for all their Hall-of-famer's.69.137.120.81 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course the PGA Tour and the ET have a vested interest in promoting their flagship events. The question is, do the rest of the world hold these events in the same reverence. The answer is no, and nor should we. The same goes, as before, for the Champions Tour majors. _wjemather^bigissue 08:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What in the HELL!

Everytime I want to even make an insignificant change it gets rebuked by either Crunch or Wjemather, I think you all have claimed OWN over this and will not let it microscopically be changed! I want to add a few more awards for golfers, I want to add flagship wins, I want to add senior majors bam bam bam, no, no, no way! I wish I would have know that this template would have been ridgid before it was implement and I would have faught it most assuridely harder!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I would be happy with this because it will make the infobox non-ambigious to all to edit. This takes out all Senior Majors, All Flagship events, All Awards because they need to be removed to a separate awards section for all golfers and the infobox would lead to that section!69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Discussion moved from WT:GOLF

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

I believe the intention is that for golfers with a small number of awards, they can be listed in the Infobox. For golfers with a longer list, they should be listed in a separate section. --Crunch (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Put all in awards section and remove from infobox for even the smaller ones because you are diminshing the significant golfers careers in the infobox when you do that!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think deletion from the infobox of the awards and achievements section is completely and entirely necessary because it is not only that but it is ambigous and the information is better left to the body of the article for all golfers!69.137.120.81 (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All my gripes would be over if we go with this template User:Bluedogtn/Sandbox, No Senior Majors, No Flagship events, No Awards, No Problem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely relevant to include the awards in the infobox. However, it is simply not possible to list them all for people like Woods or Nicklaus. Conversely it is not necessary to have an awards section for someone who only has one or two, when they would just be mentioned in the body of the article. _wjemather^bigissue 09:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't care anymore, you all come up with a uniform conclusion to this matter amongst yourselves, I am out!69.137.120.81 (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you were not able to conduct yourself here in a mature and constructive manner. You might have had some useful contributions. Enjoy your retirement (?) --Crunch (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You haven't either because you just don't delete constructive edits like mine for the sake of your worthless vanity! You are a divisive editor on wikipedia as well!69.137.120.81 (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Crunch, Why don't you go ahead and make the golf articles a double standard and hypocritical, just look at Se Ri Pak and Karrie Webb, who has their awards listed, but you fail to keep the same standards for Lorena Ochoa or Annika Sorenstam, how sad on your part! See if you can go on living with yourself having diminished their infoboxes on their biographies.69.137.120.81 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of extra awards again, since they were added with the sole purpose of bloating the infobox on Tiger Woods – I have also reverted the addition of the awards there. I can only echo what Crunch has said while adding that further pointy, disruptive edits and personal attacks can not be tolerated. _wjemather^bigissue 08:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then get me blocked! I can't stand for hypocracy!69.137.120.81 (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)