Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request: Article Structure for a Golf Course

Could someone develop a suggested article structure guide for a Golf Course? Wikiproject Rivers has a very nice Guide how to develop and expand a river article. Something like this would be very useful to me. Gamweb (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Byron Nelson under GA review

Hello there, the above article, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Sounding Off

The new golfer template for the infoboxes are not in line with wikipedia articles of other individuals and personality and should be reverted back to the old ones and be in line with other wikipedia articles or else it is violating the consistency standards with concern to other articles such as tennis players and even other golfers. You would not create a tennis player box for a tennis player so this needs to be rectified immediately by a vote of all members of the wikipedia community and the founders of this site. People should know by looking at the article not the infobox whether the person is a golfer or tennis player of basketball player this violates the consistency standards that wikipedia is built upon. Bluedogtn (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Where on Earth did you get this idea? Nearly every major sport has a customised infobox used for articles on personalities from that sport; certainly tennis players do (it's called {{Infobox Tennis biography}}). Golfers should most certainly follow suit. I'm in the process of converting {{infobox Golfer}} to use the {{infobox}} base class, which should make it much easier to maintain and update. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Golfer infoboxes -- which one are we using?

Look at this page for a more objective template: Template:Infobox Golfer Alternate

I created a new article for Katherine Hull today using the infobox format found on the articles for, for example, Phil Mickelson and Annika Sörenstam. Shortley thereafter, User_talk:Wjemather came along and changed the infobo format. The same format appears to be used in Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, and perhaps others. I like the new template so I left a note on Wjemather's talk page thanking him for the work. Low and behold, it appears there is some dspute about the new template. See User_talk:Wjemather#Golfer_Infoboxes and User talk:Bluedogtn. Can someone tell me what the preferred infobox of Project Golf is before I waste my time with extraneous editing and thanking of editors who are acting in opposition to accepted policy? thanks very much. --Crunch (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think things in the so-called golfer infoboxes should have never been change to the golfer infoboxes and should have remained the same throughout because you would not change all tennis players over to a tennis player box because wikipedia has set standards for how articles are suppose to look. I favor the old ones because they have been on here for years and have caused no consternation until Wjemather made it an issue. I favor consistancy and not random changes in the infobox area. Thanks Bluedogtn (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason that there are new infoboxes is that the old ones aren't templates, which they should be. If you would like to make the old one into a template, feel free to. I agree that the old ones are good, but the new ones have the same information pretty much, are easier to implement, and require less code on each page. Grovermj 03:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you all going to go do Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Phil Mickelson, and Bobby Jones. By the way you have to go back and do the insignifacant golfers like Matt Kuchar and others like him. This is a sorry waste of your time. Changes should not be made in haste or abruptly like has happened with the so-called golfer template infobox instead of the previous standard infobox. Plus you would have to do the LPGA and European Tour Champions Tour players like Karrie Webb Annika Sorenstam Se Ri Pak and Ian Poulter Darren Clarke Padraig Harrington Colin Montgomerie Brad Bryant Hale Irwin. The reason I am giving you all this limited but long list is to show you the error of your ways in radically changing the infoboxes because it would be a lesson in futility! Bluedogtn (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods
Personal information
Full name	Eldrick Tont Woods
Nickname	Tiger
Height	6 ft 1 in (1.85 m)
Weight	185 lb (84 kg; 13.2 st)
Sporting nationality	United States
Residence	Windermere, Florida
Spouse	Elin Nordegren (m.2004)
Children	Sam Alexis ((2007-06-18)June 18, 2007, 17 years) Charlie Axel ((2009-02-08)February 8, 2009, 15 years)
Career
College	Stanford University (two years)
Turned professional	1996
Current tour(s)	PGA Tour (joined 1996)
Professional wins	89
Highest ranking	1 (June 15, 1997) (683 weeks)
Number of wins by tour
PGA Tour	65 (3rd all time)
Other	24
Best results in major championships (wins: 14)
Masters Tournament	Won: 1997, 2001, 2002, 2005
PGA Championship	Won: 1999, 2000, 2006, 2007
U.S. Open	Won: 2000, 2002, 2008
The Open Championship	Won: 2000, 2005, 2006
Achievements and awards
(For a full list of awards, see here)

Arnold Palmer
Personal Information
Birth	(1929-09-10) September 10, 1929 Latrobe, Pennsylvania
Height	5 ft 10 in (1.78 m)
Weight	185 lb (84 kg)
Nationality	United States
Residence	Latrobe, Pennsylvania Orlando, Florida
College	Wake Forest University
Career
Turned Pro	1954
Tours	PGA Tour (joined 1955) Champions Tour (joined 1980)
Professional wins (94)
PGA Tour	62 (5th all time)
Champions Tour	10
Other	17 (Regular) 5 (Senior)
Best Results in Major Championships Wins: 7
Masters	Won 1958, 1960, 1962, 1964
U.S. Open	Won 1960
British Open	Won 1961, 1962
PGA Championship	T2: 1964, 1968, 1970
Awards
PGA Tour Money Winner	1958, 1960, 1962, 1963
PGA Player of the Year	1960, 1962
Vardon Trophy	1961, 1962, 1964, 1967
Old Tom Morris Award	1983

Both are templates my friend Bluedogtn (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See how the first is organised? The second one is just a table which has stuff like the colour of the rows etc which isnt on the first one, because the first one is a template. The template is also a way of standardising each infobox. Using the second one it could be changed for each article. Grovermj 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This one (3rd) is my example of a better one that will match wikipedia's consistency standards b/c the golfer image needs to be taken off and the top made all white with bold black letters for the name and gray for the subheaddings so it is not construde as a masters champion for all golfers and is objective to all majors being gray instead of green! Bluedogtn (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Golfer Alternate
| name              = Tiger Woods
| image             = Tiger Woods 2007.jpg
| fullname          = Eldrick Tont Woods
| nickname          = Tiger	
| birthdate         = {{birth date and age|mf=yes|1975|12|30}}
| birthplace        = [[Cypress, California]]
| deathdate         = <!-- {{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|1975|12|30}} -->
| deathplace        = 
| height            = {{Height|ft=6|in=1}}
| weight            = {{convert|185|lb|kg st}}
| nationality       = {{USA}}
| residence         = [[Windermere, Florida]]
| spouse            = [[Elin Nordegren]] (m.2004)
| partner           = 
| children          = Sam Alexis ({{birthdate|2007|6|18}}, {{age for infant|2007|6|18}})<br>Charlie Axel ({{birthdate|2009|2|8}}, {{age for infant|2009|2|8}})
| college           = [[Stanford University]] (two years)
| yearpro           = 1996
| retired           = <!-- Year retired -->
| tour              = [[PGA Tour]] (joined 1996)
| prowins           = 89
| pgawins           = [[List of career achievements by Tiger Woods#PGA Tour wins (65)|65]] ([[Golfers with most PGA Tour wins|3rd all time]])
| eurowins          = <!-- Number of European Tour wins -->
| champwins         = <!-- Number of Champions Tour wins -->
| otherwins         = [[List of career achievements by Tiger Woods#Other professional wins (24)|24]]
| majorwins         = 14
| masters           = '''Won''': [[1997 Masters Tournament|1997]], [[2001 Masters Tournament|2001]], [[2002 Masters Tournament|2002]], [[2005 Masters Tournament|2005]]
| usopen            = '''Won''': [[2000 U.S. Open Golf Championship|2000]], [[2002 U.S. Open Golf Championship|2002]], [[2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship|2008]]
| open              = '''Won''': [[2000 Open Championship|2000]], [[2005 Open Championship|2005]], [[2006 Open Championship|2006]]
| pga               = '''Won''': [[1999 PGA Championship|1999]], [[2000 PGA Championship|2000]], [[2006 PGA Championship|2006]], [[2007 PGA Championship|2007]]
| wghofid           = <!-- World Golf Hall of Fame member ID -->
| wghofyear         = <!-- World Golf Hall of Fame year inducted -->
| awardssection     = List of career achievements by Tiger Woods#Awards
}}

Bluedogtn, as far as I can tell, here and elsewhere, you like objecting to color schemes. Your alternate infobox is identical in every other way! This WikiProject has light green banners, so presumably we are biased towards The Masters? Nonsense, green is an appropriate, and I think natural, colour to use for golf infoboxes/navboxes, although I have no objection to a different colour being used.
As for style, the infobox just needs to comply with WP:MOS, it does not need to mimic other biography infoboxes, which vary hugely. The golfer icon simply makes it immediately clear that the article is golf related, which is why I added it. FYI, the French wiki uses a very similar style – Tiger Woods. If any change is to be made, it should be done to Template:Infobox Golfer, rather than creating a second template.
Finally, there are more golfer articles without infoboxes than those that do, and all articles should have an infobox template, rather than an ad hoc table. Yes, it is a lot of work, but that's just the way it is. _wjemather^bigissue 10:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to use the ones that don't have it to make the old template to be ununiform, and just go look at other sports areas they don't put a tennis player icon in the infobox and don't color the infobox either. Except putting gray like it is in the Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal pages, so I believe this should be good for golf as well. Just because the french wikipedia site uses this hideous template does not mean the English one has to adopt it the Spanish one does not even have them at all. Bluedogtn (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I really have no objection to any other colour being used, be it grey, or anything else, I was just trying to explain why I did it that way. Incidentally, many other biography infoboxes do use colour throughout including the header, e.g. Template:Infobox Actor, Template:Infobox Pope, Template:Infobox Pirate, etc. I would be perfectly happy to go with your light grey & no banner version.
In the meantime, I have created a sandbox and testcases for Template:Infobox Golfer and copied your (Bluedogtn's) alternate to the sandbox. There should be only one template, so to avoid any potential confusion, I would suggest Template:Infobox Golfer Alternate now be deleted. _wjemather^bigissue 13:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. That cleared things up! (Not). Since I'm the one who posed the question and since I've probably created and edited more golfer articles on Wikipedia than anyone here, at least in the last three years, I think I'll chose the new green one at the top, at least for non-PGA players. As I understand it, while option 3 is more inline with the Wikipedia template standards, I'm going to have problems with it if I try to use it for a player who plays on, say, the LPGA. Correct me if I'm wrong. Remember, my original question had to do with adding a new article for Katherine Hull. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption. In the meantime, I'm off to create a new article for one of the new stars of the LPGA, Vicky Hurst. --Crunch (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Update

(breaking section because of all the floating boxes)

I've updated {{infobox Golfer}} to use the {{infobox}} base class - this makes it much easier to maintain in the long run, especially as the colour of the headers can be altered by the addition of a single attribute - we can easily set different colours for Masters players, for instance. If there are any questions please let me know. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am satisfied! By the way you can delete mine! Bluedogtn (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that should be end end of it! _wjemather^bigissue 17:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, great. Further discussion of the exact styling and content of the infobox can take place at template talk:infobox Golfer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! This is excellent. See follow-up discussion WRT addition of tour categories at template talk:infobox Golfer. --Crunch (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Standardising infobox templates

Now we have a standardised infobox for biographies, can we also do the same for our other infoboxes? I have created a sandbox and testcases for each of the following, to show the results.

Template:Infobox Golf Tournament (sandbox testcases)

Template:Infobox Individual Golf Tournament (sandbox testcases)

Template:Infobox Golf Facility (sandbox testcases)

What do we think? _wjemather^bigissue 12:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New NavBox?

I was wondering if anybody thinks the Players and Tour Championships should have NavBoxes like these that I took time to create! {{The Players Championship champions}} {{The Tour Championship champions}}! Bluedogtn (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally think that we should stop these at the major championships, if there are too many of these around pages will get cluttered. If you start with the players championship and the tour championship, where would it stop? I think majors are a good stopping point. Grovermj 09:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A line has to be drawn somewhere and the Majors seems like a reasonable place. _wjemather^bigissue 11:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you do it for everything it will just get crowded. DeMoN2009 13:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree and the PGA Players of the Year Navbox needs to be deleted too! It allows for a slippery slop for all of the other tours doing the same thing which would be redundant too.Bluedogtn (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated all of them for deletion. TfD discussion here, please have your say. _wjemather^bigissue 02:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Update on Golfer Infobox Implementation!

I have done all the PGA and Masters Champions that did not have them done already, and got them up to date on the new standards! I still have left to do the US and Open Champions! _BLuE^DOgTn 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How about listing how many infoboxes we have converted each here, and the one that converts the most gets an award? Just a suggestion. Grovermj 03:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a list of the ones that are one time major champions that have not been done yet! _BLuE^DOgTn 04:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

One time winners of the U.S. Open not done http://usga.usopen.com/history/past-champions.html Laurie Auchterlonie,Tommy Bolt,Billy Burke (golfer),Michael Campbell,Angel Cabrera,Chick Evans,Johnny Farrell,Jack Fleck,James Foulis,Ed Furgol,Johnny Goodman,Fred Herd,Steve Jones (golfer),Lawson Little,Joe Lloyd,Willie Macfarlane,Tony Manero,Lloyd Mangrum wikitable,Dick Mayer,Fred McLeod,Orville Moody,Francis Ouimet,Sam Parks, Jr.,Horace Rawlins,Alec Ross,George Sargent (golfer),Willie Smith (golfer),Jerome Travers,Ken Venturi,Cyril Walker,Lew Worsham. _BLuE^DOgTn 04:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

One time winners of the Open Championship that have yet to be done

http://www.opengolf.com/ChampionshipGolf/TheOpenChampionship/History/PreviousOpens.aspx?eventid=2008060&view= William Auchterlonie,John Ball (golfer),Ian Baker-Finch,David Brown (golfer),Jack Burns (golfer),Richard Burton (golfer),Bob Charles (golfer),Fred Daly (golfer),Roberto DeVicenzo,George Duncan (golfer),Max Faulkner,Willie Fernie (golfer),Todd Hamilton,Arthur Havers,Sandy Herd,Tom Kidd (golfer),Hugh Kirkaldy,Tony Lema,Arnaud Massy,Kel Nagle,Alf Padgham,Mungo Park (golfer),Alf Perry,Jack Simpson,Andrew Strath,Tom Weiskopf,Reg Whitcombe,Jack White (golfer). _BLuE^DOgTn 04:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All of these have to have the wikitable for the major and the golfer infobox added to them, which the other two majors are done! By the way on the open golf in the drop down menu they have the end of round three so you can find it after 54 holes!_BLuE^DOgTn 04:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done about 20 so far, mostly LPGA players and a few PGA and Champions Tour players, also cleanup of conversions done by others. Don't have time to list them all. --Crunch (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to list them here so that others' when they have spare time can get to those and get them done evenually! I did not want others' to go searching when I had the info to help them make the edit easier, and a less time consuming and tedious task! Today is my bday thy fifth!_BLuE^DOgTn 01:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are so many it is not really possible to keep track of them all. I don't think they is any way of taking away from the tedium of the task, but at least we can use it as an opportunity to do some housekeeping by updating and improving articles while we are there! _wjemather^bigissue 02:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the ones done so-far! Good JOB EDITORS!_BLuE^DOgTn 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Open Champions Done Tom Weiskopf, Ian Baker-Finch, Bob Charles, Roberto DeVicenzo, Todd Hamilton, Tony Lema,

US Open Champions Done Johnny Farrell, Willie Macfarlane, Tommy Bolt, Michael Campbell, Angel Cabrera, Steve Jones

I got an Idea!?

How about we create a timeline and a page comparing and contrasting the careers of Tiger Woods Versus Jack Nicklaus, and/or other golfers if/as needed! Also, in the majors, too!_BLuE^DOgTn 02:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would be the best idea - this would mean people writing articles to compare golfers, which they could do by looking at the two golfers pagers. I don't think it's a good idea. DeMoN2009 19:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I do in fact agree with the DeMon of Demons'!_BLuE^DOgTn 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Green Bay Country Club

Another editor has begun an article on Green Bay Country Club. Perhaps a member of this project could expand the article and add further references. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:12, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Automated stub creation

I know a bit about golf, and as a bot owner I'd like to help in the creation of stub biographies for professional (i.e. notable) golfers. I have chosen for my first targets every golfer playing on the 2009 European Tour, and I've drawn up a list of those concerned here. If I've already added "(golfer)" it means the main page with that name is not about a golfer. This is where I need your expertise:

1. The list needs to be checked for errors. I've had AWB do most of that for me, but the biggest help would be finding those golfers who are redlinked on the list because of bad capitalisation, differing contractions and so forth.
2. The second thing to be decided is how the stub page should look. In this sense, I am lacking a lot of important information, and desperately require a good online source for uncopyrightable details such as age, nationality etc. My current best effort is here.

Hopefully, we could end up with a thousand more golfers (143 from the European Tour at the very least) deservedly represented on Wikipedia.

- Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thousand of freely licensed photos

Take a look at this photo stream from Flickr. There are almost 7,00 photos, all taken by a professional sports photographer (all of them his), and they're all licensed as CC-BY-SA. So if you have any need of a good golf picture, I would advise you look through this treasure trove of images. Also, if you could add any newly uploaded photos on the Commons to Category:LPGA photos taken by Keith Allison or Category:PGA photos taken by Keith Allison, that would be great. Thanks, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Champions Gate Golf Course

I just noticed that Champions Gate (a golf course near Orlando, Florida) was deleted without any AfD discussion. Gamweb (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Julian Taylor (golf)

Hi, could a member of this project please check if this guy Julian Taylor (golf) is notable enough to deserve an article? Thanks and best wishes.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods:European Tour Wins?

I think Tiger Woods needs to be listed at number three on the most European Tour wins list table. He has won them mostly in Majors and WGC events but that does not diminish this accomplishment since all are sanctioned as European Tour Events!GOLFAUTHORITY 00:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already updated this to match the European Tour Player Guide! GOLFAUTHORITY 01:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Open Championship Courses Navbox

What do you all think about this!GOLFAUTHORITY 05:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I have converted it to use the standard navbox template as a base. _wjemather^bigissue 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Job! Love IT!!GOLFAUTHORITY 01:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Review needed

There seems to be an edit war at Scotty Cameron with one user apparently representing the person. It seems to be about who designed the putters, golf isn't my thing. :P BJ^Talk 07:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That isn't the only problem. Most of the lead is copied directly from here. There are also no refs to speak of. _wjemather^bigissue 10:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead rewritten and ref added. As for the edit war, I haven't the time to look into it right now. _wjemather^bigissue 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle at Bighorn and the Showdown at Sherwood?

These should be included on Tiger Woods (All), Sergio Garcia (Bighorn 2000; Bighorn 3, 2002), David Duval (Sherwood, 1999; Bighorn 2, 2001), Annika Sorenstam (Bighorn 2, 2001), Karrie Webb (Bighorn 2, 2001), Jack Nicklaus (Bighorn 3, 2002), Lee Trevino (Bighorn 3, 2002), pages on this encyclopedia! GOLFAUTHORITY 03:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please participate in tournament earnings parameter discussion

At template_talk:Infobox_Golfer#Earnings, I note (with examples) that the total earnings a player accumulates at tournaments is public information often included in reputable sources; I propose adding an optional "earnings" (or "tournament earnings) field to {{Infobox Golfer}}. Please join the discussion. Thanks. 68.167.253.239 (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Golf Clubs Footer Template

Just want to give this project a heads up (not sure how active it is). I rewrote the article on Lob wedge (I am going to work on writing/citing several golf articles in the near future. However, as part of this expansion (in line with what a lot of other projects do), I created a footer navigation template for golf clubs {{Golf Clubs}}. Feel free to check it out and provide feedback. I am looking forward to working with this project over the new couple of months.

Looks good so far – I look forward to seeing more. FYI: I have moved your navbox to the existing templates category. _wjemather^bigissue 09:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I looked around for that but could not find it. I also checked the other big golf topics and did not see templates either so i created a new cat. thanks!Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods GAR

Tiger Woods has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Irish Open (golf) venues nominated for deletion

In my view, another example of excessive navboxing. Adds nothing to the articles as this tournament has no fixed home, and opens the door for similar navboxes for other low level tournaments. Have your say. TfD discussion here. _wjemather^bigissue 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:East Lothian Golf Courses

Template:East Lothian Golf Courses has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. GOLFAUTHORITY 16:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GolfAuthority says what?

I am done with wikipedia and have lost my passion for this site! I am never coming back, so GOOD DAY, GOD BLESS, GOOD LIFE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A hyphen is not a minus sign

Please look at this edit. Notice the great difference in appearance:

-5

−5

(If one is doing subtraction rather than identifying negative numbers, then one also uses spacing, thus):

3-5

3−5

3 − 5

The last of the three above is the correct one. But for negative numbers such as those in golf articles, no space should be between the minus sign and the number. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean great as in fantastic, rather than great as in huge. Incidentally, MOS:MATH makes precisely zero mention of negatives or minuses, but there are several references at WP:MOS. _wjemather^bigissue 22:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The content created here gets stealed!

Wikipedia is a fraud, which they proclaim is a free encyclopedia, but it is far from that because they use the content editors create for profit on another site called http://www.answers.com/ By the way, go look for yourselves if you don't believe me, which is one major reason that I am leaving, as well as dealing with the wikicommunity crap! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody's always known that. How can there be a question of whether someone believes it? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Golf Wedge Merges

User name one (talk · contribs) has merged all of the wedge articles into a single article. I disagree with this merge and would like to engage in discussion. I think there should be a wedge intro article with links to the main articles. I cannot find any discussion on this so figured I would start one here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate a little bit more. I think each of the wedges has enough independent content to have there own article (with history and stuff. I spent a good amount of time putting together the lob wedge article (I actually spent all of the time finding references). There was even more on the other wedges out there. Based on this information, I think it is best to keep them separate. We can have a feeder article or something of the sort with a brief summary of wedges, how they are part of the iron family, a brief history. (Something like the article on the Pitot static system where there are individual sections in the article on the instruments however they are redirected to the main article. This allows for a high level overview of the wedge but if a reader wants more information they can go further down to get more information on the history. This is just my two cents, and I am open to other ideas. I just think that unilaterally moving stuff like that is against the wiki-spirit (while it is kind of an WP:BOLD and WP:IAR move which I understand, I still disagree with it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a single article on wedges may suffice as there is so much common ground, especially now that wedges are commonly sold according to loft rather than name. It really depends on the amount of content for each article. There may well be enough to warrant separate articles for sand wedge and pitching wedge, and possibly lob wedge, but unlikely for gap wedge. One thing is for sure, ultra lob wedge does not merit a separate article as a sub-type of lob wedge.
As an aside, the lead paragraphs for these articles (except lob wedge) are especially poor – higher and shorter than a 9 iron/pitching/gap/sand wedge but lower and longer than a gap/sand/lob wedge – not exactly providing any degree of clarity for anyone who is not already familiar with the subject. And the sand wedge article makes no mention of sand in the lead! _wjemather^bigissue 12:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, i agree ther eis probably no need for an independent article on the gap wedge. I also agree there is no need for a separate article on ultra-lob wedge (i think it should be included in the article on lob wedge). I do think the others have enough citable content on there history to merit individual articles (For example, looking at the lob wedge article, do you think that is enough content for its own article?)Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It all really depends on a properly constructed wedge (golf) article, which needs plenty of work. Once that is done, everything will become a lot clearer. _wjemather^bigissue 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ultra lob should not be merged to lob wedge. some ultra lobs could not possibly be called a lob, such as this one.[1] (it has a 72 degree loft) Username 1 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Of course an ultra lob wedge is a type of lob wedge. The clue is in the name. _wjemather^bigissue 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wjemather here. First, there is little to no actual content about ultra lob wedegs in the form of references (used to cite what we add). What little does exist is almost ALWAYS in conjunction with content on regular lob wedges. Second of all, bgased on what I said above, there is not enough content for an article on ultra lob wedges to be a stand alone article. I am sure if at some point in the future there becomes a wealth of information on the ultra lob wedge, a separate article may be right. However until that time I think it needs to be a part of the Lob Wedge article. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I also fail to see anything that could possibly go into numbered irons (golf) that would not already be covered in iron (golf). _wjemather^bigissue 21:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I hope there are no objections to me recent implementation of an archive structure, and archiving this talk page? I know i did it kind of unilaterally (and i just got on someboy else about making those kind of decisions). I decided to be bold but wanted to make sure there were no objections. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem here. Certainly needed doing, and was something I had planned to do myself, but never got round to. _wjemather^bigissue 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

John Panton

Is John Panton on the to-do list for new articles? His recent death has created a bit of media interest in him, and as well as being at the time of his death the oldest ex-Ryder Cup player, there can't be many 3-time RC players without an article on here. I don't know much about him (ie nothing until reading his obituary) but a brief scan on here shows he also won, and finished runner-up in, the British PGA Matchplay, and won the British Seniors. I think he has a good case for an article. Thanks, EJBH (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He was on the requested articles list. Now created. _wjemather^bigissue 11:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

very efficient, I'm impressed! EJBH (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of golf?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are, but why would an outline article be helpful/necessary? Given a well written and properly linked Golf article, a contents page is not required. _wjemather^bigissue 08:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

World Golf Index

Non-notable rankings system? Have your say: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Golf Index (2nd nomination) _wjemather^bigissue 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox for The Solheim Cup

The Solheim Cup should have an infobox similar to what we have for The Ryder Cup. I'd make one if I knew how. I think we can Template:Infobox_Ryder_Cup and just change the name. Can someone do this? --Crunch (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, created it, basically just a copy of the Ryder Cup one. I added it to the 2009 article. I did change the title at the top to say "2009 Solheim Cup" rather than "11th Solheim Cup Matches"... is there any common reference to it using the numbers? Everything I see, including programs and tickets, use "2009 Solheim Cup" and the like. The Ryder Cup is a bit different that way... Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think these could and should be merged to produce a generic team golf event infobox that could then also be used for the Presidents Cup, Walker Cup, Seve Trophy, etc. _wjemather^bigissue 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate template

I have discovered a duplicate infobox template and nominated it for deletion. See WP:Templates for deletion#Template:Golf Course Infobox. _wjemather^bigissue 07:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Updates to Golf Channel page

Hi,

I work for Golf Channel and I noticed a few things on the page are outdated. For example there are lot of talent that no longer work for Golf Channel that should be added to the Former Talent section. Also there are some incorrect titles for the current talent. Finally the HD logo that is on the page is the incorrect logo. Is it ok if I go ahead and make those updates or is there someone I can contact to make the appropriate updates? Please let me know. Sept 28, 2009

Thanks,

Debra

Go ahead, but please be mindful of amongst others WP:COI and WP:NPOV, and cite sources wherever possible. As far as the logo is concerned, any update would still need to comply with WP:FUI and WP:LOGO. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 21:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Great thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.254.253 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Golf tournament question; The Royal Trophy

Hi. The Wikimedia Foundation received an e-mail complaining about inaccuracies in the above article. I have examined the article and addressed most of the issues raised by the correspondent, who is affiliated with the tournament. However, one assertion remains in the article (now tagged dubious), as I have no idea whether the article's authors or our correspondent is correct. I don't believe you need a specific knowledge of this tournament to help out. If you're at all familiar with or interested in international golf tournaments, please take a look at Talk:The Royal Trophy#Dubious to see if you can help out. (Also, the article could do with general improvement, if anybody wants to take it on. I need to remain neutral...and moreover, I know absolutely nothing about golf. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup Listing?

Is anyone in this project interested in a WolterBot cleanup listing? Although I don't do much work with this project, I find that cleanup listings are useful tools in my editing. I have no idea how to set this up, but I just wanted to bring up the topic. I just wanted to raise the issue, I'll let the project's more active members discuss the idea now. Kithira (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea that existed. Seems like a very useful tool! Grovermj 07:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

TPC Changes

I would like peoples opinion of removing the "of"s and "at"s off of the TPC courses as the PGA TOUR did as part of a rebranding effort in 2006. For verification tpc.com shows the names of all the courses for both private and public. These are not just any courses in my eyes but PGA TOUR courses, I believe this should be corrected not only on the TPC Network page but also on all the course pages. Lastly TPC is no longer known as Tournament Players Club, it is just TPC. This was also part of the rebranding effort along with adding a pill box around the logo. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.190.32 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods career biography

This would be similar to Roger Federer career biography, which was done because of the horrendous article length issues. So, what do you all think about this?BLUE_DOG^TN 22:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not going to happen, did not reach consensus, because it makes articles bare and unreadable.BLUE_DOG^TN 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

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

Chris Rodgers

Resolved

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

W. H. Diddle

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

Unreferenced living people articles bot

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

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

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

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Archive 2/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone rate these

Resolved

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

• The Vivendi
• Open Calla Millor Mallorca

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

I rated them both as stubs, but you are doing a good job! Keep up the good work on wikipedia!BLUE_DOG^TN 00:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Assessment#Requests for assessment is the place to list these for assessment. _wjemather^bigissue 09:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

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

Major championship wikitables!

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

Golf at the Summer Olympics

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

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

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)

This belongs on the infobox talk page. _wjemather^bigissue 16:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Major Championship yearly navboxes

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Masters_Tournaments&oldid=361629669
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:U.S._Open_Golf_Championships&oldid=361630638
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:The_Open_Championships&oldid=361631310
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PGA_Championship&oldid=361631721

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

Obviously, it was the unnecessary width changes that was the primary reason for the reversion. _wjemather^bigissue 11:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Moved to Template talk:Infobox golfer

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

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)

I have moved this discussion to the template talk page, where it belongs. _wjemather^bigissue 09:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article that needs help!

Resolved

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

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

Captain John Porteous

Resolved

At Talk:Captain_John_Porteous#Golf someone has asked if the Captain John Porteous who was lynched in Edinburgh in 1736 in the Porteous Riots so vividly described in The Heart of Midlothian is the same person who played "A solemn match of golf" in 1724. Many web sources say it is the same person but have clearly copied Wikipedia, often without attribution and sometimes usurping copyright. [2] says it is the same person with an appearance of authority (but copying may have occured to or from WP). However [3] which might be preferred says the match was in 1659 so this must have been a different Captain JP (or mistaken!). Can anyone help? Thincat (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved, I believe. _wjemather^bigissue 09:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Golf related article at AFD

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

Golf instructors

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

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

Hi,

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

Men's major golf championships -> Major Championships

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not misrepresent my actions by quoting out of context. Firstly, you attempted to perform a controversial move without discussion. Secondly, you did not move the page but cut and pasted the contents, which loses the page history. Thirdly, you isolated a single article disregarding the many related articles, templates and categories that for consistency's sake would also need to be changed. Now you are just adding more stuff to your list as you happen across it, which makes it too chaotic to have a proper discussion about your suggestion.
Anyway, it is not incorrect or redundant for the word golf to be included in many of these cases – there are events that are considered major championships in many other arenas (a quick google search makes that obvious), for example soccer (FIFA World Cup, European Championships, etc.), motor sport (the FIA have a list of designated major championships), etc. Also, the word golf is often included as a necessary qualifier by third party sources as it alerts the readership as to the fact that it is golf that is the subject.
The major championships are a notional thing and as such should not be capitalised, even though the phrase sometimes is. Finally, if it is agreed that something does need to be done, then a full list of affected articles should be drawn up before any action is taken so that any changes can be done in a planned and coordinated manner. _wjemather^bigissue 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, there is a fair argument that "The Majors" (and "the majors") could equally refer to Major League Baseball so should be a disambiguation page. _wjemather^bigissue 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I did put in a discussion. No one responded, and still haven't responded. I'm not sure what you expect me to do if I put something up for a year and no one answers. I was following the BE BOLD WP guideline since no one answered.
2. I was following the instructions for merging which says to copy and paste. Maybe I did it wrong, and if you could explain the correct way that would be helpful.
3. While I would argue that the term "the majors" only refers to MLB when talking in the context of baseball and more generally would refer to the golf majors, meaning it does not "equally" refer to MLB in common usage, you are essentially correct and would have no problem with that. Maybe a compromise would be what the Open Championship page does where at the top there is a disambig telling the reader that "The Open" redirects there.
4. If the term golf is being used for disambiguation purposes, which there are many needs for, the common standard is the correct title followed by "(golf)" such as "U.S. Open (golf)" or "Bobby Jones (golf)". But, it should not be used as part of the title as if that was the actual title, such as "YYYY United States Open Golf Championship". That event does not have the word golf in the name, and so the article should not be written in such a way that it implies that it is. You are correct that sometimes media will insert golf into the reference. However, this is an encyclopedia. We should not be labeling things how they are sometime "referenced" but rather as their actual name. Hence, for example, the page is "The Open Championship" not "British Open Championship" even though the PGA TOUR and AP both reference that tournament was the "British Open" in many official publications. This does mean that the term should become a redirect, but should not be the name of the actual page. Also, the term golf really is redundant in some cases, like the category "LPGA major golf championships" - the G stands for golf, so the term appears twice. As well, pretty much every article the word golf appears in the first sentence, and so people would immediately know it is a golf event. There's no need to be putting the word in the title unless a) it's actually part of the title (such as PGA) or b) there is a need to disambiguate from something else.
5. A Google search of the term "major championships" returns overwhelming results for golf related articles, and from what I saw the only non-golf related articles had a qualifier in addition to "major championships." The events you listed don't show up on the first several pages that I saw, nor, for example, with the heavy coverage of the recent World Cup did I ever hear it referred to as "a major championship." I think what you're referring to is what the definition of the term "major championship" would be if it wasn't related to these golf events, i.e. "a championship event that is of greater importance." If you really feel that is necessary, we could again create a disambiguation page (which already exists, actually, but only has the 3 golf majors articles) for that term, but it should by default be the golf page.
6. You are right that it is unorganized. I can start coming up with a list, but basically I'm just clicking through and finding articles where the title isn't consistent with titles of other articles. There are a huge number of articles, and it would take time to find them all. I don't think it's necessary to find all of them before starting work on ones we do know about though.
7. On a side note to the actual proposal at hand, what do you think? On my talk page you stated multiple times that you do agree, is that still the case? On capitalization, "Major championships" is fine. Hope this helps, Starwrath (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that was your first ever contribution, it is not surprising your initial statement was ignored. New editors who insist that things are wrong and need changing do not usually get paid much attention. WP:MERGE explains how to merge content from two pages into one, not how to rename pages, which is essentially a page WP:MOVE. Another guideline that may be of help is WP:TITLE. _wjemather^bigissue 18:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, although it is sad if people ignored the argument which really was the first two bullets of reasons for moving a page in that the name of the article is "misleading or inaccurate" because women can (and have) attempted to play in the events and "...that it is not the common name of the subject or is overprecise" because the common term does not include the word golf, and is overprecise in that the term is not used for other purposes, so the word "golf" is not needed (this is, by the way, what I meant by redundant).

WP:MOVE states that "If the new title already exists and isn't just a redirect to the old title, with no history, and you are not an administrator, the wiki will tell you that you can't rename the page. You'll either have to manually merge the two pages, ...." which is what I did. My apologies if I did it incorrectly and/or misinterpreted this statement. Starwrath (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

To people who play and watch golf regularly, golf may well be a redundant word, but we must think about the majority who do not follow golf in any way. As for the word "men's", they are generally considered to be men's tournaments in the same way that regular PGA Tour events are still considered to be men's events regardless of whether women (Sorenstam, Wie) have actually played in them or not.
BTW, WP:MOVE clearly states that WP:RM would be the place to go should it not be possible to perform a move over a redirect. _wjemather^bigissue 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

1. That is why redirecting terms have both "men's", "golf" and combinations in them. As an encyclopedia, shouldn't the correct terms be used though? Isn't the purpose of redirects that people can find what they regard things as even if that is not the correct term? Particularly when the term you say people regard it as is factually incorrect? There is a difference between "considered" and "actually are." In the U.S., it is considered (by many sources) the British Open but actually is The Open Championship. Besides, what people "consider" things varies by region, which is again the point of the redirects, but the actual page is the correct/proper name that is not misleading.
2. As for the term "golf," it is explicitly stated in the first sentence that they are golf tournaments. Considering, already, if someone types in "major championships" they will be redirected to this page anyway, having it also in the title is unnecessary, as if they didn't already know what it was, reading the first sentence will immediately tell them. I wasn't aware pages should be named according to what people might not know about them, but rather what they actually are and then people read about what it is. Otherwise, shouldn't pages be named "The Open Golf Championship" or "Ryder Cup Golf Matches"? Either way, it seems very inconsistent to me. If you are truly worried about it, the page could be named something like "Major championships (golf)" which is, from what I've seen, the correct way to do disambiguation, although the problem with that is there are no other major championships in a different sport that you are disambiguating from, and the "Major championships (disambiguation)" just has links to other golf terms. I understand that people might not know - the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform. This is why the redirect system exists, but also why pages should be named properly. A person who didn't know previously upon reading the correctly titled page would understand that these are a collection of golf tournaments that are referenced in common parlance and official publications as "major championships" that are primarily played by men, but have no specific gender restrictions on them. Also, the move page says to do either OR. I picked the one I had control over. Starwrath (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
3. On another note, regarding PGA TOUR: the name of the article is "PGA Tour" not "PGA Men's Tour" or "Men's PGA Tour" or something similar even though the case is as you describe (and the case you appear to be advocating (or playing Devil's Advocate) for keeping the title, although you haven't been clear on that subject). Also, the first use of the word "men" is a sentence specifically stating "Similar to other major league sports, there is no rule limiting PGA Tour players to "men only."" Perhaps this sentence also belongs in the majors article? Starwrath (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

News accounts on Ryder Cup matches back me up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In short yes, if that is the information given by reliable sources. Per WP:V "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Of course if we know some reliable sources are wrong then we need to find alternative ones that are correct. I find the European Tour website has been incorrect on a few occasions with historical tournament results, but it is generally easy enough to find a source for the correct information. _wjemather^bigissue 08:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If WilliamJE can provide a link to the verifiable source showing the LPGA record books were changed, we should update the Yani Tseng article. He claims "The LPGA record books were corrected after the right information was passed on to them." I am eagerly awaiting a verifiable link that shows this is true. --Crunch (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The current LPGA record book

http://www.lpga.com/content/Alltimerecords.pdf- Today

http://web.archive.org/web/20071202000836/http://www.lpga.com/content/Alltimerecords.pdf- The LPGA record book in 2007

Check out page three at both links. The LPGA changed their record books.William 16:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Top foo male golfer navboxes nominated for deletion

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

Plenty of wrong facts in Golfer articles

I'm not talking typos either.

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

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

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

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

Article up for deletion

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

Request for photographs and images

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

Golf articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

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

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

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

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

Template up for discussion

Template:Open golf tournaments is up for discussion. Please have your say at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Open golf tournaments. _wjemather^bigissue 15:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Outline of golf

There is no Outline of golf.

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

{{subst:BLT|golf|Golf}}

Then press save and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

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

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

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

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

As with the last time you spammed this project, I ask what would be the value of outline of golf article? Well written and linked articles do the same job and more, and better. _wjemather^bigissue 23:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they do different jobs. One is a prose article, while the other would be more like a table of contents or site map of the coverage of the subject on Wikipedia. The two are used in different ways. One is for reading, the other is for selecting what to read and seeing at a glance what the subject is comprised of and how it all fits together. Prose articles are slower to use for navigation and scanning, and do not necessarily show the relationship between topics (what belongs to what) as an outline does. Being lists of topics, outlines generally cover more of the subject than articles, because there is usually more room for links due to the lack of prose. Even when annotations are included (to assist in topic selection), links on outlines are faster to browse because they are generally listed to the left of the prose. Outlines show the extent of coverage for a subject on Wikipedia. Prose articles generally do not.

For example, compare:

• Japan and Outline of Japan
• Architecture and Outline of architecture
• Ancient Rome and Outline of ancient Rome
• Nuclear technology and Outline of nuclear technology
• Anarchism and Outline of anarchism
• Chocolate and Outline of chocolate

The outlines above offer a much faster way to familiarize oneself with the names of the topics of the subject, and a faster and more convenient way to access those topics. By virtue of their tree structure outlines show you what there is without you having to read paragraph after paragraph to find out. When you aren't sure what aspect of a subject you want to study, or if you want a survey of the whole subject in minimal time, outlines are the way to go.

The Transhumanist 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sports-related outlines currently under development include:

• Outline of basketball
• Outline of tennis
• Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling
• Outline of running
• Outline of cricket

Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?

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

Here are some examples of developed outlines:

• Outline of cell biology
• Outline of meteorology (weather)
• Outline of Iceland
• Outline of Japan
• Outline of anarchism
• Outline of chocolate

The Transhumanist 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

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

Golfers by state categories

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

Notability of golf courses

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

Nationality in Infobox golfer

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

Discussion to be found at: Template talk:Infobox golfer#Nationality or Sporting Nationality. _wjemather^bigissue 19:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And this is it I removed the other one as this will get more eyes Mo ainm~Talk 20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)