Talk:2013 Solheim Cup

Golf Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport: Golf Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women's golf task force.

Confusion with use of EU

In the infobox we have: Liselotte Neumann (EU). Does EU stand for European Union (which would be incorrect) or is it just short for Europe (which is non-standard). We have the same issue in earlier contests. Can't we just have "Europe". Nigej 11:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your posts by typing four tildes. Don't just type your name --Crunch (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I'll do it again. Nigej 07:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you are doing, is not working. Your name has to be a hyper link to your User page. This is automatically put in when you sign with four tildes. --Crunch (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Name does not have to be a hyper link. Special:Preferences page, signature section, box was checked (no idea why). I've unchecked it now to make you happy. Nigej (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Nigej, for drawing attention to this issue. I've fixed it here, and in the main Solheim Cup article, plus in one instance where it was wrong in the main Ryder Cup article (it was already correct in every other instance there). I expect it's correct in most or all Ryder cup articles and wrong in most or all remaining Solheim Cup articles, and somebody needs to fix it. I may or may not try to do so myself, but if I don't please feel free to do so yourself. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"2 and 1" or "2 & 1"

Personally I prefer "2 & 1", as used in the Ryder Cup pages. Any objections? Will need to change all Soheim Cup pages. Nigej 06:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I prefer "2 and 1", since you asked. --Crunch (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, you should also check what the Wikipedia standards are for this. --Crunch (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says to use "and" except where space is limited. See MOS:AMP. I don't see that space is that limited in this situation. --Crunch (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit annoying for me that you waited until I made the changes before reverting. Perhaps you didn't see my comment here. Comment above 06:00 on 17th, made changes 16:40 on 19th. Nigej (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. Your reverts were a bit of a botch. It's ok though. Tewapack has sorted it out as usual. Nigej (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on Wikipedia 24/7. I didn't know you were going to go ahead and make global changes that didn't match Wikipedia policy. --Crunch (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plain truth is that MOS is guidance. There was discussion awhile back about MOS:FLAG. My conclusion from that discussion was that golf pages routinely break the MOS but since none of the golf editors is prepared to remove the little flags nothing has happened (thankfully). The very same table in this 2013 Solheim Cup article also uses /, contrarary to MOS:SLASH. There is an exception "where a slash occurs in a phrase widely used outside Wikipedia, and a different construction would be inaccurate, unfamiliar, or ambiguous", but the use of "and" instead of / would be neither inaccurate, unfamiliar, nor ambiguous. So we routinely break MOS:SLASH too. To me the most important thing it that similar pages use similar styles, otherwise the whole thing looks very amateurish. Afterall Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a random selection of articles. If the MOS doesn't say that the MOS is a ass (if I may misquote Dickens). I had a battle about the use of "1 hole/2 holes" (which I prefer) v "1 up/2 up" during a recent Ryder Cup, but I've accepted defeat on that one and changed all the Ryder Cup pages to use 1 up/2 up. In many cases the use of one style over another is arbitrary. To me uniformity is more important than a legalistic interpretation of the MOS.Nigej (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you win. It's not worth the battle. --Crunch (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference (and as an example to facilitate a possible improvement to the confusing wording of MOS:AMP), although neither of you seem to realise it, Nigej's use of ampersands seems probably correct under MOS:AMP, though MOS:AMP's wording seems unhelpfully confusing. It says: "Ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion in tables, infoboxes, and similar contexts where space is limited." Logically this has to be interpreted as "where space is liable to be limited" - for it seems logically impossible to be consistent (as ordered by MOS:AMP) if you use ampersands in tables where space is limited, but 'ands' in tables where space is not particularly limited, especially when there is logically no way of knowing how limited space is likely to become in future tables, and when it may be quite difficult to check what standard has been applied across a vast number of similar articles. I'm spelling this out here, so as to be available as an example illustrating the problems that can arise in practice with MOS:AMP's current wording, for use if and when I decide to try to get the wording changed, possibly to something like "where space is liable to be limited", or possibly by adding some explicit rule for matchplay golf scores, etc. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See 2013 WGC-Accenture Match Play Championship for an example where space is limited. And Golf#Match_play for an example where it isn't, but it uses conventional golf terminology.Nigej (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 Solheim Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711062017/http://www.solheimcupusa.com/events/us-solheim-cup-points.aspx to http://www.solheimcupusa.com/events/us-solheim-cup-points.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]