Talk:Los Angeles Open

Red Course Links

Though I find it worthy and noble to wikify pages, I believe that somewhat unnotable golf courses should not have their own wiki. I've removed the links to courses, which probably will not have their own pages in a long time (if ever). DakPow e rs (Talk) 00:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of rather non-notable golf courses in North Dakota with articles. Din't Valencia host the Senior PGA event, too? --68.190.212.208 01:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create stubs for the Inglewood Country Club and others, then you can. I'm not stopping you. Your edit was valid on the Hawaii category (I created the article and that was my mistake), but a lot of red links can make an eyesore. DakPow e rs (Talk) 01:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beware though--those clubs may get put on WP:AfD, and they might get deleted, which would have been a waste of time. 68.*, why don't you get an account? That would help keep track of your contributions! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 01:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an account, although I only use it when creating articles. I know accounts are better, but anyways... good to se problem solved. 68.190.212.208 02:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nissanopen.jpg

Image:Nissanopen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Open → Los Angeles Open – The event was known as the Los Angeles Open from 1926 to 1994. IMO it's better to use the un-sponsored name that was used for 75% of its history rather than to move the page every time the sponsor changes. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 01:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and per precedent at Western Open, where the historic name is kept on Wikipedia despite a parade of corporate sponsors, and its corporate name moved to a new page. Randy Kryn 05:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per precedent. ONR (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Los Angeles Open. 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:

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) 11:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, opposition based on WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Open → Genesis Invitational – No evidence that "Los Angeles Open" is the common name for this tournament. No reliable golf media outlets use this name. A previous RM used the Western Open as justification for keeping the older name; however I'd argue that this is a bad example, as it was always known as some variation of "Sponsorname Western Open". This event is not known as the "Genesis Los Angeles Open", and has not been named "Los Angeles Open" since 1994. It's also been an invitational since 2020, which makes the current title particularly bad. 162 etc. (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per the previous RM. Los Angeles Open remains the common name throughout history, even when LA was dropped from the official title, it was still commonly referred to as the LA Open for many years; it's only in very recent years that has stopped being the case. Sponsors (that we are not here to promote) come and go and the tournament has been known as the LA Open for the significant majority of its history; the last 3 years don't erase what has gone before. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the policy at WP:NAMECHANGES, " we give extra weight to independent, reliable English-language sources ("reliable sources") written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." I've found many recent articles using the name "Genesis Invitational" ([1] [2] [3] [4], among others) but none using "Los Angeles Open".

The proposed title change doesn't "erase what has gone before" either... for example, the Bing Crosby National Pro-Am has a long history, but the article is at AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am, since that is how the tournament is currently known. See WP:COMMONNAME. 162 etc. (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's like comparing apples and oranges – the PB Pro-Am has had pretty much the same same for over 35 years; this event changed 3 years ago. You're also arguing against points I haven't made (policy now linked above). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This event changed names twenty-eight years ago. "Genesis Invitational" is the current, common name, and there is no reason for our article to use an obsolete title that is no longer used by any reliable sources. A look at Category:PGA Tour events will show that sponsored event names are entirely acceptable; WP:PROMO doesn't overrule WP:COMMONNAME. 162 etc. (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial National Invitation, Desert Classic, etc. do not. Rocket Mortgage Classic, etc. have never had any other (non-sponsored) name. Honda Classic, etc., are like PB and have had the same sponsor for decades so the titles have become the common names throughout their history. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I read an article yesterday that referred to this as the L.A. Open. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 00:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If that the name has changed, and it is now consistently used in recent, reliable sources, then I see no reason not to change it. I would include in the article that it was "long known as the LA Open" or similar phrasing. Fredlesaltique (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We generally try to avoid sponsorship names. It's been around for 96 years and for most of that time was known as the LA Open, has only had the proposed title for five years and will quite likely change sponsors sometime in the future. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: I think that goes against the policy at WP:NAMECHANGES though that the nominator quotes above. The majority of reliable sources consistently use Genesis Invitational. If the name changes again and reliable sources use a new name, then the Wikipedia article can and should follow suit. Fredlesaltique (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it has generally been accepted at RM that names that change because of sponsorship deals are best avoided. See Wikipedia:Official names#Practicality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: the new name is consistently and overwhelming used by reliable sources though. I'm not entirely sure I understand your point. WP:COMMONNAMES mentions that "An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use." Fredlesaltique (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some types of article suffer more from each of these problems than others... Official names of sponsored sports teams, tournaments and venues change whenever a sponsorship agreement begins or ends. Once again, common practice at RM has been not to use sponsorship names. I wouldn't object to another name, but sponsorship names are best avoided. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that WP:OFFICIAL, cited above, is an explanatory supplement and not a policy or guideline. See WP:CONLEVEL. 162 etc. (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: my point is that it's not just the sponsorship name, it's the common name. If you look through the articles the nominator links, most of them (I think none) even mention the name "LA Open." Fredlesaltique (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it's a sponsorship name. It's only been called that for five years after having two other sponsorship names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per common name and most familiar name in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move for the same reason I supported the move away from the sponsor name. The common name is Los Angeles Open. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: @Old Naval Rooftops: Can you cite present-day sources that use this name? A reply above cited a golf blog that I'm unfamiliar with, and I've tried using Google to find more, but it doesn't appear to me that the name "Los Angeles Open" is common at all. 162 etc. (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an ngram, please notice that 'Genesis Invitational' is nonexistent in this regard. Los Angeles Open would also be the historically significant name (used as a major criteria for titling). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Ngram only goes up to 2019, and "Genesis Invitational" has been in use since 2020, so that is quite unsurprising. A number of other events named "Los Angeles Open" could also be false positives here, notably Los Angeles Open (tennis). 162 etc. (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment adds more information to the historical significance of the very long-time name of the Los Angeles Open and the transitory nature of the sponsors who have come and gone. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Title of article

Should the name of this article be changed to the genesis invitational (Los Angeles open) to reflect the current name of this event? Adevine605 (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the Requested move discussion just above this section. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that discussion but I would argue that the current title is now inaccurate because the tournament is no longer an open, it is an invitational and a non-misleading title is more important than a trivial point about sponsor names Adevine605 (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]