Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox golfer/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Nationality

I have changed the heading to sporting nationality as this is what it represents and at present it doesn't clarify that. But this was reverted by the wikiproject golf enforcer Wjemather. Mo ainm~Talk 12:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As per the note I left on your talk page, more thought and work is needed before making such a wholesale change. If you have verified that all articles would comply with this changed definition for this field, then I agree that may be a good change to make. Otherwise blindly making such a change is a bad idea. wjematherbigissue 12:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you never hear of WP:BOLD? So as you agree with the change and you are the wikiproject golf enforcer are you going to make the change? Mo ainm~Talk 13:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have heard of WP:BOLD – it states clearly "it is important not to be insulted if your changes are reverted", and specifically with regard to templates, "being bold in updating templates can have far reaching consequences" and "before editing templates, consider proposing any changes". As far as know WP:GOLF has no enforcer and has never advertised for one. However, I suspect that I am a lot more familiar with an array of golf biographies than you, so may be better qualified to judge the potential adverse impact of the change you made. There are other editors who work extensively on golfer bios who would be in an even better position and it may be prudent to let them offer an opinion before rushing to make a non-essential change. wjematherbigissue 13:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The day I get insulted by anything that happens on wikipedia will never happen. I love your ownership though of all golf related articles, it makes me smile. As to BOLD I did consider proposing any changes but as it isn't a major change didn't feel the need to, but I forgot about the enforcer who would be around soon to blindly revert an edit that they claim to think was a good one, but hey you have to show them who owns the golf project hey?? Mo ainm~Talk 14:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Your reaction shows you are taking it personally by your failure to assume good faith and be civil. Repetition of your unsubstatiated (and laughable) allegations need to stop if you want your input to be considered at all constructive (no personal attacks?). Most importantly though you neglected to consider the consequences of the change on all articles on which it is used. My explanation plainly shows that my revert was not done blindly. My example below is the most obvious illustration and I have no doubt there are many others. wjematherbigissue 14:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Annika Sörenstam would be a prime example – she holds dual citizenship but I'm not aware of her ever competing under the US flag. wjematherbigissue 13:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly a prime example of how the Golf Project have got the use of flagicons wrong. Mo ainm~Talk 14:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Right seen as you don't seem to have read MOS:FLAG or anyone in the golf project has I'll spell it out what is wrong

  • Do not emphasize nationality without good reason
  • Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death
  • Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
  • Remember accessibility for the visually impaired
  • Do not use too many icons (case mentioned there are 2 flags beside 1 heading)
  • Encyclopaedic purpose
  • Use of flags for sportspeople. Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense

So what are we to do? You steadfastly want the flags to remain even though they are in breach of our MOS and you wont allow an edit to clarify that it is sporting nationality. So are you going to come down from your moral high ground and try to fix this problem or are you just going to continue to edit war? Mo ainm~Talk 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As explained to you previously, flagicons in infoboxes are not a breach of MOS. Point by point.
  • Almost all golf broadcasts, written publications, newpaper articles, tour media guides, etc. refer heavily to players nationality, so there is good reason for us to do the same.
  • No golfer bios use flags to indicate birth/death places as far as I know.
  • Words like "avoid" and "discouraged" are not prohibition
  • Inapplicable, templates provide text.
  • Again, inapplicable (surprising comment after you tried loading up Graeme McDowell's infobox)
  • Almost all if not every televised golf broadcast, tour media guide, etc. display flags alongside competitors, so it is appropriate for us to do the same.
  • There may be some article where that has not been complied with. So fix it.
As I have said, I agree in principal with making the change. I do not agree with disrupting an array of articles before bringing them into line first. Keeping the same tone (i.e. have you stopped beating your wife yet?) are you going to stop making WP:POINTy disrupive edits to try and uphold your point of view? wjematherbigissue 15:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Care to expalin what pointy edits I have made to one of your articles? Mo ainm~Talk 15:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is unrelated to this infobox and is really for your talk page, but the addition of the Republic of Ireland flag to Graeme McDowell's article (as I touched on above) would be a perfect illustration. To be clear I do not "own" any articles and have very few biographies watchlisted. I do have Graeme McDowell's on there because of persistent disruption by Irish nationalist POV pushers. Be assured however, that if I had missed it or you had pulled the same stunt elsewhere there is a much more prolific editor than me who I have no doubt would have reverted you also. wjematherbigissue 15:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
You mean the Flag of Ireland? No such thing as the Flag of the Republic of Ireland. And a source to show him playing golf for Ireland. I asked you what competion he represented Northern Ireland in and you didn't answer. I have no problem with the Ulster Banner being used as his sporting nationality as that's what is used by the governing bodies. Mo ainm~Talk 15:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Previously explained at a more appropriate venue, so I will not be re-iterating here. wjematherbigissue 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've editted a lot of golfer bios and this is the standard I use. I include all countries of citizenship, past or present, whether or not the golfer has "represented" that country in competition or not (there are lots of golfers who never "represent" a country in team competition). The exception is for UK golfers, where the standard is to use ENG, SCO, WAL, or NIR, as applicable. Remember that the infobox is supposed to summarize the subject. If someone is a dual citizen or has changed citizenship, that fact should be in the infobox with details in the body of the article. Tewapack (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

So will you put the flag of Ireland in the articles of Graeme McDowell and Rory McIlroy as this source shows they have played on PGATour under the Flag of Ireland. And if not what is the difference between your revert rational and what I am saying? Mo ainm~Talk 17:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Er, no. Firstly it would be misleading, since it is the flag of the RoI. Secondly it would give undue prominence to an entity they have represented on very few occasions. And finally, it should not be included for the same reasons as we do not include Europe and GB&I – it does not reflect either their citizenship or nationality (in any sense). wjematherbigissue 18:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Again I will spell it out to you the flag is called the Flag of Ireland not the flag of RoI. The source shows that they represented Ireland again not the RoI and the source used the Flag of Ireland. Also why are you not reverting Tewapack who added the USA flag to an article on a golfer who according to you has never represented them? Can't have it both ways take out a sourced addition showing players playing under a flag yet do nothing when one is added that is in breach of the MOS as it is being used to denote her nationality and not her sporting nationality. So which is it nationality or sporting nationality? Mo ainm~Talk 18:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I've said this before, but this is not the place for a discussion on the merits or otherwise of placing the Irish tricolour on NI golfer's bio pages. But as we all know, the flag it is used for a variety of purposes but mostly it will represent the RoI. Likewise the term "Ireland" can also refer a number of entities but most often that will also be the RoI. Obviously I haven't reverted Tewapack because he owns those articles (sarcasm intended). wjematherbigissue 18:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing for it's inclusion but pointing out the mess you and your wikiproject golf pals have made of the infobox. So we have two wikiproject golf buddies arguing different things but some how will not revert the other. If the heading represents the sporting nationality or not is what I am here to establish, according to Tewapack it doesn't thus the addition of the USA flag in breach of the MOS:FLAG. Mo ainm~Talk 18:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we're all at a loss to understand why you are here since all you seem to be doing is making pointy edits and asking pointy (or is that pointless) questions. Let's not forget of course that MOS is a guideline, and often it should be disregarded in favour of common sense. But anyway, if you have an issue with the US flag at Annika Sörenstam, then Talk:Annika Sörenstam is the place you need to be at, not here. wjematherbigissue 19:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
My edits are not pointy and I would ask you to stop claiming that they are as this is a personal attack Mo ainm~Talk 19:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
How many times did you just accuse me of article ownership and of being the project enforcer? wjematherbigissue 19:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationality again

As flags are not used to denote the birthplace of golfers I intend to change the template from Nationality to Sporting Nationality any objections and if yes could you tell me what? Mo ainm~Talk 22:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"flags are not used to denote the birthplace of golfers" - that's why in the "birthplace" field no one uses Augusta, Georgia United States, for example. Please give a definition of "sporting nationality" so that I may respond appropriately. Tewapack (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Annika Sörenstam, according to MOSFLAG, Do not emphasize nationality without good reason and Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death. so what are the flags in this article being used to represent? Also Graeme McDowell has played under  Ireland in the PGA Tour so why is only one flag being used? Mo ainm~Talk 09:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Again, please define "sporting nationality". Tewapack (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Better still what do the two flags on the Sörenstam article represent? I would see sporting nationality as who the sports person represents. Mo ainm~Talk 15:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sörenstam - she is a dual citizen, hence two countries (and flags). In fact, double checking the article and reference it looks like she became U.S. citizen in June 2006 (and retained Swedish citizenship), so all her victories after that should list her as a dual citizen. "who the sports person represents" - For McDowell that could be Northern Ireland, Ireland, Great Britain & Ireland, and Europe depending on whether you are talking about individual or team competitions. As an individual, it's Northern Ireland per accepted golf usage, for team it's the others. Why litter the infobox with the team representations? Tewapack (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
So you agree that at present the Sörenstam article breaches MOSFLAG as the flags are being used to emphasize nationality. Mo ainm~Talk 20:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Other Tour wins

I tried entering the number of tournament wins for Tadd Fujikawa. He has 3 wins, but none on the tours listed in the info box, so I put 3 in the "otherwins" field, but the number showed up next to a heading that said, "Major Tour Wins." I've used the "otherwins" field before, for example on Yani Tseng and it worked fine. Can someone who understands the code better than I do, fix this? Thanks. --Crunch (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This has come up before, but I never got round to looking into it as it. Personally it seems unnecessary to enter "other wins" if that is all they have. wjematherbigissue 07:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this. Other wins are wins on other tours, or in tournaments not affiliated with any tour. They should be entered. The field sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Just because a player's only wins are on minor tours or no tours, doesn't mean they shouldn't be recorded. Eventually the player may have wins on a listed tour. Do we then try to retroactively add the Other tour wins? Or is then the time to fix the broken field in the Infobox? --Crunch (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To my mind if there are no listed tour wins, then it is not clear what is meant by other wins if that is all there is. Also it goes without saying that any wins are other wins in this case. When a listed tour win is then added, the other wins could then be entered. Anyhow, it should be fairly easy to fix, I think. wjematherbigissue 20:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't realise this problem had been arising for so long, but I've had issues with it too. Happy for the field to be removed completely if we want, but if not, can someone more technologically literate than me complete the fix please? EJBH (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Height

Here an editor has reverted the use of cm to disaply Greg Norman's heightsource to the use of metres (which is not supported by sources), stating that it was the standard for this infobox. Is this really the case? And if so, why?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

If no reason for the aforementioned reversion is forthcoming, would someone kindly undo it?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

PGA Tour Latinoamerica

I believe the events on this tour now have sufficient standing not to be classed as other wins but to have their own separate category on the info box alongside Australia, web.com and Challenge Tour. I have no idea how to add this and wouldn't want to without a discussion on here first but I think they should be classified separately to other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracland (talk • contribs) 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There are six tours that only receive the bare minimum in OWGR points, six: Asian Development Tour, Korean Tour, OneAsia Tour, PGA Tour Canada, PGA Tour China, and PGA Tour Latinoamérica. I believe this shows their low status as seen by the golf world and that they don't need separate entries in the infobox. But if one is added then they all should be added. Tewapack (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clearing that up, and thanks for tidying up my other article, as I'm sure you can guess I'm not 100% sure on here yet. Tracland (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Highest World Ranking

I think this infobox should have a section like the tennis players do which shows the golfer's highest world ranking to date. I'm not sure how easy it is to find each player's highest ranking, but I'm sure we'd be able to manage it. Christophee (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where we would find that information, I think it would be difficult. michfan2123 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
That kind of information adds no value to the infobox even if it could be found for anyone other than former number ones. wjematherbigissue 22:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that highest ranking should be in the infobox. Many articles about golfers already say something like "He has featured [sic] in the top [#] of the Official World Golf Ranking," which isn't even proper English. The new ranking graph feature at OWGR.com provides a fairly easy way to find a player's highest ranking. (suoı̣ʇnqı̣ɹʇuoɔ · ʞlɐʇ) nɯnuı̣ɥԀ 16:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed I think this would be very useful and not at all hard to work out from owgr.com. It's probably one of the most important stats about a golfers career and therefore is important to every golfer. Tracland (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've added a |role= parameter, defaulting to "golfer", because this infobox doesn't actually tell readers what the person is known for. I also added a discrete gender indicator, because, again, the infobox doesn't state that key aspect of the subject's being. My edits have been reverted with an edit summary of "unnecessary characters" but the gender symbols are not "unnecessary" - they display cited factual information about the subject which is not otherwise clear in the infobox, and not queryable programmatically (each symbol is marked up as an abbreviation, with the text value it represents). The revert also removed the possibility to change "golfer" to some other subheading where appropriate. I've restored the code for that reason, and so that people can see what is involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been reverted again, with an edit summary of "significant change without consensus". Please note DNRNC and that no consensus is required before changes are made. I also note that the editor reverting has made no response to my comments here; and no attempt to refute the points I made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
WP:DNRNC, that's a policy is it?
Another interesting essay is WP:BRD, which says "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. Therefore, if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus." Jevansen (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Which Andy did, he posted on this talk page. No one else responded on this talk page except another revert without any real explanation, this time by you. Even your comment above does not explain why you reverted the edit. Garion96 (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Not quite. He reverted User:Tewapack, then created this talk page discussion. Check the times. Jevansen (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that was an almost perfect BRD from Andy indeed. You still fail to explain why you are against his changes. Garion96 (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
It was a perfect Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, revert, discuss cycle. Clearly the same thing. Anyway, whether it's through reverts or talk page comments, I'm seeing plenty of objections to his infobox changes. Notice he still hasn't had the courtesy of informing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf of his intended amendment to their infobox, or the one he has already done. He has had his experiment, now it's time to get a Consensus. Jevansen (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not their infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
You're right, my claim that WP:DNRNC is a policy is bogus. Oh, wait, where did I claim that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

One month on, there has been no comment here suggesting a reason why my edit was not a good one, or explaining why it was reverted. I propose, therefore, that it be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

What would "role" be other than golfer? This is infobox golfer after all. The gender parameter is as unnecessary here as has been stated in other discussions: Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 17#Gender, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes/Archive 7#Gender, and Template talk:Infobox snooker player#Recent changes. If a reader can't determine the subject's gender in the first few sentences then the article needs to be copyedited. And, the ♂ or ♀ symbols are not universally understood and are distracting. Tewapack (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Your opening question is a red herring. It may be that the label golfer is never changed to anything else, but that's not the point; as I noted in my openings sentence of this thread, "this infobox doesn't actually tell readers what the person is known for". the gender parameter is necessary, because, in a similar way, the infobox doesn't tell us whether the subject is male or female. Your point about the opening sentences is also a red herring; a key purpose of an infobox is to summarise key points, even if they are in the lede. That may be obvious in most (but not all) cases where there is a picture; or where the name is an gendered one from our own culture, but what about names like "Kim", or say, Chinese names? The symbols are marked up as abbreviations, but we could use text if you feel they're not recognised widely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm dead serious about the "role", what can it be other than "Golfer", and still have this infobox actually be used in an article? The version before your latest addition left the "— Golfer —" at the top of the box intact. Gender parameter has been rightly rejected elsewhere and I see no need for it here. A spot check of the other infoboxes you've added it too show little actual usage of the parameter. Tewapack (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, so what happens when this template is used for someone who was a golfer then, say, television commentator? The switch was added after complaints about exactly such cases, for other sportspeople. Your other argument appears to be "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS". Because you can see no need does not mean that others do not; that's what WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is about. As for "little usage, "WP:NODEADLINE" applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The golfer infobox only summarizes their golfing career, not there post-playing career. Secondary occupations should not be displayed at the top of the infobox, if anywhere in the infobox - they are rarely notable by themselves. Please point out those complaints. I am far from the only one who sees the uselessness of the gender tag as noted above. Tewapack (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The existence and common use of a death-date parameter rather negates your claim about the infobox's coverage ending when they cease playing golf. And such an occupation may not be "secondary", but of equal importance. Shared inability to appreciate usefulness is still not evidence of usefulness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Now you're really grasping. Please direct me to where "role" was requested for other sportspeople. Tewapack (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have been sidetracked. Shall we now restore the edit in question? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Tewapack (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder whether anyone else has a view? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No need for either, it's clear the person is a golfer, if they have gone and had a second career then there will be a second infobox covering it in the relevant section. Gender is also really not required as it's really obvious, plus the list of tours and majors will tell you anyway. Tracland (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Nationality field

Recently an IP editor has been changing the nationality field for American golfers from {{USA}} (which displays as  United States) to "American". The standard in this infobox has been to use the three-letter flag templates to display the flag and country name. I think we need to clarify what this field should be named and contain.

  1. Should the field name remain "Nationality" or be changed to "Country" of "Country represented" or something else?
  2. Should the standard entry be the country name or the nationality, ie United States or American, France or French, etc?
  3. Should the use of a flag be required, recommended, forbidden, other?

A table I compiled awhile ago here clearly demonstrates the use of flags and country name to represent golfers in the real world.

My !vote, 1) Nationality, 2) country name, 3) required - in other words the status quo per common usage of flags in golf coverage. Tewapack (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Please refer to WP:INFOBOXFLAG 86.13.182.103 (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, sports stars are not exempt from WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Flags are not intended to indicate nationality or country of birth.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no good reason not to comply with WP:INFOBOXFLAG unfortunately. I don't agree with it as I think showing the nationality of sportspeople who represent their country is important and golf leaderboards would normally show a flag. However if we are to be in line with Wikipedia standards then maybe we shouldn't be using them. Tracland (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you decide, please make this type of exception clear to ALL editors, not just the small clique who decide upon them, then update the rules to incorporate such changes to prevent this from recurring. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Allowing flags for golfers because they represent their nation in competition will lead to much confusion. Take Rory McIlroy as an example, the flag currently used is Northern Ireland, however his nationality is British, yet Rory can choose to represent Ireland or Great Britain. What then happens when a player is no longer in the national team? And why is this type of flag use limited to golf? 86.13.182.103 (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not just limited to golfers see Lewis Hamilton or Andy Murray, for examples of flag use elsewhere in sport. It's not really an issue of confusion either as each golfers nationality is clearly shown on their tour profile (PGA Tour or European Tour) and on any leaderboards. The only issue I can see is compliance with Wikipedia standard practice and ensuring consistency. Tracland (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Tracland, most of the Olympic sports (e.g. swimmers) use flag icons with near 100% coverage because the athletes' whole claim to notability is based on their representation of their country in international competition, usually as members of national teams. Tennis players are close analogy to golfers, in that pro tennis is an international sport and the nationality of the athletes is prominently featured in media coverage and by the governing body for the sport, including the use of flag icons during competitions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Note that there was a (very) long discussion on all this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons recently, and there was no consensus to forbid flag icons of this type, nor to remove them en masse. The current MOS discourages them but does not forbid them, which is unhelpful. It seems the best thing is to try and achieve a consensus within this project and stick to it. Tracland is right that consistency is important, either way. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Well in that case I see no point on going through and changing literally hundreds of articles on golfers to remove the flags (which I think are useful anyway). Therefore my opinion to keep the current method of using flags. Tracland (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep, what Bretonbanquet said - there was no consensus to remove flags, and indeed plenty of supporting for keeping them (within reason). GiantSnowman 06:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@86.13.182.103: Greetings, IP user. Why don't you log in, and let us know how the weather was today in Colchester? If you're going to try to start a controversy, why don't you at least have the "candor" to let your fellow editors know who you are? Just a thought . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent}}{{Ping|86.13.182.103}}? Was this supposed to do something? If anything, not hiding behind a ridiculous username, no offence, and allowing others to use Traceroute or Geolocate indicates more candor, but let's not digress.
In reality most of Wikipedia is edited by Americans, and despite claims their editing style remains impartial, so many such exceptions in the rules, and aggressive reverting and alike (and certain editors obsession with military personnel) can be attributed to overzealous patriotism.
So, when this clique reaches its predictable consensus and you add all the flags back, why not do the same for those removed from non-American sportspersons, after all "consistency is important". 86.13.182.103 (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, your perception of American "flag-waving" is very misplaced. On a sport-by-sport basis, flag icon use is very consistent. National based sports such as American pro baseball, American pro basketball, and American pro football do not use flag icons at all. That's because there is no element of international competition or representation of the nation. On the other hand, Olympic sports such swimming are remarkably consistent in their use of flag icons; and it's not just the Americans -- they are almost uniformly, and I might add, appropriately used for members of national sports teams. Formula One, Golf, Gymnastics, Tennis are all sports where the highest level of competition (i.e., the level at which virtually all of the athletes are notable) is international, and the media, the athletes and governing bodies recognize the nationality of the athletes and flag icons are routinely used within the sporting events themselves. In fact, in several of these sports (and all of the Olympic sports), athletes cannot participate in the top international events unless they are members of their own nation's governing body for the particular sport. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? You are able to see how others perceive Americans? Why do you focus on the lesser points and address them with insignificant deflection?, oh yes, because you're a lawyer. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
You would do better to focus and make your substantive points, rather than engaging in off-topic insults and personal attacks. You are gently reminded that personal attacks can get you blocked per WP:NPA, whether you are an IP user or a registered editor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Just the fact that the only National based sports you could think of begin with the words "American pro" was enough. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Uh, you're missing the point, IP User 86.13.182.103: the American examples were chosen intentionally to illustrate the fact that you are wrong. This is not an "American" issue; American professional sports don't use flags because it would be inappropriate. One only has to look at the consistent use among golfers: for example, Australians, Austrians, Canadians, Ecuadorian, Egyptian, Korean, Malaysian, Mexican, New Zealand, Swedes all use flags. In fact, so do Englishmen, Irishmen, Scots and Welshmen, because in golf, British golfers have traditionally been associated with the four UK constituent nations. As for restoring the flags of non-American athletes, as you suggested above, it is unnecessary. Of the almost 200 flags you deleted yesterday afternoon, all of them were American. The only discussion participant who seems to be determined to make this an "American" issue is you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to keep going on about the American angle, as it is not the real issue here. MOS:FLAG is clear about not using flags to indicate a person's nationality, particularly in infoboxes. The problem is that sport articles often disregard this guideline.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
But yet, IanMacM, MOS:ICON also states: "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". And notwithstanding the fact that when the original changes were made to MOS:ICON several years ago (with no notice to the sports projects, I might add), the use of flag icons in infoboxes was not phrased as an outright prohibition, and is still only phrased in terms of "should" and "should not". And, as I am sure you are well aware, recent talk page discussions regarding enforcement and changes at MOS:ICON have been unable to achieve consensus for or against. This issue is not going away with one IP user attempting to delete 200 flags from golf bios in a single afternoon. From my perspective, the underlying problem is that a half dozen editors decided that the use of flag icons was "too nationalistic" several years ago, and decided to do away with them without consulting the larger Wikipedia community, and the anti-flaggers have faced the extreme difficulty of enforcing what amounted to a LOCALCONSENSUS ever since. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that since flags are commonly used to indicate golfers' nationalities on leaderboards, and are also used for golfers throughout Wikipedia, they should be used in infoboxes. One problem, though, is the difference between nationality and representation. Golfers don't represent countries in normal tournaments, but they do in certain events such as the World Cup and International Crown. So what flag should be on e.g. Yani Tseng? The flag of  Taiwan/Republic of China or  Chinese Taipei, which is what it's called in international representation? When Rory McIlroy appears in articles about the Olympics or World Cup, he will appear as Republic of Ireland Rory McIlroy, not Northern Ireland Rory McIlroy, despite not being from the Republic of Ireland. If you look at the history of the European Amateur article, you'll see there's been some disagreement regarding which flag to use for him when he was an amateur, with some saying that Northern Ireland is not applicable in amateur golf. That implies representation, not nationality, which doesn't seem appropriate when it's not a matter of a national team. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:WORDPRECEDENCE means that in most cases the flag icon is unnecessary, such as  United States. The flag icon may look nice, but it is duplicating what the words say. WP:ICONDECORATION is clear about this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Phinumu:, for international sports like golf and tennis where sporting nationality is widely used by the media, the associations and tournaments, the flag icon for a given player should probably determined by which national governing body the particular athlete is a member. Frankly, I have no idea who or what governs amateur and professional golfers in Northern Ireland, but I'm sure someone knows or can find the definitive answer. Obviously, for the overwhelming majority of professional golfers, sporting nationality is obvious. British golfers, however, do present a special case wherein their sporting nationality has traditionally been that of one of the four UK constituent nations (i.e., England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), rather than the UK as a whole. The British exception, I believe, is already dealt with consistently with that tradition for Wikipedia golfer biographies. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
In most cases, flag icons in articles are eye candy which do not add to an understanding of the subject matter, or article navigation. I know this isn't the most popular view here, but the overall policy is that flag icons should be used sparingly, and in some cases not at all.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Ian, I know the colorful history of MOS:ICON quite well. In principle, I actually agree with most of what you're saying, including the fact that flag icons are often over used or used inappropriately. In order to protect the proper use of the icons, I often find myself deleting them from geographical references for city and sporting event locations, etc. That having been said, when the original changes regarding infoboxes were made to MOS:ICON by 5 to 6 anti-flag editors, they did not consider a whole host of scenarios, and were forced by strong majorities to backtrack with regard to ships, military personnel, national teams, etc. They have been adamant about not permitting any further changes regarding athletes in international competition, no consensus has been attained on point, and there has been a Mexican standoff ever since. This is what happens when all of the affected parties are not fairly notified, consulted and given an opportunity to have their say when a small group proposes wide-ranging changes to the guidelines in contravention of existing widespread practice. The talk page history of MOS:ICON makes for very interesting reading for those of us who are students of Wikipedia consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The most important issue is preventing Wikipedia from continuing the Hollywood tradition of distorting how the world is portrayed. I am sure most non-Americans at one time have read a comment in which an American has expressed the opinion that Europeans should be grateful for how they were saved in WWII. Hollywood has a dangerous legacy. I wonder just how many of those "strong majorities" in favour of these flags are the same ones who decide much of Wikipedia policy, and what percentage of them are American, and why there is such an abundance of articles on American ships, military personnel, national teams, etc. This is the reason many feel Wikipedia has gained a poor reputation and its accuracy often referred to as a joke.

As for golfers, IanMacM has had to point out, repeatedly, flag icons in Infoboxes that also show the name of the country are redundant. No one has offered any such argument as strong in favour of them. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the rest of us all got rather bored by the rant about Hollywood/America etc which isn't in any way relevant to this discussion so stopped commenting. I for one support the current use of flags for golfers and as there was "No consensus" when this was voted for elsewhere I see no need to change things. I think they are inline with what is normally seen on leaderboards, tour profiles etc Tracland (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I for one don't buy the Hollywood distortion of the portrayal of the world argument with respect to flag icons on Wikipedia. Way off the mark, and way off the point. I support the current usage of flag icons for golfers as there is no consensus (yet) to change it, and it does not actually violate the (shaky) MOS. Reasonable use of flags is a good thing on Wikipedia, in my view. I'm not in favour of acres of flaggage with no apparent relevance to anything. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL@IP User:86.13.182.103 - While I actually sympathize with the comment regarding "Hollywood's" distorted view of history, it surely has precious little to do with the use of flag icons in golfer bio infoboxes. Again, notwithstanding the disputed and contradictory language of MOS:ICON, the relevance of flags in international sports is undisputed.
BTW, if you're looking for someone to "blame" for flags in international sports competitions, I suggest you read the history of the United Kingdom in the Olympics of the early 20th Century. Britannia uber alles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Given their undisputed relevance in international sports, precisely what is the relevance of the flag when followed by the name of the country? 86.13.182.103 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • A flag icon is the graphic statement that the athlete in question either represents his or her nation as a member of the national team or the athlete competes in international competition with the sanction of his or her national governing body of his or her sport. The presence of the flag icon draws an immediate distinction between athletes who primarily or exclusively compete in international sports (e.g., Formula One racing, golf, gymnastics, tennis, swimming, track & field) and those who primarily compete for city-based teams within their own national leagues (e.g., association football, baseball, basketball, football (American), hockey). Association football/soccer is a mixed bag, wherein the same athletes often compete for both a city-based team in their national league, as well as competing for their national teams in international competition. Flags should only be used for athletes in international competition of one form or another. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, a pictorial representation made totally redundant by the words alongside it. You fail to make a case for the inclusion of both. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Not really. Yours is fine rhetoric, until, that is, one realizes that your logic could be used to eliminate all flag icon use on Wikipedia, except for perhaps in articles about flags. Few of us are buying your "case," either. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The text is required along with the flag as not everyone knows the flag for every country and thus would be unable to identify the country without the text Tracland (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere have I suggested that all flags be eliminated, in fact, there are many, many acceptable instances of flags used throughout Wikipedia with no associated text. And still you avoid the question. Having the text alone eliminates the need to recognise a flag, problem solved. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Nope. Sorry. Only in your mind. Question was asked and answered already. That little flag is the symbol that says that the athlete in question is a member of a national sports team and/or competes internationally. Simple, really. And the words "Australia" or "Australian", by themselves, which are not different for a high school player in New South Wales, do not. There is no redundancy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

From the first line "which displays as  United States". Redundancy. "represents his or her nation as a member of the national team or the athlete competes in international competition", and since New South Wales is not a nationality, the same applies to  Australia. Redundancy. Even simpler, really. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • We've reached the point where responding to your repetitive and single-minded argument is pointless. The words "Australia" and "Australian" in this context merely convey the athlete's nationality, not the fact that the athlete is a member of the Australian national team in his or her sport and/or competes internationally with the sanction of the Australian national governing body for his or her sport. Just be honest: you don't like flag icons. You, like most other flag icon opponents, believe they represent "flag-waving nationalism," which "has no place on Wikipedia." The rest of us do understand, and we can read between the lines. We've heard these arguments before. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the field where these flags are placed is currently labelled Nationality, secondly other than the words "Australia" or "Australian", how else would you convey the athlete is a member of the Australian national team in his or her sport and/or competes internationally with the sanction of the Australian national governing body for his or her sport?

Please refrain from personal attacks if you are unable to make your case. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Q: "How else would you convey the athlete is a member of the Australian national team in his or her sport and/or competes internationally with the sanction of the Australian national governing body for his or her sport?" -- User:86.13.182.103
A: With a flag icon, like we do for every national sports team on Wikipedia. I guess you didn't read the comments above, eh? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Please refrain from personal attacks if you are unable to make your case." -- User:86.13.182.103
You have a very odd idea of what constitutes a "personal attack," sir. And I can, and will continue to make the "case." Attempting to change the minds of determined anti-flag advocates such as yourself is probably not an effective use of my time, however. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Returning to the topic of golfers it is standard practice to put flags in to represent golfers nationality (see http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/season=2014/tournamentid=2014074/leaderboard/index.html) for a current example. Therefore would appear to be in line with customs to use flags in Wikipedia. As discussed above if flags are used then there should also be a name for those who may not know what country the flag represents.

I'm struggling to follow the debate currently as it seems to have moved away into general nationality debates and generic flag use debates in other sports. While these are interesting topics the debates probably belong elsewhere. Tracland (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A lawyer who refuses to acknowledge his own fallacious ad hominems. You sir are a waste of time and space. 86.13.182.103 (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I came across this topic and wanted to mention some things, if it's okay - I'm not sure who all are supposed to comment here, so, if this was by invitation, just disregard everything I type below this.
I may be biased, considering how I use the flag icons often, but, even if I didn't use them, I don't see what could be so upsetting about them. I think the flags add a nice visual to the articles when they can be used. Even if they add no understanding to the article, they are still a nice addition, and there are countless places in Wikipedia that use them. Even when one watches the Olympics and sees the medal standings on their television, there are the country flags next to the country names, just to add a visual for people to see. It's human nature to want to have flags displayed where one can do display them, even here in the internet. Surely the person that created the script for Wikipedia years ago must have known that people would like to use flags, so when they created Wikipedia, they made it so people could have a way to use flag icons. Personally, whenever I see something on TV or in the internet that I don't like, I just change the channel or navigate away from the web page, problem solved - I don't try to get it removed altogether for so many other people to miss out on what they enjoy. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are free for anyone to comment on who has an opinion on how an article can be improved or developed, thank you for your opinion and contribution to this discussion Tracland (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

How can the opinions of a few editors with additional User Rights each colluding behind the scenes constitute a consensus? It's very sad that far too many of its are rules are forged, and much of its content determined, by less than a handful of such over inflated egos. 82.47.254.121 (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually very few of us regular contributors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf have any special rights. I certainly don't. Tewapack has limited extra rights but without him the whole project would have died a long time ago. If you look at the project page you will see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf is semi-active. That means that we are desperately in need of editors. There is no clique/elite/inflated ego; just a small group of us trying to keep the project going. What is needed is more contributors to the project who add to the useful content. If you are one of these then you will be welcomed. What the project doesn't need is to waste its limited time on stupid debates about whether we should have flagicons or not. There are too few of us. As to whether there is a Hollywood/American plot - personally sitting here in sunny Weymouth, I don't see it. Certainly we have debates about things, eg there is currently one about the 2014 Ryder Cup (whether to put US first or Europe) but these are not common. My advice is to add some useful content in some area of the project that you wish to specialise in and you will find you are welcome. I would also recommend creating a user name. Nigej (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary

My reading of the above discussion is that there is a clear preference for the use of flagicons in the "nationality" field of this template (using eg  France).

The remaining questions are:

  • What should the field be called ?
  • What should the field be for a particular golfer ?
  • Should the field be universally used (or nearly so - since there may be a few instances where it is not known) ?

I have a preference for a rename to "country". The problem with this idea is that the template is used 2752 times (by my count) and changing all these manually would be a big job. I suppose we can retain the name "nationality" even if we define the field to be something else, but this smacks of Humpty Dumpty#In Through the Looking-Glass and is not ideal.

Generally we don't need a precise definition of the field. The flagicon used for modern golfers will simply be the one used for that golfer in general golfing use (eg on the PGA Tour website and similar). For instance Justin Rose should clearly by  England despite being born in South Africa (and perhaps being a South African citizen for all I know). In a golfing sense he is not associated with South Africa, it is the country of his birth. For a large majority of non-modern golfers defining the flagicon to be used will not be an issue since they will in most cases be associated with a particular country eg Ben Hogan (USA), Tom Morris, Jr. (SCO). There are, however, exceptions like Tommy Armour, Jock Hutchison and Jim Barnes for instance who started out in Britain but ended up in the US. Often these players are given two flagicons. Some editors take the name "nationality" literally and regard Barnes, for instance, as forever English in a golfing sense (not sure when he became an American citizen), others might regard him as an American in 1921 when he came to the UK as part of an American team. See Ryder Cup#Gleneagles 1921 and 1921 Open Championship.

My preference is for the use of the field to be encouraged but not compulsory. There will be instances where, because there is no clear definition of what the field means, the flagicon(s) to be used is unclear. I see no problem with editors including a brief textual note about the issues associated with a particular golfer, rather than flagicons, in such situations.

I'm sure the naysayers will complain about the vagueness of the above. To me it isn't a problem. I don't think we need "to throw the baby out with the bathwater" simply because we can't define something precisely. Justin Rose is English in the golfing world, Wikipedia just reflects that. Precisely what English means: nationality, birth, residence, club affiliation, etc is not the issue here.

The final issue worth mentioning is that the WP:GOLF project is semi-active which means we don't want to be wasting our time with silly discussions and reverting tokenistic edits. Look at 2014 Wimbledon Championships for instance with 1,177 flagicons on just a single page and think.

Nigej (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Changing "Nationality" to "Country" is a matter of changing the template definition - one change that gets propagated to each of the 2700+ uses of the infobox. Tewapack (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that true? Tiger Woods has "nationality = ..." in his infobox definition. Does this automatically change to "country = ..." ? Nigej (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The label displayed in the infobox (label8 = Nationality) can easily be changed. The data tag would remain "nationality" unless someone or some bot changed the tag in each 2700+ instances. The same thing happened when the Nationwide Tour became the Web.com Tour, the label changed but the tag remained the same [1]. Tewapack (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Nigej, please be aware that the relevant term for use of flag icons is "sporting nationality," i.e., the country which the athlete represents in international competition, of which the athlete is a member of its national team, or that of the national governing body of the sport which sanctions the athlete. To be clear, this is not the same as birthplace, residence, or even citizenship in some cases. "Nationality," in the sporting sense, is actually a better term to use than, say, "country," which is even more ambiguous. The flag icon is supposed to embody "representation" in some sense, which is why flag icons are not appropriate for sports and leagues that are purely domestic, and not international in character. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Erik Compton's infobox lists both  United States and  Norway; should both remain? To my knowledge, he has never represented Norway in international golf. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Phinumu, maybe I'm missing some nuance here, but I wouldn't think so. Compton has been a member of the United States Walker Cup team; that's a pretty clear choice of sporting nationality. Unless I'm missing something, the fact that his mother was Norwegian and he technically holds dual citizenship as a result is irrelevant. Do they use two flags on the leader boards for Compton? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I found this article about him being eligible to play for Norway in the Olympics [2]. The article implies that he has had to choose who to represent in the Olympics, Norway or US, if he qualifies, and that if he chose Norway that he would be ineligible to represent the US in the Ryder Cup. From what I remember about the situation with Rory McIlroy having to choose between Great Britain and Ireland, it was implied that he had to make a choice now, rather than later, and this may be the case for other golfers like Compton that could be eligible to represent more than one country in the Olympics. I've seen nothing definitive with regards to golf in the Olympics and how/when representation is determined. FWIW, I've never seen a leaderboard with multiple flags for one player but that may be a limitation of software. Tewapack (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: I've just found this which discusses nationality and international golf competitions (dated June 2014). Tewapack (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
It's become a signifincant trend in some international sports tournaments for American-born athletes to play for other countries' national teams over the last 20 years. In the last several Summer Olympics, a remarkable percentage of swimmers attended American universities and we've seen American-born athletes competing for other national teams by virtue of having a parent or even grandparent who was a citizen of another country. I can also cite several examples from the early Olympics of immigrants competing for the U.S. national team when they were not yet citizens at the time. I have also recently encountered a case where the athlete competed for South Africa, but became a U.S. citizen after he retired from competition. The infobox should reflect the athlete's sporting nationality (not citizenship or birthplace), and the rest should be explained in the article text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just removed  Norway from the infobox. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 21:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1: I accept all your points about "sporting nationality". Perhaps we should rename it as such. My problem is with the "representation" issue. Did Tom Morris, Jr. "represent" Scotland? I'm not sure he would qualify as Scottish under any of the criteria you list. He was just universally regarded as Scottish. I'm worried that following the representation route opens ourselves up to potential problems. Nigej (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Autoconversion

An inbuilt conversion for height and "weight" has been added so that {{convert}} is no longer necessary. Jimp 02:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include player's current Official World Golf Ranking?

--fireattack (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem is keeping the information up to date. Hundreds of pages to change every week. We would end up with lots of out of date information. Personally I think we have better things to do. Highest-ever ranking would be a possibility, especially if it was only updated at the end of each year. Nigej (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Signatures

What if we were to add the signature parameter like other infoboxes? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox width

most biography-based infoboxes (e.g., {{infobox person}}, {{infobox sportsperson}}, and {{infobox football biography}}) use the default infobox width. This infobox is using 25em, which is a full 3em larger than the default. the creates a mismatch in the infobox sizes when multiple infoboxes are used on the same page. for example, see Ellsworth Vines. I attempted to correct this, but was reverted with the reasoning that too narrow - ruins layout on may articles. I checked the may article, and didn't see this infobox, so I am assuming there is some other article with a serious problem caused by using the default 22em width? please let me know so we can come up with a solution. Frietjes (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Typo - I meant "many articles". Because the labels (on the left hand side) of the box are fixed width, narrowing the infobox width causes many of the values (on the right hand side) to line wrap, for instance the birthdate field and place fields. Changing to the default width to "fix" a handful of pages that have multiple infoboxes while simultaneously making most other articles ugly is not a good solution. Tewapack (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Tewapack, can you put an example in the testcases which demonstrates this problem? Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
For me, the right-hand Greg Norman "PGA Tour of Australasia Order of Merit winner" (under Achievements and awards) now spreads over 4 lines, which perhaps demonstrates the point. Nigej (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Nigej, that sort of thing is easy to fix, since it's some editor decided where to put the line break. anything else? Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The Norman example shows many labels and values wrapping that shouldn't: fullname, born, spouse, "PGA Tour of Australasia" under wins by tour, "The Open Championship" under majors. Any current golfer who has played a major will probably wrap both the "born" field and "The Open Championship" under the majors section. Tewapack (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Olympic medals integration

The Olympics not include stroke play golf on the programme and have done previously. This should be integrated in to this infobox. This is to be discussed as to the best position for this, and how to integrate this. Sport and politics (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_golfer/Archive_2&oldid=1049144280"