Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Fred Couples and "Exhibition Wins"

I noticed we haven't really utilized the new "Exhibition wins" subheading. We did for the TaylorMade event, the event that precipitated the original discussion, but that seems to be it.

A few minutes ago I created an "Exhibition wins" subheading category for Fred Couples. Couples seems to have won more of these events than any golfer I have heard of so I thought it would be a good place to start. However, I know this is a new category that doesn't seem to be firmly defined yet. Other members may have some issue with some of the events I deemed to be an "exhibition" so I am bringing it up here. If anyone would like to make revisions to his page please do so.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I know Couples is considered to be the 'King of the Silly Season' but I don't really know what wins you would consider as exhibitions and what wins are professional victories. His PGA Tour profile lists all of these wins as 'Additional victories' but it is a real grey area trying to categorize events like this with few/no sources to back it up. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that "Professional wins" and "Exhibition wins" are mutually exclusive categories. I don't think so. We already started putting the "Exhibition wins" subheading within the "Professional wins" section. (We started doing this with the pages of Rory McIlroy and Dustin Johnson.)

For an event to qualify as an "exhibition win" on Wikipedia do we need reliable third-party sources for each event that specifically references "exhibition"? Just browsing the internet now, it looks like many of the skins games are referred to as exhibitions in newspaper reports. I don't think it will be hard finding primary sources for most of Couples' victories that were, in my mind, exhibitions.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Yes I get that but it’s hard to define the difference between an exhibition and a professional tournament. I would say the skins games probably are exhibitions, but I think any of the stroke play wins should be kept as ‘Other wins’. Jimmymci234 (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why the "stroke play" distinction is so important to you. On the page of Rory McIlroy we have his wins at the Lough Erne Challenge categorized as an exhibition even though it was a stroke play event.

It would be good to hear from other WikiProject Golf members like Nigej and Wjemather. It doesn't seem like Jimmymci234 and I are coming close to a resolution...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It doesn't look like other WikiProject Golf editors are inclined to respond...

pʰeːnuːmuː, would you like to respond to create consensus? Any help would be much appreciated.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Without checking, I thought "challenge matches" (as opposed to tournaments) was the distinction that we were making. An "exhibition" match/event is not something we cannot adequately define as we do not have reliable sources to say what is and isn't one. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

That's what I was sort of thinking @Wjemather. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't really involved in the original discussion from this summer so I don't know much about it. I will definitely defer to consensus though. However, I have noticed that "Exhibition Wins" was defined as a legitimate category on Wikipedia - at least within the "Professional Wins" sections of Rory McIlroy and Dustin Johnson. Also, for wjemather, you say that "Exhibition Wins" was not a category we could "adequately define." But didn't we already do that, as evidenced on the pages of McIlroy and Johnson that I just mentioned? I genuinely just want clarification.

Also, you mentioned that "Challenge Matches" were the most important category created during the conversation. If this is so, how do we begin to categorize Couples' "Other wins"?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Is anyone able to provide reliable sources that discuss "exhibition" status of events and/or a list of what does and doesn't qualify as one? If not, we shouldn't be inventing such a categorisation and arbitrarily deciding what goes in it. Also, are these events actually being included as "professional wins" by the wider world? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the PGA Tour profiles list these wins as ‘other wins’ as well. Jimmymci234 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Do they list all such events, or just those the tour has an interest in, or just recent ones, or just for players who have (or their agents have) lobbied to get them included (like Snead used to)? For example, widely reported challenge matches from earlier eras, e.g. Shell's WWoG, Monday Night Golf, etc., are not included. Also, I'm really thinking of independent sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a few things to say. At one end, I'm a bit surprised there is so much confusion about the definition of an "exhibition." I've been familiar with the word in reference to minor golf (and tennis) tournaments since I was a little boy and to me, at least instinctively, the idea of what an exhibition is sort of obvious. To me, when it is a standalone event, it is usually a small event, usually with only a handful of golfers, usually pretty famous, and it is often made-for-TV. They are first and foremost "exhibiting" their great talents to the audience and the competitive aspect seems secondary. Some other times it is before the tournament proper (sort of like a pro-am).

That being said, when I search for "golf exhibition" (in any variation) on the internet I can't find much of a definition. Even our Glossary_of_golf doesn't have "exhibition" in it. I did find this 1925 article by the legendary golfer Walter Hagen in The Boston Globe that references exhibitions a lot and may be the closest reliable third-party source for a definition that we can find (he seems to define it as "match golf").

Lastly though, when you search for "golf exhibition" on the search engines you will find a lot of references (probably thousands) to specific tournaments as "exhibitions." Perhaps, this is enough to confirm the validity of the category.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

To me, an "exhibition" is generally a non-competitive affair where pros are principally showing off their skills for a (paying) audience, who may even participate at some point, with little regard for their score. In days gone by, with paltry tournament prizes, many pros made their living this way. Many of the events being grouped in here would not fit that description. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we are coming close to a resolution and I don't want this to drag on forever. Below, I have written a couple simple questions. I think simple answers to these questions will help us finalize the discussion.

There was a conversation last year about events like this. The link is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf/Archive_12#TM_Driving_Relief. I was not involved in it but I believe editors came to the conclusion that "Challenge Matches" was a legitimate category. Is this true?

We have an "Exhibition Wins" subheading on the pages of Rory McIlroy, Darren Clarke, and Dustin Johnson. This clearly implies that "Exhibition Wins" is a legitimate category. Is this true?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Unfortunately, the earlier discussion was never closed after I suggested a possible conclusion. The fact exhibition sub-sections have popped-up on some (but not all) articles (and not been reverted) is most likely simple avoidance of further disruptive edit-warring by DooksFoley147 (almost always while logged-out) – those changes clearly did not have consensus and should probably be reverted. As can be seen everywhere, df has high regard for their own opinion and very little regard for verifiability. I will also say this: if the sub-section is staying in the pro wins section, the entire discussion is pointless and they should all just remain within "other wins"; i.e. it only makes sense to split them out if they are not being counted as pro wins. To me, it makes little sense to include things like The Match, TM Driving Relief, etc. and not things like Shell's WWoG, MNG, etc., but the latter never seem to be included in pro win lists and the former sometimes seem to be. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think I'd agree re the exhibition subsections. With those exhibition events should we move them back into other wins or just remove them completely? I would say removing would make more sense. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow - thank you very much for the responses. This changes my whole perception of the conversation. I had no idea that the "Exhibition Wins" and "Challenge Matches" subcategories were pretty much singularly created by individual dictate (and a vandal at that) and not consensus. Given this information, I think these subheadings should be scrapped.

However, I implied at the very bottom of this talk page that if a pro golfer won any event that was covered by the national newspapers ("a reliable third-party source") it should be included in Professional Wins section. Therefore, I think these "exhibition wins" (or whatever you want to call them) should be included in the "Other wins" subcategory as long as we have a reliable third-party source.

Thoughts??

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I have placed all of wins (that I'm aware of) that were labeled exhibition wins in the "Other wins" subcategory. I have done this specifically for the pages of Rory McIlroy, Darren Clarke, Dustin Johnson, Charlie Bolling, Russ Cochran, Bob Charles, and Bob Tway. If anyone is aware of any other golfer's page where the exhibition category exists, please move those wins into "Other wins."

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

And, unsurprisingly, disruptive IDHT editing by DF147 resumes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. DF147 and his alter-ego Kentbobo are now blocked (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DooksFoley147/Archive) but that doesn't seem to stop him editing as an IP user. Nigej (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The Match is not a professional event and neither are the others mentioned they are not listed by any source as a professional win either. It is crazy some of the events that you guys are even talking about. 77.75.244.29 (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody including the PGA Tour or any other site are including wins in "The Match" or the Taylor made driving for relief as professional Wins. They are classed as exhibition Wins sourced by Sky Sports who covered the the Taylormade event, and I ask you to check out a BBC article on the Brookes v Bryson match which clearly states the exhibition nature of that event. People need to look around. 77.75.244.29 (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say they are "exhibition" matches? Give us some links from reliable sources. I know it's your style to use vague statements but Wikipedia needs more than that. Nigej (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Some people seem to think that if an event doesn't form part of an official tour schedule, then it has to be an exhibition. Just simply not the case or true at all. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If we have a reliable third-party source for someone's victory in a professional event, isn't that enough for inclusion in the "Professional wins" section?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Well it looks like The match were exhibition events after all and not added as Other wins on players resumes. I have found nearly 20 third party sources that list the TaylorMade Driving Relief as an exhibition event. How many do I need to add here to get it removed from the Other wins section ?. 31.200.190.146 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How many of these sources define what is meant by "exhibition"? I'd guess none. You need to look at this holistically instead of crusading against the inclusion of one or two events. Using the criteria "widely described as an exhibition (by RS)" would be a terrible means of determining inclusion/exclusion from pro wins (I'm guessing this is what you're really angling for, since merely splitting from other wins would be pointless); for example, many sources describe small field invitation tournaments such as the Hero as exhibitions. I'm pretty sure I've seen World Cups and early Masters Tournaments described this way too, particularly in contemporary sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No it is actually the host broadcaster Sky Sports who actually co-sanctioned and co hosted the event with the PGA. They called it an exhibition event. So i think in fairness they would know what type of tournament they were showing wouldn't you agree ?. I have a link to prove this I have more from other respected sports broadcasters referencing the above event the Taylor Made Driving Relief as a charity exhibition event. I can add links to support. I would like the TaylorMade Driving Relief removed from the professional wins section as it is clearly defined as a charity exhibition. Rather like "The Match" which is much the same with it's two man team exhibition format 178.167.247.64 (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK passed long ago. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have evidence to suggest that this event was a charity exhibition and I want it removed from the professional wins section. So where do I need to go to make that happen ?. 178.167.155.9 (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You are equating "called an exhibition by someone" with "not a professional win"; there is no such equivalence. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Leona Maguire

Here we go 1- Much of the sections on her golfing from 2005 to 2015 is unreferenced. 2- There is a unreferenced mention of her winning a tournament in Windsor but the win isn't in her pro wins sections. 3- Do we need this much detail in an article. She was the top amateur and has 3 professional victories but her article sadly dwarfs Kathy Whitworth who has 88 tour wins. Thoughts?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

At first glance, it certainly needs a heavy duty scythe taking to it. All needs to be consolidated into two or three paragraphs about each of amateur and pro careers. Her junior career, in particular, is far too detailed and includes local and club competitions that are not really worthy of mention at all. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have started[1]. As a biography of a living person it needs proper referencing. You can't just claim positive accomplishments, just like you can't not negative happenings, without backing it up with reliable sources....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WGC's

Does anyone here know if the two WGC tournaments that aren't on the schedule this season will be returning? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure they're not from my understanding. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

World top 20s

I've reverted a couple of additions at OWGR and WWGR. I don't think there's any way we'd want to be maintaining a weekly top 20 list in these articles or anywhere else (per WP:NOSTATS). I do maintain a top 10 list at List of male golfers who have been in the world top 10 but I only do that because of some comments in the past. Nigej (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Personally, I wouldn't want to get into maintaining any such list and don't see them as being particularly encyclopedic, however top-ten does have some significance; top-twenty, not so much. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

There is a discussion underway regarding the titles of the following two articles:

Please see Talk:Chronological list of men's major golf champions#Requested move 12 February 2022 to contribute. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Minnesota State Amateur

I recently created a page for the Minnesota State Amateur. For the table, most of the information is there but I'm still missing a decent amount from two columns. The main source (starting on page 143) did not have the scores from the match play era or the runner-ups from the stroke play era. I did some research and found some of the missing info but not a ton. If anyone can add anything that would be great.

I also have one more small question: per WP: MOS do we add military titles in these golf articles? According to this source, the runner-up in the 1935 event was Colonel Chauncey Griggs. I included the military title in the table. However, I have noticed that we have taken out military titles in other pages. For example, Lieutenant H.M. Ballinghall won the South African Amateur Championship (golf) in 1905 and 1906. I originally included his title when I created the page but it was then deleted. Any information would be helpful.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

updating PGA Tour calendars

I recently came across old PGA Tour Media Guides like this one from 1972. On page 7 they list the full "1972 Tour Schedule" which includes all of the "official events" for that year's PGA Tour as well as a number of minor events (e.g. Little Crosby Pro-Am, Mini-Nelson Satellite, Caribbean Tour events). I was thinking about adding all of these minor events to our seasonal calendars (which already include the "official" events). I wanted to know what other people thought.

In addition, as full disclosure, I would like to mention that User:Wjemather and I had a discussion about this matter on his talk page. We did not come to consensus which is why I bring it up here. All members are free to contribute. Thanks!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I think I added all the satellite tournaments that counted in the money list a while back. I'm not sure the rest are worth including. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 08:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like consensus is that we don't include these "minor" events in the PGA Tour calendars (unless they were part of the money list). I think that's fine.

I do think, however, some minor changes need to be made to the calendars. First off, we clearly need citations so I included a citation from the 1972 PGA Tour Media Guide for the 1972 PGA Tour calendar. In addition, in the notes column, I noted that The British Open was not an official PGA Tour win until 2002. (Fwiw, wiki's European Tour's seasonal calendars include nearly identical information about the American majors.)

I intend to make similar edits to other PGA Tour calendars from this era. If anyone has any reservations about what I'm doing please let me know. In addition, if you like what I'm doing, please make similar edits to these calendars.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Player Championship qualification

Not sure where the Player Championship eligibility requirements are sourced from, but there seems to be several differences in the media guide (in bold below). Is the media guide wrong or wikipedia? https://pgatourmedia.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/page/files/tours/2022/pgatour/theplayerschampionship/eventMediaGuide/THE%20PLAYERS%202022%20Media%20Guide.pdf

• Winners of PGA TOUR cosponsored or approved tournaments, whose victories are considered official since the last played PLAYERS Championship. • The top 125 players from the 2020-21 FedExCup Points List. • Winners of the Masters Tournament from the years 2017-2021. • Winners of THE PLAYERS Championship and The Open Championship from 2016-2019 and 2021. • Winners of the U.S. Open and PGA Championship from 2016-2021. • Winner of the FedExCup from the 2018/19-2020/21 seasons. • Winners of the World Golf Championships-Mexico Championship from 2019-2021. • Winners of the World Golf Championships-Dell Technologies Match Play from 2018, 2019 and 2021. • Winners of the World Golf Championships-FedEx St. Jude Invitational from 2018-2021. • Winners of the World Golf Championships-HSBC Champions from 2018 and 2019. • Winners of The Genesis Invitational from 2020-2022. • Winners of the Arnold Palmer Invitational presented by Mastercard from 2019-2022. • Winners of the Memorial Tournament presented by Workday from the years 2018-2021. • Current Men’s Golf Olympic Gold Medalist (one-year only). • The top 50 players from the Official World Golf Ranking through The Honda Classic (Monday, February 28, 2022). • The top 10 players from the 2021-22 FedExCup Points List through The Honda Classic. • The winner of the previous year’s Bridgestone SENIOR PLAYERS Championship. • The leading points winner from the 2020-21 Top 25 Korn Ferry Tour Regular Season Points List and points earned in the Korn Ferry Tour Finals and the leading points winner from the 2021 Korn Ferry Tour Finals. • If necessary to complete a field of 144 players, PGA TOUR members from the 2021-22 FedExCup Points List below 10th position though The Honda Classic (February 28, 2022), in order of their positions on such list.

Jopal22 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also Recent winners of the Tour Championship (2018) is in wiki and not the media guide

Jopal22 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The reference is given (ref 2) but it lacks clarity in certain aspects. The media guide list seems much better. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, the media guide is the better source and we should follow that. For information, in addition to the source given in the article (which obviously has the criteria in the wrong order), I also used a 3rd party news article but that in hindsight was possibly (probably) extrapolated from criteria in previous season(s). However, the PGA Tour's "Inside the Field" would imply the criteria are not applied in the order listed in the media guide, although there are anomalies. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the criteria & exemptions in our article per the media guide, but haven't reordered them. While doing it I remembered that Stenson was not originally in the field when it was announced, only for him to be added a few hours later when he was apparently still eligible from his 2016 Open win ([2]). Makes me think the tour made a bit of a hash of it this year, publishing conflicting criteria/exemption lists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

2020 Players

Someone changed the 2022 Players to be "48th Players Championship, and the 40th edition played on the Stadium Course at TPC Sawgrass". This was then changed back. Don't know what other RS say, but the media guide agrees with it being the 40th (see page 132) and that the 2020 Players was "cancelled". This means 2020 edition is not counted, and so for instance Matsuyama's round of 63 isn't included in the lowest rounds at Sawgrass records (it is in TPC at Sawgrass page). Jopal22 (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. 48th and 40th and Matsuyama's round don't count. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming........William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

With regards to Matsuyama's 63, the tour may no longer consider it a Players Championship record (judging by the media guide), but that doesn't necessarily mean it gets scrubbed from the TPC Sawgrass books. Unless you have a source(s)? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Seems that most sources are calling the current one the 48th. Nigej (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't find anything to suggest sources favouring one over the other when searching, e.g. 49th, 49th. And we all know what the tour is like for rewriting it's own history... Either way, it needs to be sourced and explained properly. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I looked for "48th" and found mostly this years stuff (eg [3] The 48th staging of the Players Championship ...). Perhaps best to simply remove it for 2021 and 2022. Nigej (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone have source(s) for the tour scratching the 2020 tournament and Matsuyama's record from the books? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The PGA Tour as a reliable source makes me want to laugh sometimes. A few years ago as noted on this page, Billy Casper's win total had dropped from 51 to 48 and his playoff record from 8-8 to 8-7. Well, his 3 missing wins (Two of them the Bob Hope Desert Classic) are back but his 1968 playoff loss at the Bing Crosby is still missing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Many players have gained and lost wins (and other records) as a result of the tour's arbitrary re-evaluations, particularly during the 1980s; I tried unravelling them here but didn't manage to account for several changes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Dropping wins of Caribbean or Latin America wins is one thing, but missing high profile wins or playoff losses like the Hope or Crosby tournaments are ridiculous. An early 90's PGA Tour guide book (I think they are all available online now.) was riddled with playoff record mistakes. Not one or two, but dozens. The PGA Tour poor history of recordkeeping has been going on for 35 years or more....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

p38 of the media guide (https://pgatourmedia.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/page/files/tours/2022/pgatour/theplayerschampionship/eventMediaGuide/THE%20PLAYERS%202022%20Media%20Guide.pdf) has the 18 holes record score. Matsuyama is not included. Jopal22 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

True, but ideally we should be using secondary sources per WP:PSTS to "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". Nigej (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I aslo find the find line of the PGA Tour pages dubious e.g. "The 2021–22 PGA Tour is the 107th season of the PGA Tour, and the 55th since separating from the PGA of America." The first year of the PGA Tour seems a bit ambiguous to me, and something perhaps that shouldn't be included in the intro. Jopal22 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are dubious. At the very least, such claims need to be qualified (as they are in the European Tour season articles, although that could also be better/clearer). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of revisionist history... see the section below...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

NGOLF

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/NGOLF for a proposal to replace the current golf notability guideline in the wake of the recent NSPORTS RFC. I have started discussion on the talk page there, for comments and suggestions. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

early PGA Tour calendars

I noticed that a user recently created some early PGA Tour calendars (e.g. 1916 PGA Tour, 1920 PGA Tour). Overall, I like this idea (and have even contributed a little to these pages) but I think this user might be jumping the gun a little bit.

First off, the source being used is from a website called Kronish sports. I have never heard of it before and I'm not sure if it's reliable.

Most importantly, though, I think these pages may be examples of original research. Basically, these pages seem to imply that each year there was a discrete unit of events under the auspices of some coherent tour. I'm not necessarily sure of that. An independent PGA Tour did not exist until the 1960s/1970s (its wiki page says 1929) and the tour did some serious historical revisionism in the late 1980s retroactively counting a lot of early events as PGA Tour-level. So these tournaments may have been in fact a bunch of unrelated, isolated events that were only retroactively given PGA Tour status until the late 1980s. This all may be misleading to the reader. I don't know much about early 20th century golf, however, and would like to hear other thoughts.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I have been aware of this site, although this is not an area I know anything about. It couldn't in any sense be regarded as a reliable source, certainly not in this area. Nigej (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That particular page is mirroring one from the PGA Tour Stat Inquiry System, which may not exactly be intended for public use (there is a way to get into it, but I'm hesitant to share it here because I don't want them to close it off). pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 07:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure there is much that can be verified but not the existence of a coherent tour at this time, so I'd say these articles probably need to head to AFD. Kronish Sports is clearly a self-published source, and therefore cannot be a reliable source unless the author is a renowned expert, which in this case does not appear to be the case (do we even know who the author is?). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As the creator of the early "PGA Tour" articles regarding the 1910s and 1920s, I agree with most of the commenters here. There are well-sourced Wikipedia pages for the tournaments and golfers of the period and I thought these pages would match the style guidelines of the current PGA Tour season articles. But as noted here the events were retroactively considered PGA Tour events, the date of the start of the tour is debatable and the tour's record-keeping is somewhat shoddy so sourcing these articles is difficult and would agree Kronish Sports is not an ideal source. Would not be opposed to their deletion if that is the consensus.

Thank you User:Ben76266 for your forthright response. It seems clear that these pages should be headed to deletion by now.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I just proposed that these pages should be deleted. Please see this deletion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1916_PGA_Tour. In addition, this is my first "bundle" deletion proposal so I may have screwed up some things. If you could fix any minor issues that'd be great!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It would be nice if other people responded. You can just quickly copy and paste your thoughts above to the deletion page. Should only take a few seconds.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

WGC Match Play pools

The tables for the pool stages are fairly cumbersome and somewhat unfriendly to editors wanting to update them, so I've been looking for a more elegant solution. Module:Sports results and Module:Sports_table seem to have the functionality needed (with a bit of customising), and enable easier entering of results and reordering of tables. Here is an example of what can be produced from these modules using last year's Pool A:

Results of \ vs.	Johnson	Na	MacIntyre	Long
Dustin Johnson		Lost 1 dn	Tied	Won 2 up
Kevin Na	Won 1 up		Lost 2 & 1	Lost 2 & 1
Robert MacIntyre	Tied	Won 2 & 1		Tied
Adam Long	Lost 2 dn	Won 2 & 1	Tied

Source: ^{[citation needed]}

Pos	Seed	Player	W	T	L	Pts
1	41	Robert MacIntyre (A)	1	2	0	2

T2	1	Dustin Johnson (E)	1	1	1	1.5
T2	61	Adam Long (E)	1	1	1	1.5
4	28	Kevin Na (E)	1	0	2	1

Source: ^{[citation needed]}
(A) Advanced to knockout stage; (E) Eliminated

Thoughts please. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the group part is not very reader or editor-friendly. We'd lose the day-by-day details with your top table, but honestly I'm not sure that's a great loss. So I'd support a simplified table for the results. Nigej (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the results module doesn't really lend itself to matchplay golf – it's more suited to simple scorelines. I'd have liked to just have one set of results in the matrix, as it's a single round-robin, but I couldn't manage to make it so it was clear who won without a mass of explanatory text. The points table seems to work well though. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

One option is something like 2020 Championship League (ranking) which uses a side-by-side approach Nigej (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That would certainly be an improvement on what we have now. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI, this was suggested and demonstrated previously at Talk:2019 WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play 22:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Jopal22 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it's a shame there wasn't more input to that discussion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

As there are only three games, I'd be tempted to get rid of separate tables and combine them. i.e. instead of a W D L column have Game 1, Game 2, Game 3. So Robert MacIntyre's columns would be "Tied vs DJ", "Won vs KN (2 & 1)", "Tied vs AL", and then the points column of "2". That is assuming that was the order he played them obviously (you can't tell the order of games from the tables above). Jopal22 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Example:

Rank	Player	Game 1	Game 2	Game 3	Pts
1	Kevin Kisner (32)	Tied vs AH	Win vs BW (5 & 4)	Win vs DJ (3&1)	2.5
2	Adam Hadwin (38)	Tied vs KK	Win vs DJ (4 & 3)	Tied vs BW	2
3	Bernd Wiesberger (52)	Win vs DJ (3 & 1)	Loss vs KK (5 & 4)	Tied vs AH	1.5
4	Dustin Johnson (1)	Loss vs BW (3 & 1)	Loss vs DJ (4 & 3)	Loss vs DJ (3&1)	0

Jopal22 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

My two cents: I like this table above created by Jopal22 the most.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I think I prefer the snooker format. I'm not a huge fan of using initials like this, especially when Max Homa and Mackenzie Hughes are in the same group. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 05:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I think the use of initials is a problem. Nigej (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Initials can cause issues, plus it loses the Win/Tie/Loss detail. Here's an option along the lines of the snooker format, but with column headers, borders (which could be removed) and less MOS issues:

Pos	Seed	Player	W	T	L	Pts
1	41	Robert MacIntyre (A)	1	2	0	2

T2	1	Dustin Johnson (E)	1	1	1	1.5
T2	61	Adam Long (E)	1	1	1	1.5
4	28	Kevin Na (E)	1	0	2	1

Source: ^{[citation needed]}
(A) Advanced to knockout stage; (E) Eliminated

Date	Match details			Score
Mar 24	Johnson	beat	Long	2 up
Mar 24	MacIntyre	beat	Na	2 & 1
Mar 25	Johnson	vs	MacIntyre	Tied
Mar 25	Long	beat	Na	2 & 1
Mar 26	Na	beat	Johnson	1 up
Mar 26	MacIntyre	vs	Long	Tied

Any better? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah happy with that. Still feel we could combine into one table though e.g.

Rank	Player	Pld	W	L	T	Pts	Results
1	Kevin Kisner (32)	3	2	0	1	2.5	T v Hadwin; W v Weisburger (5 & 4); W v Johnson (3 & 1)
2	Adam Hadwin (38)	3	1	0	2	2	T v Kisner; W v Johnson (4 & 3); T v Weisburger
3	Bernd Wiesberger (52)	3	1	1	1	1.5	W v Johnson (3 & 1); L v Kisner (5 & 4); T v Hadwin
4	Dustin Johnson (1)	3	0	3	0	0	L v Wiesberger (3 & 1); L v Hadwin (4 & 3); L v Kisner (3 & 1)

Jopal22 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If we merge into one table, I think the match results would be clearer in their own columns, as in your first example; something like this maybe:

Rank	Player (seed)	Pld	W	L	T	Pts	Match results
1	Kevin Kisner (32)	3	2	0	1	2.5	Tied Hadwin	Beat Weisburger 5 & 4	Beat Johnson 3 & 1
2	Adam Hadwin (38)	3	1	0	2	2	Tied Kisner	Beat Johnson 4 & 3	Tied Weisburger
3	Bernd Wiesberger (52)	3	1	1	1	1.5	Beat Johnson 3 & 1	Lost to Kisner 5 & 4	Tied Hadwin
4	Dustin Johnson (1)	3	0	3	0	0	Lost to Wiesberger 3 & 1	Lost to Hadwin 4 & 3	Lost to Kisner 3 & 1

_wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Like this one the best. Don't think we need the "Pld" column. Tewapack (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I like the last one too. Surnames are preferable to initials. Days 1 2 3 very clear. Pld could go, but not worried either way. We lose the "schedule" aspect (unless we add "vs Hadwin") but that's no big deal IMO. Nigej (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that works. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we have a winner Jopal22 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've cobbled something together. Needs a bit of tuning. 1. Do we need the tables to be a consistent width? 2. Does someone lose 1 up or lose 1 down or even lose by 1 hole? 3. How to handle Casey's CON. Perhaps a footnote would be better. 4. I haven't bothered at this stage with ties for position. Nigej (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My suggestions: 1. Would probably look better with consistent column widths. 2. Lose down (or dn) or by holes, not up. 3. Conners "Beat Casey (conc.)" with an explanatory footnote. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that looks way better than before. Good job! Jopal22 (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Side note: I am vehemently opposed to putting flags in the next round of the bracket before the player is determined. To me that seems about as useful as putting "Kevin" in the next round of the bracket if Kevin Na and Kevin Kisner are playing each other. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100%. It came up awhile back in the snooker area. Someone added "Mark" (I think) since both players were called Mark. Interestingly the same editors who add the flags for future rounds thought that adding "Mark" was "silly", but for some reason couldn't see the inconsistency in their argument. As always it's a matter of whether we can be bothered to make a fuss about it (WP:3RR and all that). Nigej (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. Such nonsense should be reverted... but not edit-warred over. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 PGA Championship

I've created a 2022 PGA Championship article. As often it seems to be difficult to find a decent source for the entry criteria. I've put something together based on previous years and Rob Bolton's weekly article at https://www.pgatour.com/fantasy/major-qualifiers.html . If anyone knows of something better please include it there. Nigej (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The PGA Championship really doesn't mesh well with Wikipedia guidelines. It's obvious that they invite the top 100 (and a bit beyond), usually at two different cutoff dates, and invite the Ryder Cup captains. But until they make those official categories, our hands are tied. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it would be clearer to readers if we simply said the field was the top-n with about 30 no-hopers (club pros + ex-winners) and then listed the rest. But they persist with this strange qualification system for some reason. Nigej (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Succession boxes in major championships

Currently we have a few hundred "succession boxes" at the bottom of our major championship articles, eg in 2022 Masters Tournament:

Preceded by 2021 Open Championship	Major Championships	Succeeded by 2022 PGA Championship

Most men's majors back to about 1980 have these, but in earlier years usage is more haphazard (the earliest is in the 1936 Open). Personally I don't find these at all useful and the style is dominating relative to its importance. Succession boxes were popular in the early days of Wikipedia but have gone out of fashion, navboxes being preferred in many cases, eg:

I have changed this navbox so that it is "auto-expanded" (you might need to "purge" to see it auto-expanded) and it seems to me that the succession boxes largely duplicate this navbox. My proposal is that we remove the succession boxes. Currently we don't have an equivalent navbox for the women or seniors but personally I think a navbox for these is a better way forward. Nigej (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This really isn't the purpose of succession boxes anyway. Remove them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed them all from the men and women's majors. Not done the seniors as yet. I've created a new navbox for the women's majors along the lines of the long-standing men's one (above). Personally I think this gives more useful navigation that the succession boxes; seems to me that readers will most likely be interested in other majors that year. Nigej (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Chronological ordering of winner lists (again)

Due to PeeJay's recent edits at AT&T Byron Nelson, it looks like it's time to revisit this topic. Here's the previous discussion for reference. The question is, should golf tournament winner lists go from most recent to earliest or vice versa? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 03:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I notice that no consensus was ever actually reached at that previous discussion. You rightly brought up WP:DATELIST at the time, which clearly states that chronological lists should be presented with the earliest entry at the top. No exceptions are given for that, and no actual rationale was given for going against it either. The only arguments I saw were tantamount to WP:OSE. The fact that most golf articles go latest to earliest is not a good reason for this one to do the same, especially when someone was willing to put in the legwork to fix it. – Pee Jay 06:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not at all clear that WP:DATELIST applies here. "Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Chronological ordering." seems to imply that, like WP:SALORDER, it related to list articles. The article at issue here is not a list article, it just uses a table to display information and so MOS:TABLE applies and I can't see anything there about such ordering. See PGA Championship which used reverse order. However in List of PGA Championship champions (which IS a list article) we use forward order per WP:DATELIST and WP:SALORDER. Nigej (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think a reference to a related policy necessarily implies that WP:DATELIST only applies to list articles. The page WP:DATELIST appears on just talks about lists in general. But all that is beside the real point, which is, what is the benefit of ordering the list in reverse, and do any benefits outweigh the consistency that would be brought by having all lists in the same order regardless of context? – Pee Jay 06:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me that the table at issue here is not a "list" in the sense intended at MOS:LIST. The argument for reverse ordering has always been that (for existing events) readers are more interested in recent events that those from many years ago and so its more useful to them to present this information first. Clearly that argument doesn't hold for old events, and articles like Glasgow Herald Tournament from the 1920s often use forward order. Nigej (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "not a 'list' in the sense intended at MOS:LIST". And yes, I too remember there was a provision for lists being displayed in reverse order, but I don't seem to be able to find that in any MOS guidelines any more, so I assume it's been deprecated. – Pee Jay 08:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The examples at MOS:LIST consist of a heading followed by a number of bullet points. What we've got at the Byron Nelson article is something completely different, a table. Nigej (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Section 5.5 of MOS:LIST specifically names tables as a valid type of list. – Pee Jay 09:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Well spotted. However I still think that, while the MOS is crystal clear about "list articles", the situation for other articles is not clear from the MOS. Nigej (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I guess we'll have to disagree on that point then, since the second sentence of MOS:LIST says "Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, [...] or as a stand-alone article". These guidelines plainly apply not just to standalone list articles but also to lists found within prose articles. – Pee Jay 12:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources use both and I have little personal preference for either. However, I think most readers would probably be looking to see the most recent first, especially for current tournaments. Most of all though, I'm unconvinced that there is a compelling reason to change (even if it is agreed the section of MOS applies, it is not a hard and fast rule); and there is no reason at all for a single article to be changed in isolation. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There's no rush to change them all. I changed this one because I was researching the tournament for work and noticed it was "wrong". I'm not sure "readers would be most interested in the recent tournaments" is a good enough reason to fly in the face of the MOS, no matter how much disdain you have for it, but let's see what others say. – Pee Jay 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have no "disdain" for MOS but even if I did, such feelings would be irrelevant. Please stick to the point(s) in question rather than making personal remarks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Wjemather’s most recent point and as a reader of these pages myself, feel more interest and makes more sense to me in seeing most recent winners first. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What makes more sense is not really germane to this discussion. The only relevant policy on this states that lists should run from oldest to newest. There is no provision for reverse order any more. – Pee Jay 19:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS advises using common sense. And again, MOS is not policy; please learn the difference. You've stated your case, please stop bludgeoning it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately when people keep bringing up irrelevant guidelines, it behoves me to restate the case. And yet again, what is the point of the MOS if not for it to be followed? If you think the MOS is wrong or needs exceptions applying to it, take it up on the MOS talk page. – Pee Jay 01:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As discussed before, keep it as is (most recent tournament first). I find MOS unclear myself. As a note, other sporting pages do reverse order as well, including ones which have recently passed a "featured article" review process e.g. Johnny Owen Jopal22 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Addendum. Looks like Johnny Owen's table was changed to chronological when it became a featured article, and there has been edit warring to change it back since. It was also discussed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing/Archive_9#Fight_record_tables. I dunno, I like it how it is, seems like a question bigger than one article or even just golf Jopal22 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course, we do use "forward" order for biographies (eg lists of wins), it's only for the tournament articles that we use "reverse" order. So we satisfy MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL, which is specifically for biographies. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL is irrelevant. WP:DATELIST is the only relevant policy. – Pee Jay 19:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

In what way is the MOS unclear? It states that lists should go in chronological order, with no provision for reverse order. – Pee Jay 19:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

See for instance Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 7#Chronological order, for lists within articles from 2018 which notes earlier discussions. "However, the linked page is specifically for stand-alone lists" "The words "such as timelines" could be interpreted as limiting the rule to stand-alone lists." And why is WP:DATELIST in a section called "Timelines" if it applies to all lists, not just Timelines? Nigej (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The phrase was added 29 August 2015 [4] with no discussion and the edit summary "OK, this may seem obvious, but adding that timelines should be earliest-to-latest chronological order (e.g. WP:SALORDER) - WP:CHRONO should specifically mention this as well." which seems to imply that the sentence was only intended to apply to timelines. Nigej (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Because not all lists have a chronological element. If you're going to put a list in chronological order, it should be from oldest to newest, not the other way around. – Pee Jay 19:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

But, as we've seen, some lists are chronological but are not timelines. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You're going to have to define timeline for me then, because I'm not sure how a table whose contents are in chronological order is anything other than a timeline. – Pee Jay 22:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not me that need to define it, but WP:DATELIST says "For lists of dated events, or timelines, use one instance of {{Timeline-event}} per event, thus:". Nigej (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That very link says “Chronological lists, such as timelines”, which implies that timelines are a form of chronological list, and that such lists can take several forms, including as tables, which is the case here. – Pee Jay 09:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

However "For lists of dated events, or timelines, use one instance of {{Timeline-event}} per event", which clearly our tables don't. So on that basis they can't be "lists of dated events, or timelines". Nigej (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's an example of how to create a timeline using templates here on Wikipedia, but chronological lists can also be tabulated. If you're excluding tables from being chronological lists just because they don't fit your narrow interpretation of the MOS, then I think you're being incredibly dense. – Pee Jay 16:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that the golf tables are not "Timelines". So common sense would tell us that WP:DATELIST, which directs to a section called "Timelines", does not apply to the golf tables. Anyway this whole discussion demonstrates that basing any actions on the last sentence in this section would not be a sensible way forward. I know that Wikipedia is crazy at times, but surely not that crazy. Nigej (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'd like to know why MOS says what it does. Without knowing that, WP:IAR seems to apply since we have a longstanding consensus. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, the consensus of a small group such as this WikiProject cannot override the wider consensus that resulted in the creation of the MOS as it exists. If you disagree with the MOS, perhaps a discussion should happen there about adding some exceptions to it, but until then it should be followed. WP:IAR only applies if ignoring the rule actually improves the encyclopaedia. As things stand, having a small group of chronological tables displayed in reverse order hinders the encyclopaedia by detracting from its consistency. – Pee Jay 19:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The trouble is that WP:DATELIST is so ambiguous and poorly written, that basing policy on it, is never going to work, even ignoring the fact that it was never discussed before being added to the MOS. If you want all chronological lists to be in forward order I suggest a properly discussed addition to the MOS would be the way forward. Chronological lists with other orderings (eg ordered by winners name) would be an issue, but personally I don't see that having lists in reverse chronological order is an issue. Nigej (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The MOS already says that all chronological lists should be in forward order. I'm struggling to see where the ambiguity is, whereas you guys seem to be bending over backwards to find it. – Pee Jay 21:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

However, it's not just us. You've also not answered the points made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 7#Chronological order, for lists within articles from 2018 where the poster finishes with "It would be helpful for this MOS page either to state this latitude for lists within articles, or to rule it out more clearly if reverse-chronological order is no longer acceptable". Seems to me that it's you who's seeing this sentence as crystal clear when everyone else sees ambiguities in it. Nigej (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

“Everyone else” might be an exaggeration on your part. – Pee Jay 09:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't we already have consensus that ignoring the guideline improves the encyclopedia? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears we have made the news...

I noticed this article recently from golf journalist Shane Ryan. He participated briefly in the discussion about the List of men's major championships winning golfers page we were thinking about deleting. (I was barely involved and don't know much about it.)

Anyway, I thought it may be of some interest...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

New Britain Open

I was thinking about making a page for this event. I recently created a page for the Australian golfer Vic Bennetts who won the event in 1976. In addition he had several other top results in the event during the 1970s. However, I have a few reservations:

I cannot find an overarching source that lists the winners for this event. According to links here and here the event is still going on. But again, no overarching source on Google. If I cannot find an overarching source I will probably not try to create a page.

Most importantly, I am not sure if the tournament is notable enough. On Trove, you can find a lot of stuff on the event during Bennetts career, from the mid- to late-1970s. But that's about it. A lot of top Australian golfers played during this era but I'm not sure about before or after. If anyone has any info please let me know.

Thanks!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

See: http://www.australiangolfheritage.org.au/objectofthemonth.html which say its been going since 1951 for the W. L. "Birdie" Heron Trophy, although https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/251037609 says it started in 1953. See also https://postcourier.com.pg/history-made-65th-ip-new-britain-open/ which says that Bradley Burns won it for the 7th time. Seems to be mainly a domestic event. Nigej (talk) 06:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the links Nigej. Given the scattershot of information, I don't think I will create a page for this event. (In addition, its fundamental notability is questionable.) Once again, thank you.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Question about retirement date

In the infobox, there is a "Retired" date line. I wasn't sure to use the date they retire as a touring professional or as a club professional. The infobox seems to focus far more on tournament golf however they don't usually fully retire from the golf industry until the club pro work stops. Any advice would be much appreciated.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Personally I'd be in favour of simply deleting the parameter from the infobox. Pretty sure its not widely used and ill-defined in any case. When do golfers "retire"? Nigej (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Nigej....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Bobby Jones (golfer) "retired" in 1930 but played in the Masters until 1948. Nonsense really. Nigej (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Most American players don't "retire" until they've lost PGA Tour status and don't think they can get it back. There have been European players who retired when still exempt on the European Tour (Robert-Jan Derksen comes to mind). But there are countless examples all around the world of players retiring and then coming back, or retiring except for a few tournaments they still played. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

and even if they've lost PGA Tour status, they're thinking they might make a comeback on the seniors tour in a few years time. Nigej (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the information, I think we should get rid of it. This retirement date line doesn't seem particularly applicable to golf. Golfers can play golf forever and rarely formally retire. (I have never heard of a golfer holding a retirement ceremony.) I suspect this parameter exists within the golf infobox because it exists in the infobox for other sports (where an unambiguous retirement date is common).

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Golfer retirement ceremony= funeral....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol... kind of true.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Although their are lots of golfers that never retire, some do retire in their prime or later and I see no reason that the fact can't be noted in the infobox, e.g. Graham DeLaet, Lorena Ochoa. If a golfer never retires, then the field simply doesn't get filled. If they un-retire, simply delete the retirement year. Tewapack (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

In general though it just seems extremely rare that pro golfers officially retire from the sport. Again, I cannot recall a single retirement ceremony for a golfer. In women's golf it may be a little more common there because some formally retire to have children. But even there it still seems rare. And in men's golf it is almost nonexistent. Overall, I think this parameter is irrelevant to our sport and should be deleted.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

My own issue here is that it's so ill-defined. Ochoa retired in 2010 but "made a limited return to competitive golf in 2012", although we still have 2010 in the infobox. Bobby Jones retired in 1930 but played in the Masters after that for many years. Unless we can firm up on what it actually means I'd still be keen to get rid of it. Nigej (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems like most of us are against this parameter. Do users Wjemather or Jimmymci234 have opinions? I would like to come to consensus soon.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I'd be inclined to get rid of the parameter. In the relatively rare event of a player announcing their retirement, it's more effective to add a section to their article to cover the subject and provide a reference, as has been done for Graham DeLaet. Also, the parameter appears to be used inconsistently - for example, it's not used at Jack Nicklaus where there's a section about "Close of playing career", and it is used at Annika Sörenstam who retired from the LPGA but is playing again at senior events. PK T(alk) 13:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you PK for your response. It seems clear that this parameter should be deleted. Could someone please provide me with a link with instructions on how to delete an infobox parameter? I will then attempt to delete it.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

There is a clear consensus to remove this parameter and I have made the appropriate request at Template talk:Infobox golfer. Nigej (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the parameter has been deleted. Thank you Nigej.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Yes, from the infobox. However we have 285 articles which used this parameter (see Category:Pages using infobox golfer with unknown parameters, more than I was expecting). I'll delete them using WP:AWB, a relatively simple task. Probably most of the other golfer articles have the retired parameter but not set (ie just "retired="). These should be deleted too, but clearly there a lot more of those (perhaps 4,000).. Nigej (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nigej, I noticed you've been manually deleting the other ones. How many more are left?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I've deleted all the ones where the parameter was set. I haven't deleted any where the parameter is not set. Nigej (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

PGA Professional Championship (British+Irish) - article title

I'm looking for a title for the Professional Golfers' Association (Great Britain and Ireland)'s "flagship tournament" (https://www.pga.info/news/cort-and-higgins-tied-at-the-top-at-slaley-hall/) officially (and confusingly) called the PGA Professional Championship. We already have an article PGA Professional Championship for the corresponding US event so I'm thinking PGA Professional Championship (Great Britain and Ireland) might be a suitable name (based on the PGA article name). Until 2007 it was called the PGA Club Professional Championship but that title is already used as a redirect to the US event. In the media it was sometimes called the PGA Club Professionals' Championship (or similar), but it's not clear if that was ever an official title. The event started in 1973, seemingly as a way of selecting a team for the inaugural Diamondhead Cup (forerunner of the PGA Cup). Various sponsors over the years MacGregor, Wilson, Glenmuir. Some events held in the Republic of Ireland so the title needs to reflect that. Plenty of sources, eg: https://pgagbi.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/pgagbi22/event/pgagbi22237/agendas.htm?type=1&stype=12&hagenda=aab6ae8f-b7fd-4f3b-8c26-174ede1d6b94 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=pJVAAAAAIBAJ&pg=6237%2C2060446 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Qg01AAAAIBAJ&pg=4129%2C2669254 https://web.archive.org/web/20020628132827/http://www.pga.info/articles.asp?id=197

I know the event has only inconsistently used the phrase "Club Professional" but I think it would be best if we included it. Right now the title looks way too similar to the major championship, the PGA Championship, an event of an entirely different level of competitiveness. This may be confusing to the reader. And if we pursue this path I know we will have to change the redirect but I think it's worth it.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Hey User:Nigej, What name did you ultimately choose?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Cape Cod Open

I was looking to make a page for this event, in the area of the country where I now live. It appears there are two totally separate events, one held in the 1930s and another modern one. I have this link from the Boston Globe that is previewing the 1930 event. On the wiki page of Jim Barnes it says he won this event (no citation however) under PGA Tour wins. I believe I also saw a victory noted on the page of a contemporaneous golfer a while back however I can't find it now.

In addition, there is a modern event. The modern event was founded in 1992 by a man named Jim Gaquin. Here is the tournament's homepage. I have this a 1994 link that states that Geoffrey Sisk, a notable local pro, won the event that year. It also says on the page of Jeff Julian (golfer) that he won the 2000 Cape Cod Open. (There doesn't appear to be a working citation for it though.)

Basically I was wondering if either of these events are notable. For the earlier one, I think so, even if it was held only once, as it looks like it was PGA Tour-level. With the more recent one, not so sure. Wondering what other people thought.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The same name for separate golf tourneys is not uncommon. In most cases it is when the tournament is named after a place but not always. Look at this edit of mine[5]. The Pensacola Open is about the tournament from 1956 to 1988 but there were other tournaments by that name before World War Two. Some editors tried to edit the old tournaments into the 56 tournament history. That pretty much ended after I put a reference into the article saying the inaugural event was 1956. I did similar corrections to articles on the Byron Nelson, Houston Open, and a few LPGA events.

The modern tournament gets its own article. The older events a separate one. If they are notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you ...William for your comments. I think I'll make a page for the earlier event but not the later one. Does anyone else know anything about the earlier one? I could only find info on the 1930 event.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

City of Cairns Open

I was looking to make a page for this event. According to this article from the Age, Randall Vines won the 1966 City of Cairns Open. Four years later, according to this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, there was a City of Cairns Open in 1970. I have a secondary source that says that Vic Bennetts won the 1971 Cairns Open. On the sandbox of User: Wjemather it says that Bob Taylor won the 1973 City of Cairns Open and Vines won again the following year. In addition, it looks like some variation of this event was going through the 1980s. According to this article from the Sydney Morning Herald, Mark Nash won the 1983 City of Cairns Open. I was wondering if this was all the same event. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thank you, Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

see: https://www.cairnsgolfclub.com.au/10-golf/2-city-of-cairns-amateur-golf-week "City of Cairns Amateur Golf Week began all the way back in 1965 as a professional event known as the City of Cairns Open. However after 1974 it became an amateur event ..." so probably after 1974 it was a more minor event. Nigej (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A page for the City of Cairns Open has been published. The winners' table is clearly incomplete; if anyone has any missing information please add it. In addition, I have very little specific information about the event after it transformed into a more "amateur" event in the mid-1970s. If anyone has anything valuable please publish it on the tournament's wiki page.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I've referenced Bob Taylor (1973), and added Graeme Bell (1972). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Wjemather for your additions. I noticed in your sandbox you had Vines winning again in 1974. However, I have this secondary source from The Canberra Times that says that Vines won in 1973. I believe your information and used your date (these newspaper reports from the era make little mistakes all the time). However, if you have a third-party source for Vines' second win (e.g. McCormack) that would be great.

Lastly, do you have a good sense that the 73 and 74 events were part of the tour's Order of Merit?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Discussions

Please see the following discussions:

Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

MOS question

I have noticed that we have been tabulating the year-by-year wins of early 20th century PGA Tour golfers. For example, see the Professional wins sections of Jim Barnes, Walter Hagen, Jug McSpaden, and many others. I find this arrangement completely unnecessary as counting the seasonal wins is not that hard (golfers rarely win more than one or two events in a season). I'm not sure what WP:MOS says about this but, to me, these parenthetical wins totals seems like a total distraction to the reader.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume the year and then the number of wins in that year in brackets is what you're on about, e.g. 1914 (1) Western Open?

Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, exactly.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I began deleting these parentheses however User:Tewapack reverted these changes due to lack of consensus. If we could get consensus either way that would be nice.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Cazoo Classic

It seems like the Cazoo Classic may have been, like the Hero Open, dissociated from the English Open. The history page only shows the 2021 event. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily as I read this article from the tour the other day. [6] Jimmymci234 (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Always makes me chuckle when tours bang on about history and then insist on rewriting it on a regular basis. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Lists of golfers with "most" major wins

Please see the following discussions:

Thanks, _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Link for proposed pages for deletion: lists of PGA Cup golfers

Hello all,

I am nominating List of Great Britain and Ireland PGA Cup golfers and List of American PGA Cup golfers in a bundle. The deletion page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Great Britain and Ireland PGA Cup golfers.

I would like to note that the instructions advised me to contact the author of the page and notify him/her of the proposed deletion. I did and noticed it was User:Nigej. I was shocked and somewhat saddened it was him. He is one of our best contributors and has helped me out a lot. However, I have been planning to propose these pages for deletion for awhile so I am still going ahead. I feel like the pages fail Wikipedia:NLIST.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have been advised by administrators for more opinions about this proposed deletion. On the deletion page Nigej ultimately proposed to merge these pages to the main page (i.e. PGA Cup) and delete these lists. Wjemather and I agree with this idea. So I feel like to have a good consensus for merge and delete. However, administrators feel like not enough users have responded for consensus. It would be nice if other members like Tewapack, Jimmymci234, and Phinumu responded on the deletion page's thread. Even if you disagree with this apparent consensus I would appreciate it if you briefly responded.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Sorry, but that doesn't accurately reflect what I have said. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

New OWGR points

With the update of the OWGR website and new points system, they seem to be calculating 1st place points up to 5 decimal points. My question is in terms of displaying points in tour schedule pages: are we best to summarise the points to either a) nearest whole number, b) maybe 2/3 decimal points. I think the full 5 decimal points seems a bit much, but please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 09:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The new "strokes gained" system is starting, as advertised a year ago. See: https://www.owgr.com/strokes-gained-world-rating which shows that Rory is currently number 1 in this list. See: https://www.owgr.com/this-week-s-events for the events. I'd have thought that 2 decimal places was more than sufficient (eg 68.55). I guess we ought to follow what reliable source do, but currently we've no indication there and maybe we've got to lead not follow, at least for a short while. I'm planning a rewrite of the OWGR article, unless anyone else is keen. Nigej (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree on two decimal places. Tewapack (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree; 2dp makes sense. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Point of clarification: In the old system there was a "strength of field" (which no one talked about) which was converted into an event ranking which was what the winner got (and which was the number commonly talked about). The others got 60%, 40% etc of this. In the new system there is a "field rating" which is the total number of points to be allocated to all the players (although it might be slightly different, eg if more players make the cut). The winner gets about 17% of this, although again this will vary a little depending on the minimum number making the cut. I'm assuming that we'll be adding the winner's points to our tables. Adding the "field rating" would be an option although it is not at all comparable to the old numbers and might be a confusing thing to add mid-season. Either way our OWGR headers in these table ought to say what we're doing. Nigej (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Technical diversion

The fine detail of the new system is difficult to work out, but the one area that is (relatively) clear is the way the "field ranking" converts to the points the players get. The "field ranking" is meant to be total number of points allocated to all the players in the event. The system is broadly the same as previously except that points are now allocated to all those who make the cut. As an example for the St Jude this week the field ranking is 398.58063 and the cut is 65 and ties. They're still using the old percentages (100 for 1st, 60 for 2nd, 40 for 3rd, ... 2.5 for 50th etc - see https://web.archive.org/web/20220325020926/http://www.owgr.com/archive/Web/WorldRankingPointsBreakdown.pdf), although it has had to be extended - previously the table only went to 60th. Add these up from 1st to 65th ie 100+60+40+32+...+1.36+1.32=581.42. So the winner will get 398.58063/5.8142=68.55296. Clearly more than 65 might make the cut but (as I understand it, might be wrong) the 68.55296 will stay the same and the total number of points allocated will be slightly more that the 398.58063 it's supposed to be. Nigej (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Although the field ranking reduced to 390.66675 (because of late withdrawals) the 5.8142 ratio remained the same, so 390.66675/5.8142=67.19183 to the winner. Those below 65th got 1.28%,1.24%,1.20%,1.16% and so the total points given out was actually 393.94536 (ie 4.88%*67.19183=3.27896 more than it should be. Doesn't quite work out exactly because of the rounding to 5 decimal places) Nigej (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)