Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

The Players Championship move discussion

There is a requested move discussion at the talk page of The Players Championship to change the name to Players Championship (golf). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been relisted. The nominator has said that if this passes then a change to the title The Open Championship to Open Championship (golf) is next. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Ostrich

There's been a brief edit-war at Par (score) about the term Ostrich: "The single hole score of -5, or five under par. The only way this can occur is with a hole-in-one on a par 6, or two on a par 7. This score has never been achieved and it is unlikely that it ever will considering the dramatic length and rarity of holes over par 5." Reference to it was deleted in the past, see Talk:Par (score)#Removed "Ostrich" and "Phoenix". The trouble is that we have a reference to it at Glossary of golf#O and it is mentioned here: Ostrich (disambiguation) which points to a redirect Ostrich (golf) which in turn points to the non-existent section Par (score)#Ostrich.

Seems to some of us that this is a completely useless term. Albatross/Double Eagle, Condor - ok, but this seems too far. Any views? I'm happy to get rid of this stuff. Nigej (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you'd like to do is fine. The Condor itself has been known (?) to happen twice in five hundred years. So, the Ostrich is likely never to happen, and therefore the terminology seems a mute point. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Completely useless - all references to it should be deleted. Tewapack (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

End of year top 50

OWGR kindly send me a weekly email. This weeks includes the following:

"At this week’s Indonesian Masters on the Asian Tour Yusaku Miyazato finished 4th and Kiradech Aphibarnrat finished 5th. These performances place Aphibarnrat 51st and Miyazato 52nd in this week’s Ranking (Week 50). The projected Rankings for Week 51 and Week 52 see both players gaining places meaning they are each on course to finish 2017 within the World Top 50, see below. (subject to not being overtaken by any player from the final OWGR counting tournament of 2017 – the Boonchu Ruangkit Championship on the Asian Development Tour).

• Week 51: 50 Kiradech Aphibarnrat 2.3635, 51 Yusaku Miyazato 2.3612
• Week 52: 49 Kiradech Aphibarnrat 2.3457, 50 Yusaku Miyazato 2.3450"

This is relevant to Masters qualification, although annoyingly the email doesn't say who would drop out of the top-50, probably Satoshi Kodaira currently 2.3878 and Peter Uihlein 2.3871 but it could be Kyle Stanley I guess. Nigej (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Noticed this too: https://www.pgatour.com/news/2017/12/18/kiradech-aphibarnrat-masters.html Nigej (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

VC606 posted this yesterday, then backtracked when he found out Aphibarnrat's intention to play in the BRC. If he doesn't finish in the top 10, he'll be overtaken by Satoshi Kodaira for 50th. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems he's withdrawn, in which case the top-50 is done and dusted I think. Nigej (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

From OWGR: "Please find attached the Official World Golf Ranking Projection for Week 52 – 31st December 2017. This week (51) sees the final OWGR eligible tournament of 2017 which allows us to project the final OWGR for 2017 in the attached. The tournament concerned is the Boonchu Ruangkit Championship on the Asian Development Tour. The highest ranked player participating is Prayad Marksaeng and should he win he would climb to World Number 141. This means that the Top 140 players on the attached list are shown with their confirmed OWGR positions for Week 52 – 31st December 2017. The full Rankings for Week 51 and Week 52 will be issued following the completion of this week’s tournament." Nigej (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

OWGR announcement

For those who might have missed it: http://www.owgr.com/news/2017/december/board-announcement Seems like the PGA Tour China really is going to get going again. Nigej (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the distinction between PGA Tour China (or is it PGA Tour China Series or PGA Tour Series China) and China Tour. The China Tour website has exactly the same events for 2014, 2015 and 2016 as PGA Tour China (http://www.cgatour.com.cn/en/golf/gamestation_list.do?gameSeason=2014 etc). http://www.cgatour.com.cn/en/golf/gamestation_list.do?gameSeason=2017 has a list of events in 2017 which includes Hainan Open, Foshan Open (both 2017 Challenge Tour) and KG S&H City Asian Golf Championship (2017 Asian Tour) as well as 12 other events. Presumably the two tours fell out in 2017. Maybe the 2018 events will be the same on both tours (as in 2014 to 2016) but perhaps China Tour will co-sanction events like they did in 2017. Nigej (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

After looking into this, here's what seems to have happened:

• "Relationship complexities" between the PGA Tour and CGA prevented the 2017 PGA Tour China season from taking place.
• The CGA instead formed their own tour, using some former PGA Tour China events and formally co-sanctioning the existing Challenge Tour events in China, also adding a new co-sanctioned Asian Tour event. They worked out deals with the Asian Tour and European Tour, resulting in a few exemptions and Q School spots. They also kept the PGA Tour China website design, but not the url. (Notice that on the schedule page for the China Tour, selecting a previous year will display that year's PGA Tour China schedule.)
• One tournament from the 2016 PGA Tour China was played in Hong Kong: the Clearwater Bay Open. It returned in 2017, under the auspices of the PGA Tour. Top finishers earned 2018 exemptions on PGA Tour China, as well as Canada and Latinoamérica.

Both PGA Tour China and the China Tour have scheduled Q Schools for different dates in 2018, so it seems that both tours will be played. Neither has released a schedule yet. It remains to be seen how much their schedules will overlap; perhaps players will be able to play both. I'm also curious if the China Tour will be the European Tour's only co-sanctioning partner for the Volvo China Open, now that OneAsia seems to be finished. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Am I right in assuming that the 'China Tour' didn't exist until 2017? or did it exist but mirrored the PGA Tour China? I hadn't realised there were 2 q-schools this season. As you say, we can't tell much else yet until we see schedules/exemptions. I'm assuming that we'll need a China Tour article at some point but perhaps it's too early. We could create one with the 2017 schedule, which although not OWGR events were probably the same standard at the previous PGA Tour China. I've already added a Bryden Macpherson win to his page. Nigej (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year!

Happy new year, WikiProject Golf'ers! Whether you're here in the USA, or anywhere else in the world (I know some of you are in other countries), have a good celebration tonight and a nice 2018. John Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

GolfSixes

I have noticed that the European Tour has included appearances in the 2017 GolfSixes as team appearances eg http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/players/playerid=34907/bio/index.html http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/players/playerid=31288/bio/index.html . http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/season=2017/tournamentid=2017036/news/newsid=326389.html lists the 32 players. As far as I know we haven't included this as a "team appearance" for anyone. Should we? What is our view? It's a bit different to some pairs events (eg Zurich Classic of New Orleans) in that the pairs do represent countries (at least in some sense). Nigej (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Good question. I think, for the time being at least, we don't need to list them as teams. Maybe we can wait and see how they list it on the scoreboard when we watch the event on TV again this year. If it was a big deal team event, it surely would receive move hype. As it is, there are already at least two team events this year on the European Tour. ... When we watch the event this year, if the telecast makes it clear that they intend it as a team event, then I think it should listed as such. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction: There are four other team events on the ET this year. This one would make five, if we list it as such. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

We don't even have it in Category:Team golf tournaments. Nigej (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

International Crown page name etc

Someone from UL (safety organization) has commented at talk:International Crown requesting that the page be called UL International Crown. At one time there were two very similar pages, someone copying the text at International Crown to UL International Crown and then making changes for 2018. I have just turned UL International Crown to a redirect to International Crown but I guess it could be the other way round. And perhaps I did this all wrong anyway. Comment at talk:International Crown. Nigej (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The current title fits with the custom of not using sponsored names in article titles when avoidable. I don't see any reason to change it, since there's no need for disambiguation. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, current page name makes the most sense. Tewapack (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Further question on this International Crown topic. Should 2016 International Crown be renamed 2016 UL International Crown? Same would apply to 2018 event. Nigej (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

We're kind of split on women's tournaments with title sponsors. We have 2017 KPMG Women's PGA Championship but 2017 Women's British Open without Ricoh. Seems to me we should decide one way or the other, and move any pages that differ. I think no sponsors is preferred on Wikipedia. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

We use the sponsor when there is no alternative eg 2008 Lexus Cup. We occasionally use the sponsor even when we don't need to: 2009 Vivendi Trophy with Seve Ballesteros, 2011 Vivendi Seve Trophy (NNNN Seve Trophy is redirect in both cases) but we could reverse this if reequired. Anyway who remembers the 1991 Johnnie Walker Ryder Cup etc. so I'm inclined to agree with you. Nigej (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

European Senior Tour

I have created 2018 Staysure Tour, the official name of the tour - Q-School finishes tomorrow. I have left European Senior Tour alone. My inclination is to have these as the main names and redirect from 2018 European Senior Tour and Staysure Tour respectively, but I've no strong views if anyone has better ideas. Nigej (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm also thinking that we can continue to use European Senior Tour as the main name of the tour in player articles. eg "xxx won his first European Senior Tour event", "xxx is currently playing on the European Senior Tour" and "European Senior Tour wins" etc rather than using Staysure which probably won't last too long as the sponsor of the tour. Nigej (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm really hesitant to use the sponsored name as the article title when an alternative exists. We haven't done it for the Mackenzie Tour. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

True. Happy to move 2018 Staysure Tour to 2018 European Senior Tour if that's agreed. Nigej (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I too was planning to leave " European Senior Tour" alone. And actually tomorrow I was going to make the 2018 tour page, but it looks like you beat me to it. Although a few weeks ago I made sure to add "Staysure Tour" to the "2018 in golf" page, in case no one made a redirect. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Desmond Muirhead

Hello. I've just created Desmond Muirhead. Feel free to expand it. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Failed log in attempt

Has anyone else here received a notification for a failed log in attempt? I got one yesterday. And from what I read, it's happening to many. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I got multiple notifications of the same thing. Somebody is trying to hack Wikipedia is my theory....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I've had one notification of that. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:NGOLF

I have made a proposed change to WP:NGOLF at WT:Notability (sports)#Proposed change to WP:NGOLF. This proposes deleting the final sentence. Nigej (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Asian Tour player pages

I have updated {{AsianTour player}}. Players have new numbers on the Asian Tour website: Shubhankar Sharma for instance is 245. If you go through the official site you get to https://www.asiantour.com/playerprofile/Shubhankar-SHARMA-p245 but it turns out that anything (or indeed nothing) before the -p245 is ok, so https://www.asiantour.com/playerprofile/abcde-p245 gets you there too (at least for me). I didn't realise this for a while and the current version of the template uses https://www.asiantour.com/playerprofile/Shubhankar-Sharma-p245 (ie using {{PAGENAMEBASE}} with spaces replaced by dashes). Nigej (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The template (like some others) has an optional second parameter which is pretty useless at the moment "*{{AsianTour player|245|abcde}}" changes the link to https://www.asiantour.com/playerprofile/abcde-p245 and also changes the text to "abcde at the Asian Tour official site" Nigej (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Top x in the World Rankings playing in an event

Anyone know what record "x" is in the above. All the top-50 is relatively unusual. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-golf-players-field/top-50-in-world-rankings-commit-to-players-championship-idUSKBN1I52O1 http://www.owgr.com/news/2002/april/week-19 Nigej (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Confusingly http://www.owgr.com/en/Events/EventResult.aspx?eventid=7094 still has Wiesberger for Andrew Landry (75) Nigej (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Flag of combined island of Ireland

I notice that the R&A use a Four Provinces Flag of Ireland for the Irish players, eg https://www.randa.org/Championships/TheAmateurChampionship/SP-Results#/competition/1340841/leaderboard . Wikipedia has one of these flags: File:Four Provinces Flag.svg, although the four flags are not in the same positions (basically upside down). The Golfing Union of Ireland uses such a flag: File:Gui Logo Web.jpg (the four flags in the same positions as the R&A). See also: https://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/no-national-flags-please-were-irish-29565822.html for a newspaper article about the flag.

As far as I know we don't use this flag at all. Just wondering whether we should. I've never seen it used in a professional event, but it seems we could use it for amateur events. Don't remember discussing this before: correct me if I'm wrong. Nigej (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like using the standard Irish and Northern Irish flags is more desirable except when it's a national team, similar to how we use the Chinese Taipei flag for a national team and the Taiwan flag otherwise. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to admit I didn't know about Taipei/Taiwan situation. Something like European Amateur Team Championship looks odd with the Republic flag and would be easy to change to from this Ireland to this Ireland. However, the Walker Cup does use the Union Jack and Irish Tricolour in its official logos for GB&I. I suppose the question becomes whether we can come up with a consistent system or will it just seem more of a mess than we have at the present. NB {{Country data Ireland#Incorrect usage}} clearly says "Do not use the IRL alias for all-Ireland sports team, and do not use the IRE/EIR aliases without a flag variant specified." Situation triggered by the long list I've just added to St Andrews Trophy where currently I've got all the Irish golfers as IRE, immediately breaking the rule. Nigej (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

See eg 2016 World Cup of Golf https://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/melbourne-world-cup-of-golf/news/2016/11/23/team-capsules--england--ireland--denmark--portugal.html use the tricolour.

Comment I'm planning to add the "4prov" variant to the Irish flag ONLY when it relates to the amateur game and ONLY when it relates to an organisation or team that covers the whole of the island of Ireland, not to individuals. I'm not planning to use it for teams called Great Britain and Ireland where the Union Jack/Tricolour are generally used. Nigej (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Kim Do-hoon x 2

There are two Korean golfers called Kim Do-hoon. I created a dab page: Kim Do-hoon (golfer) and links using the names Kim Do-hoon (golfer752) and Kim Do-hoon (golfer753). The Korean tour uses 752 and 753 for no obvious reason. Sometimes I have left eg Kim Do-hoon in articles since I'm assuming anyone interested will click/hover on the link to find out which one it was. I now find that they both played in the Golf at the 2006 Asian Games. The articles there use: Kim Do-hoon (golfer, born March 1989) and Kim Do-hoon (golfer, born April 1989) which are probably better names, although the articles use Sr./Jr. for the visible name: Kim Do-hoon, Sr. and Kim Do-hoon, Jr.. Any comments? or sort it if you're keen. I will later if no one else does. Nigej (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Per [[WP:NCPDAB] I have change the underlying names to Kim Do-hoon (golfer, born March 1989) and Kim Do-hoon (golfer, born April 1989), hopefully in a consistent way. There's still the issue of the visible part which is (for eg 752) sometimes Kim Do-hoon 752, sometimes Kim Do-hoon, sometimes Kim Do-hoon, Sr.. Nigej (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I remembered the Korean speed skaters with the same name: Yang-Yang. These are Yang Yang (speed skater, born 1976) and Yang Yang (speed skater, born 1977). These came to be known as "Yang Yang (A) and Yang Yang (S) being born in August and September (although a year apart). So logical visible names for us could be Kim Do-hoo (M) and Kim Do-hoo (A). However see also www.pressreader.com/south-africa/sunday-times/20061217/285039799816520 "We are usually called Kim Do-Hoon A and B at home" A is senior, ie the March one, B is junior, ie the April one. But see http://www.kpga.co.kr/media/openPhotoDetail.kpga?P_SEQR=15286 "제59회 KPGA 선수권대회 with A-ONE CC 2라운드 김도훈752 18번홀 버디퍼팅 성공." which tranlates as "The 59th KPGA Championship with A-ONE CC 2nd round Kim Do-hoon 752 18th hole birdie putting success." Nigej (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:NGOLF

I have made another proposed change to WP:NGOLF at WT:Notability (sports)#Proposed change to WP:NGOLF (2). This relates to amateur event winners. Nigej (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Michael Lorenzo-Vera

Should we have Michael Lorenzo-Vera, Mike Lorenzo-Vera or Michaël Lorenzo-Vera as the main name. Mike seems to most popular at the moment, eg OWGR, European Tour, but I'm not sure whether this is a new thing or not. Nigej (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

OWGR had him as Michael in 2007, 2008, and 2015 and as Mike since 2017 (from the rankings archives when he was in the top-200). Internet archive entries for his Eur. Tour page have him as Michael in 2012 and Mike in 2016. It seems that he prefers Mike now so a page move would be appropriate. Tewapack (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have moved him to Mike Lorenzo-Vera and made minor changes to the article. I'm not planning to rename any Michael links to Mike, but perhaps a few recent ones ought to be changed. Nigej (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

On this topic, Fredrik Jacobson has been going by Freddie for quite a while. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Freddie Jacobson redirects to Fredrik Jacobson but perhaps we should make it the other way round. Should be simple I think. Nigej (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Now moved to Freddie but I haven't changed any links to him. OWGR changed him between http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/doc/content/archive/2014/owgr32f2014.pdf and http://dps.endavadigital.net/owgr/doc/content/archive/2014/owgr33f2014.pdf (August 2014). Nigej (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Jim McLean (golf) article name

Any thoughts, see Talk:Jim McLean (golf)#Article name. Nigej (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Results in major championships section

I'm just wondering how we're planning to change these section (for the men) to reflect the new order of majors in 2019 (and presumably beyond). The obvious approach is to do something similar to the ladies, where we reflect the new order but have a heading "Results not in chronological order before 2019." Tables for players who don't play a major again would be left unchanged, with the old order. the alternative is to have two rows for the PGA Championship, one for the results up to 2018 and one for those from 2019 onwards.

Results not in chronological order before 2018.

Tournament	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Masters Tournament				CUT	T17	CUT
PGA Championship	CUT	CUT		T61	T35	T33
U.S. Open		T27		4	2	T55
The Open Championship	CUT	CUT	CUT	T27	T12	T44

  Top 10

  Did not play

CUT = missed the half-way cut
"T" indicates a tie for a place

or

Tournament	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
Masters Tournament				CUT	T17	CUT
PGA Championship ^						T33
U.S. Open		T27		4	2	T55
The Open Championship	CUT	CUT	CUT	T27	T12	T44
PGA Championship ^	CUT	CUT		T61	T35

^ The PGA Championship became the second major of the year from 2019.

  Top 10

  Did not play

CUT = missed the half-way cut
"T" indicates a tie for a place

Personally I'm inclined to go for the former. Nigej (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of having the results out of order. Would it work to start a new set of rows for 2019? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 07:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

True. That's another option:

Tournament	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
Masters Tournament				CUT	T17
U.S. Open		T27		4	2
The Open Championship	CUT	CUT	CUT	T27	T12
PGA Championship	CUT	CUT		T61	T35

Tournament	2019
Masters Tournament	CUT
PGA Championship	T33
U.S. Open	T55
The Open Championship	T44

  Top 10

  Did not play

CUT = missed the half-way cut
"T" indicates a tie for a place

I'd definitely !vote for a new set of rows starting with 2019. Tewapack (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe starting a new row would be a better fit considering a new row would be added for the 2020 majors anyways. One extra year wouldn't throw anything off too much. Brandonlw97 (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm now wondering, for those who don't play all the majors, whether we could be a little flexible, as long as the appearances were in order:

Tournament	2018	2019
Masters Tournament		CUT
PGA Championship		T33
U.S. Open		T55
The Open Championship	T66	T44

or should we always split for 2019, since the above gives the impression that they've played the last 5 majors, even though the majors are in the correct order. Nigej (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the flexibility could be there for those who didn't play in them all, because there would be no need for a split. The example above shows a player whose first major is the Open Championship. Since there is nothing before it, there wouldn't be a need for a split. The new order would be the only one needed. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Eisenhower Trophy

Has anyone got any views on whether it's a good idea to have individual pages for the Eisenhower Trophy. The recent event was the 31st. We already have individual NCAA Division I Men's Golf Championships which has somewhat similar status. Its certainly more important than some other team events we cover in detail. I'd be happy to create a 2018 Eisenhower Trophy. Nigej (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm also thinking that the Eisenhower Trophy table would be better with the third places rather than the "Individual winner", like Espirito Santo Trophy. We could add individual winners as a separate table at the end. As far as I am aware (correct me if I'm wrong) there in no actual award/prize for the individual winner, it's just noted and as such "Individual leader" or "leading Individual" is perhaps a better name. Nigej (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

MENA Tour

FYI. Recent message on the MENA Tour website: https://menagolftour.com/newsletter/mena-tour-update Seems 2018 is abandoned but they are planning events in 2019. Nigej (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Adrià Arnaus Antúnez

Seems his name is something like the above. OWGR has gone for Adria Arnaus but EuropeanTour uses Adri Arnaus.(http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/players/playerid=41721/results/index.html) which he uses on twitter https://twitter.com/adriarnaus?lang=en. https://12thman.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=3631&path=mgolf has Adrià Arnaus. We have some Adrià Arnaus and some Adriá Arnaus but perhaps Adri Arnaus would be the simplest option and perhaps what he himself is going for now. Can't create an article in the next week but planning one after that. Nigej (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I have created Adrià Arnaus. Fell free to add to it or rename it to something you think better. Nigej (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Nordic middle names

A large number of Danish and Norwegian golfers have middle names that are used on the Nordic Golf League site. The European Tour site uses these less often. My preference is to use these only when necessary to disambiguate (e.g. Anders Schmidt Hansen). Thoughts? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to go along with that. I think they're in because we just cut and paste from the official site, and many of us don't know whether it's a middle name or (eg for a spanish name) something else. Nigej (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing PGA Tour winners

Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to help create articles of missing PGA Tour winners. This is a focus on former PGA Tour events:

1. 1905 Western Open Arthur Smith (golfer)
2. 1922 Houston Open (early PGA Tour) George Bowden (golfer)
3. 1922 North and South Open Pat O'Hara (golfer) (also known as Pat O'Hare)
4. 1928 El Paso Open (PGA Tour) Larry Nabholtz
5. 1930 Miami International Four-Ball Clarence Gamber
6. 1930 St. Petersburg Open Invitational Jock Collins
7. 1932 Agua Caliente Open Fred Morrison (golfer)
8. 1933 St. Petersburg Open Invitational Bob Stupple
9. 1934 Miami Open (golf) Ralph Stonehouse
10. 1935 Hershey Open Ted Luther
11. 1943 Miami Open (golf) Steve Warga

Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Pat O'Hara was Pat O'Hare when he was in Ireland. https://www.antiquegolfscotland.com/maker.php3?makerid=639 has some stuff and http://www.greenoregolfclub.com/about/history/the-o-hare-o-hara-brothers/ Nigej (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

and we have an article on his elder brother Peter O'Hara already, which makes passing mention of Patrick. Nigej (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nigej: Oops I wrote the name wrong. I've updated it. Thanks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

James W. Finegan

Hello. I am only able to find five of his books but his obituary mentions seven books. Is anyone able to find the other two books and add them to the 'works' section please?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm completely confused as to why the article is called John W. Finegan but the books are by James W. Finegan. Needs some explanation, surely. Nigej (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "Pine Valley Golf Club: A Unique Haven of the Game" https://www.finegolfbooks.com/pages/books/6365/james-w-finegan/pine-valley-golf-club-a-unique-haven-of-the-game Nigej (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved the article to James and fixed the errors in the article as well...I am not sure how that happened either. I must have been extremely tired when I created the stub. Anyway, we are still missing two books.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

You don't think the above is one of them? Seems to be different from the other 5. Nigej (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added it. We are still missing one... I was hoping someone in this WP would have his books and could tell us.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "Scotland: Where Golf Is Great" is regarded as different to "Where Golf Is Great: The Finest Courses of Scotland and Ireland" Nigej (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's a different cover on Amazon, so I've added it. Thanks! This is a fun WikiProject.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Notability guidelines for golf clubs

Hello again. Are there notability guidelines for golf clubs please? I'd like to create more articles about golf clubs but before I take the time to do the research, I want to make sure they don't get deleted...beyond weight of reliable third-party sources, has this WP come up with specific requirements please?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're talking about courses (not the things you swing). The answer is: no. This is a topic that's rather been swept under the carpet. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Golf/archive shows that quite a few golf course/club article do get deleted. I think the general view is that we don't need articles for every golf club in the world, the club has to be something special. Probably quite a few more course/club articles would be deleted if they came up for AfD, its just that no one bothers. Clearly old/famous courses would qualify. Otherwise I'm of the view that most notable clubs host notable tournaments, otherwise the interest in the course/club is purely local. So a course that hosted a major championship or a PGA Tour event would be notable. Nigej (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Gary Planos

While looking at Wikipedia:Requested articles/deaths in 2016, I found Gary Planos. There are at least two obituaries, but I am not convinced that he was notable:

• "Gary Planos, popular tournament host at Kapalua, dies". USA Today. March 27, 2016. Retrieved December 8, 2018.
• "Player favorite, 'Mr. Kapalua,' Gary Planos passes at 62". Golf Channel. March 27, 2016. Retrieved December 8, 2018.

What do you think?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hosting a golf tournament doesn't seem like grounds for notability. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Not notable as a golfer. I'm doubtful that there is sufficient interest in him to warrant an article even if he might, strictly speaking, pass WP:GNG. Nigej (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Jamaica Open NY Golf Tournament

Anyone got any views on Jamaica Open NY Golf Tournament? A one-off event in 2014. Seems to be below our normal threshold but can let it go if people think it's worth keeping. Nigej (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of golf (2000–present)

The Timeline of golf (2000–present) article needs sorting out. We have 2004 in golf, etc, so it seems to me that the Timeline of golf (2000–present) article needs, at a minimum a rename to Timeline of golf (2000–2003). Personally it seems to me that 2000 is perhaps a good point to start the NNNN in golf series. Why not split off the Timeline of golf (2000–present) into 4 pages: 2000 in golf, 2001 in golf, 2002 in golf, 2003 in golf. (a couple of these already exist as redirects to the PGA Tour) Nigej (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Jacob's Creek Open Championship

See Talk:Jacob's Creek Open Championship for a discussion on its name. South Australian Open (golf) suggested. Nigej (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Championship at Laguna National

See Talk:The Championship at Laguna National for a discussion on its name. Nigej (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Laxman Singh

We have an article Laxman Singh (golfer) which refers to Lakshman Singh and a nickname Bunny Lakshman Singh. Any suggestions? Nigej (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• The article's one and only source isn't coming up....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

True. I've copied a ref from the Asian Games page. Nigej (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Gary Player and the Senior British Open

The PGA Tour[1] is now acknowledging Player's three SBO wins as majors. This opens up a whole series of problems. 1- Player's article will need an overhaul to include his three wins. I did his playoff box. His senior major championship results will need to be adjusted to include these results. 2- I wonder if the PGA Tour has totally thought this through. But if they acknowledge Player's wins, they should for everyone who won the SBO between 87-2003. Or at least since 88 when Player won for the first time. They haven't done anything for other players (Most SBO winners prior to 2003 had minimum to no PGA Tour careers) so far. I checked Tom Wargo's PGA Tour page. It still lists him with 4 Champions tour wins. His 1994 SBO win would make 5.

So what do we do about the other SBO winners? I say acknowledge them as major winners also. If Player's wins in 88, 90, and 97 are acknowledged as ones, all the rest should....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I did further checking. Bob Charles two SBO wins 89 and 93 are also being acknowledged. That I think ices it. Senior tour records need to be adjusted....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think from a European Senior Tour point of view there's not much to do (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think we list EST major winners (not even sure if it is well defined anyway). The EST already includes SBO wins pre-its formation in 1992 as EST wins: List of golfers with most European Senior Tour wins. Obviously some changes needed to Senior Open Championship page to reflect the new situation re Champion Tour. Also currently it says there "(prior to European Senior Tour sanction)" between 1992 and 1991 which seems to be incorrect or at least misleading/confusing. Nigej (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to SBO page. Nigej (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

MENA (Golf) Tour

The MENA Golf Tour is now the MENA Tour. The website is now menatour.golf rather than menagolftour.com although the old website links to the new one (home page only). Looks like it will take place. Probably ought to rename the page at some point (currently MENA Tour is a redirect) and sort out the urls. Nigej (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

PING (golf) vs Ping (golf) for page statistics

To better align the PING brand with the intents of the PING company I moved Ping (golf) to PING (golf). I thought I did this properly. I can't seem to get the page statistics to follow this move. Would you please help me do this? NickWikiAccount1708 (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "page statistics". Nigej (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/PING_(golf)NickWikiAccount1708 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

The page has been moved back to Ping (golf) now I notice. Nigej (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Staysure Tour

Ahead of the new season of the Staysure Tour (European Senior Tour), can the main name of the Tour be changed to reflect the Tour's title sponsor - given that it is a ten-year sponsorship deal and it is the second season under the name. Can't see any differences between this and the changing of the web.com Tour's name over the years.

194.75.161.3 (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that the general feeling is that if there is a suitable name which doesn't include the sponsors name, we prefer that. See eg Category:2018 in golf, Category:2019 in golf. For the Web.com Tour there isn't really a suitable alternative. However, for the Staysure Tour we do have a good alternative: European Senior Tour. See WP:ON for wikipedia-wide guidance: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title". I have created a redirect so that Staysure Tour redirects to European Senior Tour - this was missing before. Nigej (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Would it be possible to add the Tour's logo to the page? 194.75.161.3 (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly would be ok but its not something I know anything about. Not necessarily easy since the system is set up to delete images that breach copyright. Hopefully someone reading this can do it correctly. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty straightforward. I'll add it later. It will only be usable on the main page and not each season's page as that would breach fair use Jopal22 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

TFD notification

Only WP:CFB was notified. I think all relevant sports should participate in this discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 4#Athletic program head coaches navboxes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Dutch Harrison

I'm thinking of moving E. J. Harrison (golfer) to Dutch Harrison (which is currently a redirect). Dutch seems more common and easier to find. Just checking to see if anyone objects or has any comments. Nigej (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Golf Hall of Fame category deletion request

Doesn't look like anyone has notified the project about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 1#Category:World Golf Hall of Fame inductees, a request to delete the category listing members of the Golf Hall of Fame. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Treatment of amateurs in 2019 Masters Tournament and similar articles

I'm thinking here of articles like 2019 Masters Tournament. Currently we add the amateur's scores after round 2 and round 4 (and sometimes round 3). The currently style is eg:

Amateurs: Hovland (−1), Ortiz (E), Bling (+3), Kanaya (+3), O'Connell (+4), Rebula (+8)

I'm not sure where this style originated but I don't find it very satisfactory.

• 1 Why only for certain rounds? Which rounds?
• 2 Firstly the use of surname only is unsatisfactory. In many articles we don't use red links and don't have a list of the field, leaving the reader in the dark as to the full name of the player.
• 3 Why italics for those making the cut and not for the rest?
• 4 A more fundamental question is whether we should have a complete rethink of the style. Perhaps a separate section at the end; formatted like the "Past champions in the field" section.

I suppose the issue is how important these details are. Perhaps a "leading amateur" section in the infobox (below the Champion) would suffice. Nigej (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

We could have an amateur leaderboard similar to the past champions section. (By the way, I've never understood the reason for the past champions section...) pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'd favour replacing showing the final scores of the leaders, past champions, and amateurs, by showing the final scores of all players who entered. Although it is more information I think it is quicker and easier to do as the format it the same as the OWGR page, PGA Tour, European Tour, PGA Tour Media Guide, ESPN, etc so for the most part you can just copy and paste the result (although it is a bit of a faff ensuring the names/flags are consistent with wikipedia articles, which I'm sure we could work out a way to do it quickly). You could then highlight any participant if you liked e.g. leading amateur. I would also favour adding leading amateur to the infobox. I have copied below broadly how I think it should look. Jopal22 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems like it could work, although I think we should maintain room for round recaps, similar to Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual. Also, amateurs should be marked with an (a). Of course, changing all of the past major articles would take quite some time. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I think full leaderboards would be overkill. They would also be difficult to verify for the older majors, particularly those missing the cut. Limiting to top 10 is easy to verify and doesn't make the article excessively long. To the original question (I think the format is what has evolved organically over the years, not the result of any planning.): 1) Second round to show which amateurs made the cut, fourth round to show final placement, third round additions are relatively recent 2) agree that full name should be use 3) italics used to distingush who made the cut from who didn't 4) I don't think the leading amateur is important enough to include in the infobox and a separate table a la past champions is probably also too much. Tewapack (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

How about if we include the leaderboard only for those who made the cut (for majors recent enough to have sufficient information)? If making the cut in a major makes a golfer notable enough to have an article, it seems like it might be worth denoting who made the cut on the tournament article. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So my thoughts:

• Part of the reason I was suggesting showing all the results was because I find it slightly strange that we outline how all of the participants qualified and not how they actually performed, with the latter seeming more important to me. Plus I have often looked at previous articles, and as an example in the 2019 Masters, see Ian Poulter in 5th after R3, a few shots behind the lead and wondered what happened to him (which you cannot see if you only have a top ten). Also sometimes its nice to pick out big names (e.g. McIlroy) and see how they do.
• In terms of number of rows, we currently have around 20 for past champions, and 10 for each round = 60ish. The format below has 10 for all three early rounds, and 60 for full results, so there wouldn't be that many more rows.
• I can set it up so anyone could update the table, taking about a minute, and ensuring the process is such that mistakes are rare.

Obviously happy to go with the consensus but those are my thoughts. I wouldn't suggest changing past majors until we have done a few going forward (if at all).

Agree with keeping the round recap text. Amateurs are kind of shown below as they have $0 prize money, but it can be made more explicit.

Jopal22 (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, although I don't think we've got any consensus. We need to remember that we are not primarily a stats site; the area we're desperately short on is the referenced text. That's why I'm keen to keep the round by round format with text before the leaderboard. Really the issue about people disappearing from the leaderboard should be covered by the text in the following round eg "Ian Poulter had a terrible round of 80 to drop into a tie for 99th place." I'm also not too keen on the side-by-side tables. Despite what I just said I'm not averse to adding the full final scores - perhaps it could be collapsed if it's too obtrusive. One reason I like the "field" section" is that it links the tournament articles to the biographies.

The one area we seem to agree on is that the past-champions section is unnecessary, especially perhaps for those tournaments where the field is given (generally including a list of those past winners who are playing). Nigej (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree that wiki is not a stats site, but for me that means not going into detailed stats e.g. driving distances, GIR etc. I don't know any other major event e.g. World Cup's, Wimbledon etc where the full result of the competition is not shown (and we show way more stats on the WGC Match Play than then majors). I like the side by side table as it makes it easier to track the round to round, and I'd prefer the round by round text in a separate section before the results tables. Anyway thats just me. Full disclosure I work in a heavily stats based environment and and used to having to summarise information statistically, so my inclination is to look at the tables first and see the text as ancillary, which may not be typical. I have adjusted the full table below so it shows the top 10, and gives the option to unhide the rest of the result. Thoughts?Jopal22 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think including the full results of a major is reasonable. We already do it for the WGC Match Play, Olympics, and FedEx Cup Playoffs. On a side note, at various times I've tried to find full results of a major through the external links on the Wikipedia article and been unsuccessful. So I selfishly would prefer if Wikipedia had the full results, but I know that's not grounds for inclusion. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

So I added the full table with non top ten hidden as default, and I also added a short time line of incidents. I didn't separate out the round summary text into a different section to the leaderboards, as that didn't seem popular here (although I prefer to see each rounds leaderboard together without scrolling). Let me know if you have any feedback or if I've been too WP:BOLD.Jopal22 (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not keen on just listing scores relative to par, particularly at the end of a round. In a stroke-play competition the winner is the one who does it in fewest strokes. Par is irrelevant. The only real use of par is to compare players during the progress of a round, particularly when they've played different number of holes. Having said that I don't mind both: 66 (−6) is ok, but not −6 on its own. Currently our main use of relative-to-par is in the "Hole by hole scorecard progression" sections. I think this is fair since it is much clearer than giving the total scores. Nigej (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

So is it agreed that the "Past champions in the field" section is unnecessary? I want to make sure before I delete it from 2019 PGA Championship. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes from me (for reasons stated above) Jopal22 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes from me too. Nigej (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if we include the info in the final table (like I've just done with the 2019 Masters Tournament). Note that in the U.S. Open and conceivably in the Open Championship, past champions can get into the field from other than the "Past Champions" category. Tewapack (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I know I'm a little late to the conversation, but I believe the past champions category to be an interesting aspect of the Major Championships' page. I believe it to provide, year after year, an interesting evolution of the truly elite winners of the game, an intriguing snapshot of the changing of the guard. I think as well that providing the full leaderboard at the end of the tournament to be an overload, too much clutter. Thanks. PalmerTheGolfer

That doesn't sound to me like a reason to include it in an encyclopedia. Noting past champions in the results table seems like a reasonable compromise. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 03:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

People keep adding the past champions section back into the 2019 PGA Championship article. Do we remove it and add a note not to reinstate it? Let it stay until the final leaderboard is up? Or something else? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 14:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't know. Could just leave it for now and delete next week, although perhaps it's a sign that people actually like it (or maybe they've just got used to it). Still seems arbitrary to me. Nigej (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Leaderboards

Below is a suggested format for showing the results of major individual golf tournaments

Early rounds

Place Nat Player Round Total Round One T1 Bryson DeChambeau −6 T1 Brooks Koepka −6 3 Phil Mickelson −5 T4 Dustin Johnson −4 T4 Ian Poulter −4 T6 Kiradech Aphibarnrat −3 T6 Justin Harding −3 T6 Kevin Kisner −3 T6 Jon Rahm −3 T6 Adam Scott −3

Place Nat Player Round Total Round Two T1 Jason Day −5 −7 T1 Brooks Koepka −1 −7 T1 Francesco Molinari −5 −7 T1 Louis Oosthuizen −6 −7 T1 Adam Scott −4 −7 T6 Justin Harding −3 −6 T6 Dustin Johnson −2 −6 T6 Xander Schauffele −7 −6 T6 Tiger Woods −4 −6 T10 Ian Poulter −1 −5 T10 Jon Rahm −2 −5

Place Nat Player Round Total Round Three 1 Francesco Molinari −6 −13 T2 Tony Finau −8 −11 T2 Tiger Woods −5 −11 4 Brooks Koepka −3 −10 T5 Ian Poulter −4 −9 T5 Webb Simpson −8 −9 T7 Justin Harding −2 −8 T7 Dustin Johnson −2 −8 T7 Matt Kuchar −4 −8 T7 Louis Oosthuizen −1 −8 T7 Xander Schauffele −2 −8

Final

Champion

Silver Cup Winner (leading amateur)

Top 10

Place	Nat	Player	R1	R2	R3	R4	Agg	To Par	Earnings ($)
1		Tiger Woods	70	68	67	70	275	−13	2,070,000
T2		Dustin Johnson	68	70	70	68	276	−12	858,667
T2		Brooks Koepka	66	71	69	70	276	−12	858,667
T2		Xander Schauffele	73	65	70	68	276	−12	858,667
T5		Webb Simpson	72	71	64	70	277	−11	403,938
T5		Tony Finau	71	70	64	72	277	−11	403,938
T5		Francesco Molinari	70	67	66	74	277	−11	403,938
T5		Jason Day	70	67	73	67	277	−11	403,938
T9		Rickie Fowler	70	71	68	69	278	−10	310,500
T9		Patrick Cantlay	73	73	64	68	278	−10	310,500
T9		Jon Rahm	69	70	71	68	278	−10	310,500

Others

Place	Nat	Player	R1	R2	R3	R4	Agg	To Par	Earnings ($)
T12		Justin Thomas	73	68	69	70	280	−8	225,400
T12		Justin Harding	69	69	70	72	280	−8	225,400
T12		Matt Kuchar	71	69	68	72	280	−8	225,400
T12		Bubba Watson	72	72	67	69	280	−8	225,400
T12		Ian Poulter	68	71	68	73	280	−8	225,400
17		Aaron Wise	75	71	68	67	281	−7	184,000
T18		Phil Mickelson	67	73	70	72	282	−6	161,000
T18		Adam Scott	69	68	72	73	282	−6	161,000
T18		Patton Kizzire	70	70	73	69	282	−6	161,000
T21		Kim Si-woo	72	72	70	69	283	−5	107,956
T21		Jordan Spieth	75	68	69	71	283	−5	107,956
T21		Thorbjørn Olesen	71	71	68	73	283	−5	107,956
T21		Kyle Stanley	72	72	70	69	283	−5	107,956
T21		Kevin Kisner	69	73	72	69	283	−5	107,956
T21		Lucas Bjerregaard	70	72	69	72	283	−5	107,956
T21		Rory McIlroy	73	71	71	68	283	−5	107,956
T21		Matthew Fitzpatrick	78	67	68	70	283	−5	107,956
T29		Bryson DeChambeau	66	75	73	70	284	−4	78,200
T29		Louis Oosthuizen	71	66	71	76	284	−4	78,200
T29		Charley Hoffman	71	71	72	70	284	−4	78,200
T32		Charles Howell III	73	67	76	69	285	−3	68,042
T32		Gary Woodland	70	71	74	70	285	−3	68,042
T32		Hideki Matsuyama	75	70	68	72	285	−3	68,042
T32		Viktor Hovland	72	71	71	71	285	−3
T36		Alvaro Ortiz Becerra	73	71	73	69	286	−2
T36		Patrick Reed	73	70	74	69	286	−2	55,488
T36		Kevin Tway	72	71	70	73	286	−2	55,488
T36		Tommy Fleetwood	71	71	70	74	286	−2	55,488
T36		Jimmy Walker	72	72	72	70	286	−2	55,488
T36		Rafa Cabrera-Bello	73	70	75	68	286	−2	55,488
T36		Henrik Stenson	74	72	67	73	286	−2	55,488
T43		Li Haotong	72	74	73	68	287	−1	44,850
T43		Keegan Bradley	76	68	71	72	287	−1	44,850
T43		Keith Mitchell	72	74	72	69	287	−1	44,850
T46		Corey Conners	70	71	71	76	288	E	37,950
T46		Andrew Landry	72	73	73	70	288	E	37,950
T46		Kevin Na	71	73	73	71	288	E	37,950
T49		Marc Leishman	72	72	70	75	289	+1	32,430
T49		Kiradech Aphibarnrat	69	72	75	73	289	+1	32,430
T51		Eddie Pepperell	74	73	72	71	290	+2	28,693
T51		Cameron Smith	70	74	69	77	290	+2	28,693
T51		Martin Kaymer	73	74	72	71	290	+2	28,693
T51		Trevor Immelman	74	72	75	69	290	+2	28,693
55		Devon Bling	74	73	71	73	291	+3
T56		Tyrrell Hatton	73	73	72	74	292	+4	26,910
T56		Billy Horschel	72	75	74	71	292	+4	26,910
T58		Branden Grace	72	75	72	74	293	+5	26,335
T58		Zach Johnson	74	73	73	73	293	+5	26,335
T58		Takumi Kanaya	73	74	68	78	293	+5
61		Satoshi Kodaira	75	70	73	76	294	+6	25,990
T62		Emiliano Grillo	72	75	73	76	296	+8	25,415
T62		Alex Norén	75	72	75	74	296	+8	25,415
T62		J. B. Holmes	70	72	74	80	296	+8	25,415
T62		Bernhard Langer	71	72	75	78	296	+8	25,415
MC		Sandy Lyle	73	75			148	+4
MC		Justin Rose	75	73			148	+4
MC		Mike Weir	72	76			148	+4
MC		Stewart Cink	76	72			148	+4
MC		Sergio García	73	75			148	+4
MC		Kevin O'Connell	77	71			148	+4
MC		Danny Willett	75	73			148	+4
MC		Fred Couples	78	71			149	+5
MC		Brandt Snedeker	75	74			149	+5
MC		Charl Schwartzel	77	72			149	+5
MC		Adam Long	75	74			149	+5
MC		Shugo Imahira	76	74			150	+6
MC		Larry Mize	77	74			151	+7
MC		Shane Lowry	78	73			151	+7
MC		Jovan Rebula	73	79			152	+8
MC		Matt Wallace	75	77			152	+8
MC		Paul Casey	81	73			154	+10
MC		Michael Kim	76	78			154	+10
MC		Ian Woosnam	80	76			156	+12
MC		Vijay Singh	80	76			156	+12
MC		José María Olazábal	78	79			157	+13
MC		Ángel Cabrera	82	75			157	+13

Jopal22 (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei or Taiwan

With the recent change to Pan Cheng-tsung's page from Taiwan nationality to Chinese Taipei, is it time to start using Taipei over Taiwan on the pages from now on? Say for instance, when doing the 'Nationalities in the Field' category for each major championship page and or individual golfer, would it be better to use Taipei instead? I know most tours acknowledge Taipei over Taiwan now on t.v. and their respective websites, so I don't think it would be that big of a deal to make the change either. Thoughts? (Brandonlw97 (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

I just changed his article back. The explanation in the edit summary ("I work for the PGA TOUR and rep CT Pan directly. He has asked us to change references from Taiwan to Chinese Taipei when possible.") isn't like a valid reason to change the article. "Chinese Taipei" only exists in sports, and we only use it in cases of actual national representation. You could make a case for it to be used under "Nationality" in the infobox, but until we have a consensus to do so for all Taiwanese golfers I'd only use it for team appearances. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Note, both the PGA Tour and OWGR use Chinese Taipei. In the Olympics it will also be Chinese Taipei. I'd go with what major golf organisations seem to use (i.e. Taipei - including the flag) Jopal22 (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please let's keep the Taiwan flag, and not go to the Chinese Taipei flag. Personally I have always found the CT flag annoying, and it's basically saying it is not a stand alone country. Technically it is a stand alone country. If the tennis section and Olympic section insist on continuing to use the CT flag, that's one thing. But surely the golf section shouldn't have a problem continuing to use the regular Taiwan flag as we always have? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way. Although just a note, it being a stand alone country is ambiguous. It is not a member of the UN and does not officially declare itself independent from China out of fear of a response from China. In the olympics it will obviously be Chinese Taipei though. Jopal22 (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Table for Players Championship

Someone has commented on the absence of a "Results in the Players Championship" section (Talk:Rory McIlroy, Talk:Jordan Spieth). We already have sections for majors and WGC events. Any thoughts. Nigej (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Now that the PGA Tour has formally recognized 5 events in the "Season of Championships" I think it makes sense to include the Players Championship just above the Masters in the Results Timeline. Perhaps the title of the section could be renamed to "Season of Championships" or "Major Events." I will concede that there is still some debate that the Players isn't necessarily a "Major Championship." Regardless, I do think it would make sense from a logistical and organizational standpoint to include the Players in the same chart as the Masters, PGA, US Open, and Open. Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

100% disagree. There is no debate about whether the Players is a "Major Championship."; it isn't. Adding it to the majors table and renaming it, is a non-starter in my view. Adding it to the WGC table makes more sense, as a list of important non-majors. Nigej (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. No one has ever referred to the Players as the 5th WGC. It is however often referred to as the 5th Major. There is a reason why the PGA TOUR awards 600 FedExCup points for winning the Players, Masters, PGA, US Open, and Open. WGC winners only receive 550. The Players should either be added to the Majors (renamed "Big Events" or something similar) or a section solely dedicated to the Players. Putting the Players with the WGC events is almost as confusing and odd as completely omitting the Players altogether. Who gets excited for the Fed Ex St. Jude? Who gets excited for the HSBC? Most casual golf fans would have no idea what these events were if asked. Everyone fan knows the Players, the course, and the winners. Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, if it is to be added, then it needs to be in a separate section. It isn't a major (as much as the PGA Tour would like it to be) and it isn't a WGC. Location would be after the majors and before the WGCs - that's its location in historical timeline (founded in 1974, well after the majors and well before the WGCs) and OWGR points. Tewapack (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that. Should be a separate section. Nigej (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't be included in the majors table, but I can get behind including it in a separate section. It's more deserving of results tables than the WGCs (frankly, I wouldn't care if the WGC tables were removed). pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 21:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be appropriate. If we are going with the Players having its own section, what if it was formatted to include a larger "Season of Championships" section, with the 4 Majors as one subsection, the Players as a subsection, and the FedExCup as a subsection? Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems pointless to me. I'm not really aware of this "Season of Championships" anyway. We need to avoid an entirely US/PGA Tour perspective. It's a world sport. Nigej (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No offense, but if you aren't aware of the "Season of Championships" and if you think that the WGCs are on par with the Players, I am not sure you are in the best position to judge this. And while I recognize that professional golf is a world sport, 4 of the 5 biggest events every year are played in the United States. Omitting the Players Championship simply because its in America seems pointless. Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say it was on a par, I said "Adding it to the WGC table makes more sense, as a list of important non-majors." Anyway, I'm happy for it to be added as a separate table, as I said before. I'm just not keen on the "Season of Championships" title - seems meaningless for Jack Nicklaus for instance. Nigej (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Of course, as eras change and golf evolves, tables today don't make sense for tables from older generations. Brooks Koepka's table doesn't necessarily need to match Jack Nicklaus just like Jack Nicklaus doesn't match Bobby Jones (golfer), and Bobby Jones doesn't match Old Tom Morris. In the future a golfer's career will be determined by their success and failures in events under the "Seasons of Championships" umbrella. Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

See: https://www.lyingfour.com/pros-blog/2019/3/5/the-fourth-most-wonderful-time-of-the-year "The PGA Tour’s “Season of Championships” gobbledygook aside, the turn of the calendar to March brings a definite change of tone to the pro golf landscape." Rather my own view. Until such time as it becomes more than "The PGA Tour’s gobbledygook" and enters the mainstream, we should, as an encyclopedia, steer clear. Nigej (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

While I do have great respect for Will Bardell and his new blog that was started a few months ago, it is quite a stretch to refer to Lying Four as mainstream. Now, it is well established that Brandel Chamblee is the face of the Golf Channel and the voice of golf. He is a strong advocate for the Players' inclusion in the Masters/US/British/PGA tier. https://twitter.com/chambleebrandel/status/1086786591463563265 "I look at today’s tour as having The Big 5 Events. No longer in my eyes are there 4 majors, it’s The Big 5 Events. The Players is every bit the event that the PGA, Masters, US Open and Open are." This is mainstream. Perhaps we should follow Brandel's sage wisdom and create a new section, inclusive of the players, and refer to it as "The Big 5."Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to be at the forefront of potential changes. If the "Season of Championships"/"Big 5" terminology becomes prevalent at some point, then it may be time to use it on Wikipedia. But not before then. — Phinumu aka Inkblot9
pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

If respected golf analysts, professional golfers, and the professional golfing tour refer to something in the same manner, I think its safe to say that the terminology has become prevalent. Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that it makes sense to include the Players Championship within a player's major results, or at least to create a separate section for the Players Championship under the Season of Championships Banner. The term "Major" isn't set out in any formal document - it's an informal tool generated by the media to represent a player's performance in the era's biggest events. For years, the Western Open was considered a major by the players and media due to the purse and field. See Walter Hagen: Baron of the Golden Age, available at https://digitalcommons.olivet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1017&context=hist_facp ("Golf writers, but more important the players themselves, generally considered the Western Open to be a fourth major, and including those victories, Hagen had sixteen contemporary majors.") The Players hosts the strongest field in golf, and they play for the biggest purse in golf (12.5M). It should be grouped with the majors, or at least distinguished from the WGCs. Sure, the Tour has an interest in pushing the Players as a major championship, but the tournament's status shouldnt be punished for that.talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I would be on board with it. If it doesn't happen, that is okay. But it would be nice to have it. Notice how the four major golf tournaments have their own scoring page in Wikipedia, but The Players doesn't, despite being celebrated by Golf Channel with the "Live From..." program, as though to suggest it's a can't miss tournament. Golf Channel doesn't give the "Live From..." treatment to the WGC's. It even gets approximately 22 hours of coverage on Golf Channel and NBC, considerably more coverage than the WGC's get. I'm not suggesting that a TV network should determine what we do here, I'm merely suggesting that a tournament that gets this much priority by the golf community and the network(s) should (or at least could) probably have some extra page in Wikipedia. And being someone who pays close attention to the viewership numbers, I know that The Players does better on TV even than the WGC events do; only the majors get more viewership than The Players, keeping in mind that many of the majors' viewers are viewers who have limited interest in golf and rarely watch, basically the "casual fan". So, I would be on board if this extra page happens. ... Two more things I'd like to mention: The Players field is comparable to the Masters field, the difference being that The Players has approximately fifty more American golfers than the Masters. Also, The Players equivalent on the Champions Tour (The Senior Players) and the LPGA Tour (the Evian) count as majors for them. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify something I said. When I said "scoring page", I was referring to the "List Of..." pages. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think there is a clear consensus that The Players Championship needs to be added. I guess the only question remaining, is where? Currently there are two sections for it to fit: "Major Championship" and "World Golf Championships." I think that we are all in agreement that it is not a WGC, and it is more in line with the Majors (although I will concede that its not universally accepted as Major). I think the easiest and most obvious solution is to morph the Major section into something that is inclusive of the Players.

Should we take a poll? I think names to consider are 1) Major Events, 2) Big Events, 3) Season of Championships, 4) The Big 5. I am certainly open to other suggestions as well. Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm still completely opposed to having it in the majors section. I'm happy with it being a separate section between the majors and the WGCs, given that it has a status between these. Seems to me to be a sensible compromise. Nigej (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Well at least there is a consensus that the Players needs to be recorded. In a few months or years then the Players becomes universally accepted as being on the same tier, then it will probably be an easy fix to merge the Players with the other 5 Big Events. Let the editing commence! Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I made a few edits and they were undone. I thought we had a consensus to add the Players Championship? If not under the format that I just did, then what? There was a clear distinction between the Majors and the Players Championship as I thought we all agreed. Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely shouldn't be added in the same category as the majors Jopal22 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

See eg David Duval, Greg Norman where I have added the Players Championship as a separate section. Nigej (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort here. And while I know there is nothing that can be done to change your mind of the Players inclusion into the category with the 4 other big events, I hope that you would at least concede that from a formatting and readability standpoint, including the Players near the Majors table would certainly make things easier when glossing over the data and assessing someone's career. One of the best things about the current layout with Majors is you can get a general sense of how the player was performing from a year to year basis and identify peaks and primes based on the frequency and location of yellow and green boxes. Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I simply don't accept the concept of "the 4 other big events". See below: "The 4 majors are clearly the pinnacle of golf, but after that it is very subjective". Nigej (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please, tell me 5 professional golf tournaments more prestigious than the Players. I feel like you are just taking this contrarian stance just for the sake of it. What events are more important other than those in the Season of Championships? Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

See above: "I think that it makes sense to include the Players Championship within a player's major results." "I would be on board with it." "Notice how the four major golf tournaments have their own scoring page in Wikipedia, but The Players doesn't, despite being celebrated by Golf Channel with the "Live From..." program, as though to suggest it's a can't miss tournament." Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This is something golf makes difficult. The 4 majors are clearly the pinnacle of golf, but after that it is very subjective. We currently do WGC tables, but you could argue their prestige is lower than the Players Championship, FedEx Cup winner, FedEx Cup playoff events, Olympics, and even things like the Memorial Tournament. Would be open to discussing any of the above to be added but none of them should be added in the same section as the majors, which clearly have their own value. Unfortunately as well, the relative value of each prize has changed over time. We are always going to have to draw a line somewhere, unless we add everything which I would think would be too much (unless it's Tiger Woods it seems!) Jopal22 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Objectively there are 5 events that are head and shoulders above the rest. I've never heard anyone say that a WGC event (which seemingly changes sponsors, location, format etc year to year) has more prestige than the Players. The Players has the strongest field in golf, biggest purse in golf, and its on one of the most famous courses in golf. I don't get its omission. Lumping it together with the Majors (but still making a clear distinction that its not a "Major") is the only logical conclusion. The Season of Championships is here and it inst going anywhere. Deep Fried Eggs (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't let the hype of the host network in the US shape your opinion

a) It doesn't have the strongest field, the PGA Championship has, as it leaves out highly ranked players who are not PGA Tour members. Plus it is only recently it consistently secured the top 50 in the world attending, with as recently as 2011, world number 1 Lee Westwood and golden boy Rory McIlroy not attending.

b) It does have the joint highest purse, but not the highest 1st prize (Dubai World Championship). There have been other tournaments historically with the "highest prize", but you can't buy prestige.

c) The course might be famous, but it has mixed reactions from the players.

You are not going to convince us to lump it in with the majors, which have a long history, and a clear categorisation of their own. Jopal22 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox golfer

Do we want to change {{Infobox golfer}} so that the order of the men's majors reflects the order for 2019? Currently we have:

| label48     = [[U.S. Open (golf)|U.S. Open]]
| data48      = {{{usopen|}}}
| label49     = [[The Open Championship]]
| data49      = {{{open|}}}
| label50     = [[PGA Championship]]
| data50      = {{{pga|}}}

which would become:

| label48     = [[PGA Championship]]
| data48      = {{{pga|}}}
| label49     = [[U.S. Open (golf)|U.S. Open]]
| data49      = {{{usopen|}}}
| label50     = [[The Open Championship]]
| data50      = {{{open|}}}

See {{Infobox golfer/testcases}}

Obviously this change would affect all instances even those who played their career before the change in order. We could just leave it as it is for a while. Nigej (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, change it to the present chronological order, which it has maintained and is now inaccurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy to request the change. I'll wait a day or two, just to see if anyone else makes a comment here. Nigej (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes for me, too. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Change made as above. Nigej (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)