Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Circular reference on The Open Championship format and qualification

One of the main sources of this article is this link, which on further inspection is copied directly from the Open Championship article as of July 17, 2017. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 07:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Good spot. Removed now. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Caddie Hall of Fame

I've moved List of Caddie Hall of Fame inductees to Caddie Hall of Fame. I've also removed quite a few links to it from "See also" sections. It seems to me to be a strange hall of fame, since many of the inductees seem to have only got a tenuous link with caddieing. I've combined the annual inductees tables into one. Honestly, I'm thinking the list could be trimmed more, to just a bare list: name + year. This is especially the case since the "Awards and other induction citations" column is generally an exact copy of what used to be on their web site: see eg https://web.archive.org/web/20150714222744/http://www.wgaesf.org/site/c.dwJTKiO0JgI8G/b.8558121/k.4AD6/The_Caddie_Hall_of_Fame.htm Nigej (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

South African search engine

Good afternoon folks,

I was wondering if you guys knew of a South African newspaper search engine. Trove and the Singapore search engine have helped immeasurably. A South African one would surely make it much easier to create SA-golfer related pages.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Don't know of one. Papers Past is excellent for New Zealand, although it only goes up to 1950. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ Nigej (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I’ve had a look around for one before but had no luck. It would be great if there were ones available. Jimmymci234 (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing historical. A couple of newspapers have online archives, but they don't go back far (i.e. nothing pre-Internet age) and the search facilities are generally awful. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help guys. Looks like we're out of luck for SA.

Will be sure to use Past Papers in the future. I intend to make some profiles of early century NZ Open champs so it will sure come in handy.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Jean-Louis Guepy

I recently created a page for Jean-Louis Guepy. I have a couple issues however...

1) When I found him on Wikipedia using my iPhone the label says "Jean-Louis Guepy, English golfer." Unless there is something wild I don't know about he should be labeled "French golfer" (or maybe "New Caledonian golfer"). "English golfer" is almost certainly a mistake. However I don't know how to fix the matter. Does anyone know how?

2) I found a decent amount of info on the guy but - quite surprisingly - nothing on Trove. Geupy is from New Caledonia (an island in between Australia and New Zealand) and played extensively in the PGA Tour of Australasia. I know Trove focuses more on old stuff and Geupy played mainly the in '90s... but still... nothing?? Not sure if anyone could help me on that regard.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

1 No idea about that. Nothing to do with Wikipedia. 2. see https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/newspapers?keyword=%22guepy%22&sortBy=dateDesc The main Trove sources for later years is The Canberra Times but that dies out at the end of 1995. Looks like it is Guépy in the French; which we normally follow. Nigej (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

1) It was fixed shortly after I sent out the last message. Jimmymci234, did you fix it? I noticed you were editing his page around the time it was fixed.

2) Thank you Nigej for your Trove link! I guess I will try searches with the last name in quotes. Before I always seemed to have success with just trying the name. Also, I will make sure to use the name with the accent. I just copied and replaced on his main page.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

No don’t think that was me. Jimmymci234 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

PGA Tour priority list

Last year I created a page outlining the priority listing on the PGA Tour. This has again been created for the 2020-2021 season. I thought these would be a useful addition to wikipedia. They have been nominated for deletion though by another Wikiproject Golf member. If you have an opinion either way please leave it on the deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020-21 PGA Tour priority ranking Jopal22 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Template for Golf Course pages

I was wondering what the general template is for creating golf course pages. Could someone provide me a good example?

I was thinking about his recently as I was editing the page of Royal Adelaide Golf Club. Two things come to mind:

1) Do we need an additional scorecard for specific events (in this case the 2017 Women's Australian Open)? Seems like that could go on a tournament page. On this page it looks kind of clunky and extraneous.

2) I created the heading "Other Tournaments" which adds dates when the course hosted the Australian Amateur and South Australian Open. I was thinking of combining "Other Tournaments" information with the "Australian Opens" information under an overarching "Tournaments" heading. I think it would be clearer. Thoughts?

Also, the only course page I have created in the Pleasant Valley Country Club page. Any advice on how to improve this would be nice.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

There isn't a template as such, but an article like Augusta National Golf Club covers most things. To answer the other questions: I would say no, we don't need scorecards for each event held (they move the tees around day-to-day anyway, so seems excessive and pointless); and it sometimes makes sense to have any major tournaments separate (depends on content and context). The PVCC article could probably use a history section and an overview of the course & facilities (foundation, course designer, redesigns, etc.); if that can be added, the tournaments summaries can go in their own section (with the list in a sub-section of that) and the lead can just summarize the major points. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'll check out Augusta's page. Once I have time I'll work on these edits. I may have more questions about this in the future.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Western Samoan Open

I was looking to create a page on this event.

When I was creating the page of George Serhan I discovered that he won the "Samoan Open" in 1979. Here is the link.

Also, it states on this link that New Zealand golfer Barry Vivian won an event in "Western Samoa" during the 1970s.

Not necessarily sure if Serhan and Vivian won the same event. But any more information or clarification would be helpful.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Both those sources are incidental mentions, so would not be enough to establish notability. We need significant coverage of the tournament itself in order to justify creating an article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes I know - the whole reason I created this post was because I thought I had inadequate information.

I did get a little information in the meantime. On the wiki page of Roger Mackay it states that he won the "1984 American Samoan Open." On the page of Mike Harwood it states he won the "1984 Western Samoan Open." Obviously, given the years, we may not be talking about the same event with these guys.

Otherwise, couldn't find anything on Trove or NewspaperSG or google. If you can find something let me know.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

see https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zLIpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JuUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3592%2C10565749 (scroll down a bit to "Down the Fairways"). Can't help feeling that this is very minor stuff. 9 hole course. No real coverage. Nigej (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, looks like you're right. If you find additional stuff in the future, however, please let me know.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Ooggylwoogly

Michael/Mike Clayton

Anyone know why we have him under Michael Clayton (golfer). Nearly always he was referred to as Mike, so would suggest moving him to Mike Clayton (golfer). Nigej (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree also. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

early 20th century New Zealand Opens

I recently created a page for Ted Douglas. He won the New Zealand Open several times in the early 20th century. In my research I expected to find some primary sources through Past Papers. While I found a good deal of information I did not find any primary sources reporting from the New Zealand Open. I would like this for his page but more so for the New Zealand Open page. In the reference column for that page we only have primary sources. I would like to keep it consistent and only use primary sources for the very early 20th century New Zealand Opens too. Anyway, any relevant information would be most helpful.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Probably my fault. The NZ PGA Championship article does have references. I'm in the process of creating a New Zealand Amateur article, so perhaps it would be an opportunity to add refs to the NZ Open too. Right up to 1963 the three events were played together, as part of the "Championship meeting". The Open first, which also determined the qualifiers for the professional and amateur match-play events that followed immediately afterwards. Also worth noting that "New Zealand PGA Championship" is not the correct name up to 1963, since the organisation of it had little or nothing to do with the New Zealand PGA, as far as I know - New Zealand Professional Championship would be better in this era. Nigej (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and the additional information. I also don't know how it could be "your fault" as I added all of the citations to the New Zealand Open page.

If you could add stuff for early NZ Open that would be of indispensable importance. I have tried using Past Papers - using the date filter - but haven't found anything yet.

Also, thank you very much for the creation of the New Zealand Amateur page! That is a huge contribution to WikiProject Golf, among the best three additions since I've been editing. I was thinking about creating it myself but had incomplete information.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I meant it was my fault because I added extra information (ie margin of victory, runners-up) but, at the time, didn't add a specific reference as to where it came from. Nigej (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, well thank you anyway for adding the citations. I will be sure to use them on Douglas's page.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Mount Isa tournament

Has anyone heard of this tournament? It has played in Queensland during the 1970s. It recently came up when I was creating the page of Mike Ferguson (golfer). Ferguson the event in 1978. He also won the event in 1981.

This also came up when I was creating the page of Randall Vines. Vines won the tournament in 1975.

Not sure how important this tournament was... may have just been an event on the Queensland circuit. Keep in mind I only have secondary sources for this. Nonetheless, both Vines and Ferguson were prominent golfers and won this event during the heart of their careers. Let me know if you have anything and, if you do, if you think it is worthy of an article.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Question on professional status

I have a question about when golfers official "turn professional."

This recently came up with a page I created for David Galloway (golfer). It states here that Galloway turned professional in January 1969. He started working as assistant professional at Royal Canberra then.

On this link it implies he turned pro in late 1971 or early 1972. I assume that with this link they are referring to turning "touring professional."

Nonetheless some clarification would be nice.

This issue was especially salient when I was creating the page of Barry Burgess. Burgess had a lengthy "amateur" career yet was getting paid money to work at golf clubs during this era (Strathfield, Ashlar, Bankstown). He eventually "turned professional" in 1976. This issue has come up with other golfers too. Again, any clarification would be helpful.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I've had the same trouble with Australian pros. Bob Stanton (golfer) was clearly a pro here https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/136933968 (mentioned as an assistant professional - so he's lost his amateur status) but elsewhere (can't find it currently) there was a later date for him becoming a professional. As you say, I suspect its related to becoming eligible to play in tournaments. Not 100% clear. We should go for the earlier date - loss of amateur status. Nigej (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

From what I remember, 30+ years ago, assistants weren't eligible to compete in (full-)professional tournaments until they had completed their apprenticeship – they could mostly only compete in assistant/young/junior professional events. The duration of the apprenticeship period varied across the world, and could be anything from a few months to several years; it was steadily reduced over the years as tournament golf grew, until it was eliminated entirely. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes it seems clear as day to me that they are "professional" once they start earning money for their work as an assistant professional and earning money in assistant professional tournaments.

I think this is particularly important for our pages as we separate them between "Amateur career" and "Professional career." Perhaps we could add "Assistant Professional career" in between though I've never really heard of that as a discreet concept before.

Here I just want to add some precise information about Galloway's transition to assistant professional. Not because you disagree but more to clarify my own thoughts and perhaps other members reading this:

It states on this link from January 24, 1969 that "David Galloway has turned professional."

It states on this link from March 18, 1969 that Galloway earned A$8 in an "apprentice" event. This was his "first event since turning professional."

Again, it just seems like common sense that they are "professional" once they start earning money.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Indeed, the timeline is simply this: Amateur → Professional (i.e. there is no intermediate step). Also, pros commonly remain(ed) assistants after completing their apprenticeship. In Galloway's case, it seems clear he turned pro in Jan 1969 and the later report (which states less than 2 years ago) is probably an error. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree. An assistant/apprentice (whatever you want call it) is still a professional. There's no half way stage. Nigej (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, good - seems like common sense. I will change his page soon.

For most these guys the distinction pretty simple and will not be hard to correct. I do have a question about Barry Burgess however. If you look at his page it states he had a lengthy amateur career while working at golf clubs. He then turned pro in 1976. Please tell me what you think.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Re: Barry Burgess. The September 1976 date must be wrong. He played as a professional in the 1976 Open, in July, so he must clearly have been professional then. See: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/250483543?searchTerm=%22barry%20burgess%22 which says 1971 and seems more likely. Also see: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-cBWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J-UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4197%2C11365723 and https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YFEVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VuUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4812%2C861431 which actually proves that he turned pro in 1970 (since he played in an assistants event in late 1970). Anyway the general principle is: if he played in an amateur event he must have been an amateur. If he played in a tour event it's not always 100% clear what his status was. Nigej (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There are also rare cases of players turning professional, regaining amateur status, and later turning professional for the second time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

True. Allen John comes to mind. Nigej (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much for the information. I have updated Burgess' page. I may add more information later to the first paragraph regarding his transition to professional career. There were quite a few subtle details in the Sydney Morning Herald article. Also, you are more than welcome to clarify things in the article.

Also, Nigej, how in the world did you find this precise information and so quickly? Google News Archives does not have a search function.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Google Newspaper Archive is very good as long as you know the exact date. So, I find the exact date and then check The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. Finding the date is the tricky bit. Currently I'm a subscriber to Newspapers.com which is very useful. But I also use a host of other bits and pieces. Nigej (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

finding incomplete Mike Ferguson information

Hello all,

I recently created the page of Mike Ferguson (golfer). I found a lot of stuff but I am missing some information from very notable performances.

• According to the Western Australian Open page he won the event in 1977. Could not find any sources for this however.

• Ferguson was in second place entering the final round of the 1983 Queensland PGA Championship. I have a link for his third round performance but not the final round. It says on the wiki page that Peter McWhinney won the tournament.

• In 1985 he won the Acom Doubles in Japan with Brian Jones (golfer). According to the wiki page it was an unofficial event then. Cannot find any information for this.

If you can find anything for any of this stuff that would be much appreciated.

Sincerely, Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

1977 WA Open: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6vFUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ipIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5981%2C6741529 1983: Queensland PGA: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1P5jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7-YDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1517%2C5637352 and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/63219066/the-age/ 1985 Acorn Doubles https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ilBVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iJUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5906%2C8146114 Nigej (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much Nigej! Just added this stuff.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Essex County Country Club

I recently made an article for Essex County Country Club. It is one of the oldest clubs in the United States. Feel free to add to it if you have access to more historical information. Thanks! Thriley (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Thriley for making this page. I noticed, however, that you did not include citations on the first, second, and fifth paragraphs. First off, why? I have to say I am baffled that users do not always do this. If you could add citations that would be great.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Why does this editor put a reference on a sentence when the reference don't corroborate the sentence? It is a very bad habit around WP and I have been seeing it on a increasing basis of late. I removed the reference BTW[1]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Jr/Sr articles

Just wondered if anyone had any thought about the Jr./Sr. naming of articles. Advice is given at WP:JR/SR. We currently have 48 articles in the project with such names. Currently we only use 4 forms: Jr. Sr. Jnr and Snr There aren't any articles using the old comma style (eg ", Jr.") nor do any use the Jr (without the "full point") style.

• Jr./Sr. style (North American): Jim Bagby Jr., David Berganio Jr., Jack Burke Jr., Ed Cuff Jr., Robert H. Dedman Jr., William C. Fownes Jr., Jim Gallagher Jr., Labron Harris Jr., Ernie Johnson Jr., Davis Love Jr., George Low Jr., F. Morgan Taylor Jr., Harold Paddock Jr., Sam Parks Jr., Tom Pernice Jr., Ted Potter Jr., Hugh Royer Jr., Jack Rule Jr., Wes Short Jr., Dave Stockton Jr., George C. Thomas Jr., Robert Trent Jones Jr., Art Wall Jr., Henry Williams Jr., Jack Burke Sr., William Lowell Sr., Albert Tingey Sr.
• Jnr/Snr style (Commonwealth): Laurie Ayton Jnr, Gordon Brand Jnr, Trevor Fisher Jnr, Christy O'Connor Jnr, Laurie Ayton Snr, Christy O'Connor Snr
• Jr./Sr. style (Commonwealth): David Anderson Jr., Robert Chambers Jr., Sid Collins Jr., John Graham Jr. (golfer), Mungo Park Jr., Willie Park Jr., David Anderson Sr., David Ayton Sr., Willie Dunn Sr., Peter McEwan Sr., Willie Park Sr.
• Jr./Sr. style (could be either): Tom Anderson Jr., Joe Kirkwood Jr., Joe Kirkwood Sr., George Low Sr.

WP:JR/SR says "Commonwealth English: Sr or Jr written after the name, with neither a comma nor a full point. The Snr and Jnr spellings are attested but in decline, and are not recommended on Wikipedia." Clearly we don't follow this. All the commonwealth examples are dead with the exception of Trevor Fisher Jnr. Yesterday someone moved the Aytons to Jr. and Sr., which according to WP:JR/SR is incorrect. I moved them back to Jnr/Snr, a style that is "not recommended". Some could actually be renamed to remove the Jr/Sr, eg Sid Collins (golfer), David Ayton, John Graham (golfer), Peter McEwan, Tom Anderson (golfer). The question is whether we ought to do anything about this. Nigej (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say WP:COMMONNAME also applies, and an RM would be needed (except in egregious cases). Other than the Jr./Sr. style (Commonwealth) group, I don't see any obvious need for moving though. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

British Open third round cut

As most of you know the British Open instituted a third round cut from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s. While editing the page of Mike Ferguson (golfer) I noticed he made money when he made the second round cut but missed the third round cut. He missed the third round cut twice in his career, in 1980 and 1983. Below is the information from his European Tour site:

1980 Open Championship: Ferguson won 490 pounds / 1983 Open Championship: Ferguson won 560 pounds

So my question is: is it accurate to characterize it as "missing the cut" when they completed three rounds and made money.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

There is a list here User:Nigej/Missed the 54-hole cut. The "(N)" stuff is out of date. As to the question: missing the cut doesn't necessarily equate to getting no money, although this was the tradition. Going back in history, making the cut didn't guarantee any prize money. This year's Masters paid money to those missing the cut, it seems. "Even the players who missed the cut (of which there were 31) receive a payout of $10,000 each" Nigej (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing the cut, is what it is – whether it's the first cut after 36 holes or a second cut after 54 holes (the PGA Tour used MDF to designate the latter, which offered some clarity) – and it should not be conflated with prize money. At the extremes, prizes may be paid to everyone teeing off the first or only to the winner. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI. The MDF issue has come up before, re: FedEx Cup Playoffs, eg 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs, and the Players Championship eg 2009 Players Championship. see WT:WikiProject Golf/Archive 7#Results in the Players Championship (even WT:WikiProject Golf/Archive 4#FedEx Cup articles). Currently we give positions for the MDF players, not "CUT", based on PGA Tour usage. eg https://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/dell-technologies-championship/past-results.2014.html https://www.theplayers.com/past-results.html (see 2009) Nigej (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The official Open Championship website used to denote all those missing either the 36 or 54-hole cut as "CUT"; they are now denoted "M/C" and (bizarrely) "WD" ([2]). When it comes to the Open, we have tended to use CUT for both (at least in some articles) with an explanatory note, e.g. Des Smyth#Results in major championships. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. As far as I'm aware, for ALL 36 or 54 hole cuts in the Open we use "CUT". Also worth noting that in, say, 1980, according to https://www.europeantour.com/european-tour/109th-open-championship-1980/results?round=4 the pros that missed the 2nd cut got €490 (ie £350), while those that missed the 1st cut got €315 (ie £225) - so all the pros got something. Nigej (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, looks like it will remain "CUT" for those that missed the third round cut.

I have a couple of incidental questions:

1) Why on ET's website, for these 1980s events, do they have the currency listed in Euros and not Pounds?

2) When a player missed a cut it is not listed so on ET's website. Rather it says something like T-87 or T-119 rather than "CUT." Do you know why?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The answer to (1) is that, when they switched from pounds to euros, they converted all earlier pounds into euros at a fixed exchange rate of 1.40. It doesn't make any sense since euros often didn't exist at the time. Bit of botch job really. Not sure of the answer to (2). May be related to giving prize money. Nigej (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Nigej. Overall the ET site is pretty good but there are some flaws...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

anecdote about Mike Ferguson

Hi everyone,

I know it sounds grim but I was looking for more information about this anecdote about Mike Ferguson (golfer). According to his ET website he almost died in a plane crash in the 1970s. Ferguson was playing an event in Japan and made a five-foot putt to make the cut on the number. If he missed the putt (and thereby the cut) he was scheduled to take a fatal flight. The ET website does not state the name of this fatal flight.

I used Wikipedia's comprehensive list of plane crashes. The list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft

The only 1970s Japanese crashes where everyone died, according to the Wikipedia, were during these dates:

July 3, 1971 / July 30, 1971

Ferguson seems too young to have been playing in Japan in 1971.

Among golf editors, I know that ...William has done a lot of work editing the pages of plane crashes. If you could be of any help please let me know.

Again, I know it sounds grim and perhaps trivial but I think this is of some interest. Life and death is never trivial. Also, it is somewhat relevant given the fate of Ferguson's brother-in-law Payne Stewart.

Sincerely, Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It is trivial. The WikiProject that oversees plane crash articles has a consensus about not naming people 'who miss the plane'. Those two crashes, if used in an article, would fall under WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised to hear that. Could you explain why? It seems so fundamentally relevant.

Secondly, was that consensus developed just for the plane crash articles or all Wiki articles?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I removed it from the article because the information was most likely incorrect. Ferguson was a teenage amateur at the time of the only two totally fatal commercial flights to take place in Japan during the 1970's. His being at either tournament is VERY unlikely. Plus there is no totally fatal commercial accidents in Japan for the 1980's either. Check this source out if you don't believe me.[3]...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Rigorous fact-checking is not something tour profiles are known for, especially when it comes to anecdotes such as these which often come from the player (or their agents) without any questioning, so they should be considered somewhat unreliable in this regard. "Interesting" stories have a tendency to get merged or twisted over time, so such things must be treated cautiously, and before including them we should almost always look for reliable third-party verification. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I would like to clarify a few things...

1) ...William, you did not answer my question: Why are people "who miss the plane" not referenced on Wikipedia articles?

2) I agree with your deletion of this reference in the second paragraph of his "Professional career." The whole reason I brought this up is because I was skeptical of the European Tour's information.

3) I assume this information on his ET page is inaccurate but not totally made up or so perverted to be completely inaccurate. It seems extremely unlikely that Ferguson or his agent or an employee of the European Tour would just make this up. Perhaps there were some survivors on the the flight he almost took. Perhaps it was actually a flight from another Asian country. It seems like mistakes like this are feasible. Also, I understand how stories can get perverted over time but an anecdote like almost dying in a plane crash must have some kernel of truth. I just don't see how a specific story like this that is so important (about life and death) could get so warped to be fully inaccurate.

4) If we cannot find any reliable third-party information to buttress the original claim we should give up. Again, that is the whole reason I created this post. Also, if including this information contravenes Wikipedia's rules we should give up.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)Ooggylywoogly

It was a consensus agreement among editors who work on aviation accident articles. There are a couple of brief mentions at Pan Am Flight 103's talk page. @Ahunt: may recall better. It is related to the strong consensus not to name people who survive or die in a crash unless they are WP notable. I got dragged to WP:ANI twice in one day for trying correctly to enforce that. Click here[4] and here[5].

There may be a kernel of truth. Sometime 5-10 years ago, A ESPN golf writer recalled some controversy involving Arnold Palmer if I recall correctly happened at the Bing Crosby Pro-Am. Palmer said 'this happened' but I found an article written at the time of the tournament where Palmer said the reverse happened. There was a controversy but the participant in it couldn't recall it correctly. News writers regularly don't verify the claims of the people they interview. That's how things like Ian Bannen claiming he won an Academy award get reported.

Good luck trying to find something in 3rd party sources. I have about as much luck with a Florida lottery ticket tonight to win a 15 million dollar jackpot....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping on this. I can't find any written policy about not listing people who missed flights that later crashed, but we certainly have a a longstanding editing consensus on WikiProject Aircraft not to include these. A lot of these stories turn out to be apocryphal (skimpy evidence that the person in question actually had a ticket on that flight - essentially urban legends) or at least hindsight bias like, "I was thinking of taking that flight that crashed yesterday". Many of these claims are made after the fact to try to show some sort of clairvoyance or at least "luck". The other point is that every time an airplane crashes there are lots of people who didn't take that flight. Between being hard to definitively source, in the end may of these run up against essentially WP:TRIVIA, meaning even if they did have a ticket on a flight, didn't go and didn't get killed, so what? Everyday all of us could have been killed. If I had crossed the road near where I live, against the light today I would have been hit by that cement truck ... but I didn't. - Ahunt (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Ahunt for this clarification. The probability of confirming this story about Ferguson (if it exists at all) is very low. Unless, someone has some new information I think I will end my search.

I did notice on the page of actress Kim Cattrall that there is information about her missed flight on the Pan Am Flight 103. Not sure what you think about that.

And ...William I hope you won the lottery.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Thanks for your comment here. As far as the Kim Cattrall bio goes I think that whole para should be removed for the reasons stated above. - Ahunt (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. - Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Rename of "Par (golf scoring format)" etc

We have this article, Par (golf scoring format), which relates to an old form of competition, largely superseded by Stableford (in my neck of the woods). Most of the links to this article were actually intended to link to Par (score), which I have changed, indicating some confusion about the article name. The Par/Bogey format is still in the rules of golf - rule 21.3 (https://www.randa.org/en/rog/2019/rules/the-rules-of-golf/rule-21#21-3). From my own perspective the "Par" usage for this type of competition was much less common than the "Bogey" usage (Bogey being used in a different meaning to its modern usage of one-over-par). So my proposal is that we rename the article to Bogey competition (redirect from Par competition) - but happy with the other way round. It also seems to me that Stableford could be renamed Stableford competition (rule 21.1 "The competition is won by the player or side who completes all rounds with the most points."). Perhaps we should also rename Par (score) to Par (golf) (currently a redirect) to be consistent with Birdie (golf), Bogey (golf), Albatross (golf), etc., although it could have a more generic type name like Scoring in golf since it contains definitions of birdie, bogey, etc. ({{Golf}} has "scoring"). Any thoughts? Nigej (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Disagree in general. While we need to stick with common usage, we also need to correctly identify the subject in the title. Stableford and Par/Bogey are scoring systems/formats which may be used in competitions (and hence are used as adjectives to describe competitions), but they are not competitions in and of themselves. Also, as far as I know, par is (or was until fairly recently) still a common format in Australia. "Par (score)" is also commonly used in a non-golf context, e.g. in cricket to describe the relative standard score for an innings, although the article does not discuss this. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What is 100% clear is that the use of "Par" in relation to golf, means Par (golf) and "Bogey" means Bogey (golf) (when used in isolation). The problem is that these common uses of Par and Bogey are a golf scoring system, causing much confusion with the article Par (golf scoring format). See https://www.insidegolf.com.au/opinion/some-real-data-and-facts-about-par-competitions/ for some stats about Australia (DSR=daily scratch rating). As you say they are still relatively common there. However it's worth noting that the article generally use terms like "par competition" to be clear about what they're talking about. PS You seem to be arguing that Par (score) should be a different article to Par (golf) and I wouldn't disagree with that. Nigej (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition to my earlier comment, most scoring formats/systems (esp. Stableford in the UK) are most often used in a non-competition context, so moving the articles as suggested could/would be misleading. Per my earlier comment it is natural to use the format to describe the competition, but they should not be conflated. I think some confusion is inevitable when the same terminology is used for different concepts. Par and bogey (in the context of specific scores) are/were simply a measure of the expected score for a proficient (scratch) golfer (now a 20/24 handicap golfer for bogey), not a scoring system.
The first thing would be an expansion of the "Par (score)" article to encompass the whole subject, which could then lead to a split of "Par (golf)" into it's own article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Par/Bogey were used for par/bogey competitions and also as part of the handicapping system - either way they constituted a scoring system, that's quite clear. Also, a look at Stableford reveals a list of professional tournaments and something like Tennis scoring system#Scoring a tiebreak game starts with the scoring system but then launches into a history and list of events. Perhaps these should be split in two but, to me, it seems natural to combine the scoring aspect (which is often very straightforward) with details of events where it's been used. OK we could have Stableford and List of tournaments that have used the Stableford scoring system but, personally, I don't see the point. However, I do see the merit in combining Par (golf scoring format) into Par (golf). Nigej (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, with the Stableford article we should certainly follow WP:SPLIT and I can't envisage either size or balance of content becoming sufficiently problematic. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 23:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the "par/bogey (format)" article. Merging is an entirely different proposition – I suspect better sources on the origins of par and bogey would make it a natural one; it would also probably necessitate a move of "par (score)" to "par (golf)" or "scoring in golf". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

adding a "Senior career" heading

Should we add one? We already have consensus for an "Amateur career" section and golfers' amateur careers are often very short. Senior careers can be quite extensive.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

No reason why you shouldn't. I suppose the problem is what to the "Professional career" section. "Professional career up to the age of 50"? Nigej (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Another problem is that these timelines can overlap which means the article may not exactly be in chronological order. A good example right now would be Phil Mickelson who has played in two PGA Tour Champions events, while still paying full time on the PGA Tour. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

If there is a clear need, it should probably be a subsection of "Professional career". There isn't really a need for articles to be in chronological order. We should also be mindful of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM – content should provide a balanced summary of the entire career. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jimmymci234 for your response. It is interesting you bring up Mickelson. We have already decided that "Amateur career" and "Professional career" are discrete concepts. However Mickelson's career jettisons that distinction with his victory at a 1991 PGA Tour event while still an amateur. Likewise, he may have much success (remains to be seen) as a senior but he is an exceptional case. He is a superstar and the rare player who may be good on the regular tours from his college days to old age.

The distinction between regular tour and senior tour is usually pretty firm. I brought this up because I was creating a lot pages for golfers who played in the Asia-Pacific region during the 1960s/1970s. Their careers seemed up abruptly fizzle out around the age of 35. But after they turned 50 and would often have much success on the senior tours for a few years. In general there is little overlap between regular career and senior career; very few golfers have won regular tour events after the age of 50.

Otherwise, I definitely think we should be cognizant of WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. But so far many pages already have senior career information and seem to be balanced. Also, as I stated earlier, we have already decided that the distinction between "Amateur career" and "Professional career" is firm. Why would it be any different for senior career which is often much longer, begins at precise time, and often has a lot more media coverage?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Also, regarding the the "Professional career" category...

For golfers with extensive senior careers the structure can be this: Amateur career / Regular career / Senior career

If they don't have a distinct senior career then the structure can remain this: Amateur career / Professional career

I think that's the best way to do it...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The distinction between "Amateur career" and "Professional career" sections relates to the player's status, not the classification of any tournament they may happen to compete in; so Mickelson's win as an amateur in Tuscon is rightly not in the "Professional career" section. As for undue/recentism issue, Bernhard Langer is a prime example of the problem. Regardless of any success someone may have had in the senior ranks, we shouldn't disproportionately focus on that aspect just because sourcing in the internet-age is so much easier. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The "status" for seniors does not precisely change in the way that the USGA (or another governing body) oversees the transition from a golfer's amateur "status" to professional "status." As far as I know, these governing bodies do not bestow seniors with "senior status." But that just seems like semantics. It seems like common sense that the status (or whatever word you want to use) does significantly change once they hit 50. Once someone turns this age - and only when they turn 50 - can he or she can play on the Senior Tours. Like the "amateur" category it is also exclusionary: only amateurs can play amateur events; only senior can play senior events. (Similarly, both amateurs and seniors can play regular professional events.)

The "Senior career" category strikes me as an obviously distinct entity. The PGA Tour's Champions Tour has been around since 1980. The purses - just for an individual tournament - are usually in the millions. The best golfers in golf history play the tour when they hit 50 (e.g. Palmer, Nicklaus, Trevino, Els). It receives a lot of media coverage (I think all the tournaments are on TV). It also strikes me as getting way more coverage than the amateur game. I am not sure why wjemather is so averse to creating this heading.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

@Oogglywoogly: You appear to be misunderstanding my comments. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

How so?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

At no point have I expressed an "aversion" to a senior career subsection. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Well you didn't seem to want an independent "Senior career" section.

I understand your logic - one's senior career is obviously part of one's professional career. I was making the argument that "Senior career" may be distinct enough to warrant its own section. Nonetheless, right now I am open to an independent "Senior career" section or a subsection within "Professional career." What do people want?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Responses???

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

American/British newspaper archive

Are there any that are free?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

A few. Check this list out (not rigourously maintained, but still a good starting point): Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, quite a few. What ones do you use?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

As a UK library card holder, I get free access to The Times, BNA and a few others. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

American Professional Golfers (APG) tour

Does anyone know anything about this organization? It came up while creating the page of Dutch golfer Martin Roesink. Roesink was the medallist at the 1968 Qualifying School for the American Professional Golfers. I found this information on page 133 for the 1972 PGA Tour Media Guide. The relevant statement reads: "The American Professional Golfers also held a school and graduated 21, headed by Martin Roesink with 585 for 144 holes."

Given that this information is coming from an official PGA Tour source, it seems obvious the APG is affiliated with the PGA Tour. In addition, if you look at Roesink's PGA Tour page, you see he started playing on the PGA Tour the following year. I assume APG might be an incipient developmental tour or something.

I would like to include User:Phinumu in this discussion. I believe he started the PGA Tour Qualifying School pages and, as this information relates to Q-School, he might have some special insight about the American Professional Golfers.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

See: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=sztWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dekDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7216%2C1625799 (Aug 20, 1968) Seems they held a q-school later in the year. Nigej (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually it's all in here: Professional Golfers' Association of America Nigej (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It was a breakaway organisation that precipitated the formation of the Tournament Players Division of the PGA. See PGA Tour#History. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Also, the link I used earlier was from a media guide. It is quite interesting and has a a lot of useful information. (The link is here.) Most of the stats are already on the PGA Tour website however there's lots of other stuff. There is information about exemption status, qualifying school results, detailed schedules (including minor events), and detailed results. The last detail may be important since the PGA Tour's website only starts with 1980. Also, it may be useful for wjemather to know that there is some Caribbean Tour info there, including detailed results. And I know we should be circumspect of the profiles (a la Mike Ferguson) but there is some interesting stuff there.

Also if you change the date in the URL you can find media guides from other years. I believe the available media guides - using this URL at least - start with 1971 and go until 2013.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

FYI you can get access to all the available media guides for the PGA/KF/Champions tours in a list here (link top right) – you can pretty much put anything in the form to gain access. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you wjemather. I was looking to create pages for the annual qualifying schools. I imagine these media guides are considered reliable sources (albeit non-third party), right?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Yes they are reliable sources, but for such articles we should also require independent coverage in order to be able to write substantial NPOV prose (something lacking across many/most tournament articles). Secondary coverage would also be good in order to establish notability, as I'm not sure we can say the individual q-schools are inherently notable (much like individual editions of regular tour events). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes I agree but I think these articles should be easy to find. Some players and media members have stated that Q-School is the most important tournament of the year. I believe many publications cover the event.

In addition I have ordered a book from the library entitled Q School Confidential. I believe this book covers Q-Schools on a year by year basis so I will have at least two sources.

Also, for what it's worth we already have Q-School pages from 1990 onwards on Wikipedia. I believe User:Phinumu produced them. There is one citation on these pages, from the newspaper The Oklahoman. This source seems to have covered these events annually. I imagine if this singular newspaper published Q-School results annually then many others did.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

There is no doubt the event gets plenty of WP:ROUTINE coverage, like all tour events, but I doubt there much secondary coverage of any given year. However, if you are talking about lists – which is what those existing articles really are (i.e. list of XXXX q-school graduates; and fwiw they should probably be renamed as such) – then they could be considered a split from the corresponding PGA Tour season article, so the bar would be lower. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, would the media guide and the book count as secondary sources?

In general what do you mean about "secondary coverage of any given year"? Like newspaper articles months after the event? Or at least references in the media months later?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Yes, ongoing substantial coverage months (preferably years) after the event – kind of like we get with the majors, although not to that level but certainly more than incidental mentions. I personally wouldn't count the media guide, and the book probably (having not seen it) only counts towards notability of the q-school itself rather than any individual years tournaments. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

update on early tour calendars

I know wjemather has been working hard on creating tour calendars from the tours' early days. I was wondering what the status is now. I feel like others may want to know so I am posting this in WikiProject Golf's talk section.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Nothing much has changed. It is still mostly original research as I still haven't found reliable sources for the many of the schedules (or to identify counting/non-counting events), but lack of online resources for South Africa makes it almost impossible for the Sunshine Tour. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. There's often plenty of coverage of an event, but working out whether it's part of some tour or circuit, is often impossible. Nigej (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I have a few questions/comments...

Does OWGR help? I would think creating calendars post-1986 would help.

It's also sort of shocking that there's no concrete evidence to help determine what was an OoM event in Australia and what is not. We have access to so many papers. But I have to say myself sifting through their papers I haven't found much. Perhaps the media (and players) simply didn't think the distinction was important.

Otherwise I'm not sure what else to do. I have thought of emailing employees of the Sunshine Tour and PGA Tour of Australasia for more information. Their websites aren't great but you never know what they'll have.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

OWGR helps a little in giving a rough idea of things, and is good for cross-referencing (original research I afraid!), but it is far from being a reliable source for tour schedules. I'm sure the distinction between tour/non-tour and counting/non-counting was clear at the time, but general media is always much less interested in that kind of thing – golf magazines would likely have better depth of coverage. I suspect various re-organisations may have resulted in lost/confused records – it's often the reorganisations/relaunches that result in websites only having records going back so far.
Also worth noting that official tour records are a funny thing and are full of revisionist history; for example, I'm still unclear on how 1972 got to be chosen as the magic year by the European Tour when it could just as easily have been 1971 (which used to be shown on the ET website) or a number of other options; tournaments may also get their official/unofficial status retrospectively (and somewhat arbitrarily) changed – the PGA Tour are the worst offenders by far in this regard. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You can find Sunshine Tour schedules back to 1990–91, and orders of merit back to 1992–93, here. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 00:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, looks like we have very few options at this point...

I thought there was a magazine section of Trove. If so we could browse through that and see if we find anything...

Otherwise we may have to wait until the tours retroactively decide what events from the bygone days were "official" and what one's were not on the Order of Merit. Their contemporary decisions may not correspond to how things really were back then but, like the European Tour or PGA Tour's retroactive declarations, we can still use them.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

My last idea...

Doesn't User:Tewapack have a 2006 PGA Tour of Australasia media guide? I thought it denoted what events were "official" and what one's weren't throughout the tour's history. If you could respond Tewapack, that would be helpful.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Ooogglywoogly

I have a copy somewhere. From memory, it doesn't include any (or most) of the state Opens & PGAs, which we know have been on and off the official Order of Merit list through the years, and several other smaller short-lived tournaments we know about. As such, it's not much use for determination of official events. Sorry. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, well thank you for the response at least. As I said before, I guess we have few options at this point.

We may just have to wait for the day (if this day ever comes) when the PGA Tour of Australasia retroactively states what events were official what events were not. Sort of like the European Tour's decision in 1979 and the PGA Tour's near annual decisions nowadays.

One of the few options left is using the magazine section on Trove. The link is here. It looks pretty good though I haven't spent much time digging through it.

Also, could we at least use the media guide to denote what were official events as listed on the document? I know it doesn't have all the information but it has some of it. It could be a good start.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Jack Kay Jr.

Just created a page for this man. Overall it's pretty done. I have two outstanding issues, though:

• According to this link, published in March 1986, he intended to play in the 1986 Masters. Also on the 1986 Masters page it says he played in the tournament. Yet I can find no actual evidence that he played it. On the event's OWGR page his name is not listed in the results. Also on his PGA Tour site you will not find it under his "Season" or "Major" sections. He obviously qualified due to making the semis of the 1985 US Amateur. Perhaps at the last minute he decided to skip the event. Any clarification would be helpful.

• I could not find anything on Trove or SingaporeSG about him. A bit surprising given that he played extensively in the Asia-Pacific region. I mainly only need, however, information on his 1991 Singapore Open win. All I have is OWGR information about the event.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

He definitely played in the 86 Masters; lots of mentions e.g. [6], [7]. Singapore open is here: [8]. _wjemather^{please leave a message...}

Thanks a lot. This was a big help.

Also, is newspapers.com worth it? How much does it cost per month?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

putting PGA Tour Media in External Links

I was wondering if we could put the link for the media guide within the "External Links" section for PGA Tour season pages. For example, I was thinking of putting the 1975 Media Guide under "External Links" for the 1974 PGA Tour page. The media guide has complete results from the previous season.

Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It should be in the references section rather than external links. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If it is referencing something....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

As described, it would be referencing quite a lot of the article content. It may be impractical to do this inline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Baseball player articles such as Walton Cruise only have links to Baseballreference.com (either in a Sources or External links section) as the only reference for the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:GENREF, General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and to quote WP:EL, ...general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I actually had never thought much of the References or External Links sections before - I was usually just copying what other people did. I will probably just use the media guide as a reference then.

This brings up the issue of External Links more generally, however, for me. I have been providing the link to the golfer's PGA Tour page under External Links somewhat mindlessly when I usually cite it in the text anyway. If I refer to it in the text it will obviously be in the References section. Therefore, in cases like this, should it be in External Links at all?

In addition, I have been including other links under External Links which are barely relevant to the page. For example, under the page for Jack Kay Jr. I included his Japan Golf Tour page under External Links even though I never refer to it in the text and it's not really relevant to his career at all. I think he played like one golf tournament ever in Japan. I had just been doing this mindlessly because everyone else was doing it. In a situation like this, should this link just be deleted?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

2021 'European' Legends Tour

I noticed today that there has been a schedule released for the 2021 season of the Legends Tour (formerly the European Senior Tour/Staysure Tour). I know that this has been discussed here before, but in order to create the page, what title should be used? Would 2021 European Legends Tour be the most appropriate? Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I would probably say 2021 European Senior Tour (following previous seasons, including those under the Staysure name) for now and see what emerges as the WP:COMMONNAME. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Wjemather. Bit of "wait and see" needed here. One should redirect to the other anyway. Need a hatnote in 2021 Legends Tour either way. Nigej (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Issues with the "Field" category in major championships

I did not participate in the conversation about "Nationalities in the field." However, I agree that heading should be deleted. I'm ok with the little flag next to their name in the top 10 box but in general the nationality concept isn't that important in these individual events. Not to mention many of these "international" players have lived in the United States or another country for decades.

I believe I read somewhere recently that users formed a consensus that "Past champions in the field" should also be deleted. If so, I definitely agree. Other than maybe the Masters (a tradition that reveres its past champions) it's largely a made-up category of washed-up stars who no longer receive much media attention.

In addition, I was thinking of adding a "Top 50 in the World Rankings" table. The table would be a top down list from #1-#50 and would include the players' results in that particular event. In the early OWGR era, a lot of the major championships did not comprehensively include the top 50 (especially the American majors). The table would give an idea of the competitiveness in the event. Since the late 1990s almost all of the top 50 play in these events so this category may not be as important now. But again, it's just an idea.

But I definitely think "Nationalities in the field" and "Past champions in the field" have got to go. Simply not relevant and add a lot of useless clutter to the page.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I think most are agreed on removal of "Nationalities in the field" and "Past champions in the field" from tournament articles, although they may be acceptable in a tournament field article, e.g. 2020 PGA Championship field. I wouldn't want to see any further statistical cruft – we should simply reflect what gets routinely reported, which isn't a full rundown of how past champions or the world's top-50 did.

On a related note, the 2020 Masters Tournament article did not feature on WP:ITN due to the unwieldy (and very MOS-unfriendly) "field" section (see here for the relevant discussion). It was agreed earlier in the year that these sections would be reduced to prose as per the 2020 PGA Championship; with the full details being split into a child article as above should it be felt necessary to keep the information. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm ok with not including the top 50 - again it was just an idea.

Re: the "Nationalities in the Field" and "Past Champions" categories: they still seem to be up there. A heads up to everyone, I am going to start deleting them soon.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Ooggylwoogly

2020 Asian Tour

Does anybody know or heard anything about the Asian Tour's 2020 schedule or what their plans are for 2021. I remember back in the summer they had intended to restart in September, but that obviously didn't happen and haven't heard a single thing since. Seems strange. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

In September (while cancelling the HK Open) they said maybe December/January, but heard nothing since then. I'd guess most Asian countries are far less willing than Europe/Middle East/US to lift/reduce covid-19 quarantine restrictions for golfers/sportspeople. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

2021 Majors

It is way too soon to be able to reliably source almost anything other than dates and venue for these tournaments. There is also an additional issue with The Open, regarding a potential move of the 2020 (149th Open) article depending on how the R&A proceed. Not much has changed since this AfD, so it seems clear that it is best to leave them all as redirects at the moment. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

To me it makes more sense having the next years majors pages available as soon as the previous event has concluded i.e. The 2021 Masters page would be go up as soon as the 2020 Masters has concluded. I would imagine people would be looking to find out more information on the following years event after the current one has passed. In terms of sourcing, better/more reliable sources can be added as time goes on. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Other than detail noted in the main article, we have almost no verifiable info. Also note WP:CRYSTAL. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, non-referenced material may be removed at any point in time, and then, as per WP:BURDEN, should not be re-added with reliable sourcing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

For many years these have been made a year in advance, and not only the majors but a few select other golf pages also. And not only in golf, but in a couple other sports too. And they will continue to. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem this year is that, with the disruption in the schedules, it's difficult to know the qualification criteria for the majors, which was the main interest in these article before the events started. Just guessing that it'll be similar to 2020 is not really good enough. Nigej (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No argument there, but I had loaded those pages in such a way that I hid the criteria. But yet, someone still redirected them, which was not needed. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Once we also remove the other equally problematic (i.e. unreferenced because sources do not exist) content, e.g. "past champions" and "course" sections, we are left with nothing but dates and venue. This simply duplicates detail in the main articles and is insufficient for standalone articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a reliable source from the PGA Tour for who has qualified for the Majors, The Players, and WGC events thus by criteria set forth once the tour restarted.Those golfers who have already qualified could be added to the fields for the Masters, U.S. Open and PGA Championship.Ruschear90 (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Bolton's fantasy blog is speculative and based on assumptions (note the disclaimer: "best estimates are given but all are subject to change"), therefore not reliable. This is mostly because criteria have yet to be officially announced/confirmed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've tagged the Open article for speedy deletion (WP:G4) as nothing has materially changed since the original AfD. And as per the above, I have now removed all the unverifiable original research from the others so we can see exactly what we have left. If no substantial verifiable content can be added, then it seems fairly obvious the redirects should be restored. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Bolton recently mentioned that the 2021 Masters criteria are finalized now (and that they're the same as usual, minus the ones for canceled amateur events and the Open Championship top 4). I think it wouldn't be a problem to start that page up now, in view of that. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem if we have reliable sources. Per my comment above, the reliability of Bolton is somewhat questionable given how much he works on speculation/assumptions, and how often he later has to make corrections. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Once he says something is confirmed, he's rarely wrong. I would consider him as reliable as anyone, short of official releases from the organizations that run the majors. His exact wording last week was "The qualifying criteria for the 2021 Masters have been confirmed."; that doesn't sound like speculation, and in fact he'd been largely avoiding making assumptions about the 2021 Masters criteria up to then. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The Open Championship's 2021 exemptions have been announced. As expected, all players who were exempt for 2020 remain exempt. Whatever the decision is about how to do it, it looks like it's time for a 2021 Open Championship article. I'm pretty sure a 2021 Masters article is in order also. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

In light of the announcement, and even though it seems less controversial than before, I've requested the move of the Open article again here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Dead link

I know I've asked for this before but can't find it. Could someone please provide me with this notice?

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

This: {{Dead link}}? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

TM Driving Relief

We have an IP persisting in removing it from Dustin Johnson & Rory McIlroy. I have reverted DJ's article twice already, so would breach 3RR by doing so again. What are thoughts on this event? It's clearly verifiable, so passes the threshold for inclusion, but how and where? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Since it really was a charity exhibition to be fair. It has been added to the team section wins of both players. It really is not counted as a win anywhere only on here. It really was a charity match exhibition which the PGA Tour allowed to go ahead during a pandemic. I think it is unfair to call this a professional win, but to add it as a win on the team appearances section seems OK to me. 178.167.205.73 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It's no different to events like the QBE Shootout, Skins Game, Fred Meyer Challenge etc. They are all exhibitions to some degree, but because the TaylorMade Driving Relief was sanctioned by the PGA Tour, therefore it should stand as a professional win in my view. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It is totally different to those events 178.167.205.73 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

In what way? Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It was a charity exhibition?. Was the Charles Barkley event added no because it was the same a charity exhibition 178.167.205.73 (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

There was only one pro golfer playing in that though. Other editions of The Match: Tiger vs. Phil have been included. I would note that we do not (currently) include other one-off made-for-tv matches, such as Shell's Wonderful World of Golf (noting it was an elimination knockout for a few years), Monday Night Golf, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This was a one off made for tv match just like the one's you mentioned. This was an exhibition event 178.167.205.73 (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Confirmation from the host broadcaster Sky Sports that this was as an exhibition event, co sanctioned by Sky Sports, Golf Channel and The PGA Tour. i have added a link for you guys ok. 178.167.205.73 (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Also from CBC 178.167.205.73 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in those sources that assists in categorising wins in any of these types of event. Anywsy, they clearly are not tournaments or normal team competitions, and aren't included in tour profiles, so perhaps we need something else, like a "matches" section? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Would you include wins in the "professional wins" total?

Probably not; most sources which have profiles of players with lists of wins (e.g. PGA Tour) do not seem to include them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It clearly states they are exhibition events and should be removed from professional wins section. It is fairly obvious as the broadcaster co sanctioned the event 92.251.188.41 (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added under exhibition matches are you happy with that as you said yourself it is not a professional win 92.251.188.41 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Please revert and wait until this discussion is concluded. There is no rush and others may yet wish to contribute. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Wjemather are you happy for this event to be put under the banner exhibition match wins please ?. Regards 178.167.225.10 (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:DISCUSSION. "Closing a discussion means summarizing the results, and identifying any consensus that has been achieved. A rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this."

References

Exploring options

Given the array of different types of events we are trying to cover here I'd been struggling to think of a good generic section header other than simply "Matches", until this morning when I had a thought that they can probably all be grouped as "Challenge matches" (GD would seem to agree: [9]). Does anyone have any better ideas? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense, but I feel that the category "Other wins" is for; any wins that aren't part of a tour or are unofficial events on a tour. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't want to see these included in the "Professional wins" total. I'm thinking of a separate section completely. Nigej (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea. Such matches were, indeed, historically more common than in recent times. The Harry Vardon article has, under "Team event wins", matches like "England vs Scotland International Foursome (36 holes match play) Vardon & John Ball vs Freddie Tait & Willie Park, Jr.". Actually this was just a 36-hole foursomes match, not a "team event" at all. The term "Challenge match" suits this sort of match. See also Samuel Ryder#Heath and Heather Matches which uses the term. Nigej (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. Although the line needs to be drawn at which events are exhibitions and those that aren't. The TaylorMade Driving for Relief, The Match: Champions for Charity definitely are to start with. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To some degree, many (if not most or all) of these historical matches were exhibitions, if such a concept is even clearly defined. If we simply include what is verifiable, we don't need to set other arbitrary boundaries. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok then. It seems we are in agreement with the following structure:

• Amateur wins
• Professional wins

• Tour A wins
• Tour B wins
• Other wins

• Team appearances
• Challenge matches

Is that correct? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi I brought this up in the first place so we are all happy that the Taylor Made Driving Relief and The Charity Match champions for charity should be removed from the professional wins and moved to another section like exhibition match section ?. 92.251.209.218 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Lists of golf courses by geographic location

I've spent some time making a start on cleaning up List of golf courses in the United Kingdom and after a few days break come to the conclusion that this actually falls foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and should be deleted. The same applies to other similar geography-based lists (although I'm not sure why we have a list for the only course in Malta). Anyone think of a reason for keeping these? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

My answer is - No, I can't think of a good reason. I suspect that at one time there was an idea in some quarters that we might have an article on every golf course in the world and, in some ways, that would seem to be valid since most clubs have an interesting story to tell. In recent years, however, we seem to be going the other way, trying to restrict the number of course/club articles. I suppose the question then is whether we should try to maintain lists of golf courses, even though we don't want to create articles on them, list-type articles with brief descriptions of the clubs/courses. However, as you note, we're not really in that game. Other's probably do a better job than we would, and we can reference them as required. Nigej (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I can’t see any purpose for these lists. A category for Golf Courses in X should exist to ensure those golf courses that are notable (and have a Wikipedia page) are included in a category page. However beyond this a list of non-notable golf courses doesn’t seem to be necessary. Before deleting pages for individual countries we should check the relevant categories have been created and notable courses included in the categories.Tracland (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

And there is no bar to having categorised redirects to broader scoped articles (e.g. towns, village, country estate/house, etc.) that contain information about golf clubs/courses of questionable individual notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I have tagged most for proposed deletion. A couple have been nominated for deletion previously, so will return them to AFD soon. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so prod was contested, so now listing at AFD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of golf courses in the United Kingdom

I'll add to this list as I do the nominations. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Overhaul and criteria needed

Ok, so the AFD resulted in keep which means these lists need a huge amount of work. I guess the first thing to determine is inclusion criteria, so here are some options:

1. Everything (current criterion): this has clearly been rejected at the AFD (although some didn't recognise this as the current criterion), but listing for clarity.
2. Notable with article: only include bluelinks to standalone articles (not redirects) – although some are clearly notable because of the building/complex/estate rather than the course.
3. Notable: bluelinked standalone articles and other likely notable courses (referenced).
4. Defined criteria: For example, "hosted a major national or international event"
5. Combination of the above: For example "hosted a major national or international event, or otherwise notable"
6. Something else

Thoughts please? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

As to the article at hand (List of golf courses in the United Kingdom) it seems to me that, for instance, the final comment "has a valid purpose in that it clearly complements Category:Golf clubs and courses in the United Kingdom" (a category that contains no golf clubs/courses, just links) seems to indicate that the article itself also ought to contain just links, to eg Golf in Wales etc., especially since in this example it clearly duplicates what is there. As to the more general issue, it seems to me that, in the short term, we can restrict ourselves to blue links in such articles, although in the longer term we need some sort of proper criteria to determine the club/courses that should go in these sort of articles, and someone to do the work to generate such lists. Nigej (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pepsi Cola tournament

It says on the South African Hall of Fame website for Cobie Legrange that he won this tournament in the 1967. I believe I saw somewhere else on the internet that another South African golfer won a similarly titled event during that era (perhaps Denis Hutichinson?). Does anyone have any more information on it?

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Ooggylwoogly

Can't think of one, but there have been a fair few Pepsi sponsored tournaments around the world, e.g. Pepsi-Wilson Tournament, Pepsi-Cola Mixed Team Championship, Pepsi Championship, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes the Pepsi Wilson one immediately crossed my mind but then I realized that that one was in Japan. Thank you for the response, however. If you find any information please let me know.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly