User talk:Tewapack/Archive 5

Colombia Masters

Hi

Have you any idea if this series is defunct now - I cannot find anything on a 2010 tourny?

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rob Oppenheim

The article Rob Oppenheim has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet the notability requirements set out for golfers at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Golf.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Panasik

Very good find about his being the youngest player to ever make a PGA Tour cut.

Both the PGA and LPGA have problematical recordkeeping. A few years ago, Se Ri Pak was reported ast the 3rd LPGA golfer to win the same event five times. The others were Annika Sorenstam and Mickey Wright. The LPGA record books missed that Kathy Whitworth also won the same event five times. How does a major sports organization make a stats screwup involving its leading winner all time?

How about something very similar to Panaskik and Fujikawa= The record number for fewest putts set by George Archer. In 1980 Archer took only 94 putts in the Sea Pines Heritage Classic. It was recorded as that in the next year's PGA Media Guide Book. In 1982 there were press articles clearly stating Archer took 94. For example-

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ChMhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QXUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3363,5957608&dq=sea+pines+heritage+classic+94+putts+george+archer&hl=en

Sometime in the 1990's Archer's record became 95 instead of 94. When Archer died, the 95 total was reported in his obituaries.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_378115.html

I tried to get the PGA Tour to fix their records but they were obstinate in refusal. They said Archer took 95 not 94.

The LPGA fixed their Whitworth mistake.

The World Golf Hall of Fame had Hale Irwin hitting his 72nd hole approach shot to 8 feet rather than 20. Till I got them to fix it. The reply I got is in the comments section of this post.

http://thefloridamasochist.blogspot.com/2009/03/goes-to-world-golf-hall-of-fames-page.html

There's lots of mistakes in Wikipedia golf related articles. I correct them as I find them.- William 01:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Naming Conventions / Republic of China N-POV

Dear Tewapack,

in your recent edit on the Yani Tseng article you violated one of Wikipedia's policies:

Per naming convention in regard to the Republic of China, a person's nationality shall be given as "Republic of China", not "Taiwan". Anything else is excessive POV. Please refrain from further edits in this manner. Freetaiwanblog (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Trevino's golf quote 1975 US Open

The God can't even hit a one-iron quote, was not the quote Trevino made about lightning at the 1975 US Open. Instead its this--

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WEU_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=ElIMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1099,4199867&dq=lightning+medinah+lee+trevino&hl=en

Trevino is quoted as saying- Lightning will never strike me. God is on my side."

That is the quote attributed to Trevino for the 1975 US Open. You'll note, that article was written just after the 1975 Open when Trevino was playing at the Western Open where he was actually struck by lightning.

As for your reference source for the trevino quote, it doesn't say where and when the quote comes from.

I'm reverting your edit.- William 23:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weather delays and problems at Major Championships

Aren't newsworthy either unless

1 Play is suspended and that causes the tournament to finish on Monday( 2005 PGA, 1983 and 1973 Masters, 1983 U.S. Open which doesn't even mention it in its article are examples of this)

2 Players or spectators are injured or killed. 1991 US Open or 1991 PGA. Oh and those articles don't make mention of those incidents either.

Weather delays are trivial and not notable otherwise. Why don't you edit into the 1975 US Open what history was actually made at the tournament. I'll go ahead and do that. Hint its called the 36 hole scoring record.- William 10:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Peete

He made a living as a peddler of goods to migrant workers, not as a migrant worker. The article you put in as a citation says so.- William 02:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was citing the "broken arm" portion, which is what had the fact tag on it. I missed the error in his job. Tewapack (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Big Ten logo discussion

You recently contributed to Big Ten Conference. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Talk:Big_Ten_Conference#Which_new_logo_version.3F. Thank you. Levdr1 (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Women's Open (golf) champions

Hello Tewapack, I want to know do you like what I did to the article? Would you want me to do it on the men's?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LPGA Tour outside of North America

I am editing the 1976 LPGA Tour article. The LPGA had played at least one unofficial event outside of North America prior to that year. In 1966 there was a tournament in Venezuela

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=u9sLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TlcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6229,2762639&dq=lagunita+invitational&hl=en

Just letting you know- William 23:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Chi Rodriguez Article

Hello Tewapack: I want to thank you on behalf of Mr. Juan "Chi Chi" Rodriguez for your extensive work on his Wikipedia Article. Mr. Rodriguez has relayed two requests for the article. One, that his Nationality be changed to USA (American) (I have taken the liberty to do this already, he is very adamant about his USA citizenship) and two, that his photo be changed. We have many photos to chose from. I have also sent a message to the author who uploaded the one that is currently in the article. If you need verification of this message please email Mr. Rodriguez at [e-mail] Misterfrisky (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LPGA Championship championships

Hello Tewapack, I just want to tell you that I appreciate your comments, which I will get around to implementing them after I get all the articles made. This will be a rather laborious process and undertaking. Thus, I have created this template that by your edit on the women's us open is not in conjunction with the men's. I just request that you correct this one, when you get the opportunity to do so at your earliest convenience. This will be greatly appreciated.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Tewapack (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alister MacKenzie

I noticed you made some some needed edits on the Alister MacKenzie page. Are you interested in collaborating in detail ?? I want to get this up to GA and eventually FA standards.Rogala (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Worsham 1947 U.S. Open win

He defeated Sam Snead by the score of 69 to 70 not 69 to 72. Snead missed a 30 inch putt on the last playoff hole.

In addition to correcting the playoff scores, I added a reference for them.- William 23:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kraft Nabisco Championship championships

I was just wanting to give you a heads up so you can look these articles over that I created. Thanks,SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I nominated List of Kraft Nabisco Championship champions for FLC considerations.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1946 U.S. Women's Open Golf Championship

You may want to work on this some.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rollback versus undo

As I was warned, I'm telling you-rollback is for vandalism, not for edits that you dislike.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken - thanks for the reminder. Tewapack (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the person who thought Calvin Peete was a farm worker

I just made all the references consistent in the Keegan Bradley, something you failed to do on your last edit. More than one of the stories was a wire service one. Not just the last.- William 01:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourself. I did not add the migrant farm worker sentence to the Calvin Peete article, an anonymous IP did here. I merely found a needed citation for the broken arm sentence and added it here. What you just did to the Keegan Bradley article borders on vandalism. It has been reverted with the one ref more fully annotated. Tewapack (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you read your own posts as well as do the articles you cite. "Citations within each Wikipedia article should follow a consistent style" I put them in consistent style. which your edits didn't. If you're so worried about consistent patterns, why don't you follow the same policy in other articles? Want me to start a list?

Access date of the article tells a wikipedia article reader just what date the editor found the story. Can you please explain to me how that is even slightly important?

You've rewritten LPGA golf history too besides not getting facts right about Calvin Peete, Lee Trevino and the 1975 US Open, and other things that are temporarily alluding me. The LPGA had played outside of North America before 1976. I'm fixing the bs in the articles you work on and you don't like it.- William 01:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direct links to Masters results

I changed your links to ones that actually go right to the results, at golfobserver.com. Just recently I started changing links in others Masters tournament articles to the ones for GO. Go check, I did 1973 and at least a half dozen other Masters articles around May 19th. Got to be consistent, don't we?- William 01:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The TOUR in PGA TOUR is capitalized.

Check out the PGA TOUR's website. For instance-

http://www.pgatour.com/company/contactus.html

Renaming corporations, that's a new one- William 10:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:TRADEMARK - "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official": " - I'm not renaming a corporation, but there's no need to SHOUT their name on Wikipedia. Tewapack (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are really being very inconsistent....again. Why don't you look at the Keegan Bradley and note how you changed my edit on his win from non caps to caps in the headline. PGA TOUR calls themselves PGA TOUR, Like IBM calls themselves IBM, not Ibm.- William 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another point- If there's no need to shout, why's PGA capitalized? More inconsistency and double standards. Give me time I'll find more- William 15:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IBM is an acronym for International Business Machines. PGA is an acronym for Professional Golfers' Association. ESPN is an acronym for Entertainment Sports Programming Network. TOUR is not an acronym for anything, it's a common English word. I have no idea what your are referring to in the Bradley article. There is no "inconsistency and double standards". Tewapack (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no need to SHOUT?

Then why did you revert this edit of mine to this

Or more particularly the headline from

Keegan Bradley wins after playoff(This happens to be the one ESPN used also) to Keegan Bradley Wins After Playoff

That's all caps. Somebody is shouting!!!

If you're about to say its because the other headlines use all caps, think again. Incosistency and double standards as I said. I'm reverting your edits as vandalism. The reasons you present for them aren't consistent with other works of yours.- William 16:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as with Calvin Peete, you take someone else's honest mistake, in this case User:Gongshow, who expanded you ref and made the incorrect caps change and make it my mistake. When I reverted your revert of Gongshow, I did not notice the caps issue - my mistake and I readily admit it and have now corrected it. I admit I'm not perfect but a don't appreciated you jumping down my throat every chance you get. Tewapack (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting, all the yearly LPGA articles you created have a reference LPGA Tournament Chronology. Isn't that shouting? Your 1972 article doesn't even have a mention of the biggest story in professional women's golf that year, the Jane Blalock cheating scandal.- William 14:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a productive use of your time - trying to find fault with every article I edit. When citing something, use the capitalization used in the original unless it's in all caps per WP:ALLCAPS. If you find something missing from any article, feel free to add it yourself. Tewapack (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You nitpicked my work in a bs fashion, so as I come across them, I will post your mistakes here. There are plenty of them, and BTW you change the capitalizations. Can you answer why the Vegas article I mention below has its references in a contradictory fashion? If it was fine there, why not with Keegan Bradley???????- William 18:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further inconsistency- Jhonattan Vegas

You created this article. Compare the references from here to here to ereh.

The first one has no mentions of no news source or access date(Just like you first wrote the article) The second edit puts one reference in noting the news source and access date which is directly inconsistent with references above and below it. The third edit, which is done by you,(and comes immediately after edit 2 with no intervening edits) neatens up the second edit but doesn't make the references in the article all the same. In other words, you approved the edit.

Tell me how your policy above is consistent with what you did to mine on Keegan Bradley? I gotcha and admit it- William 16:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it 2015 yet?

I'm pointing out this mistake so you don't make it again.

It concerns edits for Cherry Hills Country Club an editor came along and added to the articles section on tournaments hosted- The 2012 U.S. Amateur and 2014 BMW Championship. Hosted is past tense, those tournaments are future events and shouldn't have been listed as hosted of course.

You came along after these edits were made, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cherry_Hills_Country_Club&action=historysubmit&diff=431126396&oldid=423716883, and I use this term loosely, 'fixed up' the wrong edits. Of course it didn't have anything to do with references or caps. That might have gotten the wrong edits undone.- William 18:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Coston

Kudos mate for adding the infobox and improving it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at some navboxes that were changed in your absence

These are the ones The Open Championships, U.S. Open Golf Championships, and PGA Championship.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

standard English-to-metric conversion template for heigh

Tewapack, as you have noticed, I have been updating the infoboxes for golfers who are University of Florida alumni. Among the several infobox changes, I have been inserting the standard English-to-metric conversion template for height that is being used in all other athlete infoboxes. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it than other editors because I work across a variety of sports (e.g. basketball, golf, swimming, track and field, etc.), but we're working to standardize infobox fields across WikiProjects. Several administrators have been editing the coding of each infobox template, and all athlete infoboxes will eventually be standardized based on the fields and templates used in Infobox sportsperson. Why fight it? I've thrown in the towel on alphabetizing categories on golfer articles; perhaps you could see fit to do the same in this case. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The height template is easier to use than the convert template so I see no reason to change it. The template is not depracated as far as I can tell. Tewapack (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reflist automatic column width coding

You certainly have an interesting interpretation of the Reflist code usage guidelines. For a better understanding of the issues involved in the use of the Reflist automatic column width code, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability#Ideal column width for references. The "30em" setting is the most commonly used in Wikipedia; there is some variation, however. A project-wide search reveals only three instances of "70em" out of the several million articles on Wikipedia; none are articles in WikiProject Golf. Given the automatically adjusting nature of this coding based on the size of the monitor rendering the text, "70em" is effectively a one-column setting. The "30em" coding renders a two or three-column format based on the most popular monitor sizes, which is exactly why it is usually chosen. On the smallest monitors and mobile devices, "30em" renders a single-column format.

I also suggest you may want to review the policy inherent in WP:OWN. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two options for multi-column references, fixed or variable. If you use {reflist|x}, you always get "x" columns regardless of monitor size. If you want multiple columns that will look good on a large variety of monitors, then use {reflist|xxem}". The "30em" listed in the documentation of {reflist} is not meant to be the default value, although that is what most editors choose simply because that is what is listed in the documentation - they don't read the whole paragraph

"Using {{Reflist|30em}} will create columns with a minimum width of 30em, allowing the browser to automatically choose the number of columns based on the width of the web browser. Choose a column width that is appropriate for the average width of the references on the page."

It is the second sentence that you (and other editors miss). See Chaco Culture National Historical Park#Citations as an example where "20em" is appropriate because the refs are short - if {reflist} or {reflist|2} were used there would be lots of needless whitespace. So in the Andy Bean article, what do we have, 6 long references. So what is the appropriate width? If you specify "30em", the refs always break into 2 lines and sometimes 3. Splitting one ref over 3 lines makes for very disjointed reading, because ever ref breaks at a different spot. So what is the "average width" of the refs? Using a tool like this:

This is 60em.

I estimate that the average width is between 55em and 60em. That is the appropriate width, not 30em, and will result in 1 or 2 columns (with 0 to 1 break per ref), which is appropriate, not 2 or 3. Tewapack (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have an interesting interpretation of the reflist column-width guidelines for footnotes. Your recitation of the operation of the column coding is already well-known to me. Unfortunately, your interpretation is not how the vast majority of project editors have interpreted the column-width guidelines, nor does it appear that your interpretation is borne out in the large majority of Feature Articles and Good Articles throughout Wikipedia.

For the sake of argument, I just took a random sample of 43 articles and how they were formatted for footnote columns. First, I looked at the Class A and Good Articles within WikiProject Golf. The footnotes of two of them are formatted in two fixed columns, and the third used a screen-size dependent 30em variable width. There were only three articles—not a very large sample—so I examined the first 20 of the 63 Class B articles within WikiProject Golf. Of the first 20 Class B golf articles, 11 had no footnote column formatting at all, five used fixed double columns, three used 30em variable-width columns, and one used a fixed single column. There appeared to be no established pattern in column usage related to the length of the footnotes (as you have suggested should be the case), and a majority of the footnotes were not properly formatted in any discernible pattern. Of course, proper footnote formatting (inclusive of the author, article title, publication name, publication date, and retrieval date, as applicable) leads to longer footnotes.

Because there appeared to be no consciously consistent formatting of footnote columns within the Class B golf articles, I next looked at the first 20 Feature Articles listed under WikiProject Biography. Of those first 20 Feature Articles, 15 used the 30em variable-width columns for footnotes (75% of the sample), three used fixed double columns (15%), one used a 40em variable-width column (5%), and one used a 17em variable-width column (5%). Of those first 20 Feature Articles listed under WikiProject Biography, not one of them left footnote column width unformatted, and only one of them employed a de facto single-column format (40em) for footnotes. Of the 19 articles that employed a multi-column format for footnotes, the footnotes in 16 of the articles were predominantly multi-line footnotes, suggesting a very different interpretation of the footnote column-width guidelines than the one you have drawn above.

I might also add in the 43 articles examined, including 23 Class A, Good and Class B Articles within WikiProject Golf, and the first 20 Feature Articles within WikiProject Biography, only one of them employed a variable column width for footnotes in excess of 30em, and not a single one used a 55em or 60em variable column width, regardless of the typical length of the footnotes in the article. If there is a discernible pattern within the Feature Articles, it is a majority preference for the 30em format, followed by a minority preference for fixed double columns. To the extent that column sizes varied with the length of footnotes within a given Feature Article, it is exactly the opposite of what you suggested: when the article uses a series of very short in-line footnotes, usually as a result of every footnote being an abbreviated reference to a full-format citation in the bibliography section, then the column width may be shortened to avoid useless white space. The opposite does not hold true, however: longer footnotes do not lead to the use of extra-wide variable-width columns or fixed single columns of footnotes within the Feature Articles. As I stated above, the footnotes in 16 of the 19 Feature Articles that used multi-column footnote formats were predominantly multi-line footnotes (i.e. those whose text is "broken" across two or more line of text). Obviously, the majority of Feature Article editors do not have the same aversion to line breaks in footnotes that you have espoused.

Moreover, all of this is consistent with traditional typographical practice within the publishing industry. Typically, the point size of footnotes is approximately two-thirds the point size of body text. Thus, when the point size of the body text is eleven- or ten-point Times Roman, the footnotes are usually set in seven- or six-point Times Roman, so the reader may readily discern body text from the footnotes. Traditionally, small format books, such as paperbacks measuring leas than five by seven inches, use a single column of footnotes because of the relatively narrow column width of text on the page. Larger size books, such as text book measuring 7.5 by ten inches, typically employ two columns of footnotes, in order to shorten the character length of the footnote lines and make them easier for the reader to read and absorb. Oversize books, such as those that are folio size, often employ three or more columns of footnotes. On Wikipedia, main body text is rendered in ten-point Arial, and footnotes in six-point Arial, thus rendering a very wide body text column on the now typical wide-screen computer monitors. In order to achieve the same typographical results we would in a hard-copy textbook, we need to use multiple columns for footnotes, and the "em" variable-width function is the most sophisticated way to do that presently available on Wikipedia.

Bottom line: the point of footnote typography and the sizing of footnote columns is not, as you have suggested, to see if we can get the entire "unbroken" citation on a single line of text. In point of fact, the underlying typographical principle is to intentionally break the smaller type of the footnotes up into lines that are closer to the character length of the typical line of the main body text, so that the reader may see the entire line at once.

So, my conclusion is either (1) that your interpretation of the footnote column-width guidelines is a novel and decidedly minority position, or (2) the majority of Wikipedia Feature Article editors and the vast majority of the textbook publishing industry are wrong. Take your pick.

BTW, if you want to see a golf article with properly formatted footnotes in the 30em variable-width column format, take a look at the "Chris DiMarco" article. On my monitor, the footnotes are rendered in three columns; on a small monitor, they're rendered in two columns; on my BlackBerry, they're rendered in a single column. The "Andy Bean" article is getting the treatment next, and will probably have 20 or more footnotes when I'm done. (I might also add that the "Tiger Woods" and main "Golf" articles are already formatted with 30em variable-width footnotes, and I've never touched either of them.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Money?

What should I use on these articles, if I do choose to you money. Should it be dollar or pound?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd use whatever the players were actually paid in, in this case, probably pounds (if you can find a reliable source). BTW, I'd also limit the articles to when they were considered majors, perhaps renaming List of Women's British Open champions to List of Women's British Open major champions and eliminating non-major content (same with the other majors that have been played as non-majors). Tewapack (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would that go with List of Kraft Nabisco Championship champions, since it has already achieved FL status. I am wondering why you are just now suggesting this to me. I like your plan, but does that not mean I would have to renominated the Kraft list or not. By the way, I like your corrections on Brittany Johnston. Have a great day,SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I was not nor ever would create non-major championship tournament articles. I will do them for WGC and others that has achieved past acceptance. I just wanted the women's major championship ones done. I will be needing your vast experience, when it comes to the titleholders' ones by the way.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently thought of the renaming issue. I don't know if anything special needs to be done with List of Kraft Nabisco Championship champions as a FL, maybe make the suggestion on the talk page and see what responses you get. Tewapack (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Classic

So I was going to make this page but then realized it may have already been made. The Christmas in October Classic was played in 2009 and seems to be a continuation of this tournament, the Midwest Classic is being played at the same course as the Christmas in October Classic and the PGA Tour's official site lists the winner of the 2009 Christmas in October Classic as the defending champion of the Midwest Classic. Wanted to consult you before making a new page for the tournament since I am not sure if we should just edit the existing Christmas in October Classic page. michfan2123 (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same tournament. So the Christmas in October Classic page should be moved to Midwest Classic and then updated with the new name. The announcement about the return of the tournament is here. Tewapack (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titleholders

Hello, I am needing your help like I said in a previous discussion with respect to the older ones. I found all of them back to 1948 with the lone exception on 1950, so I am needing your help to find the other leaderboard sources. If you cannot then I know nobody could in the end, which if you find something else just alert me to that fact. Thanks,SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can find the rest of the 60's and 72 on the golf observer source.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found most of the data in "google news archive" searches. As you can see from the table at Titleholders Championship that I fleshed out last year, the early $$ are very hard to find. Tewapack (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am really happy about the 1950 Titleholders Championship, just because I had to do it piece mill by finding the third round leaderboard and another source that had the final scores for the top ten in paragraph form. This was very difficult by the way. I am not for sure how I am going to do the pre-1948 ones, but I am sure you and I could work something out on that stuff. I about got them all done, which makes me highly satisfied.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the 1947 Titleholders Championship a stub or not?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Cup

Would this competition go under number 1 or not? I am just asking because it is not listed. I will create the golfers pages if we find out some are not done so, when the event roles around this year. SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would, the Walker Cup is the best known and longest running amateur team golf competition. Tewapack (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scores

With respect to the scores for the 1941 and 1942 Titleholders events won by Dorothy Kirby, I would love to know where you got the to-par scores you put on her page. Just take a look at a couple of these sources I am going to provide you with 1941, 1941 (2), 1942, 1942 (2), 1942 (3). These women don't play to men's par, which you are correct to use 72 for men, but for these women it is 75. I would love to know why you used the men's? Just curious!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you dug deeper than I did! I know when I put those tables together it was often difficult to find a to-par score or I'd find conflicting ones. By all means, update the Titleholders page and Kirby's page with the sources you found. Good work! Tewapack (talk) 04:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do so, when I get to creating the articles later today.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After 1941, the sources are just not of a quality to lead me to make the last four leaderboards. I will come back later and try again because I will always try and try again. I will do this some weeks from now.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Stulb

Please, I need you to look this over and see if you can add anything to it, when you get the chance.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dewi Claire Schreefel

Hello Tewapack, I just want you to look this over, and see if the Netherlands site is correct, which it has a hypen in between the first names.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Ferrero

Hello, I just am sending you another one to check out, please. By the way, the Teva Championship is not updated if you can do it that would be greatly beneficial. Have a great day editing. Thanks, SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McNulty

Hello, my reason for the defaultsort was to sort Mc as Mac which I would be sure is the convention. Have noticed recent change away from case-sensitive sorting, thanks. Regards (Crusoe8181 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Using Mac for Mc in sorting names was removed from WP:NAMESORT in October 2010, diff here . Tewapack (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods

I took away all bunching of his navboxes for the time being because it cannot be done and display them all, so you need to work on fixing it if you can by the way. I could not, I hope and pray, you can solve the riddle.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had to do the same to Rafael Nadal, which had the same error of parsing it out. On both of them, it is a sizing issue of the whole article.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you fix Nadal's by the way, if you can, that would be great!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to alert you, I fixed the Nadal article, but thanks again anyway for fixing Woods!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Shepley

Look this over, when you get the time to do so, please.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LPGA Tour Status

I don't want to go back and forth on this on the Kay Cockerill page. Being retired and being a member of the LPGA Tour are not mutually exclusive. You can be retired, as Kay is, and still be a member of the Tour. Kay is listed as 406 in current priority status for 2011; there are 474 people on the list so she'll probably drop off eventually. So I think in the Infobox for her, and other players like her it's accurate to list the year they retired and still list the LPGA as their current tour if they still have status on that tour. It's not our job to question the LPGA's rules. --Crunch (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that she has status on the LPGA Tour but it is certainly not her "Current tour" - she has none. She doesn't play anymore. It's not a question of the LPGA rules, just common sense. To me, when I see "Current tour: LPGA Tour" in a golfer's infobox, it should mean that that golfer currently plays on that tour, not that they have status and could play. She hasn't played since 1997! By the way, there are several PGA Tour golfers who have status (category 1) on that tour because they won the U.S. Open or PGA Championship before 1970 (Billy Casper, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, etc). They are all old and no longer competing so the PGA Tour is listed as a "former tour". Tewapack (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again you're editing out valid info and leaving in invalid

Here's another article on Ziegler's nickname

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-BIxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uAEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4242,5281905&dq=half+pay+ziegler&hl=en

Your search was totally incompetent.

BTW where are the proofs for Jason Day's nicknames J.D. or Jaydee? How long has CBS called the PGA "Glory's Last Shot"? THat nickname is a recent creation.

The nickname for Ziegler lasted for five years or more and you have no proof it didn't last longer. It's valid.- William 16:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Kang

Look this one over, when you get the chance.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for her birthdate.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Sports profile here Tewapack (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I already put the source on the article.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Martin

Please, I need you to look this article over. Thanks, SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

You're a hypocrite. I'll remind you of this[1]. Now when I don't capitalize, you see fit to go back and change every single headline in the Hyundai section.

Why don't you spend time checking facts in some of the articles instead of doing this b.s.= William 15:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When citing a newspaper article, use the capitalization used in the original unless it's in all caps per WP:ALLCAPS. Also, use the actual title, don't change "2" to "two" and "6" to "six", and "wins" to earns", etc. Tewapack (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Barnes

The source clearly says he competed as as an American in the 1925 Open Championship, but the List of The Open Championship champions states he competed for England, which is wrong and erroneous.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opengolf.com site says he was "based in America", meaning he lived and worked there, it doesn't says he was an American citizen. His WGHOF profile states that "He emigrated to San Francisco in 1906, but never became an American citizen". So he was English only, I'm removing the "American golfers" category.

Tewapack (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WGHOF has been known to get facts wrong. Take for instance the ever incredible shrinking Hale Irwin putt at the 1974 U.S. Open. Somebody brought it to the WGHOF's attention[2] and they corrected[3] it.- William 13:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it all wrong, it said he was "domiciled", and under the country abbreviated "ctry" it says USA (United States) not ENG (England), so he was competing for the USA. This is another inaccuracy of Wikipedia!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dug further at ancestry.com (a pay site) and found the passenger list for the Aquitania, sailing from Southampton, England to New York on July 18, 1925. Listed is James M. Barnes, age 39, "Calling or occupation" - "Golfer", "Nationality (Country of which citizen or subject)" - "British". This was his return trip from the Open Championship, he was clearly not an American citizen, regardless of what the opengolf.com website lists him as. Tewapack (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I want to have you on record here are you calling "Open Golf" and The Open Championship liars, when it comes to determining the nationality of the players in their own competition?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found, here it clearly says "eventually becoming a US citizen", so who is correct The Open or WGV?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are flat out wrong, nndb says American in terms of nationality for the golfer. Again, Open golf, "Hutchison trailed another naturalised American, Jim Barnes from Cornwall, by four shots after the third round." Now, ESPN Star says "The first PGA Championship was played Siwanoy Country Club in Bronxville, New York in 1916, and was won by naturalised U.S. citizen Jim Barnes. Although originally played in a match-play format, the event was changed to a stroke-play tournament in 1958." So, Tewapack are all of those wrong?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tewapack, Barnes even competed for the USA in a pre-Ryder cup competition, and go ready all about it [here] under the section title 1921.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise, I'd say he competed for both England and USA if that will make you feel better, or we can just say USA.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spend more time on facts rather than capitalization

Yesterday I found two wrong facts in the Johnny Miller article. More blatantly wrong, I found the a huge mistake in Reilley Rankin's article. How somebody can go through that article five or six times making nitpicking fixes and not miss the big one(The year Rankin almost died) is beyond me or typical from you.- William 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Still, Dave Hill and the 1969 Ryder Cup

Please go over to this conversation on Hokeman's talk page[4] to understand the edits I made to those golfer's pages. I used press accounts at the time, and this interview[5] of Bernard Gallacher as basis for the edits.-William 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want your opinion on something

I just created a new page for a former PGA event, and noticed that the Former PGA Tour Events navbox didn't come up. After a little investigation, I discovered that User:Jrcla2 collapsed it. He is basically a template editor and doesn't seem to be a clown; his talk page is full of barnstars. His rationale is that the navbox had gotten "ginormous". Your thoughts.--Hokeman (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox (and its LPGA corollary) are huge and I think the proper thing is for them to default to the collapsed state. Users can always use the "show" button to expand. Tewapack (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Woodland

Hey man, so as you may have noticed I have taken full advantage of this user page of yours. Woodland is the last guy with 3 wins without a wiki page, I have been avoiding him because I am not sure where he is from. Yahoo lists him as being from Papua, which I assume is Papua New Guinea but I can't think of any golfer from there so I am second guessing yahoo. He could be the only one but you never know, yahoo could be wrong. Was wondering what your take is on this, even if it is established that he is from there, there is no city listed. Thanks, michfan2123 (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be Australian [6] and was born in 1957 when Papua New Guinea was an Australian territory. So a birthplace of Papua New Guinea is reasonable. I found other sites that list his birth place as PNG [7]. Tewapack (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, made the page. I think he is from the Papua province since yahoo just lists "Papua". michfan2123 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golf

I notice you are a golf enthusiast, since a lot of your edits are on golfers and what not. How come you are against shoehorning a name; for example Phil Mickelson. The lead "Philip Alfred Mickelson", as opposed to "Philip Alfred 'Phil' Mickelson". Is it just golf pages that this is prohibited, or you are making up some strange rule that I am not aware of. Plenty of articles use this, to indicate the individual's common name. For instance, these pages do not relate to golfers, but, I assume most, if not all, golfers do not have their names shoehorned. Matt Damon, for example. Fred MacMurray, Bill Gates, etc. Notice the first sentence, all of their names are shoehorned. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. It's certainly not a huge deal. Regards, Tinton5 (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "Philip Alfred 'Phil' Mickelson", is overkill. The article title is directly above in big, bold letters. I tend to eliminate "shoehorned" names that are commonly shortened names: Phil for Philip, Bill for William, Bob for Robert, Jon for Jonathan, Charlie for Charles, etc. The article title is supposed to be the commonly used name of the subject. From WP:OPENPARA, "It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name." Tewapack (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I totally understand that reasoning. Thanks for your reply. I have one question, who is your favorite golfer? Tinton5 (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is your favorite golfer? I just want to know. Tinton5 (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a favorite, per se. Long admired Jack Nicklaus, amazed by Tiger Woods, intrigued by Rory McIlroy. Tewapack (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Kirkpatrick (golfer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Kirkpatrick (golfer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kirkpatrick (golfer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. EJBH (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do we fix this big mistake of yours?

One of these two golf tournament articles Sara Lee Classic and Electrolux USA Championship] needs to be merged into the other. If you read this article[8], you'll learn the Sara Lee became the Electrolux.

By the way I checked, Franklin American Mortgage Championship a LPGA tournament from 2004-2006 didn't consider the SL or Electrolux as part of its history.

Do we keep Electrolux and merge Sara Lee into it because Electrolux was the last existing version of the tournament or do we merge Electrolux into Sara Lee because the SL was around for 12 years compared to the Electrolux's 3? Please reply back here. I was going to write a mention of the Cathy Gerring fire and do a tournament highlights section.- William 15:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. When a tournament changes names and locations in the same year, it is sometimes hard to follow. I guess I'd merge the Electrolux article into the SL article, leaving the Elec. as a redirect to SL, and cite the espn story. Tewapack (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you do the switch and the redirects. After you're through, I'll do more on the highlights section. I already started it, plus made note of the Cathy Gerring fire, in the Sara Lee article.

Done. Tewapack (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more LPGA tournaments that need combining

The Greater Ft. Myers Classic and the Bill Branch LPGA Classic. Each was played on the same golf course in consecutive years and the very last paragraph of this news article[9] from 1975 refers to Bonnie Bryant, the winner of the Bill Branch, as defending champion.- William 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tewapack (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

1- Playoff records for golfers without a PGA or LPGA win but with a wikipedia article. For example- Angela Park. Where would I put a playoff record into their article?

2- Asian American female golfers. What about Pacific Islander golfers? Lenore Rittenhouse, Jacki Pung come to mind. Should a expanded category be made to include these golfers with Asian American or a whole separate one for PIer ones only?(That's going to be a small category unless you throw in Michelle Wie and Kimberly Kim and some other Asian America golfers who were born in Hawaii) Or just go with none at all?- William 14:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For playoff records, I'd just incorporate it into the text of the article until they win on tour. Maybe you could include a commented out table with a note to uncomment when they have a wins section. For the PIers, there doesn't seem to be a direct place for "Pacific Islander golfers" in the current category structure. Somewhere between [Category:American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin] and [Category:Indigenous peoples of Oceania], but there would be lots of intermediate categories to create. Doesn't seem viable yet. Tewapack (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only trouble with putting it in the text, is what do you do with a golfer like Sam Torrance where no part of his sections would seem to fit? Torrance rarely played the PGA Tour but lost to Ronnie Black at the 1983 Southern Open.- William 16:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change the "European Tour" section into "Regular career" and add his PGA Tour play to the end of that section (and change "European Seniors Tour" to "Senior career", and move the "Ryder Cup" section). Tewapack (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Massey playoff record

Her LPGA page says it is 1-4 but I could only find proof of three playoff losses. I checked both Golfobserver and Google news archives and could only find the ones I listed- William 13:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any other playoff loss either. Tewapack (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result section of playoff boxes

I have settled into using the same wording. For example the 2008 LPGA Championship in Yani Tseng's box says-

Won with birdie on fourth extra hole. No mention of Hjorth's final score is made.

If a playoff is multiple players, take for instance the 1987 Masters, the results section reads

Mize won with birdie on second extra hole
Ballesteros eliminated with par on first

I emphasize the score that wins the playoff. There's a couple of reasons for this

1 Player A wins with a birdie but Player B missed his birdie putt but didn't putt out. Are we supposed to give him the two-footer he had left for par?

2 Multiple player playoffs can get frighteningly complicated the bigger they get, the 2001 LA Open. Allenby birdied the playoff hole for the win, two players had par putts left, one had holed out for par, one had holed out for bogey, one hadn't putted out for bogey.

Imagine if those results are spread out over multiple holes. Any thoughts on how I'm doing this?- William 21:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the path you've taken, i.e. keep it simple. Tewapack (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand what you are doing, but the reason I add in the second bit of information is so that people can see the circumstances that any given player won the playoff in. It is better that we have one system of doing the playoff boxes so we can be consistent for all golfers wikipedia pages. Do you not agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerbatovsFirstTouch (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree one system is needed but the one you're choosing is complicated. The playoff box is a summary and needs to be used for golfers today where the editor watched the playoff and 50-60 years ago when the only source for what happened in the playoff is old newspaper clippings courtesy of newspaper archive.

I've created both recent and old playoff boxes. For instance Ben Crane and Jack Fleck or Justin Leonard and Dave Ragan and more. Next notable golfers on my playoff box to do list- Kathy Whitworth and Jim Furyk. Who I believe are 8-20 and 3-7 respectively lifetime.

The newspaper clippings often don't give alot of details. Newspaper articles on golf tournaments ten years ago sometimes don't always describe the playoffs in great detail. Since player A, putting second after Player B missed his birdie putt, won the playoff with birdie. How do we know whether Player B simply made his par or was still left with a putt for it?

Player B who misses a par or birdie putt after Player B has already made a putt for a lower score, usually don't putt out. This is stroke play, no concessions. Are wikipedia editors supposed to make a judgment call on whether the putt was close enough to call it a par or bogey? I can think of at least six golfers in the last 33 years who missed putts inside of a foot when either leading or trailing by one during either the third or final rounds of a PGA or LPGA event.

Even if you have all the results, they can be frightfully complicated in the cases of multiple player playoffs. Robert Allenby's win in Los Angeles that I note above is a perfect example.

Tewapack is right. Keep it simple.- William 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Kratzert playoff record

The PGA media page has it listed as 0-1 but he and Woody Blackburn won the Walt Disney Team tournament in 1976 in sudden death over Gay Brewer and Bobby Nichols. The actual tournament win is listed as one of Kratzert's official wins.

The 2000 PGA Media guidebook I use for many playoff records, doesn't make note of Kratzert's playoff either, but at the time of that book the Disney win was unofficial. Confusing right?

Another thing, the British Open wins of Nicklaus and others were made retroactively into PGA Tour wins but any playoffs, like Doug Sanders losing to Jack Nicklaus in 1970, Tom Watson over Jack Newton in 1975, Marc Calcavecchia over Greg Norman and Wayne Grady, aren't in any of these player's playoff records. When I did Sanders playoff box, I left it out. What am I do when I the same for Nicklaus and what's your input on all of this?- William 20:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tournaments that the PGA Tour considers "official" has changed over the years. In the mid to late-1980s they had a panel review tournaments back to 1916 and decided which were of "historical significance" and therefore "official". This led to some going from unofficial to official, like the early Bing Crosby Pro-Ams, and some from official to unofficial, like some of the Caribbean tournaments. I remember reading that Sam Snead complained because he lost some official wins. (There were also tournaments that counted as official money but not as an official win, like those played opposite the Masters and other limited field events). Then later, they added all the British Open wins as official, but not the money or scoring or any other stats. So any PGA Tour records are a mish-mash of what they considered official at the time and official now and if they retroactively recalculated any records, like win streaks or wins in a year. Unfortunately, I don't think the PGA Tour ever published a year-by-year "official" tournament list. For the British Open playoffs and any other "official" events, I'd add them to the published playoff records since they are now official wins. Tewapack (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll add Sanders 1970 British Open loss to his playoff record and adjust the other golfers when I get around to their boxes. Sanders loss is brought up so often when the Open Championship is being played or when a golfer blows a major that I feel this bit of golf history should be corrected- William 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Wright a possible Arnold Palmer tall tale

First, Wright. I'd like to do playoff and win boxes but as Golfobserver only goes back to 1963 so far as the LPGA and google news archives isn't very good on the LPGA so far as results from 1962 or earlier.

The LPGA does have the results but they are incomplete. The cumulative scores and who was runner-up are provided but not round by round scores or how any playoff was decided. I'll do Wright's boxes with what details I can find. If you got the resources to flesh out the box after I start it, go for it. I think boxes with inconsistent scores in the Wright article are better than no box at all. What do you think? I did Kathy Whitworth's boxes, so doing ones for Wright who has almost as many wins won't faze me.

Second- I edited the bit out in the Eastern Open article says- "At the 1956 event, Arnold Palmer nearly quit after hooking his first two tee shots into Hillen Road (the road that borders the first hole). He was convinced by his playing partner, Billy Casper, to continue playing. Palmer went on to win the tournament, and both men went on to become golf legends". It comes from this source[10]. I searched google news and came up with squat to corroborate this tale. IMHO the golf course website isn't a reliable enough source.- William 23:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hogan Tour question

So I just created a page for Bruce Zabriski and I had a quick question. His profile (http://www.mgagolf.org/tournaments/player-profiles) says he won the following events on the Hogan Tour: Bacardi Classic (1985, 1986), Nissan Classic (1989) and the Panama City Beach Classic (1991). The Hogan Tour started in 1990 though, do you know if there was another Hogan Tour before that? Could be, or the Metropolitan PGA could have just made a mistake.

Thanks, michfan2123 (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They could have been "Tournament Players Series" events. This was an attempt at a Ben Hogan Tour type tour that didn't last. I also another found an error in the Met profile, he won the NY Open in 1984, not 1985. Tewapack (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. michfan2123 (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Tewapack! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Golfer article lede

Tewapack, of the following options, which is Wikiproject Golf's preference for your standardized lede for articles about individual professional golfers:

1. "John Q. Smith (born January 1, 1980) is an American professional golfer . . . ." or

2. "John Q. Smith (born January 1, 1980) is an American professional golfer . . . ."?

In 60-something Florida Gators golfer articles, it's presently about half and half, with some other minor variations on the links. 18:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Golf doesn't have a preference, but my personal preference is #2 because "[[golf]]er" sometimes gets unlinked citing WP:OVERLINK. Tewapack (talk) 04:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Dobson

is from Skegness.[11]- William 01:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chi-Chi Rodriguez and PR military cats

Hi Tewapack, thank you for your message. Let me try to explain the idea behind both cats. The idea is the following: if a person wants to find out who were the notable Puerto Ricans that served in the military, all they have to do is look up the cat. "Puerto Rican Military Personnel" and find the names of those who have served, however if they want to know the names of the notable Puerto Ricans that served in a specific branch of the military say Army, Navy and so on then they have the option of checking cat "Puerto Ricans in the ....". It may seem as if one is a sub cat of the other, but this is wrong because they are different categories with different meanings and uses. I have never ever had any problems nor been questioned in this regard until now since it seems quite clear the differences of each. You are an excellent contributor whose work in Wikipedia is well apreciated and I thank you once more for getting in touch with me. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new golf category?

I was thinking of making one for women's collegiate golf coaches. Right now, I can think of four golfers(I know there has to be more) with articles this would qualify- Pearl Sinn, Patti Rizzo, Michele Redman, and Janet Coles. What do you think of this idea? If you know of other golfers who qualify, please note them in your reply here.

What do we name the category? Should we even make the category all inclusive, male or female college golf coaches?- William 18:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a category, Category:College golf coaches in the United States. Further breakdown, which I don't think is necessary at this point, should be along men's and women's teams line, not a male/female line. Sinn and Rizzo are already categorized as coaches, Redman and Coles are not, but should be. Tewapack (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about that category. No further breakdown is necessary and I'll edit Redman and Coles articles.- William 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Caponi

I have run into one definite issue, and one potential one.

Golfobserver messed up badly[12] the 1976 LPGA records. The person who when they put in Caponi's win box copied the bad material. I fixed it, but am giving you a heads up. Caponi won the Carlton on September 26th. Note GO has her winning Girl talk on June 13th. Sal Johnson does great work but he isn't perfect. I'll drop him an email.

The second issue- Caponi played much of her career playing under the name Donna Caponi Young. I'm sure of what years she did that but is it an issue for golf win boxes that have her listed as Donna Caponi when she was playing as Donna Caponi Young? BTW her article makes no mention of her Donna Caponi Young name.- William 15:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LPGA_Futures_Tour

The related Category:LPGA_Futures_Tour has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Another LPGA Tournament page

The Carlton is the one I'm referring to. It lists two events, one in 1976 and another 1978. The later of which was called the Golden Lights.

While these two tournaments were played at the same golf course, this article makes it sound as if they're two different events. The reason I say that is no mention is made of Donna Caponi being the tournament's defending champion just that 'where she won an LPGA tournament back in 1976.'

Should the two tournaments be put in two separate articles? Please reply back.- William 14:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you search google news archives for "Calabasas Caponi Golden", there is one article ("BLALOCK STAYS AHEAD BY A SHOT" L.A. Times, Oct 1, 1978) that turns up that seems to indicate Donna Caponi Young as defending champion but the full article is behind a pay wall. It's logical that two tournaments in three years at the same course would be considered the same tournament but maybe not. Tewapack (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that article before posting here yesterday. It says Caponi was defending champion, so I think we should leave the article as is.- William 14:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Stranahan

His article says 6 PGA Tour wins but only 5 are listed. Is this a typo or is there a win missing? I don't have records on Stranahan one way or the other- William 14:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 6 listed. Tewapack (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My eyes played tricks on me. The year he won two times looked like one win. Oops- William 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1936 U.S. Open and Harry Cooper

The Cooper article has mention of their being controversy concerning Tony Manero getting help from Gene Sarazen. The editor had a source but its a book. I did a google news archive search and didn't come up with anything remotely backing up there being any controversy. What I want to know is your opinion before I edit that out of the Cooper article.- William 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources back this up including the USGA [13], and a quote from Cooper himself [14], [15], [16]. Tewapack (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Blalock cheating controversy

I edited both the 1972 and 1975 LPGA Tour articles to make mention of these events. There are lots of news articles cited for the story. In my opinion I think there is enough of a story to write an independent on what took place between Blalock and the LPGA. Do you agree with me? If I were to write an article, what would you suggest I call it?

A small side note. I also edited the 1972 PGA Tour article to make mention of Rogelio Gonzales disqualification in New Orleans and the lifting of his playing privileges. This is a very rare happening and I think worthy enough of a mention in that year's golf artile.

Please write back on Blalock.- William 18:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it warrants a separate article. The only golf lawsuit that I'm aware of that has a separate article is the Casey Martin suit that reached the Supreme Court, PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin. Tewapack (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking it over, I think I'm to write it up. The Blalock controversy IMHO meets the criteria for WP:Event. It was covered significantly in the press at the time and it did have lasting effects, namely the LPGA changing the way it handled discipline and that the Tour has had commissioners since then. There is other sports cheating articles at WP that serve as precedent. Like both the Boston College and CCNY point shaving scandals plus cheating at the paraolympics. A while back I considered doing an article on the Superfecta scandal at New York City area racetracks in the 1970's. The problem is- there isn't much info on the internet about it which means it might not be able to met WP:Event criteria.

In the article I'll cover Blalock's career before and after the controversy, the cheating scandal, plus the aftermath.

After I write it, feel free to nominate the article for deletion. I won't take that action as personal. Anyway, what name do you suggest for the article?- William 23:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to suggest a name for an article a suggested you not create? - no thanks. Tewapack (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names

The articles on LPGA golfers Young Kim and Joo Mi Kim have their names reversed aka Kim Young and Kim Joo Mi. This is English wikipedia and I'm aware in some Asian countries like Korea the family name comes first. Should I revert these articles or leave them alone? I was going to do win boxes for both these players.

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) for guidance. Tewapack (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then shouldn't all the articles on Korean golfers be consistent? Most of those concerning LPGA players have the family name last- William 01:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The LPGA can't be wrong about a tournament's name....Try again

Case in point- The 1976 Women's International. It is listed here[17] and here[18]] by the name Ladies Masters at Moss Creek at the LPGA website.

Read this and its references- When the tournament was first announced in January 1976 it was titled the Ladies Masters and sponsors said they would pattern the event similar to the Masters Tournament.[1]. A little over a month later the LPGA announced the tournament's name was being changed to the Women's International.[2] This happened after Masters Tournament officials contacted the tournament's sponsor and threatened to go to court unless the word Masters wasn't removed from the tournament title.[3]

Sally Little, an eventual winner of 15 LPGA tournaments including two major championships, won the inaugural Women's International by one shot over Jan Stephenson after holing out from a sand trap on the tournament's 72nd hole.[4]

The Tournament was the Women's International not the Ladies Masters as the LPGA says. I consider we reopen the Sanford Women's Open and retitle it appropriately. I'm posting this to crunch's and the the tournament discussion page. Make comment at the latter if you have any.- William 20:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ladies Masters at Moss Creek for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ladies Masters at Moss Creek is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AeroUnion Flight 302 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.- William 20:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)f[reply]

Ladies Masters at Moss Creek listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ladies Masters at Moss Creek. Since you had some involvement with the Ladies Masters at Moss Creek redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Ridley

Tewapack, in your opinion, is it appropriate to create an article for Fred Ridley, the winner of the 1975 U.S. Amateur? If so, can you help me flesh it out after I stub it? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. Tewapack (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today's standard- 27 wins equals 27 points

and qualifies a LPGA golfer for the WGHOF.[19] That's of course if the player also played the LPGA Tour for 10 years. Blalock did and she won 27 tournaments. So I reverted your edit.- William 20:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about.com is wrong. Go to the source [20] and you'll see that I'm right. Tewapack (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Phil Mickelson Biography

I saw that you deleted what I wrote about the 2012 FedEx Cup playoffs. I am fine with it, I just wanted to know if you saw it as vandilism, because I just thought it should be there. Please leave a message for me. I just saw you were a Rollback, and thought about it.--75.121.162.94 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ladies Masters added to LPGA slate in May
2. Ladies' Masters changes name
3. LPGA is denied Masters name
4. Sally Little captures first LPGA win