Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Golf course: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. The user was: ThefreeencyclopediawikipediJAH2k (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wjemather!
Is there any option to put my website in wikipedia(legally) and then I want to create page in wikipedia, I tried two more times but they blocked my account. can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hp Officejet 4650 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just a question. Just wondering where you managed to find information on Robert Allenby's winning score in the 1992 Perak Masters. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, was just wondering if you have any idea if the 2000 Queensland PGA Championship won by Nathan Green, was a PGA Tour of Australasia event. It is listed in his wins section as a PGA Tour of Australasia event, but I cant find this event on any schedule for 2000. Maybe it was a non-tour event or something? Hope you can help. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given it didn't carry OWGR points, it most likely wasn't an Order of Merit event that year. It was probably part of the "Development Tour" which ran at the time. Which is nothing unusual as most of the state Opens and PGA championships have been on and off the OoM list regularly over the years, especially when the second-tier tour has been operating. As for verifying that from a reliable source, well... I'm afraid that might be difficult! wjematherplease leave a message...20:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has always been the year it started or was last held. New York Mets established in 1962 but the franchise first went into business in 1961. The Miami Marlins, 1991 they began business but they are 1993 establishment. That's the year they started playing. Golf events aren't established the year the tour schedule comes out. For example- The LPGA Tour Championship. It is the year the tournament is first held. Oh and here is the Kapalua LPGA Classic. Played in 2008. It is both a 2008 establishment and disestablishment even though the tournament was on the 2009 LPGA calendar and not removed from the schedule till June that year....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?18:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(message left at User talk:PeeJay2K3 as a courtesy, which unfortunately crossed in the ether: Hi. I've reverted your removal of these navboxes on several articles. It seems perfectly natural/sensible for them to be there. Also, as they are on vast numbers of club page (the majority of a random sample I checked), it would probably be better to initiate a centralised discussion first before proceeding with such changes. Regards. wjematherplease leave a message...09:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
What do you mean "to be expected"? There is no reason to expect links to the clubs' individual seasons from their main articles. That's what the List of XXX F.C. seasons articles are for, and those are linked from the {{XXX F.C.}} navboxes. – PeeJay09:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw you reverted me. That's why I asked what your reasoning was behind thinking it was "to be expected" for them to be there? Their presence only serves to prove that they are there, but gives no indication of why they should be there, and their presence on other pages is not a good reason either - that argument only supports the virulence of them. Would you mind responding to my argument? – PeeJay09:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily, I can't think why you would want to make readers navigate through an extra page when it costs next to nothing for the season navbox to be included. The navboxes have been in place for years (at least 8 in the case of PNE: [3]), so your claim they "don't belong here" does not ring true. Your dislike for them is clear but as suggested, such a widespread change would be better discussed first. wjematherplease leave a message...09:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit bold of you to suggest that my argument is merely a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As I said, there is no need for a link to each individual season from that page. The navbox is for linking between the pages included in it, which is the season pages and the overall list of seasons; they include a link back to the club's parent article as a matter of convenience, but just because the template includes a link to that page doesn't mean it has to exist on that page. – PeeJay20:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not how I presented my argument at all - I literally said the same thing twice, albeit reworded. Could you please provide some evidence that other readers find those navboxes useful on the clubs' main articles? – PeeJay06:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that the Laurent Perrier Trophy and Donald Swaelens Memorial must be the same event, at least in the early days. Faldo can't have won two different events in 1977 and 1978. Laurent Perrier sponsored the Belgian Open in 1979, perhaps explaining the gap that year. Nigej (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've found different sources for the 1976 event which reference both names. However, there's no guarantee the 1980 & 1981 tournaments are continuations – I haven't found any reference to Swaelens for them as yet although they were 8-man fields. wjematherplease leave a message...19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Seems clear the the Caracas Open was dropped by the PGA after 1968 – reports say the 1969 event only had 27 pros (and only a few of them seem to be US PGA pros). Overall, there isn't much detail surrounding the L-A Tour, and with much of the press erroneously referring to them as Caribbean events/circuit/tour, it's very difficult to be sure of anything. wjematherplease leave a message...11:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit awkward that there are references to "Latin-American Tour" from 1965 to 1967 but not in 1968 (as far as I can see), when it seems to be referred to as another Caribbean Tour. Leaves me wondering whether they should all be swept up into one article or split into two. Nigej (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few tournaments at the time that were PGA-sponsored but didn't count as official wins, although the money still counted; others counted for both wins and money. Seems like this may be one of the latter, although it could equally have been the former and retrospectively upgraded by the tour. Sorry, that's not much help is it?! When I get chance I'll see if I can dig anything up.
On a somewhat related subject... What we have with the "Venezuela Open" is actually several distinct tournaments that have retrospectively been merged (I'm sure I had a source for this but it's dead now). The "Caracas Open (Invitational)" which ran from 1961 to 1973 was clearly and often referred to as the "nth" edition (counting from 1961). As such, the 1957 events were not the same tournament (i.e. kronish naming is incorrect); also likely not the same as each other. As I've said elsewhere "City Open", "Country Open" or "Countrian Open" was all too common in reporting of the day, as wire journalists didn't seem too bothered about what the official title was, just what city/country it was in. Have you come across anything to cite these as merged/different events? wjematherplease leave a message...09:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right. An element here of rewriting history to make the event seem like its got a certain heritage and continuity. The Venezuelan Golf Federation are keen on using the nth edition starting in 1957. See http://fvg.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Campeones-Abierto-de-Venezuela-2018.pdf . Probably we ought to add headings to the table and more explanation in the text. On weight of numbers it seems the 1961 to 1973 events were actually called Caracas Open (Invitational) but the 1957 events and those from 1979 onwards were Venezuela Open. Nigej (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found this in McCormack's Dunhill World of Professional Golf 1982: "...the return of the Venezuelan Open to the South American Tour... ...climaxed at Valle Ariba Golf Club, site of the old Caracas Open on the PGA-operated Caribbean Tour...". wjematherplease leave a message...12:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature is causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links lint errors (now known as Old behaviour of link-wrapping font tags) and also uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tagsa lint errors. The behavior of the Tidy bug has changed; starting in June 2018 the font color effect was removed.
You are encouraged to change
<sub><font color="#0D5218">[[User:Wjemather|wjemather]]</font></sub><sup><font color="#520D0D">[[User talk:Wjemather|please leave a message...]]</font></sup> : wjematherplease leave a message...
If you do want the font color, to
<sub>[[User:Wjemather|<span style="color:#0D5218">wjemather</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Wjemather|<span style="color:#520D0D">please leave a message...</span>]]</sup> : wjematherplease leave a message...
If you do not want the font color, to
<sub>[[User:Wjemather|wjemather]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Wjemather|please leave a message...]]</sup> : wjematherplease leave a message...
Hello. I followed the AfD for Audrish Banerjee with some interest but never got around to posting anything. If I'd realised that List of Bengal cricketers existed I would have suggested a merge to there - using a note to summarise everything we know about Banerjee in 20 words or so. Given the close of the AfD I wish I had done so and it might well be a useful approach to take - I'm sure there are further articles that could be added to any proposition on that list. I'm currently doing so at Talk:List of Nottingham Cricket Club players, having done so in the past on a variety of lists.
Hi. Yes, in hindsight that would have been the best solution & one I'll definitely keep in mind. There are hundreds of articles that are similarly unsourceable (other than from bare statistics/scorecards) that would be much better collated into such list articles. These AfDs all follow the same pattern, but I think the Chitty one takes the cake. wjematherplease leave a message...08:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article's original author voting delete as a sock puppet makes it even better... ;-)
I'm sorry for the tone of my summary and for swearing at you when I removed your note from my page. It was uncalled for and needlessly rude. Please accept my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackumbra (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basque Coast Open
You changed the title of the 1960s French event from "Open Costa Vasca" to "Basque Coast Open." Why? The only English-language source I have seen says "Open Costa Vasca."
Per WP:NC, we should use English – foreign language names should be created as redirects if deemed necessary/useful. Plus, as far as I could tell, British newspaper sources all used the English translation, although they generally contained no details (just the winner) so are not used as sources. As an aside, it's probably worth considering that as the tournament was held in France, it seems more likely that the official title was in French rather than Spanish – Open (or Omnium) de la Côte Basque – per the French sources. wjematherplease leave a message...07:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing through WP:NC I noticed that it says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." The only reliable, English-language source I see (the ET website) says "Open Costa Vasca." Do you have information from other English-language sources that say "Basque Coast Open?"
Also keep in mind in English we often maintain the foreign language phrasing when referring to proper nouns from non-English-speaking countries (e.g. Arc de Triomphe, Tierra del Fuego, Taj Mahal). That custom is obviously maintained on Wikipedia.
Alright, we'll stick with the Basque title. Somewhat relatedly, do you think there is a relationship between the Basque Coast Open and the Timex Open? Could it be the same event and we're missing the 1970-79 events? This is important for me as I intend to make a page for Biarritz Golf Club soon.
Sure. Unfortunately the problem was that the sources say nothing about "split" coverage – they say discussing/working/partnering together/with. While splitting or sharing coverage may be a logical inference, it's important we don't make that leap. Anyway, what we have now looks fine to me. wjematherplease leave a message...18:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop stalking my talk page and mind your own business for a change, and stop making false accusations when you don't even know what you are talking about. You have rubbed a number of editors the wrong way since you came on. You have no idea what a number of them are saying about you behind your back, and none of it is good. Stay off my page. This will be the only warning. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given your past history, I advise against making thinly veiled accusations and threats. My comments at your talk page serve only to assist you in collaborating constructively. Your defensive and abusive responses are not acceptable. You have consistently been making contributions in violation of policy (especially WP:CRYSTAL) and neglecting to provide accurate edit summaries or references. If you persist with any of the above (esp. the personal attacks), you will no doubt be swiftly blocked again. Next step? Well, that is up to you. wjematherplease leave a message...14:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, came across an interview from the Asian Tour's official website with Gerry Norquist. It says in it that he has only 4 official tour victories rather than 5, it doesn't list the Volvo Asian Matchplay as an official win. What do you make of this? Link here: [6]Jimmymci234 (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpfully, it's also not unusual for tours to rewrite their own history. Having said that, it's not uncommon for smaller field match play events not to count for money lists. In this case it was also the very last event of the season, which would be very unusual if it were to count and close out the order of merit. Therefore, I suspect that it may well have been non-counting and an unofficial win on the tour. Unfortunately I can't quickly find a source to confirm either way – I found an article on Google News Archive which could possible hold a clue, but it badly scanned and so blurry it's illegible – I'll have a proper search when I have time. wjematherplease leave a message...22:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, even on the Asian Tour's website it doesn't have the Omega PGA listed on the 1998 schedule, the Hong Kong Open is the final event listed there. It doesn't list the Volvo Match Play either so it would be ok to assume that this is an unofficial tour win? Jimmymci234 (talk) 09:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-2004 (when the tour was relaunched as the "Asian Tour") is somewhat lacking on the official site, especially for the early Omega Tour years. Per WP:V we need a reliable source to explicitly support it as unofficial; and per WP:OR we can't make assumptions or draw conclusions (however logical). It's similar to the problem we have in determining tour wins for earlier Australasian & Sunshine tour seasons. wjematherplease leave a message...10:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair enough, on that note, would you be able to find a source to find the details of his 1995 Perak Classic win so it can be completed? I've tried searching for one but couldn't come across any. Thanks Jimmymci234 (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I have two requests. 1.) I left a reply to your comments about reverting my contributions on Talk:2019–20 PGA Tour. I would appreciate a response when you get a chance. 2.) If you are willing, I would be interested in engaging in a dialog about what constitutes original research. I would like to better understand your position on the topic. Thanks. BillyPilgrim5 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I saw you comments, but I'm quite busy today so likely won't have time to respond fully until at least tomorrow. Regarding OR: in the simplest terms, (ideally) everything should be explicitly verifiable; secondary to that, if deducing from sources, there should be almost zero chance of the deduction being wrong. It's also important to recognise what assumptions and deductions sources are making (e.g. Rob Bolton's qualified for the majors/wgcs list). Taking your latest update to the field of the PGA Championship as an example ([7]), we are still waiting for confirmation on replacement for Grace (Stuard is replacing Howell), who may not have officially withdrawn yet. Cauley is now next off the rank, but he could just as easily replace someone else should they officially withdraw sooner than Grace. Regards, wjematherplease leave a message...09:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, my mistake on Stuard. I was updating the Holmes WD when I noticed the news item about Grace. I hastily added that to the edit and made a mistake. When I noticed in the morning that they still hadn't announced a replacement for Grace and that Stuard had instead replaced CH3, I went to fix it, but noticed that it had already been corrected.
It is certainly my preference that everything be explicitly verifiable , but that usually doesn't happen with the category 12 PGA exemptions until some time after the final field is published. This is because category 12 is mostly a "dog bites man" news item. Since the PGAoA doesn't publish explicit criteria for this, the published news will invariably be of the form "player X is in the field for the PGA Championship" with no mention of how they are eligible. The only option, then, is deducing from sources. My contention is and has been that the published list of exemption criteria and a published list of players in the field largely suffice to meet your stated objective of almost zero chance of the deduction being wrong. There are a few special cases to handle, but those can be dispensed with without too much trouble.
Given that the PGAoA has stopped its prior practice of publishing how players achieve eligibility and that pgatour.com has likewise dropped this information from the "Inside the Field" feature for the PGA championship, there is a real possibility that in some future year we will have not explicit source identifying which players fall into category 12 (except for the lazy journalists who copy and paste from the wikipedia page).
There is generally no need or urgency to deduce conclusions, so we can and should present the information we have and wait for clarification via reliable sources. Failure to wait for published detail can lead to circular references with (as you rightly point out) lazy journalists copying from here – I have seen at least one such example with regards to the PGA field. wjematherplease leave a message...12:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Wjemather, agree with putting results in one merged table. You'll need to do some tidying up of the purse presentation though, as a lot of older editions are £ figures and not $ as is now indicated. Jopal22 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the WGHoF is riddled with factual errors. The same is true for tour websites (for tournaments outside their remit). Often this is because they have accepted information from players/agents/other sources without checking – and some players are renowned for inflating their achievements – or have simply misread what they have been given. In this case, "1975/1976 GM Open" could easily be misread as two tournaments (one in 1975 and another in 1976) when it was a single tournament in the 1975/1976 season. wjematherplease leave a message...08:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not leave a disruptive message on my talkpage again
Do not leave the above on my talkpage again. The figure wiki uses is 160 so we go with that. I could send you a message saying you are disruptive to the page and threaten to get you blocked like you have tried with me. You do not own wikipedia nor do you decide what should go on a page. If you want a career figure of 160 go with 160. You were not worried about other sources when you deleted 3 titles from the page in the last few days so I don't see why you should worry now. I have worked on
Wiki for year's to better it not devalue it. DooksFoley147 (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DooksFoley147: Happy to comply. However, please be aware that my only recourse should you continue to disrupt Wikipedia will be to request dispute resolution or administrator intervention rather than attempting to assist you in understanding Wikipedia policy.
On that note, per my earlier message on your talk page, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. As there is no weight of reliable sources that agree on 160 wins as an accurate figure while explicitly stating what is being included (individual, team, exhibitions, etc.) – various sources give wildly different totals with different criteria – we abide by WP:V, WP:BLP, etc. and state what can be verified. In this case, that is quite vague, so "over 150" seems reasonable and importantly it is supported by all reliable sources.
Please do as suggested previously and in future discuss any changes you would like to make on the article talk page. Other editors will be able to assess whether the balance of reliable sources support your proposals. wjematherplease leave a message...13:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket articles AfD
I might suggest that you allow the discussions you have started to take place before tagging any additional articles for deletion discussion; it isn't wrong to make these suggestions per se, but slowing down the pace a bit might deescalate the situation a bit. Just a suggestion. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dotWhats the point? hes not interested in discussion at all, proven by the fact hes deleted the discussion on here about it. Hes done his job, hes drove another bunch of contributers away from the site because he thinks he runs the pages. CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, there are two other related articles that likely don't meet notability guidelines, etc., but I haven't looked into them properly yet so will hold off for now. Those that I have nominated already seem like pretty clear cases though. wjematherplease leave a message...12:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"haven't looked into them properly yet", like you said to me, YOU DONT RUN WIKIPEDIA. If you just left us to do our own thing with the pages we have been working towards there would be no issue but because you think you own the place and dont want anyone to do anything with your precious sports articles your doing this. And the most embarrasing thing is youve history doing this. Well done, do what you want with them, I wont be contributing to them.CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Articles here must comply with policies and guidelines (I provided links to the basics at your talk page). At present these articles are sourced exclusively to primary sources which does nothing to establish notability. If you have non-primary/non-self-published reliable sources, then please cite them for verification as this is the best way to establish notability and for the articles to be kept. Also problematic is that, from what you have said, they seem to consist largely of original research – again, citing sources remedies this issue. wjematherplease leave a message...12:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dotSorry but I have zero interest in "being helped" when someone has attacking our pages like this. If you wish to support people that are harrasing and targeting users then that says more about the admins on here than meCreamyGoodne55 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see any personal attack when I havent even named you in it. Maybe your starting to feel a bit guilty at what you have done, and by the messages Ive got its apparently not the first time either. Surely people should know the full story before they make a deicison on the matter?CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As bystander, it seems clear to me who is harassing whom, and it is not the way you are suggesting. Everyone is giving you the same advice, but you are choosing to stick your fingers in your ears. Spike 'em (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it can't be viewed what are you even talking about ?. When there are 200 more edits made to that page will you know the exact day, date and time that edit was removed and archived in history ?. Not a chance that is absolute horseshite. You think that is a satisfactory answer ?. 80.233.56.46 (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any revision can be viewed by clicking on the time and date, and differences by clicking on "prev". Frankly, it's highly unlikely anyone will have any need or want to find/view these additions unless your disruption persists (and if they did, abusive edit summaries would be a good guide). At which point, your account and IP addresses will likely all be blocked. The better alternative is you complying with policies and guidelines, as has been requested on many occasions by multiple other contributors. wjematherplease leave a message...11:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Derbyshire County Cricket League page
All that I was doing was adding the lists of officials for the league going back to its inception and the centenary history of the league written by John Shawcroft - a well respected local journalist who had researched the piece through articles at his own and other local newspapers as well as his own memories. I'm not sure what 'citations' you need - most of it is in league handbooks (20 years worth of which I wrote) or the centenary handbook; none of them have ISBNs or any such fineries - we are a local cricket league and I am one of those officials as well as being a life member. We just want to give the page a bit more context and interest than the current bland (and incomplete - the 1999 season placings for the Premier aren't even shown!)
@Chiggers5755: Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:C and WP:COI. In essence, all content must be verifiable via reliable sources, and written in your own words, from a neutral point of view, and without embellishments (e.g. countless anecdotes). Ultimately, the history section should not need to extend beyond 3–4 reasonably sized paragraphs – most of the sections that were added should be lost and the pertinent ones can be well summarized in one or two sentences. I would recommend drafting something in your sandbox and asking someone from the Cricket sub-project to look it over when ready (by posting a message at WT:CRIC). wjematherplease leave a message...20:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiggers5755: Such things are not normally included on Wikipedia as they are (almost) never reported by independent sources; this is especially true of minor positions (secretary, treasurer, press officer, fixture secretary, etc.). Addition of such content almost always violates WP:NOTWEBHOST as it is something that one would only ever be expect to find on a personal/private website run by (or on behalf of) the subject. wjematherplease leave a message...17:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lincolnshire County Cricket League until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Spiderone11:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snooker The Masters
The event is called "The Masters" not Masters. You say it is clearly against consensus?. It is the same two fellas on here who stick together to make all the decisions is that fair ?. We live in a democracy they do not own wikipedia, but if both of them agree no one else has a chance of changing anything !178.167.155.232 (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, would you have any idea as to what the status are of these two events on the 2020 European Tour schedule. As far as we know they are 'postponed' but logic dictates that there is no chance that these events will happen this year. I can't find any sources to suggest that either event is cancelled however. Any thoughts? Jimmymci234 (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had a good search a couple of weeks ago, but wasn't able to find anything for either tournament, so as far as we seem to be able to verify they are still "postponed" (although that could easily mean postponed until next year/season). Morocco recently reopened their borders and the Trophée Hassan II used to be played in Nov/Dec, so I guess it is possible that it reappears (and there is a big gap on the schedule between Augusta and Dubai), but seems very unlikely. Can't see any way The Volvo China Open gets revived this year though. wjematherplease leave a message...
Sourcing
This is not a criticism, but what's the reason as to why you changed the Alfred Dunhill source re 2020 European Tour from the European Tour's website to Sky Sports? Surely there's not much of a difference. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I did contact the help desk who referred me to you. I was here before but totally lost on this platform. Karl Keffer is my Grandfather. I wanted to ask if you want to put up some pics of him - I would prefer that if there is going to be a page about him. The help desk talked about copyright issues. I know in the music world, songs are copyright free after a certain amount of time. Probably all the pics we have regarding golf did come from other sources - but very old. You may have already seen some of them. If you give me an email address to send them to, I will send them and let you decide. I do not want to open an account. Is there a way I can provide my email address to you privately - or send the pics to you privately without exposing my email address?
Kind Regards
Corinne Keffer
2607:FEA8:1EC0:2BEB:CD4D:E32:8DC3:A580 (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Corinne. It would be great to get an image for the article; although I must admit not having searched for one. Any copyright issues would depend on the source of the photos. The easiest would be for the author to release the images into the public domain. Otherwise, I believe rights expire 50 years after the death of the author in Canada (70 years in the US) or 50 years following publication/75 years following creation if the author is unknown (Canada), so it's entirely possible that any copyright has expired. I would prefer not to be responsible for such determination though, so request that you upload any photos to a suitable internet repository (e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/, Flickr) with appropriate declarations. Best regards, wjematherplease leave a message...10:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - 2 pics have been uploaded to the commons address you gave me, for you to attach to the golf page for Karl Keffer, my Grandfather.
Thanks
GolfPics (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, to call it the Professional Grand Slam is not "just plain wrong." The distinction between Professional Golfers and Amateur Golfers at the time of Bobby Jones was far different than it has become and Jones's accomplishment was dubbed by O. B. Keeler to be the Grand Slam of golf. Bob Drum, Mercer Bailey[1], and Arnold Palmer resurrected the idea in 1960 and Palmer said, "For me, such prospects were as far away as the moon. I concluded that if I were going to reach the top in golf, I would have to do it as a professional. It was then that I started thinking about a professional 'grand slam.'"[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskogg (talk • contribs) 05:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thank you for your interest. I have reverted the page back to my edit: it may be, that you aren't sufficiently cognisant of British racing to know that the Weatherby site is the official source of race names. And it is clearly important for Wiki readers to understand that 'Epsom Derby' has absolutely no official basis whatsoever, being an example of USA-orientated convenience (some would call it "cultural imperialism", though I would not go so far). Please contact me before undoing this again, as it would be silly to get into a tennis match.Zarzuelauk (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I will substitute "colloquial usage" for the phrase about journalism. I think that covers our bases - thank you for the discussion, once again, Zarzuelauk (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive
How can it be disruptive when it has been done that way for several years. Going by that logic, that is the same as saying that it has been disruptive for several years. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment at the template talk page. The disruption I refer to is the reinsertion of hidden text, inconsistent with the MOS, after it has been removed. It also has not "been done that way for several years"; a quick check of the history clearly shows that it was only done months in advance last year (only), and a few days in advance for the two years before then; going back further, people managed to wait for the tournament to conclude. Please note: Wikipedia is not a race to see who can add stuff first, especially when such things go against policy/guidelines (e.g. because they serve no purpose, are predictive, speculative and/or simply unknown and cannot be verified). This kind of behaviour only creates work for other editors to clean up. Please try to follow the policies and guidelines. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message...17:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Ferguson edits
Hi,
I just saw your comments on the page of Mike Ferguson (golfer). I added a lead. I also deleted a decent amount, especially minimizing information during the mid-1980s when his play was poor. I probably haven't deleted enough so far but tell me what you think.
Hi. I haven't examined it fully, but to give you an idea... the biggest problem it that the summaries of individual tournaments are too involved (many of the details, especially regarding early rounds and scores, distract from the real substance) and there are too many of them. As an example, this paragraph:
Much later in the year Ferguson recorded two top-3 finishes. On 29 September 1977, he opened well at the Queensland Open. His 70 (−2) was tied for the low score among professionals, two back of leader Paul Gallagher. On the final day, Ferguson led "a charge" against leader Hal Underwood with eagles on the 9th and 11th. However, he "faltered on the back nine" and finished in a tie for third, two back of Underwood. In November he played in the Australian PGA Championship. He opened with a one-under-par 71. During the second round, he played erratically, hitting three tee shots into the woods and bogeying the par-5 ninth hole. However, good recovery shots and an excellent short game helped him shoot a 67 (−5) to take the lead at 138 (−6). He did not play particularly well on the weekend but finished with a eagle and a birdie on the 70th and 72nd holes, respectively, to achieve solo second. Around this time he was regarded as "one of the talented young lions of Australian golf." He intended to try out for the PGA Tour later in the year at the PGA Tour Qualifying Tournament.
could probably be reduced to something like this:
Towards the end of 1977, Ferguson recorded two top-3 finishes: a tie for third at the Queensland Open in September, and a runner-up finish in the Australian PGA Championship in November, thanks to an eagle and a birdie during his final three holes. Around this time he was regarded as "one of the talented young lions of Australian golf," and intended to try and qualify for the PGA Tour by entering the tour's Qualifying Tournament.
There is also NPOV problems. 'he opened well', 'played erratically', 'good recovery shots' and 'excellent short game' etc etc. Unless the references say any of this, this wording don't belong in the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?10:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Wjemather, there is way too much detail. Look at Ferguson's article and compare it to this this golfer with five times the professional wins and who turned pro about a decade before Ferguson....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?16:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a number of edits to the page and am pretty much done. I don't think I have cut it in half but maybe 1/3?
I would like to respond to all of ...William's comments. You are referring to the fourth paragraph under professional career. It now reads:
"Much later in the year Ferguson recorded two top-3 finishes. During the final round of the Queensland Open (golf), Ferguson led "a charge" against leader Hal Underwood with eagles on the 9th and 11th. However, he "faltered on the back nine" and finished in a tie for third, two back of Underwood.[10] A month and a half later, in November, he seriously competed at the Australian PGA Championship. During the second round, he played erratically, hitting three tee shots into the woods and bogeying the par-5 ninth hole. However, good recovery shots and an excellent short game helped him shoot a 67 (−5) to take the lead at 138 (−6).[11] He did not play particularly well on the weekend but finished with a eagle and a birdie on the 70th and 72nd holes, respectively, to achieve solo second.[12] Around this time he was regarded as "one of the talented young lions of Australian golf."[13] He intended to try out for the PGA Tour later in the year at the PGA Tour Qualifying Tournament.[9]"
"He opened well": I actually just deleted the "he opened well" statement from the Queensland Open because it just referred to first round stuff. However, is it that NPOV-ish? Ferguson opened with a 70 (-2) to put himself T-3, two back of the lead. "Well" strikes me as banal as it gets. In general, what is the rule with adjectives and more "descriptive" language? Are they not supposed to be used at all?
"He played erratically": I am drawing this off of these sentences: "Ferguson, forced to favour his left hand frequently, found his tee shots astray and three times he headed off into the trees but made fine recovery shots." And two paragraphs later: "But whatever he lacked off the tee he more than made up with his short game and putting." For someone to shoot a leading score this sounds like a description of pretty erratic play.
"good recovery shots": In the article the author says "fine recovery shots." (It is actually in the sentence quoted above.) I actually minimize the emotion used compared to the author.
"excellent short game": This also comes from a sentence quoted above: "But whatever he lacked off the tee he more than made up with his short game and putting."
Re: the example of Kathy Whitworth. The page of Whitworth is, in my opinion, very inadequate. If it were to thoroughly capture her success, the text should be about 20X longer. (Unlike most golfers pages on Wikipedia, most of the claims are at least validated with a citation, however.) In my opinion the overwhelming majority of golfers pages are inadequately created. See the pages of Roger Mackay or Dana Quigley for example. For Mackay there is no textual section whatsoever about his ample professional successes and a grand total of one citation. For Quigley there is basically just a long intro with no other text and no citations. These are not random examples; the poor profiles are everywhere. Comparing my work to the very low standards across WikiProject Golf is not fair.
It's unfortunate given how much effort you have clearly gone to in digging up sources for everything but, as per my above comment, I think there is much more than can be done to trim it down. Many of the minute details, e.g. the scores (which are mostly without context) and the many round-by-round summaries (especially describing how he played one or two holes in the middle of a tournament) add little to a summary of his career. As for the language, MOS:WORDS is a good starting point. wjematherplease leave a message...22:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Manuel of Style reference. I will try to refer to it in the future. Otherwise, if you think there are issues with Mike Ferguson's page then you are free to edit it. I do not "own" this page, nor do I own any page. Anyone can edit any page of Wikipedia. I look forward to your edits.
You reverted my edits to the tour column. I think it should be consistent with the way we're doing things in general. How do you think it should be done?
I thought it would be better to move the conversation over here. The conversation seemed to drift away from the original matter (American Professional Golfers tour) and we're the only ones still talking.
I would like to include this comment for reference:
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. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Last year I added a lot of information to the page of Jim Hallet and there was a New York Times article about his performance at 1987 Q-school. The article is here. The article was published on January 10, 1988. It was published only a few weeks after 1987 Q-school but I think it would constitute a secondary source as it is not directly reporting from the event.
In addition there are a lot of other details about previous Q-schools in the article. I would like to know if you think the article constitutes as a secondary source for these other q-schools. The relevant examples are below:
There is a reference to 1984 q-school: "Or that the rest will have to return to what they call Q School, as Paul Azinger, 1987 Player of the Year, had to do back in the fall of 1984 after missing the top 125 that season."
There is another quote about 1984 q-school: "In 1984, after tying for 46th with five others, he [Hallet] was knocked out in a playoff."
About 1986: "Two years later [1986], the PGA started giving Tour privileges to the top 50 and ties."
Yes it's secondary, but it's also fairly incidental. I honestly don't think there is enough to establish notability for individual q-school tournaments. However, as I said, I think there are less issues with a "(list of) 1984 q-school graduates" article than with a "1984 q-school (tournament)" article. The content would largely be the same but the former has a wider scope and could easily be considered a split from the corresponding PGA Tour season article and as such not subject to the same notability requirements. wjematherplease leave a message...20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I believe the Q-School Confidential book covers Q-school results on a yearly basis. I don't have it yet but should get it soon. The book was published in 1999. If it has the yearly results, would it count as a secondary source?
Otherwise, I guess I'll just post the graduates. With the media guide and the book I definitely have enough information now.
I recently created a page for Kenji Hosoishi. He won the Indian Open (golf) in 1967 and 1968. In both years it is labeled an "Associate event." I don't really know what this means however on his page I just left it under "Other wins" rather than "Asia Golf Circuit wins." What this an official AGC event or not?
Also, I have a question about the Philippine Open page. I noticed on the AGC's seasonal calendar pages for 1979, 1984, 1985, and 1986 that the event is labeled an "unofficial event" or a "non-circuit event." On the Philippine Open table I left the space blank for these dates. But should I? Why is it on the AGC calendar pages to begin with for these four years?
Associate events were semi-official events not counting towards the overall circuit prize. The Philippine Open was not considered an official event during the years it was removed from the circuit schedule, but is included in the articles for clarity as it was original on the provisional schedule and provides additional context in those years; same reason as the Philippine Masters, Rolex Masters and Malaysian Dunlop Masters are also noted. wjematherplease leave a message...15:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds like the Indian Open during these years is still considered an official win even if it didn't count towards the Order of Merit prize. Right?
I think we should probably stick to just the circuit prize counting events. The official/unofficial win concept is a relatively recent one outside of the PGAoA/PGA Tour. AGC "associate events" could possibly be thought of as being comparable in standing to "approved special events" on the European Tour in the early days (i.e. before they were called approved special events) or "satellite events" on the PGA Tour; and they are generally not counted as official now. wjematherplease leave a message...10:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, on his page I left them under "Other wins." In parentheses I stated they were "Associate events." Not sure if that's the perfect way to do this; please make edits if you think you can improve things.
Response from User:Klaysaurus to messages left at user talkpage
This is in response to the 'Civility' post you left for me. Firstly, User:Jimmymci234 called me a twat, which I think is far more offensive and disrespectful than anything I responded with. Secondly, the user engaged in an edit-war because he simply wanted to be the first to edit the new information in, as is evident by his response to my post on his page. While I admit that I did edit the pertinent information somewhat ahead of the information's confirmation, the user in question could have simply waited till an hour to actually see if my information needed editing at all (which it didn't because the information I had put in was correct). Instead, he engaged in an editing war that has no rationale or sense to it.
But yes I'll keep the civility warning in mind for all future conducts. I just hope User:Jimmymci234 is held accountable for his childlike behaviour and his decision to engage in an edit war given my inputted information didn't require editing in the first place. Thanks.
On another note, I cannot seem to create or edit the 2021 European Tour page. Can you help me out with that? I would like to contribute towards the page, given the schedule for the 2021 European Tour was just announced.
Klaysaurus (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Klaysaurus[reply]
@Klaysaurus: You were adding unverifiable speculation, i.e. the result of an ongoing golf tournament, and Jimmymci234 was correct to remove it. We do not wait an hour or so to see if someone's predictions are correct. See WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL for the relevant policies. Had Jimmymci234 followed the normal procedure and reported the incident to WP:AN3 you would have been swiftly blocked, and your incivility would almost certainly have made the block a longer one. To be clear, Jimmymci234 was not edit-warring, you were.
Can you please not alert me of a PROD or article deletion again, I barely visit this site nowadays let alone have time to waste on trying to save articles that deletionists have made up their mind aren't notable anyway. Thankyou.† Encyclopædius17:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you just sending me a message and not one to Nigej BTW?.
You just sent me a message and you did not send one to him after he changed Johnson's page what is that about ?. We all agree they are not professional wins. So what is wrong with the exhibition match win section ?. 92.251.188.41 (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
