Talk:LPGA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Golf Wikiproject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of golf. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I wanted to put a list of all the players. I wasn't sure if I should put everybody? Most would be dead links anyways, but is that okay to have tons of dead links? dgrant

Sure as far as I'm concerned. However, it would be much more important to state clearly in the very first sentence of the article what kind of organisation LPGA is: National? International? Any reader who, like myself, has not got the foggiest notion about golf, will have difficulty understanding the basics of this text! Please clarify a few things. |l'KF'l| 17:56, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Although both are headquartered in Florida, the LPGA is not affiliated with the PGA TOUR. The LPGA sanctions women's professional golf tournaments, primarily in the United States, but elsewhere in the world as well (non-US events are typically co-sanctioned with the local women's golfing organization, for example the Ladies European Tour).

[edit] Tournament table redesign

I redesigned the Tournament Table to change it from an HTML format to Wikitable format. I"ve been meaning to do this since I made the table back in February. At the same time, I adjusted some Tournament names to match the official names listed on [lpga.com]. The only difference is that I dropped all of the "presented by Coca-Cola/Pepsi/Lincoln Mercury," etc. title portons. These added sponsor mentions wreack havoc with the grid and I think as long as we're consistent with the naming convention, we're good to go. Sponsors are mentioned when they are included elsehwere in the title, for example "Sybase Classic" (but not "Sybase Classic Presented by Lincoln Mercury"). I haven't put in the color coding for ADT categories yet. If people want this, we/you can do it. I'm not sure how useful or attractive it was. Crunch 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the brackets so that this table is consistent with those for other tours. I don't mind whether the colors are there or not, but if you do restore them, maybe pastel shades would be a better choice. Golfcam 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks terrible on the tables for the other tours, as do their HTML tables. I put it back. Why copy a bad thing? Crunch 19:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the standard version. I agree with Golfcam, and as no one has ever amended any of the other tables, you appear to be in a minority of one Crunch. The gray just looks odd and disconcerting, more like an annotation than data, but I instinctively know what the numbers in brackets mean. Please concede gracefully to avoid wasting more time. Scranchuse 18:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the command to "concede." Way to win friends on Wikipedia! I think putting everything in one color with endless "brackets" or parentheses as they're known in America, adds clutter and confusion. The number of total tournaments won is hardly an important number and putting it in gray sets it aside from the other more important information. This is kind of a basic element of design. Also, putting it in gray takes away the need for the parentheses. You just have the number. By the way, there is no 'standard." However, not worth the fight. Crunch 23:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a standard - every other tour is done the same way. These numbers are really useful context as not everyone is an expert on the players. It's a good piece of added value that lists in the media don't give you, and it shows that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not just a results service. It looks better with brackets. It's the natural way to present this king of info, eg someone has just started adding notes on the number of PGA Tournaments players won each year in just this way. You may think your way is better, but the truth is that it is worse. Golfcam 02:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no "truth," just your opinion and mine. We'll give it some time and eventually someone else may come along and redesign the entire table. Deal with it. Crunch 07:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)