Talk:PGA Tour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article on PGA Tour is supported by the Golf WikiProject, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Golf related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Golf Portal

Contents

[edit] Capitalization

Why has "capitalization of name of tour as branding been dismissed"? This is what they call it, even if our unsigned-in editor doesn't like it! I hate "Monster Park" for Candlestick Park, but I don't control the naming rights. Does anyone else favor reversion, or is it just me? Rlquall 02:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think that the person who wrote that was dismissing that they do, in fact, put it in all caps, but they suppressed the statement that it is done for "branding" reasons. I, for one, know that they want it written in all caps, but I don't know that it is done for branding reasons. I really have no idea why they do it. Whoever made that comment has not changed me from rewriting it PGA TOUR wherever I happen to see it. My question is: should references to "the tour" that do not rise to the level of the full name PGA TOUR, use TOUR, or Tour, or tour? My vote is simply for "tour," referring to the general, improper noun of a circuit of competition. If you use "Tour," you're saying it's a proper noun, but the proper noun is all caps, and not only would that look awkward to say that they did such-and-such on "the TOUR," I think it's unnecessary. If you were talking about NFL policies, you probably wouldn't say "League policy says xyz," but simply "league policy says xyz," "league" referring to the improper noun that is the general concept of a league instead of this specific league. --AppleFan84

So shouldn't the page be moved to PGA TOUR? zellin 22:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'd much prefer if it wasn't. I can only assume it is a silly attempt to make the name catch the reader's eye in a paragraph of print, and most media outlets ignore it just as it deserves to be ignored. Osomec 29 June 2005 15:50 (UTC)
My preferences run along the same lines as Zellin, since it is not for us to judge the propriety of what various organizations choose to do with their names. Osomec and I discussed this and I was left with the impression he would write "Tour" when he wrote it originally but would not go out of his way to change it in places where it is already capitalized. I see he has since deviated from that. I am hesitant to start a revert war although I don't see why he deserves ipso facto deference on this matter. AppleFan84

Regarding the first major; "The Masters" is not the "official" name of the event. Personal correspondence with Ivan Maisel indicated that he was told to use "Masters Tournament" as the name of the event.

The page should be moved to PGA TOUR, that's the way they always write it (even if it's just "The TOUR"). It may be for "branding", or it may be just to distinguish between just any old Tour put on by the Professional Golfers Association and the PGA TOUR, but I don't see why it shouldn't be moved.--Cuchullain 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"PGA Tour" is normal English usage, and Wikipedia follows normal English usage.

ReeseM 02:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Most people still think of Myanmar as Burma and call it that, so "Burma" is arguably the normal English usage. The Wikipedia article is "Myanmar" because that is the official name of the country, so that rule is not necesarily always followed. Rlquall 01:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Entry fees

Do PGA Tour events require entry fees from the contestants? If so, are the fees uniform, or set at the discretion of the sponsor, or some other way?

[edit] Filled in the blanks!

I've successfully created full pages or stubs (along with winners lists) for tournaments that didn't have one. Now what do I do? :P Dakpowers | Talk 19:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purses

Does anyone think the purses at PGA TOUR events would be useful? My only problem with this is that the PGA TOUR's website isn't accurate when it comes to the purses. For example, it lists the British Open purse in terms of dollars (it's in pounds, you couldn't put a dollar figure until you know the conversion rate on the day the winner wins); it says the U.S. Open purse was $6.25 million when it was really $6.8 million; says the B.C. Open purse is $3 million when it is really $3.5 million; and so on. Would someone be willing to chase down the right information and put it on there? I don't know where to look for all of it and it is frustrating the "official" source isn't accurate.

I would check out http://www.thegolfchannel.com .

They appear to have copied it right from the PGA TOUR's published schedule; those numbers were available in January and since then some have changed. The B.C. Open was supposed to be $3.5 million, that appears to have changed with all the flooding and the change in venue. However, the U.S. Open's website explicitly says the purse is $6.8 million; both the PGA TOUR and Golf Channel sites say $6.25 million. Additionally, both of them are evidently using an exchange rate for the British pound sterling from some other time, because the £4 million purse comes to $7,434,400 as of COB Friday, not the $6.75 million the PGA TOUR says.
We now have details of the ranking points at each tournament, which is a more reliable indicator of the strength of field. Mowsbury 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schedule

Is it proper to speak of the Southern Swing anymore? I remember it once being another of the series (like the Fall Finish/West Coast Swing) but it no longer appears on the schedule. Since there are regularly scheduled events that take place in the American south after those events we're designating the "Southern Swing" (through the FedEx St. Jude Classic), it seems like we could only limit it to the events we're limiting it to if it was an organized points competition, like the FF/WCS, and since it isn't, it's my feeling we should drop the reference since the attached text does a fine job of explaining the tour's geographic procession.

[edit] The Open Championship

There are two reasons why people refer to The Open Championship as the British Open. a) Its needed to save people from confusing it with the US open or b) ignorance of the fact that it is called The Open and doesn't need a prefix. Case (a) doesn't apply here because the fact that it is in the United Kingdom is given in the next column. Which just leaves (b).

Wikipedia is meant to be a place to correct ignorance and not perpetuate it. This is why the term British Open should be avoided. Using the term would re-enforce the mis-guided belief that it is the official term of the tournement, which is the precise opposite of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve.

While the United States could be refered to as America or even Columbia you wouldn't dream of using these terms here because an encyclopedia requires a higher standard of language than is used in everyday life. Please explain why you feel this should be ignored in this case. josh (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

I think we should make a new article for PGA Player of the Year and Money title awards. When you search for these awards on google, wikipedia doesn't come on the first page of results, which is bad since we are very comprehensive and better than other sites. Also, the page is over 40 kb, which is long for 1 article especially since it strays from the main topic.

[edit] 2006 Schedule

What will happen to this schedule once the new season begins? It should be moved and made into a new article. I don't know what has happened in the past, but I do hope it is not deleted.

[edit] yourPGA.com - PGA Message Boards and Fan Site

The creators of myLPGA.com have decided to venture into men's golf and have now launched yourPGA.com which is a discussion forum and fan site for the PGA Tour as well as the European Tour and other PGA tours around the world. Please add it to your external links. Mahalo!

Amagab 08:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking Points

I'm not sure that ranking points add anything to this chart other than clutter. I think it might be wiser to put this at the very least someplace else. I just think it is too abstract. For most events, we don't know how many ranking points were allocated until the new OWGR are released on Monday, but putting it in the chart suggests there is something inherent about the event which determines the number of points, which is true for only 5 events. It is going to result in more weeks going onto a 2nd line, which is something I have been trying to avoid. 65.42.16.135 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FGF2007 Agrees

The Ranking Points Column is something not everyone viewing the PGA Tour schedule is necessarily interested in. Perhaps, a separate page titled, say, "2007 PGA Tour: OWGR Tournament Ranking Points", could be created to deal with that subject.


Also, take out the career wins in parenthesis next to the player's name. If people want to find out how many career PGA Tour wins (or any other specific achievements) that a player has, they should be able to click-on the player's name and read such info on the player's own Wikipedia page.

ADDITIONAL: 1-29-07 10:18 PM EST The State column can go as well, since that info should be present on each event's Wikipedia page.


Thanx-A-Lot and Enjoy, Frank    Fgf2007 00:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the State column retains value; the point of it is (or was) to show the progression of the geography of the tour. It provided more concrete statements to the generalizations in the preceding paragraph about starting on the west coast, going to the American southeast, etc. As for the career wins, I can go either way, but it doesn't offend me to have it there simply because it doesn't take up a great deal of space. My key concern is spacing. 65.42.16.135 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The state column is of long standing and it shows the structure of the season. The ranking points are tremendous added value, showing the strength of field in a clear way that you just don't get from any other source. Note the FedEx X Cup points would not achieve the same thing as the main season tournaments are divided into just three categories, which is not an accurate reflection of the relative strength of tournaments at all. The number of wins shows what type of players are winning at the moment, and is especially useful for those who are less familiar with golf. Mowsbury 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Ranking points only shows strength of field to the insiders who have any notion of what the ranking system even means, how it works, etc. It is far too abstract for this forum. 65.42.16.135 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is most useful for people who would otherwise have little idea of the standing of the various tournaments. Anyone who is curious can read the article, that is how wikipedia helps people to learn. Mowsbury 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
That logic can be carried out ad infinitum. Even a wikified encyclopedia has to show some discretion as to the information presented in any given article, to make sure it conforms with the level of generality appropriate to the topic. This is just too detailed. And Fgf2007 agrees with me. Moreover, the argument that it provides some context to the "standing" of the various tournaments is flawed. The rankings points are not linear; a 50-point tournament is not twice as "good" as a 25-point tournament. The points are allocated in a fashion that balances a variety of concerns, which include inter-tour politics, history, and the desireability of maximizing TV ratings for those events that use the OWGR as a sweep-up category; all of which are concerns that have nothing to do with the actual game of golf. 65.42.16.135 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Field Size

It's not my feeling that the Field Size is needed. It unnecessarily spreads out the table laterally (shifting almost every event onto a 2nd line) and does not, in my opinion, express information that is really needed here. This is a general overview of the season; something as particular as the precise number of tournament entrants is more appropriate for the article for that particular event. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

This article is starting to get quite long; wouldn't it be a better idea to split them off to separate articles, with links to them on this page? Or maybe a box at the bottom about the PGA TOUR? MrArticleOne (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official styling

Recently, the table was changed to eliminate the official styling for THE PLAYERS Championship and other events using non-standard capitalization etc. I feel that, while this is the right move for the main text of the article, the table ought to reflect the official styling. I recognize that there is an on-point policy, but I think that policy does not squarely cover this situation or that this is otherwise not the sort of context where it is important to preserve traditional English spelling conventions. Thoughts? MrArticleOne (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)