Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject Golf
Main pages(edit · changes)
Main project talk
Golf portal talk
Article Assessment Statistics
Core Articles talk
  Members
  Requested Golf articles talk
Departments
Assessment
Outreach
Other
To-Do List
Recent Updates
Featured/Good Articles
Categories
Templates talk
Articles for Deletion talk

Welcome to the Wikiproject Golf talk page. This is the place for questions, answers, and telling the rest of the group some of your accomplishments. New members should put their name down in the appropriate spot on the main page. Comment away!

Contents

[edit] Starting off!

Sweet we have our first member after around an hour. Welcome Doug Bell! I'm going to add some of the {{Wikiproject Golf}} templates around the place for a while, and then see where we are. Grover 07:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Category

I've just started a new category Category:Wikiproject Golf articles to make it a bit easier. Every page that has the {{Wikiproject Golf}} template on it will be in this category. Grover 05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Category:WikiProject Golf articles, per conventions. -- Prove It (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feature Article

Hi all. I thought trying to get an article to featured article standards may enhance production here. The obvious article to try is Golf, but if there are any other suggestions, shoot away. Grover 09:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Jack Nicklaus? - • The Giant Puffin • 11:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the ball rolling! Yeah I did have a look at the page and there is a surprisingly small amount of information on arguably the best golfer ever. Grover 10:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any objections, so Jack Nicklaus it is. I've started working on it a bit, but its still a work in progress. I'll set up a to-do list on the talk page to show what I intend to do with it. Grover 04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok - • The Giant Puffin • 11:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
My request for a rating came back with a B rating - • The Giant Puffin • 11:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golf Course Notability

What guidelines should be in place for a golf course to be notable? For starters, I think:

  1. Has been a venue of a major tournament on either the PGA Tour, the LPGA Tour, or the Champions Tour.
  2. Golf courses on the Top 100 Golfers Digest list.

Time for a discussion! Grover 02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Grover's criteria. I think courses played in Ryder Cup or Presidents Cup competitions should be notable as well (like Robert Trent Jones Golf Club). Also, to expand your idea Grover, I think courses from Golf Magazine's Top 100 You Can Play and Golf Digest's 100 Greatest Public Courses should be notable.
-Heatfan55 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

On this basis there are no notable courses outside North America apart from Open Championship, Senior British Open, Women's British Open, Ryder Cup and Presidents Cup venues! And there is one notable course in Continental Europe, one in Australasia, one in Africa, none in Asia (half the world!) and none in Latin America. Mowsbury 15:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mowsbury... the criteria are okay for a start, but I think many, many more golf courses are notable without meeting these criteria. Those are probably more the courses we should make sure have articles, but I wouldn't use that as a criteria for deletion.
As a start, I would add courses used by the European Tour, Ladies European Tour, and probably other professional world tours. Additionally, courses used for major amateur events should also be included -- anything used for a USGA tournament (like the U.S. Amateur), or The Amateur Championship (a.k.a British Amateur). There was a time when those were considered the most important tournaments, and courses were chosen accordingly. The Eisenhower Trophy and Espirito Santo Trophy events are held around the world, often at interesting courses not represented on regular tours -- those should be added as well.
Furthermore, there are probably courses that are important in their region, even if not used to hold national tournaments. Other courses may be important for their history or architecture (for example, the first golf course in a country). There are probably very few course articles I would delete out of hand... I would use these criteria more to get a list of articles which should be written rather than a list to be deleted. Good to have a discussion though ;-) Carl Lindberg 22:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mowsbury, I was simply adding two ideas about golf course notability. Interpreting my comments by saying "on this basis there are no notable courses outside North America apart from...(a few)" is absurd. I thought this section was for listing ideas about golf course notability. I can't list them all. Carl's points are very relevant to this discussion. This is a list of ideas about courses to be added (not deleted)!!!! -Heatfan55 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest your contribution wasn't well meant, but it is annoying when Americans forget about the existence of the rest of the world, which they seem to do most of the time. Mowsbury 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I agree with that statement 100%! Just be glad that you don't have to deal with people who hold this narrow perspective on a daily basis. But that is a discussion for another place and time. :) Heatfan55 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, just quickly this golfing link is a fantastic idea and i am a huge supporter of what you guys are trying to do. i actually help run the largest amateur tournament in Australia the master of the amateurs. This is another tournament we can add in. is there anything articles i can help put in to help increase global attention to the golfing world? cheers

[edit] WP:GOLF

WP:GOLF now redirects here as a shortcut - • The Giant Puffin • 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to talk about the game of golf. I have been drawn to this page by the unwanted inference in the affairs of the sport of Park Golf. For too long Parkers have lived in the shadow of the more mainstream game. I hereby declare the independence of the sport of Park Golf, and announce my intention to unite with fellow Parkers in opposing any interference in our beloved sport. We should have the right to govern our own wikipedia page, away from the shadow of a taskforce that is simply the trojan horse of the game of non-Park Golf. Parkers the world over aspire to develop their sport in a way that they alone see fit. They demand independence. Vive la revolution! Vive la park golf!(PS. I am aware that the French refer to non-Park Golf as le golf, however the Park Golf Governing Council have instructed French Parkers to refer to their game as "la Parc Golf", in a move that is designed to demonstrate our new found freedom and independence). You know like Korea and Corea and that whole thing innit?!

Playing golf in the park is illegal - • The Giant Puffin • 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Looks like Park Golf has it's own page afterall: Park_golf

[edit] Golf shafts

Please, someone check Golf shafts and rewrite if necessary. Thanks. Carlosguitar 17:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow thats a mess, I'll read through it see if I can change it a bit, but its really in need of a complete rewrite - • The Giant Puffin • 10:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Definately needs a re-write, theres no references for the material in there, and the structure is terrible. I'll see what I can do as well. Grover 11:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standardizing winners board

If I might suggest: I've just been through the articles on the majors, and I've noticed that each one has a completely different board on for the list of winners, also displaying different information — in some cases, lacking clearly, such as the board of winners for The Masters, which doesn't lists the venues. I would suggest standardizing this, possibly by creating a standard template for winners' boards to be used on all articles on golf tournaments. Of course, that entails the task of researching some of the information missing, and standardizing the form of display of other relevant pieces of information (such as the winning score, which shows in different formats in 3 of the 4 articles I saw).
Right off the bat, I could suggest that we not use an entire column to display the winner's nationality: simply place the flagicon next to the winner's name, like it is done in other similar boards, for other sporting events — that would save valuable space that could be used for columns containing relevant information that really can't be otherwise displayed. Just my two cents. Redux 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Masters is always played at the same course (Augusta National) ;-) Not much need for a column to say that. Each event can have its own characteristics that make a slightly different format a bit preferable. Putting the flag alongside the winner can save some space, but it can be nice to spell out the country too (some of the flags aren't too recognizable at that size) depending on room available. I've done some winners tables for some of the amateur championships and others for team events and tried to follow mostly the same format for each style of tournament, but it's not always easy. Some of the data is more easily available for some tournaments over others as well, making it hard to provide the same info for all the tournaments. The score format may be nice to standardize though. Carl Lindberg 05:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, my bad about the Masters! A "venue" column there would indeed be a waste of space! ;-) I suppose the best to do would be to determine what kind of information would be interesting to have in all instances, and standardize the form in which they are presented, and even the order in which they appear on the board. I suppose data such as "venue" (except for The Masters!!), "winning score" and perhaps even a piece of information that is currently being shown in only one of the tables, which is the "margin" of victory, would all be interesting to have. About the flags, I suppose that for those golf tournaments the spelling out of countries, and the question of whether or not certain flags are recognizable, becomes sort of moot, since the United States has most of the winners, by far (so the list for "country" becomes a repetition of the country's name, really), with sporadic wins by players from a limited number of countries, most of which I suppose are easily identified by the flag's image (Australia, South Africa, England, Scotland, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Spain), not to mention that, when one hovers the cursor over the flag image, a box displays the information "flag of <country>". Redux 13:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been creating and/or updating all the LPGA Tour event pages and working on this since last season. You might check out the format for the winner's tables on some of these pages, for example the LPGA Championship or the Sybase Classic. I've been trying to standardize the winner's tables for all events, to include: year (linking to year in golf, not just linking the year straight), name, country, score, venue, purse, winner's share. There's plenty of room for all this info and I think having both the flag and the country name is informative.. The hover feature also does not work in all browsers or platforms. In most cases this info is available so it makes sense to include it all. I've been working on this since last season. I think it makes sense to standardize these results tables for all the tours, mens and womens, if possible. Crunch 21:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty good basic template. It seems to me the parts that take up by far the most room are the location, and also when the specific golf course is specified (for clubs that have more than one course). For the normal tour events where the location does not change every year, this can generally be described in the article text and need not take up room in the table. For many of the major tournaments which don't have a specific location, this can be more problematic as it is interesting to see where it is played each year. I'm generally inclined to leave out the course information, as it takes up a lot of room and is usually better discussed on the golf club articles themselves, but there are some tournaments where many of the club articles do not exist. For the Solheim Cup I tried putting the location on a second line under the course, as that table tended towards a two-line format anyways, but that is probably excessive for annual tournaments. It's possible the location is best served by leaving it out, and just having links to the clubs which presumably have the location. The spelled-out country uses up comparatively little room and as mentioned I much prefer having it. Not all tournaments are played in the U.S., and foreign tournaments tend to have a much wider range of nationalities represented. Carl Lindberg 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kobe Golf Club

I recently created an article on the Kobe Golf Club, the first golf course in Japan. I took the liberty of tagging it as a golf stub, and since I'm more familiar with Japan than golf, any help you could provide in expanding the article would be most appreciated. The same goes for Arthur Hasketh Groom, the founder of Kobe Golf Club. -- Exitmoose 01:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Nicklaus on hold

The Jack Nicklaus article is on hold for GA status because it needs some referencing improvements. Details are on the talk page. Any help would be appreciated - • The Giant Puffin • 22:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A few ideas

I've been looking around at some other wikiprojects lately for a few ideas that would be good for our WikiProject. I would love some feedback on these ideas.

  • As well as the newsletter, a welcome message for new members and a message used for invitations to join.
  • After the Jack Nicklaus article reaches featured status (hopefully :)), I think it would be good for our project to hold a "Collaboration of the Month" or something of the nature. It would let us improve more articles in a shorter amount of time.
  • This may be more in the future than now because this is more of a small WikiProject at the moment, but it would be great if we could start assessing articles. This would be a big step forward for the project.

Again, I would love some feedback, and new, innovative ideas we could add. Grover 07:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

All those suggestions sound good, especially the Collaboration of the Month. It would help us improve specific articles more quickly. But, as you have mentioned, this would be more effective once we have more members of the project. The welcome message, however, could be started as soon as possible in theory. - • The Giant Puffin • 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint George's Hill

Maybe someoen will be interested in developing this article Saint George's Hill === Vernon White (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryder Cup articles now complete

I was surprised to see that we only had articles for the 2006, 2004 and 1999 Ryder Cups, so I spent some time in the past couple of days to create the rest. (see category:Ryder Cup) They all have complete results, using the same formatting style as the original three articles, but not much else. What they need is some interesting prose added to them - there are tons of great Ryder Cup stories that we need to get into Wikipedia. I have included three different references with each article, so hopefully that will make it easier to write something by paraphrasing and not incurring any copyright violations. Hope this helps your Wikiproject! Andrwsc 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow these are really good. Great job! Grover 07:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Good job, we were seriously lacking in Ryder Cup articles past the recent ones - • The Giant Puffin • 17:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my thanks... great job on these. I've added a couple of minor notes and logos to a couple of them, and hopefully they will fill out in time. Since you seem to have a template down... want to take a crack at similar pages for the Presidents Cup? ;-) Carl Lindberg 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Golf Tournament

I have made this template but it doesn't seem to work, if anyone can fix it and get it to work i would be extremely grateful. - Bones999 (talk) 18:36 , 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the template now so please add it to all the relevant pages. Bones999 (talk) 18:51 , 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I think I would remove the major championships section, as that is specific to the tour and probably better served by the tour templates at the bottom of the page. That would allow this template to be used for LPGA, LET, etc. tournaments as well. It may also be a good idea to add the format of the tournament (54 and 90 hole tournaments exist, and a few are match play instead of stroke play). A field for purse may be good too. But very good start... it's long overdue. Carl Lindberg 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This will come in useful, good job - • The Giant Puffin • 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a great start. I'd suggest adding the majors for the other main tours: LPGA, Champions Tour at least. It seems odd to have a heading "Tour" at the top and then have the majors only for one of the tours. As it is, we can't really use it for anything other than PGA Tour events. Or, as Carl Lindberg suggested, just remove the Major section, which would make it more universal. We already have the tour templates for the bottom of the pages, so this is redundant. Crunch 12:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion: Instead of the Defunct category, which people might just fill in Yes or No, why don't you call this, Ended: and it can be left either blank or filled in with a year. "Defunct" is kind of a vague term. Crunch 12:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wikiproject Golf

I think you should add a rating parameter to the templates like there are on other templates, i would add it myself but i feel it should be discussed first. (talk) 16:26 , 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment and Sidebar

Two things I need to bring up.

  1. There is a new assessment department for the project. Thanks to everyone who was involved with both converting the template and creating and co-ordinating the articles.
  2. I have experimented with a sidebar which i've put on the main project page. It is only a prototype, and im not sure if it is put onto the page in the right way. If anyone could help with this I hope it will be looking alot better very soon and be appearing on all the project's pages.
  3. And also one more thing. I'm sorry the newsletter didn't get out this month, I was too busy with schoolwork and 'real life'. The newsletter should be up and running next month.

Grover 12:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it is neccesary for the project to have high mid and low importance parameters in regard to assessment. The "top" grading can be kept, for the core articles list, but I don't think the rest are needed. What does everyone think? Grover 03:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rules of golf

I certainly agree to Alexander Phipps that there should be a section that should be included in this article, Rules of golf, outlining the very Basic Rules of Golf such as the 18-Holes, the Four-Player Limit, Teeing and Putting, Play the Golf Ball as it Lies, Ball Marking, the Flagstick, Obstructions, Loose Impediments, Playing the Wrong ball, and others. Furthermore, a section should also be included discussing the Scoring system of golf. Bu b0y2007 04:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging Articles

I've just asked Snowolf if he could get his bot Snowbot to tag talk pages with the {{Wikiproject Golf}}. All he now needs is verification that this is what we want to do. Is this ok for everyone? Grover 10:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Should be ok, it would be quicker than manually looking for articles - • The Giant Puffin • 09:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club

Greetings, I'm not a member of your project, but I recently started an article on the above Golf Club (after I made a new infobox that I think works better than the Club box). But I am not a golfer, so I was wondering if someone could take a look and make sure everything looks OK before I move on to create other notable courses in Oregon. Thanks. Aboutmovies 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note left on talk page. Grover 12:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golfer Infoboxes

Ok this should be sorted out soon before more and more infoboxes are put in articles. There are currently two different types of golfer infoboxes used on articles. See Jack Nicklaus and Greg Norman. The one on the Greg Norman page is the standard one, and has been agreed on by another wikiproject, WikiProject Golfers. The other, on the Jack Nicklaus page, is not actually a template as yet. Although I believe that this template looks much better, and holds much more information, some have raised the concern that it is too big, as infoboxes should be a short summary of the player. I'm hopeful for some sort of concensus on this issue. Please, even if you are glancing through the talk page, take 2 minutes to look at the two articles and come to a decision, or make a comment here. Grover 10:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I like the look of the new (Jack Nicklaus) infobox but agree that it needs to be re-programmed to be a true template and shortened, so I suggest the following:
  1. program the "Jack Nicklaus" template so it's a true Wikipedia template.
  2. remove the Best Finishes in Majors Heading and just have a Major Wins heading that shows major wins only
  3. clarify what Professional Wins means. I think it's sufficient to just a total number including on all tours. (as Grover mentioned, the info box is just a summary) --Crunch 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I modified the infobox on the Jack Nicklaus page slightly, making it more compact. Tell me what you think. Grover 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's a good start. A few suggestions: We can probably do without the "weight" field, because it fluctuates a lot and is also not reported for a lot of golfers (notably women). Case in point -- see the photo of Jack Nicklaus and then the stated weight of 185 lbs. Something is not accurate there. (He looks closer to 200 IMHO). Also, is there a way to not have the tours and major wins in parentheses? I think it would be cleaner and easier to read that way? Thanks for working on this. --Crunch 12:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed that one way to reduce the size of this template is to reduce the size of the image. This template on other pages doesn't look almost as big as the Jack Nicklaus one because their images are much smaller. Anyway I experimented with a smaller image size but it made the image harder to see. SO if someone has Photoshop or something and can crop the image suitably to only include his head that would be fantastic. The image URL is Image:JackNicklaus.jpg And in regard to your comments above, i'm still thinking of a way to remove those parentheses, and yes, I think the weight field needs to go. Grover 12:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Can't you just also use the tag "Image:whoever.jpg|150px|center" to size an images to the whatever size you want -- in this case 150 pixels? --Crunch 12:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah I did try that but I think it made the picture unsuitably too small to look at. So if someone could crop it to include only the top half, the image would be much smaller but still visible and easy to see. Grover 06:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I also prefer the Jack Nicklaus style box. I also don't think it's all that big -- compare the {{Infobox NFL player}} template -- but horizontal aspect pictures would definitely fit better and use less space. A few other thoughts though:
  1. I also agree the weight field should be eliminated.
  2. We should have a line that indicates World Golf Hall of Fame members. I like the way the NFL template mentioned above does it; we could have a wghof_id parameter which could be used to construct a URL to their WGHOF profile (In Nicklaus' case, 1086).
  3. To make the current design a real wiki template, I think each major would need to be its own parameter, so we can create the columns correctly. We would also need parameters for LPGA, LET, and senior majors. Should senior majors be a different section, or should we just have one "Major championships" section? Also, for amateur golfers, should we show U.S. Amateur and British Amateur wins as majors?
  4. I almost don't want to bring this up since it's often a contentious issue, but should the label be "British Open" or "The Open"? Or, should we allow it to be different based on the nationality of the player (the way I usually treat it in the regular wiki text; use British Open for US-based articles and The Open for UK-based articles). If we go the latter way (my preference), we could have different parameters (e.g. "britishopen_wins" and "open_wins") so the label can be different for each.
  5. Nicklaus is a special case, since he won so many things. Most golfers though only have 1-2 major wins, so with the current design you would have a section heading with only one or two rows underneath, and the right-hand side would be mostly whitespace (just one year listed). This may be be all that bad, but I would make sure the tournament title does not wrap; i.e. use "PGA" instead of "PGA Championship", as that creates even more whitespace. Either that or let each line use the full width of the box, but that would look worse on Nicklaus' page (though perhaps for him we could put the years on an indented second line).
  6. Similarly, I think the Awards section should be a freeform text area that can take the full width of the box. The values can use the "br" HTML tag to create new lines between awards. Most golfers only win awards once or twice, so the full width should be used for the name of the award, and not the years won. Also, there are so many different awards between all the tours that creating individual parameters for them is too much. Carl Lindberg 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for not being a part of this discussion for so long. I just graduated high school though, so now I have the summer to do some happy editing. I think it is inevitable that the infobox formats will differ for certain golfers because of how much they have or have not won in their careers. I'll be back tomorrow to make some proper suggestions. Supertigerman 05:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I changed the Byron Nelson page format for the time being. I truly believe that all 4 major championships should be represented in the infobox, just as all 4 are represented in the tennis infobox. This way, people can see the best finish in each major easily and do not have to scroll down and decipher the results timeline. On Nelson's page the word Won is bolded, along with the number of wins in that major. The major which he has not won, lists his best performance and the year. What do you think of this format?

There are 3 categories of golfers with respect to performance in Major Championships:

  1. Those who have achieved the Career Grand Slam
  2. Those who have won at least 1 major but not all
  3. Those who have played in majors but never won

I feel the infoboxes will have to differ for each. Take Jack Nicklaus. Notice the heading of the section on his page simply states "Major Championship Wins (18)" because he has won them all. For the 5 players who have achieved the career grand slam, I would suggest that their headings be "Major Championship Wins (# of wins)". For those who have won at least 1 major, but not all, have a two-line heading, the first: "Best Results in Major Championships" and the second: Wins (#of wins). For the third category of golfers, there would be a one-line heading: "Best Results in Major Championships", and the result and the years would be below for all 4 majors. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Supertigerman 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm borderline on listing all the majors. I can see the tennis template having them, because it is constantly mentioned if a player has made the quarter/semi/finals of any of the majors, whereas for golfers the difference of finishing 4th or 5th or 18th is pretty much never mentioned, so it doesn't seem (for most golfers) worthy of taking up a lot of room in an infobox. Furthermore, tennis has a nice situation where the men's and women's majors are the same, so the same template can easily be used for both. The same is not true at all for golf, making it very difficult to have a true templatized version of this.
On the other hand, the number of majors won is constantly mentioned for golfers. I think it would be far simpler, and avoid lots of problems, if we just have a single line under the "Career" section mentioning the number of majors (separate parameters for men's and women's majors so we can link the label right). We could have an additional line for senior majors won. The show-all-majors format looks good for Nicklaus but almost no others, at least to me. I also don't like two-line section headers, which is being used to show the total majors won in some cases. I prefer the sections toward the bottom of the page showing the player's finish in all majors, which at a glance give a great overview of which majors were won, when the golfer was at their peak, how often they were in contention, etc.
Your three categories above are also missing 4) golfers who predate some of the modern majors, 5) amateur golfers, and 6) women's versions of all of the above who have a completely different set of tournaments.  ;-) Trying to make a template which can fit all of the above while having the behavior you want is probably impossible, and even if it is the template code would likely be unreadable. The more I think about it, simplicity is probably the better course... Carl Lindberg 05:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I definitely think that the infobox should be adapted to better incorporate the majors and awards sections, but it is probably not necessary to include the best results in majors for players that have not won the career grand slam. I think separate headings for majors and awards would be a good idea, and you only need to fill in the ones that player has actually won. This should mean that it is not a problem that women golfers have different majors from men because you just fill in the ones that are relevant. There is no need to overcomplicate the infobox, but if we want one standard infobox to be used for all golfers I think there has to be a slight change so that infoboxes for players who have won multiple majors or awards are not too clustered. Christophee 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Question

I doubt if I'm allowed to do this or if I'm even going to get any support but I'm asking anyway. I've recently found a well-organized but deserted wiki that was attempting to create a directory of golf courses. I'm sure everyone here has no interest in helping with such a thing while focusing on this, but if anyone is, please leave a message here and I'll send you the site link. 72.79.34.176 20:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I dont speak so much English what es golf

Can someone tell me please--Wayne Neptune 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Would Like to join.

I would love to join this project because i have played golf all my life, but i don't know how or where to join. Would somebody please help me.

--Metalasis 21:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! Simply added your name to this list. I look forward to seeing you edit! Supertigerman 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July Newsletter?

It seems there's no July newsletter. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep I haven't gotten around to it this time. I'll give you a yell sometime next month if next months issue will be done. Thanks Grover 10:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AT&T National

New Wiki editor, so I'm not sure about this, but should the AT&T National still be listed as a "Future Sporting event" page, since it is now in progress? 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the "purse" bullet in the tournament infoboxes, would it not look better to insert a space between "US" and "$", before the purse amount? Just a thought. 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pebble Beach

I've made substantial edits to Pebble Beach Golf Links and would love it if someone would look it over. I borrowed the info box from the article on Pumpkin Ridge - I think that's a nice thing to have on all pages. I'd like to see a "signature holes" section and small recaps of significant tournaments on course pages, but I haven't read any of your discussions on these things (just discovered this WikiProject yesterday). I left the Scorecard section alone, but I have mixed feelings about that. One, the format of the table at, for example Pumpkin Ridge is much nicer, but two, scorecards change every year and I'm not sure how useful it is to have them on course pages here. (I imagine this is being debated?) I have a book on Oak Hill and may make that my next project, so feedback on what I did to Pebble Beach welcome. SJS1971 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - I removed the stub categorization on the Pebble Beach article and upgraded it from Stub class to Start class. Someone with more experience may want to revise or revert this. SJS1971 16:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our Pace Of Play - Is This WikiProject Stalling?

Seems like there haven't been a lot of posts here lately. I've gotta think that a project about golf should be very active. Anyway, I'm new, and I'll add little bits here and there. Pages I've created/added to: 1982 U.S. Open Golf Championship, 1986 Masters Tournament, and Pebble Beach Golf Links. Yep, I'm cherry picking the big ones to start on, but I figure that's the way to keep my enthusiasm at the beginning. Next up: 2000 PGA Championship, of course. SJS1971 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

We are certainly not stalling. We are constantly updating pages and especially Michfan2123 has been very active recently. We are adding the new golfer infobox, major championship results timelines, and new templates (which I'm sure you've noticed on many pages) to several golfers' articles. Here is a sample of the many new templates in Wikiproject Golf:
In addition, Hietanbs among others has been creating pages for past major championships. As you can see, we are very active, but simply do not post much on the actual WP pages. Check our talk pages for more information.
Supertigerman (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds great! I'll be sure to check out the talk pages. I would encourage everyone to also keep this page going though, because you may lose newcomers like me if it isn't obvious where the WP:golf guys are hiding out. I'd seen talk on this page of welcome messages and newsletters and got worried that people were running out of steam. I have already noticed your work Supertigerman, and am glad to see WP:golf is going strong. SJS1971 21:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disc golf

Does this project cover or intend to cover disc golf? If not, please remove the project tag from talk pages of bios in Category:American disc golfers (may be renamed to Category:Flying disc players, since there is not justification for game- and country-specific subcats yet). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think this project should not attempt to cover disc golf - they are completely different games with only superficial similarities. Other thoughts? SJS1971 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golf course architect

Someone should start an article for golf course architect, golf course design and golf course designer. They are currently all redirects. --evrik (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New European Tour Templates

I have recently created two new templates relating to the European Tour. They are Template:European Tour Order of Merit winners and Template:Sir Henry Cotton Rookies of the Year. I was hoping that you guys could help me by adding these templates to the relevant golfers' articles. Thank you. Christophee 00:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goals

Golf
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1
Featured list FL 1 1
A 2 2
Good article GA 2 2
B 16 7 8 13 44
Start 46 47 192 459 178 922
Stub 9 13 142 972 363 1499
List 8 8 18 11 45
Assessed 84 75 361 1455 541 2516
Unassessed 2 875 877
Total 84 75 363 1455 1416 3393

Grovermj sent me this: "I thought that a way to further improve the golf articles on Wikipedia is for the whole project to work together towards a goal. An example of this could be a certain number of good articles in so many months, or to create the project's first ever featured article. If you are interested, come to the talk page and discuss it. And hopefully through this the project can continue to work towards several goals in the near future."

I agree with him, we should make an article like Jack Nicklaus featured or work on making articles better. Anyone have any thoughts? michfan2123 14:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. An important golf article like Jack Nicklaus needs to be featured. I suppose all of our Top and High priority articles need to be of GA or FA status - • The Giant Puffin • 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I think we should have the general golf article featured also. Mets 15:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am currently tagging unassessed stub articles as stubs. If I am not sure of an article's status, I skip it, I am trying to bring down the unassessed number. michfan2123 15:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should focus on Jack Nicklaus to become a featured article. We could maybe focus on different golfer every two or three months. Eddie6705 17:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the Top importance golf articles should be the primary focus to become featured articles. Jack Nicklaus would be the most logical choice, since he is to date the greatest golfer of all time. I admit I get a little jealous of the other sports when I see that Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky, the greatest in their respective sports, are featured articles. Supertigerman 19:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to both improve the Jack Nicklaus article to featured status and bring down the unassessed number, maybe to 60% by the end of the month. Hopefully we can get the first featured article for golf on Wikipedia! Grover 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is time for the golf editors to get together and take steps to get one of our articles to featured status. I wholeheartedly agree that Jack Nicklaus is the right choice. That article is in better shape than Palmer or Player. If we select one of the games old legends (Snead, Hogan or Nelson) the research is too difficult. If we select someone whose story is being written contemporaneously like Tiger, then the constant stream of new edits will complicate things.--Hokeman 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Another option is to fill in the many voids (especially courses) and write decent start-length articles which can be featured at T:DYK, with the Golf banner on the talk page - it may increase the prominence of this project. I wrote one recently, Fightmaster Cup, which needs banners etc. :) But yes, a FA would be fantastic for the project. Daniel 06:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think so far that these are all good ideas. My personal focus in this project has to date been focused on articles that appeal to current or prospective players such as the main Golf article, golf course, rules articles and equipment articles. These are areas which, IMO, need very little to achieve GA status, and I would appreciate input from anyone with a similar focus. In equipment especially, the only additions generally required are external refs and a few images. There are some reorgs still going on in some pages, and I would greatly appreciate input or assistance on these. Liko81 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok so I guess that improving Jack Nicklaus is a popular choice. Maybe the best way to improve it would be to use the peer review and check off things that have been done/dont need to be done etc. I think it's also worthwhile to create an article for T:DYK, and I have one in mind for this, The Australian Golf Club. Finally, i've been working on the Golf article for the last week or so, and it is very close to WP:GA status, I think. But, one thing at a time :)
Grover 00:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with this. My focus so far has been creating and expanding articles on LPGA tournaments, current and historical, and secondarily on LPGA players, current and historical. This is a big need because in some cases the information is not available in any unified place anywhere else in print or online. Wikipedia can turn out to be the best source for this information. But I support working to get Jack Nicklaus to featured status. It probably has the best chance. --Crunch (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

I was updating the European Tour template and i saw that some of the tournaments dont have inboxes. Should they? if so i'm willing to make them. Eddie6705 (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, absolutely go for it. There's an infobox for them, {{Infobox Golf Tournament}}. Thanks for taking the initiative! Grover (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 OMEGA Mission Hills World Cup

What do you guys think? 2007 OMEGA Mission Hills World Cup michfan2123 (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. Could a section on qualifying be added? Eddie6705 (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD: Toronto Golf Club

The above-noted article has been nominated for deletion. Please offer your opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto Golf Club. PKT (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The article has been kept Grover (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Australian Golf Club

I've just created the article The Australian Golf Club, and put it up for T:DYK. Hopefully it gets through! Grover (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And its on the main page! Watch out for vandalism in the next 6 or so hours. Grover (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Year Resolutions

My personal new year resolutions for Wikipedia are:

  1. Finish assessing all our articles by halfway through next month, then tag some more! :)
  2. Get Golf to WP:GA status by about the same time, and continue to roll out good articles, like Arnold Palmer, Johnny Miller and Ben Hogan, for example.

What are everyones goals for the new year? Grover (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

My personal goals are to start bio pages for every golfer who won at least one PGA Tour event in the 1950s and 1960s (1970-2007 is complete); and to start pages for former PGA Tour events held in the 1950s and 1960s (1970-2007 is complete).--Hokeman (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to get a page up for every LPGA event that ever took place. However, since the pages I'm creating here are better than the records the LPGA has, this is a daunting task. --Crunch (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New announcement

I am pleased to announce that every golfer who won a PGA Tour event since 1970 now has a page in Wikipedia; also every current and former PGA Tour event played since 1970 now has a page in Wikipedia.--Hokeman (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow well done! Thats a really good effort. Keep up the good work! :) Grover (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golfer Infobox

I've started trying to convert the infobox, which is now on alot of pages, into an actual standardised template. I've started in userspace, any help would be appreciated, because i've never used the more technical, harder stuff before. Grover (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Open Championship venues at WP:FLC

Someone's nominated this after a few days work on it. Comments and help on improving the article would be appreciated. Grover (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All WP: Golf articles assessed

YES!!! michfan2123 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! We've done well :) Grover (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten a bot to tag every page in Category:Golf, so the unassessed number has gone from 0 to up above 1000 again :). Sorry to "revert" your hard work hehe, but it had to be done sometime. :) Grover (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seve Ballesteros at WP:GA

After some work i've nominated Seve Ballesteros for good article status. I'm 99% sure that it's ready, as it is fully referenced (apart from one tag which i'll fix tomorrow) and is fairly complete. Since the WP:GAC process is extremely backlogged, there is alot of time to improve the article more. On that note, I think some of us should contribute to that backlog, it is pretty big, especially in the sports section, and it'll have the added advantage of getting Seve reviewed much quicker :) Grover (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

And Failed Grovermj 10:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 in Golf

For the section on tour leaders, is this just for the end of the season or can it be updated weekly to show the current leaders? Eddie6705 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to 2008 in golf. This article is intended to be a record of events that happened in golf in 2008, so the Tour leaders are the leaders as of the end of the season. --Crunch (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know but can i update it now, such as put Lee Westwood as leader of the European Tour? Eddie6705 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the idea is that it's a record of how things turned out at the end of the year. The concern about putting the current leaders is that it would have to be kept current with the current leaders for all of the tours as they continually change. I'm not sure there are people who can do this. You might have the leader of the Eueropean Tour or of the PGA but who wants to keep it current with the leader of the Futures Tour or of the Sunshine Tour? --Crunch (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well i don't mind keeping them all up to date. The only one i can see a problem with is the LPGA tour of Japan. Eddie6705 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, Eddie, I don't think you're understanding what the article 2008 in golf is all about. It's an historical record of what happened in golf in 2008. Not a play-by-play. Putting in the current leaders as they change makes no more sense than putting in round-by-round leaders in a tournament and changing it each day of the tournament. Please do not change the purpose of the article. If you want to create another article "Current Professional Golf Tour Leaders" that might be great. In fact, maybe you could make a navigation template box out of it. I will add an introduction to all the "years in golf" articles to clarify their purpose because apparently it is not clear. Thank you for understanding. --Crunch (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another try at re-energising this project

I'd like to propose a GA "contest". It would run over 2-3 months, and the editors with the most good articles created by the end of the timespan would get an award. This would serve to increase the output of the project by introducing some friendly competition. What are your thoughts? (if anyone is listening :P) Grovermj 08:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'm listening! I like the idea of re-energizing the project, but "editors with the most good articles?" How many articles do we even have rated "good?" I've probably worked on more articles than anyone here and most of mine just get rated "start" or "importance=low" or "stub class" even when they're pretty complete. I've single-handedly created the entire Futures Tour article base (more complete than anything the Futures Tour itself has) and am working on articles for every LPGA Tournament that ever existed -- again more data than the LPGA itself provides. Maybe it's because the emphasis seems to be on working on article on focusing on prominent male PGA golfers, dead or alive, while I've been working on articles on current tournaments and a lot of women's tournaments and female players (esp. LPGA). Maybe the best way to get excitements about this project is to expand the notion that golf means more than just Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. Some people might like to focus on articles on tournaments, on courses, on equipment, on international tours, on women's golf, on college golf, etc. Let's not discourage that. That's my two cents. --Crunch (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I can see your point. Good articles are just what I do, so I thought that might be a way. Your right, we need something that everyone enjoys doing, i'm just not sure what that is. A bit earlier I tried this before, and it was suggested that we improve Jack Nicklaus to featured status, but absolutely nothing (correct me if im wrong) came of it. Grovermj 09:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Jack Nicklaus effort was noble, but, really, if people are not interested in Jack because they'd rather write about an active player or write about a tournament or a course or a player or event on another tour, that should be encouraged, too. I think we also should re-evaluate what makes a "good" article in this project. Who's doing the evaluating and what are the criteria? There seems to be a bias in evaluating the articles toward biographies of "name" golfers (Nicklaus, Sorenstam, Woods, Wie), even though some of the bios of lesser-known players are just as good quality, it's just that the players are not as famous or accomplished. This does not make the articles any less good. And articles about tournaments or courses or other things related to golf seem to be routinely ranked down. Any clarification on that? --Crunch (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
By "good" I mean getting the article through the good article process (good article candidates), kind of like the featured article process. There are criteria listed at WP:WIAGA. It just so happens that alot of the tournament and golf course articles are quite short and lack references. I'm actually trying to improve The Masters Tournament to good article status, giving the project its first tournament good article. So at the moment the only reason the tournament and course articles are ranked lower at the moment is because they are actually not as complete and referenced. Hope that clears it up :) Grovermj 07:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what good article means and what the process is. My question was not with Wikipedia's criter for a Good article but with this Project's criteria for what articles are deemed suitable for working on to elevate to that level. A lot of articles would be close to Good level, for example, simply with the addition of some references, an infobox, or properly-tagged images. I don't think we can ever get a group together to work on one article but it would be good to get a varied list of articles that are close to being at the Good level so members can choose the ones they want to work on. Make sense? --Crunch (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It definately makes sense. It's a shame that alot of the tournament, golf course and lesser known player articles havent been worked on as much, but I think this is a case of a lack of references in comparison to articles like Jack Nicklaus, or just that the editor knows the subject better. My proposal at the start, or a variation of it, agrees with you in that it allows editors to choose articles of their liking and improve them. If it happens to be one on Ben Hogan or Arnold Palmer for example, so be it. Grovermj 03:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I've been focusing on documenting things here on Wikipedia that haven't been documented anywhere else. I think that's a good thing. For that reason I'm spending a lot of time creating articles on, for example, Futures Tour events or obscure golf courses that once upon a time hosted a PGA event. It's a lot of extra work to add the references etc. that would get these up to Good status. I don't expect that a lot of other people would care to devote that amount of time. --Crunch (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Which leaves us with the challenge of finding something that will "re-energise" the project, improve Wikipedia's coverage of golf, and at the same time something that editors will be wanting to do. I'm not sure what to do. What do you think? Grovermj 08:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, does anyone have any ideas?? Grovermj 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What sport is it?

In this article: [1] I noticed it doesn't even mention what sport is being written about. Even if it is obvious it should be stated at the beginning of the article. The word "golf" never appears in this article. It only shows up at the very bottom under "categories". The same holds true for the other years of the President's Cup, but the word "golf" only appears in the name of the "Golf Club" where the tournament was played and never states it is the sport of golf being written about. Just thought you might want to know this. Honestly I am not a golf fan and did not know what the President's Cup was and could not tell the subject was golf until I saw a few names I recognized like Jack Nicholas and Tiger Woods. Thanks for your attention in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.203.52.46 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent developments in golf equipment

I would like to add a section about the recent developments in golf equipment and their affect on the game of golf. Along with this, I would like to include information about the regulations that the USGA and the R&A have imposed on driver technology and the characteristics of golf balls. I am wondering if anyone has any sugguestions on what would be the best article to add this section to. I was thinking either the "golf equipment" article or the equipment development section of the "history of golf" article. Please feel free to give any other suggestions on what you think would make this section more useful.Techwriter32 (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incentive

The Florida Gators Barnstar
For good and thorough work pertaining to articles about the Florida Gators.


[edit] WikiProject Golf: Articles of unclear notability

Hello,

there are currently 15 articles in the scope of this project which are tagged with notability concerns. I have listed them here. (Note: this listing is based on a database snapshot of 12 March 2008 and may be slightly outdated.)

I would encourage members of this project to have a look at these articles, and see whether independent sources can be added, whether the articles can be merged into an article of larger scope, or possibly be deleted. Any help in cleaning up this backlog is appreciated. For further information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Notability.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the Notability project page or on my personal talk page. (I'm not watching this page however.) Thanks! --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source request

I was updating the article on the ballistic pendulum, and ran across a couple of references to its use in late 19th/early 20th century golf research. In particular, the 1911 Britannica mentioned that physicist C. V. Boys used one to measure the elasticity of golf balls. I suspect the following things:

  • Those were early wound-rubber core balls he was testing
  • That he was using a ballistic pendulum to measure the momentum transfer between elastic and inelastic collisions, and comparing the difference to get information on the elasticity.

I would appreciate it if anyone could provide me with some more information on Boys' research; either a link to an online source (I found other mentions, but no additional data, with a Google book search) or, if you have a hardcopy resource, either a quick summary or e-mail me some scans I can use as a source. scot (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)