User talk:Wjemather/2023

Good spot with the Natal Open. Just reinforces my view that the least reliable source is that written by the person themselves (which is probably the case here). Apart from their most important wins, most pros have only the vaguest idea about what else they've won, especially the year. Nigej (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, indeed. Some players are less reliable than others, and unfortunately such errors that have been replicated (without verification) on WP have now permeated through into supposedly reliable sources. Many players only list their most important wins (and we end up discovering many more) but others list everything, however minor – and a very small number will claim wins they never had (e.g. claiming a win as the leading pro when an amateur actually won), or rarely they'll include an event they didn't even participate in! _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: With regards to Player's wins, I am finding no newspaper reports of a "Liquid Air Tournament" in 1963, only one in 1965 (won by Trevor Wilkes). Given everything Player won was reported by this time, could this be another "error" (or maybe a conflation with the "Sponsored 5000" held in Nov 1963 – as tournament sponsors names were often omitted from wire reports)? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My only thought is that it is reported here https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/104283201 that he won some money for the best combined score over the 3 grand prix events but whether that prize had a name (eg Liquid Air) I've not idea. Nigej (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: Could be. However, according to various sources, it would seem that the Grand Prix series (Durban, Cape Town, Joburg) was sponsored by Richelieu. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added an awards section for the Asian Tour i.e. Players' Player of the Year and Rookie of the Year awards. I've managed to find details as far back as 2002. There is a link to an article detailing 2001 awards here [web.archive.org/20020127051115/http://www.asianpgatour.com/] - "Thai star receives Asian Golfer of the Year Award". However the article link is invalid. Have you any ideas of where/which sources would give details of these awards from 1995-2001? Jimmymci234 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, archive.org is generally the best bet, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have been able to to save the AsianPGA newsfeeds, and these awards don't seem to be the kinds of things that were widely republished/reported elsewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See: https://www.yugc.co.uk/yorkshire-championship Nigej (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks. Knew there must be a list somewhere! _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the 1919 PGA Midland Section Victory Tournament in the Midland Challenge Cup article but whether that was a good idea I'm not sure. Probably an article on all the victory events would be a better way forward. Nigej (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: Yeah, it's probably not the ideal place for it. I was thinking the same – having an article on the PGA "Victory"/St Andrew's Tournament, i.e. split it out of the Daily Mail Tournament article, and then including a bit about all the regional qualifying tournaments may be best. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Apologies for the incorrect uploading of a new picture for the Irish golfer Shane Lowry. I am from Shane’s team and we’re wanting to update his very old image.

The photo was taken at the recent PGA Tour official headshot session, by Getty Images, and they have given Shane permission to use this image how he sees fit. Shane also has a long-time licensing agreement with Getty to use any of the images they take which he is included in.

what steps do I need to take to get this new headshot as his new permanent wiki picture?

thanks! ICANTSPECK (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ICANTSPECK: Unless the copyright holder (Jennifer Perez/PGA TOUR) releases it under an appropriate free license, it cannot be used here or uploaded to Commons. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy and Commons:Licensing for details. Regards, _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I have this link that says that Bob Shearer won the 1981 "Australasian Order of Merit" and Terry Gale finished in second. Not sure if it would be of any help.

Sincerely,

~~~~Oooglywoogly

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

According to this link the PGA Tour of Australia did not add New Zealand golf tournaments to their Order of Merit until 1981. It is from The Age, the top newspaper in Australia, and from a credible reporter, Trevor Grant. If you believe this information is accurate then I think we should modify 1970s wins tables for a number of players.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edits to the Halls Head Western Open. I noticed that you made some edits to sentences that were "editorialized." I was looking for advice about this issue as I often directly quote journalists. Could you lead me to the appropriate section in MOS about this matter?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether quoted or extrapolated from the source, or otherwise, phrases like "played too defensively", "lived up to expectations", "opened doors", "shocking performance", etc. are purely there for decoration, don't really add anything encyclopedic and are liable to contravene WP:NPOV (being an unbalanced opinion, and often based on emotion at the time of the event when from primary sources). As such we'd need a very good reason to include them. In general, we should stick simply to the basic facts; without added colour. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I've added brief potted biographies of Duncan and Richard to the Hedley Muscroft article. I'm thinking of creating redirects for the two sons to an appropriate section in the Hedley article, since I'm doubtful they're notable in their own right (marginal at best). Not something I've done before (I think). There is a {{R from relative}} which seems to indicate that this approach is acceptable. WP:BLARing is quite a frequent option when articles are deleted and this seems to lead to a similar situation. Any thoughts. Nigej (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I would do. I have been looking at various golfing families and was considering the same for many of them, with family articles if appropriate. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Masters Tournament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Putt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I noticed on Saturday that you reversed some of my edits re: mid-century British golfers. I'm fine with most of them but have a couple issues.

• I deleted a purse win by Dai Rees and you reverted this. Though there is a citation I thought we came to a consensus a couple years ago that purse wins should not be included in the Wins totals.
• I deleted three pro-am victories by Christy O'Connor Snr and you reverted them. You noted these were "different kinds of pro-ams." What is so special about them?

Any clarification would be helpful.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any discussion – do you have a link? Otherwise, I see no reason not to include the Pro Purse for Rees. Some pro-ams are proper 36 to 90-hole tournaments in their own right (Dunhill Links, Pebble Beach, etc.) and include an individual professional event, whereas others are simple pre-tournament 18-hole better-ball or team competitions. We generally include the former but not the latter. I'd also say that if an event is included on the player's WGHoF profile, we should probably not be excluding it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About a year and half or two years ago we had this discussion on the main talk page about what wins were permissible for inclusion. I believe we came to the conclusion that these tournaments should not be tabulated: pro-ams, club championship, schoolboy championships, purse wins, medalist honors at qualifying events, and trainee tournaments. I remember User: Nigej was involved and some other members. Nige, do you have access to this link? If not, I will go searching for it when I have more time tomorrow.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Ok, I've had a search and think you are probably referring to this discussion. If so, and as you noted yourself, there isn't really consensus for any kind removal of verifiable wins. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that discussion is relevant however I was thinking more of "legitimacy of skins games and qualifying events wins" under Archive #14. Also Archive #13 contains "Notability of early career wins" which is also relevant. In all cases, nonetheless, it looks like we have never come to a firm consensus.

I am open to both inclusion and exclusion of pro-ams and purse events though I think I lean a little more towards exclusion. I'm just not sure that every championship reported by a newspaper reporter is fundamentally notable. Including pro-am and purse wins could be seriously challenging for highly successful golfers as their pages could become cluttered with all these somewhat insignificant wins.

Nonetheless, I am open to both ideas. I think a good starting point would be to find out the notability of these wins within the context of Wikipedia's rules.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

What's the issue in using the common name (European Tour)? Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should used the current name when appropriate, and the common name otherwise. In this context, the current name seems most appropriate. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying you're wrong but we have consistently used and applied European Tour common naming throughout the project. Agreed upon two discussions [1] and [2], it just seems strange to me to use "DP World" naming here so prevalently, especially as the rest of the 2021–22 Sunshine Tour article uses European Tour naming. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the difference is between referring to specific seasons and referring to the tour as an entity in a more general context. Additionally, a significant period of time has elapsed since we had those discussions and DPWT has become commonplace in general reporting, and as such I would now probably lean towards renaming the relevant season articles accordingly – this would be inline with how the Ben Hogan/Nike/Nationwide/Web.com/Korn Ferry Tour articles are named; NB: this wouldn't affect the main article which is titled for the organisation rather than its principal tour. Personally, I continue to use ET in all contexts, but that should have no bearing on what we use here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying and it's kind of a tricky situation we're left in as effectively all reports are using DPWT name. I would hold back on the KFT comparison though as that tour has never had a common name and has always been sponsored. There isn't any current similar comparisons (I can think of) outside the Japan Challenge Tour, sponsor titled as AbemaTV Tour, but that gets so little coverage, there's no comparison to be made. Although I still find it interesting that their website is still europeantour.com. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wjemather,

Please do not draftify an article more than once or it becomes move-warring. An editor has the right to object to an article being moved to Draft space and revert the page move. At this point, you can help improve the article or, if you feel it is called for, use one of Wikipedia's deletion processes. Thank you for all of your contributions! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am not sure who you are or why you delete contributions, but I have followed all guidelines and added the links to backup the information I contributed with. can I please ask you not to do that again?thanks. Carloslm1988 (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carloslm1988: Your additions were promotional in nature and did not accurately reflect the nature of these arrangements/partnerships/products. Please remember this is an encyclopedia and not everything is suitable for inclusion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about? I just stick to the news. BetVictor had a partnership with LFC for 3 years, thats missign on the page and its interesting info. Fulham had one year partnership with BetVictor too.

Furthermore, BetVictor open B2B and its operating on behalf of a number of operators, how is that irrelevant or promotional in nature?? please stop reverting my content or I will not have any other choice but report you.

thanks Carloslm1988 (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bwin

please do not delete facts.

thank you Carloslm1988 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carloslm1988: We do not include every minor sponsorship/partnership that companies have with other organisations – that would be WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOtional, and violate WP:NOTEVERYTHING. You also do not seem to understand the nature of these arrangements and are mis-representing them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please quote exactly what the content violated, as opposed to just give your opinion and misrepresent the situation. You dont seem to understand the nature of Wikipedia nor advertising to be honest. Wikipedia is for all and anybody that likes to know information about a particular thing that someone previously searched for. You shouldnt have a decision on whether or not something should be published based on your opinion, if you have anything to object - please quote the article that was compromised within the Wikipedia guidelines. "too much information for sponsorship seems like a very subjective opinion that does not violate anything and its not advertising nature since this happened and its not link to any particular promotion or advertising, just facts. Me, as a betting person and football fan, find that information very interesting... probably the same to you if this was talking about GOLF.

PLease do not delete relevant information for a page that represents the truth, since users like me are interested on reading such information. Thanks Carloslm1988 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carloslm1988: It's fairly obvious why having an article with over half the content detailing sponsorship (the sole purpose of which is promotion) and brand partnerships (highlighted in bold) violates the policies above (as well as WP:MOS). And, to repeat/clarify, brand partnerships (effectively acting as service provider/operator) are not "company expansion". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So BetVictor & Bild creating a new Brand that sits under BetVictor Gaming and its called BildBet and operates in Germany, is that a service?

how is that promotional content? Please throw some light here, what is that I am trying to promote???

A user searching for "TalkSPORTS BET" or "Heartbingo" see that they belong to BetVictor group, how is that promotional content and not informational? Same as any user searching for BetVictor that would like knowing they partnered up with Liverpool during 3 years or bwin partnered up with Real Madrid.

If you consider it "Promotional" just because its highlighted in bold (its a listing), that is a specific point that have a very easy solution rather than deleting the entire content.

If you consider it "Promotional" just because its very long content, you should know that any page is sensitive to be edited and more content can be added, the more, the better as long as it keeps relevancy.

Please be specific rather than destructive and try being a helthly asset for the community. Its very sad to see old contributors and relevant contributors like you doing such a poor moderation.

Thanks a please stop this behaviour Carloslm1988 (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carloslm1988: It's simple marketing. In some cases, BetVictor is operating as a service provider to these "partner" organisations, in others their are simply using the brand as a promotional tool for a specific market. Neither can be considered company expansion. These individual arrangements/products do not require separate paragraphs and pseudo-headings to draw undue attention to them. As for the promotional tone, phases like "most popular gaming brands" are a just press release/advertising copy that have no place here. I rewrote what you added into a single coherent encyclopedic paragraph, to fix these problems, and you reverted it. Why? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey, sorry I was tweaking a bit the "most popular radio brand" and things like that. Can you check now? also unbond the list. Carloslm1988 (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the statements into paragraphs, added links to related articles, and removed duplication, circular and red (non-notable) links, and excessive detail. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you please help me understand what would make the article better? Exactly what part is it that you think needs work and how would you fix it?

I appreciate any help you have to offer. This is a really cool thing and I think people should get to learn about it - as do all the other contributors.

Thank you,

Sydney15 Sydney15 (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sydney15: I haven't had the time to verify, but I suspect at least the first sentence on the History section is copied directly from a press release. Much of the rest of the article is equally dubious and possibly copyright violation (or at best close paraphrasing). Examples of promotion include highlighting supposed future community/charity benefits, listing star name associations (players and investors) indiscriminately, etc. Basically, almost everything except the lead is problematic; it needs a complete rewrite, in our own words, supported by independent reliable sources (in this case, that excludes the PGA Tour and its media partner organisations, such as Golf Channel) not press releases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get the watermark off the photo I got the person who uploaded it to change the copyright so it can be used Golffan233 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golffan233: I'd suggest asking them to upload a clean image. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 05:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

On the snooker maximum break page I am continually putting in corrections as the page is factually wrong - and I see you're reverting the corrections. I can prove the bad facts constantly being reverted to on the page. How do we proceed from here? 2A00:23C7:FE91:C01:E835:C089:50C8:F24C (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have acknowledged your error on the article talk page, so assume this is now moot. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - just so you know, no problem in principle with redirecting the article until we can find more information - which I always assume for English players will be available somewhere. I don't know if I worded my edit summary correctly but the references were on the article originally until they were hidden in this edit. Not reverted, nonexistent, or removed, but hidden. Which is peculiar. I'm sure in time we will be able to find enough material to write whatever is deemed necessary.

And as always, there are probably a million different things that can be done to List of Cheshire County Cricket Club List A players, in a similar manner to its neighbour List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players to make it cleaner and/or more navigable. Bobo. 22:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been round this loop with you too often. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources simply does not exist for the vast majority of these players, so no, we will never find enough material to write a proper article about them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I recently edited this page to tidy it up and try and reflect reliable sources, given that the subject is not particularly notable. I noticed that any edits that have ever been made to the page to reflect encyclopedic content, have been disregarded and rearranged by ‘Golfeditor1’ (who is quite obviously Mr Birch himself), to suit his own version of how his page should be laid and what info should/shouldn’t be included. Is there any way around this issue as I believe he has been notified before regarding his conflict of interest. Could the page be deleted possibly to avoid the issue further. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly doesn't seem to meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG as required, and I'm not seeing any significant coverage anywhere so it should probably go to WP:AFD. Sounds like there may also be WP:OWN issues, even if Golfeditor1 is not trying to maintain an autobiography. In the meantime, I've rewritten much of it and added a few tags. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimmymci234: FYI, I have started a discussion at WP:ANI#User:Golfeditor1. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't have time to follow this up yesterday. Hopefully, the admin intervention will prevent further disruption. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

I recently published the page for Salem Country Club. I am looking to publish the club's scorecard but I don't have a template for it. The link with all the different tees is here. If you have anything please let me know.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just used one of the templates you provided to me last year. The other template were fine even though I didn't have a "Gold tee" one. Sorry for being any nuisance.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hi Wjemather, just wondering if you would be able to clip an article from newspapers.com as I know you have a subscription for there. It's an article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin dated 7 April 2000, page 28, mentioning Carl Paulson as the previous year's Nike player of the year. I'm trying to add it as a reference for the 1999 Nike Tour awards section, but cannot find anything via Google News archive! If you could do that it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks 19:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC) Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmymci234,

It's User:Oogglywoogly. Here is the clip of the link: https://www.newspapers.com/image/273636674/?match=1&clipping_id=131120627. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hi User:Wjemather,

I was looking to create Sunshine Tour calendars for its early years. The tour's archives, as we have discussed before, is here. However, there are some issues.

First off, this is the only source for seasonal calendars that I have. I know it isn't a third-party source but, in my opinion, the calendars are clearly notable. I would like to know your thoughts though. Secondly, if I go ahead and create the calendars I would like to use some of your sources in your archive. I would like your "permission," however, before I go ahead with this.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are a few other internet accessible sources (albeit only in Google Books snippets!), including [3] & [4] and the OWGR, but they do contain a few errors and omissions (esp. SASBOR which is missing a few seasons and has others labelled incorrectly) so care needs to be taken!! I have most of Mark McCormack's annuals between 1971 and 2001 (per my library) so think I have everything unravelled pretty well in my sandbox, which includes several events not listed on the tour TIC and there shouldn't be much missing. You're free to use anything there as long as you follow WP:CWW with respect to attribution (Note: Nigej also contributed a fair bit). Good luck! _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User: Wjemather for the response and go-ahead. Before I start creating pages there are a few issues.

On the information centre's page they do not include seasonal results until the 1975/76 season. However, in the drop down they go down to 1965/66 Summer tour. Do you know what's up? Also, thank you for the Google Books links but I wasn't able to access much. After I create the pages could you add the useful information from the books?

Most importantly, I have an issue about the page titles. I would prefer to use the contemporary, historically accurate title of the tour. For example, for the 1977-78 summer tour I would like to use the title "1977-78 South African Tour" rather than "1977-78 Sunshine Tour." (I know we discussed a similar issue recently with the British PGA/ET but I think this is a little different.) I have noticed for tournament wins tables we use the modern-day title of the tour rather than what it actually was at the time. (For example, see Bob Shearer's Australian wins section.) I know we have discussed this before but I still don't understand why we don't use the actual title of the tour rather than some label retroactively determined by a bunch of marketing executives. Any explanation would be helpful.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

I actually noticed that User: Jimmymci234 put in the historically accurate titles for the seasonal calendars (e.g. 1983 PGA of Japan Tour, 1990 PGA Tour of Australia) from back in the day. So I guess we're aligned with that. I still don't understand why we include the modern-day titles under the tournament wins tables but I guess that's a different story.

Anyway, the page for the 1975-76 South African Tour is up. If you have any misgivings please make edits!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

I'll take a look when I get time and add sources (e.g. WoPG) where I can. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the TIC archives here and here Mark McNulty won the 1984 SAA Masters. However, reliable third-party sources state that Tony Johnstone clearly won the event. Do you what tournament the TIC is referring to (if any)?

Also, User:Jimmymci234 created the page. He may have some insight.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oogglywoogly: Yes, as we have mentioned to you before, the TIC is not entirely accurate yet. Hence it is wrong in this instance. It should only be used as a guideline, and not as a defining source. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The TIC needs to be used with caution, especially pre-FNB Tour, and cross-checked against other sources; newspapers are probably the best sources to confirm results. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jimmymci234 and Wjemather for the clarification. I'll make sure to look at the tour's calendars with a grain of salt.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hi just noticed the edit re intro on 2023 Ryder Cup. Obviously it is true that the European Team is organised by the European Tour/Ryder Cup Europe and the USA Team is organised by the PGA of America, however I feel it is misleading, especially in the opening sentence to word it in this way. It would be widely reported and make more sense to a wider audience that players are representing their continent/country, not necessarily the tour (especially these days, considering how little they play on it)? Interested in your thoughts. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get that people have different thoughts on who the players represent, but technically it is the ET and the PGAoA, not their respective country/continent. However, country vs continent is a very common view these days (especially since most Euros now live and play in the US) and it's a rivalry the public can buy into so has been promoted by organisers and the media, but others clearly feel differently, e.g. Faldo was on Sky yesterday saying it's tour vs tour. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever managed to come across a source announcing FNB as the title sponsor of the tour in 1992? Been searching the last few days but haven’t found anything. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's in South Africa and International Sports Factfinder (page 92): "...the first time South African professional golf had enjoyed an overall sponsor of their tour..." I'll see if there's anything in McCormack's annuals. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New heard of it before but I discovered this event from your User:Wjemather/British PGA circuit list. Quite limited coverage, even at the time, so probably not independently notable. As such I've added a section at 1957 Ryder Cup#Ryder Cup Reunion Foursomes Tournament (since it relates to that Ryder Cup). Perhaps could be extended somewhat. Also briefly mentioned it at the Stuart Goodwin article. Thinking of creating a redirect from Ryder Cup Reunion Foursomes Tournament (or something similar) to the 1957 Ryder Cup section. Anyway, an interesting little snippet from history, completely forgotten until you rediscovered it. Nigej (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect makes sense. Yes, there are quite a few interesting events that have seemingly been forgotten. Hopefully, I'll get time to return to it and complete researching the schedules! _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for you edits on the Blackpool page. I noticed you removed artists currently at Abingdon for not being notable. Many of them are notable locally. I will add a shorter list of the most notable residents. AntoniaStack (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AntoniaStack: They would need to have articles (or at least be mentioned to a significant degree somewhere, in which case there should be a redirect) on Wikipedia to be considered notable enough to list. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The extra trivia you're removed I agree with but I had left a message on the talk page of the user that added that to ask them for citations, and I wanted to give them the opportunity to reply first before undoing their edit. I do suspect it is someone from the organisation. I'm currently completing a residency with Wikimedia UK and working with the Blackpool community, so it's a work in progress and we do need the space to work through these things. I was planning on speaking directly to the organisation tomorrow.

As for the list, these artists do have articles about them so are notable, but not enough to warrant their own pages yet. I'm unsure about using external links in that instance. AntoniaStack (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AntoniaStack: Similar pruning is needed with some of the other Arts subsections; the section also suffers from a bad case of recentism. As a rule of thumb, if people don't have a Wikipedia article, we don't include them in such lists; the word "current" is also a red flag for content that may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take your point about the word current. The Culture section is a big work in progress and there's lots to do. The music section is / was disproportionately long and I'll be taking a look at it soon. There are lots more sections to write, it's evolving and here's a big community effort going into that page at the moment. I'll bear in mind your feedback about the length of section and look at migrating the information over to individual pages on organisations when the time comes. But if you could please leave it in tact for now that would be appreciated. The section will also be having an introduction with more of an overview of the cultural landscape too. AntoniaStack (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AntoniaStack: Sections that get excessively large and detailed in relation to the rest of the article are often candidates for WP:SPLITing, e.g. Culture of Blackpool (see Category:Culture by city in England for similar articles that have been created already), with a brief summary remaining in the main article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking re organisations although I've just looked and Culture of xxx city is quite common so there's precedent for that. thank you. I'll have a think about it. AntoniaStack (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi You have put long articles and multiple issues on the India at the Cricket World Cup. For length, what can be done?? And why isnt it wikipedian language? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you said we dont need each match's description. I understand and respect your point, but its an Indian page, and Indians would like each match's summary due to the large number of intricate cricket fans. Its more detailed and elaborate, well sourced. Just a tournament description would be quite short Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh496: At the most basic level (and only focusing on the final two of paragraphs of this year's tournament), words and phrases like "tough fight", "sluggish", "in-form", "crumbled", "disciplined", "struggled", "collapsing", "crashed", "mauled", "massive", "blitzkrieg", etc. are emotive opinions that fail WP:NPOV policy and are largely unsupported by the sources; the general tone of the writing is also not neutral ({{Fan POV}} may also have been appropriate). Summaries of each tournament should be 2-3 brief paragraphs at most; one for the build-up/group stage, one for the knockout stage - if reader want in-depth details (squads, scores, bowling figures, etc.), they can go to the tournament articles or cricinfo; it doesn't need duplicating. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any/know where to find sources which details the points for the Order of Merit in these years? I’ve been able to source the money earnings but can’t find the points anywhere. Jimmymci234 (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, the OoM switched to a money list (and was renamed as such a couple of years later) so there were no points. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: Can’t be the case though. The money list in these years is not ordered in terms of money won. Given this source too [5] Below the list, translated it basically says that the OoM was decided on points but money has been listed here. Jimmymci234 (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems our articles used to say that it was points based in these seasons, so have restored that text. However, I suspect the 1978 list may have simply been a money list. Not immediately finding any sources though. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 1978 seems to be in that order so most likely correct. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the points for 1977 could be what is displayed at https://www.europeantour.com/dpworld-tour/rankings/overview/rankings/? With the exclusion of Green and Watson who I assume were non-members. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, especially given it doesn't seem to reflect what sources have in other years. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am almost done with the Southern Africa Tour calendars. My next potential adventure is to create calendars for the TPS tour, the precursor to the PGA Tour's developmental tour. I would like to use information from your sandbox. Like the SA calendars, however, I would like your "permission" before I go ahead and create the calendars. (Fwiw, I attributed your help in the SA calendars page history.)

Also, there is no general page for the TPS yet. I have found some newspaper articles with broad information like here and here however I was wondering if you had access to anything else. I have checked the PGA Tour media guides during the era but they aren't that helpful. (And, of course, they aren't third-party anyway.) Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The TPS tour probably isn't significant enough for it's own article(s); as such it, and the seasons, are better covered in the relevant PGA Tour article(s). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I disagree with you re: TPS' potential notability. When I type in the phrase "tournament players series" or any of the names of tournaments it hosted I get an extraordinary amount of hits in the newspaper search engines. It seems like it clearly generated enough media coverage to warrant an independent page. In addition, we have a number of pages for defunct developmental tours (e.g. Omega China Tour, Tour de las Américas, etc.) and I think TPS is at least as notable as these. Please let me know your thoughts.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

When it comes to sports, hits usually mean scores and results rather than significant secondary coverage (as required by WP:GNG). Also, the TLA wasn't a development tour; and technically, neither was the China Tour. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they weren't technically development tours I feel like the weren't as notable as TPS, the leading developmental tour for the world's premier golf circuit. In addition, we have independent pages for numerous other tours (e.g. Alps Tour, Gateway Tour, Golden Bear Tour - I could go on and on...) that clearly aren't as notable as TPS.

However, what you say about a lack of secondary sources is probably true. I can find more than scores/results but these articles usually serve as preparation for a certain TPS tournament in the area and probably don't qualify as "secondary."

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hey, I think I'm going to go ahead and make a page for TPS. I feel like I have found some worthwhile secondary sources on newspapers.com. In addition, I feel like we have set a precedent where clearly weaker tours are good enough for a page. Also, to prevent any conflict I will not use anything from your sandbox.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hello, Wjemather. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Robert de Vogüé, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a link that notes the 1969 schedule for the British golfer Doug McClelland. It lists eight events he intended to play on the Sunshine circuit that summer with dates. While probably not a comprehensive calendar for the circuit it is something. Thought it may be of some use.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patron's Trophy has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. War Wounded (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Patron's Trophy seasons has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. War Wounded (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]