No need to cry cause you couldn't edit the win first. Try next time. As I already mentioned at the beginning, Tournament was done kid. Did I say 'CHEERS'?!! ;) lol

Fair play big guy, you obviously 'knew' what you were doing, even though you weren't able to predict the winning score. I might not always win, I can accept that. But you sir, you will always be a twat. Enjoy the rest of your day. :) Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"CHEERS" LMFAO.. Eat it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaysaurus (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for tournaments to finish before updating articles, regardless of how inevitable the result may seem. Until all rounds are complete, and scorecards have been checked, signed and verified, (and results published) nothing is certain. Wikipedia is neither a fortune teller (WP:CRYSTAL) nor a breaking news service (WP:NOTNEWS/WP:BREAKING). Regards, _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem my man. Jimmymci234 (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we we waiting for tournaments to finish (diff)? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but how come all morning I was tring to combat this guy Klaysaurus as he kept putting the win in even after 12 holes!! Where were you at then??? How come you're telling me off rather than him??! Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't have many bios watchlisted and Matt Fitz isn't one of them, so hadn't seen any of that. Secondly, I'm not always online. Anyway, there are ways to deal with such problem editors. It is important to post appropriate warnings on their talk page; useful warning templates in this instance include {{uw-crystal}}, {{uw-3rr}}, {{npa}}. If the behaviour persists, request administrator intervention via the appropriate noticeboard (WP:AN3, WP:ANI, etc.). Regards, _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You surely cant guarantee it now"... LMAO you sure kiddo? OH also I see you are the snitch type. lol pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaysaurus (talk • contribs) 12:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok cool dude. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmy,

I recently created pages of Ross Metherell, David Galloway (golfer), and Mike Ferguson (golfer). All of these golfers won the Western Australian Open in the 1970s. You enfolded some of these wins under the PGA Tour of Australasia banner and some not. I wondered why. Below is the information:

Metherell won the 1974 Western Australian Open. You did not categorize this as a PGA Tour of Australasia win. Ferguson won the 1977 event. You did not categorize this as a PGA Tour of Australasia win. Galloway won the 1978 event. (Incidentally Metherell and Ferguson finished in second in this event.) You did categorize this as a PGA Tour of Australasia win.

Basically what evidence do you have that helped you determine when it was an Order of Merit event and when it was not?

Also, I would like to include wjemather in this conversation. He has been doing work on old Australian Tour calendars.

Any information would be much appreciated.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hello there Mr ooggly. I basically went off the season calendars produced by Wjemather on his Australasian tour subpage. Obviously there is no concrete evidence to suggest that those events were/weren’t part of the tour in those years. I suppose most of it is original research and making assumptions but the line has to be drawn somewhere.

I actually have a question for you while I’m here. In all of these pages that you’ve created for these lesser known Australian pros, why is the amount of detail in them basically similar to the amount of detail in someone like Tiger Woods’ page. Surely this amount of unnecessary detail doesn’t reflect their status or significance in any relation to the history of golf. But don’t take any offence to that as I’m sure you’ve put a lot of time and effort into creating them. Just my view of it at the end of the day. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I appreciate your work with the tables as they are well done. As I've said before, however, I think you're being a bit presumptuous with the Australian events. The reason wjemather hasn't produced many seasonal calendars for the PGA Tour of Australasia is due to the lack of evidence we have to determine what was an Order of Merit event. And if you are going to integrate these events within a table I would suggest using 1973, the year the tour began, as the demarcation line. The 1977/1978 distinction you have for the Western Australian Open seems random. I also noticed on the page of Mike Ferguson (golfer) you labeled his 1981 win at the New South Wales PGA Championship as official while his victory two months later at the Queensland PGA Championship as unofficial. Likewise, it seems random.

Also I would like to respond to your question; I am not offended by it. I don't have any great reason why I create such detailed pages other it just seems natural to me. I am not trying to create especially detailed or lengthy pages. My process is simply that I look up the guy's name on Trove or another search engine, find stuff, and add what I think to be notable. I tend to only include wins, other tops tens (usually very high top tens), and course records. While the pages may seem very detailed I only include a very small minority from their golfing career. Most of these guys play several hundred professional events over the course of their careers and I usually only include a couple dozen highlights. Again wins, high top tens, and course records seem fundamentally notable to me, especially when national news services cover this information in their story about the round. Also, not to sound like an elitist, but I feel comparing my work to other golfers' pages on WikiProject Golf is a bit unfair. Most of the pages seem hastily created, lack the necessary citations, and are just poorly done overall.

So that's it... please tell me what you think.

Sincerely, Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

What did you change the edit on Tiger Woods? I was using the same format as each of the other Career Grand Slam Winners! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskogg (talk • contribs) 23:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually looked at all golfers of this era who played in majors from 2018 to 2019, you would notice that the playing order of the majors changed. The edit is to reflect that and stay consistent with other golfers pages. Take a look at some of other current players pages and you will see why. Thanks Jimmymci234 (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmy,

I recently created a page for Lyndsay Stephen. Thank you for creating the "Professional wins" table. I noticed you filled in the details for his win at the 1986 Nedlands Masters. I was wondering if you had a link for the event. I was looking to add details for his victory in the text and all I have is the OWGR site. Any help would be much appreciated.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hi there Oogly, I actually can’t remember the link, but I’m pretty sure it was from either The Age or Sydney Morning Herald on google news archives. If you type in the date then hopefully there should be something in either one of those papers. Hope that helps, thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found one from the Sydney Morning Herald added it to his page. In general, when creating these "Professional wins" tables could you put the citation below the table? First off we're supposed to do that. Secondly it would make it easier for other editors (like in this situation) to find valuable information.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Sounds good my friend. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hi there. In case you missed the discussions, the bold pseudo-headings for eligibility criteria were specifically identified as the biggest MOS issue with individual golf tournament articles. It was made clear that none will reach WPs front page with this kind of formatting formatting, so we need to find a better way of doing it – like the separate field articles for the majors, but that's probably unjustifiable for WGCs. Regards. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there is now sufficient coverage to pass WP:CRYSTAL and justify this season's article, but as a bare-bones outline its not serving any purpose, so we need to be sure to expand/update (and include some independent sources). Regards. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep no problem, will have a go at updating most of it whenever I get a chance. Jimmymci234 (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I notice you keep disambiguating some tournament names after I have updated the tables. There really is no need for this as they are hidden from the reader, but if you intend to continue, may I suggest making the changes on my sandbox master copies since I'm just copy-pasting from there each week after updating and checking, and hence over-writing your changes. The tables can be found here: PGA Tour and European Tour. Cheers, _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I know it's not life or death but it's just for the sake of consistency as you've used most other sponsored names except the Houston Open and CJ Cup. Hope that clears it up. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmy i am going to change Tiger's win in that Champions for Charity into exhibition matches aswell ok ?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.133.97 (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats ok. Jimmymci234 (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Celtic Classic

added a link pointing to Newport

Wales Open

added a link pointing to Newport

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was his 2021 win not one of these Majors? Not an expert like you- but thought it was and thus 7 is total now.

Can you clarify? Ta

Kaybeesquared (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was on 5 before his 2021 PGA win. After this win he is now on 6.

For clarification the list of them is:

• 2004 Masters
• 2005 PGA
• 2006 Masters
• 2010 Masters
• 2013 Open
• 2021 PGA

Total = 6. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Merseyside International Open, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wirral.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the policy/guideline supporting your edits please? Why are you blind reverting my edits? GiantSnowman 10:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Please see MOS:DATEFORMAT – the first examples clearly show that such abbreviations are acceptable in tables. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Only where brevity is helpful" - why is that the case here? GiantSnowman 11:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the view that these tables are relatively wide and the abbreviated spelling of the month is better since it makes the tables more compact and might avoid unnecessary wrapping. I can't see that anyone is going to be confused by the 3 letter abbreviations. Nigej (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brevity is always helpful in tables, but especially so in data only columns such as date, in order to avoid needless wrapping on relatively narrow displays. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - but that justifies the edit warring blindly reverting my other changes to the article how? It would be nice to have a direct response from Jimmy here. GiantSnowman 14:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there were/are any objections to the changes in the two citations, but they made up a very small proportion of your changes which also removed several links without explanation. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to justify anyone's edit-warring, but also please do not pretend that you weren't guilty of edit-warring yourself in reinstating your version twice (just short of 3RR). May I suggest that is would be best for all if we just moved on. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm well aware that I was less than perfect - but I'm not the one who reverted without explanation. I'm the one who made good faith edits (which were blindly reverted without explanation) and I'm the one who attempted to discuss the matter with the other user. Jimmy has so far refused to speak to me. Incredibly poor form. GiantSnowman 14:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks wjemather. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr Snowman, I’ve not been ignoring you, just been busy the last few hours. Sorry for reverting you’re original edit without a comment, I will make sure to do so if it ever happens again. I think the above points from Nigej and wjemather explain my reasoning for reverting your edits. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good, an explanation was all that was needed to diffuse! Thanks all, GiantSnowman 15:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an archive on WayBackMachine of a page on the old European Tour website (before they "improved" it) https://web.archive.org/web/20150920060523/http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/news/newsid=186144.html Might be of interest to you. I don't think the old site ever had more details (eg length of playoff, etc.), at least not in a complete way. Might have been mentioned in news articles. Nigej (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nige. I’ve had a quick look around for news articles but there doesn’t seem to be too many. Just trying and fill in as many boxes as I possibly can! It's the same problem with the Challenge Tour. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You decided to re-word the playoff boxes to by instead of rather than with. Then look at this edit[1] of yours. Or the fact you have concentrated your changes on only European Tour playoff boxes. The Ballesteros article isn't the only article with it different in one part of the article than the other....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had just simply copied and pasted the table in there and amended accordingly. In regards to Nigej’s amendment to the wording earlier, I think it’s safe to say that ‘by’ makes more sense than ‘with’ and I think more people would agree with that than not. I am willing to amend all boxes over time for consistency amongst every article. Thanks. Jimmymci234 (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: From the number of times that people have, over the years, changed things like "Niemann eliminated with par on first hole" to "Niemann eliminated with bogey on first hole" I think it's quite clear that the "eliminated with" terminology is just plain confusing. This came up years ago (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Golf/Archive 5#Playoff record - clarification required). As I noted there, the day after the discussion someone changed "Campbell eliminated with par on first hole" to "Campbell eliminated with bogey on first hole" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chad_Campbell&diff=760930184&oldid=753678691) confirming that the terminology with "with" is not the natural reading. There have been a number of such changes in the interim, but as far I as I know no one has ever changed it when we use "eliminated by". As Phimunu said in that first discussion "Changing "eliminated with" to "eliminated by" would fix the ambiguity". "eliminated by" is clearly better and we should go with that everywhere. Nigej (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion about the 2014 McGladrey Classic. Will MacKenzie missed a long putt and made a bogey but it's not 100% clear to me whether the other two made birdies or par. Both are possible: they might have both made birdie putts after MacKenzie missed. Currently the MacKenzie article says par but the other two say birdie. Nigej (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found in an article that said Streb and de Jonge both made pars on the first playoff hole. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the current season has ended? The IGT website, which sort of runs in parallel to the official website, lists more possible events. see: https://igtgolf.org/schedule/#/future https://igtgolf.info/tic/tmtic.cgi I'm utterly confused about the relationship between the two "tours". Also IGT seem to run their own separate points-based Road to Sunshine Tour Order of Merit which adds to my confusion. Nigej (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really in all honesty. I sort of assumed that because there were no more events on the schedule and there was an Order of Merit standings published on their website. If this is not the case then I'll hide the section until we definitely know for sure when it is complete. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I noticed that you reverted my edits regarding the nationality status of Chris Williams. Now that I've looked it up I think you're right on the money. OWGR and the Sunshine Tour don't have his nationality status but ET says he is South African. So I think we should stick with that - sorry about any problems my edits caused.

You also mentioned the golfer Doug McGuigan in your comment. Looking at the sites, perhaps his nationality status should change. His Sunshine Tour profile doesn't list a flag. However, his European Tour page and OWGR page say he is Scottish. His PGA Tour page says he is South African but he has never been a member of the PGA Tour. Not sure what your thoughts are.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Yeah Doug McGuigan's not the easiest one to work out. It has been discussed before on his talk page. I think he is more likely to be South African as was born there, lives there and has played the majority of his golf on the Sunshine Tour. His only ties to Scotland was his Scottish father. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the evidence overwhelming points to him being South African. Looks like he was raised there, has lived there most of his life, and plays almost exclusively on the Sunshine Tour. But nonetheless, two of the three sites I saw said he was Scottish. In addition, according to his 2017 Sunshine Tour profile, according to User: Nigej, his nationality was listed as Scottish.

Basically, though it instinctively seems like he is a South African, this could be a weird situation where he chooses to represent the country of his forefathers or relatives (e.g. Peter Karmis, Rory Sabbatini). What are your thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

First point to note is that we shouldn't be talking about nationality, we should be talking about "sporting nationality". What his actual nationality is, is of no interest to us. Ideally we should be copying the flag that appears next to him in leaderboards, etc. It's not really our business to try to understand why a player chooses a particular flag. In McGuigan's case the use of a Scottish flag (eg at http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=4497) does seem odd, but it's been there for quite a few years (eg this from 2014 https://web.archive.org/web/20140822011655/http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=4497). Nigej (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Sunshine Tour still uses the Scottish flag beside his name on leaderboards. Do you think we need to change his flag on here Nige? Jimmymci234 (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably we should. Nigej (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like changes were made. I agree with you guys, I think these changes are for the best.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Hey, I noticed you deleted "The Shootout" from the Professional Wins sections of Bob Charles and Russ Cochran. You labeled it as an "exhibition." I don't necessarily disagree with you but was wondering about what the definition of an exhibition was. In addition, I know there has been recent discussion of "Exhibitions" on the talk page but didn't really follow them. If you have the link to those discussions that would help me a lot.

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Here [2] Jimmymci234 (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. It looks like the McIlroy / Johnson victory remained within their Professional wins section under "Exhibition Wins." Couldn't we create the same sub-heading for all the guys who tied for the win at "The Shootout"?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Yeah, if you want to do that then absolutely, go for it. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just did it.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Bahamas Great Abaco Classic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nassau.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmy the above event only received PGA Tour status in 2013. I think it is misleading to have USA added to the tour events prior to that year. It should just read European Tour to be honest 178.167.217.130 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was still a sanctioned event on the PGA Tour. However as from the notes which are clearly laid out on the page, that the win in those years depended on whether the winner was a PGA Tour member or not. It would not be factually correct to leave out USA in those years, so I see no need to change it. Jimmymci234 (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I wasn't sure if this win by and Brett Upper and Charlie Bolling should be classified as an "Exhibition Win." It was a pairs event and only one round long. I put it under Bolling's "Other wins" as I wasn't sure what to do. (The definition of "Exhibition Wins" is still confusing to me.) Any help would be much appreciated.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

I am not able to access that link, but I would probably imagine, if in doubt then it would more than likely be an exhibition event. Jimmymci234 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the clipped link: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/84829787/birdie-saves-team-in-sudden-death/. It was an official event on the Philadelphia PGA Section circuit so it strikes me as something more than an exhibition. However, as I stated before, I still don't really know. Let me know what your thoughts are...

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

18 holes and a 'Pro-Pro scramble'. Definitely seems like an exhibition to me. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just put it under "Exhibition Wins." Thank you for the help.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Jimmy the above events are not on the PGA Schedule you keep referring too, but these two events are still on the unofficial events section on wikipedia why ?. because we know they on is it ?.. That schedule was drafted last August.The Match was announced yesterday please do not use that as an excuse to remove the event because the Hero world challenge or QBE Shootout are not on there either ok 80.233.126.173 (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per https://www.pgatour.com/tournaments/schedule.html. The Match V is not listed on here, whereas Hero World Challenge and QBE shootout are. I would suspect that the PGA Tour are not sanctioning the Match, just promoting it. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was only announced yesterday Jimmy in fairness. Even if they are promoting it, it will be regarded as an unofficial event anyway. So what is the big deal against adding it to the unofficial events section ?. 178.167.184.173 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are supposed to reflect reliable sources and if the PGA Tour’s official schedule on their website does not include it then we are not reflecting the source and it becomes WP:OR. If the event were to be added to the schedule in the next few days then yes we should include it. But for now it is not appropriate. Jimmymci234 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Jimmy live a little ffs, do you live your life by a set of rules, dear me 178.167.184.173 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'm not a massive fan of a lot of WP policies in all honesty but I was using them here to back up my side of the argument. Jimmymci234 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've reverted your change on the PGA Tour season article. Per this announcement, the Zozo is indeed still co-sanctioned by the JGTO; however, looking at the JGTO tournament schedule, it appears to be listed an "other event" on their tour, so not counting for the money list. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I literally posted a message on your talk page at the exact same time. The JGTO schedule thing was exactly what I was thinking. Maybe we'll see what tours the OWGR indicated it as at the start of that tournament week. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please only add information that can be reliably sourced and also provide any necessary citations. I have sandboxed the 2022 ET schedule here, and included any pre-emptive tournament announcements/pr releases, but until they are confirmed on the schedule they should not be added to the live article. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@wjemather It’s not helped by the fact that the ET is basically drip feeding us the schedule this late on. Rather than just releasing the full schedule at once. Jimmymci234 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in the current environment there remain many difficulties for the ET to overcome due to visiting many different countries, so as with the current and previous seasons, I expect there to be additions and changes along the way. For example, the Australian PGA (13–16 Jan) is not listed on the ET schedule but the official tournament website suggests it should be there; many other tournaments have also seemingly been "confirmed" (Dutch, Scandinavian Mixed, European, Irish, etc.) but until they actually appear on the schedule, we're jumping the gun by putting them there. As such, I think at this stage we are best limiting to the officially published ET schedule plus those confirmed by the PGA Tour (i.e. the majors, WGCs, Scottish, Barbasol, Barracuda). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah seems fair enough. Jimmymci234 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it looks like the other guys aren't going to respond on the talk page. Nonetheless, I think this is clearly an important issue. We have already made the decision that "Exhibition Wins" is a credible subheading. How do you want to move forward on Couples' page and other pages?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Ooggylwoogly[reply]

Looking at his other wins list; if you really wanted to, I would say the World Cup of Golf, Shark Shootout events, Washington Open, Northwest Open, Johnnie Walker World Golf Championship, Kapalua International and JCPenney Mixed Team Classic should stay in the 'Other wins' section, i.e. still counted as professional victories. I would classify the Telus Skins Game, Skins Game and Par-3 Shootout as exhibitions. The Diners Club Matches could go either way with me. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It still feels like you have reservations. I desperately want consensus before we move forward. Could either Wjemather or Nigej please briefly respond. It should only take 1-2 mins of your time.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Jeez Oogly, I even give you a response and that’s still not good enough for you. The problem I have with this discussion is that a lot of it feels like WP:OR on what constitutes between an exhibition win and a professional win. Jimmymci234 (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmy there is no way these last 3 wins should be added to McIlroy's other wins. The Taylor made driving relief was an exhibition event exactly the same as The Match. The Match is not included in career wins so why is the Taylormade driving for relief included ?. It seems like nonsense these are not professional events ?. Regards 92.251.144.71 (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page watcher) Please see response at my talk page. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at the VNT using the WaybackMachine archives. Generally made good progress, although late 2004 is a problem. The Australian PGA site was redesigned in mid-2004 and the WaybackMachine decided not to do any archives of it for about 9 months. Still looking for a few missing details. Nigej (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good additions to the pages for sure. I will take a look through all of them today and try and tidy with formatting and update winners tables etc. Thanks! Jimmymci234 (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've add the 2001 Development Tour to 2000–01 PGA Tour of Australasia. Worth adding I think and this seems the best place. Bit of difficulty with exact dates. Not too sure at the moment when the Foundation Tour became the Development Tour. Thinking of having a go with the 2000 tour if I can find enough to cobble something together. Nigej (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej Good stuff. Are you able to access/are there any early articles available relating to the main tour using the WaybackMachine archives? There's a couple of playoff details we are missing which I think I have mentioned to you about before; the 2002 WA PGA and 2002 NSW Masters are the ones. Jimmymci234 (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2000 season added to 1999–2000 PGA Tour of Australasia. First season with this name. Couldn't find anything yet for those playoffs. In fact the 2002 coverage for the tier 2 events seems to be worse than when they were part of the development tour. Nigej (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmy how are you doing today. I have an article with a link to the source of the above event which calls it an exhibition. Can I send it to you please ?. Regards 178.167.154.199 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to WT:GOLF. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can and will. Can you tell me why it is included as a professional event when it is a charity skins game ?. The match is similar but these events are not included as they are not pro events. I'm just wondering what your personal opinion on these events are ?. Thanks 178.167.154.199 (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed multiple times on WT:GOLF, if you have any more issues then take them there. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philippine Open (golf), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laguna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a The Players Series article for these Aussie events with various redirects. At the moment I think one article can cover all events in all years, although we may have to split at some time. Not quite sure what to do with the "hosted by" stuff. Suspect its going to make the table too wide. Nigej (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit similar to the Vodacom Origins of Golf on the Sunshine Tour. I would say the “hosted by” could be converted to a note to narrow the table. Don’t know if the individual events will warrant pages as they always be under The Players Series umbrella, so one page is good for now. Jimmymci234 (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As frustrating as it can be when someone attempts to impose their own personal preference/interpretation of things like MOS, please try to avoid getting into edit wars and communicating only through edit summaries. Such things tend to end badly for both parties. It may take longer to resolve, but starting discussion once you've been reverted a couple of times is probably the best way forward. Best, _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've tried to before but there's no reasoning with him. It's only his way and nothing else is acceptable. Any help would be much appreciated. Jimmymci234 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning of both myself and Nigej, from when this came up last, can be found in the Jon Rahm section above. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I tried that reasoning before with him and he still didn’t accept any of it. Jimmymci234 (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes discussion is necessary to reaffirm consensus (or find a different consensus); at which point any argument should cease. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It's only his way …" Wrong. In the Bob McCallister good article review (promoted last September), I actually asked the reviewer to hold off promoting the article because I wanted to avoid an edit war (comment #15 asking that row and col scopes per MOS:DTT in that results table be used). The Rambling Man stated: "Okay, well Jimmymci234 should know that if the Golf project is against using row scopes and proper dates, then they are in the wrong. The project-wide guidelines supersede these parochial project "rules"." I have cited this to Jimmymci234 on his talk page back in September, but it is apparent he is taking an WP:ICANTHEARYOU approach and then claiming that it is I who cannot be reasoned with. It's not surprising that Jimmymci234 chose to delete that discussion from his talk page yesterday (too bad for diffs existing). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement (from TRM) you quote here is valid in relation to row/column scopes for accessibility (although there is no such anti-accessibility movement within WP:GOLF that I'm aware of), but not in relation to date formatting in tables, where even MOS gives specific examples of when abbreviated dates may be used. This is not a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS – it is right there in MOS:DATEFORMAT ("where brevity is helpful") and consensus is that these tables meet that requirement (please refer to the section above for more detailed rationale). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: yes I can see that, with the complete quote being "Only in limited situations where brevity is helpful" (my emphasis). The general use is still full dates, with footnote b stating that: "By default, Wikipedia does not abbreviate dates." I can see how abbreviated dates will be helpful if a table is too wide and causes wrap text (in which case abbreviation can help alleviate this problem). However, I don't see how brevity is helpful in this situation. The tables in question don't come close to causing wrap text on a standard desktop display. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These tables are a "limited situation where brevity is helpful"; we must cater for a full gamut of display capabilities, not just whatever a "standard desktop display" is (I'm not aware of there being such a thing), and a large proportion of traffic is from much smaller mobile and tablet devices. For example, the date column on Bob Goalby's article now takes up almost half the width of the display, making the significant columns more difficult to parse. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: well, I read this article on my iPhone (using the WP mobile version) and there is no issue re. text wrapping for the dates. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not having any Apple products, I'll have to take your word for that. However, I do have several non-Apple devices that demonstrate very clearly why short dates are helpful here. In addition to the extra wrapping, e.g. tournament names wrap every word, it is also necessary to scroll right to view the end columns. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: re. your claim that "[t]his is not a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS", why does the featured content of other sports like association football (e.g. List of international goals scored by Andriy Shevchenko), tennis (Mikhail Youzhny career statistics), basketball (List of highest-scoring NBA games), and baseball (300 win club) all use full dates in their tables? Surely they can't all be incorrect. Not surprisingly, there isn't any golf-related featured content that uses abbreviated dates. WP:GOLF is alone on this issue and seems to be making itself the exception to the norm. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS means consistency – it doesn't; Wikipedia is inconsistent by nature and has PaG to reinforce that (e.g. WP:LANGVAR, MOS:DATEVAR, etc.). It is clear in the MOS that neither date format is "incorrect"; and by virtue of being helpful, short dates here are compliant. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: If "Wikipedia is inconsistent by nature" and "neither date format is "incorrect"", why do I consistently get reverted by Jimmymci234? I wouldn't mind if it was because he was actually putting the effort into improving these articles to good or featured article status. But seeing that he has not a single GA or featured content to his name, he appears to be simply bickering over style and "enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion" (which MOS:STYLEVAR says is "never acceptable"). Meanwhile, all the articles in which I've gotten reverted by him made it onto the Main Page at In the News (with one becoming a GA). And it sure wasn't because of any of his "contributions". —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the GA/FA game (where people commonly take full credit despite having contributed less than 10% of the content, and effectively done little more than copy-editing while adding a few citations) is a distraction that does not interest me. You should be aware that MOS:STYLEVAR applies to your changes; in other words, you are equally guilty of "bickering over style and enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion" here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"you are equally guilty" – wrong. I've used full dates for a grand total of three golf-related bios. Hardly "bot-like" – I think you better compute the math correctly before mindlessly throwing accusations like that. But what can I really expect when your best counter-argument is a whataboutism? Also, I'm not surprised you are not into quality content creation (or Jimmymci234, for that matter). It's quite apparent. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and Jimmymci234's edits were equally not bot-like. Anyway, I think it's best to call this discussion to a close, as you now appear to accept that short dates do meet MOS (I can only assume, since you stopped arguing this point long ago). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jimmymci234's edits are bot-like and his editing pattern (and pointless reversions) demonstrate this. I will continue to revert him for violating WP:DATELINK: "Month-and-day articles … should not be linked unless the linked date or year has a significant connection to the subject of the linking article, beyond that of the date itself." A mere one-time mention on these year pages ≠ a significant connection. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: also, regarding your statement that "there is no such anti-accessibility movement within WP:GOLF that I'm aware of". I'm afraid you are mistaken.[3][4] Jimmymci234 and Tewapack had no qualms removing scope row in contravention of MOS. Is TRM's quote still valid re. these examples? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scopes were a relatively small part of the edits that were reverted in both those cases (likewise with the Jon Rahm example), and could easily be overlooked when the focus is on date formatting changes and link removal. You should probably assume good faith here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I assume good faith. But that is independent of the issue re. whether they contravened MOS. Sounds like they are getting a free pass for that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]