There's no arguing about this one. It's the Damon Runyon Cancer Fund Classic not the Damon Runyan Cancer Fund Classic. The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation which was founded 65 years ago, is still around. Press reports at the time spell it Runyon. The LPGA Tour's record book is wrong. I changed all relevant pages accordingly.- William 00:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just restored the proper version of this article 2012 Masters Tournament after you have removed a legitimate WikiProject Wikify without properly investigating. I suggest you read the given link. Thank you for your cooperation and cheers! — Rammaum^talk_stalk 16:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the guidelines and don't see any that apply. What specifically is missing? Tewapack (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead section. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Precise language under 'Chronological items' regarding future and current events. Also in the content: read Emphasis under 'Italics'... Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less its effectiveness. Cheers! — Rammaum^talk_stalk 16:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see where anything is needed - it clearly states when the event will take place. The field clearly states when more players may be added, with limited use of italics. I've added refs and removed the hatnotes. Tewapack (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... for restoring the reference I carelessly deleted from List of principal and guide meridians and base lines of the United States‎. YBG (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tewapack, I have started a new article for Fred Ridley, winner of the 1975 U.S. Amateur. As previously discussed, I would be grateful if you would look it over and make such additions as you believe necessary to bring it up to code. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Quicksilver Classic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quicksilver Classic until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. EJBH (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings ....

As of January 15th 2012, the past tournament results links originating from GOLFOBSERVER.COM are no longer freely accessible, as the site has changed to access by paid subscription ($100.00 annually!!!)

This includes any external link for past tournament results from GolfObserver found on Wiki-pages concerning current or defunct golf events.

Bummer, if ever there was one.

Yahoo! has past full season results for the US PGA Tour from 1978 to present (only some of 1977's events are shown), while Sportsnetwork.com has full season results for the US PGA Tour only from 2003 to the present, but in each case, year-by-year results of tournaments are not accessible in the same manner as they were on Golfobserver.

Thanx-A-Lot, Frank Fgf2007 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been copied word by word mostly from the Lydia Ko page at Seoulsisters.com.[1] With the exception of the word Lydia being removed, the first two paragraphs are word for word the same. I didn't check the rest. What do you suggest be done about it?- William 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator has deleted the copyright violations. A biography that's more than her win last weekend is needed now. I don't really know much about Ko.- William 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I've been fixing templates and I noticed that these tourneys may no longer be "current" and should maybe be on the "former" template and in the "former" category. I'm not positively sure, so if you could check those out, then you could let me know if we should update the cats and tmps. Moonah Classic, Children's Hospital Classic, and Northeast Pennsylvania Classic. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All three are no longer played. I've update the articles, cats, and template. Good catch. Tewapack (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for double-checking that for me! Cheers, --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff: In Former Nationwide category, but not yet on template, articles and tmp may need to be updated: Canadian PGA Championship, Jacob's Creek Open Championship. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tewapack (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A 2007 Milwaukee Journal article was written about Dave Stockton winning the inaugural version of the tournament.Thrilling ride remembered I put that in as a reference in the edit you undid. Do you think you know the tournament better than the newspaper who covered it for 42 years? Oh and there is this article in 1973 saying Stockton won the first Milwaukee Open.[2]

By your logic any tournaments played in Miami would also go under the Doral Open because both of them are played in Miami....William 18:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the reference I provided? The PGA Tour's own list clearly considers the 1940-61 winners part of the tournament's history. Don't you think the PGA Tour knows it's own events better than a newspaper writer thirty years after the fact? Tewapack (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and here is the golf course saying[3] in 2007 that it was hosting the 40th annual edition of the tournament. Lets see 1968 to 2007....that's 40 tournaments. There are 2007 news articles saying its the 40th....William 18:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and you can't count either while you're ignoring a pile of proof that says you and the PGA Tour(They've been wrong before and are at this moment. Do you want a list?) are wrong. 1968 to 2007 is 39 years not 30 like you write two paragraphs above. If you'd said 40 I wouldn't have pointed it out. That ran in the tournament's hometown newspaper which you're also dismissing. Solution- Make separate articles for the prior to 1968 tournaments....William 18:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why make separate lists when they would refer to exactly the same PGA Tournament page! Why not make a new article every time a tournament changes its name or changes to a different course? Yes, the modern, continuously played tournament started in 1968. The sponsors are going to emphasize that fact and push that fact to newspaper reporters. But if the PGA Tour considers the earlier winners as part of the tour's history, then that is that. Sponsors have come and gone, the tournament moved to different courses, the constant is the PGA Tour. The early winners were listed in the very first version of the article, because the PGA Tour tournament page was, and has to be, the primary source for the tournament. Tewapack (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even more conclusive proof, the internet archive saved version of the website from 2009. The 42nd edition.[4] and a list of tournament winners that begins from 1968![5]. That's from 2004, the 2009 website is barely coming up....William 19:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're 'The early winners were listed in the very first version of the article' argument goes against how many times I have corrected golf tournament articles that were based on the mistakes of the pro golf tours. How about Damon Runyon Cancer Fund Tournament and Women's International for two such examples and I haven't seen you undo the changes, and I notified you about them. The changes I did contradict the LPGA. The LPGA is wrong, The PGA Tour is wrong and I've supplied more than enough proof. I'll never forget how for almost 4 years you had a PGA Tour and an unofficial event as the same tournament.[6] Where were you checking the PGA Tour then?...William 19:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Lely Naples Classic 1973-75 Sarah Coventry Naples 1976, The Sarah Coventry 1977-78 and the Wegmans LPGA 1979 onward.

Here we go. The Lely while at the same golf course, isn't part of the Sarah Coventry(SC) 1976's history. The SC in 1976 however is considered the inaugural version of the 1977-78 SC.

Now we get to the curious part. In 1979 the Rochester NY LPGA Tour stop now known as the Wegmans was the SC and according to this[7] the SC tournaments from 76-78 were predecessors to the the Rochester 79 and that the two previous tournaments at Locust Hills weren't the same tournament. However the Wegmans today recognizes the 77 and 78 Locust Hill tournaments and not the SC ones

Here's what I've done and shouldn't be any controversy about.

• 1 For Lely I removed the 1976 tournament
• 2 For The Sarah Coventry 77-78,I added the 76 event

What could be controversial-

Is do a small section to the 77-78 tournament noting that the tournament moved to LC and was played as SC but today isn't considered part of this tournament.

Then do the Wegmans from the reverse POV that in the beginning it didn't consider 77 and 78 part of the tournament history but are today plus its connection to the Sarah Coventry.

Please write back...William 15:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've made some other edits. Tewapack (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also added See Also sections to SC and Lely stating the connection between both. Similar to Jamie Farr and Glass City tournament articles having a See Also section due to them being both played on the same golf course.

I reverted the page I created for the 2012 Canadian Professional Golf Tour because the official name of the tour should be the name of the article (Canadian Tour is not the official name). I understand that you or others have used Canadian Tour in the past, but this can be corrected by creating new pages with the proper titles for past years and then redirecting to those pages from the old titles. Also, I don't understand why you deleted most of the new page's contents when they included the content that had been included in previous years? Deletionism is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Thank you for all the work you have done. It is very impressive. Lottamiata (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME for my reasoning on the name, also note their own logo. As far as the deletions, I tried to explain them in my edit summaries but will expand here. No pages on Tour schedules include the course - too much detail. The defending champion is never included. The OWGR points are not known until the tournament is played. The order of merit table can be re-entered once there is something to fill it with. Tewapack (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I understand your reasons except for the removal of the golf sports template and the omission of the course links. It is common in other sport articles to create a link to the stadium, and I cannot see why this results in too much information. Also, I don't know why you took out so much in the introduction. The article is far from being too long.Lottamiata (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template Infobox Sports league is meant for the overall "league" page (which you already added) not individual seasons. Adding the courses makes the table too wide, especially when the winners names are added -unless you have a very wide screen, the text will wrap in an ugly way.. The appropriate place for the course info is in the individual tournament articles. Look at 2012 PGA Tour, 2012 European Tour, or 2012 LPGA Tour for typical golf usage. I added back one sentence that got deleted, maybe the Canadian Open phrase could be re-added but its not part of the tour. Tewapack (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your tireless efforts editing Wikipedia pages dedicated to the game of professional golf. Lottamiata (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kraft Nabisco Championship in this edit[8] a person added. and holds the distinction of being the second oldest tournament continuously held at the same location after the the Masters. You come along in the next edit[9] and add right behind that sentence= ^{[citation needed]}

Here's the facts that anyone who knows golf history should know. Rancho Mirage isn't second only to the Masters and isn't even close.

• Colonial CC - 1949
• Wailae CC- 1965
• Torry Pines- 1968
• Pebble Beach- 1949
• Harbor Town- 1969

The Palm and Magnolia Courses might also qualify but I'd have to dig. 1971 was the first year the PGA Tour played at Disney. NOTE- The Edit didn't specify majors.

I can't believe not one of those courses popped into your head.

BTW Belgian Congo is where Carole Charbonier was born in 1956 and she grew up in Zambia. Belgian Congo Flag isn't Zaire, which didn't exist till 1971. Check out Chabronier's LPGA page. It says Congo and the flag is totally different.

Another BTW. LPGA.com has changed the URLs for all player pages....William 17:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bogus date for Aaron Baddeley's wedding is your fault. It was correct till you reverted it with this edit of yours.[10] You changed it from April 15th the correct date, to Easter Sunday. April 15, 2005 was a Friday, April 15 2006 was a Saturday, the day Baddeley won Verizon. Oh and here's a press conference[11] I found to confirm it. How hard is a google search Aaron Baddeley April 15 wedding?

No more than adequate reading comprehension skills combined with the media guide book would have kept that wrong info out of the article for over 3.5 years....William 23:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the first to add the Easter Sunday marriage date, it was done here. The edits you refer to by User:Snibbor also included a bunch of spam that I reverted. He did get the date right though. Tewapack (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor puts detail[12] into the article but changes the amount of golfers who were tied in the final round from 9 to 7. It was even referenced.[13] The editor puts in wrong information and takes out a perfectly valid citation and you don't anything about it.[14] There is absolutely no excuse for it....William 16:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor who did the above changed Ernie Els playoff start from bogey-triple bogey to bogey on 1 and triple bogey and removed the citation that went along with it. Why you who is so meticulous over citations let a citation be deleted is beyond comprehension only the meticulousness is only suitable when it comes to crossing swords with me. That seems the most likely explanation in light of what you have let be done to at least two U.S. Open articles.

BTW he took a citation out of the 1970 U.S. Open article too and you didn't put it back in. He also edited content out of the article.

The work of Compy90 is rampant with mistakes. I'm at over 10.(I'll list them all for you if you want, but take a look at his talk page if you want a preview.) I may revert all his work rather than have to pick through it. Fact of the matter is, most of what that editor has added is uncited. Please reply back on me doing reversions....William 17:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to assume good faith. When Compy90 started editing the U.S. Open yearly articles, I checked to make sure there were no copyright violation with the USGA or about.com articles he used as external links. I checked some of the text content he was adding. After a few articles, I stopped checking the content in detail, except to restore refs he'd deleted (may have missed some). I thought everything he'd added was based on those 2 sources but obviously not. Don't revert everything he did because I've tidied the infobox and leaderboard and those are fine. Tewapack (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move the paragraph on Watson? That was one of the things deleted btw by Compy90. Anyway, Watson shooting the 36 hole scoring record chronologically comes before Beard being the 54 hole leader. Watson being the 36 hole leader IMHO should be stated first. BTW Watson was the closest person to Beard entering the final round too....William 22:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is a summary of Watson's whole tourney, not just the first 36 holes, much like the last paragraph. Seem to fit logically there instead. Tewapack (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a message[15] at his talk page to slow down and do some fact checking. The list of mistakes he is making continues to pile up and I haven't done half the articles yet that he is worked on. If he makes one more glaring mistake(on a new edit) after my notice to him, I'm just going to revert first and ask questions later. Adding narrative to the articles is great but not if its full of holes....William 02:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving up on this editor and unless he puts references into golf articles he edits, I'm automatically reverting. He changed the par scores for the 1949, 1950, 52, and 53 from correct to incorrect ones. I haven't dug through his Open Championship pre WWII work yet but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more problems. It's a ton of work for me to go back and doublecheck, but I'll do the ones he has gone through already. For any new edits, unless he inline citations his edits, I'm automatically reverting....William 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on the list of Lee's European wins I miss the Great North Open in 2000. Although for some reason it is also not on the yearlist in the European Tour website, it is on their tournaments history list [16]. Cheers, Pvt pauline (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read [[17]] Including all those little icons is a violation of WP:MOS and thus they all need to go away. Jtrainor (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tewapack, I think you may have misread WP:MOSFLAG. You said "these don't violate WP:MOSFLAG and golf uses sub-national flags", but WP:MOSICON (including the WP:MOSFLAG and WP:FLAGBIO bits) clearly rules out this usage, three times over. Subnational flags should be avoided. If you have a golf-project guideline which says that sub-national flags should be used on the 1960 Open, please point it out; that guideline would not just contradict WP:MOSFLAG - it would also contradict the only source for nationalities on that article. When I changednationalities, I didn't just switch to real nationalities, I also switched to the ones that the source gives. Are you familiar with the verifiability policy?

The best solution is to fix that golf-project guideline instead of encouraging people to make thousands more ritual edits adding subnational flags. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf#All the little tiny flag icons on win/losses need to go. Tewapack (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, the icons do not belong in the infobox.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion to Talk:Gary Player, where it belongs.

You may disagree with the merge tag, however removing it with your explanation of "makes no sense" is improper and has been reverted. If you feel the article should not be merged, please use the discussion link on the merge tagNewmanoconnor (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor deletes[18] her LPGA Playoff result box but you fix[19] the commas....William 17:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has gone ahead and created a article for the Kingsmill Championship. Unfortunately if you check the tournament website[20], its not a new event but a continuation of the Michelob ULTRA Open at Kingsmill. A merge or something needs to be done with these two articles....William 12:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are played at the same course, with the same scores, over the same days. Click here[21] and here[22] for proof....William 15:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you restored a flag icon to the infobox of this BLP without explanation after it had been removed for being against WP:MOSFLAG. I've reverted the restoration. Please be aware of the WP:MOSFLAG directive. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, if I might interject . . . I work on a wide variety of sports bios and team articles across several different sports. WP:MOSFLAG specifically acknowledges that the use of national flags to represent the nationality of athletes who are members of national teams is appropriate, and cites World Cup and Olympics participants as examples. In the particular case of Webb Simpson, he has been a member of the U.S. national golf teams for both the Walker Cup and the Palmer Cup. More broadly, however, professional golf at its highest level (i.e. the PGA Tour) is an international sport, and PGA golfers are uniformly identified by nationality by the PGA and the media. This is not a situation such as the NFL, NBA, MLB or American college sports where the vast majority of the athletes are American, and compete for American sports teams in North American-based leagues, and not for national teams. The example of professional golf is more closely analogous to international swimming and professional tennis, where the sport at its highest level is an international one, athletes sometimes compete for national teams, and even when they are competing as individuals their sports associations and the media routinely identify them by nationality. Likewise, swimmer and tennis player infoboxes also uniformly use national flags to identify the nationality of those athletes in keeping with the conventions of these sports. Soccer/association football players are also identified by nationality, as the highest level of their sport is also international, and use national flags in the player infoboxes. These limited uses of the national flags of international sports competitors is consistent with intent of MOSFLAG. I have encountered the overuse of national flags in some sports, but this is not a good example. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no objection to the use of a national flag to represent a person's participation in a sport while representing a particular nation. For an example, Kristi Yamaguchi in the "Medal record" section. But, her life's work is not all in representing the United States any more than Webb Simpson's is. If a flag icon can be used to add to the infobox with respect to his country of origin, then there should be no objection to adding in the flags of Charlotte, Raleigh, and North Carolina plus the logos of the PGA tour, the Nationwide tour, and Wake Forest University. In his most recent win, he represented himself...not a national team. It is highly inappropriate to emphasize his nationality when this is the case. Could one of you please point to a consensus where BLPs of golf players are specially exempted from WP:MOSFLAG? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• H, let me address each of the issues you have raised in turn. As far as I know, it is never appropriate to use the flags of a U.S. state, city, county or university to represent an athlete or sports team; it is, however, entirely appropriate to use the logo of a team to represent that team. Also, it is not the country of origin/birth, but the flag of the country for which the athlete competes which may be used. As an example, for most of her professional career, Martina Navratilova represented her adopted United States rather than her native Czechoslovakia; therefore, her bio infobox bears both flag icons with dates, and tournament records tables use the flag of her representative nationality at the time. Professional tennis, given its international nature, is a close analogy to professional golf in the appropriate and limited use of flag icons. I am sure you are well aware that this issue has been repeatedly raised on the MOS talk page and no real consensus has ever been achieved; it has effectively evolved into a standoff among some editors who work regularly on MOS and those who regularly work on international sports. The original "consensus" to change to the present MOSFLAG language was done, as so often occurs at MOS, by a small circle of MOS regulars without reaching out to the wider Wikipedia project. It is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of the most obnoxious kind: achieved, defended and stalemated locally, but then claimed to have project-wide authority. This, of course, has created continuing controversy because there are as many or more editors within the wider project who support the continued limited use of flag icons for international sports in keeping with the actual conventions within those sports. Again, I'm not advocating slapping those cute little flags on NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB or CFB athlete bios; that's gratuitously unnecessary because those are not international sports. In keeping with other recent MOS controversies (and I'm sure you, as an experienced and long-time editor, know who the usual MOS suspects are without me naming them), nothing is going to resolve this issue short of a full-blown arbitration. If you want to initiate that discussion/arbitration after notifying the swimming, tennis, golf, gymnastics, track & field/athletics, association football/soccer, Formula One racing, Olympics and various other international sports projects, I would be only to happy to support your request, participate in the discussion, and then actively support the outcome. Short of that, you are attempting to enforce a stalemated local consensus at MOS to trump actual usage by what appears to by a majority of editors. Finally, I note that MOS is a guideline, not policy, as it states at the top of its first page (and repeated at the top of MOSICON): "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." While I almost always support the basic premise of MOS, I think we both understand the petty politics that sometimes occur on the MOS talk pages and lead to unnecessarily controversial outcomes to the detriment of the larger project. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, I've seen the same argument countless times. It's not a policy, it's guideline. Ok, ignore it. It doesn't matter. <throws hands up> Off to add icons to every BLP I can find that is a sports figure, whether they're on a team or not. If the exclusion applies here, it applies everywhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• H, there's no need to create a strawman argument or engage in reductio ad absurdum. The MOS flag icon guideline itself explicitly states "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." The specific issue is the use of the flag icons in the infoboxes of athletes who compete in international sports. There are MOS regulars who oppose the use of flag icons in all circumstances, but have never been able to achieve that consensus, even on the MOS talk pages among themselves. My studied perception is that the majority of editors who work on international sports articles use the flag icons because the national and international governing bodies of those sports identify athletes by nationality and regularly use the national flags of the athletes. MOS works best when it tracks actual majority usage. If you want to address what is an obvious disparity between the guideline and actual majority usage, then you need to get everyone to the table in a situation where the outcome is enforceable. If you do so, you would be doing everyone a giant favor. Trying to delete these flag icons one by one, well, you're only going to hurt your head, especially in the face of uniform use within the international sports WikiProjects. This may come as a surprise to you, but I could care less about these damn little flags, but the process behind this MOS provision is fatally flawed when a majority of six or seven MOS regulars can determine a "consensus" (and one that is subject to interpretation at that) opposed by dozens if not hundreds of other active editors. If you really want to do something, do it right; if you can get a real majority of the editors who actually work on these articles to buy in, then there would be real and enduring consensus and no valid argument or complaint. It all depends on whether you want a controversy or a resolution. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To all concerned: there is a discussion on this topic ongoing here if anyone wants to join in. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the 2001 and 2002 LPGA Tour articles to show her name as Gloria Park not 'Hee Jung "Gloria" Park' At the time of her 2001 and 2002 wins, she played by the name Gloria Park. We have married golfers wins under both their pre wedding names(Dottie Mochrie and Rachel Heatherington for examples) and post wedding(Dottie Pepper and Rachel Teske). Another thing, Gloria Park is not the only South Korean golfer going by a different name. In-bee Park aka Inbee Park, Ju Kim aka Birdie Kim, Ji-eun Park aka Grace Park, In-Kyung Kim aka I.K. Kim etc etc. Which reminds me, I probably should probably check on IK's wins. I'm betting she played as In-Kyung for at least one of her four wins....William 16:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor put in[23] a personal life section into Castrale's article. Unfortunately, this bit-

She credits her husband Craig, her parents Anthony and Patricia Dalkas, golf instructors Bill Harmon and Dick Harmon, and Fischer Sports Physical Therapy and Conditioning with most influencing her career. She married Craig Castrale on January 8, 2005, and qualified for the LPGA Tour on her first attempt.

is blatantly copied from here.[24] So I removed it. I did another edit about Castrale's marriage using a non-LPGA source....William 20:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion on airport names. I am contacting you, and all past participants in recent discussions on this issue, because there is now a new RFC.

WP:HYPHEN says that proper names get hyphens, like Jones-Smith (or, as the example says "John Lennard-Jones". Are airport names any different? If I take a bicycle trip from Paris to Orly and write an article about it, or someone else does, it would correctly be called Paris–Orly trip with an en dash and trip not capitalized. But if I create a bicycle and call it the Paris-Orly Flyer that becomes a proper name and is capitalized. Is not the same true for airport names? Please see the discussions at WP:MOS, Talk:Seattle–Tacoma International Airport#Requested move and the recently opened RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#New RfC. Apteva (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's misleading, Apteva. WP:HYPHEN says this:

"Hyphenation also occurs in bird names such as Great Black-backed Gull, and in proper names such as Great Black-backed Gull and Wilkes-Barre."

Some proper names "get hyphens", but that does not mean no proper name gets an en dash. "Are airport names any different?" Any different from what, exactly? From the default naming assumption that is mentioned at WP:DASH? That is the question facing the RFC to which you refer. An especially ill-posed one, in my opinion, with poor structure and unsupported preliminary assumptions.

PLEASE NOTE: discussions do not occur at places like [[WP:XXX]]. That is not a talkpage. Try this instead: WT:MOS. I see you making that mistake a lot.

By the way, are you canvassing for that RFC? See WP:CANVAS.

Noetica^Tea? 23:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused about the use of the terms "winning" and "retaining." 14 points were required by Europe to retain the Cup. The fact that they reached 14.5 points does not change the fact that they "retained" the Cup, since they had won it in the 2010 competition. If Europe had earned 18 points, they would have still "retained" the Cup, because they already had it. The result of Europe winning is that they "retain" the Cup, the point total does not change that fact. You are creating a distinction that is incorrect, since the Ryder Cup is not "up for grabs" at each competition, either Team USA or Team Europe has possession at the start of the event, and at the end, one side has either won it back or retained it. The proper term is "retain." --Satch234 (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A team wins or loses the Cup unless there is a tie. In that case, the Cup is retained by the team in possession. From the official site [25]:

How many points does one team need to win the Ryder Cup Matches?

There are a total of 28 matches. One point is awarded for each match won. The side with the most points at the conclusion of the Ryder Cup Matches wins the Ryder Cup.

Can the Ryder Cup Matches end in a tie?

If, at the conclusion of the Ryder Cup Matches, the teams are tied at 14 points each, the team who last won the Ryder Cup retains The Cup. In this year's case, Europe would retain The Cup. To win the Matches, either team will need 14 ½ or more points.

"Wins" is the stronger term and appropriate for the infobox. Tewapack (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To butt in: The original Ryder Cup Deed of Trust says: "... the Team which shall have at the end of such two days obtained the larger number of points shall be adjudged the winners and in the event of both teams having obtained an equal number of points at the conclusion of the second day the Cup shall remain in the possession ..." I don't know what it says now but I suspect it is similar. Hence, my judgement is that 14.5 to 13.5 is a win whichever team held it before. Nigej 20:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not empty categories out of process, as you did with Category:Ohio State Buckeyes golfers. If you want a category to be deleted, you must request a deletion discussion. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the two pictures of Helen Hicks are too much. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, since one is cropped from the other. Tewapack (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 17:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wow, that was a lot of work at Connecticut Golf Hall of Fame. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't all that hard, cut and past into a spreadsheet and massage away. There may be other inductees who have a wiki article, especially among the service awards. Tewapack (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I did indeed move the discussion about the CMNH Claasic to the talk page at Talk:Children's Miracle Network Hospitals Classic AMLNet49-Talk-Cont 11:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings ....

Be aware -- be -VERY- aware .... that the PGA Tour's pgatour.com web-site is undergoing revisions at this time. Many longtime links have been converted -- and with no redirection to the new URL's (bummer).

Thanx-A-Lot Fgf2007 (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]