Why did you move Doug Sanders to Doug Sanders (golfer)? There are no other Doug Sanders with wiki pages so the disambiguation is unnecessary. Please explain. Tewapack (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. I was thinking of Doug Saunders. // Liftarn (talk)

Greetings .....

This is in regard to the List of point distributions of the FedEx Cup

For the purposes of (1) being easier-to-read and (2) presenting information more relevant to the current PGA Tour Fed Ex Cup format, may I suggest that the Wiki Fed Ex Points page show only the current points distributions and play-off format, and that a separate page be created to show the older format and points distribution.

Incidentally, the Fed Ex Cup Points for the three "opposite" events -- Puerto Rico Open, TrueSouth Classic and Reno-Tahoe Open -- will now be worth more. You can find the new points allocations at PGATour-dot-com's 2013 Fed Ex Cup points page.

Thanx-A-Lot, Fgf2007 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tewapack (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tewapack, you should be aware of this discussion regarding the use of flag icons in sports articles: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#RfC on MOS:FLAG. I know you have some strong feelings about the use of flag icons to show golfers' sports nationalities; at some point, you may way want to chime in. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, should the playoff record headings not use the tags? BerbatovsFirstTouch (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "<big>" tags are really too big - they are approx. the same size as the header for "PGA Tour wins", they should be less prominent. Tewapack (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going back to fix some of the edits Berbatov made to the playoff boxes. Here[1] is why and again why did you leave the incorrect changes alone?...William 00:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

isn't behind a paywall anymore[2]. So I'm likely to be doing win and playoff boxes on J.P. Hayes, Jeong Jang, Sophie Gustafson, Penny Pulz, and playoff boxes for Nicklaus, Palmer, Irwin, Chi Chi, Karrie Webb, Hee Won Han, Pat Hurst, to name a few in the very near future. I'm not sure how long golfstats will be available for....William 01:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but right away (and with all due respect) anyone can see that the GolfStats Link is only a temporary one, meaning that it could either (1) become another URL or (2) cease to be. Best to wait-and-see what happens either way before updating any old Golfstats links here on Wikipedia.

I'm not putting any golfstats links into wikipedia articles for the reasons you just suggested. What I am doing is doing more win and playoff boxes for LPGA and PGA Tour golfers. I did a win box for Jennifer Rosales, J. P. Hayes, and Sophie Gustafson, plus playoff boxes for them in addition to Gloria Ehret, Clarence Rose, Jeff Maggert, Robert Gamez, and Pat Hurst. Playoff boxes up next- Curtis Strange, Hale Irwin, Ed Sneed, J. C. Snead, Dave Hill, Jay Haas, Chi Chi Rodriguez, Fred Couples, Karrie Webb, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer. Doing these is much easier when you have access to golfstats. Several old PGA Tour Media Guide Books help too....William 22:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either he or a family member made large edits to his article. I reverted all of them to the last version before Clampett started editing. If Clampett returns, I'll alert an administrator....William 14:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1- The PGA Tour Media Guide book in 1988 listed the team win as an official win for George Archer, Nichols partner. Nichols had no entry in the book. PGA Tour media guide book trumps Golf World.

2- Days are Month, Date, Year in the Philippines. The two things you cite don't say otherwise. Now try going to here[3]. Look at the formatting of dates. How about the Manila Bulletin[4] How about an article[5] on the 2012 Philippine Open? Right at the top it says Feb 12. Check how the dates are formatted here[6]. That comes from the Tacloban City website. I've been to Tacloban. My Philippine born wife(we were married in Tacloban) agrees with me. You have things backwards....William 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nichols - win was official, then unofficial, then official again - see ref I added to page (reiterated what Golf World blurb said). Basically the PGA Tour dropped the win as official at some point, probably in the late 1980's when they compiled a list of "official" wins, but now concede they shouldn't have.

Rosales - point conceded. I went to Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines for guidance and found only this quote in the talk archives "Day-month is more common in Europe while month-day is more common in the United States. In the Philippines, both are quite commonplace, although month-day is more prevalent in English usage (in Filipino usage, the preferred format is supposed to be day-month, but many people commonly use month-day)" here. I also checked several Filipino athletes pages and found no consistent date usage. That to me said that the Philippines is like Canada, both dmy and mdy are used - so in an article use one or the other, consistently, per MOS:DATE and WP:STRONGNAT, if in doubt stick with the first usage per WP:DATERET. If you feel that the Philippines should be listed with the U.S. at WP:STRONGNAT, take it up there or at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. Tewapack (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs fail WP:RS. GNN, aka Golf News Network, is a blog run and owned[7] by Ryan Ballangee. BTW why did you leave those COI edits up on Bobby Clampett for almost 3 months. As usual, your focused on commas and wrong facts....William 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GW is reliable source and said the same thing as GNN - I've added a quote from the GW article.

Clampett - I reverted it once, why didn't you revert it earlier. Tewapack (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't have his article on my watchlist(I don't have many articles on my watchlist period. 62 to be precise) and I hadn't visited the article in over a year....William 14:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding mistakes in the playoff results at Golfstats. Check this news article[8] against the Golfstats entry[9]. So far I have found a half dozen, usually involving 3 player or more playoffs. So if you're doublechecking the playoff boxes versus GS, you will find differences. If you have any questions as to why they differ, leave me a message at my talk page before reverting unless the mistake is obviously done by me.

I'm going to do Senior Tour win boxes with total scores and not round by round for pre-1990 results. Golfstats goes back to 1990 only. I have access to a 2004 Champions Tour guide book which gives dates, who won, cumulative score for the whole tournament, and runner-ups, but doesn't give round by round scores. It would be great to have win boxes in articles for Don January, Miller Barber, and some of the other top Senior Tour golfers from the Tour's early days....William 14:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each player's pgatour.com page, under the season tab, gives round by round scores back to 1980. The only thing they don't give is the margin of victory and runners-up. Tewapack (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see the season listings now. I was just seeing the blank media guide pages at the PGA Tour player profiles....William 16:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your edit to Jim Albus. All of Albus wins came before the Senior Tour renamed itself the Champions Tour. Both of us need to be consistent.

• If a player won all his events on the Senior Tour, do we call the win and playoff boxes Senior PGA Tour rather Champions Tour?
• What if a player had wins before and after the renaming, how do we label the win and playoff boxes?

I'd prefer to label Senior PGA Tour wins and playoffs just that, but we need consistency and we both want to keep this simple, so I'm very open to suggestions. Please write back....William 20:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If all their wins and playing time was before the name change, then "Senior PGA Tour" is appropriate. If any of their wins comes after the name change then "Champions Tour" is appropriate. The gray area, as I see it, is if their wins were under SPT but they continued playing under CT. I'd lean towards using Champions Tour since that will be the label used in the infobox "Current or former Tours" and in the categories. At least that was my reasoning when I created all the missing Champions Tour tournament pages and linked to them back in 2007. Whichever way prevails, the "wins" header and the "playoff record" head should be consistent (which is what I changed for Albus). Tewapack (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I stand at present. All 20-time or more winners now have win and playoff boxes. Of 34 golfers on the list, 17 19 have both boxes now. Of the 15 remaining, 5 just need playoff boxes.

Alphabetically, it's less impressive. I'm done from Tommy Aaron to Frank BeardKeith Clearwater....William 23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PGA Tour website and a 2004 Media Guide book[10] both give it as 3-1 with a playoff loss to Peter Thomson at the Senior Players Reunion Pro-Am in 1985 but news accounts[11] of the story say Elder finished two strokes behind Thomson. The PGA Tour website also says Elder[12] and Thomson[13] finished solo 2nd and solo first for the Senior Players Reunion Pro-Am in their season entries. Final scores also match Therefore I've made Elder 3-0 in his playoff box and Thomson will be 0-1 rather than 1-1 when I get around to him. Now I'm done from Tommy Aaron to Vicente Fernandez....William 01:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed the section on Matt Kuchar's page from Web.com Tour wins back to Nationwide Tour wins. I'm just wondering what is the correct way to do this? Is it every win since the Web.com Tour's inception is known as a Web.com Tour win, but previous to that its still a Nationwide Tour win? It doesn't look consistent on the page as in the players info box you have the Web.com Tour wins, then further down the page it says Nationwide Tour wins under his professional wins. Surely should be one or the other, not a mix of the two? BerbatovsFirstTouch (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough one. The infobox has to be Web.com Tour because that's the current name of the tour. But in the wins listing, Web.com Tour would be an anachronism because it didn't exist until 2012 and Kuchar's win came in 2006 (also the last year he played that tour). I think we have to live with the discrepancy. The same issue has come up before at #Champions Tour vs. Senior PGA Tour. Tewapack (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Skins Game (PGA Tour), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://golfpigeon.com/golf-community/golf-facts-and-history/skins-game.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the move. That leaves a lot of double redirects, but a bot should fix them within hours - I will check later that it has. Will you now update the text of the article as appropriate? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read the John Daly article a few days ago, I was surprised by how the article seemed to focus more on the tabloid aspects of his personal life with less focus on his professional career, so I attempted to balance that out a little bit. I noticed that you previously worked on this article, so hopefully the recent changes made are regarded as improvements to this article. - Mistercontributer (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the citation edits.--Prestome (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LPGA.com does not usually list results in non-LPGA-conducted events for non-members. Salas was not a member of the LPGA in 2010 and the US Women's Open is conducted by the USGA. --Crunch (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just wanted to ask when all your work will go live on main wikipedia site? Topp 10 OWGR for example is only in developmental stage Ross-shire (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```Buster Seven Talk 06:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tewapack, when I wrote in the article that the BMW PGA Championship is "the most prestigious European Tour tournament", I meant to include the European Tour-only tournaments. Of course the four majors and the WGC are more prestigious. Please try to find a better way to say that. In other words, I think that it's relevant to mention the BMW PGA Championship in the article. Thanks, NaBUru38 (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use the term "most prestigious", then you need to cite a source for it. It is the "flagship" event of the European Tour with regards to the Official World Golf Ranking. Tewapack (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the category American Christians from Byron Nelson? Members of the Churches of Christ ARE CHRISTIANS!!!! Ashbeckjonathan 20:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Because he is already in Category:American members of the Churches of Christ, which is a sub-cat of American Christians. Per WP:CAT "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." Tewapack (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But those who are members of the Churches of Christ are Christians just like any other denominations such as Presbyterians or whatever. --Ashbeckjonathan 18:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that he was a Christian, just that the "most specific" category is the only one that should be used. Otherwise he would be in Category:American members of the Churches of Christ, Category:American Christians, Category:North American Christians, Category:Christians, etc.

I agree that the Nelson Mandela Invitational tournament is the predecessor to the Gary Player Invitational tournament, and that it makes sense to have the information about both of these in the same article. However, I'm puzzled as to why the "Player" article redirects to the "Mandela" article, rather than the other way around. Could you help with my confusion here?

Thanks. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article should be at Gary Player Invitational and Nelson Mandela Invitational be a redirect. You'll have to request the move. (Do not cut and paste from one article to another - it creates a mess.) The lead paragraph should also be re-written to reflect the current name and the history. Tewapack (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tewpack,

I have been trying to update the content of the International Golf Federation page but did not manage to do so. I work for the IGF and noticed that some of the content was incorrect. Thanks in advance for your help Kind regards

Aurélia Tacchini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelia 78 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again,

I work for the International Golf Federation. I have been trying to update incorrect content on that page many times. Please accept my changes and stop editing this page. The paragraph on Continental Federations is completely incorrect. Please refer to the IGF constitution: http://igfederation.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Constitution_of_International_Golf_Federation_V2010.pdf. You will see that the IGF does not recognise continental associations. Working for the International Golf Federation you can assume that I have a better knowledge of the it, therefore please stop correcting my contributions. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelia 78 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	We haven't talked much lately but I remember you from way back and I'm glad to see you're happily working away and have now reached a milestone very few editors ever do! —Soap— 18:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I notice that you have just reverted this edit by me. My edit referenced a part of Wikipedia's MOS:, while your revert contained no text besides that which is automatically generated by Wikipedia. Additionally, your revert did not restore the previous version of the page, but contained changes that do not relate to my aforementioned edit. I would like to understand your decision better. Best, Toccata quarta (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I didn't intend to revert your change, just cleanup the rest of the article. Tewapack (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rescuing the Tulsa Golden Hurricane's 1980 AIAW women's golf championship. I investigated the source of the error. It was introduced in an edit made by someone who is quite thorough and ordinarily error-free. This was in the revision of 12:25, December 16, 2011 .

Jeff in CA 21:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I double checked. He finished 1 shot ahead of a golfer named Chick Evans at the 1988 Greater Grand Rapids Open. Its not the same Chick Evans who is in the WGHOF since that person died in 1979....William 15:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Every golfer on this list now has a win and a playoff box....William 22:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you revert the edits that I made to Pádraig Harrington, Vijay Singh, Thomas Bjørn and Robert Karlsson that linked them to the article about European Tour all-time wins, which golfers like Tiger Woods, Bernard Langer, Seve Ballesteros and Colin Montgomerie have on their respective pages? By the way, if you are removing those you might as well get to removing them from all the golfers articles, so as not to be cherry picking.HotHat (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone beyond the top-10 of the wins list isn't notable enough for the infobox (and the changes when someone else moves up the list and knocks everyone else down tend not to get made appropriately). All these articles have (or should have) a "See also" link at the bottom of the page. I just got back from vacation and am slowly working my way through my watch list so I'll get any others soon. Tewapack (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tewapack, just a heads up that I commented on the talk page. Maybe I am missing it, but can you link to the source for this material? Using the article talk page is fine. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know you're fiddling with the major summary tables I'm posting and while I can see why you make most of your changes (and I have adapted), I have a question on a couple. Why are you adding spaces before the totals in the "events" column? Visually I don't see it making any difference, so why is it there? And also when the "streak of top-10s" is two, I think it makes more sense to use an ampersand instead of a hyphen, no? Why change that? (I'm looking mainly at the Jodie Mudd page, one of the last ones I've done so far.) Anyway sorry if I'm doing it wrong. Almostaghost (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spaces in the events column is just for benefit of editors so that the columns line up and one can easily see if mistakes in addition have been made (they have no effect on how the table is displayed). As for ampersand vs. endash, the endash makes more sense because it is a "streak", not standalone events. BTW, for the older majors, they weren't always played in the same order as today. There is a table at Talk:Chronological list of men's major golf champions giving the order for each year. Thanks for adding these tables, it is something that I'd thought of doing but never got around too. Tewapack (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm did not realize that about the older majors. That sounds difficult to police, but I'll try! I may go through them all again when I'm done and double-check the tallies and stuff like that. Yea I saw someone had made this table on (I think) Justin Leonard's page, but nobody else's, so I ran with it--I think it's very useful. Almostaghost (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your diligent dedication to improving golf articles deserves to be given recognition with another Barnstar. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit, have you seen an official, from the PGA, source for Ángel Cabrera's WD? The PGA website's leaderboard states "NC" and Cabrera's scorecard page has nothing for the second round implying NC.

Only one news article explained that NC means "No Card."<sup>[14]</sup> A number of news articles are reporting on the WD and are silent on the NC issue.

Hopefully the PGA forgot to update their web site. I tried using the web-contact form on the PGA web site but was rewarded with "You cannot send more than 3 messages per hour. Please try again later." I'd never contacted them before implying the contact form has bugs... --Marc Kupper|talk 22:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've never seen NC before. Standard in majors results tables are CUT, WD, DQ, or the place finish. The only difference that I can see is that a NC is a mid-round WD (he played 12 holes) - this does make a difference to the PGA in some regards. A NC means that the player is ineligible for the Vardon Trophy and gets points off in the PGA Player of the Year race. I think the European Tour uses RETD (retired) and WD for the two cases. Tewapack (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'd never seen a WC before either and had to look it up. I added NC to Glossary of golf#N. One of the refs I found fpr the glossary entry was for the PGA's southwest region. They made "NC" sound like a bad thing. The PGA's leaderboard is still reporting "NC" but I found this summary on the PGA web site that mentions Cabrera is a WD. The "Contact Us" form is now working and so I fired a note to the PGA PR people plus another to the webmaster.

You may be right on the mid-round WD being a "NC" but let's see if the PGA changes their web site. This document outlines a procedure to avoid a NC. "Participants withdrawing during play of an event MUST return their score card to the scoring area and notify a SCSPGA Players Tour official before leaving the facility; otherwise, you will be considered as a “No Card” participant." --Marc Kupper|talk 04:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started Talk:Ángel Cabrera#2013 PGA Championship results. I had been hoping the PGA would fix their site but when looking at news articles I realized the story is messier than I first thought. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly in your domain, and it is on Emma Talley, who just won the U.S. Women's Amateur. So, I highly advise you to look at it and make any changes that you deem necessary to be made.HotHat (talk) 05:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work, particularly on golf-related articles. I see you're having a tussle with Ohconfucius about his removal of a raft of US flags from a space-constrained table. Please remember that many people view WP articles through a narrow window on their monitor. But more importantly, what do these mini-images add to the information for readers—or are they purely decorative? Tony (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed several time in several places - they are not purely decorative, golf coverage uses flags extensively outside of Wikipedia. Tewapack (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are having the same issue with the removal of flags at Tennis project (where a conversation has ensued on how to stop it). That script he uses must be fixed as we have to revert hundreds of these changes he's doing without consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing a raft of US flags taking up almost an entire column is ridiculous. What information do the flags carry in addition to the text "United States" (or "Spain", or "UK")? A lot of people have suspected for a long time that these flags are being inserted like postage stamp collections: pretty little things. Short on information for readers. Clunky in a table. "golf coverage uses flags extensively outside of Wikipedia"—now that's one of the weakest arguments for anything I've seen on WP for a long time. ßTony (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PGA Tour does not run the main men's tours. They run the main tours. The women's tours being limited to women, they obviously can't be the main ones since they're not open to everyone. However, if you wish to not use "main" - I'm fine with that. I'm sure we can come up with something we both agree on that's actually correct. Starwrath (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "main tours" in North American are PGA Tour, Champions Tour, and LPGA Tour in terms of purses. Anyway, I've made an attempt at editing the initial paragraph. Tewapack (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1977 PGA Championship was wrong. An article here[15] says Dave Stockton's biggest fear was a sudden death playoff. Why fear it if it wasn't going to happen if there was a tie. This article[16] is even clearer....William 22:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please stop adding the category American people of Polish descent to pages that already have the subcategory National Polish-American Sports Hall of Fame inductees. Thank you.Hoops gza (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering nominating Bobby Jones as Good Article but I may need some help. Please let me know if you would be interested in providing assistance with responding to reviewers' feedback if this article is nominated? - Mistercontributer (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help out where I can. Tewapack (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I will work on adding references to verify statements in this article where needed before making the nomination. - Mistercontributer (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		As stated on your user page, I award you this barnstar for your reference cleanup on my article, Phil Robertson. I, as well as the rest of the Wikipedia community, appreciate you! Carwile2 (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at this page, an older version gave full US Amateur results through 1981. However, the next revision it appears that an IP (probably the same person who added the results) then changed all the results to dashes (unknown). Seems like that IP also removed a number of US Amateur results from a few golfers that day. I did confirm the 1973 and 1974 results and put that on the article, but would it be a good idea to restore all of them? The USGA database appears to be offline. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they should be restored, although those numbers still don't reconcile with the numbers in his USGA obituary 33 consecutive U.S. Amateur appearances between 1941 and 1977, 37 in all. Tewapack (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That stat was on our page as well, and gotten from the Southern Golf Association HOF page on him I think. The 37 appearances stat is also on his WGHOF page. For those to be true, he must have played in 1946, and also either in 1980 plus one year not listed, or two years not listed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your good work on the Beck bio.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to be the only one currently wanting to keep these flag icons on these golf articles against the wishes of other editors and against the wording of the guideline MOS:FLAG which says As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others., do you have good reason other than your regular excuse of "Standard in golfer infobox"? And yes, sometimes articles have been created with the flag icons in the infobox. We do not expect every single person who creates an article to be 100% versed in every single policy or guideline, but when the guideline or policy is presented to them which states clearly that the flag icons should not be used, we do expect people to adhere to the guideline.--JOJ <sup>Hutton</sup> 17:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the "As you seem to be the only one currently wanting to keep these flag icons on these golf articles against the wishes of other editors" comment. It seems to me that all the regular golf editors want to keep the flag icons (or, at least, are content that they remain). Similar comments to yours have been made in the past but since none of the golf editors shows any particular inclination to remove them they have become an established feature of the golf pages. At a quick glance Tewapack may seem to be the only one in favour but I suspect that is simply because he makes vastly more edits on the golfing pages that anyone else. Nigej (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC earlier this year that generated lots of discussion but no conclusions that I can see (here and here). My argument is summarized here. Golf is similar to tennis in regards to flag icons usage in infoboxes. Tewapack (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The golf and tennis icons should all be removed as they serve no purpose, they give no additional information, and they are against the guidelines. Very simply put, they are a waste of space.--JOJ <sup>Hutton</sup> 18:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there aren't any for GBR teams. If i did them, can you take care of the flag issue? There isn't a flag template for Great Britain and Ireland and the 1973-77 teams were Great Britain and Ireland. Also do I flags next to the individual golfers? Wales for Huggett, England for Jacklin, Ireland for O'Connor etc etc. I don't think I do because Europe templates from 79 to 2013 don't have them....William 17:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For 1927 to 1971, you could use the "National squad" template with Great Britain as the country (same as 1979+). For 1973 to 1977, you could use the generic "Navbox" template, that the Presidents Cup navboxes use, and try the "image" and "imageleft" parameters for GBR and IRL flags. Personally I wouldn't add flags for individual golfers in the navbox - too cluttered. Tewapack (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. BTW I have been doing European Tour playoff boxes and my source is here[17]. To find out how the playoff ended, I consult Google News archive. Unfortunately news reports on European Tour events can be sparse and or incomplete. Sometimes I only discover what hole the playoff ended on but not what was the winning score. So if O'Connor beat Huggett and Jacklin in the Greater Yorkshire Open the summary may read 'O'Connor won on the first extra hole' instead of 'O'Connor won with (put in the score- birdie, par, etc) on the first extra hole'....William 17:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FLAG is quite clear: no flags in infoboxes, no flags unless there is some kind of national representation (as in the Olympics, for instance). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First - I'd previously compiled the following table. It summarizes how "golfing nationality" is used by the top professional golf tours world-wide. I've included, from the official tour websites, players lists, player profiles, and leaderboards, and noted how each tour uses country/nationality, flags, and both to describe players. The links are to the player lists, sample profiles, and recent leaderboards.

Tour	Player list	Profile	Leaderboard
PGA Tour	both	both	flag
European Tour	both1	both	country
Asian Tour	both	country	country
Japan Golf Tour	neither	neither	neither
Sunshine Tour	both2	both2	country
PGA Tour of Australasia	(country)3	n/a	flag
Korean Tour	both	both	flag
OneAsia Tour	(country)3	n/a	flag4
LPGA Tour	flag	flag	flag
Ladies European Tour	country	country	flag

Notes

1. click on a letter, or use the "Players by Country" drop down menu
2. Animated flags
3. Order of Merit list, no player list
4. Choose "Select a report" from the SK Telecom Open and select "Final Result"

Also the main world rankings: Official World Golf Ranking - country, Women's World Golf Rankings - both, World Amateur Golf Ranking - flag.

I hope from this information editors can see that 1) yes there is such a thing as "golfing nationality" 2) flags are used widely by the tours to represent nationality, with and without the country name associated with it, and 3) England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are used not Great Britain or United Kingdom. I hope that this makes clear why 1) it is appropriate for the infobox golfer template to have a "Nationality" field, 2) flags and country name are appropriate for such field, and 3) sub-national flags are the standard for UK golfers.

Second - MOS:FLAG is self-contradictory and doesn't reflect actual actual community practice.

• "The use of icons in Wikipedia encyclopedic project content, mainly lists, tables, infoboxes and navboxes can provide useful visual cues, but can also present a number of problems."
• "They are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationalities)."
• "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many."
• "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others."
• "Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons are visually distracting in infoboxes and lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include military conflict infobox templates and infoboxes that include international competitions..."

How can "The use of icons in Wikipedia ... infoboxes ... can provide useful visual cues" but they are "visually distracting in infoboxes"?

Several wikiprojects approve the limited use of flagicons in infoboxes, either implicitly or explicitly, golf, tennis, snooker, and other individual sports where there is a strong "representative nationality". They have taken the header of the page to heart "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." There were discussions earlier this year (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 11#RfC on MOS:FLAG and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 12#Has this debate moved forward?) - there was no consensus to change the status quo even if some think it is a MOS:FLAG violation. Tewapack (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Flags in infoboxes place undue weight on nationality; simple as that. There is no "strong representative nationality" in the sports you mention--at least not in general, and that a player has represented their country in one event out of so many things they've done is not enough reason to make exceptions for their infobox (the moment someone gets the call to appear in a national team, we go and put a flag in their infobox?). Exceptions are things like the Ryder's cup, maybe, or the World Cup or Olympics. I can't help it that so many projects are swept away by the kindergarten-like attraction to little colored thingies all over a page. Since the Bosman arrest, for instance, nationality plays no part whatsoever in club football. Imagine what an NFL or MLB team's roster would look like if every sport had the flags: a million little American flags.

  It's funny that Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts can do their stuff without violating MOS:FLAG but others cannot. You can point at supposed contradictions all you like, but your example gets its rhetorical force from selective quotation: you left out "when overused". And your tennis and golf players, thousands of them, are not "occasional exceptions". Are you really going to tell me that the (distracting) flags in the Pettersen article all have information to give--as in OMG a Korean finished second in the Mission Hills World Ladies Championship in 2013!, in an article about a person who's not Pettersen? You disregard that the visual nature of the flags is such that it interferes with reading. No, this is incorrect, and if you really want to build a case for exceptions, you shouldn't point at discussions that didn't reach consensus--you should realize that there is no consensus to change the MOS to your liking, only deviation from it in those projects. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the above table doesn't convince you that there is "strong representative nationality" in golf (as well as other individual sports) then there is no point in continuing the discussion - everything else flows from that fact. I agree that they have no place in individual infoboxes for team sports. Tewapack (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table only convinces me that those organizations have a different MOS, and that they use flags and nationalities. That's not the same has using representation. It would be representation, for instance, if any tour invited no more than x number of players from any country (or if they had a ranking of countries, with different numbers of players based on a nation's ranking, for example). That's clearly not the case here. "Representation" involves a player being invited (or disinvited, possibly) based on their nationality (that's how Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards managed to get to the Winter Olympics--selected by the national Olympic committee). From their practice of graphically displaying information you simply cannot draw the conclusion that there is some kind of meaningful national representation. You'd have to prove that Pettersen got invited to this event or that based on her nationality, and that's impossible, as you well know.

The individual infoboxes for team sports notes is neither here nor there, since some sports are both team sports and not team sports, even in golf (or tennis--think doubles), and it begs the question I asked earlier: if an athlete also represented a country, does that somehow quality them for having a flag in their infobox, when an MMA athlete cannot? Whether a Tour de France athlete is a team athlete or not isn't easy to answer; that there is no national representation is clear, though our TdF articles don't reflect that. So there's no possible guidance there. Fortunately for many Olympic athletes the flags are reserved for a special section in the infobox, not in the general biographical section--where you keep putting them. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These organizations use flags and nationality because nationality has become ingrained in golf's culture: that's why it was a big deal for Australia when Adam Scott became the first Australian to win the Masters, that's why "French" or Frenchmen" was used five times in this article about Victor Dubuisson winning the Turkish Airlines Open, etc. The World Cup and Golf at the 2016 Summer Olympics will be "representative" be your definition. Tewapack (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golf is no different from tennis (I watched Yannick Noah win the French Open). Of course nationality plays a part in the marketing and reporting on it. Same in the Tour de France: every Dutchman is waiting on the next Jan Janssen and Joop Zoetemelk. But that doesn't mean there is representation. And this is not my definition: it's what MOS:FLAG tells me, and you too. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you are an immensely experienced editor; I hope you don't mind me asking something. On 17 November 2013 you removed some of Nathan Holman's tournament wins from his article and basically I'm just curious as to why? Also I noticed that you edited my referencing style; I have now adopted your styling but I'm wondering why the one you use is superior; I'm always keen to learn more about editing techniques. Cheers. Melbourne3163 (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any wins, I just reformatted the list to the standard used in golfer articles. I like the "cite web/news/..." templates because they yield a consistent formatting to refs. Tewapack (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and sorry, I misread the list of wins. Melbourne3163 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just put in a professional wins section and a Senior PGA Tour win box. His article says he won two events other than the Senior U.S. Open but I haven't been able to confirm that. Letting you know so you can add them to the professional wins section....William 16:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the winners tables under World Cup (men's golf)#Winners to appear in the same same table format for all iterations, which you reverted with the comment "uneccessary". While it may not be neccessary, and I have not reverted, it is more consistent than having the data in three different formats. Is there a reason for the disparate formatting? Ham105 (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been three separate eras in the World Cup: founding to 1999 - stroke play with indiv. award; 2000-2011 - foursomes & four ball, no individual; and 2013+ - total change to individual tourney with relatively small team component. It just doesn'tt lend itself to one format table. Tewapack (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no individual award in 1953 and 1954 and yet the data is already included in the same table as the results from 1955 to 1966 with individual awards.

The data easily lends itself to the one format table. It simply lists the winners - and it is better to read when those winners in each category are aligned within the same columns. Ham105 (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the character of the tournament has fundamentally changed this year - primarily team to primarily individual. That can't be reflected in the table with only one format. Tewapack (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the {{cite magazine}} template not longer exists and redirects to {{cite journal}}, not sure why you're bothering undoing my edits, which were obviously minor. Thanks.— TAnthony<sup>Talk</sup> 16:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cite magazine certainly exists, it is a valid redirect to cite journal, it hasn't been deprecated. Changing "magazine" to "journal" serves no purpose - see WP:NOTBROKEN. Tewapack (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well they've built this into AWB as an auto-fix when performing other edits, and while of course it is not a necessary change, reverting it seems like a total waste of your time. But that's your business.— TAnthony<sup>Talk</sup> 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Per the template documentation, five tildes (~~~~~) are used in the End template of conference standings, thus producing "19:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)," for example.
Cheers! Ben<sup>Yes?</sup> 19:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the template doc. suggests five tildes, but doesn't require it. The rest of the documentation uses just the date in mdy format. Tewapack (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]