Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Golf (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Nuvola apps kolf.svg WikiProject on Golf
Main pages(edit · changes)
Main project talk
Core Articles talk
Members
Requested Golf articles talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Other
Featured/Good Articles
Categories
Templates
Popular pages
Articles for Deletion


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

Korean Tour external link templateEdit

I'm thinking of creating a {{KoreanTour player}} template missing ID. on the lines of the others at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golf/Templates#External_link_templates. This would link through to http://kgt.co.kr/players/profile.aspx?man_code=nnnnnnnn , eg K. J. Choi would be http://kgt.co.kr/players/profile.aspx?man_code=00000190 . The only issue is that pages are in Korean but the "translate to English" in my Chrome browser is helpful, although occasionally obscure (eg height = 신장 is translated as kidney. The page contains a lot of good stuff. eg the second option (결과 = results) gives season by season results.

Full 2020-21 PGA Tour Schedule publishedEdit

Noticed that the PGA Tour have published the full schedule for 2020-21 today [1].

2020 ANA InspirationEdit

I am wondering why no one has updated the details of the field in this LPGA Major after it was released on September 4. I have a link which lists the final field here: https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2020/09/04/ana-inspiration-major-field-105-dinah-shore/ Also the 2019 winner will not be competing in this year's event.

Player Championship qualificationEdit

Not sure where the Player Championship eligibility requirements are sourced from, but there seems to be several differences in the media guide (in bold below). Is the media guide wrong or wikipedia? https://pgatourmedia.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/page/files/tours/2022/pgatour/theplayerschampionship/eventMediaGuide/THE%20PLAYERS%202022%20Media%20Guide.pdf

• Winners of PGA TOUR cosponsored or approved tournaments, whose victories are considered official since the last played PLAYERS Championship. • The top 125 players from the 2020-21 FedExCup Points List. • Winners of the Masters Tournament from the years 2017-2021. • Winners of THE PLAYERS Championship and The Open Championship from 2016-2019 and 2021. • Winners of the U.S. Open and PGA Championship from 2016-2021. • Winner of the FedExCup from the 2018/19-2020/21 seasons. • Winners of the World Golf Championships-Mexico Championship from 2019-2021. • Winners of the World Golf Championships-Dell Technologies Match Play from 2018, 2019 and 2021. • Winners of the World Golf Championships-FedEx St. Jude Invitational from 2018-2021. • Winners of the World Golf Championships-HSBC Champions from 2018 and 2019. • Winners of The Genesis Invitational from 2020-2022. • Winners of the Arnold Palmer Invitational presented by Mastercard from 2019-2022. • Winners of the Memorial Tournament presented by Workday from the years 2018-2021. • Current Men’s Golf Olympic Gold Medalist (one-year only). • The top 50 players from the Official World Golf Ranking through The Honda Classic (Monday, February 28, 2022). • The top 10 players from the 2021-22 FedExCup Points List through The Honda Classic. • The winner of the previous year’s Bridgestone SENIOR PLAYERS Championship. • The leading points winner from the 2020-21 Top 25 Korn Ferry Tour Regular Season Points List and points earned in the Korn Ferry Tour Finals and the leading points winner from the 2021 Korn Ferry Tour Finals. • If necessary to complete a field of 144 players, PGA TOUR members from the 2021-22 FedExCup Points List below 10th position though The Honda Classic (February 28, 2022), in order of their positions on such list.

Jopal22 (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Also Recent winners of the Tour Championship (2018) is in wiki and not the media guide

Jopal22 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

The reference is given (ref 2) but it lacks clarity in certain aspects. The media guide list seems much better. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Yep, the media guide is the better source and we should follow that. For information, in addition to the source given in the article (which obviously has the criteria in the wrong order), I also used a 3rd party news article but that in hindsight was possibly (probably) extrapolated from criteria in previous season(s). However, the PGA Tour's "Inside the Field" would imply the criteria are not applied in the order listed in the media guide, although there are anomalies. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I have updated the criteria & exemptions in our article per the media guide, but haven't reordered them. While doing it I remembered that Stenson was not originally in the field when it was announced, only for him to be added a few hours later when he was apparently still eligible from his 2016 Open win ([2]). Makes me think the tour made a bit of a hash of it this year, publishing conflicting criteria/exemption lists. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

2020 PlayersEdit

Someone changed the 2022 Players to be "48th Players Championship, and the 40th edition played on the Stadium Course at TPC Sawgrass". This was then changed back. Don't know what other RS say, but the media guide agrees with it being the 40th (see page 132) and that the 2020 Players was "cancelled". This means 2020 edition is not counted, and so for instance Matsuyama's round of 63 isn't included in the lowest rounds at Sawgrass records (it is in TPC at Sawgrass page). Jopal22 (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. 48th and 40th and Matsuyama's round don't count. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming........William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
With regards to Matsuyama's 63, the tour may no longer consider it a Players Championship record (judging by the media guide), but that doesn't necessarily mean it gets scrubbed from the TPC Sawgrass books. Unless you have a source(s)? wjematherplease leave a message... 18:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Seems that most sources are calling the current one the 48th. Nigej (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn't find anything to suggest sources favouring one over the other when searching, e.g. 49th, 49th. And we all know what the tour is like for rewriting it's own history... Either way, it needs to be sourced and explained properly. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I looked for "48th" and found mostly this years stuff (eg [3] The 48th staging of the Players Championship ...). Perhaps best to simply remove it for 2021 and 2022. Nigej (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Does anyone have source(s) for the tour scratching the 2020 tournament and Matsuyama's record from the books? wjematherplease leave a message... 18:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The PGA Tour as a reliable source makes me want to laugh sometimes. A few years ago as noted on this page, Billy Casper's win total had dropped from 51 to 48 and his playoff record from 8-8 to 8-7. Well, his 3 missing wins (Two of them the Bob Hope Desert Classic) are back but his 1968 playoff loss at the Bing Crosby is still missing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Many players have gained and lost wins (and other records) as a result of the tour's arbitrary re-evaluations, particularly during the 1980s; I tried unravelling them here but didn't manage to account for several changes. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Dropping wins of Caribbean or Latin America wins is one thing, but missing high profile wins or playoff losses like the Hope or Crosby tournaments are ridiculous. An early 90's PGA Tour guide book (I think they are all available online now.) was riddled with playoff record mistakes. Not one or two, but dozens. The PGA Tour poor history of recordkeeping has been going on for 35 years or more....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
p38 of the media guide (https://pgatourmedia.pgatourhq.com/static-assets/page/files/tours/2022/pgatour/theplayerschampionship/eventMediaGuide/THE%20PLAYERS%202022%20Media%20Guide.pdf) has the 18 holes record score. Matsuyama is not included. Jopal22 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
True, but ideally we should be using secondary sources per WP:PSTS to "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources". Nigej (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I aslo find the find line of the PGA Tour pages dubious e.g. "The 2021–22 PGA Tour is the 107th season of the PGA Tour, and the 55th since separating from the PGA of America." The first year of the PGA Tour seems a bit ambiguous to me, and something perhaps that shouldn't be included in the intro. Jopal22 (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they are dubious. At the very least, such claims need to be qualified (as they are in the European Tour season articles, although that could also be better/clearer). wjematherplease leave a message... 12:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of revisionist history... see the section below...
Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

early PGA Tour calendarsEdit

I noticed that a user recently created some early PGA Tour calendars (e.g. 1916 PGA Tour, 1920 PGA Tour). Overall, I like this idea (and have even contributed a little to these pages) but I think this user might be jumping the gun a little bit.

First off, the source being used is from a website called Kronish sports. I have never heard of it before and I'm not sure if it's reliable.

Most importantly, though, I think these pages may be examples of original research. Basically, these pages seem to imply that each year there was a discrete unit of events under the auspices of some coherent tour. I'm not necessarily sure of that. An independent PGA Tour did not exist until the 1960s/1970s (its wiki page says 1929) and the tour did some serious historical revisionism in the late 1980s retroactively counting a lot of early events as PGA Tour-level. So these tournaments may have been in fact a bunch of unrelated, isolated events that were only retroactively given PGA Tour status until the late 1980s. This all may be misleading to the reader. I don't know much about early 20th century golf, however, and would like to hear other thoughts.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I have been aware of this site, although this is not an area I know anything about. It couldn't in any sense be regarded as a reliable source, certainly not in this area. Nigej (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
That particular page is mirroring one from the PGA Tour Stat Inquiry System, which may not exactly be intended for public use (there is a way to get into it, but I'm hesitant to share it here because I don't want them to close it off). pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 07:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure there is much that can be verified but not the existence of a coherent tour at this time, so I'd say these articles probably need to head to AFD. Kronish Sports is clearly a self-published source, and therefore cannot be a reliable source unless the author is a renowned expert, which in this case does not appear to be the case (do we even know who the author is?). wjematherplease leave a message... 12:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

As the creator of the early "PGA Tour" articles regarding the 1910s and 1920s, I agree with most of the commenters here. There are well-sourced Wikipedia pages for the tournaments and golfers of the period and I thought these pages would match the style guidelines of the current PGA Tour season articles. But as noted here the events were retroactively considered PGA Tour events, the date of the start of the tour is debatable and the tour's record-keeping is somewhat shoddy so sourcing these articles is difficult and would agree Kronish Sports is not an ideal source. Would not be opposed to their deletion if that is the consensus.

Thank you User:Ben76266 for your forthright response. It seems clear that these pages should be headed to deletion by now.
Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
I just proposed that these pages should be deleted. Please see this deletion page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1916_PGA_Tour. In addition, this is my first "bundle" deletion proposal so I may have screwed up some things. If you could fix any minor issues that'd be great!
Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly
It would be nice if other people responded. You can just quickly copy and paste your thoughts above to the deletion page. Should only take a few seconds.
Thanks,
Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

WGC Match Play poolsEdit

The tables for the pool stages are fairly cumbersome and somewhat unfriendly to editors wanting to update them, so I've been looking for a more elegant solution. Module:Sports results and Module:Sports_table seem to have the functionality needed (with a bit of customising), and enable easier entering of results and reordering of tables. Here is an example of what can be produced from these modules using last year's Pool A:

Results of \ vs. Johnson Na MacIntyre Long
  Dustin Johnson Lost 1 dn Tied Won 2 up
  Kevin Na Won 1 up Lost 2 & 1 Lost 2 & 1
  Robert MacIntyre Tied Won 2 & 1 Tied
  Adam Long Lost 2 dn Won 2 & 1 Tied
Source: [citation needed]
Pos Seed Player W T L Pts
1 41   Robert MacIntyre (A) 1 2 0 2
T2 1   Dustin Johnson (E) 1 1 1 1.5
T2 61   Adam Long (E) 1 1 1 1.5
4 28   Kevin Na (E) 1 0 2 1
Source: [citation needed]
(A) Advanced to knockout stage; (E) Eliminated

Thoughts please. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the group part is not very reader or editor-friendly. We'd lose the day-by-day details with your top table, but honestly I'm not sure that's a great loss. So I'd support a simplified table for the results. Nigej (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the results module doesn't really lend itself to matchplay golf – it's more suited to simple scorelines. I'd have liked to just have one set of results in the matrix, as it's a single round-robin, but I couldn't manage to make it so it was clear who won without a mass of explanatory text. The points table seems to work well though. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
One option is something like 2020 Championship League (ranking) which uses a side-by-side approach Nigej (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
That would certainly be an improvement on what we have now. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
FYI, this was suggested and demonstrated previously at Talk:2019 WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play 22:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Jopal22 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, it's a shame there wasn't more input to that discussion. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

As there are only three games, I'd be tempted to get rid of separate tables and combine them. i.e. instead of a W D L column have Game 1, Game 2, Game 3. So Robert MacIntyre's columns would be "Tied vs DJ", "Won vs KN (2 & 1)", "Tied vs AL", and then the points column of "2". That is assuming that was the order he played them obviously (you can't tell the order of games from the tables above). Jopal22 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Example:

Rank Player Game 1 Game 2 Game 3 Pts
1   Kevin Kisner (32) Tied vs AH Win vs BW (5 & 4) Win vs DJ (3&1) 2.5
2   Adam Hadwin (38) Tied vs KK Win vs DJ (4 & 3) Tied vs BW 2
3   Bernd Wiesberger (52) Win vs DJ (3 & 1) Loss vs KK (5 & 4) Tied vs AH 1.5
4   Dustin Johnson (1) Loss vs BW (3 & 1) Loss vs DJ (4 & 3) Loss vs DJ (3&1) 0

Jopal22 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

My two cents: I like this table above created by Jopal22 the most.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I think I prefer the snooker format. I'm not a huge fan of using initials like this, especially when Max Homa and Mackenzie Hughes are in the same group. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 05:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. I think the use of initials is a problem. Nigej (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Initials can cause issues, plus it loses the Win/Tie/Loss detail. Here's an option along the lines of the snooker format, but with column headers, borders (which could be removed) and less MOS issues:
Any better? wjematherplease leave a message... 11:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah happy with that. Still feel we could combine into one table though e.g.
Rank Player Pld W L T Pts Results
1   Kevin Kisner (32) 3 2 0 1 2.5 T v Hadwin; W v Weisburger (5 & 4); W v Johnson (3 & 1)
2   Adam Hadwin (38) 3 1 0 2 2 T v Kisner; W v Johnson (4 & 3); T v Weisburger
3   Bernd Wiesberger (52) 3 1 1 1 1.5 W v Johnson (3 & 1); L v Kisner (5 & 4); T v Hadwin
4   Dustin Johnson (1) 3 0 3 0 0 L v Wiesberger (3 & 1); L v Hadwin (4 & 3); L v Kisner (3 & 1)

Jopal22 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If we merge into one table, I think the match results would be clearer in their own columns, as in your first example; something like this maybe:

Rank Player (seed) Pld W L T Pts Match results
1   Kevin Kisner (32) 3 2 0 1 2.5 Tied Hadwin Beat Weisburger 5 & 4 Beat Johnson 3 & 1
2   Adam Hadwin (38) 3 1 0 2 2 Tied Kisner Beat Johnson 4 & 3 Tied Weisburger
3   Bernd Wiesberger (52) 3 1 1 1 1.5 Beat Johnson 3 & 1 Lost to Kisner 5 & 4 Tied Hadwin
4   Dustin Johnson (1) 3 0 3 0 0 Lost to Wiesberger 3 & 1 Lost to Hadwin 4 & 3 Lost to Kisner 3 & 1

wjematherplease leave a message... 13:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Like this one the best. Don't think we need the "Pld" column. Tewapack (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
I like the last one too. Surnames are preferable to initials. Days 1 2 3 very clear. Pld could go, but not worried either way. We lose the "schedule" aspect (unless we add "vs Hadwin") but that's no big deal IMO. Nigej (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that works. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we have a winner Jopal22 (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've cobbled something together. Needs a bit of tuning. 1. Do we need the tables to be a consistent width? 2. Does someone lose 1 up or lose 1 down or even lose by 1 hole? 3. How to handle Casey's CON. Perhaps a footnote would be better. 4. I haven't bothered at this stage with ties for position. Nigej (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My suggestions: 1. Would probably look better with consistent column widths. 2. Lose down (or dn) or by holes, not up. 3. Conners "Beat Casey (conc.)" with an explanatory footnote. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I think that looks way better than before. Good job! Jopal22 (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Side note: I am vehemently opposed to putting flags in the next round of the bracket before the player is determined. To me that seems about as useful as putting "Kevin" in the next round of the bracket if Kevin Na and Kevin Kisner are playing each other. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100%. It came up awhile back in the snooker area. Someone added "Mark" (I think) since both players were called Mark. Interestingly the same editors who add the flags for future rounds thought that adding "Mark" was "silly", but for some reason couldn't see the inconsistency in their argument. As always it's a matter of whether we can be bothered to make a fuss about it (WP:3RR and all that). Nigej (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely. Such nonsense should be reverted... but not edit-warred over. wjematherplease leave a message... 08:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

NGOLFEdit

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/NGOLF for a proposal to replace the current golf notability guideline in the wake of the recent NSPORTS RFC. I have started discussion on the talk page there, for comments and suggestions. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 PGA ChampionshipEdit

I've created a 2022 PGA Championship article. As often it seems to be difficult to find a decent source for the entry criteria. I've put something together based on previous years and Rob Bolton's weekly article at https://www.pgatour.com/fantasy/major-qualifiers.html . If anyone knows of something better please include it there. Nigej (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The PGA Championship really doesn't mesh well with Wikipedia guidelines. It's obvious that they invite the top 100 (and a bit beyond), usually at two different cutoff dates, and invite the Ryder Cup captains. But until they make those official categories, our hands are tied. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 17:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it would be clearer to readers if we simply said the field was the top-n with about 30 no-hopers (club pros + ex-winners) and then listed the rest. But they persist with this strange qualification system for some reason. Nigej (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Succession boxes in major championshipsEdit

Currently we have a few hundred "succession boxes" at the bottom of our major championship articles, eg in 2022 Masters Tournament:

Preceded by Major Championships Succeeded by

Most men's majors back to about 1980 have these, but in earlier years usage is more haphazard (the earliest is in the 1936 Open). Personally I don't find these at all useful and the style is dominating relative to its importance. Succession boxes were popular in the early days of Wikipedia but have gone out of fashion, navboxes being preferred in many cases, eg:


I have changed this navbox so that it is "auto-expanded" (you might need to "purge" to see it auto-expanded) and it seems to me that the succession boxes largely duplicate this navbox. My proposal is that we remove the succession boxes. Currently we don't have an equivalent navbox for the women or seniors but personally I think a navbox for these is a better way forward. Nigej (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This really isn't the purpose of succession boxes anyway. Remove them. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I've removed them all from the men and women's majors. Not done the seniors as yet. I've created a new navbox for the women's majors along the lines of the long-standing men's one (above). Personally I think this gives more useful navigation that the succession boxes; seems to me that readers will most likely be interested in other majors that year. Nigej (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFCEdit

 

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Chronological ordering of winner lists (again)Edit

Due to PeeJay's recent edits at AT&T Byron Nelson, it looks like it's time to revisit this topic. Here's the previous discussion for reference. The question is, should golf tournament winner lists go from most recent to earliest or vice versa? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 03:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I notice that no consensus was ever actually reached at that previous discussion. You rightly brought up WP:DATELIST at the time, which clearly states that chronological lists should be presented with the earliest entry at the top. No exceptions are given for that, and no actual rationale was given for going against it either. The only arguments I saw were tantamount to WP:OSE. The fact that most golf articles go latest to earliest is not a good reason for this one to do the same, especially when someone was willing to put in the legwork to fix it. – PeeJay 06:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not at all clear that WP:DATELIST applies here. "Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Chronological ordering." seems to imply that, like WP:SALORDER, it related to list articles. The article at issue here is not a list article, it just uses a table to display information and so MOS:TABLE applies and I can't see anything there about such ordering. See PGA Championship which used reverse order. However in List of PGA Championship champions (which IS a list article) we use forward order per WP:DATELIST and WP:SALORDER. Nigej (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think a reference to a related policy necessarily implies that WP:DATELIST only applies to list articles. The page WP:DATELIST appears on just talks about lists in general. But all that is beside the real point, which is, what is the benefit of ordering the list in reverse, and do any benefits outweigh the consistency that would be brought by having all lists in the same order regardless of context? – PeeJay 06:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Seems to me that the table at issue here is not a "list" in the sense intended at MOS:LIST. The argument for reverse ordering has always been that (for existing events) readers are more interested in recent events that those from many years ago and so its more useful to them to present this information first. Clearly that argument doesn't hold for old events, and articles like Glasgow Herald Tournament from the 1920s often use forward order. Nigej (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "not a 'list' in the sense intended at MOS:LIST". And yes, I too remember there was a provision for lists being displayed in reverse order, but I don't seem to be able to find that in any MOS guidelines any more, so I assume it's been deprecated. – PeeJay 08:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The examples at MOS:LIST consist of a heading followed by a number of bullet points. What we've got at the Byron Nelson article is something completely different, a table. Nigej (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Section 5.5 of MOS:LIST specifically names tables as a valid type of list. – PeeJay 09:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Well spotted. However I still think that, while the MOS is crystal clear about "list articles", the situation for other articles is not clear from the MOS. Nigej (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I guess we'll have to disagree on that point then, since the second sentence of MOS:LIST says "Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, [...] or as a stand-alone article". These guidelines plainly apply not just to standalone list articles but also to lists found within prose articles. – PeeJay 12:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Sources use both and I have little personal preference for either. However, I think most readers would probably be looking to see the most recent first, especially for current tournaments. Most of all though, I'm unconvinced that there is a compelling reason to change (even if it is agreed the section of MOS applies, it is not a hard and fast rule); and there is no reason at all for a single article to be changed in isolation. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
There's no rush to change them all. I changed this one because I was researching the tournament for work and noticed it was "wrong". I'm not sure "readers would be most interested in the recent tournaments" is a good enough reason to fly in the face of the MOS, no matter how much disdain you have for it, but let's see what others say. – PeeJay 12:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I have no "disdain" for MOS but even if I did, such feelings would be irrelevant. Please stick to the point(s) in question rather than making personal remarks. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with Wjemather’s most recent point and as a reader of these pages myself, feel more interest and makes more sense to me in seeing most recent winners first. Jimmymci234 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

As discussed before, keep it as is (most recent tournament first). I find MOS unclear myself. As a note, other sporting pages do reverse order as well, including ones which have recently passed a "featured article" review process e.g. Johnny Owen Jopal22 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Addendum. Looks like Johnny Owen's table was changed to chronological when it became a featured article, and there has been edit warring to change it back since. It was also discussed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing/Archive_9#Fight_record_tables. I dunno, I like it how it is, seems like a question bigger than one article or even just golf Jopal22 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Of course, we do use "forward" order for biographies (eg lists of wins), it's only for the tournament articles that we use "reverse" order. So we satisfy MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL, which is specifically for biographies. Nigej (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)