Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Results in the Players Championship

A couple of issues come up in relation to these tables:

1. On a number of occasions (2009, 2014, 2017, 2018, 2019) the tournament has used the third round cut: MDF – made cut, did not finish. See eg https://www.theplayers.com/past-results.html . This has also happened in the FedEx Cup Playoffs, eg 2014 FedEx Cup Playoffs where we use a T74^† style with a footnote. We need to decide on the contents of the cell in these cases. Various options come to mind.

• (a) "T74" (ie ignore the MDF)
• (b) "MDF" (ie ignore the position) with footnote like "MDF – made cut, did not finish (i.e. cut after third round)"
• (c) "T74^†" with a footnote like "^† MDF – made cut, did not finish (i.e. cut after third round)"
• (d) "CUT" with a footnote like "missed the half-way cut (3rd round cut in 2009)"

Perhaps (c) seems best to me, following the FedEx Cup Playoffs style.

2. In the 1983 Tournament Players Championship bad weather meant that the second round was only completed on Saturday and two rounds were planned for Sunday. To achieve this, only 67 players made the cut (at 149) rather than the normal 70 + ties. The 8 players on 150 received prize money. https://www.theplayers.com/past-results.html for 1983 has these as "T68" rather than "CUT". Rather similar to the MDF above except that the 8 players only played two rounds, not three.

Perhaps something like (c) seems best but would need a different style of footnote. Nigej (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Surely this isn't a new issue? The Open used to have a 3rd round cut, and we just put them down as CUT, e.g. Feherty in 1979 David_Feherty#Results_in_major_championships Jopal22 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

You are right of course, the PGA Championship did in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1962 and 1964 and the Open from 1968 to 1985. In these cases the players got no money. With the modern PGA Tour version (MDF) they get money and FedEx Cup points as if they completed the event. Nigej (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

MDF is only used on the scoreboard during the tournament. It is not tracked as a "finish" like CUT, WD, or DQ. It is different from true third round cuts in the PGA or Open. So, my suggestion is (a) or second choice (c), definitely not (b) or (d). Tewapack (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It's just that it's confusing why Gary Player in the 1985 Open Championship gets a "CUT" but Matt Kuchar in the 2017 Players Championship gets an "82" when both got the chop after 54 holes. OK one was a true third round cut and the other was a modern MDF version of it, but it's pretty obscure to the uninitiated. Nigej (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The Open and PGA cuts were pre-planned cuts with no money paid (the only thing that matter then). The modern MDF is merely a way to lessen the field if too many golfers make the 36-hole cut, it's not a pre-planned cut, it just occurs with larger numbers making the cut or when weather dictates a smaller final round field. The players aren't punished and get prize money and FedEx Cup points and would still "make the cut" for any consecutrive cut streaks. Tewapack (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Opposite Event column

The winner tables in the articles for the five current alternate events (Sanderson Farms Championship, Puerto Rico Open, Corales Puntacana Resort and Club Championship, Barbasol Championship, Reno–Tahoe Open) all have a column with a link to the specific WGC or major that was played the same week. I've never understood why it's necessary to (for example) link to every single edition of the Masters from 1969 to 1993. I'd prefer, where necessary, to have a smaller table like this:

Year(s)	Tournament
2014–18	WGC-HSBC Champions
1994–98, 2011–13	The Open Championship
2008, 2010	Ryder Cup
2007	Presidents Cup
2003–04, 2006	WGC-American Express Championship
1999–2002, 2005	Tour Championship
1969–1993	Masters Tournament
1968	Colonial National Invitation

pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 22:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Tewapack (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes. This approach is much better. Adding more and more columns eventually makes the results table less and less readable, even on desktop devices. I have tried to do the same with venues (where they are excessively wide) - see my recent changes to the Canadian Open (golf). Nigej (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If I was setting it up from scratch, I wouldn't even bother setting out which event it is an alternate to, as it doesn't really seem important (could mention it in generality in the text), but I'm not bothered if its there or not. For venues, I like it being part of the main table as it makes it easy to map which golfer won at which venue. This is what we do for majors, which I assumed would be the best guide to formatting. This is why I collapsed the separate venues table into the main table in articles like WGC-Mexico Championship.

I'm keen on the venues column, per Open Championship. However personally I find the two column approach at U.S. Open (golf) and PGA Championship excessive. Nigej (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

On this topic, how does everyone feel about having a column with the date of each tournament, as seen at Sanderson Farms Championship and Reno–Tahoe Open? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems ok to me, especially for events that wander round the season. Would prefer just the end date not the range (as used in Reno–Tahoe Open). Can be footnotes if the start date is not 3 days before the end date. Nigej (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Recognition of naming rights sponsor in articles for tournaments with neutral names

I am currently in dispute with Tewapack (talk · contribs) over Women's PGA Championship articles. The editor argues that the articles for the tournaments themselves must first and foremost refer to the events under its sponsored title, the KPMG Women's PGA Championship, in the lead. I had moved them to remove "KPMG" from the actual titles, but the editor has undone by changes to remove the sponsor title from the lead.

The editor has argued that names which do not recognize the naming rights sponsor as being inaccurate and an invented name "never used in reality". I object to this, as it contradicts our historic handling of these names (which often credit the sponsor in a "branded as x for sponsorship reasons"-type remark), especially within the same tournament (where all of the past iterations, branded as the LPGA Championship, do not mention their individual sponsors on the pages at all). I argued that this is more concise and consistent.

Are there any opinions on this within the WikiProject? ViperSnake151  Talk  19:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

It has been our general principle to try to avoid the sponsors name in the article name so that we have Australian Open (golf). However for specific events we use the official title (omitting things like "presented by ..."). So that Abraham Ancer is down as winning the 2018 Emirates Australian Open (see section PGA Tour of Australasia wins) and 2018 PGA Tour of Australasia also uses "Emirates Australian Open". Generally the official titles are given in the "results" section and we can see in Australian Open (golf) that it has been the Emirates Australian Open since 2011, etc. Personally I'm not too worried whether the lead mentions the current official title but there needs to be a list of the official titles somewhere in the article. As far as I'm aware we've never used the "branded as x for sponsorship reasons" in a golf article. Can't remember it anyway. Nigej (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Korn Ferry Tour in Template:Infobox golfer

I'm assuming we want to change {{Infobox golfer}} to reflect the recent name change from the Web.com Tour to the Korn Ferry Tour. Currently we have:

| label28     = Web.com Tour

which would become:

| label28     = Korn Ferry Tour

See {{Infobox golfer/testcases}} where I have given Greg Norman a fictitious win on the tour. Nigej (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Done - Although you still have to use nwidewins= I'm afraid. Nigej (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Chronological ordering of winner lists

Our current norm for golf articles is to list the winners from most recent to earliest. A non-golf editor recently put in a cleanup template at Kansai Open, with the note "dates in reverse chronological order, contrary to WP:DATELIST." That guideline states, "Chronological lists, such as timelines, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order." The only golf tournament article I know of that does this is Masters Tournament Par-3 contest, which a non-golf editor got hold of and ordered the table that way (bizarrely, the "to par" column heading has a link to Par (score), a footnote explaining the term, and a reference to a webpage explaining it).

It may be argued by some that that guideline only applies to standalone lists, but this isn't clearly stated. What does everyone think about this? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 19:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Chronological_order, for lists within articles where another editor is confused. We are perhaps unusual in using reverse order for current (and recent) events. Personally I have used the forward order for tournaments that have been defunct for a long time (eg Daily Telegraph Foursomes Tournament, Daks Tournament), generally taking 1972 as a cut-off for European events. Some other sports also do it: Kentucky Derby. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Golf is not unique in using reverse chronological order. e.g. boxing does the same (see here). To be honest I prefer it this way, and it is consistent with how the PGA Tour present similar information. I much prefer for instance the list of champions in the articles for the golf majors, than the separate "list of champions articles" (even though the latter has featured status). Another area where the tables breaks guidance is MOS:FLAG for runners up (according to guidance we should also show the country name as well). In addition we should avoid showing flags in the infobox. Being relatively new to editing I didn't know how much there is a need to follow the guidance, and how unto date and well thought out (especially taking into account sports) it is. I wouldn't not favour making articles worse (in my opinion) to fit the guidance Jopal22 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the argument in favour of reverse order for active tournaments is that readers are much more likely to be interested in recent winners. It's true that we break the rule about flags having the country name as well (required for first instance). Would be a problem if we wanted Featured Articles etc. The infobox issue we satisfy because it says "However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." and flags are commonly used on golf leaderboards etc. Nigej (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This is very irritating. A month ago someone posted a tag requesting the order be changed to chronological order. Someone in this project posted here about it and there were a couple of days discussion. But the tag requesting change to chronological order was left there, it wasn't edited to say it was being discussed, and nothing was placed on the article's talk page (which I wouldn't have seen even if it were there, but it wasn't.) So I saw the tag requesting reversing the order, did it, removed the tag...and had it reverted. At least the tag is gone which is what I really care about but it would have been faster if the change-the-order step were skipped. Just saying: if this happens again please remove the tag requesting the change or edit it so people know to see that there is a discussion going on. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Web.com Tour categories

I'm planning to get the Category:Web.com Tour and it sub-categories moved under the WP:C2D procedure. Nigej (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pipestone Golf Course

The article Pipestone Golf Course has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Totally ordinary municipal golf club, this article has no independent sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

2019 Open media guide

Just thought it would be useful to share. The Open has released a comprehensive media guide this year, with tonnes of info which is sometimes difficult to find. I definitely think it is the best 1st port of call if you are looking for info on the open.

It can be found here

https://pgatourmedia.pgatourhq.com/Tour/WebTemplate/media.nsf/vwWebFS/8264BAEBE0BFD62685257E7500680F40?openDocument

Click on The Open Championship, and then The 148th Open 2019 Media Guide.pdf at the bottom of the page. Jopal22 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Interference from jokesters

Nearly every time a major has concluded, some of us go to the Wikipedia page of the winner to enter the updated information, and we get edit conflicts and other inference from jokesters who come along and foul things up while we are only trying to get the task done. It's aggravating. (You probably saw many of those silly edits last night on Gary Woodland's page).
So I have an idea. How about, when at the conclusion of the 3rd round of a major, we consider the player who is in the lead, and we then go to a Wikipedia administrator's page and request page protection for that golfer's page, in advance. That way, if that leader in fact goes on to win the tournament, we can be free from the unregistered accounts doing vandalism while we try to edit that golfer's page for the win. If all of us ask for that protection, an admin is likely to take it seriously and cooperate and put protection on the page in advance. Even the US Open page needed protection overnight last night. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that even if we don't do this idea, surely we have to do something. We all update here voluntarily (I assume) and it's not right that nonregistered vandals can come along and mess things up for us while we are trying to complete the task. It's maddening to get that "edit conflict" message only to find out it was a vandal that messed up your effort. I don't mind the message when it's a legitimate edit in which another editor simply beat me to it, it's only when it's a vandal that it's upsetting. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps would be a good idea. However guidance says "Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred" so I'm not an admin would grant it too far ahead. Nigej (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Well how many of us are on board with contacting an admin on the evening of the 20th (the day before the final round of the Open) to let them know that we would all appreciate protection on the page of the leader in the possibility that that player wins the tournament, so we don't have to deal with aggravating vandals while we are trying to edit the winner's page? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyone have any recommendations on which administrator we should all agree to contact after the 3rd round of The Open Championship to ask them to protect the page of the leader should they go on to win, to keep the vandals away? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:RPP is probably the best approach if it is an issue. "Semi-protection" would stop all IP editing. Nigej (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well I went on there and asked for support. I'd appreciate if others here to go there and support it too, if you happen to see this before protection is given. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

What if admins aren't paying attention to that "WP:RPP" page at the moment? Should we still put a message directly onto the talk page of an administrator? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Adrià Arnaus

Originally I created Adrià Arnaus per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 6#Adrià Arnaus Antúnez. Since then OWGR have switched to Adri Arnaus so I'm thinking that would be the best option now. Will move if no one objects. Nigej (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have moved him to Adri and changed 2019 links to Adri. Nigej (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

How to handle the new Tour Championship format

The new format for the Tour Championship complicates things in several areas.

1. We need to rework that part of the Playoffs table. We'd obviously include the starting score. After that, I'd guess we'd include the final score, then the final standings. Since the tournament directly determines the final standings, it's redundant to have a tournament place column.
2. I suggest the winners table on Tour Championship should be split, since this is such a drastic change in format and the aggregate score column won't be needed.
3. The list of wins on the winner's article is one of the few places where we use the round-by-round score. Obviously, this will be awkward. The final leaderboard on the Playoffs article should be a simpler fix.
4. The gross winner will be treated as the winner by the OWGR. What mention does he merit from Wikipedia?

—pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

We also need a section in the 2019 FedEx Cup Playoffs‎ explaining all the changes for 2019. We're effectively going to have two winners of the Tour Championship, a "gross" winner (the OWGR one) and a "net" winner (the FedEx Cup winner). I think both need to be mentioned. For the 2019 FedEx Cup Playoffs‎ article the question is what should be included in the Tour Championship section (which has just the top 10) and what should be included in the Table of qualifying players section (which has all 30). The Table of qualifying players section is really about the FedEx Cup Playoffs so should probably only include the "net" results but the Tour Championship section should include both. Nigej (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

In terms of how we present the final result, I suggest we wait and see how the PGA Tour and various news organisations deal with the issues Jopal22 (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Added a comment to the Tour Championship talk page with my suggestion

Jopal22 (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Tour Championship double posting on the FedEx Cup page

Concerning the 2019 FedEx Cup Playoffs page, with the new playoff format, it seems like adding the same information twice by having both a leaderboard for the Tour Championship and having a "Final" leaderboard at the same time. Should we keep both? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems pointless to have both. Combine into 1 I suggest. Nigej (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I added the prize money to the Tour Championship, which appears to be the only difference. Then I hid the Final leaderboard instead of eliminating it, in case someone decides they want to do something with it. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Official Tour Wins - Tour era at Articles for deletion.

The AFD can be found here[1]. Please come over and join in the conversation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

• Draft:Nelson Ledesma submitted to AfC if anyone cares to review. Thanks. 80.189.131.73 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:César Costilla submitted to AfC if anyone cares to review. Thanks. 80.189.131.73 (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:Daniel Barbetti submitted to AfC if anyone cares to review. Thanks. 80.189.131.73 (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
• Draft:Zhang Xinjun submitted to AfC if anyone cares to review. Thanks. 80.189.131.73 (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

If you register an account on wikipedia, you can create articles without needing to go through the AfC. They will still be picked up by members here. Just remember to add WP:GOLF template in the talk page Jopal22 (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've used an account in the past but find it's much easier to avoid the agenda pushers, policy gamers, cabals and bad editors in general without one. 80.189.131.73 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I only joined this year, wasn't planning on doing so much golf, but came across all of the above everywhere else! Jopal22 (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

New European Tour web site

The new https://www.europeantour.com/ seems to have gone live. I have changed {{EuroTour player}} so that it uses eg http://www.europeantour.com/players/2586/ rather than http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/players/playerid=2586 This seems to work for the few cases I've tried. Doubtless there will be plenty more issues. Nigej (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

European "circuit" and other circuits

I have noticed that a "European circuit" label I have used to categorize some golfer's pre-1972 wins has been deleted. For example, it was removed under Bobby Locke. I also placed Bob Charles' 1963 Open Championship victory under the "European circuit" which was removed. Nonetheless, the "European circuit" category for Peter Townsend, Tony Jacklin, Kel Nagle, and Cobie Legrange was not been modified. Is there a consensus that the "European circuit" is a legitimate concept or not? Also, what about the other "circuits" (Australia, South Africa)?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywooggly

This is a problematic area for us. One thing is clear, we shouldn't refer to events before 1972 as European Tour events. Actually our position for the European Tour/circuit is better than for some other parts of the world. We are at least consistent as to which wins are European Tour wins and which are not. Of course, the European Tour evolved out of an earlier European circuit organised in a more ad hoc way with the various PGAs and other organisations co-ordinating a series of events that didn't clash and followed each other in a sensible way. The newspapers do talk about someone having his first important/major win or similar statements but I don't think it was an exact science. Golf doesn't seem to have anything like the cricket concept of a First-class match. Of course there was an Order of Merit (since before World War II) which did define a top tier of events, although it is not easy to find out which events were included.

Where we are much worse is in other parts of the world. Some articles have headings like "Australasian Tour wins" eg Kel Nagle which includes events before the tour was formed. The same applies to South Africa. This partly reflects the difficulty in knowing, even after the tours were formed, which events were in the tour and which weren't - owing to lack of available information. Just because an event was held in Southern Africa after the tour was formed doesn't guarantee that it was part of the tour. Personally I prefer something like "Australasian wins" or something similar which is suitably vague.

I have recently added some articles on New Zealand events from the 1950s to the early 1970s. There are frequent references in the newspapers to the "New Zealand circuit", something completely separate from the events organised by the Australian PGA (eg http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article105825820). Indeed there are reports of Australian players being disciplined for playing in a New Zealand circuit event when there was an Australian one going on at the same time. And again we can't assume that even an event like the NZ Open was a tour event, certainly it was part of the New Zealand circuit in the 1960s and early 1970s. The same issues apply in Southern African: were events in Zimbabwe and Zambia part of the South African tour or the Safari tour? Nigej (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Olympic Golf

The Olympic Golf competition is shown as "official" on wikipedia for the European Tour, when it has no R2D points or prize money. Justin Rose has 11 ET wins according to the ET (https://www.europeantour.com/players/justin-rose-1941/) compared to 12 on wikipedia. I think we should move the olympics to "unofficial". I think the confusion is because the PGA Tour uses the term "official" and "unofficial", and wikipedia has mapped that to the ET which doesn't really use the same terminology. Anyone against the change? Jopal22 (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it to the unofficial events. This way, it matches the way it is on the PGA Tour page here in Wikipedia. It gives world ranking points, but it's not official on the tours. Same with an event like the Hero World Challenge.

Yep, it's definitely the right thing to do. We also would require to change the 2016 European Tour page, all win counts next to Rose's name since then (one lower), and Rose's page. Didn't want to change all that if there was going to be push back. Jopal22 (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

At the time, I know the European Tour counted Rose's win and I didn't understand why. It's interesting that they've changed it. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well the ET are particularly bad at this sort of thing. If you look at Rose's 2016 stats it says Played 6, Cuts Made 5, Top 10's 1. The first two stats include the olympics and the top 10 stat doesn't. Jopal22 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Professional wins category

Could we create firmer boundaries for the "Professional Wins" category in the template? Under professional wins it includes just about everything the particular golfer has won as a professional, including exhibitions. For example, Padraig Harrington's "professional wins" include his two British Opens and six Irish PGAs. Fred Couples' 62 "professional wins" includes his Masters win, his Dubai Desert Classic win, his victory as a teenager in his local state open (the 1978 Washington Open), and all of his Skins Games wins. It's total apples and oranges. This pattern is true for just about any big-time golfer. I was thinking under "professional wins" to include maybe including only events sponsored by a tour or provide OWGR points?

Also, could the category for "Number of Wins by Tour" be tightened? There is a lot of overlap. For example, it says that Dustin Johnson has won 20 PGA Tour events and 7 European Tour events so it gives the impression he has won 27 combined US/Euro events. However he has actually won 21 between tours. It also says Brooks Koepka has 7 PGA Tour wins and 6 European Tour wins - but again, this is very misleading. He has a combined 8 wins between tours. With Rory McIlroy it is same deal; it says he has 17 PGA and 13 Euro PGA but is actually 23 combined. It also says he has an Asian Tour victory which gives the impression of another win but it was co-sanctioned by he European Tour and is already included in the European Tour category. This is common among European golfers who play a lot of co-sanctioned events giving them the impression of more wins than they actually have. Obviously I think the Asian Tour information should be included somewhere in the article but I don't think a separate row is necessary in the template.

For those that have won between the two big tours could we create a category "US/Euro wins"? Also, if golfers have won on other tours, maybe we could include "Official Wins" beneath it? So in McIlroy's case we could include his Australia Open win. McIlroy's could look something like:

US/Euro wins: 23 Official wins: 24

Now I am aware that there are no firm boundaries between what is an "official" tour and what is not (I am also very aware of the pushback I received from my "Official Tour wins" page). I am not saying that boundaries need to be drawn between those six tours (PGA, Euro, Japan, South Africa, Australian, Asia) but boundaries need to be drawn somewhere. To bring it full circle, on Fred Couples "Number of Wins by Tour" section notes his "32 other wins" which include all of his victories during the aptly titled "Silly Season." Firmer boundaries need to be drawn somewhere. I am not saying it needs to be with the six "big" tours but maybe with events that include OWGR points.

Thoughts?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

WP I have said before, has perhaps the best golf record keeping. The Pro Tours have some problems (For instance the LPGA had totally forgotten Kathy Whitworth- only their tour's all- time winningest golfer - had won the St. Petersburg Women's Open five times - when much was being made of Se Ri Pak winning in Toledo for the fifth time. I told the LPGA and they corrected their record books) and I have worked with them. In fact, WP has a couple of correct records whereas a tour has it wrong. WP has had a few issues- Somebody putting finishing first at tour school as a win when no tour recognizes them as such, at least once I saw the Masters Par 3 counted as a win

Silly season tournaments no matter what you think of them, are counted as other victories by the PGA Tour. Just look at Fred Couples PGA Tour page. Your definition of Official isn't official. It would be WP's count....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I think there's two separate issues here. (1) how to handle co-sanctioned events and (2) what wins to include. Co-sanctioned events seems to be getting more and more common so the issue has grown over the years. The plain fact is the Rory McIlroy has 17 PGA Tour wins and 13 European Tour wins, even though there's a lot of overlap. I'm not at all keen on this concept of "official". Almost every win is "official" is some sense. Fred Couples Washington Open (golf) win is official, there is someone running the Washington Open who doubtless regards it as official. We can impose our own view on what is "official" (actually: important enough, in some sense) but that's a different issue. Our basic principle at the moment is that if there is a tournament article listing the winners of that tournament, then the winners (those with articles) should have that win somewhere in their article. So the issue really relates to what tournament articles we should have. We have a Washington Open (golf) article so Fred Couples win should be noted in his article. Nigej (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To keep things as simple as possible (& avoid WP:OR problems), we should follow what the sources say. Or to put it another way, we should not be inventing our own criteria. 51.6.160.76 (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's not so simple. eg This source https://www.catgolf.com/ca/palmares/campionat-de-catalunya-professionals lists the winners of the "Campionat de Catalunya Professionals". The Seve Ballesteros article lists the 1976 "Cataluña Championship" in his "other wins" (probably from http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/seve-ballesteros/?tab=achievements). However the Antonio Garrido (golfer) article doesn't list his 1977 win, nor does Germán Garrido list his win, or José María Cañizares, etc. It would be quite valid to regard the www.catgolf.com source as perfectly reliable and add it to these other golfers. The question then is whether this event if sufficiently important to be included. At the end of the day we can find reliable sources for all sort of minor events. Nigej (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It really is that simple. If it can be reliably sourced, then include it. A win's a win. We should not be defining arbitrary (and imaginary) boundaries to determine what is, and what isn't, important (enough). 51.6.160.76 (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Except that surely the issue of notability comes into play. Gary Wolstenholme was joint winner of the Andrew Murray Charity Pro-Am in September (https://pgagbi.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/pgagbi19/event/pgagbi19630/contest/8/leaderboard.htm) on the PGA North circuit. As an encyclopedia we need boundaries between the important and the decidedly unimportant otherwise we'll be listing all the monthly medals they won too. Every article writer must decide between the important and the unimportant all the time, otherwise we fill the encyclopedia with trivia.Nigej (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Trivia in a golf article or monthly medals. That's never been done[2]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

To 51.6.160.76, ...William, and Nigej I am not opposed to an "Other Wins" section. In my original post I mentioned how I wanted to revise the template. I know Wikipedia is intended to encyclopedic (it is an encyclopedia after all) and I am not opposed to having an "Other Wins" section that includes everything. However I also think at a certain point we need to make distinctions as the difference between tour wins and exhibitions is huge. The template, as far as I know, is a quick way of determining the achievements and life history of a golfer. It isn't supposed to replicate everything in the text, right? Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The template is supposed to give a accurate summary of the article, i.e. it shouldn't contradict it by means of applying imaginary boundaries. And the implication is that WP editors invent these criteria, which is also a problem.
If reliable 3rd party sources are covering it, then it's probably good enough for inclusion; e.g. Wednesday Pro-Ams do not get coverage so are not included. As for regional PGA circuit events, they probably aren't covered outside of local media, and it would also be difficult to get a definitive number of wins for anyone, so they probably shouldn't be listed individually but should still be given due mention (see George Ryall as an example). 51.6.160.76 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

To 51.6.160.76, ...William, Nigej, and Tewapack Is national media the sole criterion for notability? I am not aware of that; if so please let me know.

You are unknowingly making a distinction between Professional Wins and Amateur Wins. You are implying that all professional wins are more important than all amateur wins (otherwise these amateur wins would be included in the template). This is not always true. The US Amateur and British Amateur receive a great deal of media attention, often more than these exhibitions that you defend. If you were consistent with your argument then you are essentially saying that Hal Sutton's 1985 better-ball, Silly Season victory with Raymond Floyd at something called the Chrysler Championship is more notable than his 1980 US Amateur win. Or Sergio Garcia's 1998 British Amateur win is less notable than his victory at the one-day-long 2002 Telus Skins Game.

You are also implying that "Professional Wins" is an established, "non-imaginary" category. I think this is false. If one Googles "total professional wins" you won't find a website that lists all of these professional wins (which includes everything across tours, senior tours, exhibitions, etc.) Meanwhile, if you search for Greg Norman's professional wins total you get different results. For example his own website states he has 91. The World Golf Hall of Fame's website states he has "86 international wins." A website called Top-End Sports says he has "over 85 victories." Same problem with Gary Player: according to Golf.com Gary Player has 163 wins. For this wsb website it says he has 168 wins. A website called Fine Golf Books states he has 168 wins. His own website says he has 167. This seems to be true for most famous golfers who have won many events.

Meanwhile, you strongly advocate notability - and notability is evidenced through citation. Of Constantino Rocca's 7 "Other Wins" only one has a Wikipedia page and none have citations (anyone else remember the 1985 Enichem Open?). Under Craig Stadler's "Other Wins" section none of these six wins have citations. In general, the overwhelming majority of "Other Wins" for all players do not have citations.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

We do have parameters in the infobox for best results in the Amateur Championship (britamateur) and the US Amateur (usamateur), see eg Michael Bonallack Bobby Jones (golfer), it's just that we don't generally use them for the pros, perhaps because of different views as to whether wins in these events should count as Major wins. For Bonallack we don't use the "majorwins" parameter, although for Jones we do. For Hal Sutton we have 1 major win but if we included his US Amateur win we would probably have to change majorwins to 2. All a sign that the template needs changing in this area. Probably we need to distinguish between the pro majors and the amateur majors in some way. Nigej (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

What you seem to desire can't be done without inventing boundaries (WP:OR again) - the very definition of the majors is a modern one that has been applied historically, and there is no definitive cut-off point in time when that definition becomes active. That being said, the amateur championships are certainly no longer "majors" as far as the golf world in general goes, and haven't been for well over 50 years. The only point of contention is when they ceased to be considered majors; certainly the mid-1960's, and probably earlier, but the is no definite year that can be identified.
As such, best performances for the amateur championships are only added only for modern era players that remain amateur (e.g. Bonallack, but not Sutton), and wins added as majors only for pre-modern era players (e.g. Jones, but not Bonallack). Most importantly though, they can be referenced from reliable 3rd party sources as majors for Jones. 51.6.155.29 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not what I "desire", it's simply a suggestion. My main thought is that this whole area is very difficult, eg (as noted above) how many pro wins did Greg Norman have? different sources give different numbers, each of which could be regarded as reliable. Nigej (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Just quickly checking those sources for Greg Norman... they actually give the same numbers, but are (or are not) including different team events. The WGHoF website (which is awful by the way, and full of errors) states 86 in the bio but lists exactly the same tournaments under achievements as Norman's website. The numerical difference seems to come mostly from the "additional wins" total being added up wrongly. There are all kinds of other errors & discrepancies (e.g. Martini listed in AusTour on WGHoF, Pres Cup included by Norman) but the totals eventually come out the same. Finally, here we total 88 (not 90 or 91) because the Dunhill Cup is considered a team event along with the Presidents Cup. I'm sure the numbers would reconcile similarly for most others. 51.6.155.29 (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

To 51.6.155.29: the win total you and Wikipedia have created for Greg Norman is the very definition of WP:OR. I cannot believe you are sticking with this. You have subtracted from other sources to create your own win total (88). Even if there is a website floating around on the internet that lists Greg Norman's total wins at 88 it still would not strike me as particularly reliable as most other websites have different numbers.

To other golf editors including ...William, Nigej, Tewapack, and Jopal22: what are your opinions? I believe I have made a strong case to delete "Professional Wins."

My ideas on how to move forward re: the "Professional Wins" category:

- We could delete "Professional Wins" and leave that place blank

- If "Professional Wins" is deleted another option would be to replace it with "PGA Tour wins," "European Tour wins," "Asian Tour wins," or whatever category is most relevant to that particular golfer.

Earlier I also mentioned how I would like the "Wins by Tour" category to be "tightened" due to the level of overlapping, "co-sanctioned" victories between tours. I mentioned how we could include a combined US/Euro wins category and then an "Official Wins" category that encompasses all major tours. So it would look something like this:

Rory McIlroy US/Euro wins: 24 Official wins: 25 (includes Australian Open win)

However, I must say that I have not found many reliable sources that reference these categories. The closest I got to the US/Euro category was this article in Golfweek. I don't believe there are any for the six big tours or eight big tours or whatnot. So unless someone can find more reliable sources for these categories I must admit defeat.

However I believe this area of the template to be misleading. As I stated earlier, it states that McIlory now has 18 PGA Tour wins and 14 European Tour wins which implies that he has 32 wins between tours; in fact it is 24 wins. It is a similar problem with most other big name golfers. It implies that Dustin Johnson has 27 wins (20 US, 7 Euro) when it is actually 21. This is also a problem for lesser known golfers. Danny Lee's first win at a professional event was the Johnie Walker Classic, a European Tour event co-sanctioned by the Asian and Australasian Tours. He has only won once at the regular tour level since. Yet on his "Number of Wins by Tour" it implies he has 4 wins rather than 2 wins on regular tours. This is quite an increase considering that golfers rarely win events. Similarly it implies that Dylan Frittelli has 5 rather than 3 victories on the regular tours. This is quite common among a lot of European Tour golfers because there are so many co-sanctioned events.

So what to do here??? I don't think the options are great because "US/Euro wins" and "Official wins" don't seem to be viable. Other options could be:

- to only include victories on the most competitive tour among the co-sanctioned events. Because Lee's co-sanctioned victory was on the European Tour it could just state "1 PGA Tour win" and "1 European Tour win."

- for players like McIlroy or Johnson we could create additional rows that refer to WGCs or Majors where we could avoid overlap. So, for example, with McIlroy it could state:

Regular PGA Tour wins: 11 Regular European Tour wins: 7 WGC wins: 3 Major wins: 4 Australian Tour wins: 1

For Johnson it could state:

Regular PGA Tour wins: 13 Regular European Tour wins: 1 WGC wins: 6 Major wins: 1

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Firstly, simple counting is NOT original research. The substance is clearly referenced and reliable sources agree on the substance. The differences in totals are nothing more than a combination of clear errors (listing 13, but counting 9; typos) and how team/pairs events are counted.
Secondly, your rationale actually supports keeping "pro wins" in order to avoid the reader simply counting up the individual tour/other totals and coming to a erroneous total figure.
Thirdly, all scenarios should be accounted for, not just the here and now. Historically there were no formal tours around the world, and they have come and gone regularly over the past 50 years. There have also been many informal tours/circuits, e.g. British PGA & European (pre-European Tour), Safari, Caribbean, etc.
Fourthly, there is a huge number of co-sanctioned events with as many as five or more different sanctioning bodies. Some count as official wins on all sanctioning tours, and some don't. Some tours count majors as official wins, some don't. Etc., etc.
Finally, space is severely restrictive in the infobox (which again is simply a summary of the article) so having excessive clarification/explanation there is not possible/practical. 51.6.155.29 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

51.6.155.29: I will respond to your points:

1) I am very confident your counting constitutes WP:OR, specifically under the "synthesis" section. It specifically states on that page, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Even if you think the page has made errors it is not up to you to determine what is accurate and what is not.

2) It is true that I do want a firmer category for wins but your absurdly capacious "professional wins" category does not make things better. I would rather have no category at all than this ultra-broad category that includes everything from Silly Season stuff to the Masters.

3) Again, there is still the problem of boundaries. You are stating that in the pre-tour era there were not firm boundaries to determine what was a tour-level tournament and what was not therefore... anything goes! I am not so sure of this. The Sunshine Tour, Australasian Tour, and PGA Tour have retroactively determined what were tour-quality events and what were not. The quality of events ranged wildly back in the day and just because there weren't firm distinctions between a tour-level event and one that was not doesn't mean we should indiscriminately lump them all together (as those three tours determined).

4) Again, I wish there was a way we could somehow include all tour wins in one category but there doesn't seem to be a reliable source that justifies an overarching "Tour wins" category. I wish there was one (and have tried creating a Wikipedia page that reflects this) but it simply doesn't exist. I believe your absurdly capacious "Professional wins" category is not the solution to this problem as, again, it includes events of wildly disparate quality.

5) I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think maybe you are implying that I replace "Professional Wins" with multiple categories like "PGA Tour wins" and "European Tour wins." Actually no; I was mainly thinking of deleting "Professional Wins" (which would free up space) or replacing it with one of those categories.

I also feel like I am repeating myself here and I don't think I have much new to say. Could ...William, Nigej, Tewapack, Jopal22, and any other golf editors respond. We need to find a consensus on whether we want to keep "Professional wins" or not.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Ok, maybe some simple examples will help...

• SourceA: Wins (5) = Major1, Tour2, NonTour3, Pairs4, Team5
• SourceB: Wins (4) = Major1, Tour2, NonTour3, Pairs4; Team wins (1) = Team5
• SourceC: Individual wins (3) = Major1, Tour2, NonTour3; Other wins (1) = Pairs4; Team wins (1) = Team5
• SourceD: Wins (3) = Major1, Tour2, Tour3, Pairs4; Team wins (1) = Team5
• SourceE: Tour wins (2) = Major1, Tour2; Other wins (1) = NonTour3; Team wins (2) = Pairs4, Team5
• SourceF: Major wins (1) = Major1; Tour wins (1) = Tour2; Other wins (2) = NonTour3, Pairs4; Team wins (1) = Team5

All sources agree on the events won, they just count/categorize them differently & one (D) just can't count. It is not OR to count them correctly or organize them in an agreed standard way - this is what we do.

Back to your desire to remove pro wins... GolferA has played equally extensively on Tour1, Tour2 & Tour3. They have won 3 times on Tour1; two of those tournaments were co-sanctioned by Tour2, and one of them by Tour3. They have also won 2 other events on Tour3.

• GolferA: Wins (5) - Tour1wins = 3, Tour2wins = 2, Tour3wins = 3
• GolferA: Tour1wins = 3, Tour2wins = 2, Tour3wins = 3

Clearly the second way of listing these wins is misleading, as it would appear that the total wins is 7.

It is true that a few (but not all) tours have retro-counted wins of some tournaments that remained on the tour following foundation (mostly this has been done subjectively many years later) and others that have been added to the tour later. This is certainly NOT the same as "determining tour-quality events", and that would be a wrong inference. Indeed there are many tournaments that became defunct prior to creation of the tours which had very high standing, and certainly higher than many current tour events.

As you say, you have already discovered the biggest problem with what you are wanting to do - it violates WP:OR. Sometimes it's best to just accept it cannot be done and move on. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The amount of work to do in the golf sections of Wikipedia seems neverending. We like to do it, but we all do it voluntarily and sometimes need to set aside some time to do it. The Olympic section alone is huge (I think I had over 120 edits on one Olympic golf page during the last Summer Olympics). If we are going to deviate from the way the information has normally been entered over the years, considering how much would need to be changed, it really needs to be worth the time put into it. Although, I understand that different things have different worths to different people. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this would take much time at all. My proposal is to delete "Professional Wins." That's it. I have suggested to replace it with "PGA Tour wins" or "European Tour wins" but that is definitely not a necessity. Is there anything technically difficult about deleting "professional wins" from the template? If so, please let me know.

Otherwise, I don't think I have much new to say. Could the other golf editors respond? That includes, but is not limited to... Tewapack, Nigej, Johnsmith2116, ...William, Phinumu, Tracland, Michael W. Parker, Cameron Carone, X-15a2, VantBellypo, Seomavericks, Izzat Kutebar, Eagledj, Jopal22, and NickWikiAccount1708. We need to find a consensus on whether to delete "Professional Wins" or not.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I don't have an opinion here. I'm fine with keeping it, and I'm fine with getting rid of it. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 05:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no point in deleting "Professional wins" from the golfer infobox, as 51.6.161.113 points out it would lead to more confusion (because of double counting) than clarification. In almost all cases, the infobox reflects the "Professional wins" section. That section usually breaks down the wins by tour and notes which wins are co-sanctioned. Tewapack (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I like the fact that "Professional Wins" doesn't double count. My main contention is that it adds all of these extraneous "Other Wins" giving a false impression of how many quality wins a golfer has. The typical Wikipedia visitor, upon glancing at the golfer's "Professional Wins" category in the template, will assume that the golfer has won a number of professional events of similar quality - perhaps all of tour-level quality. Nothing could be further from the truth; "Professional Wins" includes everything from exhibitions to major championships. It is not a real category.

It seems you are concerned that if we change the "Professional Wins" category in the infobox then we must change the category in the text. I am not necessarily for changing that actually. The only thing I would suggest is deleting the amount of wins in the heading. For example, I would suggest modifying Fred Couples' page from "Professional Wins (62)" to just "Professional Wins." Keeping "Professional Wins" in the text is probably ok as an organizing principle (although it wouldn't be bad having a category like "Tour Wins" and then another like "Other Wins").

Overall, I get the impression that this category remains simply out of habit. Pretty much all Johnsmith2116 said was that it would take a lot of time/effort to change and it would break with trends. That does not strike me as an appropriate way towards advancing the Wikipedia golf section.

Nigej could you respond?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Not sure how many more different ways there are to explain this to you - inventing criteria for inclusion is a clear violation of WP:OR. There is no such concept as a "tour-level quality" tournament. You are wanting to create a standard that does not exist and effectively place an asterisk next to every tournament that doesn't meet it.
There is a huge difference in the strength of field across the schedule of every tour; for example the Bermuda Championship is about as low a SOF as there is on the PGA Tour, but it counts as win the same as any other and without any asterisks to say that no top players were there. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ooggly, drop the topic. There isn't support around here for what you want to do.20:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Not so fast. "Drop the topic" isn't much of a counter-argument, more of a bullying tactic. In general only 51.6.161.113 has provided a substantive argument against me while Nigej seems to support me. I would like Nigej to respond to help form a consensus.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Los Angeles Open

Now that this tournament is going to be an invitational, is it okay to keep the page name Los Angeles Open? Or, should the name of the page be changed? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally I would change it to Genesis Invitational, per WP:COMMONNAME. I know we have a policy of not using the sponsors name if it previously didn't have a sponsor, but no one ever or ever will refer to it as the LA Open anymore Jopal22 (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Be wary of WP:RECENTISM. LA Open remains the most frequently used name for the tournament throughout it's history (and no-one is about to re-write/re-record past coverage). Another issue with moving articles to reflect current branding, is that sponsorship deals are generally quite short so the current name is often not be in use very long (Genesis Open lasted just 3 years). Plus, we shouldn't be facilitating tour/brand advertising other than when absolutely necessary. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability for golfers in second tier tournaments

I'm seeing quite a few drafts for golfers that play in the second or third tier golf tournaments such as PGA Tour Latinoamérica, Nationwide Tour, European Challenge Tour. Are any of these acceptable for WP:NGOLF's "They have won at least one professional golf tournament"? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

In short, no. Playing on a lower level tour would not meet the presumed notability criteria; even winning a tournament on those tours would not in itself meet the criteria. It's debatable whether even two or three wins in different seasons on second level tours is sufficient, however multiple winners will often have played on an elite tour and they would then meet the final criteria. Multiple wins in the same season on 2nd tier tours should also be sufficient as that would normally guarantee promotion to the elite tour. Current players on third level (or lower) tours would not meet presumed notability, however there are exceptions; for example before the PGA Tour bought them the Latinoamérica and Canadian tours were the top (or at least second) level tour in those areas, so historically they would be considered a higher status than 3rd tier, especially in those regions. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I randomly sampled these red linked tournament winning golfers for WP:GNG: Ricardo Celia, Vince Covello, Michael Gligic, Bo Hoag, Matthew NeSmith, Kristoffer Ventura, Alejandro Tosti, Rafael Campos (the bluelink is an actor), Shad Tuten. Of those, I think all of them would pass WP:GNG fairly easily with the possible exception of Tuten, just because winning a tournament on the Latinoamérica or Nationwide tours gets a golfer press coverage. I didn't have to spend much time at all finding significant coverage of these players. I don't think all golfers on these tours are notable, but I don't see a problem with that guideline - it seems supported by WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 08:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

In addition to my above comment, those who have won Orders of Merits/Money Lists on those tours will also (in general) comfortably pass notability requirements, especially of they have done so on multiple occasions. As such, I would expect César Costilla and Daniel Barbetti meet WP:GNG, even though they may fall short of WP:NGOLF standards (which is only a very quick guideline for presumed notability, designed for very top players only). 51.6.161.113 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

So a yes for winning second-tier? Or yes for multiple second-tier? But for third, not so much and would need WP:GNG or something else? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly 51.6.161.113 is clearly incorrect if he's saying that winning eg a Challenge Tour event doesn't satisfy WP:NGOLF which clearly says "They have won at least one professional golf tournament (example: PGA Tour, LPGA Tour, European Tour, PGA Tour Champions)" The four tours listed are examples of tours and have never been regarded as a complete list. Challenge Tour event are "professional golf tournaments", that is 100% clear. The problem lies with NGOLF which needs a shake-up. It was created in the wild west days of Wikipedia and is not, I think, to be taken too seriously (The criteria were suggested here: Special:Permalink/155555839 at 03:37, 4 September 2007 and then created here: Special:Permalink/155557783 4 minutes later with no further discussion - The text "They have won at least one professional golf tournament (ex: PGA, LPGA, European Tour)" being largely unchanged since then). Some time ago I was thinking of coming up with an alternative but was put off by the problems of getting anything agreed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) (see Special:Permalink/837021460 which also has some comments). My own view is that winning a Challenge Tour/Korn Ferry Tour event should certainly qualify. There's plenty of coverage of these events. I'm more doubtful about some more minor events, eg Big Easy Tour even though these get OWGR points (prize money about $5,000). As ever with these issues we need to be careful not to take a US/UK perspective on things. Take the Korean Tour for instance. I find it impossible to believe that the winner of a $1,000,000 tournament in Korea does not receive significant national coverage over there, even though there's probably little coverage elsewhere. Perhaps the same applies to the Big Easy Tour: what coverage does that get in South Africa? Nigej (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I was saying, and sorry but I have to correct you. In short, there is no way all the redlinks for tournament winners on 1990 Challenge Tour, 1991 Challenge Tour, etc. should have articles.

In depth, the purpose of NGOLF is only a presumed notability criteria, nothing more; it absolutely does not supersede policy (read the lead of WP:ATH). Secondly, (yes, the wording is poor, but) the tournament winning part of WP:NGOLF deliberately lists only major top-tier tours and certainly should not be read to include all professional tournaments (or tours) - the principle being that all players that meet WP:NGOLF should comfortably meet WP:GNG, and far from all 2nd tier winners will (even less for 3rd tier, 4th tier, etc.), especially when looking at early years of these tours. It is also important to remember that notability of the tournament is not in itself sufficient to confer notability of the winners, and the coverage you refer to is of the tournaments. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Further: GNG trumps NGOLF; i.e. even if NGOLF is met, they must still meet GNG and if GNG is met, NGOLF is irrelevant. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the rule of thumb at one point was that if a tour has an OWGR minimum higher than 6, winners are notable; this would be the 6 Federation tours plus the Korn Ferry, Challenge, and Korean tours (excluding the lower-minimum events from the Sunshine and Australasia tours, though that might be open to discussion).
I'd also suggest reworking the last guideline. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the bar was probably set somewhat higher (even as high as 12/14/16 points). As noted, it would be difficult to find sources (other than "incidental" mentions in tournament articles) for many of those who have won on the lesser tours.
I'd agree that the criteria should be rewritten, and probably aim for tightening them up (certainly not loosening). There should be very few articles meeting NGOLF that would be deleted at AFD (because they don't satisfy GNG). 51.6.161.113 (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this perhaps is an approach we can focus on. The Challenge Tour/Korn Ferry Tour didn't get ranking points until 2000 (I think) which negates one of the arguments above. In recent years we've seen a massive increase in the tours given OWGR points, so we do probably need to set the bar higher than just winning an OWGR event. Nigej (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"They have won at least one professional golf tournament". Nothing could be clearer. Trying to persuade us that this says something else, is not going to get us too far. If you're interested in pointless discussions that get nowhere, I can certainly recommend getting involved in the WT:SPORTS discussions, especially the football ones. Anyway the point is that both you and I can agree that the wording needs changing. I suggest we focus on that. Personally I'm not keen on the "tier" approach. The Big Easy Tour is 2nd tier as is the Korn Ferry Tour, but there is a huge gulf between the two. Nigej (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it's pointless discussing what is (or should be) understood by the current wording, and also agreed that a general tier-by-tier approach would not be satisfactory. It may be as simple as just explicitly limiting to tours where all winners are notable (i.e. pretty much the 4 that are listed). I'd hesitate to say even half of all winners on any other tour would meet GNG, especially one-timers, on that basis alone. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• As I've shown above, winners on the Nationwide and Latinoamerica tours almost always meet WP:GNG. We should probably go through tour by tour and do a WP:GNG assessment of the redlinked golfers to determine whether WP:GNG is clearly met. At this point, I would say if you're on the PGA or European tour, I think you would clearly meet WP:GNG, and if you win a Nationwide or Latinoamerica, you will also meet WP:GNG. We'll need to look at the other tours individually. SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• I disagree with the IP user there. I would certainly include the Korn Ferry Tour (minimum 14 OWGR points), Challenge Tour (12) and the Korean Tour (9, originally 6), certainly since they gained OWGR points. This effectively means that I would certainly include all OWGR events with 9 or more points. I would also include the European Senior Tour (nearly all winners of the two main men's senior tours would qualify under another category anyway) and perhaps other ladies tours (not my forte). I would exclude all wins giving less than OWGR 6 points; these are mostly 3rd tier and weak 2nd tier tours, often 54 hole events. That leave me with the more problematic 6 point zone: PGA Tour Canada, PGA Tour Latinoamérica, Asian Development Tour, PGA Tour China, China Tour, tier 2 events on the PGA Tour of Australasia and the Sunshine Tour, and a few 72 hole events on the European 3rd tier. Generally we have few articles for the winners of these events. Nigej (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to be wary of recent-ism. Any sample set should include redlinks spanning the whole history of any given tour & essentially, those who have won (only once) but never gained PGA/European Tour status (all the golfers you checked won last season, most have multiple wins & almost all are now on the PGA Tour this season); i.e. can we truly say someone is immediately notable the instant they win any event on these tours? I think that is doubtful. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point about NSPORTS notability. We're not saying that the winning of the event gives notability (although the winning of the event may well generate significant coverage). What that part of NGOLF is saying is that the winner of the event is likely to have generated significant coverage either by winning the event or by everything else they've done in their lives before (or after) that. Indeed it seems to me to very unlikely that the winner of a Korn Ferry Tour event, say, would never have generated any significant coverage in their entire lives. Nigej (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, please be careful when interjecting comments between others; it can disrupt the discussion, make the timeline of comments unclear and move comments out of their original context which can be misleading.

And secondly. A quick spotcheck of one-time winners from the earlier years of those tours (both redlinks and bluelinks) suggests finding significant coverage (of the golfers, not the tours or tournaments) in 3rd party reliable sources would be far from straightforward. The fact that there are so many bluelinks (never mind redlinks) that may struggle to meet GNG illustrates just how bad an inclusive criteria is (and has been). 51.6.161.113 (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please give examples of red/blue link golfers who have won professional tournaments who you think fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't got the time (or the will) to do any in-depth analysis to illustrate something which seems perfectly obvious. However, before my earlier comment, I looked at a very small sample (about 10) of US/UK players (for ease of finding English language sources) who's names I was not familiar with from the 2002 & 2003 Buy.com/Challenge Tour seasons who at a glance would appear not to have earned their card on the PGA/European Tour at any point. Of those 10, Tyler Williamson, Scott Kammann, David Geall stood out as unlikely to meet GNG (especially at the time of their win, or soon after that). 51.6.161.113 (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The Buy.com/Challenge Tour events at this time only got 6 OWGR points, indicating perhaps that their importance has risen since those days.And NSPORTS only says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia"; so a few examples of players who don't meet WP:N doesn't prove anything about where to set the bar for NGOLF. WP:N says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right ..." (which is NSPORTS is this case) Nigej (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that graduating from the Korn Ferry or Challenge tours is more grounds for notability than winning on one of them. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 21:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That's true, but we already have "They have competed as a professional on the PGA, LPGA, European, or Champions Tour for at least one full year" as one of the criteria in WP:NGOLF and most of those would qualify there. Not all graduates make the one year so we could perhaps extend that section to include graduates. However I'm also still of the view that a winner of a Korn Ferry or Challenge tour event "is likely to meet the general notability guideline", which is the level we're supposed to be looking at. Nigej (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Geall and Scott Kammann are a bit squeaky on notability, especially Geall who shares a name with a more notable horse breeder, but I think they would both potentially get past WP:GNG - Geall has been covered in some German sources, and 2003 is an odd year as much of the internet that was up then isn't around now. SportingFlyer T·C 08:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  Tyler Williamson gets a certain amount of coverage for his 2002 Buy.com win and also for a final round 60 in the 2004 Price Cutter Charity Championship where he finished T3 and had a putt for a 59. Nigej (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If we were looking at the 1980's it would be different, but there was more than enough of an internet news presence in 2003 (that is still findable now) to give a fairly good indicator. There isn't any significant coverage that would suggest either Geall or Kammann meet GNG.
Again, coverage is of the tournaments not the individuals, which is insufficient to establish notability. Also, we don't have a crystal ball to see what players may do in the future, which is why I selected a tiny sample of players such that is was much easier to avoid (past-)future hindsight; the point being Williamson's achievements post-2002 must be ignored for this exercise. And even with that further incidental (trivia) in 2004, my feeling is that Williamson still fails GNG now. Similarly, there are so many other players that only pass GNG much later in their careers, long after their first lower-tier win.
Noting the tour's standing was much less several years ago reinforces one of my earlier comments. This guideline is for past, present and future, not just the present. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Anyway, I had an idea which provides a possible solution for modern era players (without being too arbitrary or complicated)... add another qualifying criteria; i.e. "They have won at least one professional win on any recognized professional tour AND been ranked inside the top XXX (men), YYY (ladies). For seniors, they have won at least once on the Champions Tour, European Seniors Tour or Legends Tour." This would then not immediately include one-hit wonders at lower levels, but would include top-tier winners, multiple mid-tier winners & prolific lower-tier winners as they would very likely be inside the Top XXX/YYY benchmark at some point. The ranking benchmark could be very generous and still be effective at weeding out the most unlikely (e.g. there are quite a few one-off winners of Nike/Buy.com/Nationwide/Web.com/KF/Challenge Tour events who have never ranked inside the top 400 or 500). 51.6.161.113 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  NGOLF is only looking for golfers "likely to meet the general notability guideline". "Likely" is an important word here, so including some one-hit wonders that would perhaps fail an AfD is not an issue. We are not looking for perfection here; we're just trying to find simple criteria that roughly churn out the golfers that would pass WP:N. (NSPORTS includes, for instance, anyone who has competed in the modern Olympics, even though probably a fair proportion of these are not really notable) I'm not keen on the "AND" aspect of your suggestion. I would prefer to extend the "OR" list we have at the moment: eg (for the men) They have won a tournament with an OWGR event ranking of at least 9 OR They have reached the top 200 of the OWGR. Personally I would think that a one-hit wonder at this level (9+) is more likely to pass WP:N than someone who won two ranking events that gave half the points each on more minor tours. {unsigned comment by Nigej (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)}

OWGR points are a very poor criteria for many reasons, not least (as you indicate) because points are only awarded on regular men's tours. OWGR also remains inherently biased towards the major tour operators (esp. the PGA Tour), and the number of points awarded globally has changed significantly over the past 10 years, with further change likely as allocations slowly become more equitable. And as has been demonstrated, players are actually very unlikely to immediately meet GNG upon winning their first tournament at a lower level (generally all coverage is of the tournament, with no significant coverage of the player), unless they would already meet GNG or have a good human interest story to report on (like Josh Younger this week). 51.6.161.113 (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Højgaard or Højgård

Seems that Danish sources go for Højgaard, eg https://www.golf.dk/nyhed/rasmus-h%C3%B8jgaard-har-kurs-mod-europatouren, https://www.tv3sport.dk/sport/golf/nyheder/rasmus-hojgaard-slar-elendigt-bunkerslag-men-se-lige-hans-sublime-reaktion etc. so I'm thinking that would be our best choice. Nigej (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Højgaard seems to be what it is. The ones I've seen in the internet so far have had the "aa" in his name. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I've changed them all to "aa", which seems to be correct. Nigej (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

There do exist sources with å, such as this page. My usual practice when figuring out about diacritics is to search for the name with them and see if I can find a source that uses them; I think that's what led me originally to using the diacritic in this case. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 00:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

See Danish language#Writing system and Alphabet which says that å has replaced aa since 1948 although "The old usage continues to occur in some personal and geographical names". Nigej (talk) 08:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. Should it be assumed that sources with å are misspelling it? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 18:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is his instagram account. He uses aa here : https://www.instagram.com/rasmushoejgaard/?hl=en Jopal22 (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It seems that every Wikipedia Højgaard/Højgård biography uses Højgaard. And if you look at Category:Danish-language surnames, there are no surnames that use "å" and many that use "aa". So "Højgaard" definitely seems correct. Tewapack (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

We good to produce a page called Rasmus Højgaard now then? Jopal22 (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Clearly we do, whatever his name. And his brother too IMO as 2018 Eisenhower Trophy winner. Nigej (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Arguably finishing second in the KLM Open should be grounds for notability too... pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 21:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of requested move, four-ball

I have requested the move of Four-ball golf to Four-ball (golf). Please see the discussion. Thanks. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of requested move, foursomes

I have requested the move of Foursome (golf) to Foursomes. Please see the discussion. Thanks. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Scandinavian Masters

An page has been created called Scandinavian Mixed redirecting to Scandinavian Masters, yet it is described as a new (mixed gender) tournament. Shouldn't the Scandinavian Masters be reverted to say the tournament had been discontinued?...and a proper Scandinavian Mixed page set up? Jopal22 (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The European Tour's page for the event shows the other tournaments in the history section so it seems that they don't consider it a new event. Tewapack (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes it seems to depend where you look. The European Tour seem to regard it as a continuation of the previous event, see https://www.europeantour.com/european-tour/scandinavian-mixed-hosted-by-henrik-and-annika-2020/history which lists earlier events back to 1991, but the LET obviously regard it as a new event: the "Inaugural Scandinavian Mixed Hosted by Henrik & Annika" https://ladieseuropeantour.com/stenson-and-sorenstam-to-host-scandinavian-mixed-tournament/ Nigej (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Well the ET website also describes it as an inaugural event "As part of the European Tour’s commitment to inclusivity in golf, the inaugural Scandinavian Mixed Hosted by Henrik & Annika will feature 78 men and 78 women at Bro Hof Slott Golf Club in Stockholm from June 11-14, 2020 and will be co-sanctioned by the European Tour and Ladies European Tour." As ever the ET is not very clear! Suggest we wait til nearer the tournament to see how they describe it. Also we will need to have a clear way of presenting these mixed events, not sure I like the way the winners of the Jordan Mixed Open was populated on the various tour pages Jopal22 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Probably its both. Its the inaugural Scandinavian Mixed and also a continuation of the Scandinavian Masters. Nigej (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As for presentation of mixed events, that's a touchy subject, but I'm not sure if what we have for the Jordan event can be improved much. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 23:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we now live in a culture of having to be inclusive to anyone and everyone for no apparent reason, and sports is not immune from this, not even golf. Movie franchises such as the Terminator and Stars Wars having been ruined because of this, to name a couple. And now with golf, we have Lexi Thompson in the Shootout, Anika Sorenstam in the Father/Son event, etc. Can you imagine the backlash there would be if any of the male golfers started entering the LPGA events? And now we have the Scandinavian event with females. Where does all this stuff end? *shakes head* Johnsmith2116 (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Jordan Mixed Open for an alternate winners table format. Mixed gender play is not new - see Royal Poinciana Invitational. Tewapack (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding color to "Playoff Record"

I recently added or modified the "Playoff Record" tables for John Inman, Anders Sorensen, and Jean van de Velde. However I do not know how to add color to these rows (which denote win or loss - I believe it is green for a win and red for a loss). Could someone explain how? (And yes I prefer if someone just explained it to me rather than did it... teach a man to fish...)

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It's a matter of adding the color to the "|-" that start each row. So:

|-

becomes:

|- style="background:#D0F0C0;"

or:

|- style="background:#F2C1D1;"

"D0F0C0" is a greeny color (Tea Green) for a win while "F2C1D1" (Fairy Tale (color)), a reddy color for a loss. This is my preferred color scheme (which you'll find for the European Tour playoff sections). However most PGA Tour playoff sections use a different color scheme, using "F5DEB3" (Wheat (color)) for a win and "B0E0E6" (Powder blue#Web colour) for a loss, which personally I find a little obscure.These are the two main color schemes. I have noticed some use of "F08080" (Light Coral) as a reddy background color but personally I find it too heavy for a background color, see eg Rocco Mediate#PGA Tour wins (6). Nigej (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why PGA/European/other tours should use different colors. Probably makes sense to standardize and use a single color scheme for this across all articles — I have no preference, just anything that is clear and legible. 51.6.161.113 (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. The problem has been resolved.

Also, I agree with 51.6.161.113 that the color scheme should be the same. The European Tour one seems the best. Could we start using that for PGA Tour pros and, I guess, begin to modify existing PGA Tour Playoff Record color schemes?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Bobby Cole at 1971 Masters

Do we have any evidence that Bobby Cole was invited to play at the 1971 Masters? He seemed to qualify (finished within top 16 at 1970 US Open) but there is no evidence that he was invited to play at the Masters.

Now I know that the Masters is technically an "invitational" and they don't have to "invite" everyone that meets there published qualifying criteria. In addition, back then international players only automatically qualified if they had won the tournament previously (Gary Player being the only one in this era). Otherwise, they had to rely on a "special foreign invitation." Nonetheless, I am not aware of a foreign player who met the published qualifying criteria who did not receive a "special foreign invitation." Bobby Cole's absence from the 1971 Masters is the only potential example I am aware of.

So is there any evidence that Cole played? It doesn't look like it. Otherwise, is there any evidence that he was invited but did not play for some outstanding reason (e.g. injury)? Usually it would say this on the 1971 Masters wiki page but it does not.

Secondly, are you aware of any (other) international golfers that met the published qualifying criteria but were not invited?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

He certainly wasn't invited to the 1971 Masters Tournament and made a fuss about it. It was reported that he would play in the Magnolia State Classic the same week but I couldn't find his name as playing. All the qualifying rules only applied to Americans, non-Americans had to rely on the "foreign" category. In a discussion mostly about the lack of "a black golfer", Clifford Roberts "pointed out that some of the better foreign golfers, like Bobby Cole, fail to be invited to the Masters because they play regularly on the U.S. tour and fail to meet U.S. qualifying criteria. We have an unwritten rule that any foreign golfer player who continuously plays on the U.S. tour must play well enough to qualify as if he was a citizen of this country" However another paper said that Clifford "also explained the puzzling Bobby Cole case. ... Roberts explained that the exemptions are for U.S. players only and that a foreigner only gets one if he wins the Championship ... The same thing goes for the rules says that the low 8 in the PGA ...". Bruce Crampton and Bruce Devlin were invited, having finished in the top 8/top 16; and both I think were also playing on the US tour. Seems to be an example of the Masters making up their own rules as they chose. Certainly it does seem an unusual case; Americans sometimes complained that it was easier for non-Americans to get in than for them. Nigej (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! If you find a reliable source with Clifford Roberts' quote that would be great. We can publish it on the 1971 Masters wiki under "Field" to clarify things.

Also, this isn't really relevant to what I want to do on the Wikipedia page, just responding to Roberts comment... it strikes me as illogical. Cole did meet a criterion established for US golfers that play regularly on the PGA Tour (top 16 in US Open). Though there may be some, I don't know of any American golfers that have met this criterion that did not get into the Masters. This is just for curiosities sake, but do you know of any?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

In a sense the situation was quite clear. If you were an American and made the qualifying criteria you were invited, if you were American and didn't make the qualifying criteria you weren't invited. I can't think of any exceptions. If you were not American you were either invited or you weren't; basically at the whim of the Masters organization. However, we don't know who was invited since they never published a list. What they did announce was a list of the foreigners who had been invited and had accepted the invitation, although occasionally players on this list didn't turn up. Some British/Irish/European golfers were invited but declined; the cost of travelling being too much, see eg https://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/masters-2016-christy-oconnor-sr-declined-20-masters-invites . As you say, Robert comments seem to make no sense. As to non-Americans who would have qualified as an American but didn't play - we haven't kept a list but it would be interesting. Nigej (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)