Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:36, 7 May 2023

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified. Please click here to leave me a new message.

This user is possibly at the golf course in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

/Pre 2009 /Q1 Q2 2009 /Q3 Q4 2009 /Q1 Q2 2010 /Q3 Q4 2010 /Q1 Q2 2011 /Q3 2011 to 2019 /2020 /2021 /2022

WP:NGOLF criteria

Hey,

I just responded to some comments in the thread. The discussion has been going on for a month now and I think we should be able to wrap things up soon. Could you try to finalize things?

Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

I'll try and get back to it next week - been sensationally busy IRL recently! _wjemather 10:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response but it seems like nothing new has been done. Can we get the guidelines finalized as soon as possible and then send away to administrators?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Sorry, just haven't had sufficient time to devote to it. Hopefully soon. _wjemather 10:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey I know there's technically no rush with this but I feel like if we don't do something relatively soon this will just linger and we'll forget about it. And in addition, shouldn't it be easy to finish this project? Like isn't it like a few clicks to administrators and that's it? From what I can tell we're done with establishing the WP:NGOLF criteria.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

It's not quite that simple. It will require a bit of analysis to show these new guidelines meet the necessary targets before proposing them to the community (not admins) for them to accept (or not). That will take time. _wjemather 09:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Let me know when you submit the proposal.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Collaboration

Hi we would to colloborate with you how I can get in contact you? SirineM12 (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@SirineM12: By posting here. _wjemather 09:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi can I contact you privately? SirineM12 (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@SirineM12: Via the WP:EMAIL function. _wjemather 12:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@SirineM12: Thanks for your email, but simply repeating that you want to collaborate doesn't tell be anything. You'll have to expand on what it is you wish to collaborate on and why. _wjemather 15:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Shennecossett Golf Course: scorecard

Hey,

As you've probably seen I created a scorecard for Shennecossett Golf Course. I used the scorecard you put up for Yale Golf Course as a template. There is a problem though as the yardage starts under the "Rating/Slope" column. I would like to just delete this column as I don't have rating/slope information anyway but I can't seem to. If you could help that would be great.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You should be able to lookup ratings here. _wjemather 22:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the link and the revisions to the scorecard. I'm sure I'll use the USGA link in the future.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

LIV Golf

Hi there. I thought I'd just start a discussion about LIV. The aim of the introduction paragraph is to summarise the rest of the article – given half the LIV Golf article is noting the opposition to LIV (which is the main/only thing the news discusses as to LIV golf), I strongly believe a summary of the discussion surrounding LIV is needed in the intro section. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@SerAntoniDeMiloni: The article is very unbalanced, which needs remediating (there is already a discussion about the bloated Mickelson section, for example). When looking at sources, it's important to note their POV and affiliations – for example, a large section of the golf media are closely associated with the PGA Tour – and recognise that (real or imagined) controversy always attracts the most coverage. While it could be included in the lead, it would need to be done in a neutral, balanced fashion, which your changes were not. _wjemather 13:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A couple of the issues: "Founded... with the aims of being a competing golf tour" – while no doubt some people view it this way, this does not appear to be a stated goal (some people have even claimed Norman wants to destroy the PGA Tour); emphasis of "criticism" by prefacing with "significant" and changing a section header; use of the word "opponents". _wjemather 13:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wjemather: I absolutely see this, and the need for a neutral POV throughout the article, but note that only a select group read golf media. Where LIV is being discussed is much more in mainstream reliable source media, noting the implications of a Saudi government with questions over its human rights pumping money into a popular sport. As someone who doesn't watch golf, I'm trying to balance the article as I see fit; if the majority of high level press discussion is regarding the Saudi connection, it (and the discussions around it) should be noted. Please let me know how you'd include the discussion around LIV in the heading. Would be good to figure this out. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@SerAntoniDeMiloni: To be clear, I agree that an overview of the reaction should be in lead, just not how it was done. Perhaps it would be easier/best to start by balancing the article itself, which focuses almost entirely on this one aspect (i.e. PIF/Saudis)? _wjemather 13:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I've seen what has happened

Hi - this profile must have been conflated with another - I know I wouldn't have made that mistake myself. Let me check the diff history and get back to you. Bobo. 08:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bobo192: The conflation was there when you created the article (diff) as a result of conflation by the source (CA) at the time; hence my comment about the questionable reliability of the source (something which has been discussed many times at WT:CRIC over the years). _wjemather 09:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The profile in question is this one: 232662 - at some point the profile must have been mis-attributed. Hmm... Bobo. 09:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. The Cricket Archive page is here, while the Archive.org version is here - 232662. Not sure what has happened there. Perhaps there has been some mis-attribution going on. Bobo. 09:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This has no relevance now, other than highlighting the need to scrutinise and verify all the articles that you created in a similar fashion. Anyhow, will you G7 this one (as requested) and save the need for AFD? _wjemather 09:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Please forgive me, which one do you want me to CSD G7? This whole thing is confusing. Bobo. 09:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobo192: Abhishek Sinha needs deleting. However, the edit history is such that someone might deem it ineligible for G7, although it should qualify since the only substantial content of the page was added by you (diff). _wjemather 09:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's wham this back through archive.org and see what happened...

• Original CA article for Abhishek Sinha, dated March 12, 2008, birthdate September 28, 1990, CA code 232662 - Abhishek has made four List A appearances.
• Original Misplaced Pages article for Abhishek Sinha, dated November 9, 2008, birthdate September 28, 1990, CA code 232662
• Abhishek Sinha - Current Misplaced Pages article for Abhishek Sinha under identity of Abheek Sinha - therefore under the wrong name, dated August 13, 2022, birthdate September 28, 1990, CA code 952348, no first-class appearances
• Current CA page at Avichek Sinha, dated August 13, 2022, birthdate September 28, 1990, CA code 232662, many first-class appearances

At some point someone has changed Abhishek's name and identity to Akheeb, while the CA page is now at Avichek. The original article for Abhishek is perfectly valid and contains accurate information.. Bobo. 11:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobo192: The final CA profile you link here is Avishek Sinha, dob 18 October 1985 (note the slightly different spelling of his first name, and the date of birth is completely different (it also disagrees with Cricinfo, but that's another can of worms)). The person with the dob 28 September 1990 is Abheek Sinha (although the article was created as Abhishek Sinha, as per CA at the time, where it remains; I put a note on the talk page of this article to explain the changes when I did them earlier), who played U-15s for Tripura; he is not the same player who played many FC, LA & T20 matches for Services. One way or another, this article will be deleted – it would simply save all of us time is you tagged it for G7. _wjemather 11:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to work out what I had done first before I tagged it. I don't like deleting my own articles when they are G7s. Someday when we've got the two articles untangled, and we find some more information, we can fix what was broken. Archive.org makes everything more confusing than it needs to be as it shows where the information became mixed up. Bobo. 12:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for your help on Thomas Honywood.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also took the opportunity to sort out some of the other Honywoods that had been misspelled, and the disambiguation pages. _wjemather 14:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Emigrants from x to y or fooian emigrants to boo

I guess I should name the first emigrants from foo to boo. There was a discussion on this at one of the categorization talk pages. Well, me and one other editor posted some thoughts, but no one else seem to have responded. Let me explain. Currently we have Category:American emigrants to the United Kingdom and Category:British emigrants to the United States. The more I think about this the odder it gets. Clearly if someone left Great Britain for the Thirteen Colonies in 1764, they are not Category:British emigrants to the United States, even the reciprocal would not work at all. Do we even have Category:American emigrants to the Kingdom of Great Britain? Clearly saying someone was emigrating to the United Kingdom before it was formed in 1801 does not make sense. However it would seem we should distinguish those moving from the United States to the Kingdom of Great Britain from those moving from the Thirteen Colonies to the Kingdom of Great Britain.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• Right now almost all our articles use the form Category:French emigrants to the United States, Category:French emigrants to Germany etc. We do however have a few such as Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to France and Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to Germany that use the other form. I did recently create Category:Emigrants from China to the Dutch East Indies, but it is still an irregular form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• 33 of the 60 categories under Category:Emigrants from former countries use the emigrants from foo to boo form, instead of fooian emigrants from boo. There are also some there are in Category:Emigrants by country that use the foo emigrants to boo form, such as Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo emigrants to the United States or Category:New Zealand emigrants to Australia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The UK/US issue sounds like a discussion for WP:CFD, but with respect to "from foo to boo" or "fooian/foo emigrants to boo", I think it simply depends on whether a fooian descriptive exists (incidentally, "Emigrants from former countries" seems rather inaccurate given the number of non-countries). _wjemather 12:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Elsewhere we use forms like "states and territories", but that is also used to include sub-national entities, which in general we do not want to cover. I was told that the ban on deletion discussions "broadly construed" extends to Categories for discussion. I am not sure exactly why, since the arbcom only talked about deletion of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

While CFD includes deletion discussions, it more often is for moves/renames and mergers. Maybe worth getting clarification from Arbcom. _wjemather 13:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think there is in some cases a problem with us thinking the descriptive form captures what we want it to. In the case of Category:Armenian emigrants we want this to mean Category:Emigrants from Armenia and to not include in it people who come from Lebanon, where they have lived all their lives, as have often their parents and further back, but self-describe as "Armenian". I knew several such people in Sterling Heights, Michigan while in high school in the 1990s.John Pack Lambert (talk)

  Indeed. There may be a case for having "fooian" as a sub-category of "from foo" in the tree. _wjemather 13:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I could see an argument for Category:Spanish emigrants to the United States being a sub-set of Category:Emigrants from Spain to the United States, since so many who have left Spain may feel they are Basque, Catalan, or otherwise not "Spanish". However with Albanian, Armenian, Greek and some others is that lots of people who feel in lots of ways Greek and came to the US, were never part of Greece so Cateogry:Emigrants from Greece to the United States in general has a more clear definition. We have another level of oddity that Category:German emigrants to France and Category:Italian emigrants to France both incorporate people who came out of Germany and Italy when they were not unified. That may not be fully solveable. We do have Category:Emigrants from Nazi Germany and Category:Emigrants from the Holy Roman Empire. This actually makes it seem more odd we do not have Category:Emigrants from the German Empire to match Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire and Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire. Category:Austro-Hungarian Emigrants I think would make lots, lots, lots more sense as Category:Emigrants from the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Category:Emigrants from Austria-Hungary (I am not particular about the exact form). Those people almost universally would identify as Austrians, Bohemians, Slovakas, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Poles, Corats, Solvens, Italians (yes people leaving in Trieste in 1900 would probably call themselves Italians, even though they were not in Italy), in some cases maybe Germans (especially if they were leaving the Sudetenland), Serbians (which is why we have Category:Kingdom of Serbia emigrants), Bosnians, Romanians (for some from Transylvania, which may mean we have to question if Category:Romanian emigrants could be better named Category:Emigrants from Romania. In 1899 people coming to the US might say they were Poles, but they would be leaving the Russian Empire, the German Empire of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Of course this will lead us to "what do we call those leaving Germany between 1806 and 1870?" we do have Category:Prussian emigrants to the United States, but some of those German sub-cats I am not sure if people have adequately distinguished leaving divided Germany from leaving German states under the German Empire. We could I guess have Category:Emigrants from German territories to the United States (1806-1870) of something along those lines. We already have the far more specific Category:Category:German-American Forty-Eighters. This is one case where we would have to come up with a modern system to speak of things differently than how they were done at the time. However we already do this. In 1911 in the US "Turkey" was the common name given to the Ottoman Empire, but we do not use "Turkey" to refer to the Ottoman Empire because it would be too confusing so we have Category:1911 establishments in the Ottoman Empire, Category:Emigrants from the Ottoman Empire to the United States and a bunch of other categories. We have Category:Emigrants from British India, even though at the time they would have just been called Indian emigrants (although some maybe would not have been considered Indian at all). Common name cannot reasonably be used to force us to group together too many unlike things. On the other hand, some argue that German and Italian have meanings that transcend specific political entities. I have seem really heated arguments that relate to this when people have tried to rename say Category:1895 establishments in Hungary to Category:1895 establishments in the Kingdom of Hungary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• The establishment cats would be a far less complicated case than emigration cats. In a lot of emigration cases people did not go directly from the starting to the ending point, and some of them may have had the country they left cease to exist in the interim. In some cases, such as maybe someone who fled the Russian Revolution and goes to Germany, and then decides it is best to leave Germany Hitler becomes the ruler, they may actually be both Category:White Russian emigrants to Germany and Category:Emigrants from Nazi Germany to the United States, but people who left Estonia and Latvia because they do not want to be under the Soviet Union, and then spent a few years in Displaced person camps in Germany before finally arriving in the United States, still I think count as Category:Estonian emigrants to the United States and Category:Latvian emigrants to the United States. They are not Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States because they are not nationals of the Soviet Union, and they are not Category:German emigrants to the United States, because they are not nationals of Germany, but displace persons. There may even be an argument for having Category:Stateless people who emigrated to the United States or some similar name, but I think for most people we just have to accept that you can be in Category:Emigrants from the Russian Empire to the United States if you say left the Russian Empire in 1915 to study at a university in Switzerland, and then at the end of your studies, which went on to graduate degrees, in 1925, never having left Switzerland but never having become a national of Switzerland either, you decide to take up a position at Columbia University in New York. So even though this case involves someone who comes to the US in 1925. The problem is that we often lack the specific detail. I guess a close correlary is one can be an expatriate of a nation that no longer exists. However if a student in Switzerland regularly goes back to Russian areas, then they become an expatriate of the new entity there. I think also we should not have anyone in both say Category:Soviet expatriates in Switzerland and Category:Russian expatriates in Switzerland, even if they were on and off in Switzerland from 1985-1995. However there may be some cases where some odd categorization makes sense. Such as what if someone lives in Switzerland while a child, and so belongs in Category:British expatriates in Switzerland. then after several years they back in Britain, they emigrate to Australia, where they have a long career, but then go to Switzerland again for a time, do we put them in Category:Australian expatriates in Switzerland. The part of me that says we have too many categories says no. Of course that part of me at some level wishes we would just ditch all the fooian expatriates in boo categories, and only have fooian expatriates in boo. I have to admit the most questionable are categories like Category:Swiss expatriate sportspeople in France. A lot of people are in a whole bunch of such categories, based on playing in multiple countries in leagues that are multi-national, sometimes for playing for less than a year with a team in a given country. This may be a case where the category makes sense, but we need to be a little more discerning in its application. We also have Category:American expatriate actresses in the United Kingdom and a whole related set of categories. These make sense if we have cases where a national of one place spent a large part of their acting career in another country. However Alec Guiness does not get into the hypothetical Category:British expatriate male actors in Tunisia just because he shot some of the seens of Star Wars in Tunisia. Down that road lies madness, but at least with the sports categories we may have already descended to madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• your point about CFD is well taken. Is there somewhere where I could ask about it? Let me rephrase that, what is the best place to ask about that?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  Probably contact one of the Arbs? _wjemather 08:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  • That said, with there being well over 1000 (probably over 3000) emigration categories, and almost as many (and by some measures more, expatriate categories) this is not going to be an easy thing to tackle. I think the first step would be to address some cases like Emigrants from the Kingdom of England, which has subcats that use that form and ones like Category:Kingdom of England emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies. I think that would be a fairly straight forward set of moves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
• I would say any form that we can easily put in a simple fooian form is going to work well, such as Category:Mexican emigrants to France. Although I would think we should limit Mexican to those who left Mexico since the establishment of the Mexican Empire, since it was named Mexican Empire on the model of the Roman Empire, it was the Empire with its capitol at the city of Mexico. Prior to that "Mexico" if used at all was a reference to the general area around Mexico City, not to New Spain or even a sub-set of New Spain anywhere close to the modern extent of Mexico. This is why having a place named "New Mexico" worked for the Spanish, because "Mexico" meant a very specific area. I would not be surprised if 0 people in Cateogry:Mexican emigrants to France left Mexico before 1840, let alone before the mid-1820s. Category:Turkish emigrants to Greece I think is straight forward, but it will be limited to migrations after 1922.John Pack Lambert (talk)
• I found the venue for talking about limits of a topicban from the arbcom. I asked about CfD. Now that I asked about it, at least one person seems to say my very asking about CfD leads them to think imposing a siteban on me is a good idea. This is very, very, very, very frustrating. In the extreme. Very frustrating. I am very frustrated. This reaction to a sincere question with threats of total banning is very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

August

Thank you for kind and timely message on my talk page. Please be assured that I do, can, and will look and keep looking for additional sources. There is an increasing access issue with on-line pay walls which we have to work around and I don’t know how we will solve, but please be reassured I do take that which you discuss seriously. Kind regards. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 10:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Nathaniel Foote

Nathaniel Foote is a rare article. It pretends to be about a person who lived about 1600, but is mainly a listing of people who lived in the main after 1900 who happen to be descended from him. It seems an odd way to have an article. It is basically coatracking a the fact that several random people in the 20th-century (on in the case of Jeb Bush, mainly notable in the 21st-century) had a common ancestor born before 1600.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to remove the list of names (leaving the initial prose) since the source is not independent and unlikely to be reliable. _wjemather 08:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Decision day

Today may be the first day this year that I removed a Proposed Deletion from an article. I think they were all articles created by Lugnuts. James Wildman is one such case. I think he may meet the minimalistic (2=multiple) interpreation of GNG, although I am not sure how independent of each other the 2 sources are. He clearly meets NPOV with no questions at all (being in the National legislature of arguably the most powerful country in the world at his time, clearly one of the 4 most powerful, is going to get you a pass not only of NPOV as it exists now, but of any incaration of NPOV I can ever imagine existing). That article dates to December 16, 2021, which is not very old but not super new. It clearly could say something more than it does. The number of Lugnuts created articles that were nominated for Proposed deletion today seems to indicate Proposed deletion is about to be overwhelmed. We shall see.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Unwise moves

I seem to always make mistakes. I unwisely in trying to help an editor who was starting to do Prods pointed out a specific page he should have a look at. Now this is being interpreted as trying to violate my topic ban by proxy, and people are proposing I be banned from editing for a month. It seems I just constantly mess up everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussions

I really need to find ways to stop participating in discussions in a way that goes too broadly. Some people have basically said that I should be banned from participating in sports discussions because I do not believe we should massively include articles on everyone who was ever involved in sports. It seems there is a goal to silence me more and more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Edits

Hi!

I noted you reverted my edits to the Cheltenham Festival page back to this:

The earliest traceable reference to a "Festival" is in the Warwick Advertiser of 1907.

I had done a great deal of research to determine that there are in fact various earlier tracable references to a 'Festival' and quoted where I located these. Did I do something wrong?

Thanks Wheretobet (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wheretobet: You added WP:Original research, which is against policy; we require such claims to be cited to WP:Reliable sources. In addition, you inserted a WP:Spam link (cheltenhamfestival.fans), as you also did on other articles. _wjemather 16:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

References

1. Stevens, Peter, History of the National Hunt Chase 1860–2010. ISBN 978-0-9567250-0-4

Bad article

This Govindrao Adik article do not look appropriate. Need extensive editing.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

BCCI

I saw your recent edit there. But the thing about full/associate membership is still confusing. I suggest to write in a simple way, so anyone can understand. It feeling like a puzzle. I couldn't figure out, how secretary get elected? Is BCCI have any 'chairman'? The board is infamous for tax avoiding, using excuse as they're a NGO, non profit body. I suggest you to write in neutral way after thorough research.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rock Stone Gold Castle: No doubt its all a bit of a mystery – I've simply tried to reduce it down to a brief summary without having too much confusing/random detail. As for the other stuff, everything needs reliable sources, of which there are few easily accessible. There are many sporting bodies globally (particularly in the US) that have questionable non-profit/charitable status! _wjemather 12:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Wjemather, agreed. I also want to inform that BCCI was in couple if leagal battles with S Shreesanth, Essel group etc should it include?Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rock Stone Gold Castle: It's important to consider neutral point of view policy when looking to include these types of incident (see also WP:Criticism). As such, in general, unless such incidents have long lasting effects, I wouldn't include them. _wjemather 13:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Wjemather, I'll also not add. Is 'University association' field team in Dom cric? The org's name is in Aff members list. Need clarity on that, should write there. And many state asso articles don't have Logos, location maps (showing location of there headquarters), any pic of there office. I don't have that command on, how to add logos. You should add them. What is palet gr, in Ranji trophy?Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

India related articles

That editor again added the excessive unsourced details, you reverted at BRSABV Ekana Cricket Stadium.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

A editor probably related to a news channel did this, his name suggests he is related to the news web, the link he provided see this edit Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Wampanoag Country Club: scorecard

Hey,

I recently created a scorecard for Wampanoag Country Club. I used your template from Shennecossett Golf Course. I thought I did a good job but I need help with a couple of things. I need to add a row for the women's tees (red tees). I do not know how to do this. Also, using the template from Shennecossett, the third row of tees is categorized as "Green" however it needs to be changed to "Yellow." Sorry, but I do not know how to change this. Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. There are several different templates {{yellow18}}, {{red18}}, etc. that display different colours by default; and {{tee18}} can be used for anything non standard. The documentation gives full details of the how to use all the templates, including those for pars, SIs, top (hole numbers, title, etc.) and bottom. _wjemather 20:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response but thanks for your improvements and the other advice. I had one more thing: in Wampanoag's infobox I included the tee information for all tees. However, I noticed that for most of our course pages we just include info from the lengthiest tees. What is the standard?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

The infobox just provides an overview so shouldn't contain excessive details. As such, it's usual just to include the "championship" or "back" tees. I've amended accordingly. Regards, _wjemather 18:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and the edits to Wampanoag. Could we just delete these last three "tee" parameters to the infobox in general if they are superfluous?

Oogglywoogly (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Thankyou

Thankyou for your recent comments at AN. People complain I say too much, so I am being brief, but I did appreciate them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Season links

Just FYI I started a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Linking_sports_seasons_pages which you advised me to do a while back. Jimmymci234 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look when I have time. _wjemather 13:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wilson Staff changes

I am an employee of the Wilson Sporting Goods Company, our Wilson Staff Advisory Staff should absolutely be included in the encyclopedic article on the company.

As for the (stylized as W/S) edit, if you would just please take a look at our logo and describe it to me.

Thanks, McDoub1e McDoub1e (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@McDoub1e: Thanks for the disclosure. With regards to your conflict of interest, I recommend discussing any additions you wish to make on the relevant article talk page. By their nature, endorsements are promotional, so we only detail the most significant ones (i.e. those that are widely covered in independent reliable sources); we do not indiscriminately list them all. As for W/S, it's a logo not a stylisation of Wilson Staff (which is stylised as Wilson Staff). See MOS:TMSTYLE for info. _wjemather 19:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

location of 1997 Long Island Open

Thanks for your edits to the Long Island Open page a couple of weeks ago. According to the Met PGA's website the 1997 tournament (like most years around that date) was held at Bethpage's red course. However, according to these two primary sources the event was held at Bethpage Black. The sources are from Newsday which is usually pretty good. In addition, they are rather specific as one mentions one player breaking the course record at the black course. So I think the Met PGA's website may be mistaken. What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

playoff detail for the 1977 Thailand Open

Thank you for your recent edits to the 1977 Thailand Open. However, I have noticed a contradiction between our sources. According to your McCormack source, Takahiro Takeyasu was eliminated on the second playoff hole. According to this Strait Times article, he was not eliminated until the 7th hole (as was Bohen). The Straits Times article is pretty detailed and seems reliable. I think we should change the note at the bottom of the page.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 08:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

McCormack describes the playoff in greater detail and is supported by the AP newswire (e.g. ). It is also a far more plausible account (all 3 going 7 holes and then 2 of them make bogey seems very unlikely). _wjemather 09:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right. First off, you have two sources and I have one. In addition, The Associated Press seems more reliable than these Singapore newspapers. And yeah, I have never heard of a three-man sudden-death playoff going on that long. So I think we should keep the note the way it is. Sorry for any confusion my comment may have caused.

The only thing I might change is the order. In the AP article it says that Takeyasu went on "finishing third." Perhaps we should put in parentheses that he finished in third place (we have this for the Masters Tournament - see the table for the 1960s events).

Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

According to McCormack they received the same prize money, so seems like a misconception that the r-u places were split. _wjemather 11:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Probably another mistake on the behalf of the reporter. I did just add the AP citation on the Thai Open page as I felt a web citation was valuable too. (With McCormack it is just a textual citaiton.)

Oogglywoogly (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Page

Hello, I didn't add any promotional material..All I did was talked about where I was born, who my parents were etc..I see this people's pages all the time like this..I just just understand why I cannot set up a page that if I go to the box and type in " matthew Farage" my page comes up. It says it doesn't exist. Then I get blamed for all this self promotion. I am allowed to talk about a company I had, or me being adopted. It was a biography was all. Juli Inkster is something I did where I was telling the truth. I did have my product in the tournament. But it was just stating a putting aid they used..It was no self promotion. It seems Wiki does not want me to have a page. I am not smart enough to understand all the requirements needed to watch tutorials etc..Never could comprehend. I just didn't think I did wrong with my profile page of " Matthew Farage" why can't I get the original one I made so it shows up in a search? thank you. Matthew Farage (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Matthew Farage: Your contributions have been, and continue to be, almost exclusively self-promotional. People, companies, products, etc. must have been subject to a substantial amount of independent coverage in reliable sources if they are to be included in any way on Misplaced Pages. You, your company and product, all fail these basic standards. _wjemather 13:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Gary Player/Natal Open

Good spot with the Natal Open. Just reinforces my view that the least reliable source is that written by the person themselves (which is probably the case here). Apart from their most important wins, most pros have only the vaguest idea about what else they've won, especially the year. Nigej (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, indeed. Some players are less reliable than others, and unfortunately such errors that have been replicated (without verification) on WP have now permeated through into supposedly reliable sources. Many players only list their most important wins (and we end up discovering many more) but others list everything, however minor – and a very small number will claim wins they never had (e.g. claiming a win as the leading pro when an amateur actually won), or rarely they'll include an event they didn't even participate in! _wjemather 11:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nigej: With regards to Player's wins, I am finding no newspaper reports of a "Liquid Air Tournament" in 1963, only one in 1965 (won by Trevor Wilkes). Given everything Player won was reported by this time, could this be another "error" (or maybe a conflation with the "Sponsored 5000" held in Nov 1963 – as tournament sponsors names were often omitted from wire reports)? _wjemather 17:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

My only thought is that it is reported here https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/104283201 that he won some money for the best combined score over the 3 grand prix events but whether that prize had a name (eg Liquid Air) I've not idea. Nigej (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nigej: Could be. However, according to various sources, it would seem that the Grand Prix series (Durban, Cape Town, Joburg) was sponsored by Richelieu. _wjemather 18:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Asian Tour awards

Hi, I've added an awards section for the Asian Tour i.e. Players' Player of the Year and Rookie of the Year awards. I've managed to find details as far back as 2002. There is a link to an article detailing 2001 awards here - "Thai star receives Asian Golfer of the Year Award". However the article link is invalid. Have you any ideas of where/which sources would give details of these awards from 1995-2001? Jimmymci234 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, archive.org is generally the best bet, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have been able to to save the AsianPGA newsfeeds, and these awards don't seem to be the kinds of things that were widely republished/reported elsewhere. _wjemather 09:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yorkshire Championship/Yorkshire Open

See: https://www.yugc.co.uk/yorkshire-championship Nigej (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. Knew there must be a list somewhere! _wjemather 17:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Midland Victory event 1919

I have put the 1919 PGA Midland Section Victory Tournament in the Midland Challenge Cup article but whether that was a good idea I'm not sure. Probably an article on all the victory events would be a better way forward. Nigej (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Nigej: Yeah, it's probably not the ideal place for it. I was thinking the same – having an article on the PGA "Victory"/St Andrew's Tournament, i.e. split it out of the Daily Mail Tournament article, and then including a bit about all the regional qualifying tournaments may be best. _wjemather 10:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Shane Lowry wiki page picture update

Hello,

Apologies for the incorrect uploading of a new picture for the Irish golfer Shane Lowry. I am from Shane’s team and we’re wanting to update his very old image.

The photo was taken at the recent PGA Tour official headshot session, by Getty Images, and they have given Shane permission to use this image how he sees fit. Shane also has a long-time licensing agreement with Getty to use any of the images they take which he is included in.

what steps do I need to take to get this new headshot as his new permanent wiki picture?

thanks! ICANTSPECK (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@ICANTSPECK: Unless the copyright holder (Jennifer Perez/PGA TOUR) releases it under an appropriate free license, it cannot be used here or uploaded to Commons. Please read Misplaced Pages:Image use policy and Commons:Licensing for details. Regards, _wjemather 09:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

1981 Australian Order of Merit

Hey,

I have this link that says that Bob Shearer won the 1981 "Australasian Order of Merit" and Terry Gale finished in second. Not sure if it would be of any help.

Sincerely,

~~~~Oooglywoogly

Oogglywoogly (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

New Zealand events on PGA Tour of Australia OoM

Hey,

According to this link the PGA Tour of Australia did not add New Zealand golf tournaments to their Order of Merit until 1981. It is from The Age, the top newspaper in Australia, and from a credible reporter, Trevor Grant. If you believe this information is accurate then I think we should modify 1970s wins tables for a number of players.

Sincerely,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

editorializing

Thank you for your recent edits to the Halls Head Western Open. I noticed that you made some edits to sentences that were "editorialized." I was looking for advice about this issue as I often directly quote journalists. Could you lead me to the appropriate section in ] about this matter?

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether quoted or extrapolated from the source, or otherwise, phrases like "played too defensively", "lived up to expectations", "opened doors", "shocking performance", etc. are purely there for decoration, don't really add anything encyclopedic and are liable to contravene WP:NPOV (being an unbalanced opinion, and often based on emotion at the time of the event when from primary sources). As such we'd need a very good reason to include them. In general, we should stick simply to the basic facts; without added colour. _wjemather 22:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Muscroft boys

I've added brief potted biographies of Duncan and Richard to the Hedley Muscroft article. I'm thinking of creating redirects for the two sons to an appropriate section in the Hedley article, since I'm doubtful they're notable in their own right (marginal at best). Not something I've done before (I think). There is a {{R from relative}} which seems to indicate that this approach is acceptable. WP:BLARing is quite a frequent option when articles are deleted and this seems to lead to a similar situation. Any thoughts. Nigej (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I would do. I have been looking at various golfing families and was considering the same for many of them, with family articles if appropriate. _wjemather 11:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Masters Tournament, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Putt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

purse/pro-am edits

Hey I noticed on Saturday that you reversed some of my edits re: mid-century British golfers. I'm fine with most of them but have a couple issues.

• I deleted a purse win by Dai Rees and you reverted this. Though there is a citation I thought we came to a consensus a couple years ago that purse wins should not be included in the Wins totals.
• I deleted three pro-am victories by Christy O'Connor Snr and you reverted them. You noted these were "different kinds of pro-ams." What is so special about them?

Any clarification would be helpful.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall any discussion – do you have a link? Otherwise, I see no reason not to include the Pro Purse for Rees. Some pro-ams are proper 36 to 90-hole tournaments in their own right (Dunhill Links, Pebble Beach, etc.) and include an individual professional event, whereas others are simple pre-tournament 18-hole better-ball or team competitions. We generally include the former but not the latter. I'd also say that if an event is included on the player's WGHoF profile, we should probably not be excluding it. _wjemather 16:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

About a year and half or two years ago we had this discussion on the main talk page about what wins were permissible for inclusion. I believe we came to the conclusion that these tournaments should not be tabulated: pro-ams, club championship, schoolboy championships, purse wins, medalist honors at qualifying events, and trainee tournaments. I remember User: Nigej was involved and some other members. Nige, do you have access to this link? If not, I will go searching for it when I have more time tomorrow.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Ok, I've had a search and think you are probably referring to this discussion. If so, and as you noted yourself, there isn't really consensus for any kind removal of verifiable wins. _wjemather 22:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey, that discussion is relevant however I was thinking more of "legitimacy of skins games and qualifying events wins" under Archive #14. Also Archive #13 contains "Notability of early career wins" which is also relevant. In all cases, nonetheless, it looks like we have never come to a firm consensus.

I am open to both inclusion and exclusion of pro-ams and purse events though I think I lean a little more towards exclusion. I'm just not sure that every championship reported by a newspaper reporter is fundamentally notable. Including pro-am and purse wins could be seriously challenging for highly successful golfers as their pages could become cluttered with all these somewhat insignificant wins.

Nonetheless, I am open to both ideas. I think a good starting point would be to find out the notability of these wins within the context of Misplaced Pages's rules.

Thanks,

Oogglywoogly (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

Sunshine Tour Order of Merit

What's the issue in using the common name (European Tour)? Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We should used the current name when appropriate, and the common name otherwise. In this context, the current name seems most appropriate. _wjemather 17:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Not saying you're wrong but we have consistently used and applied European Tour common naming throughout the project. Agreed upon two discussions and , it just seems strange to me to use "DP World" naming here so prevalently, especially as the rest of the 2021–22 Sunshine Tour article uses European Tour naming. Jimmymci234 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

For me, the difference is between referring to specific seasons and referring to the tour as an entity in a more general context. Additionally, a significant period of time has elapsed since we had those discussions and DPWT has become commonplace in general reporting, and as such I would now probably lean towards renaming the relevant season articles accordingly – this would be inline with how the Ben Hogan/Nike/Nationwide/Web.com/Korn Ferry Tour articles are named; NB: this wouldn't affect the main article which is titled for the organisation rather than its principal tour. Personally, I continue to use ET in all contexts, but that should have no bearing on what we use here. _wjemather 17:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're saying and it's kind of a tricky situation we're left in as effectively all reports are using DPWT name. I would hold back on the KFT comparison though as that tour has never had a common name and has always been sponsored. There isn't any current similar comparisons (I can think of) outside the Japan Challenge Tour, sponsor titled as AbemaTV Tour, but that gets so little coverage, there's no comparison to be made. Although I still find it interesting that their website is still europeantour.com. Jimmymci234 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The Grange Golf Club

Hello, Wjemather,

Please do not draftify an article more than once or it becomes move-warring. An editor has the right to object to an article being moved to Draft space and revert the page move. At this point, you can help improve the article or, if you feel it is called for, use one of Misplaced Pages's deletion processes. Thank you for all of your contributions! Liz 03:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

why do you revert my contributions?

Hey, I am not sure who you are or why you delete contributions, but I have followed all guidelines and added the links to backup the information I contributed with. can I please ask you not to do that again?thanks. Carloslm1988 (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Carloslm1988: Your additions were promotional in nature and did not accurately reflect the nature of these arrangements/partnerships/products. Please remember this is an encyclopedia and not everything is suitable for inclusion. _wjemather 10:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

what are you talking about? I just stick to the news. BetVictor had a partnership with LFC for 3 years, thats missign on the page and its interesting info. Fulham had one year partnership with BetVictor too.

Furthermore, BetVictor open B2B and its operating on behalf of a number of operators, how is that irrelevant or promotional in nature?? please stop reverting my content or I will not have any other choice but report you.

thanks Carloslm1988 (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Bwin

please do not delete facts.

thank you Carloslm1988 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Carloslm1988: We do not include every minor sponsorship/partnership that companies have with other organisations – that would be WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOtional, and violate WP:NOTEVERYTHING. You also do not seem to understand the nature of these arrangements and are mis-representing them. _wjemather 10:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

please quote exactly what the content violated, as opposed to just give your opinion and misrepresent the situation. You dont seem to understand the nature of Misplaced Pages nor advertising to be honest. Misplaced Pages is for all and anybody that likes to know information about a particular thing that someone previously searched for. You shouldnt have a decision on whether or not something should be published based on your opinion, if you have anything to object - please quote the article that was compromised within the Misplaced Pages guidelines. "too much information for sponsorship seems like a very subjective opinion that does not violate anything and its not advertising nature since this happened and its not link to any particular promotion or advertising, just facts. Me, as a betting person and football fan, find that information very interesting... probably the same to you if this was talking about GOLF.

PLease do not delete relevant information for a page that represents the truth, since users like me are interested on reading such information. Thanks Carloslm1988 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Carloslm1988: It's fairly obvious why having an article with over half the content detailing sponsorship (the sole purpose of which is promotion) and brand partnerships (highlighted in bold) violates the policies above (as well as WP:MOS). And, to repeat/clarify, brand partnerships (effectively acting as service provider/operator) are not "company expansion". _wjemather 10:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

So BetVictor & Bild creating a new Brand that sits under BetVictor Gaming and its called BildBet and operates in Germany, is that a service?

how is that promotional content? Please throw some light here, what is that I am trying to promote???

A user searching for "TalkSPORTS BET" or "Heartbingo" see that they belong to BetVictor group, how is that promotional content and not informational? Same as any user searching for BetVictor that would like knowing they partnered up with Liverpool during 3 years or bwin partnered up with Real Madrid.

If you consider it "Promotional" just because its highlighted in bold (its a listing), that is a specific point that have a very easy solution rather than deleting the entire content.

If you consider it "Promotional" just because its very long content, you should know that any page is sensitive to be edited and more content can be added, the more, the better as long as it keeps relevancy.

Please be specific rather than destructive and try being a helthly asset for the community. Its very sad to see old contributors and relevant contributors like you doing such a poor moderation.

Thanks a please stop this behaviour Carloslm1988 (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Carloslm1988: It's simple marketing. In some cases, BetVictor is operating as a service provider to these "partner" organisations, in others their are simply using the brand as a promotional tool for a specific market. Neither can be considered company expansion. These individual arrangements/products do not require separate paragraphs and pseudo-headings to draw undue attention to them. As for the promotional tone, phases like "most popular gaming brands" are a just press release/advertising copy that have no place here. I rewrote what you added into a single coherent encyclopedic paragraph, to fix these problems, and you reverted it. Why? _wjemather 11:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

hey, sorry I was tweaking a bit the "most popular radio brand" and things like that. Can you check now? also unbond the list. Carloslm1988 (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I have merged the statements into paragraphs, added links to related articles, and removed duplication, circular and red (non-notable) links, and excessive detail. _wjemather 11:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

TGL

Hello,

Could you please help me understand what would make the article better? Exactly what part is it that you think needs work and how would you fix it?

I appreciate any help you have to offer. This is a really cool thing and I think people should get to learn about it - as do all the other contributors.

Thank you,

Sydney15 Sydney15 (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sydney15: I haven't had the time to verify, but I suspect at least the first sentence on the History section is copied directly from a press release. Much of the rest of the article is equally dubious and possibly copyright violation (or at best close paraphrasing). Examples of promotion include highlighting supposed future community/charity benefits, listing star name associations (players and investors) indiscriminately, etc. Basically, almost everything except the lead is problematic; it needs a complete rewrite, in our own words, supported by independent reliable sources (in this case, that excludes the PGA Tour and its media partner organisations, such as Golf Channel) not press releases. _wjemather 22:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Spieth photo

How can I get the watermark off the photo I got the person who uploaded it to change the copyright so it can be used Golffan233 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Golffan233: I'd suggest asking them to upload a clean image. _wjemather 05:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep reverting changes to 'Snooker maximum break'

Hi,

On the snooker maximum break page I am continually putting in corrections as the page is factually wrong - and I see you're reverting the corrections. I can prove the bad facts constantly being reverted to on the page. How do we proceed from here? 2A00:23C7:FE91:C01:E835:C089:50C8:F24C (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that you have acknowledged your error on the article talk page, so assume this is now moot. _wjemather 13:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Barney Cutbill

Hi there - just so you know, no problem in principle with redirecting the article until we can find more information - which I always assume for English players will be available somewhere. I don't know if I worded my edit summary correctly but the references were on the article originally until they were hidden in this edit. Not reverted, nonexistent, or removed, but hidden. Which is peculiar. I'm sure in time we will be able to find enough material to write whatever is deemed necessary.

And as always, there are probably a million different things that can be done to List of Cheshire County Cricket Club List A players, in a similar manner to its neighbour List of Cornwall County Cricket Club List A players to make it cleaner and/or more navigable. Bobo. 22:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I've been round this loop with you too often. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources simply does not exist for the vast majority of these players, so no, we will never find enough material to write a proper article about them. _wjemather 07:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)