Talk:PGA Tour

message: I've successfully created full pages or stubs (along with winners lists) for tournaments that didn't have one. Now what do I do? :P Dakpowers | Talk 19:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filled in the blanks! 

message: Does anyone think the purses at PGA TOUR events would be useful? My only problem with this is that the PGA TOUR's website isn't accurate when it comes to the purses. For example, it lists the British Open purse in terms of dollars (it's in pounds, you couldn't put a dollar figure until you know the conversion rate on the day the winner wins); it says the U.S. Open purse was $6.25 million when it was really $6.8 million; says the B.C. Open purse is $3 million when it is really $3.5 million; and so on. Would someone be willing to chase down the right information and put it on there? I don't know where to look for all of it and it is frustrating the "official" source isn't accurate.
I would check out http://www.thegolfchannel.com .
:They appear to have copied it right from the PGA TOUR's published schedule; those numbers were available in January and since then some have changed. The B.C. Open was supposed to be $3.5 million, that appears to have changed with all the flooding and the change in venue. However, the U.S. Open's website explicitly says the purse is $6.8 million; both the PGA TOUR and Golf Channel sites say $6.25 million. Additionally, both of them are evidently using an exchange rate for the British pound sterling from some other time, because the £4 million purse comes to $7,434,400 as of COB Friday, not the $6.75 million the PGA TOUR says.
::We now have details of the ranking points at each tournament, which is a more reliable indicator of the strength of field. Mowsbury 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purses

message: Is it proper to speak of the Southern Swing anymore? I remember it once being another of the series (like the Fall Finish/West Coast Swing) but it no longer appears on the schedule. Since there are regularly scheduled events that take place in the American south after those events we're designating the "Southern Swing" (through the FedEx St. Jude Classic), it seems like we could only limit it to the events we're limiting it to if it was an organized points competition, like the FF/WCS, and since it isn't, it's my feeling we should drop the reference since the attached text does a fine job of explaining the tour's geographic procession.
Why are the tournament dates listed by the final day of the four days that make up the event, which is always a Sunday? Surely they should list the start date i.e. the Thursday.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miriom (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tournaments usually end on Sunday, but not all do, i.e. Deutsche Bank Championship is scheduled to end on a Monday. Some tournaments are rain delayed until Monday or even Tuesday. U.S. Open's 18-hole playoffs are on Monday. Final date makes more sense because that is when the player won the tournament - not the first day. Putting in the range of dates makes the table unnecessarily wider, especially when it splits months.Tewapack (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: This is already done, see the "PGA Tour Seasons" navbox at the bottom of the page (seasons back to 1970). Every major tour has the same thing, some going back further than others. You can also go to :Category:PGA Tour seasons for a list of season schedules. Tewapack (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Schedule

message: There are two reasons why people refer to The Open Championship as the British Open. a) Its needed to save people from confusing it with the US open or b) ignorance of the fact that it is called The Open and doesn't need a prefix. Case (a) doesn't apply here because the fact that it is in the United Kingdom is given in the next column. Which just leaves (b). 
Wikipedia is meant to be a place to correct ignorance and not perpetuate it. This is why the term British Open should be avoided. Using the term would re-enforce the mis-guided belief that it is the official term of the tournement, which is the precise opposite of what Wikipedia is trying to achieve. 
While the United States could be refered to as America or even Columbia you wouldn't dream of using these terms here because an encyclopedia requires a higher standard of language than is used in everyday life. Please explain why you feel this should be ignored in this case. josh (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Open Championship 

message: The creators of myLPGA.com have decided to venture into men's golf and have now launched yourPGA.com which is a discussion forum and fan site for the PGA Tour as well as the European Tour and other PGA tours around the world.  Please add it to your external links.  Mahalo!
Amagab 08:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  yourPGA.com - PGA Message Boards and Fan Site 

message: I'm not sure that ranking points add anything to this chart other than clutter. I think it might be wiser to put this at the very least someplace else. I just think it is too abstract. For most events, we don't know how many ranking points were allocated until the new OWGR are released on Monday, but putting it in the chart suggests there is something inherent about the event which determines the number of points, which is true for only 5 events. It is going to result in more weeks going onto a 2nd line, which is something I have been trying to avoid. 65.42.16.135 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the State column retains value; the point of it is (or was) to show the progression of the geography of the tour. It provided more concrete statements to the generalizations in the preceding paragraph about starting on the west coast, going to the American southeast, etc. As for the career wins, I can go either way, but it doesn't offend me to have it there simply because it doesn't take up a great deal of space. My key concern is spacing. 65.42.16.135 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The state column is of long standing and it shows the structure of the season. The ranking points are tremendous added value, showing the strength of field in a clear way that you just don't get from any other source. Note the FedEx X Cup points would not achieve the same thing as the main season tournaments are divided into just three categories, which is not an accurate reflection of the relative strength of tournaments at all. The number of wins shows what type of players are winning at the moment, and is especially useful for those who are less familiar with golf. Mowsbury 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ranking points only shows strength of field to the insiders who have any notion of what the ranking system even means, how it works, etc. It is far too abstract for this forum. 65.42.16.135 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it is most useful for people who would otherwise have little idea of the standing of the various tournaments. Anyone who is curious can read the article, that is how wikipedia helps people to learn. Mowsbury 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That logic can be carried out ad infinitum. Even a wikified encyclopedia has to show some discretion as to the information presented in any given article, to make sure it conforms with the level of generality appropriate to the topic. This is just too detailed. And Fgf2007 agrees with me. Moreover, the argument that it provides some context to the "standing" of the various tournaments is flawed. The rankings points are not linear; a 50-point tournament is not twice as "good" as a 25-point tournament. The points are allocated in a fashion that balances a variety of concerns, which include inter-tour politics, history, and the desireability of maximizing TV ratings for those events that use the OWGR as a sweep-up category; all of which are concerns that have nothing to do with the actual game of golf. 65.42.16.135 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranking Points

message: The Ranking Points Column is something not everyone viewing the PGA Tour schedule is necessarily interested in. Perhaps, a separate page titled, say, "2007 PGA Tour: OWGR Tournament Ranking Points", could be created to deal with that subject.
Also, take out the career wins in parenthesis next to the player's name. If people want to find 
out how many career PGA Tour wins (or any other specific achievements) that a player has, they should be able to click-on the player's name and read such info on the player's own Wikipedia page.
<B>ADDITIONAL: 1-29-07 10:18 PM EST</B>
The State column can go as well, since that info should be present on each event's Wikipedia page.
Thanx-A-Lot and Enjoy, Frank    Fgf2007 00:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the State column retains value; the point of it is (or was) to show the progression of the geography of the tour. It provided more concrete statements to the generalizations in the preceding paragraph about starting on the west coast, going to the American southeast, etc. As for the career wins, I can go either way, but it doesn't offend me to have it there simply because it doesn't take up a great deal of space. My key concern is spacing. 65.42.16.135 03:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The state column is of long standing and it shows the structure of the season. The ranking points are tremendous added value, showing the strength of field in a clear way that you just don't get from any other source. Note the FedEx X Cup points would not achieve the same thing as the main season tournaments are divided into just three categories, which is not an accurate reflection of the relative strength of tournaments at all. The number of wins shows what type of players are winning at the moment, and is especially useful for those who are less familiar with golf. Mowsbury 18:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ranking points only shows strength of field to the insiders who have any notion of what the ranking system even means, how it works, etc. It is far too abstract for this forum. 65.42.16.135 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it is most useful for people who would otherwise have little idea of the standing of the various tournaments. Anyone who is curious can read the article, that is how wikipedia helps people to learn. Mowsbury 19:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That logic can be carried out ad infinitum. Even a wikified encyclopedia has to show some discretion as to the information presented in any given article, to make sure it conforms with the level of generality appropriate to the topic. This is just too detailed. And Fgf2007 agrees with me. Moreover, the argument that it provides some context to the "standing" of the various tournaments is flawed. The rankings points are not linear; a 50-point tournament is not twice as "good" as a 25-point tournament. The points are allocated in a fashion that balances a variety of concerns, which include inter-tour politics, history, and the desireability of maximizing TV ratings for those events that use the OWGR as a sweep-up category; all of which are concerns that have nothing to do with the actual game of golf. 65.42.16.135 19:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FGF2007 Agrees

message: It's not my feeling that the Field Size is needed. It unnecessarily spreads out the table laterally (shifting almost every event onto a 2nd line) and does not, in my opinion, express information that is really needed here. This is a general overview of the season; something as particular as the precise number of tournament entrants is more appropriate for the article for that particular event. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Field Size

message: This article is starting to get quite long; wouldn't it be a better idea to split them off to separate articles, with links to them on this page? Or maybe a box at the bottom about the PGA TOUR? MrArticleOne (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: Recently, the table was changed to eliminate the official styling for THE PLAYERS Championship and other events using non-standard capitalization etc. I feel that, while this is the right move for the main text of the article, the table ought to reflect the official styling. I recognize that there is an on-point policy, but I think that policy does not squarely cover this situation or that this is otherwise not the sort of context where it is important to preserve traditional English spelling conventions. Thoughts? MrArticleOne (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official styling 

message: The image :Image:FedexCup.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:FedexCup.jpg

message: You need to set up separate articles for each season so that we don't have to schlub through the history to find out information about old seasons.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  05:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could even go through the history and get the last several seasons by just copying the end of the season.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)  05:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They exist. See 2008 PGA Tour, 2007 PGA Tour, 2006 PGA Tour, etc. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a navbox at bottom of each article. wjematherbigissue 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season articles 

message: I understand the "PGA Tour" started in 1968, but the history of PGA touring professionals prior to that year really should be included here, as this is where people looking for info would probably start, and there's more info in this article than any other I could find on PGA golf.  If placed within the PGA of America article instead, a dominant link should be placed here to it.  Besides the exploits of caucasion professional golfers prior to 1968, there should also be a section on racial exclusion of black golfers (and all other non-Caucasion golfers) that was a defined policy of the sport until 1961.  It's a part of PGA history and presenting here as an important historical fact is very important in my opinion.24.197.2.22 (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Early history missing

message: I question whether we ought to put the HSBC Champions on the table of PGA TOUR events this season. If you look at the PGA TOUR's website, it is listed only as a "Featured Event," along with the World Cup and Presidents Cup. I thought I read somewhere that a win at the event will not count as a PGA TOUR victory, which suggests even more strongly that it should not be included on the table (if true). Can anybody add additional color to these comments? MrArticleOne (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was written in late April: http://www.pgatour.com/2009/r/04/28/ap.on_the_fringe/index.html. This is going to be a real oddball. A win at the HSBC Champions will not count as a PGA TOUR victory. Money won at it will not count toward the PGA TOUR's Money List. However, a win at the event qualifies the winner for the 2010 SBS Championship. You might say the event has sui generis status. Should it be on the season table? My vote is "no." MrArticleOne (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't know if anybody reads this talk page, but if they do, I'd like to reiterate that I think we should remove the HSBC Champions from the season table. The fact that we have to put "(unofficial)" after Mickelson's name, the fact that the money doesn't count, the fact that if a player had registered an incomplete round he would not have lost his eligibility for the Vardon Trophy--all of these are reasons why I don't think it belongs on the table. The fact that the winner gets an invite to the SBS Championship in January seems like an exceedingly thin basis for including it. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HSBC Champions 

message: I have removed the sentence "It is increasingly referred to by the media as the "Fifth major"." from the footnote regarding the TPC - a claim such as this regarding the media should be sourced, especially since the "fifth major" tag has been given to various tournaments down the years, and to my knowledge, as many commentators loathe the name as use it. Sourcing on the claim "In North America, some people would like to make the tournament an official major" would also be desirable... EJBH (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all uncommon to hear it bandied about to make it a "fifth major." See, e.g., http://golf.about.com/od/tourmajorevents/i/players_major.htm MrArticleOne (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The Players has been widely referred to as the 5th major for as long as I can care to remember (at least the last 15+ years). From a very quick google search, how about The Independent (UK newspaper), ESPN, BBC, New York Times, etc., etc. wjematherbigissue 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; if anyone wants to revert, and includes sources like these, I'll (slightly reluctantly) give in. EJBH (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Unique" Players Championship 

message: By my math, even if Steve Stricker won the final 4 PGA TOUR events this year, he would not surpass Tiger Woods in earnings, which would mean that Woods has clinched the Money List for this season. I can't find a source for that, but the standard 18% champions' share times the purse at the remaining events is less than the $4,175,527 by which Woods leads Stricker. I was just wondering if anybody has anything to add. It's possible this hasn't been covered by the media since it's been recognized as basically a foregone conclusion for a while. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to follow that up, if Stricker won the remaining 4 events, by my math that would be $3,150,000, which is over $1 million less than the difference between he and Woods. Stricker needed to appear in (and win) the Turning Stone Resort Championship, which would have given him a chance at $4,230,000, which would have been just enough to have passed Woods. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And, today the AP is reporting in offhanded fashion that Woods has in fact clinched the money title, and a few other awards as well. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money List 

message: I'd just note that the icon for the Flag of Northern Ireland shows a flag that has not actually been used by the government there since 1972. The only flag flown in Northern Ireland is the Union Jack. It strikes me that this not only calls into question the use of the deprecated flag for McIlroy and McDowell's wins; it also calls into question the use of the English flag for the other victories (otherwise you'd be using the English flag for those guys, but the Union Jack (which also flies in England) to other non-English Britons). MrArticleOne (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ulster Banner is used by individuals and teams representing Northern Ireland in sporting events, which would include McIlroy and McDowell, so it is appropriate here. Note that the golfing authorities and broadcasters also use this flag. wjematherbigissue 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: Is there a way to implement an "edit once, change everywhere" method for the separate season tables at this article and the 2011 PGA Tour article? MrArticleOne (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Best solution is not to have the full list here - aside from recentism issues, splitting the current season to a separate article is neater and reduces the size of this page. wjematherbigissue 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my sense that the schedule was included in order to illustrate the annual scheduling pattern. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the schedule goes, this article should really only include a general overview of the season structure, which aside from the occasional restructure (such as the introduction of the playoffs), remains fairly consistent. I personally, think it is much better this way. Also, as an added bonus, :Category:Current golf seasons gets populated with articles rather than redirects. wjematherbigissue 09:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossover 

message: No where in the article does it say how much golf is in a event? How many holes?, how many rounds, are there cuts to the field between rounds?, time span of events? There doesn't seem to be any simple explanation of what is happening? Rmhermen (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: What do they do?

message: Is being a member like owning stock in a company?  Do a majority of the members have the right to direct decisions of PGAT management?  I know there is a member advisory board, which I have heard is essentially powerless.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions:  What Rights do PGAT Members Have?

message: Did jimmy caspio ever win on pga tout 47.150.214.129 (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy caspio 

message: Hello! I noticed in the subheading of career earning leaders, Phil Mickelson is missing in the table. If memory serves, he’s 2nd in career earnings. I’m not at a computer at the moment, but I wanted to bring it here also, in case something was amiss. Thanks! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 21:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the list excludes LIV golfers. Dustin Johnson should be on it as well. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi ! Do you know if this is something that’s been discussed anywhere? If it has, pardon my ignorance 😊 I would figure they’d include them and only factor in their PGAT earnings, but it looks like you’re right, just excluding LIV guys. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 11:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like it's been discussed on this talk page, but I couldn't tell you if it was brought up elsewhere. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to ping , as they seem to be active on this page; would be able to shed some light on this for us? I don't mean to be random or a bother, we just can't find any discussion around whether current LIV golfers Dustin Johnson and Phil Mickelson should be included on the career money list section. Their PGAT earnings would land them on the list, but wasn't sure if a decision was made elsewhere to exclude them. Sorry again for the random ping, just want to make sure this is correct. Thanks! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 13:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Mickelson and Johnson remain numbers 2 and 4 in career earnings, and we really should reflect that. The PGA Tour's rewriting of history should not influence our content, even if they are the primary source for information. Pinging  who did the updates (following that source) that removed them (, ). wjematherplease leave a message... 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you ! Yeah, even setting aside their earnings over on LIV, they still should be on the list, given their PGAT earnings. I do notice that the PGAT website excludes them (which is slightly odd, and obviously not within our purview,) but as for Wikipedia, should there be a discussion here? Given that their PGAT earnings make this list, I really can't think of an argument for excluding them. Sorry to open up a can of worms here, potentially, but it seems erroneous to not include them. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Added note about Mickelson and Johnson. Tewapack (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, ! That makes sense, and addresses their PGAT suspensions.SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should definitely be using the career earnings list. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top ten earners