Talk:List of men's major championships winning golfers

Lee Trevino needs to be listed winning 6 major golf tournaments

Winning span should always have a specific end date

I believe the winning span should always have a specific end date even for actively playing golfers. The end date should be the year of the player's last major win. To put "to present" or simply "-" implies" that the golfer is involved in winnng a major today or as we write. For example, on July 20, 2006, the entry for Tiger Woods was written "1997-present" which was absolutely false because he had not won a major since 2005 and the present was July 20, 2006. It should have said 1997-2005 because that is the span during which Woods won majors. After he won the Open he should have been changed to "1997-2006". The dates in this column should correspond to the player's major wins, not to his playing career, even if they are the same. Crunch 13:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A golfer who still competes in majors is "involved in winning a major." The table should be organized so as to distinguish between active players and those who are retired or deceased. -Mikedelsol 06:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are trying to say, but it's a different thing. This table is just about who has won a major, not about the act of trying to win a major. The golfers who are competing in majors are NOT "involved in winning a major" they are just playing in them. If you want add a separate designation to show who among these players are not retired or deceased, that's something else. Crunch 11:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Amateur wins

Only including amateur wins when they "were considered a major" makes no sense. Especially when that time period is considered subjective. (As mentioned, some people still consider the amateur championships majors) Either all Amateur wins should be included or none of them should be. By nearly all recent accounts, only the current four majors are included when talking about major wins, and as such I'm removing the amateur wins from the table. I belive the note at the bottom is sufficient. For example, see http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/golf/06/08/majors.leaders/index.html --Aktornado 18:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that when Jones won his majors, the amateur titles were considered majors, by all accounts. Now, though some people consider the amateur titles majors, this is a fringe position, not widely accepted in any sense. That is why Jones is considered the only player in history to win the "Grand Slam"--all four majors in one year. The list must reflect when the amateurs were widely regarded as majors, which they are not now--any other way makes no sense at all. Stanley011 21:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide any source of this being the standard definition of "majors," it would be helpful. If you cannot provide any source, then I suggest you consider that this should be written as an encyclopedia entry, and not one based on your personal beliefs. I know of no publication or news agency that would count amateur wins for some people, but not others, especially when creating a comparable statistics chart. I'll leave it for a day, but unless you are able to provide evidence of this being a standard format, I will change it. As it currently stands, it is at best confusing, and at worst flat out wrong. Aktornado 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no source being given, I have reverted it back to what would be considered the standard list. Please do not change it without providing a verifiable source backing a list displayed in your suggested manor.--Aktornado 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The following is from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001723.html The first paragraph indicates that the amateurs were considered majors when Jones played, and are not currently considered majors. Stanley011 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no one is denying that they were considered a major, what I asked for was a list of "majors won," similar to this list here. I'd also like to point out that every other article on wikipedia regarding this issue lists only the contemporary majors, such as:Men's major golf championships. Wikipedia should remain consistant with this information. Aktornado 19:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The article clearly states that the amateurs were considered majors when Jones won them, and are not currently considered majors. It cannot be any clearer. The list you want to see would be very misleading because it would suggest that Jones did not capture as many majors as Woods, which is wrong--he captured more. I made this point very clear in the article itself, with an explanatory note clearly visible above the list. Stanley011 19:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what could best be considered the "official" listing is not up to date, but as you can see, http://www.pgatour.com/story/7871150 has two listings, one including both amateur and professional wins, and one including only professional wins. Unfortnately, it is only through 2003. However, neither listing is what you are attempting to show here at wikipedia. As such, it is obvious that you are attempting to pervert the record to what you personally view to be the truth, as opposed to what is generally accepted in the community and what should be displayed in this entry. I have asked that this be arbitrated. Aktornado 19:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

While I can certainly see your argument, I have a hard time reconciling it with the fact that the Washington Post (first paragraph of the aforementioned link) identified the amateurs as majors in Jones's era, and implied that they are not now considered majors. This makes sense if you consider the following: when Bobby played, there were only four "big" tournaments: the US, British, and the two amateurs. There was no PGA Championship and there was no Masters. Therefore, to suggest that Ben, Gary, Walter, Tom and Tiger have won more majors than Jones is misleading because Jones did not have the opportunity to compete in as many majors as they did because the tournaments were simply not in existence when he played. Therefore, the amateurs were considered majors and they are not considered majors now--as the Washington Post correctly identified. This is because of the existence of the PGA and Masters as majors now. Stanley011 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

I'd also like to point out that you still have not provided what I've asked for, which is a list similar to the one you have provided at another source. It's obvious that you have not yet done so because it doesn't exist. But, for good measure I will provide you a number of recent references that list Tiger Woods as second on the "all time list," something you deem wrong. Even the same site that you sourced lists him as being "second all time."

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300284.html?nav=emailpage

CNN: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/golf/specials/british_open/2006/07/23/sunday.ap/index.html

ESPN: http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/britishopen06/news/story?id=2527586

Fox Sports: http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/5809346

CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/23/sportsline/main1826867.shtml

Sportsline: http://sportsline.com/golf/story/9568097 Aktornado 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Where in the site that I provided does it list him as second all time? Stanley011 20:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing what the sources say. If you would like to start another list titled "Golfers with the greatest number of professional major championships" (upon which Tiger would be listed tied for second with Walter Hagen) and yet another: "Golfers with the greatest number of amateur and professional major championships" (upon which Tiger would be listed solo second behind Jack Nicklaus) I would fully support you and contribute to those articles greatly. However, as the list is currently titled, the current arrangement is the only one that makes sense, given the historical consideration of the amateurs in Jones's era as majors--as the Washington Post and Jones's own entry on wikipedia point out. Stanley011 20:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

"He also tied Walter Hagen, who won a Hoylake British Open himself on these same storied links in 1924, for second place on the all-time list of major winners." - Washington Post.

As you can see, no distinction is made. Having multple lists is unnecessary. If you'd like, we can add more to the footnote stating your point of view of major wins when they were considered majors. Also, if you read Bobby Jones own entry, as you point out, it's noted that he's behind Jack and Tiger. Aktornado 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia entry should strive to be as precise as possible. One cannot possibly escape the fact that the amateurs were considered majors in Jones's era and not in the modern era of golf--the following source also confirms this fact--http://www.espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Jones_Bobby.html. So as you can see, it is not merely my "point of view"--as these articles make clear. Stanley011 21:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the discussion has moved in this direction, let me rephrase my request, although I know the result will be the same. Show me one article written by a reputable news source that claims Bobby Jones has won more majors than Tiger Woods (obviously one that accounts for Tiger's most recent wins.) Or, in the alternative, one that show's Jack's lifetime wins at 18, and Jones' life time wins at 13. If you do that, I'll withdraw my argument and do as you suggest and create a different article. Good luck. Aktornado 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

An article issued in 2006 has to be based on the current definition, ie professional majors. Doing anything else is an attempt to manipulate the real world and to mislead the uninitiated into thinking that a point of view taken by only a tiny fringe is a mainstream opinion. Golfcam 23:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Amateur" majors revisited

After winning the 2006 PGA Championship, the huge headline on ESPN.com was "A sublime PGA performance merits Tiger his 12th major, second only to Jack Nicklaus". On the main story, [1] linked directly from PGAtour.com (PGA Tour's official site), it stated "Now, only Jack Nicklaus and his 18 majors stand in the way of Woods' becoming golf's greatest champion.".

I think it's fine to include the "Alternative ranking including amateur majors" section, but it's not appropriate to change the rankings in the main table or include amateur wins there. It's a small minority view that Tiger is not second to Nicklaus in major victories and thus ranking him third in the table is borderline original research. I'd also like to see the "alternative rankings" section cite a few sources. Aren't I Obscure? 00:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, multiple sources were already provided (though reverted by you) showing that the amateurs were considered majors in Jones's era and not in the modern era. Many of these sources also EXPLICITLY rank the top victors as follows: Nicklaus 18, Jones 13, Woods 12. It is no more original research than is your chart. The reason, as these sources make clear, is simple: if you are to rank players by both professional majors and amateur majors you are giving Jones 4 majors in which he could have competed and you are giving Woods, Nicklaus, Hagen et al. 6 majors in which they could have competed. Likewise, if you sort only by professional wins, then you are only giving Jones 2 majors in which he could have possibly competed (the US and British) and you are giving Tiger 4. That is why, historically, as the sources that were provided make clear, the amateur victories for Jones are counted as majors, alongside his professional victories, while the amateurs for the modern players (Woods, Nicklaus et al.) are not. Stanley011 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've never disputed that you can find sources that show that the amateurs were considered majors in Jones's era and not in the modern era. However, the mainstream view is that Majors = professional majors. Thus, the main table should reflect this. The "alternative rankings" section is sufficient to show the minority opinion. It's a matter of not applying undue weight to a view held only by a few. Aren't I Obscure? 01:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're still convinced that the main chart should list Tiger third, see if you can find five different articles that describe's Tiger 12th major victory as placing him behind Bobby Jones and Nicklaus. Again, I fully support the inclusion of information on the "amatuer major" rankings, but they should not be treated as the mainstream view. Aren't I Obscure? 01:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources

OK, I decided to do my part and gather a list of mainstream sources explicity stating Woods is second behind Nicklaus: Sports Illustrated ESPN GolfWeb GolfWeb Yahoo Reuters The Sun Scotsman Times Online The Age (Australia)Aren't I Obscure? 01:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A few more (from Monday's papers):

• USA Today "Sunday's victory is his 12th major title, passing Walter Hagen for second place all time and six behind Jack Nicklaus' once-considered unreachable record of 18."
• Boston Globe "With a dozen major championships, he now trails only Jack Nicklaus's 18, though Woods is well ahead of the pace"
• National Post (Reuters story) "After his final putt dropped he gave a double fist pump to celebrate moving past fellow American Walter Hagen into outright second place in the all-time major standings, with only Jack Nicklaus, on 18, ahead of him."
• STL Today "Woods is now a solo second in career majors, with Nicklaus and his 18 crowns dead in his sights."
• People "Woods, who surpassed Walter Hagen's 11 victories to earn his place as second in the major championship list, is now one step closer to Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 majors."
• Canada.com "The majors score is now either Nicklaus 20, Woods 15, if you count U.S. Amateurs of which Nicklaus won two and Woods three or 18-12 if you only count the current four accepted legs of the Grand Slam."
• San Francisco Gate "The win gave Woods his second major title this year and the 12th of his career, more than any player not named Jack Nicklaus, who owns the all-time record of 18."
• FOX Sports "Woods overwhelmed his competition again Sunday, closing with a 4-under 68 for a five-shot victory in the PGA Championship, giving him 12 career majors and leaving only Jack Nicklaus and his 18 titles in his way."
• Detroit News "This time, it was child's play as Woods romped to his 12th major championship, and only one golfer, Jack Nicklaus, has ever soared higher in the game's history."
• Golf Online "Woods moved to second on the all-time majors list as he jumped past Walter Hagen."
• Sports Illustrated "No one is standing between Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus now. All that separates golf's two greatest players is a half-dozen majors." "Woods closed with a 4-under 68 for a five-shot victory in the PGA Championship on Sunday, winning his 12th career major. Only Nicklaus, with 18, has more."
• PGATour.com (Official site of the PGA Tour) "Woods now stands alone in second place on the all-time majors list, with Jack Nicklaus and his 18 titles the only star in the golf constellation left on the horizon"
• And the best evidence comes from the PGA Tour's official site: chart listing Tiger second only to Nicklaus

Once again, I don't dispute that some people do count Jones's amatuer wins. However, it's virtually indisputable that the mainstream view is to only count wins in the four current Majors. Therefore, we should not give undue weight to the minority view by listing Jones second in major victories. The article should include this information, but it should be in a separate section, such as "alternative rankings" [2]. Aren't I Obscure? 12:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are 5 mainstream sources, as you have requested: Golf Online Detroit News The First Tee Fox Sports USA Today Stanley011 02:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but actually I asked for "five different articles that describe's Tiger 12th major victory as placing him behind Bobby Jones and Nicklaus. I'm looking for an article written after he won the 2006 PGA Championship, which is what my articles are. Aren't I Obscure? 03:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Each of the articles identify Nicklaus as having 18 majors and Jones as having 13 majors and Tiger with the number of majors he won up until that point. That is exactly what our point of dispute is, and these sources prove that the list you reverted has historical accuracy (something that the current one desperately lacks), which is why the one you keep reverting should remain. Stanley011 14:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In the interview after the championship, it was announced "Tiger is now alone in second place on the all time list behind Jack Nicklaus" Interview Also, about.com displays coherently the key difference between the two lists, and they made two separate lists, one including all professional majors, and one with all professional plus amateur, and in both cases, Tiger is ahead of Bobby Jones. About.com

Can you find any sources that show lists, not articles, of "golfers with most major championships" as having Bobby Jones with 13, and Tiger with 12?

I agree with the position that something has to be done to show the majors meaning before the era of the professional majors. Having Bobby Jones way down on this list with 7 majors is simply wrong ... it would leave a reader wondering why so much is made of Jones, or how modern golfers going for the calendar Grand Slam are trying to match his feat, etc. The fact that most sportwriters are lazy herd animals and don't try to address the changing definition of majors over the years, is irrelevant. Wasted Time R 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do think that the "alternative rankings" section should be expanded to better describe the era that Bobby Jones played in. Aren't I Obscure? 16:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What the heck guys (Aren't I Obscure and Stanley)?? This needs to be split into 2 parts - one list of Golfers with Most Professional Major Championships, and Golfers with Most Professional and Amateur Championships. If we keep disagreeing, the page will never be stable nor accurate, and as of now, this is the list of Professional and Amateur. Make a new page for this. It is getting ridiculous, and seeing this list is pathetic, given every single article that came out this week talks about Tiger trailing Jack's 18, not Jack's 20. Jack has 18 professional, Tiger has 12 professional, and Jones has 7 professional - that much is indisputable, so make 2 separate pages, just like other websites, ie about.com.

NPOV

The Neutral point of view policy states "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views..."

In the above section I provided over a dozen mainstream sources from today, including a list directly from the PGA Tour's official site that explicitly states that Tiger is second in major victories only to Nicklaus. You found five sources (of various quality) from the past few years that describe Jones as having 13 majors. It is indisputable that the commonly accepted view is that Tiger is second only to Nicklaus. According to NPOV policy, this majority view is the one that should be primarily represented in this article. The minority view should (and does) have its own section. Aren't I Obscure? 16:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition, four of your five sources (Golf Online, Detroit News, USA Today, FOX Sports) have been contradicted by more recent articles from those sources (which I linked to above). I'd again like you to provide five mainstream sources supporting your view that were written after Tiger's PGA Championship win on 20 August 2006. If your contention is that the mainstream view is that Bobby Jones is considered to have 13 majors, this should be an easy task. Otherwise, I ask you to accept that it is biased to give undue weight to a minority view. Aren't I Obscure? 16:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If this article is titled "golfers with the greatest number of major championship wins" then the list that you keep reverting is far more accurate than the current one. The lists from the sources you provide intend to list by "professional majors" only, though some of them lazily omit the word "professional." The article, as currently titled, must list the players in the fashion that you reverted, for accuracy's sake. Stanley011 19:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

A third opinion, by request. Men's major golf championships discusses the history, but the chart in that article shows only the four current majors, and lists Bobby Jones with seven majors total. This does seem to shortchange Jones (as well as, arguably, Hagen, who won the Western Open several times before the Masters existed). It's obvious that the predominant definition includes only the four current majors; this strikes me as unfair, but we have to go with what predominates. A reasonable compromise might be to tag those golfers active before the institution of the Masters tournament with an asterisk, and include a footnote or alternate table giving the revised totals and ranks if other tournaments are included. Powers ^T 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Aktornado, Aren't I Obscure?, others and I have worked on a compromise version--one that includes both the list of wins in professional majors and the list of winnners in majors including amateur titles when they were considered majors. This seems to be a fair compromise, and it also paints a more nuanced, historically accurate picture of golf history. Stanley011 01:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable, but in addition, you need to re-include the old last section, that discusses those who still count the two Amateur titles as majors (i.e., the Nicklaus 20, Tiger 15 count). Among those who count this way is none other than Nicklaus himself. Wasted Time R 01:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed--I will re-include that section, unless someone beats me to it. Stanley011

This has turned into a very informative and well written entry. Aktornado 14:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If this has more or less been resolved, do you want to close the mediation case? Jsw663 10:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

amateur titles when they were considered majors

Raymond Floyd isn't on the accompanying list, but he won two majors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.24.20 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Before the establishment of The Masters and PGA Championship as majors, the British Amateur and the U.S. Amateur were regarded as majors. This list considers these titles when they were regarded as majors." This needs to be explicit about what the cut-off year is. Lawson Little's 1935 Amateurs apparently count, but Arnold Palmer's in 1954 doesn't. Any justification for that? Certainly Palmer's and Nicklaus' Amateurs were included in enumerations of their majors throughout the 60s. Frank Stranahan's article states "Frank won two major championships (as they were counted at the time) the 1948 and 1950 British Amateur." Is it "amateurs which were considered majors when they were won" or is it "amateurs which, in retrospect from 2007, seem worthy of being called majors" ? Maybe we need further lists including the Western and North/South Open, and another excluding the British Open from 1947-59 when U.S. players usually ignored it. jnestorius^(talk) 03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

How can it be? The nowaday majors have all been since 1934. If the 1935 amateur did count, then there were at least 5 majors on that year... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.124.158 (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Age Span

Just an idea...I like the winning years span in the first chart. How about adding another column which lists the age of the golfer when he won his first and last major title.Juve2000 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that strays into the territory of WP:NOTTRIVIA and would probably be hard to source for some of the winners of older tournaments. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of men's major championships winning golfers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081005183229/http://www.wgv.com:80/hof/member.php?member=1054 to http://www.wgv.com/hof/member.php?member=1054

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of men's major championships winning golfers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060603131551/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HFI/is_6_52/ai_75622965 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HFI/is_6_52/ai_75622965
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119012545/http://www.masters.org/en_US/history/records/champions.html to http://www.masters.org/en_US/history/records/champions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012024707/http://www.masters.com/en_US/discover/past_winners.html to http://www.masters.com/en_US/discover/past_winners.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of men's major championships winning golfers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302213551/http://www.opengolf.com/en/History/OpenChampions.aspx to http://www.opengolf.com/en/History/OpenChampions.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of men's major championships winning golfers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806062418/http://www.opengolf.com/en/History.aspx?activeItem=5&page=Do%20You%20Know to http://www.opengolf.com/en/History.aspx?activeItem=5&page=Do%20You%20Know

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of yearly winners

@NapHit has reverted the table I added over 5 months ago. See here and here Claims I added it without consensus; consensus is not required to add content. See Wikipedia:Be bold. The table is linked to from Men's major golf championships (and is thus currently broken) and follows the style established on List of Grand Slam men's singles champions which has stood the test of time. Claims the table is "far too big and not necessary" - I disagree, this is a list of the men's major championships winning golfers - listing by year is extremely useful.

@Tewapack @Nigej @Johnsmith2116 @WilliamJE @Phinumu @Tracland @Michael W. Parker @Cameron Carone @X-15a2 @VantBellypo @Seomavericks @Izzat Kutebar @Eagledj @Jopal22 @NickWikiAccount1708 @Jimmymci234 @RangeSystems @Wjemather@Oogglywoogly @TheCorriynial @Celder @PKT @Bastun @Juve2000 @Roswell native DiamondIIIXX (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That table definitely needs to be somewhere; whether that'd be here or on Men's major golf championships, I'm not sure. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 02:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed it needs to be somewhere. All the very confusing background colors need removing, however. They fail MOS:COLOR ("Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method"). Personally I preferred the old version before all the bells-and-whistles were added. Nigej (talk) 06:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If this table does need to be somewhere, Chronological list of men's major golf champions is probably the place, not here. As we know, sport lends itself to endless regurgitation of statistics; as a result we have lots of tables across many articles that effectively present the same information in a slightly different way – some rationalisation needs to be done. If consensus is on keeping this one somewhere, perhaps it could be modified if necessary and replace one or more of the others? And as per nigej, all these tables need to be made MOS compliant. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The comparison between Grand slam champions and this article is moot as this one is a featured list, while the other isn't. This one has been reviewed and certain standards have to be upheld to keep it featured. You certainly can be bold, but Wikipedia operates on consensus, which will now be determined. I agree with @Wjemather:, we already have a separate article with this information. Adding the table here is duplicating this list, not to mention the details can be found on the separate tournament lists. This table is only going to get bigger and bigger every year, with more and more details added. Personally, I feel the bet thing is to keep the table separate on the chronology page and link to it from this article. NapHit (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently we have (1) List of men's major championships winning golfers which lists by the total number of wins, we have (2) Chronological list of men's major golf champions which lists the winners in date order and we used to have (3) the list at Men's major golf championships which was modified and moved here which lists the majors in date order (see [3] for a version from last June). Seems to me that this is overkill but personally I'm keen to keep 3 somewhere, in some form, since it shows the order of the majors, when they were founded, as well as the winners. To me its 2, the Chronological list, that's unnecessary and we could replace it with a revised table 3 and perhaps a renamed article. Nigej (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think all three tables need to be kept somewhere - they all provide easy access to different questions. I'd prefer moving the table in question to Chronological list of men's major golf champions as a separate section with links from this article and Men's major golf championships. The background colors can go. Tewapack (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think we should merge these three tables (or maybe even delete all of them). Redundancies galore! We have too much of this in general on here... Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Oogglywoogly

We definitely don't need to delete all of them. I think having the chronological table in the chronological article, this list retaining the by player and countries table is sensible. While we could pare down the table in Men's major golf championships, or even just link to the tables here which would probably make more sense. NapHit (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Where are you intending to locate the full list of year-by-year winners if not on this article? Obviously the table needs to go somewhere because it is the most useful way of displaying data about the history of major championships. Officially Mr X (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus would appear to be heading towards putting it in the Chronological list of men's major golf champions article. FWIW, we would actually lose very little (if anything) if the table was never seen again. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

As a writer for Golf Digest, let me say that the table of major champions was an incredibly useful resource not just for me and other journalists, but for fans of the game in general. Why on earth would you take down such a valuable piece of golf history? This is astounding to me, please replace it. And I'm talking not about the cumbersome table at the other page, but the table with four columns, one for each major, with winners listed by year. -Shane Ryan, Dec. 11, 2021

First off, usefulness is not a reason for keeping.

I've added this useful table back (see my comment above), and I have two requests: Please leave it, as it's by far the best source for this kind of thing on the Internet, and much more readable than the objectively worse chronological list. And two, if it's taken down again, I encourage anyone to reach out to me at shane.spr8@gmail.com with the story on why this is happening. I think it would make for an excellent Golf Digest story! -Shane, Dec. 11, 2021. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneRyan12 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I've still reverted it. This is a featured article and the table is nonconforming to the manual of style. However, see below. Nigej (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be seeing below? There has to be a place for this on Wikipedia. Is this is a classic moderator power play fueled by ego or is there an actual good reason?

There now. Nigej (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus

It seems to me that the consensus is (1) keep the table but add it to Chronological list of men's major golf champions instead of here, (2) remove the background colors which fail MOS:COLOR. I would also propose (3) adding it above the existing table there, since it seems to me much more useful than that one and also (4) keeping it in forward chronological order which seems to me to be implied by the article name: "Chronological list ...". This is the order we've had for the last few months, although the opposite of the order we had for many years before that. I'm happy to do all this, unless someone else wants to. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it looks really good as is, and I'd very much recommend keeping the flags. We'd all appreciate if this was done sooner rather than later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneRyan12 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nigej: Yes, I think that adequately sums up the above discussion, although there may be scope for merging the tables there once done. Agree regarding orders (both of tables and chronology). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I still really, really don't understand why that table isn't on this page. ShaneRyan12 (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Chronology. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

As a user, I've always thought moving lists of winners to separate articles is rather silly... what percent of people looking up World Series are not going to be looking for a list of winners? pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 00:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

However it's very common on Wikipedia: President of the United States tells you about the position (equivalent to Men's major golf championships) but you're struggling to find a list of them there, the main list being held at List of presidents of the United States. I think we can cover this by a hatnote from Men's major golf championships to the other two. Nigej (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Plus, if all the tables were in one article, it would necessitate a split into a main article and one or more list articles; i.e. what we have now. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think what we have now is the way to go. A separate chronological list and this list with the total numbers and by country. Having all three tables in one list is unruly in my opinion. It's not too hard to navigate from a chronological list to this one and vice versa. Usefulness isn't a criteria for keeping that list here. What I'd do is keep them separate and bring the chronological one up to featured standard. If at the review, it's determined they should be merged, then so be it. But that's just my view. NapHit (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chronological list of men's major golf champions which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)