Jump to content

Talk:2021 Open Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

https://twitter.com/MarkCalc/status/1152277452284186624 Here Mark Calcavecchia states he will play in the 2020 Open Championship, in his final year of eligibility Jeff5768 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC) Jeff5768[reply]

Eligibility

[edit]

The (US) PGA Tour has also confirmed in a memo to players sent 9 April 2020 that the 149th Open qualifiers for 2020 as of 6 April are secured for 2021. Also, the R&A legally "postponed" the "149th Open" and did not cancel. The 2020 logo will be used in 2021, all tickets will be honoured for the new date, and all qualifiers who qualified in 2019 will be admitted. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pga-tour-informs-players-to-prepare-for-tournaments-without-fans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:EE47:7C00:E47A:BCDD:BD1F:B20E (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf#2020 Open. Regards. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. This request has now been open for more than three weeks (and more than one week since the first "no consensus" close) and there is simply no consensus to be had here. There is perhaps a slight consensus for "not moved," but the difference between that and "no consensus" is immaterial. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 16:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]



2020 Open Championship2021 Open Championship – The article concerns (what is officially) the "149th Open Championship", which is now scheduled be held in 2021; proposed article title reflects current naming standards and common usage. Redirect from 2020 Open Championship should be kept. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 06:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: request follows on from discussion at WT:GOLF#2020 Open. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: This has become a malformed RM because an article was created at the target title this date. I was going to perform a procedural closure; however, I see no reason why this page move cannot continue to be discussed while the target title is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Open Championship. Thank you all for your help to resolve this issue! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 14:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think these sit best as two separate articles. An article for 2020 Open Championship which relates solely to the event which has been cancelled and provides details of what the intentions were for this event, who had qualified etc. The 2021 event would then be a separate page covering the 149th Open Championship as it was actually held. Otherwise with a move then page titled 2021 Open Championship is going to be confused as it is going to have to include details on both the planned 2020 Open Championship and the actual 2021 Open Championship.Tracland (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that differences in the details of the "planned 2000" and the "actual 2021" event amount to little more than a paragraph, maybe two. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Whilst the details are substantially the same I still think that separate articles make sense for the following reasons (but more than happy to discuss these if others think differently):
1) The common naming usage for individual open championships is by reference to the year (e.g. 2009 Open Championship rather than the official name of 138th Open Championship). Someone searching on Wikipedia for 2020 Open Championship would therefore be expecting to be going to a page about the event that (was intended) to be held in 2020 and not to a page relating to an event which occurs in 2021.
1a) On the same theme, if we keep separate pages, any searches for 149th Open Championship should redirect to the 2021 Open Championship page and not the page for the cancelled 2020 Open Championship
2) We have enough information to support a standalone article on the cancelled 2020 Open Championship and the article as it currently provides a decent summary of what was intended. In my view this works as an article covering what was planned in 2020 and cancelled and works as a standalone article.
3) I don't think the fact that a separate page for 2021 Open Championship would repeat much of the same information is a problem. Wikipedia is in theory limitless in size and can accommodate any information that is in fact duplicated. Tracland (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly of closer relevance is 2020 Wimbledon Championships.Tracland (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good example of why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument; both the Olympics & Euros include the year in their branding, which makes it likely they will keep the name even though they'll be held the following year – the 2001 Ryder Cup did just that (note: that article was moved) – and no-one is suggesting creating separate 2021 article for them (as far as I can tell, at least). As for Wimbledon, that article illustrates the problem quite well; it looks like a good candidate for merger. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment re Wimbledon was more by reference to it being closer in stature and nature to the Open Championship rather than a justification for keeping this article. There is on similar theme an ongoing discussion for deletion on Short Track Skating (where I voted for deletion). The Ryder cup is a good example which supports the proposed move here. I guess my real question here is what is more useful to future users of the Wikipedia. Having an short article on the proposed 2020 Open which explains what was proposed and explains the cancellations (I think this only needs to be a short article) or merging with 2021 (which I personally think could be confusing for users).Tracland (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Ok, let me clarify. If this remains as a standalone article, all we are left with is the following: the opening two paragraphs, expanded by one sentence to include ticketing and one for media; plus the field section. Everything else is rendered irrelevant filler by the cancellation (much of it is filler anyway, but the cancellation renders it irrelevant). All of it would be duplicated in a separate 2021 article, with noting any changes; and per WP:DUP that is reason number 1 for merging. Why go down that road when we can simply move it? wjematherplease leave a message... 12:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; If we decide to keep then yes, I think this is all that is required. WP:DUP is a good reason for merging and could be applied here, I'd argue that covering both in a single article is unnecessarily clunky" and that these could be argued to be discrete subjects (2020 and 2021). My view is that two articles will be better overall clarity than one but willing to work with whatever the overall consensus on this (and any similar conversations on other sports) is.Tracland (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Self-reverted closure of RM. See diff of initial closure and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as said above, these are two separate articles. The 2020 article covers the pre-tournament information, the qualifiers, and then how the Open was impacted by the corona virus epidemic. A stand-alone topic. The 2021 tournament article will have some overlapping information, yet will contain its own pertinent data. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that all players who already qualified for the 2020 Open will remain exempt for the 2021 Open. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 23:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should be mentioned in the lead of this page or both pages, it's an important fact for both stories. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the rationale above, the topic of the article is the "149th Open Championship" – "2020 Open Championship" and "2021 Open Championship" are merely common name descriptors for the same event, consistent with previous tournament naming standards on WP. With separate articles the entire content of a 2020 article would be duplicated in a 2021 article because they are the same thing (as above, they would ultimately be merged). wjematherplease leave a message... 11:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 19 December 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]



2020 Open Championship2021 Open Championship – The tournament is officially the "149th Open Championship", but by convention and naming guidelines we title by the year in which it is played. The tournament was cancelled in 2020 and will be held in 2021. The R&A have now confirmed "updated exemption categories" [1]; the announcement clearly confirms this as the same tournament. It is also reported elsewhere as a postponement [2]. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mainly Support If the media state that this is postponed then our pages must defer to that. Also, the fact that they are using the same course strongly supports the idea that this is merely a postponement; other than this example the event always moves around year to year. However, in the links you provided there is some ambiguity. I noticed in the first link that only the word "cancelled" is used. In the second link "cancelled" is used twice and "postpone" (and its variations) three times. Oogglywoogly (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British Open

[edit]

Hi, recently hat added to 2021 British Open that you might get confused by the two events. Is this event ever called the British Open (enough to have confusion)? If so, can we add that to the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Open Championship is commonly called the British Open outside of the UK, and especially in the US. So much so, I would say it is likely to be the common usage ahead of the snooker tournament; i.e. move that to 2021 British Open (snooker) and redirect 2021 British Open here. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it's surprising in some ways that the 2004 British Open and earlier events point to the snooker event, while 2005 British Open, 2006 British Open, ..., 2010 British Open point to the golf event. Almost certainly the golf event is the common usage worldwide. So would support 2021 British Open (snooker) as a better name. 2021 British Open could be disamb page or could be a redirect to the golf event with a hatnote there to the snooker event. Nigej (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed with Nigej. Makes sense for 2021 British Open to be a disamb page with links to both the golf and the snooker.Tracland (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Negej's other points regarding 2004 pointing to the Snooker and 2005 onwards pointing to the golf. I think the reason for this is that the snooker tournament was last held in 2004 and therefore there was no comparable snooker tournament in 2005 - 2020. Whilst my knowledge of snoooker is very limited it looks like this is a tournament that is being revived in 2020 after a 15 year absense.Tracland (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Wjemather and Nigej about the common usage. A Google search for "British Open" yields entirely golf-related results until the third page. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 23:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the golf then the guidelines say that we should redirect to there and provide suitable hatnotes in the article ie in 2021 Open Championship. The question then is whether we need a disamb article on the lines of British Open (disambiguation) or whether that's unnecessary (per WP:ONEOTHER). Nigej (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of noises at 18th tee

[edit]

The NBC broadcast of the match apparently assumed that the noises which caused Morikawa to giggle at the 18th tee were caused by a whoopee cushion. But Morikaaw later explained, on Barstool's Pardon My Take podcast, that his tee shot had been disrupted by a spectator who had ".. snuck a little old school microphone, like a recording. Threw it underneath one of the marshals around there and started playing these farting noises right as I was about to swing." See e.g. golfdigest.com Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically trivia. May be suitable material on some websites, but not here in an encyclopedia. Nigej (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]