Talk:Rules of golf

Types of Rules

Shouldn't there maybe be a section of this article outlining some of the basic rules of golf?Alexander Phipps 13:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that there should be a section that should be included in this article, Rules of golf, outlining the very Basic Rules of Golf such as the 18-Holes, the Four-Player Limit, Teeing and Putting, Play the Golf Ball as it Lies, Ball Marking, the Flagstick, Obstructions, Loose Impediments, Playing the Wrong ball, and others. Furthermore, a section should also be included discussing the Scoring system of golf.

Please Read and Respond to: Rules of Golf talk page of this project. Thank you. Bu b0y2007 04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an attempt to summarize the Rules of Golf, as published by the USGA, in one or two sentences each and in outline format. If anyone thinks that it would be better to format the rules in a way that the Contents template can detail, changes can be made, but as the section is several screens long I thought of valor, and its better part. Liko81 (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the rules of golf that says there should be 18 holes, nor that four players are the maximum. I agree with the rest apart from perhaps scoring - have to look that one up. Fuzzy 22:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18 holes ARE mentioned in definitions "Stipulated Round" (165.145.186.187 (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

If Wikipedia is so wise...

...then why the rules are not listed? --88.114.30.60 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a guide book or user manual and because the Rules of Golf are copyright. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Golf

Rules of Golf (note capitalisation) redirects here. Rules of Golf is the name of a publication published by the R&A Rules Limited and The United States Golf Association. As such, I think the redirect is wrong. This page (Rules of golf) should redirect to Rules of Golf, not the other way around. Any thoughts? Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given no objection, I think I will make the move. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Lack of consensus. The article is not only about the publication. Recommend making Rules of Golf (note cap) be about the publication and have hat link notes from each article to the other. Born2cycle (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

Rules of golf → Rules of Golf —

Rules of Golf is the name of a publication, which is, well, the rules of gold. The article is about the publication Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "rules of gold" is a typo for "rules of golf"? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
object the article is not solely about the book. If it were solely about the book then capitalization is fine, but it is not, so it should not be capitalized. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is not about the official publication, it is about the "rules of golf" in general. Clearly most of the article may concern the "Rules of Golf" (the book), but much of it will not. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like this article has an identity crisis. The intro looks general, and everything that follows is about the publication. I'd make it solely about the publication and capitalize the g in golf/gold. --JaGa^talk 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Yes the article is in need of an overhaul, but the fact remains that is it is not specifically about the book, and nor should it be. The article is about the general concept of the rules, which started forming long before any formal book was published, and it should remain that way. Of course by it's nature the article will incorporate the "Rules of Golf" (the book), and quite naturally have a dedicated section on it. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that seems more like a reason to split the article in two, than to convert the article to cover the sectioned off subject. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the reasoning, I think the two go hand in hand and would oppose a split at this point. _wjemather ^bigissue 08:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not about the publication? Quote from the article's lead: "They are jointly written and administered by...". 'They' being the Rules of Golf. If the article is about the rules in general it needs a major rewrite. As it stands, it is very much about the Rules as published. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such rewrite and expansion has started, but will take time. Even as it stands, the article is not solely about the book. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Strict rules" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Strict rules has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 22 § Strict rules until a consensus is reached. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]