Talk:2003 Challenge Tour

Discussion of recent edit-warring
In my opinion, User:Kevin McE has been making edits that go against the long-standing consensus for golf articles without a good reason. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎  pʰiːnyːmyː  → ‎ ɸinimi  → ‎ fiɲimi  04:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If anything I have done makes the article worse than it was previously, explain it. I have fully explained why I think my edits are justified in edit notes.  Kevin McE (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * So there is no argument proposed against the changes I made. Good, I'll restore them. Kevin McE (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Numbers in parentheses are standard for all tours.
 * A player can win the tour rankings, not the tour itself.
 * The first sentence would be fine, but it's not recommended to include a link in the bold text.
 * pʰeːnuːmuː →‎  pʰiːnyːmyː  → ‎ ɸinimi  → ‎ fiɲimi  19:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally explaining yourself, although I am unsure why you revert rather than discuss.
 * "It is standard" is not a reason for having it. Why is it relevant or appropriate?
 * What other way of ranking the tour is there? And why have you restored the ungrammatical capitalised R? And why have you pluralised 'ranking'?
 * So if my version was fine, why re-institute the repetitive previous version? That can't be good English: why not link the description of what it is to the parent article?
 * Why were you happy to ignore my question for 9 days, and yet ready to revert within a few hours?
 * Kevin McE (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For nearly all articles about golf tour seasons, numbers in parentheses are used to indicate the level of success a player has had on the tour.
 * "The 2003 (event name) was the nth season/edition of the (event name)" is a common way of handling it throughout Wikipedia.
 * "Challenge Tour Rankings" is the name of the money list.
 * Because I was hoping User:Tewapack would answer.
 * pʰeːnuːmuː →‎  pʰiːnyːmyː  → ‎ ɸinimi  → ‎ fiɲimi  23:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I repeat, why is it relevant or appropriate?
 * (although you have answered this as 3 above, I know not why) Not according to the official page indirectly linked in the article.
 * So you accept the validity of my phrasing, but refuse to use it? And do you defend the previous phrasing, that you re-instituted in this edit?
 * Does that mean that Tewapack is somehow considered to be the owner of the article? Kevin McE (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As Phinumu said, the number of the win in the player's career indicates the level of success on the tour and that season - first win on a tour is always notable to a player's career, additional wins in same season indicate additional success, many wins over several season can indicate a stall in the player's career - all conveyed with a number.
 * Players can lead many "things" on a tour - money list, Order of Merit, scoring average, driving distance, etc. On the Challenge Tour, the money list is called the "Challenge Tour Rankings" as explained and referenced in the later section - capitalization and plural are official terminology. "Winning" or "Leading" the rankings are used almost interchangeably in the sense.
 * See MOS:BOLDAVOID for why your version is an issue.
 * I, nor Phinumu, nor you, own this or any other article.
 * I've added a couple of refs to the article to help clarify. Tewapack (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A player's first win on the tour is of course notable to a player's career: that does nothing to explain why it is relevant to a summary of the 2003 season. Stalling of a player's career is not important to an overview of the season, and if it were, why would attention be drawn to it in such an oblique manner and only if a player has won a tournament?
 * The table indirectly referenced that is posited as evidence of Edfor's win does not use the plural, and the capital R is in a heading, not a sentence, so proves nothing. The other article is not even consistent in whether to capitalise the definite article, so cannot be taken as authoritative in matters of orthography.  If there is a multitude of different "things" that can be won on a tour, why are the various winners of "things" not noted?  Why would you maintain an article while keeping it wilfully uninformative?
 * You seem to have discounted my proposal without even reading it. I concede my earlier edit may have gone against that policy; do you concede that the current text equally goes against MOS:REDUNDANCY?
 * Indeed not, I was only wondering why he/she waited for you, then went running to you.
 * The links do not go directly to the information they purport to verify. It can be found on that site, but the link is indirect.  Kevin McE (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I won't belabor the point, many find the win number useful.
 * The article capitalizes the word Rankings 5 of 6 times. The table capitalizes it twice at the top of the page: "European Challenge Tour Rankings" and "Final Ranking for 2003". Feel free to add other tables - I've added them to other tour season articles, especially scoring average. The point was that a player doesn't "win the tour" as you phrased it.
 * You haven't proposed anything that avoids MOS:BOLDAVOID as far as I can see.
 * There is no direct link that I could find - indirect link better than none. Tewapack (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no direct link that I could find - indirect link better than none. Tewapack (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 *  "many find the win number useful" Name 6 readers who have said so.
 * "You haven't proposed anything that avoids MOS:BOLDAVOID as far as I can see." have enough respect to read my proposal and to consider the posibility that your preferred text breaks another MoS principle.
 * A BBC article is able to discuss the issue without using the word ranking at all, regardless of capitalisation and pluralisation. A press release from OGWR talks consistently of ranking (singular, lower case) in relation to the Challenge Tour. You make a point of quoting the heading of the table that is singular, and I find it hard to believe that you would seriously consider a heading to be suitable for citing as relevant to capitalisation in prose. Kevin McE (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)