Talk:LPGA

Golf Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Golf, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Golf-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GolfWikipedia:WikiProject GolfTemplate:WikiProject GolfGolf articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's sport: Golf High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Women's golf task force.

It is requested that an image or photograph of LPGA headquarters in Daytona Beach be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Untitled

I wanted to put a list of all the players. I wasn't sure if I should put everybody? Most would be dead links anyways, but is that okay to have tons of dead links? dgrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgrant (talk • contribs) 15:37, 23 January 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Sure as far as I'm concerned. However, it would be much more important to state clearly in the very first sentence of the article what kind of organisation LPGA is: National? International? Any reader who, like myself, has not got the foggiest notion about golf, will have difficulty understanding the basics of this text! Please clarify a few things. |l'KF'l| 17:56, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Although both are headquartered in Florida, the LPGA is not affiliated with the PGA TOUR. The LPGA sanctions women's professional golf tournaments, primarily in the United States, but elsewhere in the world as well (non-US events are typically co-sanctioned with the local women's golfing organization, for example the Ladies European Tour). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.38.32.14 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament table redesign

I redesigned the Tournament Table to change it from an HTML format to Wikitable format. I"ve been meaning to do this since I made the table back in February. At the same time, I adjusted some Tournament names to match the official names listed on [lpga.com]. The only difference is that I dropped all of the "presented by Coca-Cola/Pepsi/Lincoln Mercury," etc. title portons. These added sponsor mentions wreack havoc with the grid and I think as long as we're consistent with the naming convention, we're good to go. Sponsors are mentioned when they are included elsehwere in the title, for example "Sybase Classic" (but not "Sybase Classic Presented by Lincoln Mercury"). I haven't put in the color coding for ADT categories yet. If people want this, we/you can do it. I'm not sure how useful or attractive it was. Crunch 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the brackets so that this table is consistent with those for other tours. I don't mind whether the colors are there or not, but if you do restore them, maybe pastel shades would be a better choice. Golfcam 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks terrible on the tables for the other tours, as do their HTML tables. I put it back. Why copy a bad thing? Crunch 19:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the standard version. I agree with Golfcam, and as no one has ever amended any of the other tables, you appear to be in a minority of one Crunch. The gray just looks odd and disconcerting, more like an annotation than data, but I instinctively know what the numbers in brackets mean. Please concede gracefully to avoid wasting more time. Scranchuse 18:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the command to "concede." Way to win friends on Wikipedia! I think putting everything in one color with endless "brackets" or parentheses as they're known in America, adds clutter and confusion. The number of total tournaments won is hardly an important number and putting it in gray sets it aside from the other more important information. This is kind of a basic element of design. Also, putting it in gray takes away the need for the parentheses. You just have the number. By the way, there is no 'standard." However, not worth the fight. Crunch 23:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a standard - every other tour is done the same way. These numbers are really useful context as not everyone is an expert on the players. It's a good piece of added value that lists in the media don't give you, and it shows that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not just a results service. It looks better with brackets. It's the natural way to present this king of info, eg someone has just started adding notes on the number of PGA Tournaments players won each year in just this way. You may think your way is better, but the truth is that it is worse. Golfcam 02:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "truth," just your opinion and mine. We'll give it some time and eventually someone else may come along and redesign the entire table. Deal with it. Crunch 07:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Schedule

I replaced the 2006 schedule with the 2007 schedule and moved the 2006 LPGA Tour to its own article. I also added a new section to this article that summarizes historical tour stats. It might be good to have a Wikipedia infobox for this but I don't have the skills. I left the categories: points, global group, winner, etc. for the 2007 schedule, although I'm not sure if the designation "points" is still being applied. Maybe someone knows more than me. The official LPGA schedule only shows winner events and unofficial events. Is it possible that the LPGA is still figuring this out? Crunch 21:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The LPGA announced the new system today and I've updated the information accordingly. Crunch 01:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect claim re: LPGA tournaments outside North America

"Four of the tournaments held outside North America are co-sanctioned with other professional tours." At least one more exists but does not appear in the list - the Australian Open (Feb 2013) occurs in Australia and is co-sanctioned with the European and Australian tours. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ladies_European_Tour for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.91.148 (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section updated. Tewapack (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why no 2015 Tour results section?

Why was the 2015 Tour results section removed? I understand that it also exists at 2015 LPGA Tour with more detail. Why was the shorter version removed from this article? If the decision is to include none of the 2015-specific information from this article, then the 2015 Money List leaders table should also be moved to 2015 LPGA Tour. --Crunch (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tables that were here and at year specific were different from 2011 to 2013 with the Titleholders qualifiers. Without that difference, there is no reason to maintain two identical tables. I think the money list should be moved to the 2015 article as well. Tewapack (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Tewapack. They should be in the 2015 article....William 10:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LPGA. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070927205545/http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=17104&dv=3092752&select=2069 to http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=17104&dv=3092752&select=2069

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 00:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Founding date

While the LPGA web site reports that it was founded in 1950 with 13 players the book

Lynn, Elizabeth A. (1989). Babe Didrikson Zaharias. Chelsea House Publishers. pp. 95, 97. ISBN 1-55546-684-2.

has:

It seemed clear to Zaharias, as well as to her husband, her agent, and Patty Berg, another woman pro, that women needed a golf association dedicated to developing the professional tour.
In order to set up tournaments that offered prizes, “we needed money, of course,” said Corcoran. Zaharias and her colleagues convinced the president of Wilson Sporting Goods to put up $15,000 in prize money if the association got off the ground. In January 1949 the Zahariases, Fred Corcoran, and Patty Berg met in Miami, Florida, and formed the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA), with Patty Berg as its first president. A new era in women’s golf had dawned.
In the first year of its existence, the LPGA had only 6 members and sponsored just 9 tournaments offering a meager total of $15,000 in prize money. But as its founders had expected, the association grew rapidly. Now that there was a formal governing body working to promote professional women’s golf, more and more women players became interested in turning pro. Scores of new members flocked to the LPGA and corporate sponsors contributed thousands of dollars in prize money, so that by 1953 women professionals could compete in more than 20 tournaments and win prizes from a pool totaling $225,000.
Babe Zaharias was the star of the professional circuit. Between 1949 and 1952, she won more tournaments and ...

The New York Times supports a 1949 starting date though later in the year:

September 14, 1949 - "PRO GROUP FORMED FOR WOMEN'S GOLF; Organization to Conduct Open Tourney Sept. 22-25 -- Miss Berg Elected President" Formation of a Ladies' Professional Golf Association of America, with Miss Patty Berg as its first president, was announced yesterday by Fred Corcoran, former tournament director of the Men's P. G. A.^[1]
April 13, 1950 - "BAUER SISTERS JOIN RANKS OF PRO GOLF; GOLFING SISTERS ENTER PROFESSIONAL FOLD" The Bauer sisters, Marlene and Alice, announced yesterday that they would no longer play amateur golf. Instead they have decided to join the professional tournament group.^[2] Today the LPGA lists Alice Bauer and Marlene Bauer Hagge as being one of the 13 founding members.^[3]

I did not update the article to note a 1949 starting date as some research is needed to discover the list of tournaments and to document who the first six players were. We know they included Babe Didrikson Zaharias and Patty Berg but who were the other four? The book about Zaharias I cited above mentions Peggy Kirk Bell as participating in the early years but she joined the LPGA in 1950 and also is not listed among the LPGA's 13 founders. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]