Talk:The Open Championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Golf Portal
The article on The Open Championship is supported by the Golf WikiProject, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Golf related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Japan

The article was edited to say the event is an official money event on the Japan Golf Tour. Their website (at www.jgto.org) does not indicate that this event is on their schedule. I don't know how else to verify if it is an official money event on the JGT.

[edit] Title

Any techy Wiki people have any idea why the title of this is replacing the word "Open_" with "concat"??? -- John Owens 15:36 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

This could be moved to The Open Championship. The article states that the term British Open in North America; since this encyclopedia is not an American one, the official term could be used. -- Emsworth 03:39, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind it's not a British encyclopedia either.--Buckboard 09:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name Formality

Many of the comments below, while arguing that using the British Open in reference is completely incorrect, make weak arguments based on their incorrect usage of the formal titles of the other 4 majors. There is no tournament formally called the The Masters, but there is one formally named the Masters Tournament. There is no tournament formally called the US Open, but there is one formally named the United State Open Championship. Arguing for referencing tournaments by their formal names will make for stodgy reading. Using short hand names, such as The Masters, the US Open, and British Open, are in common usage. British Open was used as recently as today (23 July 2006) by the Associated Press article, Three of a kind: Tiger comes up clutch to win third British, 11th major.

For the most part, the British prefer The Open Championship because the language singles out their tournament. It's THE Championship. Much of this debate is really over the battle for which of the 4 majors is, THE Major. In the United States, the Masters Tournament is considered the greatest tournament in golf. In Europe The Open Championship is considered the greatest tournament in golf. Stressing the formal name of The Open Championship is a constant reminder of one of the biggest claims to The Open Championship's greatness: it was first. (The Masters Tournament may owe some part of its eminence for a similar reason: its regularly called, THE Masters. Strangely enough, Bobby Jones fought against this short name for years, insisting it being called by its formal name, the Augusta National Invitation Tournament, until he finally caved in and changed the name to, the Masters Tournament. ) For similar reasons, Americans are unlikely to insist on such formality---besides the practical need to distinguish it from its US counterpart.

Being an American, I see nothing wrong with using the phrase, "the US and British Opens", for short-hand for the two countries' open golf tournaments---but if this does annoy you, and you must 'fix' such a phrase, please maintain cosistency and use "The Open Championship and the U.S. Open Championship," instead of applying a double-standard and simply changing it to, "The Open Championship and the US Open".

I don't think such an invitation is helpful. "The Open Championship" is admittedly the official name of the event. It is also the most appropriate reference in some contexts, while "British Open" is most appropriate in other contexts, much as "Masters Tournament" is most appropriate in some contexts, but some geographic reference to distinguish from the British Masters is most appropriate in other contexts. The point I've been trying to make in the discussion below is that the choice of best phrasing is context-sensitive.
...and the United States Open Championship is admittedly the official name of its U.S. counterpart.
Suggested rule: If The Open Championship is discussed without reference to the U.S. Open Championship, or is the primary reference, then use the (European) short name, The Open. If its being referenced along with the U.S. Open Championship, then use the (American) short name British Open for clarity.
This is quite along the lines of what I've been advocating. I also think that articles that come from an American point of view (such as articles about American golfers, or about the PGA TOUR as an institution) also ought to reflect what is standard American usage, no different than respecting spelling differences in contexts where it is appropriate. I really see this as a usage difference and I would go with what the general rules are (as I understand them) for usage differences: some articles use Commonwealth spelling and some use American spelling depending on what they're about.

-- Unsigned comment by 65.42.16.135.

You seem to be misunderstanding the situation. The Open Championship is not the European title it is the title of the tournement. The Open was the first tournement of its type anywhere so therefore didn't need a qualifier. It is also never refered to as the claret jug (as you put in your edit comment), that is refering to the trophy itself. There is also a diference between shortened names, such as "The Open" or "U.S. Open", and refering to this as the "British Open". It isn't the "American PGA" or "U.S. Masters" because the first of their kind never need extra qualification. While it will always be a side effect of ignorance that such a qualifier will be added regarding The Open. This is encyclopedia and should always use the correct name in its full or shortened version. josh (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is (or at least can be without being inaccurate) the American PGA and the U.S. Masters when speaking to an audience outside the United States, or in an article reflecting a perspective outside the USA, because without the modifier substantial confusion can emerge. You conclusively state that there is a difference between shortened names and calling this the British Open without explaining such. My edit comment for the PGA TOUR article was not meant to suggest that the tournament is known as the Claret Jug, but the trophy the winner gets is certainly often called that even though it is formally known as the Golf Champion Trophy. Severiano Ballesteros is known as Seve. Eldrick Woods is known as Tiger. None of these are inaccurate; they are merely informal. It is not inaccurate to refer to this event as the British Open; it is an open championship (that is, anybody with a sufficient handicap can qualify) and it is British in the same way that I am an American citizen or New Delhi is an Indian city (that is, British is an adjective modifying the word "Open"). As a number of other people (including Britons Morwen and Osomec) have noted in another conversation thread on this discussion page, it is incorrect to call this usage incorrect. As it is the standard usage in the USA, an article about an American organization ought to reflect our usage since it is not objectively wrong. -- Unsigned comment by 65.42.16.135.
You have proven my point on two fronts. Firstly the PGA and The Masters are known by those names worldwide. Europeans dont append their own prefixes (This dispite the fact the PGAs true name being the Professional Golfers' Association of America as the british equiverlent pre-dates it). Secondly, where you insist on placing "Brish Open" is in a table. While you point out that you can refer to Seve & co with their nicknames you would never do this in a table. There are also no issues of confusion with the US Open as it states in the next column that the tournement is in the UK (note it does refer to it as Britain, Blighty or (God forbid) England). Could you also start signing your comments by ending them with ~~~~. josh (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Consult the table of Open Champions in the article that this talk page is associated with. You'll note Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Tom Lehman, Nick Price, Greg Norman, Nick Faldo and Seve Ballesteros in the last 20 years alone. Why? Because it is conventional to call them those names, even though those names are not their "official" names. We call the prize given to the winner of this tournament the "Claret Jug" even though it is officially the "Golf Champion Trophy." And, at least in the United States, we call the event the British Open. The Wikipedia policies note that we ought to call things by what they are conventionally known as, because the goal of the encyclopedia is to reach out to readers, not the extremely knowledgable editors. -- unsigned comment
Sod it. I'm going to the wall. josh (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Rogers

I've set up a William Rogers disambiguation page and find there's a golfer Bill Rogers. Can anyone supply any details on him so I can add to my list? I've changed the link on this page to Bill Rogers (golfer) in the interim. PedanticallySpeaking 19:12, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Richard / Dick Burton

The 1939 champion was certainly British, and I've found hints that he was English on the internet, but no proof. Does anyone know for sure? Wincoote 17:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He was English. He has an article now. Twittenham 17:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "British open" (sic)

it is not incorrect to say british open, just unofficial. if one were to say "who won the open in 2001?" no one would know which event was being asked about. it is the open and british is simply a distinguisher.


It may seem a bit pedantic, but I don’t think that it is. In an encyclopaedia we should aim for accuracy and identify erroneous use. The four majors are correctly called “The Open Championship”; the “US Open”; the “Masters” and the “US PGA Championship”. It is as incorrect to call “The Open” the “British Open” as it would be to call the “Masters” the “US Masters”. However it is true that many (in the United States in particular) do refer to “The Open” as the “British Open” and we should acknowledge that reality in the Wiki entry, - but we must also point out that such usage is incorrect. PaddyBriggs 07:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Is calling you Paddy rather than Patrick incorrect too? It's just an informal name for the event, nobody is claiming it is the official name, nor did the previous edits imply that. Morwen - Talk 08:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Not only is the claim that "British Open" is "incorrect" a false statement, but the claim that this is particularly U.S. usage is even more ludicrous.
  • Google "British Open" site:.uk 204,000 hits
  • Google "British Open" site:.au 26,900 hits
Gene Nygaard 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The official name is "The Open Championship", but fans and media informally call it The British Open, just like The Masters and PGA Championships are informally known as The US or American Masters or PGA Championships. Nick Dillinger 07:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It is pedantic, but also inaccurate. Many things have more than one name. British Open is an accurate informal name. Osomec 15:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As someone who lives in St. Andrews and works in the golfing industry the notion that "fans and media" used the term "British Open" as an informal usage is incorrect. I have never heard anyone, other than US citizens, call it anything other than "The Open". The google search results mentioned by Gene Nygaard are entirely misleading as when I check the option to find UK sites only for "British Open" and sort the results by relevance there are not only very few which relate to golf but of those that do they have .com suffixes and may well be foreign companies with UK based sites.

Living in St. Andrews, you have less need to distinguish the tournament than anyone else in the world. Due to locality, those in England and Europe are more likely to assume The Open is a reference to The Open Championship, while those in the U.S. are likely to assume The Open is a reference to The U.S. Open Championship.

If wikipedia is to to be trusted then there should be a note in the introduction that states that the use of the term "British Open" is inacurate, irrelevant of its common usage. Veracity is surely the point of an encyclopaedia but then the irony of the fact that Wikipedia uses the US spelling of the word itself may give us some clue as to where the cultural power behind wikipedia lies

[edit] 'British' vs. 'The'

Let us settle this irritating issue once and for all. The name of the tournament is The Open Championship. It's been around for some 146 years and has been called The Open for some 146 years. It is a famous, prestigious, old tournament and accordingly deserves to be called by its proper name. If some other country or organisation wishes to hold a tournament with an open format and wishes to call it so, it'll just have to play second-fiddle and have another pronoun or adjective attached. To elaborate:, there are many such tournament in golf already, the second oldest of which is The Canadian Open; there are also other tournaments like The Scottish Open, The English Open, The Houston Open, The China Open, the South African Airways Open and even the U.S. Open. The one Open that gets to be called THE OPEN is The Open Championship --- it was first, it has the most pedigree and anyway that is its official name.

Let us deepen the anlysis a bit here. It is quite obvious that everyone in the world knows the The Masters is the one held at Augusta, USA. It is called The Masters [notice "THE" Masters]. There is a long list of other Masters tournaments, like the European Masters, the Singapore Masters, the Britsih Masters and the Qatar Masters. But only one deserves to be called THE MASTERS.

Similarly, only one Open gets to be called THE OPEN. Some have proferred that the reason The Open is referred to as the British open is to distinguish it from The US Open --- this is a thought that's just dripping in American insularity! They have it all backwards: the reason it's called the U.S. Open is to distinguish it from The Open! [In any event, the proper parallel analogy would have be the U.K. Open, n'est pas? Or perhaps then the American Open?]

The reason it's called the U.S. Open is because the name of the event is the U.S. Open Championship. The name conveniently has all of the relevant information a reader would want, except for the sport that's being played, and it is sometimes even called the U.S. Open Golf Championship and the sky fails to fall when the word "Golf" is inserted even though that's not in the official name of the event. The sort of pedantic exactitude that some editors are calling for is somewhat self-defeating. The insistence on the event going only by "The Open Championship" because that's the official name of the event means that we don't have the luxury to drop the word "Championship," for example (it's in the official name, after all!), yet I think this discussion thread indicates that that is a conversationally useful thing to do. It also makes it impossible to refer to the "2006 Open Championship," unless we want to call it "the 2006 The Open Championship," which is obviously absurd. British Open is an informal but not "inaccurate" name, any more than calling it the "US Masters," which is precisely what I do when talking to a Briton, seeing as there is a British Masters as well. If you dig around the golfer profiles on Wikipedia, you'll see references to it as the US Masters; I know at least Faldo's article does it in the introduction, and I don't think it would be especially helpful to change it. I don't think anybody would disagree that "The Open Championship" is its official name and should be used where the context is clear (especially in its own article), but articles about the game of golf in general ought to at least make a point of distinguishing the event from the U.S. Open, and from every other event named some sort of "Open" that it is also convenient to distinguish this event from. Additionally, articles or portions thereof that are properly written from a USA perspective ought to retain "British Open," since that is what it is universally known as here. In particular I'm thinking of the PGA TOUR article, or lists of PGA TOUR wins for individual golfers. In fact, if I was organizing a list of wins by year of a golfer who had played a great deal on both tours, I would list the same win as at the "British Open Championship" in the list of PGA TOUR wins and as "The Open Championship" on the list of European Tour wins (Faldo provides a convenient example).

American TV will just have to swallow the chicken bone that's stuck in its throat. THE OPEN cannot ever play second to The U.S. Open. Now stop the madness.

I'm afraid reactionaries don't get to settle issues "once and for all". They just shout themselves hoarse until everyone stops listening. The Augusta Masters is the Masters because it is the only Masters event that is a major, but the Open and the U.S. Open are both majors. Like Osomec, who commented above, I am British. Twittenham 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
To the aptly named Twittenham: You allegience or nationality are wholly irrelevant to the discussion. Note that The Masters is The Masters because that is its official name (or The Masters Tournament, if you wish to be persnickety). Even if it weren't its official name, it would be a good name for it, and all the other Masters-type tournaments would just have to put adjectives in front of their names to distinguish them from their superior, The Masters. I must go now and watch The Open. Phil Mickelson is not doing so well - maybe a hangover from blowing the American Open.
Please sign your posts if you want a reply, but it is probably a waste of time to try to reason with you. By the way Twittenham is an historical form of Twickenham. Twittenham 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As an American editor I am particularly irritated that people are changing articles that have an obviously American perspective to read "The Open" instead of "British." Whatever the international dispute about the name of the event, it is universally known as the British open here in USA, and so articles about American organizations/institutions (such as PGA TOUR or any of the American-based majors) should reflect our usage. It's fine if we agree to refer to it as "The Open Championship" in articles that are about the game of golf, or even professional golf (such as the article about the major championships). But articles about American institutions ought to reflect American usage, much as articles about American institutions use American spelling.

"reactionaries": name-calling. That's why the above poster said "ap(t)ly" named. That and the opening comment to which you replied were both, frankly, destructive to discussion on articles. As a matter for debate, THE OPEN can and does "play second" to the U.S. Open. But all of that is irrelevant to the issue of what to term it here. Allegiance and nationality ARE irrelevant to ANY discussion in editing Wikipedia. --Buckboard 09:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute. The tournament is called "The Open Championship". Now why is 'An American Editor' irritated about anything at all? Our goal here is truth, which includes accuracy. What a statement: "...universally known as the British open here in USA" --- universally, here in the USA? If only you saw how insular that is - QED. {"Aptly" named was just a joke and a jib - relax.} --DocEss 11:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that "insular" is the right word, nor do I see where what you describe as "insular" is any more insular (or whatever other descriptor you like) than the quaint British practice of referring to so many of these institutions in the singular, as though they are the only one to exist ("The PGA," "The Open Championship," "The Championships" (Wimbledon), etc.). But I don't begrudge that; I ask only that American usage be respected in articles about American institutions, and that pedantry not get in the way of being informative. I don't see where that's insular in the least; you're throwing around that as a conclusive statement but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. There's a difference between being informal and being inaccurate. No Briton that I am personally acquainted with finds "British Open" at all offensive, and it's clear that some other Britons involved in this debate don't either, and lest I be accused of wrongfully introducing "allegiance and nationality" to the debate, I am not the one who is throwing around words like "insular." Frankly, it feels to me like you're looking for reasons to criticize me when you say that "universally known as the British Open here in USA" is troublesome; it's not like I claimed the whole world looks at it in that fashion and I quite clearly qualified that universality to this country. My dictionary defines "universal" as "of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group."

It's is really very simple indeed. The tournament's title is "The Open Championship" and it has always been called this and always will be. However it is common practice by some to refer to the tournament as the "British Open" - especially (but not only) in the USA. There is nothing offensive about this solecism, but it is wrong. So Wiki needs to reflect what is correct ("The Open Championship") but also acknowledge the common practice ("British Open") - whilst pointing out that such usage is an error and suggesting a reason ("To avoid confusion with the US Open" and/or "ignorance"). PaddyBriggs 11:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Although this is a more reasonable position, I think it takes an overly prescriptive position. To say that "British Open" is objectively wrong, as opposed to not being precise, is akin to saying it is "inaccurate" to call someone named Matthew "Matt," or Nicholas "Nick." The alternative form isn't wrong; it just isn't as formally precise as it could be. If you call him Seve Ballasteros even though his title always has been and always will be Severiano, then you ought to acknowledge that "British Open" is not inaccurate but merely informal.

I only started this discussion as an experiment in exposing Americans' will to fight tooth and nail about something that doesn't really matter. How telling it is that the slightest reduction in nationalistic stature (self-perceived!) or afront to their colonistic sensibilities sends Americans into arguments this lenghty, full of bleatings that Wikepedia is somehow an American idea and that there are universal truths in America. Goodness - try to act with more grace than a transvestitie getting its wig ripped off at a dinner party. Please let us strive here for truth and accuracy. And keep in mind: insularity is not attractive. Despite the fact that Americans are so emminently lovable and admirable in so many ways, I find this whole thing is now stuck in my throat. Oh well, there's always good golf to watch. I wonder if Woods can win the American PGA, then the Augusta Masters, then the Yankee Open before he wins The British for the third consequtive time. DocEss 12:43, 22 July 2006 (MDT)

I'm not clear how any of this discussion reflects a defense of nationalistic stature on the part of Americans. Nobody seems to have actually objected to "The Open Championship" as the name of the event. And I don't really see where any comments in this discussion have wanted for grace; the only pejorative language thrown around was the term "insular," and as I mentioned, I didn't see how those arguing for the acceptability of "British Open" in certain contexts were being insular. Whatever conclusion this discussion reached about "The Open Championship" vs. "British Open," my position on the matter is not influenced in the least by a comparison of the U.S. Open to it; they're both majors to me. My respect for the style of play at the British Open is such that I've written the USGA on a number of occasions requesting that the U.S. Open be played exclusively at what links courses there are in USA, and to have the PGA Championship play at the "parkland" courses, to establish a more distinct identity for both events and to honor links play as a distinct golfing tradition. However, the plain fact of the matter is that the 3rd major is known as the British Open in this country in common usage, and I don't see where that's wrong or "inaccurate," any more than it is to say that Mr. Woods won the "Claret Jug" today instead of the "Golf Champion Trophy," and so I take exception to being told I'm objectively erroneous in doing that. I also take some umbrage at your comment about Americans being willing to fight "tooth and nail" over this matter, since this conversation was a) not a fight and b) involved Britons as well as Americans (indeed, the first responses were by a Briton). Notably, you reference the "American PGA," when, so far as I know, it is called simply the "PGA Championship" since (so far as I know) the British PGA does not sponsor a similar event. But I don't object to your calling it that, because in the absence of a geographic or other modifier it is useful and appropriate. And you're right: it will be interesting to see if Woods can win the "Tiger Slam" again. If his accuracy with irons off the tee this week will convince him to leave his driver in the bag more often I suspect his game will improve.
This rambling and disjointed yet well-meaning response is now just more noise. I suggest that we cannot solve the issue, so let us move on. Please refer to a dictionary for the definition of insular and guard against falling into same. As for the other comments, I provide additional input. I agree with your stance on the US Open. I'd add that the USGA runs the risk of turning it into a freak show by setting up the course too fifficult to play. Indeed, sometimes I half-expect to see a windmill twirling above the tee box and a clown statue's mouth to be reciprocating between open and closed as someone's putting from eight feet ninety-degrees to the hole. Next, there is a long list of PGA Championships other than the USA one. Third, please don't call something a Tiger Slam --- why must everything in American speech have a little pet name or sound-bite feel to it? Anyway, I never claimed I thought his winning such would be interesting - I only used that sentence as a linguistic tool to highlight the fact that I too can misname all the darn tournaments. How's that dubiously-named World Series comin along, by the way? (P.S. You could stop taking exception to things and stop putting bloody qouatation marks around every third word!)
"Insular: ignorant of or uninterested in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside one's own experience." My position is patently not this; if I was insisting that the article be retitled "British Open" or that all references to it on the Wikipedia project reflect American usage, that'd fit the defintion. Asking that a commonplace reference not be derogated as "erroneous" or "incorrect" demonstrates neither ignorance nor lack of interest in cultures, ideas, or peoples outside my own experience, and I think the fact that several other Britons involved in this discussion and the similar one preceding it suggests I am not alone in this matter.
Whatever one's position on the American tendency to seek a catchphrase for human phenomena, I don't think "Tiger Slam" was used out of place; you alluded to a competitive phenomenon that caused no little amount of debate in the golf world, within and outside the United States; I am not alone in alluding to the phrase.
Your linguistic device with respect to the PGA Championship indicated to me precisely the value of modifiers. If I was speaking to a Briton, or anyone else outside the USA, I would expect them to call it the American PGA. And that'd be accurate; it is a championship organized by the American Professional Golfers' Association.
The "World Series" (and the NBA and NFL practice of referring to its winner as "World Champion") is an embarassment to American sport, IMO. It is an aggrandizement that is unwarranted and unnecessary. The leagues pick the name and in articles with an American context the phrase "World Series" is sufficient, but in articles properly written from a foreign perspective some additional qualifier is appropriate and does nothing to degrade the accuracy of the reference.
I put quotations around particularly chosen phrases to indicate I am not paraphrasing or attributing words to you that you may consider to have connotations that do not attach to the words you actually chose, or to set off a particular set of words as a unit in the analysis.
From Wicktionary - Insular (adj) - having an inward-looking outlook. The definition you offer is certainly prescient, too, Yank. Nuff said. Can we stop now?

[edit] Rolex

Can't we get a header picture that doesnt have a Rolex logo on it? --81.105.251.160 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It's a book cover, and it's only fair use if we use it as it is. Osomec 17:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] erroneously

I've been to several Opens and have never seen any signs saying 'This way to the British Open' nor any references to a 'British Open' in souvenir programmes or indeed in the official website opengolf.com. So whilst the Americans and anyone else can call it the British Open if they wish, it still doesn't mean that it is not an inaccurate title.Catchpole 10:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It is ludicrous to call use of "British Open" erroneous. Saying "In the United States, the tournament is referred to as the British Open" is acceptable. Otherwise, perhaps The Championships, Wimbledon, should start with "The Championships, Wimbledon, erroneously shortened to Wimbledon...". Come on. People who insist the words "erroneous" or "inaccurate" need to be used to describe the American description clearly need to wake up. And just for the record, Canadians call it the British Open too. Bssc81 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, let us weep for those pitiable Canadians - so over-whelmed by the constant onslaught of American media they don't even remember who they are anymore. Let us hope they don't develop poor manners now. Alas, the world was better when it was British. DocEss
Catchpole - why do you consistently re-add the word "erroneously" when there is no consensus? Or, you could respond to my point above. Is it "erroneous" to call "The Championships, Wimbledon" simply "Wimbledon"? You are the only one to continually revert back to including the word erroneous. "British Open" is the name 300 million people use - it is not necessarily "erroneous". Removing the word is a far less controversial outcome, and thus I think that is what we should do. At this point, we may have to protect this page if this continues. Bssc81 22:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wimbledon is fine, as that is a shortening of the actual name, and also the name of the permanent home of the championships. However I don't see an argument for lengthening the name. It is also what the majority of people in the UK call it, just as most people who take an interest in tennis in the UK know that tournament as Wimbledon.

Just because 300 million people use a name doesn't mean its the right name, it would be like trying to change Mumbai back to Bombay. You are perfectly entitled to call the Open by whatever name you wish, just don't imply its the right or official name. Catchpole 06:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Catchpole - In English, it's "it's", not "its". Y'all need an apostrophe there when making a contraction of "it is". "Its" is the possessive form and unlike other possessive forms does not use an apostrophe. I'm just trying to help here - I don't speak American, so I don't know if you 300 million have found a better way to use apostrophes or re-name all the sporting events. Be a good chap and do let us know.137.186.248.248 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody said it was the "right or official name". The comment states "often referred to as the British open in North America". This is factually correct. It is unnecessarily insulting to say "erroneously". And as a note, Mumbai does not point out that the use of Bombay is erroneous (because it is not). As a matter of fact, it clearly states: "The name was officially changed to Mumbai in 1995, but the former name is still used by many of the city's inhabitants and famous institutions." Bssc81 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This Wimbledon discussion and Bombay point are hardly relevant. (It is unnecessary to rely on comparitives and analogies to try to strengthen an argument.) "It" is not "like" anything: the name of the tournament is The Open (Championship). Why don't we just mention somehow that the name of the thing is The Open and Americans & others call it the British? Merely mentioning that calling it the British is a source of ongoing debate would serve in the interests of truth here. Those are the facts and so that ought to do it. (Ya right - 300 million people can't be wrong - it's the other 6.2 billion idiots who are wrong. And anyway, of those 300 million people, 299 million probably still can't find Scotland on a blank map, or Bombay for that matter.)137.186.248.248 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It IS necessary to use comparitives and analogies when people can't comprehend a point. If you want to discuss the so-called controversy surrounding the name, create a controversy section at the bottom - do not simply write "erroneously called..." Attempting to make up statistics (really, are you telling me 6.2 billion people recognize "the open championship" in golf as this particular tournament?) only serves to weaken your argument. It is NOT a source of ongoing debate - Americans, and anyone else for that matter who call it the British, will continue to do so. The question you should ask yourself is whether an American, knowing the official name, would actually change wha they called the tournament. In this case, likely not - thus for people to bitterly attack those who've affectionately nicknamed the tournament "British Open" as "wrong" is simply a wast of time and energy. Bssc81 20:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you feel it is necessary to do those things. But what I think what's poignant here is that you're all fwusthtwated now and you'll resort to any and all tactics to brow-beat others into seeing your point of view. That is an Americanism and is not attractive. Nevertheless, we all understand your point yet we all disagree, leaving us at loggerheads, ya? That means we shall have to acknowledge that there is a debate over the proper terminology by pointing it out in the article. None of us, all smarties quite clearly, will add anything more here that's going to solve it. So, obviously, we shall have to agree to disagree. I made up no statistics - I used linguistic liscense to point out the absurdity of the 300-million claim. It obviously is a source of ongoing debate: we are having one, the media has them and pro golfers themselves have them regarding this issue. And nobody's bitter - but you will be if you persist. Have you found Bombay yet?137.186.248.248 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to browbeat anything - the issue here is that if there is a controversy (and we agree that one exists), create a section surrounding the name. Do not insult millions of people by saying they are "wrong" to call something the British Open - especially when the PGA Tour itself refers to it with this name [1]. Phrases like "debatably referred to..." are also inaccurate. There is no debate - it IS sometimes/often called the British Open in the US. Like I said, if people are really annoyed about the usage of "British Open", create a section about it and point out the relevant facts. Bssc81 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How can the pointing out of an error or the claiming of a foible be received as an insult? Why do Americans not like to be corrected? What is it about the national character that makes people so beligerant and sensistive in so many ways? In any case, people who call it the British Open are indeed wrong: the tournament is properly called The Open. Likewise, the PGA is wrong. Try to remember: 300 million wrongs don't make a right. Note that just becasue they are wrong, we do not need to preclude our ackowledging that lots of people call it the British. All we must do is mention the contentiousness and it'll all be fine.137.186.248.248 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Calling the tournament the "British Open" is not an error. It is a popular nickname for the tournament. When you say someone made an error, or a mistake, there is an implication that the person would have changed their action if informed (for example, if I spelled your name incorrectly, and you told me the correct spelling, I'd correct myself.) If you tell that same person that "the official name is The Open", and they say "fine, but I'll still call it the British Open because it's a widely accepted name in North America", then there is no "error" (as in "erroneously"). It's like saying to someone who calls McDonald's "Mickey D's" - "hey, you've made a mistake". That person would say "no I haven't, I meant to do it, it's a nickname. So what if it's not the official name?" And finally, for the record, I am not American - I'm Canadian. Of course, it's irrelevant either way, but I figured I'd point that out to put an end to your attempt at stereotyping an entire country.Bssc81 00:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling it the British Open in the title of the article in an encycloepia is the error, and this has been the point of the discussion. The article must point out 1) the official name, 2) any other popular references, and 3) if and why there is contention over the diferrence in common references. Anyway, if someone wants to call it Mickey D's he's perfectly welcome to do so, but McDonalds would be the proper reference in a general article in an encyclopoedia. Oh boy, as a Canadian myself (which you have cleverly discovered, ya thmarty little geniuth), I am shocked that you haven't yet begun to rebel at the overwhleming and suffocating Americanisms that inundate your daily life and alter your traditons. I am also shocked that your writing skills have been altered by osmosis. All I hope is that you don't start calling it Ice Hockey - Yikes! (Incidentally, I happen to love Americans like I love my older brother - that means that in both cases I will certainly go to great lenghts to point out both their foibles and I demand they do the same for me.)137.186.248.248 00:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
"Calling it the British Open in the title of the article" - it's not in the title. The entire article refers to the tournament as "The Open", which satisfies your McDonald's criterion above. As for your 1-3, you're right, 1 and 2 have been covered, and 3) needs to be done. However, it should be done with a section outlining the controversy. But like I said, labeling the usage as "incorrect" on the basis that it is not the official name is analogous to the Wimbledon comment. Yeah, just calling it "Wimbledon" is more defensible (arguably), but it's not the official name either. Which, seemingly, is the only real criticism of "British Open". Anyway, I'm ending this once and for all - controversy section created. Add to that if you want. Bssc81 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


All right, all right. That'll do. Are we done now? Good. Let us go and deal with soccer vs. football, hockey vs. ice hockey, and anything else that's been perverted.137.186.248.248 19:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, Americans don't call it ice hockey. we call it hockey too.

[edit] 1st prize in pound sterling

Today (July, 26th, 2006) I added a column detailing the 1st place prize money. This amount is given in UK Pound Sterling (for obvious reasons). However, people may want to see the conversion to USD as well. What do you think? Are there any wiki functions that can perform simple conversions like this -- so no one has to convert each one by hand?

I think that that would not work well. Consider that the prize money was paid in Pounds annually. Trying to convert the Pound-age to Yankee bucks for every year would require the currency conversion rates for each year, necessitating a second column for the converted figures. If we do that, we shall have to convert the prize money for all the other golf tournament info. (esp. for the four majors) into Pounds as well as the Dollars in which they are currently listed. Nah - I think we should leave this stuff in nominal currency. Input, anyone?137.186.248.248 19:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
My input would be that it is only relevant in the years in which a member of the PGA TOUR won the event in the period when the PGA TOUR counted earnings in this event toward the Money List (which is calculated in U.S. dollars). I know the PGA TOUR has retroactively classified all past victories as official victories, but I don't know if they have also retabulated all the old Money Lists to reflect the money players won. If they did, you could go all the way back and figure it out, but if not, I would still think (THINK!) that in the period since 1995, when earnings have definitely counted towards the Money List, sources exist that break down a player's by-tournament earnings in a season. Since the Money List is calculated down to the dollar, that information must exist somewhere. But I don't think it's relevant unless it was a year that the first prize went to a player who was applying the money to the Money List. I don't know what the Order of Merit's history is with euro as its currency as opposed to pounds sterling, but just in general it seems to me the converted currency figure is only worth noting when it is a year that that converted currency was being applied in a meaningful way towards that player's Money List/Order of Merit.
Oh quit it. Wikepedia is not intended to be a detailed almanac. Anyway, Money Lists, PGA Tour Stats, Order of Merits - yak yak. American stuff, all! Do you think the R&A cares one iota about any of that crap? They write cheques in denominated in pounds. Incidentally, what bloody difference would it make to our lives see the USA dollar equivalent for 1995 or 1982 or 1891? Maybe we chould include yet another column that adjusts for inflation. Maybe one for standard of living for each winner's country of origin. Maybe height and weight per dollar? Or maybe we should exclude the prize money altogether if it's going to get to be too much to agonize over all the little figures.137.186.248.248 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well a) there's nothing intrinsically wrong with "American stuff" and it's kind of curious you'd derogate it on those grounds, and b) the Order of Merit is a function of the European Tour. And, I'm not particularly interested in seeing it but in responding to the folks who suggested it be produced, I was only noting that it isn't worth going to the trouble of calculating it unless it is a noteworthy cross-reference. When Paul Lawrie won in '99, it definitely is not a particularly useful cross-reference. Everyone else since 1995 has been a member of the PGA TOUR (not 100% on Els, if memory serves he makes a go at being a member of both the European Tour and the PGA TOUR) and so at least in that period, when I know for sure that the winnings contributed to the PGA TOUR Money List, to me it seems like a defensible cross-reference. But not one I'm prepared to fight for since I really don't particularly care.
No, of course there's nothing intrinsically wrong with American stuff; what is wrong is a focus on everything from an American point of view (that would be insular, and we must defend against being insular). This is an encycloepedia, not a compendium of all things from an American point of view, and so truth is the goal. Regarding The Open's and other majors' prizes, I just don't think that level of detail is required in this type of generalised view. It ain't worth the trouble anywhooooo.137.186.248.248 22:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just curious if you thought a USD conversion was worthwile. Given the tradition of the tournament and its location I believe that it should stay in pound sterling. So I think it is settled... Pounds. Ok.

[edit] "British Open" is wrong and we must say so.

There are plenty of choices of words that could be used (a) To record, accurately, that The Open Championship is sometimes referred to as the "British Open" (sic) and (b) that such usage is mistaken, erroneous, incorrect (or whatever). I don't care which word is used (or any other that Roget might suggest) but one of them must be if Wiki is correctly to record this fact. My latest revison uses "incorrectly" - can we leave it at that??!! PaddyBriggs 09:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide verifiable sources to back up your claims? There's absolutely no dispute that "The Open Championship" is the official name of the tournament. However, you claiming something that goes much further, namely that use of the term "British Open" needs to be avoided for whatever reason. I notice you've already argued your point in several sections above, so what's really needed at this point is for you to provide reliable and verifiable sources that directly state that the term "British Open" needs to be a avoided. Sources that only prove that the tournament's official title is "The Open Championship" would not be sufficient since you're claiming more than that. Aren't I Obscure? 14:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As to point (b), no, because it's not incorrect. For whatever reason, be it disambiguity or a more convenient shortening, many countries around the world use the nickname "British Open" to refer to the event (and not just North America either), and that should be plainly documented (as many people will come to the page under that name). If you wish to embark on a campaign to change the world's terminology for the event, more power to you, but Wikipedia is not the platform for that. The page should just reflect whatever usage commonly exists; countries presumably have a valid reason for the nickname and is not in any way wrong or incorrect. For similar reasons, "Women's British Open" is generally used to refer to that event and not the official name of "The Weetabix Women's British Open".
Certainly here in the US it is always referred to as the British Open. There is a discussion on the French wikipedia version of this page that states that "Le British Open" is the term commonly used in France and the European continent in general (while "Omnium Britannique" is used in Quebec [2]). Doing a google search on 'site:.au "British Open" ' has vastly more hits than 'site:.au "Open Championship"'... and many (not all) of the hits for the latter talk about open championships in australia (often for other sports). South Africa (site:.za) seems more evenly split. Even searching on site.ie (Ireland) seems to have more hits for "British Open".
My guess is that in the UK (and maybe British Isles) it is always referred to as The Open Championship, in Europe and most of the rest of the world British Open is most common although The Open Championship would be recognized in context, and in North America it is "British Open" always (and The Open Championship would likely not be recognized outside of golf fans). It would be good to hear from non-US and non-UK posters to document what is the usual term used in their countries for a better understanding of common usage.
The only thing that would be "incorrect" would be if something indicated that "British Open" was the official name of the event. Certainly the page itself should be called "The Open Championship", and the text of the page (and any British-centric article) should use the term "Open Championship" to refer to the event (which is true currently but looking at the edit history that was not always the case). I suspect that for reasons of national pride it is an "error" for a Briton to refer to the event as the "British Open", but in the rest of the world it is not. I would suggest something simple like "Outside of the United Kingdom, the tournament is often referred to as the British Open." or something similar. Carl Lindberg 14:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well said. The dispute here seems to stem from the assertion that referring to the tournament by any name other than "The Open Championship" is incorrect. By that logic, it's also incorrect to refer to Eldrick Woods as Tiger Woods. But "Tiger" isn't an incorrect name, just an informal one. This article already makes it crystal clear that "The Open Championship" is the official, formal name of the tournament. It also mentions that "British Open" is an informal name used outside of Britain, especially in the US. Those are the facts and that's where we should stop. Making the judgement than the informal name is incorrect isn't something we're able to do because it would be original research. If there are reliable and verifiable sources that state such things, they need to be cited. Aren't I Obscure? 18:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Paddy is misinterpreting. Wikipedia accurately says the championship is sometimes referred to as the British Open. There is nothing incorrect about that statement. Wikipedia is not saying/inferring the name of the championship is the British Open, which would be quite different. Moriori 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Friends. The title of the tournament is "The Open Championship". This is the only correct title. Ergo any other title is incorrect (PERIOD as the americans say!). That "British Open" is commonly used is true, and we should say so. That it is incorrect to use this title is also true, and we should say that too!. If you want a source then ask the R&A, but this should be enough logic for anyone who cares about Wiki's integrity (as I do). PaddyBriggs 11:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not "incorrect" to have nicknames. The article does not imply that "British Open" is the official name, just a nickname. The British often refer to the event as "The Open", which by your logic is just as incorrect. However, that is a perfectly valid nickname, as is "British Open" for others. The official name is The Masters Tournament, but it is generally referred to here as just "The Masters", and sometimes outside the US referred to as the "US Masters" [3]. Neither is "incorrect", but are nicknames that make more sense from the speakers' perspective, for whatever reason. Carl Lindberg 13:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I've yet to hear anybody from the "British Open is incorrect" camp squarely confront the Tiger/Eldrick or Claret Jug/Golf Champion Trophy point. It seems to me those are proof positive that, for a variety of reasons, nicknames can be conversationally useful. For something to be incorrect, it has to be objectively wrong. Calling this the "British Open" is not objectively wrong; it is a tournament that uses the open format and it is a British event (just like London is a British city). On occasion I have been known to distinguish between "British London" and "Canadian London" in conversation if it is not clear from context which I'm referring to, and neither is incorrect, because neither reference purports to give the "official name" of the town; it appends a geographic modifier onto the front of the official name. I was surprised when one user who was particularly insistent that "The Open Championship" appear on the schedule table at the PGA TOUR article wouldn't accept "British Open Championship" and did accept "The Open Championship (British Open)." "British Open Championship" only appends a geographic modifier onto the beginning of the official name, assuming that the inclusion or lack thereof of "The" is flexible (and usage by Britons seems to indicate it is; "the 2006 Open Championship," "this year's Open Championship," etc. seem like acceptable usage to them).


It is not a "nickname" which can only be applied to persons. It is a solecism. That many use the term is not in dispute. That they are wrong is equally true. To the correspondant above who hasn't the courtesy to identify him(her)self I can only say this. The tournament is the oldest in golf. It is correctly called "The Open Championship" any other descriptor is incorrect. PaddyBriggs 16:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC: You have yet to provide one shred of documentation to support your position, PaddyBriggs. You must provide a verifiable source in order for your claim that it is incorrect to be allowed. Just because you say it is incorrect is not enough to make it so. Sxeptomaniac 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What nonsense! Anyone remotely involved with golf will tell you (a) That the correct title is "The Open Championship" and (b) That many mistakenly call it the British Open. There is no need to prove that those who use the wrong term are wrong. Any more than there would be if people called it the "Drucken Duck" tournament - or any other WRONG title. There is only one correct ttitle. Over and out!PaddyBriggs 17:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
False dilemma, with a bit of Straw man thrown in. No one is saying that "The Open Championship" is not the correct title, only that "The British Open" is common usage outside Britain. The Acadamy Awards are often referred to as "The Oscars", which is not wrong, just common usage. You claim it's a solecism, yet you have failed to verify that. Multiple names for things are quite common, so knowing the true name does not make other names incorrect. Sxeptomaniac 20:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If anything but the official name of something was wrong, then it would be wrong to say Tiger Woods, wrong to say US or America instead of the United States of America, wrong to say the R&A, and wrong to say the US Open instead of the Uniteed States Open Championship. And if a large number of people did call it the drucken duck tournament, then it would be a correct (but informal) title.

It is worth noting that Reuters, a British news service, frequently refers to the British Open as such in many of its articles. If you must, please search for articles about Tiger Woods at Reuters.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.101.181.38 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] www.top100golfcourses.co.uk

I recently removed a link to this site from this article, since it seemed like a blatant advertising link (it was even inserted into the text of the article, not as an External Link). I ran across something similar on another page though, and indeed it appears the address 195.92.35.134 (and then the user Newmac1) added a similar link to a number of golf course pages. Should they all just be removed, or moved to External Links? The site looks potentially interesting but is new and without much additional content at this point. Not too many places link to it according to Google. Carl Lindberg 15:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clearly advertising when they said it was the "definitive" course rankings so my vote would be to drop it.
Okay, I'll remove them. Carl Lindberg 15:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "British Open" -- an official unofficial name

If the R&A (the organizer of the British Open) considered "the British Open" to be "incorrect," it -- not Wikipedia users -- would demand people stop using that name. Generally, trademark owners are not shy about making sure people get a name right. Any ESPN person who failed to call the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl (or whatever it is now) by its official name would be in hot water. But ABC, the British Open's American TV partner, has always called it "the British Open." If the R&A had something against the use of that name, it would demand ABC stop using it.

Furthermore, a search of the US Patent & Trademark Office's database finds that Championship Committee Merchandising, the company that handles merchandizing for the Royal & Ancient, has trademarked "British Open" for use on umbrellas and clothing in the U.S.

It's clear that while the tournament organizers may prefer that people say "the Open Championship," it has come to accept that people outside of Britain call it something different.

"The British Open" may be an unofficial name, but it certainly is not "incorrect."

Also note that our article on "The Championships, Wimbledon" does not claim that the widespread use of the word "Wimbledon" to refer to the tournament itself is "incorrect." -- Mwalcoff 23:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I discussed this at length with another user above. I brought up a number of examples, including Wimbledon. And I purposely created a section which is now called "tournament name", which addresses these concern and any "controversy" surrounding the name. Bssc81 05:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"The British Open" may be an unofficial name, but it certainly is not "incorrect." - No, the name "British Open IS incorrect, as the open has been held outside Britain (in Northern Island). Therefore, if anything, it should be the U.K. Open if people are going to be pedantic and demand accuracy.

~~WTF? Northern Ireland is BRITISH!~~

The only "accuracy" needed here is to document the official name, and also what (other) names people around the world actually do in fact call the tournament. You can consider it right or wrong, but the article shouldn't imply that part either way, as that clearly would not be NPOV. I assume it's "incorrect" from a British perspective, but that does not apply to everyone. For similar reasons, the Masters is often referred to as the "US Masters", and that is not "incorrect" either -- it just indicates a different cultural point of view, where the disambiguation is deemed necessary for whatever reason. Carl Lindberg 03:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The unsigned poster misses the point. The intro doesn't deny the official name. It mentions it, then the colloquial name. He would have a point if the article was called The British Open and the intro started "The British Open...." It doesn't, so he doesn't. Moriori 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Various golfers' biographies on Wikipedia (for instance Tiger Woods), refer to both The Open Championship and the British Open. Even if it is accepted that 'British Open' is an acceptable form (which personally I don't, but I seem to be outnumbered), shouldn't the articles at least be consistent within themselves, and use just one name; if for nothing else, then to avoid confusion? (I'd suggest the official one, natch) Lidz 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the articles should be consistent within themselves... but it's probably a natural artifact of having editors from different countries. I've been treating it like the British/American English spelling guidelines, since it's a similar situation. On British-centric pages (golfers, tournaments, etc.) I've been using "The Open Championship" while on North American-centric articles I'll use "British Open". Carl Lindberg 02:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The articles don't have to be consistent. The 2 terms can both be used interchangeably. Personally I prefer the term British Open (even though it's not the official name), to distinguish it from the US Open. Beggining golfers and non-golfers could be confused when they go to a site, and it just refers to an Open Championship. They wouldn't know which one the article is reffering to.

Why such upheaval over British Open? If we have to have an article on wikipedia entitled "Ice Hockey" to avoid confusion among the British than surely "British Open" is acceptable to avoid confusion among non-British as well. You can't have your cake and eat it too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.26.29 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The most prestigious major

The claim that the Open Championship is the most prestigious of the majors needs to be either justified with a reference or removed. So too the claim that it offers the highest prize money.

These articles are far too important to be marred by the sort of jingoistic nonsense evident in this discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.175.35.152 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

The statement is qualified. (1) It says "to many" (which is true) and says why (it is the oldest Major). Seems OK to me. PaddyBriggs 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's silly to say it's the most prestigious; all four are important. Supertigerman 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; all four will have "many" who think it's the most prestigious major. That is not a distinguishing characteristic here, and especially should not be in the first sentence. Saying it's the oldest should be enough. Also, the bold is inappropriate in the lead paragraph; it should be reserved for the main title and common nicknames according to the WP:MOS#Article titles. Carl Lindberg 18:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't say that is IS the most prestigous - just that many think it to be so. PaddyBriggs 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but there are also many that think the Masters is the most prestigious, and many who think the U.S. Open is. It's not a distinguishing characteristic for any of the majors, and certainly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. Just the fact that it's one of the four majors basically means it's one of the four most prestigious tournaments; anything more is just too much of a personal perspective (usually depending on where you grew up). Carl Lindberg 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough! I don't disagree! PaddyBriggs 06:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that the PGA Championship isn't regarded by anyone (except the PGA of America perhaps) as the most prestigious major. As far as the British/Open debate goes..I'm American and I call it The Open Championship out of respect; it's the oldest tournament in the world and it's official name IS The Open Championship. Calling it the "British Open" is incorrect only in that it's not the official name. Just as someone said earlier, Mickey D's is a perfectly acceptable name for McDonald's in every day talk, but it should be called McDonald's in any kind of official capacity. Calling it the British Open is inaccurate, popular usage aside (I mean we could go on forever about how much irony is misused). I think the way the article is now is fine; it states what the official name is and that some people (mistakingly) refer to it as the British Open.
It is simply linguistically inaccurate to say that "British Open" is wrong. Dubya can accurately be referred to as the American President, even if his official title is President of the United States of America (of course, this implicates the inherent ambiguity in "American" being an adjective that characterizes its object as either of the relevant continents or of the United States, but let us set this aside as a different debate). "British" is the adjective that is used to refer to things that are of the United Kingdom (just like the noun form is "Briton"). That is why it is not wrong to call the event the "British Open." It is an Open-format championship and is held every year in territory that is not confined to any of the United Kingdom's constituent states, but is confined to territory that is within the territorial limits of the United Kingdom (making "British" being the appropriate geographic reference). The only thing that would be incorrect would be to assert that "British Open" is somehow the event's official name, but an event's official name is very rarely even spoken about other than to make a note of what it is. Nobody makes a fuss over the Annual Championship of the Professional Golfers' Association of America being called the "PGA Championship" because the former is linguistically unhelpful. It is unhelpful for a different reason (it is much too long), but the reason parts of the world refer to the event as the British Open is because "The Open Championship" is also linguistically unhelpful: there are many events that style themselves as Opens, and it would be just as accurate to refer them as simply "the Open" when the context was clear that the speaker can only be speaking of one event. When speaking about golf as a sport, it is simply not sufficiently clear linguistically what one is speaking of when one speaks simply of an unqualified "Open," hence the practice of appending the modifier British to it, which in no way impacts its actual name. Nor would it be incorrect to call this week's event the "American Open," because it is, in fact, an Open-format event that is played in the U.S. A different name has happened to catch on, which I speculate as being because the official name is sufficiently linguistically helpful ("U.S. Open Championship" expresses what most addressees want to know) that nobody sought to change it, but that does not make "American Open" an out-and-out error. Nor is "British Open." 76.10.24.6 22:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody give me a citation that says that the "nickname" "British Open" to call "The Open Championships" is wrong? --Howard the Duck 10:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Open championship.jpg

Image:Open championship.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)