Talk:Hole in one

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep.

Requested move

Hole in one → Hole in One — some people are confused with "Hole in One" and "hole in one" -- Gh87 02:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Oppose - this is correctly titled but I agree the TV episode should be renamed. BlueValour 04:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Is confusion a reason to move a correctly named article? On the surface, I'd vote Oppose. Vegaswikian 04:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's official: this stays as "Hole in one". The end! --Gh87 06:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Odds

I've read the article and the references. Are the odds quoted per hole or per round? I guess per hole. - SimonLyall 10:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ball by Hole Picture

Does that picture really contribute anything to the article?--Jickyincognito 08:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit silly (the ball clearly isn't in the hole, and doesn't look as if it is going in). On the other hand, it doesn't hurt, it breaks up the text, and it's nice and colourful, so I vote to keep it. It would be nice if the article had a few historical examples, e.g. has a major tournament ever been decided by a hole-in-one? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk)

Holes in one are stupid?

Is it supposed to say holes in one are stupid, or is that a bit of vandalism? Is stupid some kind of golf slang? I changed it to rare, but if my change was unwarranted, feel free to fix it. -Mogakai —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Wording needs to be clarified.

The first two sentences of this article read:

"In golf, a hole in one or hole-in-one (also known as an ace, mostly in American English) is when a player hits the ball directly from the tee into the cup with one shot. This is most possible on a par 3 hole."

The most possible? The most of what, exactly? This makes no sense at all, and should be either fixed to express something meaningful and relevant, or else it should be removed.Daqu (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong il Line

"Kim Jong-il is alleged to score hole-in-ones on a regular basis when he plays" Although this seems hilarious to me, I'm not sure if it is entirely encyclopedic... Applepwnz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applepwnz (talk • contribs) 06:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-il being the wonderkid of golf is a well known "fact", typical of the North Korean propaganda. However, I've yet to find any statements of the kind being included in actual propaganda, official biographies or such. Hexmaster (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kim Jong-il part should be deleted. It doesn't fit with an encyclopedic entry on hole-in-ones. smileguy91^talk 19:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a HIO in popular culture. As for the claim never been part of actual propaganda, I tried to write this fact; Herostratus "corrected" with the non sequitur "Source says 'Pyongyang media reported', and there is no independent media in North Korea - it's all state media." If "source said", I would be happy to see it verified. I've yet to see an official NK channel verifying the claim. (I won't bother reedit. Have it your way.) 62.20.59.40 (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been corrected to say it's an "urban myth", but I still don't think it belongs here. I'm deleting it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't it belong? It's a quite well-known thing that was reported in the New York Times which is the American paper of record, and other notable outlets. We now know that it it false, but that doesn't change that its 1) a quite well-known thing which 2) was reported in the New York Times etc. I expect people are going to come here looking for it (it's a logical place to look for it). It's unusual for the Times et al to report totally made-up stuff, but sometimes they do, and IMO that in itself makes the whole thing more notable.

Alternatively we could spin the whole thing off into its own article, if its considered to be insufficiently related to the main point of this article. I wouldn't agree with that, but it's reasonable. In the meantime I've restored the material per WP:BRD pending further discussion, which could include suggestions to change the material.Herostratus (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Holes in one??

Shouldn't the plural be "holes in one," not "hole in ones?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.179.252 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. And http://usgolfregister.org/faq.asp doesn't appear to be consistent between pluralizing just the world hole and *both* of them. :( . Wiktionary pluralizes it to "holes in one". Curious on other opinions.Naraht (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hole in one. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/masters/index.ssf?/majors/masters/gw20040402albatross.html

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} 17:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hole in zero

This newspaper reports on a hole-in-zero, under special circumstance: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1338&dat=19380718&id=m4kzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=L_UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4048,3915395&hl=en

Is that noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.216.56 (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]