Contact UF Golf Course

A correction is usable when it names its source. The record here works by attribution rather than consensus, so "the yardage is wrong" cannot be acted on, while "the operator's current card gives the back tee as X" can be, because the second replaces one dated, attributed figure with another.

The two most valuable kinds of correction are a superseding figure with a date, and a missing edition in a tournament sequence with a contemporary source for it. Both close gaps that are currently marked as gaps on the relevant pages.

Corrections that amount to a difference of interpretation are read but not always applied. Where a subject genuinely has competing claims (the first golf course in America being the standing example), the disagreement is the content, and replacing it with one preferred answer would remove information rather than add it.

Anything operational belongs with the course concerned rather than here. Green fees, tee times, membership, lessons, event entry, lost property and course conditions are all matters for the operator, and this publication has no standing to answer any of them.

That includes the Mark Bostick Golf Course, which is documented here as a subject and run by a third party. Enquiries about playing it should go to the course.

Betting enquiries belong with the operator a person holds an account with. Settlement of a specific wager is decided by that operator's own rules, and the golf betting reference explains how those rules generally work without being able to adjudicate any individual case.

A correction is checked against the source it names, not against the correction. That order matters: a message saying a figure is wrong is a claim like any other, and it earns its place in the record the same way the original figure did.

Three outcomes are possible and all three are normal. If the named source says what the correction says, the figure is replaced and the source and its date go in with it. If the source disagrees with the correction, nothing changes and the reason is that the record follows its sources rather than its readers. And if the source and the existing source both hold, the page stops asserting one figure and records the disagreement, which is the same treatment the operator's own contradictory acreages already get.

Two kinds of message reliably get nowhere, and saying so is fairer than silence. A correction with no source cannot be acted on however confident it is; there is no way to prefer it over what is already there. And anything about playing a course (availability, cost, conditions today) has no answer here at any level of detail, because those figures are deliberately absent rather than merely missing, and the operator is the only place they are current.

One thing worth including that people rarely do: the date. A card, a rating or a fee that was correct when someone read it is not wrong, it is a different snapshot, and a correction that names when the source said it can be recorded as exactly that instead of overwriting a figure that was also once right.

A usable message is short and has three parts: the page, what it should say instead, and where that comes from. "The tournament page marks the 38th edition as missing; a programme dated 2007 lists it" is enough to act on, because the source can be checked. "The edition list is incomplete" is not, however true it may be.

Write to [email protected]. Please include the page the correction applies to and the source it comes from.

This composes the message and opens it in your email app, addressed to [email protected]. Nothing is sent from this page and no details are stored here.

Which page

The source it comes from A figure is not replaced without one.

What is wrong, and what it should say 1200 characters left

Open this in your email app

Reference material is grouped by subject: course records, golf history, tournament records and golf betting. The about page sets out how figures are sourced and dated.