Talk:Michelle Wie West

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accurate Article - Over Hype[edit]

For this article to be accurate, it must mention that she was over-hyped and hasn't performed up to expectations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.96.190 (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Where a Player Finishes In A Tournament[edit]

Some Wikipedia members have been trying to say Wie finished the Evian Masters in 3rd last place. This is not true, since she finished the tournament beating every player who missed the cut. It should be stated that she finished 3rd last of those who made the cut. Please Note: If wikipedia members agree that she finished 3rd last, using the reasoning that only the players who played 4 rounds finished the tournament, I will accept this decision. However we will then have to go back and re-edit where it says she finished in last place at the Omega Masters, because using the reasoning of the Evian example, where only players who play 4 rounds FINISH the tournament, that would mean she did not finish last at the Omega Masters, since she did not FINISH the tournament by completing four rounds. --Stanley delaney2 18:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got my wording from the Golf Channel news broadcast as well as from these news sources: Daily Telegraph "slumped to last but three in the field." and this ESPN.com referring to her finishing "last at McDonald's." There are more, but no one seems to mention "last among those who made the cut" or anything like that. People who don't make the cut don't finish and don't have finishing positions. It would be grossly inaccurate to state or even imply that those who miss the cut are included somehow when calculating finish position. I will edit the article to cite a reference and will edit the Omega Masters wording as well to clarify what happened there. --Crunch 19:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to Write Her Name[edit]

Michelle Wie is a native-born U.S. citizen, and we speak and write English here. How to write her name in Korean, Chinese, etc. is 100% irrelevant. She's an American. Perhaps how to write her name in Hawaiian might be a little bit relevant!. dale101usa

See discussion on the other Michelle, same arguments apply here. Kowloonese 10:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that? If her parents are not from here maybe. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Hangul version how she writes her name in Korean? I thought her Korean name was Wie Sung-Mi, but the Hangul appears to be a phoneticization of "Michelle Wie." How's the Hanja pronounced? Is that "Wie Sung-Mi"?

- Yes it is. However which one's more frequently used I don't know. {between 위성미 or 미셸위(Michelle Wie)} - Hangul says Wie Sung Mi. - Yes that particular Hanja's read "Wie Sung Mi" with Korean pronounciation.

[Inappropriate/irrelevant comment removed.] Joseph N Hall 15:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally irrelevant to the English Wikipedia article. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how she is known in English. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how her name is spelled in English. And it is unsourced speculation in any case, as the discussion above shows. Gene Nygaard 18:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unsourced as her Korean name is Wie Sung-mi (위성미). I also disagree that it is 'irrelevent'. --DandanxD 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age[edit]

"There is no way this girl is 15"? Shouldn't that be taken out, as she... is?

Nah mate shes 16 now i think.

Picture[edit]

Couldn't someone get a better photo of Wie (e.g. when she's playing golf) instead of the current one? i'm not really familiar with copyright stuffs so i'm hesitant to do so. --Plastictv 29 June 2005 06:22 (UTC)

The commons image commons:Image:Michelle Wie.jpg is good enough, but has the same name as the one used in the article... /Grillo 15:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the links to pictures as the site photos without reference to copyright owners. Also, some photos are somewhat 'adult' in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.15 (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ADD UPDATED PICTURE. MICHELLE WIE HAS CHANGED TREMENDOUSLY. BETTER PICTURE IS NEEDED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korean1Professor (talk • contribs) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Height[edit]

Does anyone know how tall she is now? I heard she was 6' 3" but I don't know if that's right or not. Other sources say she's 6' 1".

The current (2006) reports are just slightly under 6'1".Crunch 12:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a break! When the media mentions womens golf , all they want to talk about is Michelle Wie. In my opinion it has nothing to do with her skills, as she has accomplised very little. It has all to do with her beauty, compared to other female golfers. Beauty Rules the world and this is so unfail to the good players!

Too much detail[edit]

This article is getting a bit long with a lot of detail of every event Wie is playing in. With many events scheduled over the summer, it could get very long if copious details are included about every event. I suggest we curtail the amount of detail recorded for each event. Crunch 23:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's absolutely crazy to note every event where Wie participated, regardless of the outcome. Get serious, guys! For other athletes, and I'm not only talking about the likes of Tiger Woods and Lorena Ochoa, the achievements (i.e. wins or maybe near wins) are noted, not the tournaments where they did'nt even qualify for the final rounds. If Wie is, as one might presuppose, less a professional golfer than a celebrity with big advertising contracts, then maybe the focus should be on that part of her career. --Bernardoni (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Now there is even a chart that tracks every single event she played in as a professional. This is silly. MATThematical (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making the cut, Se Ri Pak, etc.[edit]

This is obviously a controversial topic. Let's remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the place to determine which accomplishment is more important: Se Ri Pak's in 2003 or Michelle Wie's in 2006. We can't start taking about which tour is more "presigious." The Asian Tour may be a more major tour, but the SK Telecom Open is one of the weakest events with a weak field of all the events on the Asian Tour, while the event Se Ri Pak placed tenth in may have been one of the strongest field events on the Korean Tour. It's best to just state the facts and let the readers decide. Crunch 13:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Readers should be given context. The Asian Tour is one of the six members of the International Federation of PGA Tours and the Korean Tour doesn't even count for world ranking points. The event is actually one of the richer ones sole-santioned by the Asian Tour. A failure to provide appropriate context can itself be misleading and unencyclopedic, and most readers will need guidance in this case. There is nothing in the restored version which is not beyond reasonable dispute. ReeseM 06:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do this and still maitain and POV tone? The earlier edit did not manage to do this, so maybe give it another try. Crunch 12:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a humiliating result, and a sign that women really have no place in a mixed gender game due to their obvious inability to compete, its just degrading for the woman to be humiliated.

paragraph deleted by author Joseph N Hall 09:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another humilating result, this time 14 over par. You really think she comes back because shes not humiliated? no, she comes back because she makes millions in sponsorship. she has already proved she cannot play vs the men.

External links[edit]

The external links section has been organized and cleaned up in accordance with Wikipedia: External links. Crunch 20:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle just graduated from high school[edit]

According to Honolulu Star-Bulletin, graduation at Punahou School was yesterday, on June 2, 2007. [1] We don't know whether Michelle attended her graduation, but we need to change the part where it says "She is scheduled to graduate...".--Endroit 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...And it looks like Crunch fixed this section in like 5 minutes, since my last message. Thank you, Crunch.--Endroit 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LPGA majors performance[edit]

The table showing Michelle Wie's performance in the major tournaments shows her as the "LA" (low amateur) for three of the four majors in 2006. However, other parts of the article indicated that she turned pro late in the 2005 season, so she could not have been the low amateur at a 2006 tournament. Is this just an error, or am I missing something? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. I'm assuming it's an error. --Crunch (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dual citizenship is not documented[edit]

There have been several edits asserting that Wie is a dual citizen of the Untied States and South Korea (the Republic of Korea). None of these have been accompanied by any valid citations indicating that this is true. The sole citation was this: Civic treatment of those with dual nationality. Please note that is merely a document stating the Korean government's policy for dual citizenship, not stating that Wie is a dual citizenship. If you can find a valid and legitimate citation showing that Michelle Wie holds dual citizenship, by all means please include it. In the meantime, please do not fabricate information on Wikipedia. I would also add that given all the media coverage around the globe with regard to Miss Wie and her career covering nearly a decade, if she were a dual US-South Korean citizen, such information would be most likely be widely reported. --Crunch (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A year and a half have passed without any references or documentation following up on the citizenship claims. This section will be deleted unless someone can provide citations. --Crunch (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Wie Turning Professional[edit]

michelle Wie is a very good girl in school and especially in golf since she was 4 she played GOLF. I bet it would really fun to play at tournaments, games, and championships.she was born on October 11. And she also began to play in 1994 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.112.9 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lede suggestion[edit]

The current lede seems quite brief. It should probably be expanded to mention some of her amateur achievements and the amount of hype she received early in her pro career, as well as the fact that she has been an underachiever which has lead to critics labeling a her career a disappointment. Richard (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the most overhyped player of all time! Shes crap, has never accomplished anything - and probably never will! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.21.205 (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Streamlining of Article[edit]

User:MATThematical made a wide-spread edit of this article claiming there was a discussion and consensus for doing this on this Take page. Obviously there is no such discussion and no consensus. There was a discussion several years ago and that was acted upon. I have therefore started a discussion topic and MATThematical and other users can discuss streamlining here. I am not not necessarily opposed to any streamlining of the site, but Wikipedia process should be followed. I have also asked Wikipedia admins to keep an eye on this page to prevent further widespread editing done without consensus. Please post your opinions below for how the page could be streamlined. --Crunch (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One additional suggestion: a good way to approach this might be to suggest changes a point at a time. For example, make a suggestion about how to edit the section on "Personal Life" for example, rather than suggesting widespread changes all at once. --Crunch (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While, I think the discussion (below) was great, I'd just like to note that your initial comment was a bit unfair, and I hope you reconsider addressing other new editors like this in the future. Implying that I was not following the wikipedia process was both offensive, and just plain wrong, and notifying the wikipedia admins was a rather extreme over-reaction. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing and Wikipedia:Be_bold to see why my edits were are very much in line with the Wikipedia process. Note that consensus at wikipedia is more subtle than it may be defined in the outside world, consensus through discussion is not viewed as the only (or even the most common) way consensus is achieved. In addition all of my edits were from a neutral Wikipedia:Point_of_view. If there is a disagreement, then a revert and discussion should be created. Note I was never upset at you reverting the edits. Of course, a revert and discussion can take place even if there isn't necessarily a disagreement - so I'm not saying you were wrong to revert, just that your words were inappropriate. You said in your post, "Obviously there is no such discussion and no consensus". The use of the word "obviously" is condescending, and rude, especially considering there is a discussion only a few lines above this comment (regardless as to how old it is - the fact that you have to point out the dates is the antithesis of obvious). Both responses to your edit said that events needed to be deleted not just details about the events. It is absolutely reasonable, considering that you did not reply to either of these comments, to assume that silence = consensus, as wiki guidelines suggest we do, see Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus. The only thing "obvious" is that a wiki editor (myself) made good faith edits within the wikipedia guidelines. For you to suggest that I did not follow the wikipedia process, is an example of Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers ... just reflecting on this old discussion.MATThematical (talk) 06:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that it is a good idea to discuss this, even though my edits are absolutely 100% inline with the wikipedia process, but now that I know there is some potential disagreement, lets discuss it. I will start by making suggestions about the sections on her performance (ie pro years)

Proposition (1): Delete the professional performance chart that tracks every event shes played in as a professional. This is just silly, no other player has this.

Proposition (2): Delete non-major LPGA events where she made the cut but finished somewhere between 20th-last of the cut makers. These finishes are niether good nor extremely bad, and hence not noteworthy.

Proposition (3): Summarize streaks of missed cuts on the LPGA and delete individual missed cuts. Slumps can be summarized. Individual missed cuts are not worthy unless something noteworthy happened in the tournament besides her poor play.

Other things I think could be deleted: top 20 finishes in regular events that are not particularly notable. poor performances in majors that are not part of a slump summary(ie. 20th - MC)

Things that I think should stay: Performance in men's events, her top performances in majors (ie top 15 finishes), near wins/ top 5 finishes in regular events, controversies regarding WD and sponsors exemptions, etc.

What do you all think? MATThematical (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for outlining this.
Proposition (1):The professional performance chart was very useful before she started playing full time on the LPGA Tour. There was no other source of information on her finishes and earnings in events. I'd suggest that it be kept but edited to include only non-LPGA events since there is still no unified source for these anywhere else.
Proposition (2): I don't understand what you are proposing. Delete from where?
Proposition (3): Like with Prop 2, I'm not sure where you're suggesting the deletion be made.
In general, I'd suggest we keep the narrative short. The charts should be thorough enough to tell the story without going into a lot of detail for every tournament in every year. Let's see what other editors have to say, if anything. --Crunch (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Id be willing to keep the performance chart if we deleted the running summary of practically every event she played in. Or only include non-LPGA events on the performance chart. Proposition 2 - 3 was talking about the play by play in the pre LPGA membership and LPGA membership sections.MATThematical (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked on my talk page to offer comments here, and my first reaction is that the recaps from 2006 on are too long; 2006 and 2007 in particular are overlong. For example, Wie's 2007 season should not need five paragraphs to describe. Another thing I noticed is that the Ginn Tribute controversy is mentioned twice, in the 2007 recap and controversy section. It might be wise to cut one mention out as part of any renovations. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at rewriting the first big section, Amateur career 2000–2005. You can check out the current text and proposed change on my Sandbox page: Crunch Sandbox. This section probably has the least opportunity for changes since this was the time in her career when she was setting a lot of records that are significant, but I pared it down somewhat. Let me know what you think. --Crunch (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the proposed changes much better than the original. My only three comments is that I think the takefuji classic should not mention her score and the exact date. I think just missing the cut suffices, and if there is a way to combine that with one of the previous sentences that would be great. Also I think we might want to include the Sony open 68 as lowest round by a woman on the PGA tour. Great job though. I agree with Giant that the 2006-present sections are going to need the most work, but I also think its a good idea to start with the easier sections. I like it.MATThematical (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the live article, integrating your suggestions. I'll move on to the next section now. This is definitely more daunting. --Crunch (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone who is working on streamlining the article. I think all propositions of MATThematical are sensible. Also, I don't think there is any kind of need to mention tournaments where Wie didn't make the cut etc. Usually, only major achievements of athletes are mentioned. Of course, if there is no major achievement, there is a problem. Apart from that, I think Wie is an interesting phenomenon because of all the hype around her. --Bernardoni (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the assertion that it is not necessary to mention missed cuts. Maybe not in the case of a "normal" golfer. Wie is not a normal golfer. At least for the part of her career where she was in events beyond her normal age and gender category, recording how she did in those events is very important. Now that she is a full-time LPGA Tour player, going into detail on anything other than extraordinary achievements or failures is not necessary. That's different. --Crunch (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on this. Missed cuts is not necessary to mention for some events (that currently are mentioned). But back when she was the youngest in these events or was the only female in these events, her result should be tracked whether it be a missed cut or not. I think it is important to include missed cuts where (1) She was in a mens event (2) events where she was young and it was unusual for her to be playing in the event. Individual missed cuts in the 2007,2008,and 2009 stage on the LPGA tour are probably not notable enough to be mentioned. A slump of missed cuts could be summarized though. MATThematical (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree on that. Of course a slump should even be mentioned today. Concerning earlier times, I also think unusual events should be mentioned. --Bernardoni (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all in agreement now. --Crunch (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrist Injury Claim[edit]

Should the article now reflect the 2009 article in the New York Times. What do people think? MATThematical (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, it should be given a mention. If nothing else, it shows why she slumped so badly in 2007, and is only now recovering. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What New York Times article? --Crunch (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the one at the top of the talk page MATThematical (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbles[edit]

Please prove that Bubbles is anything other than a pejorative nickname used by some of Michelle Wie's critics. I have tagged the addition as needing a citation. It will be removed if a reliable citation is not found. --Crunch (talk)

A user has added this source, however the nickname is contained in the readers' posts not the text itself. WP:BLP states that "Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources", therefore I have removed this. January talk 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed table shortening[edit]

I think the section "Professional record and earnings outside of LPGA membership" should be changed to "Professional record outside of LPGA Tour" (it's a terribly long section title) and all the LPGA entries (2005-2008) eliminated. These made sense before she was a LPGA member. Then, they were not readily available on the LPGA site. Her complete career LPGA record (member and non-member) is now available here. - Tewapack (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Rolex Ranking from LPGA Tour career summary section[edit]

I removed the Rolex Rankings column from the LPGA Tour career summary. The LPGA Tour career summary shows specifically the results from LPGA Tour tournaments during each year. Rolex Rankings are not part of LPGA Tour results and are not calculated on a yearly basis. If the Rolex Rankings are to be included in this article, it should be in a separate section. --Crunch (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swear Word[edit]

What swear word did Wie use at the 2012 HSBC? I thought Wikipedia didn't censor, but the article just calls it a "four-letter expletive". -- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the references cited, she said, "fucking idiot." --Crunch (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV discussion[edit]

This article gives undue weight to controversies, poor and average performances. It reeks of POV from an earlier time when Wie was a controversial figure. We need to delete a lot from this article so that a reasonable amount of weight focuses on information and accomplishments compared to controversies, some of which are from minority views. My point about summarizing slumps and controversies from 2009 is even more relevant now. The article still reads too much like a play by play and hence gives undue weight to poor performances, when compared to other athletes. For example the quotes by Wie section is a pretty extreme example of POV. If something is notable enough that it warrants a section in controversies it should be moved there. MATThematical (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies existed, even though time has passed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a current news report only reporting what is most recent. It is important to document all notable aspects of her career and life. --Crunch (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And having said that, I have updated some of the Controversy section to put the events in historical perspective. --Crunch (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course controversies should be included. The problem wasn't the inclusion of controversies, it was the undue weight controversies were given in relation to other information. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a current news report only reporting what is most recent" Duh! I never said controversies should be removed. I said the article should summarize slumps and non-notable average play, shouldn't give undue weight to minority opinions, and shouldn't repeat itself. If we are going to have a controversies section, controversies should be talked about there. By double dipping on many of the controversies (by describing them in the LPGA tour play sections) we create undue weight. I'm not sure why you keep on insinuating that I am deleting history. I am just cleaning up the article, so it reads from a neutral point of view. MATThematical (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in Controversies[edit]

While 3 of the controversies provide several articles explaining them in detail and their controversial nature. The last two controversies do not. One talks about the pro-am with no sources documenting that this was actually controversial. The expletive story seems minor, as many golfers including Tiger Woods have done the same and yet it is not included in their wikipedia page. Again there doesn't appear to be any reliable articles stating that this was a controversy beyond a few anonymous golf fan quotes. I fail to see how these events warrant their own subsection, or perhaps even inclusion at all, but I don't want to delete them without discussion first. --MATThematical (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion their inclusion distracts from the other more serious controversies, what do you think?

Suggestions For Editors[edit]

I think it would be informative to add a discussion about all the experimentation that Michelle has been doing in recent years, which has created some unorthodox techniques that are probably not even fundamentally sound. According to Golf Channel announcers, she is basically informing her instructor, David Ledbetter, of all the new swing changes she has decided to make, and then he helps her (somewhat) with those changes. She has essentially become a self-taught golfer, which is almost never a good thing, unless you were Ben Hogan. Look what happened to Tiger, when he decided to ditch his teachers, and become a self-taught golfer, for a while. His career nose-dived.

I think this experimentation goes a long way toward explaining why Michelle hasn't won, since 2014. And IMO it has resulted in her becoming the most over-hyped player in golf, in recent years, simply because she is not the golfer she used to be. At one time, she deserved all the hype she got. But she is no longer that same golfer, and it is not even close. Everything about her golf game is different, starting with her full swing. If she played like she plays today, for her entire career, her Wikipedia page would be just a few paragraphs long, if she even had a Wikipedia page. IMO, she is currently on a path toward POSSIBLY becoming the Bobby Clampett of women's golf, by destroying her own game thru paralysis by analysis. (That is what happened to my own golf game, so I know a little about this subject.) 2001:558:6043:C:BC74:3561:2ABA:7508 (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide references of this we can add it, but not otherwise. Any speculation as to whether this alleged "experimentation" has affected her performance is of course not possible to include because it is merely speculation. MATThematical (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Michelle Wie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Michelle Wie → Michelle Wie West – This is the name the subject is overwhelmingly referred to as by RSes following her marriage in 2019 (search "Michelle Wie" in Google News, for example). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Wie West" vs "Wie"[edit]

Should "Wie West" or "Wie" be used in-body after Wie West's marriage? The reason I'm asking is because "Wie" is still being used in the "Personal life" section for content about her pregnancy which is after her marriage, but "Wie West" is being used in the very last sentence of the "LPGA membership (2009–2022)" section. It might be a good idea going forward to establish a consensus on which to use to aid those adding content from hereon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to update that the uses of "Wie" in the "Personal life" section were replaced by "she", which works fine; however, it might still be a good idea to figure out which to use when new content about her life after getting married is added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Wie_West&oldid=1210036363"