Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Darts

Importance ratings

Unresolved

 – Still ongoing

Hi, was just in the process of answering when you removed the question. Not sure if you're still curious, but the way I see it, individual editions of tournaments (even world championships) are all of low importance unless there is something out of the ordinary to push it above that.The world championships could possibly be assessed as mid importance, but not the lesser tournaments. Of course the parent articles will be assessed much higher.

What also that concerns me is whether individual editions of lower tournaments are sufficiently notable, with extensive independent reliably sourced coverage, to warrant articles at all. Regards, _wjemather^bigissue 08:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if you put individual tournaments like the World Grand Prix and GSoD low importance then smaller individual tournaments like the European Championship wouldn't fit in the Darts importance scale at all. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 09:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We cannot rate articles on that basis – we would need far more steps on the scale. Otherwise we could end up with this:

• Top – xxxx World Championship
• High – xxxx World Matchplay
• Mid – xxxx Grand Slam of Darts
• Low – xxxx European Championship

However the general article is of higher importance than a single instance of it, so we would have to rate the World Matchplay as top importance alongside the World Championships, which we wouldn't want either.

We just have to accept that the categories are broad. Therefore it is best to ignore relative importance to other articles. Most of our articles will be rated as low, with there being a wide spread of importance within that, and some will be very, very low. _wjemather^bigissue 09:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To explain further where I am coming from, I largely tend to see the importance ratings as an indication of priority rather than significance, based on what an average reader may want to find out about. That way it is much easier to assign ratings. _wjemather^bigissue 10:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets compare it to WP:FOOTBALL to see whats going on in other projects:

• 2010 FIFA World Cup - High
• FIFA World Cup - Top
• UEFA European Football Championship - High
• UEFA Euro 2008 - High
• FIFA Confederations Cup - Mid

So, the smaller the tournament the lower the importance which is exactly the way we should do it, as for annual tournaments, it is usually around the same rating as the main article. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent] The principal purpose of the importance ratings is for WP:1.0, so they can do triage and figure out what to include on hardcopy editions of various capacities (CD, DVD, DVD-9, whatever) of Wikipedia. WikiProjects also use them internally as a measure of priority (versus significance, per se - WP:BIOGRAPHY even renamed their |importance= parameter to |priority=). Keeping this in mind, it should not be terribly difficult to arrive at a balanced approach. My take on the matter (mostly at WP:CUE and WP:SNOOKER) has been something like this (with regard to events - players and other article types are handled differently):

• Top: The main article on the highest-level, global pro and highest level, global amateur event series. And that' it.
• High: Main articles on major pro and am world-scale event series; Darts in the Olympic Games could go here too; article on the current year's highest-level, global pro & am events (demote to Low next year); UEFA events (from the above example) can't rationally be this high, because they are European regional (cf. WP:BIAS). Yet by contrast, in snooker, all fully ranking tournaments would be at this importance level, even if named things like UK Snooker Championship, since they're all international and top-pros-only, regardless where they're held (i.e., the names are deceptive).
• Mid: Main articles on multinational but region- or continent-limited, non-global event series, such as Eur. championship, Asian Games, etc.
• Low: All other event-related articles, including national and sub-national events, demo/friendly/exposition/one-off events, defunct event series, and previous years' articles on events (at any level).

A particular event might be notable for some other reason (e.g., a terrorist bomb threat disrupted the event), but not to this project (in the bomb example, it would be of higher importance to WP:TERRORISM). And it wouldn't make any sense at all for a High year-specific article to be anything but Low the year after (perhaps even the month after) the event is over.

NB: I realize that not all sports/games projects importance-prioritize exactly as I've stated here. I strongly believe that they should, and that WP:SPORT should have a guideline about this so that treatment is consistent across various games.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Since this sport has two competing pro governing bodies with two competing World Championships, both (per WP:NPOV) should be Top-rated. We are not permitted to pick a favorite (yet I am already observing bias against the BDO event in WP materials; that has to stop). The two other "World" events would be High. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So when this is settled, should we create a guideline for the project importance ratings? Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 14:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more productive to do this broadly, at WP:SPORT, since the same issues apply across all sports. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Darts player table

Unresolved

 – Nothing done yet

I would like to see {{Darts player form}} disappear. There are two major problems that immediately spring to mind. One is recentism, the other is the fact is needs constant updating and has the potential for endless expansion as new tournaments are added. Being incomplete, it also doesn't really add anything to the articles, but complete it would be huge and unwieldy.

It is fair enough to have a timeline of performances in the World Championships, but not for every major tournament. Best performances will suffice. _wjemather^bigissue 17:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be good if it was changed to represent lifetime performances, eg. Template:Football player statistics 1, where you can insert the tournaments yourself and it dosen't take up much room. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 19:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I lean toward Mr.Kennedy1's take on this. That table (it's not a form) could get very large indeed for long-term pros. And I'm skeptical that the retained, lifetime data should be in a separate template. It would almost certainly be better to integrate this into the player infobox. I don't mean to always use WP:CUE/WP:SNOOKER examples because I think they're better than everyone else, I just know them best, and here's another: See how snooker pros' lifetime stats are handled in Template:Infobox Snooker player (see Ronnie O'Sullivan for a well-developed example "in the wild"). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 07:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about the idea of integrating it into the infobox, as Wjemather is in the process of trying to cut some of the info out. On the other hand, Template:Infobox snooker player, does not have loads of info and Template:Infobox darts player would be better like that. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 14:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes is is a table. However, in this context "form" means recent performances (as in form (horse racing)). _wjemather^bigissue 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It really should not be integrated into the infobox, and I'm sure that was not what was meant since that is certainly not what the snooker player infobox does. I see that O'Sullivan's article contains a table listing his performances in every single ranking event he has ever played in, and assume that is what SM is actually referring to. However, I really don't see the value in detailing performances in every single tournament someone has ever played. Just seems like statistics overload to me. As I already stated above, listing the best performance in each event is more than enough. _wjemather^bigissue 22:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that golf players have a similar table of form which shows their entire career performances in the majors. I recall creating the table in the first place when it looked like this Original format, it was an attempt to try to reduce much of the recentism that was appearing in darts articles at the time, editors were simply putting "on July 15th Phil Taylor won the Bobby Bourne Players Championship, then on July 16th he won the Players Championship NW" and so on. Since then people have added other tournaments which I wouldn't say were particularly relevant. Looking at [Taylor's article] - I really like the Performance Timeline - question is, do we stick to just WC performances in there, or do we define which "majors" are listed?

As for the original question of whether {{Darts player form}} disappears - as I say, I was the original instigator of that table and would agree that it probably isn't doing the job it was intended do and could be deleted. Seedybob2 (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC) (forgot how to delete pages, I've not done as many updates as I used to)

Phil Taylor

The Phil Taylor article is currently a GAN, any improvements to the article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 15:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If DartsDatabase is user-editable like IMDb, this article's extreme reliance on it is going to prevent it from ever being a GA. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did you hear that? Dartsdatabase isn't user-editable. In it's home page it says that if anyone spots a mistake they have to email them. Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 09:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt an article

To all project members, I noticed that the Adopt an article section is not being used, should it be kept or should we delete it? I think we should keep it as it is a good idea and if it were to be used, we could improve articles alot faster than we are now. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 11:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Retiring

To all project members, I am not going to be editing on Wikipedia anymore so I ask that the project members keep this project going and develop it into a great project. Thank you to all that helped me along the way. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)