Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Darts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Darts (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Darts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Darts-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Importance ratings[edit]

Stale: 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, wjematherbigissue 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. wjematherbigissue 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. wjematherbigissue 10:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Lets compare it to WP:FOOTBALL to see whats going on in other projects:
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(Õلō 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(Õلō 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(Õلō Contribs. 19:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Player infobox[edit]

Just thought I'd bring to your attention that none of the players have The Masters in their infobox. I've tried and failed to put it in a few times.Perfectamundo (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to add it to the Infobox. It shows on the template but not on player's pages so I'm stuck. Spc 21 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
And where is the problem? It is easy: "| The Masters = " is used at players articles, when the template uses "| data36 = {{{Masters|}}}". They don't match, either add or get rid of the "the". Cheers. -Koppapa (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

World Champions without pictures[edit]

Here is a list of some world champions without pictures

Could someone with a better understanding of importing pictures into Wikipedia and knowledge of copyright policy please do this?Perfectamundo (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand that either. But could these be used: Waites, Adams -Koppapa (talk)
Thanks. I will copy them into their talk pages.Perfectamundo (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Major legends[edit]

Someone just added all majors to the legend of many players, edits like this one. Is that needed, it looks more complicated especially for players who only ever reached one major final. -Koppapa (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed the Hamilton one looks ridiculous. Should be how we used to do it in my opinion. Spc 21 (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Huybreechts looks like this with only one final. We should talk to this user. @Hollycochra: If it is just to standardize colors, maybe an invisible comment could be added that shows the colors that could come up. -Koppapa (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I've left a message on their talk page. I will remove the redundant finals when I come across them as there's no point in having them listed if they haven't played in them. Spc 21 (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I've removed all the redundant finals I could find. Not sure about all the different colours used now as, like you said, it looks more complicated. Spc 21 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the World Championships, World Matchplay, World Grand Prix and the Premier League should have their own colours. The rest should fall under "other". Boddefan2009 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The recent changes made seem random with no discussion anywhere. Spc 21 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)