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)

WDF rankings editing[edit]

Hi, I've noticed over the past few days a lot of articles have been edited by several users to favour the WDF ranking structure, with several players having their articles edited to show their ranking in the WDF as opposed to the BDO. Although I'm not a frequent enough editor on darts articles to know the favoured ranking structure, I assumed BDO was the standard as it's more frequently used; should these articles be edited back to showing BDO rankings? Thanks. Lewcario (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

In reposnse to your enquiry the WDF is the world governing body of darts of which the BDO is a member national organisation representing the UK it is not however the global body responsible for darts and world rankings the BDO's rankings are for players who are only registered with the BDO by invitation and they are used to determine the seedings for BDO organised tournaments particluary its 3 Majors World Championships, Master, Trophy. The WDF is a similar body to the International Tennis Federation of which the UK representative is the LTA who determime the seedings for the Grand Slam tournament tWimbledon Championships.--Navops47 (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it still seems strange that some players should have their BDO ranking displayed on their articles, which has been the custom for the recent past with all WDF/BDO players, while some are having it changed to their WDF ranking when they have both. Any reason for going round changing all the articles to favour the WDF now when the BDO ranking has been used on Wikipedia articles in the past? I understand that you may think the WDF rankings may be 'more accurate' but the BDO rankings are what have been used on Wikipedia articles and it may seem confusing by showing conflicting rankings. I wondered if anyone else from the WikiProject could advise me as to which ranking system is favoured. Thanks. Lewcario (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Whats confusing is using a ranking system in the players article which is run by one national memeber of the WDF and stating that its the official world ramking the BDO's rankings are by invitation only and as I said used for the purpose of defining seeds for their events they are not the official world ranking if you are having a problem with definiation and who is the official world body please look at http://www.sportaccord.com/members/ of which the WDF represent darts worldwide as do FIFA for football the English FA do not set world rankings.--Navops47 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I concur with user Navops47 the WDF rankings are the official global rankings of all WDF recognized member tournaments not just one national member of the WDF. The BDO rankings are not the world rankings they are just for seeding players in BDO tournaments the WDF is a member federation of SportAccord and see here: --112.134.215.25 (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)http://www.sportaccord.com/ and here http://www.sportbusiness.com/property/sportaccord-convention and here http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/olympics/sportaccord-chief-marius-vizer-criticizes-ioc/ and in the encyclopedia britannica about the WDF here http://www.britannica.com/topic/World-Darts-Federation. --112.134.215.25 (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
This is an report in the Bournemouth Daily Echo"SHOCKED Scott Mitchell revealed the sudden discovery of his world number one status ensured there was no champagne on ice - so he celebrated with a sausage roll instead. Dorset's county talisman and England international took over at the top of the World Darts Federation's latest global rankings based on cumulative performances over the past year. The Bransgore-based landscape gardener, 44, was announced as top dog shortly after his semi-final berth at the BDO International Open in Brean, Somerset, where he lost out to eventual winner and world number two Martin Adams. Four tournament wins since August last year have seen Mitchell climb to fourth in the BDO rankings - the table which counts for qualification to the World Championships at Lakeside - based on points gathered from his best 12 results of the season. “I hadn't been following the WDF rankings too much because the BDO counts towards qualifying for Lakeside,” admitted Mitchell. “I think I was watching the speedway on television when I got the text from a friend on the county circuit and I was surprised to say the least. “I thought it was a joke until I looked, so there were no mad parties. It was around tea time so it was a cup of coffee and a sausage roll. “The possibility is that I may only be number one for two weeks if I don't go well at the next tournament. Wolfie (Adams) is right behind me but it is a great honour. “It's the official world ranking so whether it is for two days, two weeks or however long I stay there, it's pretty special for me and goes to show how well I have played over the past year. “Many of the guys have been there before but for me, it is a new thing and another one ticked off the bucket list. “My county team-mates are especially pleased for me because they have been there, watching me graft through 15-plus years at that level and being number one is very special for everyone in Dorset. It just goes to show what you can do.” Next up for Mitchell is the England Open at Selsey, Sussex where he is the third seed in Saturday's men's singles. He will also form part of an illustrious quartet in the mixed fours alongside darts legend Bobby George, doubles partner Richie George and nine-time women's world champion Trina Gulliver. “I've never partnered Bobby before so that should be interesting,” Mitchell added. “He plays to the crowd a bit and hopefully we'll have a good giggle.” link here http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/sport/11286211.Darts__Mitchell_celebrates_number_one_billing_with_coffee_and_sausage_roll/--112.134.215.25 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Navops, it might be better to wait for someone else to put in an opinion on your changes, rather than just signing out and posting with your IP here above, as they've just started posting again and conveniently edit darts, tennis and war articles like yourself. As I've said before, you've put bias into all the WDF articles that you've edited, and not conforming to the outline of other darts articles; for example, the world ranking has not previously been in the introductory outline to any darts player before you started editing.
As I've also already said I am not as concerned about which ranking board is 'world official' as what is more fitting to be used here according to previous article guidelines; every player in the top 10, going back in the Wikipedia entry history, has had their BDO ranking shown (and not their WDF one) for AT LEAST 5 YEARS. If people want to come onto the English Wikipedia to find a darts player ranking, it seems more likely that they will be looking for the BDO ranking, which is used for larger events such as the world championship and as such is more widely known, than the WDF ranking. Just look at the length of the article of WDF 'World Number 1' Labanauskas to see which ranking people would be trying to find on Wikipedia, at least on the English site. The BDO seems to be the more pertinent ranking to be shown on the English Wikipedia site as it has been for years until you have started to edit all the articles. I changed all your edits back, some due to bad grammar and the WDF ranking shoehorned in to the first sentence, but mostly because I think it would be important to wait for any other member of the WikiProject to voice their opinion on whether the BDO rankings should be shown, as they have done with ALL player articles on Wikipedia for a number of years, or switch to use WDF rankings, in which case you should be changing every player and not just the first 10 or so. If another member were to come on here and advocate a change to the WDF rankings then fair enough, but I think you should wait before making such a drastic change yourself. Lewcario (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
A feedback tag has been placed on Talk:Darts world rankings Request for comment Official World Rankings please feel free to comment.--Navops47 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't know. Isn't the WDF system basically "play more, place higher". Doesn't seem like the best system to me. On the other hand same could probably be said about the PDC ranking :-). The key in the infobox should probably not be called world ranking at all, but "bdo-rankin", "wdf-ranking", "pdc-ranking" respectively. And be able to use two rankings. -Koppapa (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

New List of BDO ranked tournaments[edit]

I have created a centralized article for all current BDO ranked tournaments found here List of BDO ranked tournaments if I am missing information feel free to update it thanks.--Navops47 (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Finals Tables on darts tournaments.[edit]

I recently fixed the size of the averages in all Darts Tournament tables. For example the Players Championship Finals: Before and After. However an Ip User keeps reverting those edits stating: Please leave the results of the finals in this grid alone,they are perfect and very easy to read. I'm not sure on what to do next because I'm not planning on an edit war. Jahn1234567890 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Performance timelines[edit]

Below is a table of players with performance timelines. I thought it might come in handy for updating.

Dart Players with performance timelines
Player World Championship best (either version) Picture
Phil Taylor Winner Yes
Adrian Lewis Winner Yes
James Wade SF Yes
Raymond Van Barneveld Winner Yes
Michael van Gerwen Winner No
Gary Anderson Winner No
Dave Chisnall Runner-up No
Wes Newton QF No
Terry Jenkins SF Yes
Simon Whitlock Runner-up Yes
Andy Hamilton Runner-up Yes
Robert Thornton QF No
Vincent van der Voort QF No
Ronnie Baxter Runner-up No
Richie Burnett Winner No

(Mobile mundo (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC))