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)

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 No
Raymond Van Barneveld Winner Yes
Michael van Gerwen Winner Yes
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
Mervyn King Runner-up Yes
Steve Beaton Winner No
Martin Adams Winner No
Scott Waites Winner No
Ted Hankey Winner No
Ross Montgomery QF No
Martin Phillips SF No
Darryl Fitton SF No

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

AfD Notice[edit]

There is an AfD which members of this project may be interested in commenting on. Any help is much appreciated! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Minor events[edit]

Isn't 2017_European_Tour_2_-_East_European_Qualifier gettign a bit out of hand? Those surely aren't notable by itself. Category:2017 PDC Pro Tour is full of those. -Koppapa (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course it is. People create articles for the sake of it. Don't even think UK Open quals or Players Champs should get articles. They never add any references either. Spc 21 (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
We should probably nominate some for deletion then and see what happens. Before this whole thing becomes to big. All linked from Template:2017 in PDC darts too. Edit: AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 European Tour 1 - East European Qualifier. -Koppapa (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Now 2017 PDC European Tour, which is just redunadant to info on Pro Tour article plus all the qualifiers, who really are enough on the event's articles. Note 2017 PDC Qualifying School Day 3 starts with round 3. It's not even complete. That just shows how badly suited the bracket format is for more high number of players. -Koppapa (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
My view would be that all European Tour events should have their own pages. These tournaments get good crowds, the majority of the top players turn up for them and they are streamed online. All the qualifying events for them should be included within that page like they are already. The qualifying events should not have their own pages. These are events often made up of amateurs. Same with Q School, UK Open Quals and Players Championships. I think it's enough to have the summary of who won on the Pro Tour page and not create what will become 50+ pages of brackets of minor events. Spc 21 (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I'd agree. The first batch of qualifiers has now been deleted. The players championships may need another afd discussion. But development tour, nordic, eadc and australian tours probably are surely covered by the same rational as the above AfD. -Koppapa (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)