Talk:2024 PDC World Darts Championship

Stats that are against WP:SYNTH

WP:SYNTH says: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Why are all stats in most darts pages, including this one, against this policy? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

oh look who's back again this year

Perhaps you should ask this more overarching question on the WikiProject since it's a common thing across all articles. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 14:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

But it's pertinent here as it's an ongoing event and by far the biggest in the sport. But I'll add it there too. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The day this tragicomic person is finally banned will be the greatest day in Wikipedia history. All my warmest wishes, Penepi (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you try answering the questions posed in the original comment? Could you try that please? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How is it I look at darts talk pages about twice a year and every time it seems that one particular chatter has taken it on themselves to be the self appointed supervisor for all darts pages :') Dimspace (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How is it whenever I visit darts Wiki pages they're always so badly or completely unsourced, with minimal prose and always formatted against the MOS? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The trouble is, and something you need to bear in mind, is the constant downputting of peoples work and nitpicking ultimately puts people off editing altogether. Have you noticed how much of a drop off there has been in 2023 in articles? Most of the european tour events didn't get articles this year. Not putting the blame for that on you, editors move on, have other commitments, but one editor constantly nitpicking and critising peoples work does not help Dimspace (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with the matter at hand? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

To be as clear (and alas, blunt) as one can: The people who spent their time putting the darts articles together over some time were perfectly happy with what they were doing. Whether that was through adding information, or creating the snazzy schedule templates, or the set-by-set breakdowns. Then all of a sudden, the popularity of darts increased, and users such as yourself came over to the darts articles. Suddenly, everything anyone had ever done for a decade was apparently not compliant with some wikipedia policy or other, and you went around removing, reordering and changing things that a group of people had worked on for some time, without so much as a passing thought for their opinion on the matter. The point you have consistently failed to understand is: This annoys, upsets and demotivates people. The result of this not that people are now complying with wikipedia policy and thanking you profusely for alerting them - the result is the information isn't there at all anymore. A number of users understand that no information is worse than information that doesn't perfectly comply with your interpretation of wikipedia policy, but you do not. And that is why (as this talk page shows), people are not appreciative of your contributions at all. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can't find sources and/or display information without "snazzy" formatting, that's your fault pal. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Some European Tour articles were created at the start of this season. At some point they were deleted, because they failed to meet the notoriety guidelines. So naturally, people stopped making them. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good! If a tournament has no notability (not notoriety by the way, that's not a policy 🤦‍♂️) then it doesn't warrant an article! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

How do we determine Dart tournaments notability. There is no agreed notability at all on the project page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Darts#Notability - so how was notablity for those events/articles determined? The PDC is the top darts organisation.And the Pro Tour is its second most important ranking outside of the main Order of Merit. The Pro tour consists of two sets of Events, The Players Championships, and the European tour. They are second only in importance to the main ranking events (grand slam, world championship, masters etc). How did we determine notability if there are no agreed notability guidelines on the darts project page? If we dont have community agreed notability for darts, I don't understand how one editor can be making notability decisions Dimspace (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That point was made in the debate at the time, but it was deleted anyway. Perhaps it is high-time someone wrote some notability, to avoid that issue in future? 91.110.52.252 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Dimspace and Penepi for once again providing practical and salient points for changes to this Darts article, although it is basically arguing with a brick wall for the second year running. The last couple years has seen the darts pages become shells of themselves. No Euro Tour results as you previously mentioned, and there is no longer a PDC calendar either which was always extremely useful. The arrogance of a single user to come in and dictate what has 'notability' and what should be changed with pointless and inane policy discussion is a joke, and it's high time that people like this be held accountable. I have not donated a single penny to Wikipedia over the last couple years due to this garbage happening all over their website, and I will continue to do so until things like this are addressed. It's a travesty the so-called 'bastion of free information' is now falling prey to those with editing powers that lack common sense. 2600:1700:1850:C710:F5B4:E426:F8AA:1E4A (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The WP:GNG of Wikipedia. Darts doesn't get special dispensation. You or any other Wikipedia user are not a reliable source for if the Pro Tour, the Players Championship events, the Euro Tour or the World Series are important are not. Just follow the GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

So if a sole wikipedia user cannot determine if something is notable, how did you manage to determine that certain events were not notable? Dimspace (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I never said a Wikipedia user can't determine if something is notable. I said a Wikipedia user is not a reliable source for if something is notable. A Wikipedia user simply saying "these events are notable" is not a reliable statement. However, a Wikipedia user making such a statement while backing up themself with multiple third-party sources is how it should be done. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"A Wikipedia user simply saying "these events are notable" is not a reliable statement." - well you managed to be a simply say "these events are not notable" and consider it reliable. I ask you, have ANY of the previous European tour event articles of the last decade been flagged for deletion as being "non-notable"? From my perspective, had multiple historic articles been flagged for deletion, then I would have tended to agree with you, but to my knowledge they have not been. If you really want to play by every little wikipedia rule, then surely you should follow that line of thought also? It is not down to one user talk to arbritrily decide events are non-notable when there is zero history of any of those events being flagged for deletion based on lack of notability. Dimspace (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Note, do not see that as a cue to start flagging old articles for deletion based on notability.Yours, with spit and vinegar. Dimspace (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can't prove notability using independent third-party sources, that's not my fault. Maybe all those old articles should be deleted too! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

What is your obsession with 3rd party sources? These are not pages for companies, individuals, where unbiased, third party sources are extremely important especially when it comes to things that could be deemed as "opinion". These are sporting events, where all that is important to the page is statistical data, and accurate data. There are no POV elements to tournament articles or issues with Bias etc etc, all that is needed are qualification methods, and results, and for those sort of data points, first party is totally acceptable, in fact, it could be argued preferable. Gary Anderson beat Simon Whitlock, 3-0. That is fact, and it does not matter if the source is the PDC, Sky Sports, Darts News, or The New York Times, that fact is not going to change. There are countless instances of sporting results page where the main source is the sport organisers, because they are the body that provides the official (and accurate) results. What elements of this article do you think would be improved by a third party source? There is nothing opinion based that needs it. Dimspace (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not an "obsession", it's literally how you prove notability. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

To finally focus on the reported issue, what is that purported "conclusion note explicitedly stated in the source" actually? Tvx1 01:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

well user User:ItsKesha has put the flag on the averages section. I have no idea how 3 dart averages can be considered "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." That makes no sense. Any source citing 3 dart averages can ONLY be implying that those statistics are related to 3 dart averages. So my belief is the flag should be removed because its nonsensical. What could 3 darts averages possibly imply other than 3 dart averages? I believe that we either have consensus to remove the flag, or, it can be removed because it was placed in error. The person placing the flag has had 5 days now to respond to the above comment and make their case and have chosen not to despite activity elsewhere in TalkDimspace (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

"do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Which part of that sentence do you not understand? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We all understand what that means. What I think nobody understands, and user T specifically asked, was what part of the article exactly this applies to, and what specifically you feel contravenes this and how it contravenes it. Dimspace (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. I don’t see anything extraordinary here that goes beyond WP:CALC.Tvx1 15:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not as the section in question combines different parts of one source to reach a imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Please explain how 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Is it because the source lists all averages and then God forbid those are summarised in order taking those over 100? That's nothing beyond WP:CALC 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that the information is synthesised. Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But routine calculations by anyone with half a brain cell don't count as original research as per WP:CALC. Or there are sources that you can helpfully add as citations: https://dartsnews.com/pdc/these-were-the-highest-averages-at-the-2024-world-darts-championship-until-the-christmas-break, https://www.pdc.tv/news/2023/12/25/stats-update-following-paddy-power-world-darts-championship-second-round 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Add the citations then! Anyone with half a brain cell could do that! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But its really not synthesizing a conclusion. Synthesizing a conclusion would be Russian authorities saying 96 people died in an explosion, Ukrainian Authorities saying 54 people died in an explosion, and putting in the article that approximately 72 people died (splitting the difference), or, to make it relevant to this article, linking a source that says "Michael van Gerwen recorded a 107 average in his semi final victory" and another source that said "Michael Smith record a 108 average in his quarter final defeat" and claiming in the article that "Michael Smith was the best player in the tournament"

" If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the source"

Again I feel like you are very much misinterpreting the purpose of WP:SYNTH. From the examples it gives it is aimed at preventing, in text instances, users from drawing conclusions (i stress, in written text), that are not explicitly stated. It does not say don't extrapolate partial data from a larger data set. Nowhere do i get from WP:SYNTH that its aim is to prevent extrapolation of data, but instead to prevent un-sourced conclusions in text articles. Dimspace (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, this is not a violation of WP:SYNTH, because it are basic calculations allowed by WP:CALC.Tvx1 19:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In the interests of establishing consensus, I agree with this conclusion. Dimspace (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Bold and italics

The use of bold and italics goes against both MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALICS. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you changed it in the "round a player is eliminated in" at the top. Can I suggest you also spend some time editing every single article on tennis Grand Slams, such as Wimbledon, on here? Here is one good example: there's 18 tournaments here alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Wimbledon_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_singles#Seeds -- then you've got the three other Grand Slams, and Wimbledon has been going for 100 or more years. Hours of fun contributing positively to wikipedia; nay, humanity itself. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So you don't have a counter argument other than "ITEXISTS"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Come on, chop chop! All those pages on Wimbledon are still wrong and you didn't change them yet? :( 91.110.52.252 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how use of italics is an issue. To Quote MOS:ITALICS. "Emphasis may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence, when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast:" notably "To stress a contrast".. the use of italics was to separate player and qualification method, from their result in the tournament, two clearly distinct things. Apart from anything else, it is now much harder to read, and from an accessibility pov that is not great. And finally, before such a large change to established formatting it should have been discussed in talk and consensus reached without just ploughing forward with changes. So in this instance, i would "vote" revert Dimspace (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want it to be easier to read, it would perhaps be better with a Template:Refn note next to the players name. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I've no idea why that would be considered easier to read. It involves a mouse-over for every single entry. That's even less accessible. Footnotes may be an accepted model in your mind, but this is really not a situation for footnotes/refn Dimspace (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Or, it could be reverted to how it was before, which complies with Dimspace's interpretation of the policy. I would also "vote" revert. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good job voting is completely irrelevant then isn't it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Well its not. Had you wanted to change such a long standing formatting policy on this pages, it should have been discussed on the talk page FIRST, and then yes, people would have voted with their opinion and reasons for their choice of formatting. Dimspace (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What policy is this you mention? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"long standing formatting policy on this pages" - I think that is fairly clear. For many many years, numerous editors have use that formatting for the world championships and other major events. In such it became a policy. [Policy ~ "course or principle of action adopted by organisation or individuals"]. It was a formatting adopted by individuals, for many years. Just as it has been an adopted "policy" on many other sporting pages. Its not down to a single editor to make changes to accepted norm off their own back without discussion. But, a look at your talk page seems to suggest that make changes off your own back without any discussion seems to be a trait of yours. And please stop with the passive aggressive warmest wishes. You don't wish me warm wishes, nor do I wish you warm wishes. Dimspace (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So, not a policy then. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the Oxford English Dictionary, yes, a practise adopted by a number of individuals is a "policy" Dimspace (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia, it's not. Pretty sure we're editing on Wikipedia, correct? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

you asked what "policy" you did not ask what "wikipedia policy". I would argue that multiple editors, over multiple years, over multiple different sports articles on the site using that formatting without dispute, constitutes an agreed policy. Certainly as far as the english language goes, it is. Yours, with spit and vinegar Dimspace (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"you asked what "policy" you did not ask what "wikipedia policy"." Are you for real? That's gotta be one of the dumbest things ever written 🤦‍♂️ I would argue that "the blind leading the blind" and "ITEXISTS aren't policies. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Policy" would mean the context used by the person who brought the word into the discussion. I clearly stated "long standing formatting policy" and so that is the "Policy" we were discussing. I always made it clear the policy was in context of these pages (and other sporting pages). I never once said "wikipedia policy" you decided to adopt my use of the word to your intended meaning of it. Yours, spit and vinegar Dimspace (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

And the context was a related talk page on Wikipedia dot org. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Player Stats Table Missing This Year

Good work all updating this year again. But why is their no individual player stats table at the moment, or will it be added after completion of the first round? It’s very useful in previous years for comparing stats and checking how many 180s have been thrown so far. Think we are on track to beat the 901 from last years tournament, but individual player stats are missing so far this year? 81.107.117.247 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Because User:ItsKesha said so. As you can see from this talk page, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks when ItsKesha forms an opinion. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

And who are you? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Get rid of the italics from all the tennis articles, and you'll find out. :) 91.110.52.252 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Country representation table is missing as well. Was always nice to check. 2A00:1CA0:1486:601:E859:3A46:5846:28A9 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I view this page a lot as a really useful resource for this tournament and its a shame not to see overall player stats for the tournament (average, 180s, doubles % etc) 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:8A3F:75FA:CE93:E428 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes and I'm sorry for that, but there is a certain individual who feels that when an average reader opens this article in order to find out such interesting facts and data, he or she is much more worried about whether there are at least 94 independent sources and each of them must display given statistics in a *precisely defined form*. It does not matter that all the data is completely correct. If by chance that statistic or table contradicts even one word from any wikipedia policy, then it cannot be here! Why any flexibility to cater to the average reader and provide them with valuable (and I stress - correct) information. We'd rather delete most of the content that happens to not 100% follow certain policy, which was written in an absolutely general manner and not with regard to the context and content of specific article such as darts, for instance. Penepi (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please delete the personal attack. I've asked you several times to refrain from personal attacks. I won't ask again. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I don't see any personal attack in my post. I am not mentioning any specific person, so it cannot be a *personal* attack from the essence of the matter. So it seems the problem here is exclusively your vanity, one might even say paranoia. And I, in turn, ask you to avoid pointlessly mentioning wiki policies where they do not apply at all, and thereby wasting other people's time. I won't ask again. Penepi (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think they have made it too obvious they are a troll now and so hopefully will have got bored and leave this page alone now. It would be great if someone could put the overall tournament stats on as well! 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's the same as the attacks you made in edit several summaries, don't act stupid 🤦‍♂️ All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Please delete the personal attack. It is absolutely unacceptable to call someone's actions stupid. Penepi (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable especially when true 👍. Repeatedly using autism/autist/autistic as a pejorative, however, isn't. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Penepi please do not let ItsKesha draw you into a flame war. You know from experience that they will report you, and after rapidly editing their own insults, coupled with their "But I always send people warmest wishes" defence will see you banned from editing and not them, and that would be a detriment to these articles. Dimspace (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What on earth are you waffling on about? Are you OK? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Schedule vs Draw

Do we need the "Schedule" section at all? The "Draw" section appears to give sufficient information, and much of the information is duplicated across the two sections. 82.31.44.4 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but you're forgetting "it looks nice" and "I like it" and "it's been this way for years"!!! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously we need it. And it is surprising that it needs to be explained and justified at all. It gives much more in-depth information than the Draw section - exact order of individual matches, time of matches, results of individual sets. For a casual reader, this section is probably the most useful of all. Penepi (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

100% agree with Penepi Dimspace (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why the articles needs "more in-depth information..." when it's a violation of NOTSTATS and NOTTVGUIDE. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. Read it better. Penepi (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point out the pertinent information that mean those polices don't apply? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha Can I suggest that for your own mental health, and to prevent the complete demise of Darts articles in 2024 you just find another group of pages to cast your nitpicking wee eye over. I think its become clear that your presence here is disruptive and just annoying a lot of people. Or does it just need to reach the point where complaints need to start being put in? I'm sure you mean well, but your "assistance" is no longer (arguable it never was) being received in perhaps the way it is intended. Its notable that you don't actually provide any positive edits to darts pages. When was the last time you submitted a result?, a score of a match?, a tournament draw?, a high average? anything, you know, useful? (note: my own darts edits are minimal just because people are so darned quick at adding stuff :D)Dimspace (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because personal attacks are the answer to the question [c]an you point out the pertinent information that mean those polices don't apply? Wanna answer the question? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. And otherwise yes, this is a de facto comprehensive answer to your yet another grotesque question, you would just have to be able to read between the lines; I understand that it is probably too much to ask from someone who can't even read the lines themselves. Penepi (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

So, for the sake of argument, let's pretend I can't "read between the lines". Can you point out the pertinent information that mean those polices don't apply? Also, please refrain from personal attacks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, so you want to cite the rules, etc etc. NOTSTATS states "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context."

Which "statistics are "unexplained". I guess one could claim the 3 dart average is "unexplained" but that is easily solved by a small "small number next to player name denotes 3 dart average"

Where are there "excessive listings of unexplained statistics" - again, "unexplained" is easily solved, and 3 dart average next to a player name is not excessive.

"lack context or explanation" - I do not see anything that lacks context or explanation. Tables are clearly marked with sets and its obvious to anyone what the scores represent.

"Statistics should be placed in tables" - which they are

"arcticles with statistics should include explanatory text". Personally I dont think anything is needed for the results, but a small line could be added to fill this requirement.

So ItsKesha where, exactly, does this article faily to comply with NOTSTATS that is not very easily resolved (without deleting vast swathes of very good information? Where is this "violation"? Dimspace (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you've failed to address the need to have every single set individually broken down to show the score in every single game. Which is demonstrably excessive use of statistics. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope. It is you who have failed miserably to stand your point why it is NOTSTATS. Penepi (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha so how exactly does that violate NOTSTATS. You claimed it was a violation of NOTSTATS, its down to you to demonstrate why that is the case, the onus is completely on you. Specifically what part of NOTSTATS is violated? It does NOT say "Excessive use of statistics", it says "excessive use of unexplained statistics". The set scores are not "unexplained". So again, what is the violation? Dimspace (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Funny how you've just completely ignored NOTTVGUIDE, by the way. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

So by diverting to NOTTVGUIDE is that you accepting there is no "violation" of NOTSTATS. Ok, well lets move onto NOTTVGUIDE then. I quote.

"Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable."

It starts "An article on a broadcaster".. This is not an article on a broadcaster. So how exactly is it even possible for this article to constitute a violation of NOTTVGUIDE? Dimspace (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has been diverted. You've yet again failed to address the need to have every single set individually broken down to show the score in every single game. Which is demonstrably excessive use of statistics. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. No policy says that. Penepi (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

NOTSTATS says that. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not. Penepi (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case why aren't you taking this stance to other wiki pages like NBA for daring to put scores by quarter in their playoff pages, or the MLB baseball playoffs who have the AUDACITY to put the score breakdown by all nine innings?! God forbid a game goes into extra innings and they have to include that too. Makes no sense. I'm starting to think you had a family pet that was run over and a darts player was driving the car, honestly... I really don't understand why year after year you continue to harangue the darts entries when they are consistent with how all the other major sports show their stats. Heck, there are college teams that give annual stat summaries in basketball by player. It's not right to just nitpick on darts articles when you are the sole person that seems to have any sort of issue with them. 2600:1700:1850:C710:9D0F:B93C:E406:E1C7 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Off topic discussion. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::Nobody cares about the opinion of you logged out losers 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) I think they have made it too obvious they are a troll now 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Nobody cares about the opinion of you logged out losers 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Do you follow darts? If not, just go away mate. All my warmest wishes though... 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Follow what? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Logged out losers? Please delete the personal attack. I've asked you several times to refrain from personal attacks. I won't ask again. All my warmest wishes. 2600:1700:1850:C710:65AD:EF25:D846:ED7 (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC) This is the first ever WIkipedia contribution from this user, so no, you haven't asked several times. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Yes, because it was a copy and paste from a comment YOU directed at someone else. You only did it once to me, but it shows your blatant hypocrisy in calling out people for personal attacks, and then engaging in those same attacks. And as you so astutely pointed out to that individual, personal attacks indeed go against Wikipedia's policies, which is why it is odd that you would turn around and knowingly do so against another user. Also, I can't help but note in your brief pithy response that you failed to address any of my claims/points, which I am going to assume at this point is just a tacit acknowledgement that you do not have any. So, if you aren't going to bring substantive points to the discussion anymore, there is really no point in lingering around here trying to change unnecessary things on this page either. 2600:1700:1850:C710:65AD:EF25:D846:ED7 (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Sorry @ItsKesha, but that is unacceptable, many IP editors make constructive contributions to this encyclopaedia and describing them all as “losers” is quite offensive. Don’t forget, IP editors are human too. Also, it is incorrect to claim that the user has only made one edit, due to the dynamic nature of IP addresses, the user will only have the same address for a short period (1 day or maybe even 1 hour). Best regards, DigitalChutney (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC) It's especially embarrassing and funny that these vile personal attacks are coming from someone who used to cry when labeled as autistic. This only underlines the character of this unfortunate creature and speaks to the fact that he cannot be taken seriously in the least. Penepi (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Great argument m8. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Cheers, appreciate that. Penepi (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC) The sarcasm understander has logged on. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Bruh, believe it or not, I am not making any of those "logged off" comments. Sounds more like something you would do. Penepi (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC) My "I am not making any of those "logged off" comments" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC) So after all, my assumption about paranoia might not have been wrong... Penepi (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC) What? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC) What? Penepi (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC) So you aren't willing to explain your comment? Knew you wouldn't 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC) I know it's Panto season but this childish sort of stuff needs to end. Nigej (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC) "it is incorrect to claim that the user has only made one edit, due to the dynamic nature of IP addresses, the user will only have the same address for a short period" - they should probably log in then, shouldn't they 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC) No thanks. It's not necessary. 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) It is when you claim to have asked somebody something "several times". Fascinating logic and you should definitely be taken seriously. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC) No I didn't claim anything. That must have been a different user you smart @rse. 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Atrse. What does that mean? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC) No one cares about the opinion of logged in losers 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Clearly 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

So, in terms of this - an overall timescale of when rounds takes place seems suitable, but a full list of when players are having matches is crazy.

We have a section designed to show who played each other and what the score was. We certainly don't need a breakdown of the individual scores for every match, and we aren't a TV guide to show when the matches took place. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your subjective opinion. I would find it crazy not to have such a schedule. We certainly need a breakdown of the individual scores for every match. The section is by far the most edited section of all, it is quite evident that readers and editors draw the most information from it, and it gives a great overview of how each match developed, which is the most important thing. Of course we aren't a TV guide, that's why we don't include times of individual matches but only indicative times of afternoon/evening sessions. Penepi (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But anyway, I believe that with this wonderful logic, you will start deleting "sub-articles" like 2023–24 UEFA Champions League knockout phase and 2023–24 UEFA Champions League group stage. After all, it is unthinkable that they display a complete breakdown of matches with their times and even details such as goal scorers (!!!). After all, the group tables and for the knockout phase the draw are more than enough for us. Shoo, shoo, go to work. Penepi (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We aren't a TV guide - we only leave in the dates and times when things are on. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a big old list of things that happen. Pointing to other things that are potentially also bad is a circular argument, which gets no one anywhere. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This section has nothing to do with a TV guide. It's just a bizarre fabrication by ItsKeska and you're trying to find some non-existent link there. Pointing to other things is showing that this practice is completely correct and common. Moreover we aren't showing when individual matches took place. Penepi (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for where we describe that exact argument as being a poor one. It's not a bizarre fabrication, it's pretty clearly far too much information. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you might wanna read that one, because your reasoning here is really poor. It's pretty clearly not too much information at all. At the same time, I am sorry that you obviously have a limited capacity in terms of processing information. Perhaps in that case it would be objective not to comment here. Penepi (talk) 12:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I pointed you to Wikipedia page that literally states how pointing to other articles as to why we don't remove sections and articles is a bad argument is to be avoided. But in your eyes it's correct and common.

Feel free to raise an RfC if you believe this content is encyclopedic. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to start deleting, for example, the above articles and also all the match details and such. Because it is "far too much information". How about that's the most helpful part of the article, some Lee Vilenski said it's too much, well it's too much! Why would we have useful information for readers in the article, let's delete it! I will of course refer to your logic and argumentation. Will you cover my back? Penepi (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

While certain "arguments" should be avoided, that doesn't make them bad arguments. There is a reason why every tennis article breaks down the individual set score on their pages. There is a reason why football articles include half time scores, aggregate scores, goal scorers etc. It is because it is valuable information, especially historically when looking to see how a competitor performed in previous events. Simply showing they won 4-3 does not give a reflection of what actually happened. There is perhaps some logic behind tennis editors including the set breakdowns within the draw section (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Wimbledon_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_singles#Top_half ) but with the number of sets in darts matches I feel this would make tables excessively unwieldy. While I understand to a degree your interpretation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I would also suggest that if communities like Tennis, which have a far greater involvement of editors and admins have viewed that information like that is relevant then we should certainly respect their opinions. The danger with darts is that because it is a much smaller community it seems that just one editor (as we have seen with ItsKesha) is able to dominate decision making, and that a major decision like removing a section that has been used in darts articles for many years can be made by as few as 2-3 editors/admins. Dimspace (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've not dominated anything, these discussions were had in the past and are continually happening. How fragile is your faith in your own argument that you have to make such snide comments? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"Snide (Adjective) derogatory or mocking in an indirect way."

I did not intend to be mocking, and I certainly was not being indirect. I am sorry you took it that way. Cheers Dimspace (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the amount of statistical/tabular detail is way overkill. We have a policy that articles should be based on secondary and third-party sources, and this is not achieved when >2/3 of the article content is in the format of primary lists and tables. People can go to flashscore if they want up-to-date draw schematics. JoelleJay (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s a comment that just doesn’t make sense. These lists and tables can easily be backed by second and third party sources. Also you are incorretly assuming that secondary sources and second party sources are the same thing. They aren’t. First party sources can perfectly be secondary sources. Tvx1 10:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The Professional Darts Corporation are obviously a primary source for the Professional Darts Corporation World Darts Championship. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

No they’re not in every case. A primary source is NOT the same thing as first-party source. The sources we use here are secondary first-party sources. Tvx1 13:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The tag is for primary sources. The PDC is a primary source. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Where exactly is the Schedule section coming from? Certainly not the Guardian articles on individual matches that are being used to cite it. If the schedule is coming from a PDC press release or is hosted on the PDC website, then that is a primary source for that information. Same with the Draw section; this list is a primary release from the PDC as they are the ones who formulated the draw. And simply republishing the same info with zero analysis, as with SkySports, does not transform it into secondary coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The guardian links are 3rd party sources for the results, not the schedule, because I could not think better about where to put them at the time, and there were questions being raised over lack of 3rd party sources.

OK, my last comment on this matter because frankly ItsKesha your aim here appears to be as disruptive as possible. A look at your talk page showing numerous warnings and bans for that very thing seems to suggest its a characteristic of yours. So to address for the final time as you continue to ignore contradictions to your claims (note you are now failing to address the not a tv guide claim), the two violations you are claiming.

1.NOTSTATS Nowhere does it say "excessive use of statistics"! I don't know if you misread it, misinterpreted it or are being completely disingenuous, but "excessive use of statistics" is NOT in that policy. It says "excessive use of UNEXPLAINED statistics". So please stop claiming that policies state things that they do not. If there is any statistics you genuinely feel warrant "explanation" then raise it, but I have put a note onto the 3 dart averages and my feeling is that the set scores are self-explanatory and dont fall under "unexplained" (although I am sure a short paragraph explaining how legs and sets work could be drafted if we really need to "explain" to satisfy NOSTATS.) EDIT: Details on how scoring, legs and sets work is actually detailed in 2024_PDC_World_Darts_Championship#Format so, these stats are also not "unexplained"

2 NOTTVGUIDE Clearly states " An article on a broadcaster should not". This is not an article on a broadcaster, and as such, NOTTVGUIDE simply does not apply. Again, I don't know if you misread, misunderstood, or are being completely disingenuous but fake threats of misunderstood policies need to stop.

I do not edit darts pages very often, but I am a regular visitor to them for information, and over the past 6-12 months I have kept a very close eye on the talk pages. I don't know what your issue is, but every instance of "misunderstood" violation threats will now be reported as will your ongoing disruptive behaviour. You are a detriment to this community as the disruption you cause far outweighs any contribution you make. Please refrain from wishing me well, because I am confident, you do not, have "warmest wishes" towards me, you merely use that sign off as you feel it will help you avoid any disciplinary action from admins. Dimspace (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum, anyone more familiar with WP:RFCBEFORE I think that is the more obvious route of sorting out these repeated and ongoing claims of "policy violation" Dimspace (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't half talk some shite. Look at the state of the 2024 article compared to the 2023 article, which I edited heavily, and try coming back here and telling me my editing is disruptive and that I'm a "detriment". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Please address the content of the post, not the poster, especially when it involves personal attacks. Thank you. Unless you have further points to raise regarding NOTTVGUIDE and NOTSTATS I think we can consider this thread closed. Dimspace (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I did address the content of the post, you know, the one where you talked a load of shite about disruption and I believe you used the word "detriment". 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what your trolling on this article does besides wasting other editors' time. Penepi (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you not handle pushback that you have to label everything "trolling"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a general and pretty accurate description of your behavior, so I can't. I really don't feel the need to come up with creative synonyms for "trolling". Penepi (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And a general and pretty accurate description of your behaviour would be ableist. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Be honest. You are definitely a disruptive troll. 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha when you argue vociferously in one part of talk against what you consider are "excessive statistics" and then in another part of talk campaign for more statistics, the latter can almost certainly be viewed as trolling. At least try and be consistent in your pov. ta Dimspace (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

They aren't even the same discussion and they aren't about the same statistics, but go off. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Look, if you really believe this user is causing ongoing disruption to this project, the right course of action is to request a topic ban with the administrators. They already received some for other areas, so there is clear precedent. They have already been reported, so you can post your complaints about them there]]. Otherwise, avoid direct confrontations here and comment on the content. Tvx1 10:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Not Enough Stats

This article would be even better and more informative if it had more player tournament statistics available 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I need to know how many treble 19's have been hit and the weight of everybody's darts and what flights they use and their stance. More more more! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Weight of darts are already including on the individual players articles which are clearly linked from this one. I really don't need to see the need to duplicate information. Player 180's, highest checkout are certainly things of interest, especially when comparing to historical data and this is statistics we used to include on World Championship articles. Dimspace (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody cares how many 180's Norman Madhoo got or the highest checkout of Martin Lukeman. Important information should be included as prose, but of course this article is sorely lacking in prose which is a severe detriment to this community. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Speak for yourself, darling. I do care, and obviously other editors here do care as well. I am also very positive that many other readers would appreciate such information. As for prose, no one is stopping you from adding useful content. Feel free to do it! Penepi (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. But no, I suggest these wouldn't be useful. I think 180s, highest checkouts and tournament average probably would be though. Wishing you all my warmest of wishes 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Explain to the folks why the weight of dart a player uses isn't important, but why the highest checkout is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

As already stated, the weight of the dart a player uses is clearly listed on the players personal article. There is no reason to duplicate that information here. Please do not repeat questions when you have already had the answer explained. Whereas 3 dart average is event specific and so the event article is the logical place for it. Dimspace (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Their nationality is also on the players personal article? But also not all players are notable enough to have their own article like Man Lok Leung. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

For non-notable players its very likely that information is not available. Nationality is relevant to the tournament. It is frequently referenced during the tournament and appears on match graphics etc and also relevant in terms of qualification because of regional qualifiers etc. It is common on every sporting article that I can see to have athletes/competitors nationality indicated. These pages are not an exception. Dart weights are not overly relevant to the actual tournament. That would be akin to having every Liverpool players shoe size and brand indicated on the article for the 2019 UEFA Champions League final> I think we can all agree that would be ridiculous. (Note that every players nationality IS indicated on that article). Again, enough with the disruption please. It does not contribute anything to these pages. Dimspace (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not disrupting anything, I'm trying to squeeze as many stats as possible into the page, isn't that the end goal here? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This is really adding nothing to the discussion ItsKesha and expressing a view thats completely at odds with views you have expressed elsewhere on this talk page could be viewed as trolling. Dimspace (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Any more detailed statistics than the results (both per set and per match) and match averages is just added cruft. If you want those extra stats, utilise a site like Dartconnect or Mastercaller. Total tournament 180's at the very least is notable this year because of the Paddy Power charity thing. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 21:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This whole subsection is just silliness and trolling, but, should be noted TheChrisD that DartConnect does not cover the World Championship (I dont think they have live scoring or stats from ANY televised matches) and Mastercaller does not have order of play/schedule.Dimspace (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Representation & User Itskesha edit warring/goalpost moving

Once again we have user ItsKesha invoking edit warring and goalpost moving. I added the representation stats. Initially Itskesha did NOT remove them, instead putting in a "sources required" flag. That indicates that Itskesha had no objection to their inclusion outside of sources. (Or why put that flag). As soon as sources were provided, ItsKesha chose to then remove the section completely with no justification or reasoning or any discussion on this page. If as an editor you determine the ONLY issue is that it needs a sources flag, and those sources are then added, you cannot start moving goalposts. Dimspace (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify.

Initially ItsKesha removed it completely with the reason "unsourced".

It was then returned by another editor.

Itskesha then added a "sources required" flag to it which is an entirely acceptable course of action and one I support

Itskesha then decided to remove it again (Second time)

That revision was undone by a second editor

Sources for both this years total, and the historic record total were then added and the sources flag removed

At this point Itskesha decided to delete it once more (third time - despite sources now being added)

At which point, considering I had addressed the original complaint of "unsourced" it was returned. Dimspace (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That source doesn't have the information you claim it does. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. We are now discussing whether it's a suitable table. Firstly that source does not cover all of that information from a table. It's also unsuitable cruft. A table of how individual nations have done at an event is overkill. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Representation section

The representation section was removed last year following a discussion at Talk:2023 PDC World Darts Championship#representation issue. I don't think it's a good idea to add it this year without a proper discussion. While a lot of leeway is given in sports article so that MOS:FLAGS are added next to players names, it's a long way from there to being allowed to do these much more WP:SNYTH type things like this. We should only be adding sections like this if this information is reported in a similar way in reliable sources, otherwise there's no evidence that this is really a topic that is much discussed. Also there seems to be a danger of darts articles going their own way, but see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, so we really need to get some feedback from a wider mix of editors, yes even those who know nothing about darts. I would also add that this sort of table was more common in the past in sports articles but few now exist in individual sports outside multi-sport events like the olympics - so we need some good reasons (based on policy/guidelines) for including it. Pinging @Dutchy45: @Bagumba: @Modest Genius: @Danstarr69: @Lee Vilenski: @Penepi: @TheChrisD: Nigej (talk) 10:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources don't present such a breakdown, it's WP:OR and goes beyond a simple WP:CALC.—Bagumba (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion/Solution would be that we present a simplified version in the "list of qualifiers" section. Or placed at the foot of the "international qualifiers" section. This sort of information is interesting, especially to look at historically, but a simplified version addresses complaints of "excessive use of statistics" and original research. The main reason I think this is more relevant to darts than it may be to other spots is that darts historically was dominated by the "home nations", that being England, Scotland and Wales and to a lesser degree Northern Ireland and the Republic. There were inroads made by the Dutch (Notable Raymond van Barneveld) and John Part from Canada but it largely remained UK dominated. One thing the PDC has worked hard on is the globalisation of the game and the increase in nationalities competing at the worlds. As such I think nations represented is an important bit of information that will prove historically interesting. But, I accept that the full table could be considered overkill. Hence...

Proposal

In total 27 nations are represented compared to the record of 29 in 2021 and 2022. The number of players from each of the 27 nations is shown in the table below.

29	12	4	3	3	3	5	3	2	1	1	1	4	4	3	1	1	1	4	3	2	1	1	1	1	1	1

References

Dimspace (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And what are any of those countries? That's a violation of MOS:FLAGS, you need to include country names or that table is a massive waste of time. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't actually address the idea of the proposal, positioning within the article etc. The country name thing is very easily addressed. Please try to stay to the actual topic. Dimspace (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that country names should be added alongside the flags isn't addressing the issue of presenting information by using flags to represent nationalities? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow you really are thick you don't know the flags of countries. I want my Wikipedia control freaks to be knowledgeable thank you 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding country codes is just a small effort. Tvx1 15:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If you actually cared about improving things here you would be much more constructive with your response. 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have been constructive by pointing the user to the relevant manual of style. What are you doing LOL? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd be against even that smaller table. We still don't have references for it, so it fails that fundamental aspect. Much of the argument for having such a table is based on words like "interesting" and "useful" but a look at WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (so not 100% relevant, but the principles apply) indicates that these concepts are not the most useful. The question is whether the content is "encyclopedic" and satisfies our policy/guidelines. In this case WP:PROVEIT is very relevant: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material ..." Also: Whether there should be an article about country representation in darts world championships is for another discussion, it's not really the issue here. Nigej (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We do have references for it. The linked source literally lists every single country and how many competitors there are. Did you not read the source? https://dartsnews.com/pdc/these-27-nationalities-will-be-present-at-the-2024-world-darts-championships Dimspace (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This is not a deletion discussion! Tvx1 19:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I had thought I had made that clear in my "(so not 100% relevant, but the principles apply)" comment Nigej (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nigej "We still don't have references for it, so it fails that fundamental aspect" - The following is directly from that source:

With 12 players, the Netherlands has the most participants at the World Championship after England. Michael van Gerwen, Danny Noppert, Dirk van Duijvenbode and Raymond van Barneveld are in the top-32 of the world and are automatically qualified for the second round. Gian van Veen, Richard Veenstra, Kevin Doets, Christian Kist, Jermaine Wattimena and Niels Zonneveld have qualified through the Pro Tour rankings. Berry van Peer and Wessel Nijman qualified through the Challenge Tour and the Development Tour respectively.Two bonus Dutchmen are also competing. Dutch American Jules van Dongen, in his second Tour Card year, managed to secure a spot on the World Darts Championship via the ProTour. Jeffrey de Graaf qualified through the Scandinavian Tour, although De Graaf currently darts under Swedish nationality.

For the first time, five German players will participate in the World Darts Championship. Gabriel Clemens and Martin Schindler qualified via the Order of Merit, Ricardo Pietreczko via the Pro Tour ranking. The other two Germans are Florian Hempel and Dragutin Horvat. Hempel secured his ticket to the World Darts Championship via the Tour Card Holder Qualifier at the last minute. By the way, it was the first time a German won here. Horvat won the PDC Europe Super League and therefore gets to take the stage at the Alexandra Palace.

Belgium has four players at this year's World Darts Championship, equaling the number of Belgian participants at the 2018 World Darts Championship. Dimitri van den Bergh and Kim Huybrechts qualified through the Order of Merit, Mike de Decker and Mario Vandenbogaerde through the Pro Tour rankings. Northern Ireland, Ireland and the Philippines also have four participants at this edition of the World Darts Championship.

Wales, Scotland, Poland, the United States, Australia and Japan all have 3 Ally Pally qualifiers. Canada and New Zealand each have two participants at this edition of the World Darts Championship. Guyana, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, India, Latvia, Finland, Sweden, France, Portugal, Austria and Croatia all have 1 representative at the Alexandra Palace. Thibault Tricole is the first Frenchman ever to qualify for the World Darts Championship at the Alexandra Palace via the Western European Qualifying Tournament.

I'm not sure how that can be "still don't have references for it", the source could literally not be any more detailed. We would just be presenting that information in a more compact and readable way. Dimspace (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Your example only used that citation for the "27 nations". I'll add it as a citation for the table too. We shouldn't be assuming that our readers have read earlier citations. Nigej (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, I understand, thank you. I think this solution used in the qualifiers section, provides a useful summary and sourced, and can be some sort of "compromise" that satisfies wiki criteria while also keeping what many consider valuable information. Cheers Dimspace (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm just left wondering why we need a table at all for this information. The reference you provide is not a table, it's in text form and a trimmed down version of this would seem to be a better way of including the information in the article. Nigej (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

My personal feeling is the table is more compact, easier to look at, takes up less space etc and is easy to quickly gather the required information from. But also, having looked at that source, it would be quite hard to summarise it without basically repeating it and risking it bordering on copy/paste. I guess another option would be some sort of "list"

• 29 players: England
  
• 12 Players: Netherlands
  
• 5 Players: Germany
  
• 4 Players: Belgium, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Philippines
  
• 3 Players: Wales, Scotland, Poland, Japan, Australia, United States of America
  
• 2 Players: Canada, New Zealand
  
• 1 Player: Guyana, South Africa, China, Hong Kong, India, Latvia, Finland, Sweden, France, Portugal, Austria and Croatia
  

Dimspace (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'm happy with the bulleted list here, which must be ok copyright-wise. I'd be happy with a paragraph too. Of course these are somewhat longer than the table but that's simply because we're spelling out the country names rather than including flags. Use of flags without names is generally discouraged by the MOS. Also relying on hovering is also discouraged for accessibility reasons: MOS:NOHOVER Nigej (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Dimspace that the table is more compact, easier to parse and more practical. I still don’t understand why something that was used for years without anyone having a problem with it, has now become all but unacceptable. Tvx1 12:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Often it's because they fail Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which does not permit a local group of editors (in this case darts editors) to go against these unless they can convince a wider group of editors. The fact that it's been going on for years is not relevant. Some things in this article have now been "challenged" and solutions need to be found which satisfy our policies and guidelines. See MOS:FLAG regarding the flag issue, eg "Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words." Seems to me that just saying Croatia is much clearer and simpler than adding a small croatian flag which many of our readers will not understand. And who can spot the difference between the Australia/New Zealand flags? Nigej (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Why on earth do you keep clinging to flag identifying issue here? They actually had country codes combined with the flags in the articles of previous editions and that’s how the table would appear here as well. The depiction in this discussion is inaccurate and the issue you speak thus doesn’t exist. Tvx1 12:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

They did have 3 letter "country codes" in say 2022 but that was not in the proposal above. IMO even with the country codes its still not as clear as just saying England (and somewhat kills off the "compact" argument. Nigej (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s clear enough that way. Plenty of articles on sports work that way. You need to accept a bit of a compromise between informative and concise here. Moreover the flags are generated through interactive templates that allow even blind people to find out their meaning.Tvx1 13:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Surely It's even easier for them if it just says "there were 29 players from England" Nigej (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

The old tables were much more informative, showing the full progress of the nations number of participants in each round in a simple manner. This suggestion would just list the bland number of participants per country at the start of the event. Tvx1 00:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We have a source which talks about the number of participants per country at the start of the event. We don't have anything similar for the full table you suggest. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the level of detail you are proposing is suitable, otherwise we should be able to find reliable sources that are giving this level of detail. Clearly if there are sources that report that "x players from y reached the quarter-finals for the first time" (or whatever) that information can be added, either in this section or in the prose section, where the information can be put into context. Nigej (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the method proposed by Nigej, clarity is vital. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I support Nigej's suggestions. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what was Nigej's suggestion you are supporting? ItsKesha JoelleJay I suggested the bulleted list which he agreed with. Are you supporting his earlier suggestion of a full paragraph of text? (My concern with that is the source article will be very hard to summarise without basically it being a copy/paste), or are you supporting my bulleted list which Nigej supported? Dimspace (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't get the "copy/paste" issue. Suppose we say "There were 29 competitors from England, 12 from the Netherlands, 5 from Germany, 4 each from Belgium, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the Philippines ... and 1 each from Austria, ... and Sweden." It seems to me that this is an acceptable summary of the source in prose form. I'm not against the bulleted list idea but the actual content is identical. Nigej (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It's more I was unclear on which idea they were actually supporting. On the summary/prose idea I was viewing from the point of making it easy to read it would probably end up with copyright issues, and I feel like a list would be easier to read. But I was mainly looking for clarification because I was not actually sure what "suggestion" was being supported as you didnt formalise a suggestion. Main thing is this information is included in articles, because with globalisation of the sport a big focus, its a relevant piece of data. Dimspace (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

My preference still goes to the tables that were issued in earlier years. Tvx1 00:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was agreeing with the suggestion of a simple summary in prose. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Format/Prize Money/Rankings

Can someone explain to me the logic of why this has been re-ordered. In keeping order with the rest of the article it makes more sense to have prize money first (for reasons that will become apparent). Rankings next because that directly relates to the second of the article (qualification) as much of the qualification is determined by rankings and then finally match format because that directly relates to the third section of the article schedule. I dont know why someone felt the need to re-order everything so would like to understand the logic/justification. Cheers Dimspace (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Diff for reference, pinging @Lee Vilenski who made the change. DigitalChutney (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be a much more indepth tournament overview which isn't just tables. Placing all the pertinent information together is a good start. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

What's the obsession with paragraphs and paragraphs of prose? 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not an obsession, it's literally the MOS. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Terrible idea. Boring loads of words to represent things that can easily be displayed as tables and lists? Great work 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:1CA5:A2C1:C8EE:51A9 (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can't cope with "boring words", I don't think reading an encyclopedia is what you require. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is completely at odds with Wikipedia’s policies. Tables and lists should NOT replace prose. Tvx1 19:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Articles should be written in a way that the rest of the article should be readable without the lede. The first thing you would read in this article would be the prize money? Why is that important before you denote what the article is even about, the how/when/wheres.

The arguments that everything should be in a table isn't really what Wikipedia is. Go and create your own Wiki if you want that to be what you are reading.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want the first thing that you read to be about the subject of the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

While there are no absolute rules about the section order (for most articles) there are a couple of common principles. Firstly there should be a vaguely chronological aspect to it. Secondly, the more important information should be presented first. Many readers don't get far down an article and that's partly because they don't quickly find what they want. As such relatively specialist information like TV/media coverage can often go near the bottom (although we don't seem to have any here). Personally I'd put the prize money in the rather dull category and put it towards the end, after the results. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In darts, prize money are also ranking points, therefore they should be at the top near the qualification section. Penepi (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Prize money is huge part of the rankings which determines event qualification (Darts is almost unique in that many tournaments only have automatic qualification for as few as the top 16) along with things like Premier League spots etc. But to a degree Darts events are largely ranked in the public perception by their prize money. The top events are the Worlds, the matchplay, the Grand Slam, the World Grand Prix, and their prize money reflects that. Personally I think the "format" is pretty unimportant, and would relegate/integrate it into schedule/draw sections. It would make far more sense for that to be with the rest of the section of the article that covers results/draw/order of play. Equally "ranking" could be in the qualification section, if we really want to make the flow of things better. Dimspace (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

(But anyway, I was just asking as someone had re-arranged the order so I wondered what the logic was behind the change as opposed to leaving as is) I think its a fairly minor thing anyway. :D Dimspace (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

However, the money (and the associated ranking points) is not allocated until the matches are over. To me it's a bit of a post-event thing. Nigej (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes and no, personally i have spent the entire worlds looking at the live Order of Merit and looking at the prize money, because it all effects the top 24 and who will qualify for the masters. It also has massive impact on teh top 64 and tour cards. And on for instance reddit discussions each day, theres countless posts where we are discussing prize money and what impact the last batch of results have had on the rankings. For the worlds in particular, its actually a big thing, and not just post event, but on a round by round basis Dimspace (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But, surely that's only for a select few readers, not for the general reader? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but, that's only really important to the major knowledgeable fans of the sport like us. To your average Wiki reader, it's just a random distribution of money; and is nowhere near as important as the actual workings of the tournament.

Take fellow matchroom event 2023 World Snooker Championship as an example of ordering, formatting, and emphasis of stuff; that we should also try to match. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 23:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, that's certainly very thorough. But by gawd its boring (I know wikipedia does not intend to be "interesting"). Honestly, as someone who used to watch snooker a fair bit, I just don't have the interest in reading through (very detailed and well sourced) swathes of text when all i really want to know is either who is playing who next, or when person a beat person b how did it happen, that page would not actually encourage me to regain my interest in the sport. quite the opposite. I respect how thorough and detailed it is. and mad kudos to all the editors there, but just the text summarizing the various matches is SIX THOUSAND words.. That headed towards a dissertation :D If Im honest, looking at for instance the entire paragraph dedicated to which tv stations it was being broadcast one. 125 words, when a small table could have conveyed the information even more easily. It seems like words for the sake of having words. JMODimspace (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It also reminds me why i find our "schedule" formatting vastly superior to the traditional "draw" format. Because draw format is horrible on narrow screens. My netbook for instance cannot display the full width and no scrollbars appear, i have to try and cursor navigate to see the whole draw. Dimspace (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If you simply want to know who's playing next, go to a website that offers such a thing. We are an encyclopedia, not a TV guide. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Its actually quite hard to find. The PDC only tend to post their order of plays the day before or day of, even though they decide them much earlier.. But.. thankfully German wikipedia use a more "familiar" structure, and Dutch wikipedia have more extensive stats so its not all bad. Dimspace (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

So, it doesn't exist elsewhere - that means we should report it? That's not what we are here for. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ItsKesha but that does nothing to actually answer my question. So I shall wait for explanation from Lee as opposed to addressing your usual attempts to derail. Ta Dimspace (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"Placing all the pertinent information together is a good start" doesn't actually your question? How is this derailing anything? Grow up 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Player stats - matches etc

Going off this edit, from the 2021 page, would it be too much to add onto this year? Just a thought.. — L1amw90 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Overkill. Best kept for a more specialised fan wiki. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Much too much for us IMO. We exist to summarise important information about this event. Nigej (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

TV viewing figures

Some good info regarding TV viewing figures: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/darts/67884690

Where would this belong, should there be a broadcast/media section? --Jameboy (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)