Talk:2010 World Grand Prix (darts)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tournament 3-dart average[edit]

Can anyone just confirm for me that this is worked out by just adding up all the player's average and divide the total by the number of matches he played? Vulgar Display Of Power (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed, but you can find them here so their is no need to work out the averages yourself. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 14:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thats fine, im aware of DartsDatabase and use it all the time, but I just wanted to ask because I calculated Phil Taylor's Tournament Average in the 2010 World Championship and it was different to the one wrote on the site. Thanks though, much appreciated! Vulgar Display Of Power (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from User talk:CFuller

Hi, I don't want to be edit-warring with you so we have to resolve this now. According to WP:LEAD the lead should summarize the main body of the article which is what my version does. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:LEAD should be a summary of the main article. Your version contains too much of the information that is already in the main body. Take a look at the leads for the 2009 and 2008 WGP articles. Yes, they do include the prize fund - fair enough - but they don't include the qualification criteria or TV coverage/sponsorship info, which your lead does. I hope you can see my point, because I can understand what you are saying, even if I don't necessarily agree with it. CFuller (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are wrongly written aswell, thats why I started WP:DARTS, so I could fix darts articles and make them into GAs and they will not get that far if you don't follow the criteria. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 10:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, take a look at the articles for the 2010 and 2009 PDC World Championships. Are they poorly written? I say not - the leads in those articles display the venue and dates, defending champions, tournament winners, but NOT the qualification criteria, sponsors, TV coverage etc (these come in the main body of the article). This is how I believe the WGP leads should be written, and this is my interpretation of WP:LEAD. CFuller (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seedings[edit]

The seedings in the draw section are wrong. Why does it only display some of the seeded players, is this the way it should be? Mr.Kennedy1 talk 20:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The structure uses only 8 seeded players. See http://www.pdc.tv/page/GrandPrixDetail/0,,10180~2160529,00.html -Koppapa (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2010 World Grand Prix (darts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]