Talk:2023 PDC World Darts Championship

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

Player stats[edit]

What difference does it make by having/not having the stats section... There's always been a section for the stats AFAIK... L1amw90 11:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Why is there no Player Stats section this year? This was very useful throughout the event, especially after Christmas. Having this on Wikipedia was great as easy to load and read on mobile devices, and now I have to go elsewhere for this useful info 93.163.180.221 (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Unsourced content[edit]

Lllllu43 please explain why you insist on adding unsourced content? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

I don't think the schedule section needs flags. It's fine in the tournament bracket section but it is excessive in the schedule section per the MOS on flags All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we have flags in the infobox when it is a violation of the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG as this applies only to international team sports, and in general the flags on this page are a violation of MOS:SPORTFLAG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts Penepi? It's an individual sport not a team competition, flags of countries are completely unnecessary here but this article has an excessive amount of flags and especially in the infobox. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It will always be subjective what is un/necessary. For me, it is useful. We should be consistent. Flags are everywhere in the article for some reason, why shouldn't they be also in the infobox? talk 21:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't answered any of the points raised. It doesn't matter if you like it, that's an invalid argument. I know flags are everywhere in the article, that's what I'm trying to discuss, they don't need to be. I've already explained why they shouldn't be in the infobox. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it does not matter if you like, that is not an argument, so stop changing the format & prize money section arbitrarily. You are the definition of a hypocrite. talk 21:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've highlighted several policies that back my point up, it isn't arbitrary. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: only eight of the 96 players qualified because of their nationality, and one of those only happened because two countries were disqualified from a three country field due to war. The overwhelming majority of the players in this country aren't representing a country. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with this nonsense about the flags, there's always a need for them at the info box at the beginning, every other darts tournament has it. Nothing wrong with it at all.JRRobinson (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they needed? Why does every other darts tournament have them? I've cited several policies above which say not only are they not needed, their inclusion is wrong. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To quote MOS:INFOBOXFLAG "Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games, or to list the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport. "
Darts competitions, most specifically the two World Championships, often make reference to a player's nationality. True, they don't QUALIFY based on nationality (often by merit), but they are still "competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." This is not exclusive to darts either, especially in terms of individual sports, e.g: Professional cycling races (2022 Tour de France), Formula 1 races (2022 Monaco Grand Prix), golf tournaments (1997 Masters Tournament). These competitions, like the PDC World Darts Championship, draw from an international pool of competitors, so it should be represented as such when referencing them. Competitions like the Premier League and NFL don't need them because their events are local to their nation.
In the schedule section, the flag icons are tied to an established template to, once again, represent the nationality of the players involved as is done by the sport itself. The template also creates direct links to the players' page by just entering the name rather than having to precisely name an article and pipe-out alternate text. John cena123 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Participants in the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games are representing countries. There's only one tournament in the PDC calendar where players are representing a country. The World Championship is not that tournament, only eight of the 96 participants qualified as a direct result of winning a national qualifier. I've already said some flags are worthwhile in this article, but even then, every single flag in the article fails this and this. I'll concede that some flags in the infobox may be used in featured article which you haven't actually demonstrated, and therefore can be used in this article, but the linking of both London and England is against this, and should simply read London, England. A flag is completely unnecessary in this instance. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned using it for the the location of the tournament. I agree that for the LOCATION that it is entirely inappropriate to use the flag. HOWEVER, even if nationality isn't the BASIS for qualification, nationality is still an identifier for the players participating in the tournament. Again, I quote MOS:INFOBOXFLAG that you yourself have cited as your argument which has the acceptable exception "or to list the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." They may not be representing a national team, however, the players ARE representing their sporting nationality, thus including the flag.
London, England as the location shouldn't be flagged, as it is implied by writing out the name; this is true. Dimitri Van den Bergh as a BELGIAN darts player should because the PDC (and WDF for that matter) recognizes players by their sporting nationality, whether or not they are representing a national team at the time. Does Tiger Woods represent an American national golf team at PGA Tour events? Does Max Verstappen represent a Dutch national racing team in Formula 1 races? Does Primoz Roglic represent a Slovenian national cycling team at UCI World Tour events? No, but they all represent their NATIONS in their respective sports. Just the same, the players in this tournament are ATHLETES that are COMPETING IN A COMPETITION where the national flags are USED AS REPRESENTATIONS OF SPORTING NATIONALITY. John cena123 (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verstappen does represent Netherlands in F1, that's why the Dutch national anthem is played after he wins a race. I've no idea about golf and cycling, tinpot excuses for sports. You haven't addressed the points raised this or this. Also, stop shouting please, you can scream all you want about using it as a representation but as it is now they are overused and unexplained. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The argument I raised regarding Max Verstappen is that yes, he represents the Netherlands as a nation, but he competes (currently) as a member Red Bull Racing, which is an Austrian trade team. The same goes for Primoz Roglic in cycling. He represents Slovenia as a nation, but is a member of Team Jumbo-Visma, a Dutch trade team. As for the other MOS cited, these are added through use of a template that turns the icon into a link to the article of the nation depicted, thus serving a navigation purpose, despite the lack of the country code. John cena123 (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the Austrian national anthem is also played... it doesn't matter if the template produces a link, it still needs to be said what the country is! They are also overused in the schedule section, they serve no purpose there and are purely decorative. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nationalities are an important thing in darts, they are used during the season during qualifiers for European Tours, World Cup, Q-School, etc. The PDC proudly boasts with the amount of nationalities during the worlds, the broadcaster is displaying the countries in and before every game. There is no way to deny having the nationalities on the page is unnecessary. Stop nitpicking please. PreciesJJ (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eight players out of 96 qualified due to their nationality. How is nationality used during, say, Q-School? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Q-School is split into UK and European events. Players must compete in the Q-School of their "region" (only those outside Europe can pick either). Nationality also matters for host nation qualifiers for the European Tour. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 18:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Barney won a tour card at the UK Q School and he's Dutch? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you found the number 8, but by my count it is 22. And it will be even more if you consider the fact there are players who have earned money in events because of their nationality through the year, which helped them qualify. PreciesJJ (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baggish, Cameron, Xicheng, Hempel, Jiwa (who is from the midlands IIRC), Omelchenko, Robb, Yamamoto. East Europe and North America aren't nationalities. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 22 spots who have been limited to 1 or multiple nations, which means the nationality was one of the qualifying criteria. PreciesJJ (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple nations", that famous nationality lol. East Europe simply isn't a nationality. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are other individual sports events where players are not representing countries, but appear with flags:
Here are other team sports events where players are not representing countries, but appear with flags:
In that context, it does not seem remotely inappropriate to include the flags here. 91.110.26.224 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT. Also, the snooker, cycling and chess articles say what the country is in addition to having the flag, which is literally what I'm trying to propose the inclusion of, so thanks for agreeing. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you claim WP:OTHERCONTENT means my argument is not valid, then you cannot use it to form part of your own argument. In addition, you explicitly did not list the articles that do not do that. Whether we like it or not, there is no consistency in how the rules you quote apply across Wikipedia; and not even an attempt at consistency either. I support leaving this as it is; it is a waste of time when you could spend the time adding sources, which you have been very successful at. 91.110.26.224 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not used other content for my argument, I've used policies and guidelines and manuals of style. However the articles you've highlighted above demonstrate another example of something to consider. It doesn't matter how consistently rules are applied elsewhere, we aren't discussing other articles, we are discussing flags on this article and potentially other darts articles. It's not difficult to mention the country name in addition to using a flag and those three articles, which you yourself have posted, demonstrate the ease at which this could be applied without using my proposal below of a table. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
> The World Championship is not that tournament
I am currently watching the third round on tv. Van Gerwen v Suljovic. Both have the flag next to their name on the onscreen graphic that is present throughout the entire game. Both the event organiser and the host broadcaster think nationality is important enough it should be present onscreen for the duration of matches. While I appreciate "Wikipedia is not Sky Sports" it does suggest that the event organiser consider the nationality to be important and relevant despite not being the one tournament competed for by national teams. Dimspace (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every SKY match has every flag at every world championships. There is nothing warm about any message you have posted in this thread. Your passive aggresive nonsense is the main reason that editors like me give up stop posting and stop contributing. Bawambi (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if you've noticed but this is Wikipedia, not Sky Sports 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

The lists of qualifiers are turned into tables, perhaps like the below mock-up

Seed Player Nationality
01.  
 Gerwyn Price  Wales
02.  
 Peter Wright  Scotland
03.  
 Michael van Gerwen  Netherlands

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsKesha (talk • contribs) 00:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily complicating things. The current layout is succinct enough, and doesn't feature enough data to require a tabled layout. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 11:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is this complicating things? The layout currently isn't succinct enough as it currently doesn't feature the country names anywhere. Do you have a alternate proposal? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're so concerned about following a tiny rule in the MOS because it's not perfectly followed that we're forgetting one of Wiki's guiding principles: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and WP:BURO. Other pages use the same format for flags even if they don't use the same template, see 2022 Wimbledon Championships and 2008 Monaco Grand Prix. It's a style choice, not a firm rule. The country name appears if you hover over the flag and there's a link. All this is doing is causing drama. Let's just end it here. No change John cena123 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go on, explain how the manual of style is preventing us from improving the article? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here's what the Monaco article looked like when it was made a featured article - not a flag in sight. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what does it look like today. Before you claim it, this isn't a matter of "I like it". This is an established practice of how the article for this tournament has been presented in past (beginning with 2019). MOS is a guideline, not policy. WP:BURO, please stop rules-lawyering. I'm done. John cena123 (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've still not explained how the manual of style is preventing us from improving the article. Because you can't actually explain why, can you? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The style used in this article is similar to a number of other sports and how they are presented, such as 2022_Wimbledon_Championships_–_Men's_singles#Seeds. 91.110.26.224 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT. This is not a valid argument. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to John cena123's points above. As presented in the article now, the information is concise, clear and easy-to-read. The table layout you propose would expand the size of the article, without any benefits. That makes it slower to load for users, along with all the other lack of benefits. Aesthetically, what we have now is good. I expect the tennis people who edited those pages came to the same conclusion. 91.110.26.224 (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So by how much would the article need to be expanded by to include the name of countries, and by what factor would the article become slower to load? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You chose to ignore most people arguments. Realistically, your arguments aren't valid either. I've seen many people discuss more factual and valid points but you ignore them.

Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of my arguments is invalid? Which "more factual and valid points" have I ignored? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Numero Dos[edit]

 Gerwyn Price (WAL)
 Michael van Gerwen (NED)
 Leonard Gates (USA)

A template already exists which solves this issue satisfactorily, with no need to amend the layout of the article as per my first proposal. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this needed? This doesn't add anything useful. PreciesJJ (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding the name of the country not useful? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting yourself, it's completely unnecessary to add both a flag and the countries name. PreciesJJ (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to who is it unnecessary? What do the policies and guidelines regarding flags say on the matter? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:PreciesJJ. You cannot reasonably argue to delete three-letter codes from the representation table on the basis that you didn't know what they meant, and then try to instate three-letter codes into a different part of the article because "How is adding the name of the country not useful?" 2.72.156.17 (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the three-letter code here has a tooltip to show the whole name of the country, this isn't the same argument. The three-letter code in the representation table had no such indicator of the whole name of the country or what the three-letter code represented. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why didn't you add the tooltip to that, rather than delete it? 178.16.157.83 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you add them instead of asking somebody else? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you will delete them again on the basis that you don't understand them. 178.16.157.83 (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete three letter country codes with a tooltip because I don't understand them? On what basis are you making such a prediction? Is it the above, where I have argued for such an implementation? Or is it some imaginary comment in your head? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Seeing as the three-letter code here has a tooltip to show the whole name of the country, this isn't the same argument." so does the flag as is currently used.. that also has tooltip so I fail to see the benefit Dimspace (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must be dreaming then.. https://i.imgur.com/Nh5Cenq.png - Country names ARE built in as text viewable in virtually all browsers. Its also as a standard accessibility format. There really is no need to reinvent the wheel. The current system of flag (WITH TOOLTIP) and name is concise, easy to read and consistent with other articles. Dimspace (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a tooltip. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To expand, an inline tooltip, as per the MOS - The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. The current layout adheres to universally recognised web standards and accessibility standards which is to provide a "tooltip" (as per the dictionary definition of one) when the flag is moused over, irregardless of whether its a "wikipedia tooltip" or your definition of one. In fact, it even fits within wikipedias own definition of a tooltip and if you actually look at the raw code, both the current setup and your proposed setup display that "tooltip" by the same means (the use of a <title> tag). Dimspace (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is reinventing the wheel, it's literally just adding three letter with an inline tooltip after an unidentified flag. I've also literally just told you the MOS for flags on Wikipedia dot org, not your OR version of "universally recognised web standards". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Nobody is reinventing the wheel, it's literally just adding three letter with an inline tooltip after an unidentified flag"
but it also removes the web standards <title> tooltip from every single other instance of the flag. So thats literally not all its doing. Dimspace (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think it is needed nor particularly adds anything to the page. In fact it can be seen as detrimental as it is only added to the first instance of each flag and removes the web standard alt-text / info from all of the other flags. Currently you can mouse over ANY flag on the qualifiers list and a tooltip will tell you the nationality. Having that tooltip restricted to just the first instance of each flags appearance does nothing at all to help useability, if anything it makes it less usable because readers have to hunt down the first instance of the flag to determine the nation. This is probably why very few sporting pages follow that scheme, for instance 2022_Wimbledon_Championships, 2022 U.S. Open (golf), 2022 Formula One World Championship, etcetera, all of which are very major articles, and none of which feel it needed to follow the particular guideline (and it is only a guideline) you seem intent on enforcing. Dimspace (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you hover a mouse over the flag on a phone? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should say that. As it is now I just long press the flag and a popup menu comes up but at the top of that is the flag icon with the name of its country. Yes its not perfect in that it does bring other clutter with it, but, it does provide the information that is needed.
Do you know what happens when I tap on your proposed replacement? Absolutely nothing. No tooltip if I tap it, no tooltip if I long press it, nothing. How do you get the proposed version to work on your phone?
So yes, glad you raised this. Another reason why we should stick with it is as currently and not switch to a far inferior solution. Dimspace (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying we should just mention the actual name of the country? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023 edit war[edit]

I'm seeing another edit war starting up between User:JRRobinson, User:Penepi and now the unreg IP 46.119.142.176 all on the "overusing of the PDCFlag template" side; and User:Lee Vilenski and User:ItsKesha on the other. Can we please sort this out in Talk, rather than constantly going back and forth at each other in the edit summaries? 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 17:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really an edit war, WP:INFOBOXFLAG is pretty clear. And, even if it wasn't, we should be true to MOS:ICON and not use flags alone to show information. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The policies are clear. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen - @User:TheChrisD, @User:Lee Vilenski - is there anything you/we could potentially do with a user called ItsKesha? It is already quite evident that this bizarre character is just an ordinary troll who has absolutely no interest in the general quality of the article and its improvement, but is only interested in purposefully spoiling the work of other editors such as myself, JRRobinson and others.
The last example: we have once again addressed the relevance of nationality flags in the infobox. Lee Vilenski himself basically left my edit with flags with the note "Either we follow flag rules, or we don't have flags". Subsequently, user ItsKesha overturned this decision with an arbitrary edit with an absolutely stunning explanation and reasoning: "Weird". It is quite paradoxical that he, who uses hundreds of different rules here, does not realize that this is not a valid argument.
However, the magnificent culmination of the actions of this grotesque individual was yet to come. He decided that reversing my edit was not enough and he had to add something extra. In addition to removing the flags from the infobox again, he felt that the total number of records in the Highest averages sub-section (15) was too many and reduced this number to 10 with explanation "15 is such a weird number". At the same time, right in the section there is a very clear explanation that all averages above 100.00 are listed there - and also the reason why it is so. That is probably why it is not necessary to explain that the user was not concerned with any improvement of the article, but - again - only with malicious and vindictive interference with the work of others. I prefer not to discuss the motives of this sick behavior. Thank you very much. All my warmest wishes, Penepi, 14:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Penepi: You might be bordering on personal attacks there so just be mindful. RossButsy (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is really important here now, fine - I'm sorry if anyone feels offended. But could we finally solve the problem I outlined in my post? Penepi (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File a report at the Administrators Noticeboard. RossButsy (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm sorry if anybody feels offended". Absolutely vintage non-apology. You've given precisely zero reasons why those flags should be in the infobox, you've given zero policies, you've given several insults. You've also bafflingly reverted edits I've made on the Romelu Lukaku and Schwarzenegger–Stallone rivalry articles. Also, the the edit where Lee Vilenski said "either we follow flag rules, or we don't have flags" basically left zero flags in the infobox. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, someone who uses arguments like "Weird" is complaining about the lack of reasons...
As for the edits, it's simply not true. I immediately undid those two reverted edits as you can see, it was just a mistake. So either look more closely or stop lying. Penepi (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And still, you offer nothing approaching a reason for your edits. I must have asked you 45 times why there should be flags in the infobox, and besides "I like it" and "other articles have them", nothing. So come on, explain why you think you know better than policies and other users. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about - it is "weird" without them?
But if you are so insistent, feel free to delete them from there. This wasn't even the main reason for my original post.
However, my main motivation for keeping them there was that it feels natural to have the Champion marked in bold and have a flag next to him. The same principle as, for example, the UEFA Champions League seasons, where the winning team has a flag next to its name and the rest of the names in infobox are without a flag. However, Lee Vilenski said that either there will be flags everywhere in the infobox (including the 9-darter and 170 Checkout) or no flags at all. Well, in that case, I prefer keeping them. Penepi (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did feel free to delete, citing several policies. You have, for no reason, reverted the edits over and over with no explanation given. And now a new nonsense argument, it feels natural! Great reasoning! UEFA Champions League winners are literally representing a country. Michael Smith didn't qualify through an English qualification system. Oh and you're yet again misquoting Lee Vilenski. 0/4. Any policies you might want to cite, or actual reasons? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absolutely nonsensical argument because - for instance - Cardiff would have a Welsh flag by its name and not an English one, so there is no qualification system thing involved - that is again just your imaginary construction. Penepi (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, you've chosen the most extreme example possible by finding one of maybe 10 teams in the entire European continent of professional football who don't play in their own country. And then what you've done is ignored all reality, as proven at the 2013–14 UEFA Europa League article, which Swansea City qualified for. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then have a look at every single tennis tournament. All my warmest wishes. Penepi (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like the 1997 US Open (tennis), where Canadian Greg Rusedski has a United Kingdom flag. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It must have taken a lot of effort for you to dig up an article about a tournament from 26 years ago and still use a completely nonsensical and manipulative pseudo-argument. First of all, the player in question is not even in the infobox. Second, this example has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The links to the players' flags in the infobox are to specific countries; exactly the same principle as with this article. If for some reason Michael Smith was a member of the Angolan Darts Federation, may he have the Angolan flag listed next to his name. This illogical example does not change the essence of the matter at all. Penepi (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1997 US Open – Men's singles, there he is, in the infobox. He didn't qualify for the event through some national tournament. if Michael Smith started representing Angola, he would still be world number one and that would still be his method of qualifying for tournaments, not through whatever country he represented. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After all, you answered yourself - he did not qualify for the tournament through some national qualification - just like Michael Smith. Penepi (talk) 08:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you waffling on about. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No, I said either we follow WP:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:ICON (and WP:SPORTSFLAG) and use {{flagathlete}} where suitable, or we don't have any flags at all (thus meeting INFOBOXFLAG). The only case I can see for having flags is to state that the winner was English (and is potentially representing England?), which is why teams in the Champions League would also have flags. I can get behind this (so long as we meet ACCESS and state what the flag is on first usage. I don't believe we should use such a thing for checkouts, as you aren't exactly representing England when you made the checkout, seems like FLAGCRUFT to me. It's also worth noting that we are also trying to use the {{nowrap}} template which should have limited use, not for simply making something stick onto one line, but for things that should always be stated on a single line (like hyphened words, or date ranges for example). I did revert this a couple of times, but there is more info at WP:NOWRAP. So far people have simply been reverting against policy to say "oh, it looks weird", which is ridiculous. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. Penepi (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if you agree with it, why have you spent the last month reverting edits? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, ItsKesha's version is the right one if you believe my argument to be correct (and follow policy). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I agree with the suggestion where the flag is next to the name of the winner of the tournament. Penepi (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've not argued that once. If you'd argued that a month ago, that would have been great, cheers. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this should be applied retroactively to every darts article. And somebody needs to tell JRRobinson. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's complete nonsense. The flags make the info boxes more important. The flags not only for the winner, but for use in the location and for high finishes/9 darters are ESSENTIAL!! It's a nice little bit of visual identity, which the casual reader would like.
You lot have just decided to enter into the darts world by some weird coincidence, and the fact is, that all darts pages were perfectly fine (regardless of "guidelines"), and you lot have just decided to make them look ridiculous!!
If you want to make them look as dull as possible, stick to the WDF/BDO pages, no-one bothers to make them look decent...
There has NEVER been a problem, you lot have created one, just to give yourself something to do (and that includes you, User:Dicklyon).
Just leave the people who actually care about these pages alone, and let them get on with making them good, and none of this retroactive malarkey... JRRobinson (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For "guidelines", read the manual of style. You aren't immune from it, and your repeated attempts to justify it are silly. I've given quite an in-depth reasoning as to how and why these changes actually interact with our policies.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being a bit late to react to this; but I would like to nonetheless add some things. Firstly, I would like to stress very strongly that MOS:FLAGS is NOT a policy nor a rule. It's a set of guidelines. Secondly, WP:INFOBOXFLAG does NOT prohibit the usage of flags in infoboxes (it can't even since it is no policy). Using flags in the infoboxes of World Championships in sport is actually a common practice in sports. Thirdly, the existence or lack thereof of national qualifiers is completely irrelevant. This is often falsely claimed to be a necessity for representation, even though in reality is far from a common practice. Nonetheless, there are actually some countries which actually do hold qualifiers to determine their national representative in this world championship. Thus no proper arguments for removal of flags were ever presented.Tvx1 20:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There you go @User:ItsKesha. Penepi (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FLAG says: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". WP:PG says: "Although Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices. Policies are standards all users should normally follow, and guidelines are generally meant to be best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense". Arguing about MOS:FLAGS not being a policy but a guideline is just absolute bottom-of-the-barrel drivel. And nobody argued that there weren't any qualifiers based on national representation, the number was eight. I have said this three times on this talk page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that you don't think sidewide manual of style doesn't apply to this article because its "only a guideline" is preposterous. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to learn to read. Tvx1 16:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Szpity88 please discuss here your issues. Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Szpity88 any comment? You reverted three times, you must have something to say on the matter? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top Average[edit]

The top average was already on Wikipedia last year you shouldn't take it out because it's a statistic Lllllu43 (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is this possibly a valid reason for reverting when you have asked several times not to do so without a reliable source? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a pity of ItsKesha that he is so childish and does not make meaningful changes to the average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:642C:2C00:4957:E95F:B9AA:E386 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was an unintentional posting, I was trying to test something out regarding hyperlinks in tables, but OK, Richard Whiteley. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section ordering[edit]

Why do we go straight into Format and Prize Money before telling the readers anything about the World Championship? I don't understand why the format which has been used for the previous years is inappropriate now (to the point that one user has gone through and edited the articles to match their own desire) and we instead have three tables before getting to any actual text about the World Championship. OZOO (t) (c) 15:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose before foes. And by that I mean all introductory text and details about the tournament should be in written form rather than endless boring unsourced tables, and schedules, that should come after the fact. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

Why have secondary sources been replaced in favour of primary sources? Why are people so dead set against not posting original research? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 19:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYCARE, literally the paragraph below that. Also, secondary sources are needed to pass WP:GNG. Removing a secondary source in favour or a primary source is completely baffling. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Issues Comments[edit]

I don't really edit wikipedia, but one of the more irritating things that happens on "Sports Wikipedia" from time-to-time is when people spend a lot of time making pages for a number of years with everything in a certain style, then along comes a new editor to slap a load of tags over it. Often the information packaged on sports pages is far more useful than the official websites themselves and easier to find, and the link to the primary source is helpful. While the tags may in fact be justified, I don't see why the conversation shouldn't take place on the Talk page first before cluttering up the article.

My two cents:

  • It is true that some parts use only primary sources. But so what? These are not political issues where the secondary sources will interpret controversial subject matter for their audience. These are mundane and fairly trivial facts. Let's take the prize money as the example for the purpose of discussion. Do we really think the PDC will lie about that? You can be sure that if the players didn't get the initially displayed prize money, there would be plenty of secondary sources. See the 2020 BDO World Darts Championship as a case in point. Can we only put the prize money in the article when there's a controversy about it? Apparently not, since we see examples like Wimbledon which uses the primary source of the All-England Club to present the 2022 prize money.
  • Representation. To quote the reason: "What do all the three letter codes mean?" Well, all the three-letter codes are next to a flag, and the header is "Representation". I find it hard to believe in that context that the 3-letter codes are shrouded in impenetrable mystery. The argument that "darts is primarily an individual sport", I again refer you Wimbledon, but also The Open, the World Snooker Championship, the World 9-ball Championship, and no doubt far more sports.

If it is true that these tags should be applied and changes made, then the ramifications will stretch far beyond this darts tournament and cause sweeping changes to be made elsewhere. The result will be to reduce useful information contained within them, which seems pretty contrary to the goal of any encyclopaedia. For these reasons, I think the application of these tags was not thought through, and should be removed. 91.110.26.224 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who has come in with all of these tags and almost-scathing comments here on the talk page would probably blow a gasket on stuff like the motorsports pages. Or heck, even be complaining about all the official F1 site or FIA site links on articles like 2022 Formula One World Championship.
That said, I will give them some credit — the "representation" section, and even to some extent the broadcast rights sections are probably unnecessary due to WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 17:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally none of it sourced correctly. If people bothered sourced it correctly and didn't post original research there wouldn't be a problem. It's very simple really. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the sources provided, go find some secondary sources that actually cover the sport. There's very little in terms of major sources (outside of the PDC site itself, possibly Sky Sports, and a few darts-specific sites) which cover the darts apart from major matches — like the Beeb only really seem to bother when the topic is notable and would drive clicks, such as Beau's match against Willie.
Secondary sources are mainly for establishing notability of individuals; but are not mandatory for factual content such as sporting results. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 19:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except there was no source provided for the averages. If there are only primary sources covering the event then you have to question whether it passes WP:GNG. And your argument that there must be sources is a fallacy. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say sources exist without ever posting the source. Please can you either provide the source or actually bother to cite it in the page? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit very often anymore but this is a matter of which I have expertise. All statistics are provided solely from the PDC broadcast. By definition, the ONLY person who is the arbiter of the number of darts used and the score of every round is the scorekeeper on the line in this case at the Palace itself. The scorekeeper would have to log the official match record and give those records to the statistician of the tournament. This is done at this time by hand as the time it takes to enter the numbers into a computer live takes more time than a skilled scorekeeper can write the number scored and remaining down and an entry mistake correction longer as well. It is a specialized skill to be able to score a match live BUT anyone that is televising the event can do it quickly and come up with that stat only slightly slower than the scorekeeper him/her self. This is why the broadcast cameras are on the exact double needed every time with the sole exception of when a pro goes for a non-standard out and hits it. One citation of whichever broadcast the editors of the article are using at the top of the table should suffice for the entire tournament. Bawambi (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
live.dartsdata proves half this comment to be drivel. There are various sources for darts data and statistics which aren't the PDC themselves. There are also various websites reporting on the championships including The Guardian, BBC, Sky Sports, and Sporting Life. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most important element when it comes to sporting results is accuracy. The most accurate source of sports results is the event organiser, in this case the PDC. The fact they are a primary source in 90% of instances is irrelevant. Qualification criteria, event organiser, players qualifying, event organiser, results, event organiser. Dimspace (talk)

Prize money[edit]

Why does prize money need it's entirely own section? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is some similarity with "Format", but then call the main section 1. Overview or 1. Background and sub-sections 1.1 Format and 1.2 Prize money. Penepi 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there need to be so many subsections consisting of three sentences? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Penepi why do you keep vandalising the page including removing sourced information so you can have three-sentence-long sections? Why do you think it's a good idea to have such short sections when the article could be better served with a tournament overview section with all pertinent information there? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only person vandalising the article is you, so calm down. The article is definitely not served better with the overview section, that is just your opinion, nothing more. Prize money is prize money, not part of overview. Actually with this logic you could include also qualifiers in the overview. Also those information should be part of the Summary section. Penepi 06:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm improving the article. Why isn't prize money part of a tournament overview? Yes, I could included qualifiers as part of the tournament overview. Excellent idea, I'll start working on it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prize money is a crucial part of PDC tournaments as it determines the Order of Merit; which affects things like tournament qualification, tournament seeding, and whether or not you gain/retain/lose a Tour Card at the end of the year. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 11:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why doesn't the article say any of that? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not specific to just the World Championship. It's how various sporting pro tours work — darts, snooker, and pool all work in this manner. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 18:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the article should still explain that. Kath from Grimsby might not know what an order of merit is, that's who we should be trying to write the article for. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crack on and explain that, then. :) 91.110.26.224 (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I do or don't, I won't consult with you :) All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems[edit]

For the past few days there have been some problems within this article and I think it is time to bring awareness towards it.

  • Editing wars: The first editing war was between the user 91.110.26.224 and ItsKesha. The second editing war was between the active darts wiki editor, Penepi, and yet again, ItsKesha. The most recent editing war that I have seen was between WikiProject Darts user, JRRobinson, and once again, ItsKesha. I do not want to throw blame at anyone however, as much as I appreciate all the new information and sourcing that has been added by ItsKesha, it is clear that it seems that you're an occurring name with these editing wars; therefore I would that these editing wars to stop and discuss this in the talk page.

These editing wars should stop and ideas should be discussed here before anything becomes changed on the actual article. Once discussed it will allow editors to give their opinion on if it should be changed or should remain the same, etc. For example, any attempt at changing format designs or ideas should be discussed here before changing them because as it stands it sounds like one person is interested in changing everything while everyone else disagrees. I may be wrong but that is an assumption due to the mass amounts of editing wars.

Lets all discuss in here before making any drastic changes, keep it civil without any tenacious and inexorable behaviour, that would be mostly appreciated.

Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to discuss them and nobody has given a single decent, reasonable argument against any of the changes. "I like it", "it's always been this way", "we don't need secondary sources", these arguments are a load of bollocks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that your meaningless edits just irritate everyone and you justify them with some ridiculous arguments. You seem to be a frustrated, malicious tragedian who decided to make life miserable for everyone around him under the guise of some imaginary justice. Penepi 19:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go on, explain how they are meaningless edits? You still haven't explained why you are against the changes, you just keep removing sourced information because you don't like it. Also, please stop with the personal attacks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dare you to even remotely attempt to rationally explain your reasoning without demonstrating ableism. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I take isn't that we "don't need" secondary sources; it's that you seem to insist that the article isn't notable or reliable unless there are secondary sources; despite the primary source being the actual sporting body running the event.
Additionally, rather than starting up discussion on the talk page with examples of how you would improve the content, you're just slapping templates all over the article, effectively calling out the editors here telling them their work is shoddy. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 11:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you tell me where I insisted the article wasn't notable without the sources? Thanks in advance. I have both started discussions and "slapp[ed] templatates all over the article". I've also removed most of the templates when I improved the article. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you didn't say it directly; but the wording of the template that was originally inserted in various sections, to me, was making it out as if those sections were entirely original research, and thus failed reliability. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 18:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The templates were to try and highlight where improvements could be made to the article, I wasn't questioning the notability of the event. As it stood, the averages section was original research. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Penepi: you seem to be starting up yet another edit war over the introductory section, and are refusing to come to the talk page to discuss it. Not to mention your edit summaries are starting to devolve into personal attacks. From what I can see, you've already had a temporary block for edit warring on last year's article, so please engage with us here to help defuse the situation to avoid the need to have more blocks issued. Notably I am referring to this edit, to which you wrote in the direction of ItsKesha:

Ah, so now I see where your problem is. Either you're just a troll, plain stupid, or you're deliberately ignoring other people's arguments. If you have vision problems, see a doctor. If you can't read with comprehension, go back to school, or see a doctor. I have written quite clearly why this ordering is utterly illogical, repeatedly. You are the only one actually who uses the "I like it" argument.

Both of you also seem to be heading in the direction of WP:3RR as well. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 18:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put forward three options there, so it's really not a personal attack. - Penepi Penepi (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to explain your issues with the page layout, TheChrisD and myself reached what I believe was a solid compromise from the two viewpoints, and yet you don't agree, and instead of discussing your viewpoint have repeatedly reverted edits and repeatedly removed content added in the interim. Are you now willing to discuss this issue? Or shall either TheChrisD or myself revert to the agreed-upon layout? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

representation issue[edit]

In section 6 of the article the nr. of players participating is colspanned where possible. I must say I'm not a fan. I believe it's new but I could be wrong. I think it's better when countries get their own little "box". I'm not gonna do anything myself since this is a pretty actively edited article, so just leaving the info here for you guys. Dutchy45 (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The totals themselves are WP:OR if no reliable sources are tabulating and presenting the participants by round by country. It seems like an WP:UNDUE view of the competition.—Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dutchy45 and Bagumba
Someone added the nations represented.
The same nations represented table appears on all the previous years competitions, which includes the 2021 competition with a record breaking 29 nations represented, and the 2022 competition which originally had 31 nations represented however 2 nations dropped out before the competition started. Therefore they equalled the record in 2022 rather than breaking it.
I noticed the 2023 tabled contained mistakes in round 1, and had no references...
So I corrected the competitor numbers for round 1, and added references back up those claims 12 hours ago.
This section was added 6 hours ago.
I can't see why, as like Modest Genius who removed the Multiple Issues box (I was going to do that but I forgot) said, the tags are now unwarranted.
It's the same thing with sports people like Formula One drivers. Yes they're representing a company (or companies if you include sponsors), but they're also representing their country, whether they like it or not.
Danstarr69 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just duplicated another reference from above complete with flags which should end this discussion...
The only "problem" with the table, is that it's hanging off the edge, and I wouldn't know how to make the columns smaller to fix it.
So if there's anyone out there who can do that, can you fix it? Danstarr69 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The references have since been removed by ItsKesha. My issue with the table is that I haven't seen sources that break down nationallity counts by rounds, as it's currently presented. Sources (although only a non-independent source is cited) have discussed nationality counts for the overall field, so it would seem more suitable to mention that tidbit at 2023 PDC World Darts Championship § List of qualifiers, if at all. The counts by round seem to be WP:UNDUE nationalism if no reliable sources have presented it that way.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba I've just noticed that every single nationality table in the previous years also contains incorrect numbers for round 1, which also need correcting.
They all seem to have been started by Penepi, who most likely added the numbers in source mode, but didn't bother to check to see if they were in the correct places in visual mode.
Yet even though they've been updated 1000s of times, by multiple different people, as you can see most of them by looking at the edit histories, and typing representation, no-one has spotted the mistakes mainly for round 1, which should match the totals at the bottom.
For example, the 2022 table shows that:
England started the tournament with 35 players...
In round 1 England had 22 players left in the tournament, and...
By round 2 England had 27 players left in the tournament. Danstarr69 (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danstarr69: Aside from needing reliable sources that actually do this breakdown by round, I'm also wary of saying WP:CALC applies when counting so many items, as you have found, has been shown to not be so straightforward. This is not that same as adding 10+10.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you don't understand how this tournaments works. Yes 35 players from England were entered for this tournament, but 13 of them only entered it in round 2. They weren't in the tournament yet, so are not counted for round 1.Tvx1 21:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid - it's not a suitable table. Wikipedia summarises what reliable sources say, so it's fine to mention in the summary how many nations were represented, but a psuedo-ranking table for this is ridiculous. We have prior consensus over at WP:SNOOKER to remove such tables, as no such table is produced in any RS, it's statistical cruft. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in an earlier conversation a couple weeks ago, it is indeed complete cruft and should remain removed.
We also need to tag @Penepi into this as well, since they continue to revert any edits which remove the table. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 19:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highest average list[edit]

Johnny Clayton not listed in highest average table 5.70.145.39 (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lower cases[edit]

Someone has decided to lower case everything without any discussion and it genuinely looks messy and hard to read.

What does everyone think on this?

Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Which section(s) in particular have been changed to lower case? Can you give examples of specific edits? --Jameboy (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it has been addressed and fixed already.
Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the lower case thing is so shoddy..., definitely looks unprofessional..., I so hate it!!JRRobinson (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly has been changed? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

At the end of the tournament, I would like to thank all participants for constructively editing the article. Despite several initial disagreements, I dare to say that we finally reached a reasonable "compromise" and understanding.

Most importantly, this year we managed to create a quality template for next World Championship articles. Also, I believe that articles about all major tournaments during the 2023 season will experience a similar development, at least in part. Penepi 23:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Penepi Can you give any explanation why you keep reverting edits without any reasonable explanation, and why you have yet again personally attached me? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ItsKesha I have always stated a reasonable explanation. The problem is every single time you disagree with someone, you claim they did not state an explanation although they in fact did. On the contrary, your 'reasonable explanations' include arguments such as "No." and so on. I'm not attached to you, you don't need to worry. Penepi 21:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted the edits of six users today. How is this reasonable, nobody agrees with your approach to the article. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've gone way beyond WP:3RR Prnepi. I can't see that the revertions you've done are in line with policy.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that I have already addressed the editing wars. Kesha entered her fourth one now. Penepi might seem like the "problem" but Kesha has taken part in the most -- that should be addressed more.
None of my business realistically but some of the representation of how Wikipedia does things is probably the main reason why most people ignore Wikipedia as a source of accurate information due to the lack of professionalism. I do agree with Penepi on the fact that the lowercases on "second round", etc, look quite unprofessional, grammatically incorrect and messy. However, that is my opinion and I will not be talking further because that is all I wanted to simply say.
Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Second round" isn't a noun. Why would it be capitalised? In what way is proper use of the English language a "lack of professionalism"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines on how to handle capital letters can be found at MOS:CAPS. Please don't revert against our policies. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly in this manual do I find a sentence or anything that says it was wrong before? Penepi (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SPORTSCAPS and MOS:PROPER would be a good place to look. However, the manual makes it clear that we write in sentence case, so unless something is specifically a proper noun, we do not capitalise (outside of normal grammatical precedent as in the start of a new sentence). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you completely ignored the editing wars that you competed in. 4 times. It is becoming beyond unacceptable per WP:3RR. Any word can still be capitalised depending on whatever context it has been presented in which is exactly why I think that needs a change, however it wont because of Wikipedia rules. I simply stated that in my opinion that it is incorrect. You can clearly see that I have not reverted or had a major problem with it. In terms of talking to me, I would appreciate you stopping the editing wars first and stop attempting to gaslight me with constant questions and speak to me properly. This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a political campaign. Talk to me like I am a person. Thank you.
In terms of telling me not to "revert policies".. Not even once have I reverted to anything in this article. The evidence would be in history. I do not appreciate the accusation of something that I did not do.
Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any word can still be capitalised depending on whatever context it has been presented in - this simply isn't true. We write in sentence case. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you did not falsely accuse me this time and read my message through. Thank you.
However, it is not true based on rules of Wikipedia, you're correct; thus why Wikipedia uses sentence form; however it is completely true within the proper English language.
I simply explained my opinions and thoughts and have no problem with anything presented in the article considering why I have not reverted any information throughout the article despite the accusation.
My message was more in regards of the continuous editing wars with an expression of my opinion about the scenario; otherwise I have no problems with the article.
Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- So, we've now got to the argeement that we use sentence case on Wikipedia. I've never accused you of anything, nor broken 3RR. I don't know why you think I had. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR and editing wars were based towards Kesha and the proof is in history and has been discussed on the talk page here before.
I felt like the accusation was aimed towards me was when you replied with "please don't revert against our policies" when I never did such.
I know the Wikipedia policy on the sentence case despite me personally disagreeing with it. I edit Wikipedia pages whenever I have spare time -- this sentence case problem is the least of my worries.
This will be my last message regarding this situation. Thank you for understanding. Have a great day.
Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to the folks what an edit war is and when one occurred. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template limit reached on page[edit]

Hi JRRobinson, just a note - reverting ItsKesha's edit has caused the page to reach the Template limit, so anything past the draw is completely broken at present, including references.


Whilst templates can be very handy shorthand for things, Wikipedia has a hardcoded limit on items like this, so we shouldn't really use templates in place of links, especially on long pages. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_PDC_World_Darts_Championship&oldid=1196947239"