Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Darts/Archive 2

Darts pages being targeted by other users who don't care much about darts
Hi all,

This is very URGENT!!!

Some other users on the site have been trying to delete/redirect certain pages, owing to lack of non-primary sources.

I've been trying to make all affiliate tours accessible, as you might've seen on the PDC ProTour pages, but unfortunately some users have been trying to disrupt some pages on the main tournaments as well, by making them look less professional, when there was no problem with them at all.

So much so, that they have now put a topic-wide ban on me from editing with the threat of a ban on the site, which is just ridiculous, as I was getting so much good stuff on earlier ProTours.

But, it's also threatening the current 2023 ProTour page and it's affiliates, as some of them are being redirected..., which is not on, especially as we never had any problems before....

We need to try and sort this out, as well and try and get pages of players updated, including one for players who at the minimum have had a Tour Card, as that should be notability in the minimum....

Unfortunately, even though I've managed to start lots of pages, until this "ban" threat is gone, my ability to help out is going to be extremely limited..., which is a shame, especially with so much interesting stuff going on at the moment!! JRRobinson (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You are topic banned from darts as a whole. That means you aren't entitled to edit here either. Continuing to break your ban as you've now done on several occasions will result in a site-wide block.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Better sources for darts articles
Hello,

as you know, lately there was crusade started against darts articles, because they used mostly primary sources. 2 articles have been deleted after AfD, but I asked admins to restore those articles to Draft space:


 * Draft:2023 International Darts Open
 * Draft:2023 German Darts Grand Prix

Also future events were moved into Draft (that's ok, their time will come)
 * Draft:2023 Austrian Darts Open
 * Draft:2023 Dutch Darts Championship
 * Draft:2023 Belgian Darts Open
 * Draft:2023 Czech Darts Open
 * Draft:2023 PDC World Cup of Darts
 * Draft:2023 US Darts Masters
 * Draft:2023 Poland Darts Masters

Other articles like have been redirected only to 2023 PDC Pro Tour.
 * 2023 PDC Players Championship series
 * 2023 PDC Development Tour series
 * 2023 PDC Asian Tour series
 * 2023 DPA Tour series
 * 2023 DPNZ Tour series
 * 2023 PDC Nordic & Baltic ProTour series

Secondary sources exist for darts article, so please, let's make some effort together, find those secondary sources, use them and make darts article better and let them exist without further crusades.

Haifisch7734 (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I tried to use them already, but there is just no discussion with these people. I do not know who started all this, but it definitely feels like someone is biased against darts articles. Furthermore, I even found on one user/admin page discussion, how people involved in darts are "rude". Like 10 years nobody bothered to do anything and suddenly they started to delete articles. They wanted secondary sources (like SkySports, SportingLife), when I provided them, suddenly there were no other replies. Articles have been deleted anyway. I honestly do not know what exactly they want, but it seems like the decision that these articles will not be on Wikipedia has been already made and whatever we provide is pointless. I wish we could all just peacefully sit together and discuss, but so far it looks like a crusade indeed. DarthBob (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no bias or crusade against darts articles; however, it has been noticed that a very large proportion of articles that have been created in relation to darts have no acceptable sourcing that meets policy requirements or demonstrate notability. With respect to necessary sources, it appears that you may be conflating WP:SECONDARY sources with WP:INDEPENDENT sources. The requirement is for secondary sources that are independent of the subject; it should also be noted that results and basic match reporting is not usually enough to demonstrate notability, and contracted broadcasters (such as Sky Sports) are often not considered independent. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As a crusade I meant that one user that started going through darts articles and either deleting them, reporting them or just redirecting them to more general articles. Something that this user is performing now for about 2 months. Despite him having his own articles reported to AfD. If it was one time action, I wouldn't call it like that. But now this just looks like crusade, sorry ;p
 * Regarding sources, Sky Sports cooperates with PDC only with biggest tournaments: World Championship, Premier League, World Cup of Darts, World Matchplay, World Grand Prix and Grand Slam of Darts. Rest of major tournaments are broadcasted by iTV; European Tour I don't know how is broadcasted in UK (I'm not from UK), other countries have DAZN, Viaplay (I myself watch it on PDC TV). In regards of other tournaments, does it still make them not independent?
 * "it should also be noted that results and basic match reporting is not usually enough to demonstrate notability" - what is good example of secondary source and way of reporting, that would be enough notable to be accepted on Wikipedia? Is website that is writing about darts good source? Or not, because it's writing only about darts and it has to bigger publisher? I get issue with PDC being primary source, but for me problem with secondary source is how to recognize that secondary source is good or not. How to recognize, if given tournament is notable or not. Some people will say it is, some will say it's not. I looked into GNG regarding sport, but it provides examples more from bigger sports than sports like darts. There are no guidelines what in regards of darts is notable and what is not, and "war" has started about 10 years after first European Tour articles have been created and maintained. And if European Tour is not notable enough to have separate articles for separate events, how to work with them then? Simple mention of the winner or final in bigger article like 2023 PDC Pro Tour is not enough for me, for such big tournament. Putting all tournmanets in one article, in exactly same way (or mostly similar) how they are now created, but in sections instead of separate articles, would that be ok?
 * First problem to solve here is to decide what is notable, in which way notable. Players Championship events for sure are not notable enough to have separate article for each one, but I think they are notable enough to have one grouped article, like it was here 2022 PDC Players Championship series (this year's article has been redirected by a user I mentioned earlier) - each event is played by 128 players, but showing brackets with 128 players 30 times in article would be too much. But showing brackets from quarterfinals onwards is quite good compromise.
 * In my opinion, since PDC is highest tier of darts, all PDC events are notable in regards of darts events. Not all events are notable enough to have separate article, but are notable enough to have grouped article. But of course, that's only my opinion.
 * Regards,
 * Haifisch7734 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sky Sports often act as a promoter of the organisations with which they have broadcasting contracts so I would not consider them independent, even for events that they do not broadcast. My view is that sources should contain some depth of analysis (i.e. more than a routine report of what happened) as a bare minimum in order to be considered a secondary source; secondary sources often appear some time after the event – I linked the guidelines for secondary and independent sources above. As a rule of thumb, only the most prestigious events will warrant articles for each year; other tournaments will either only warrant a main article giving an overview of the event and detailing the winners (and possibly runners-up), or no article at all. Determination of this depends on the type of coverage the event gets, not just around the time of the event, but months and years later. For example, at one end of the scale, the world championships get coverage over and over again long after the event; in the middle, most (if not all) European Tour events are forgotten about almost instantly and have no lasting coverage (other than passing mentions in relation to individual players). As for the Players Championship (and even moreso the Challenge Tour, Development Tour, Women's Series, Nordic & Baltic Tour, CDC Tour, etc.), I would say showing brackets from quarterfinals onwards is excessive and trimming to just the finals would suffice in an encyclopedia – in which case, the PDC Pro Tour season article already covers that so we don't need anything else. At present, we have yearly articles for lots of events for which there is no sustained coverage beyond the time of the event, and we are doing nothing more than mirroring other websites that have all the results, which is contrary to policy. It was inevitable that this would be noticed and someone would attempt to clean them up. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all thanks for your explanation, finally there is someone trying to explain things and have some knowledge about darts. I do not want to offend the other admins, but they simply did not provide any feedback, that is why I also called it a "crusade", because it literally seemed like they targeted darts articles due to some possible dispute with some darts editors. And even though I still have the feeling, that this is why it all started, it is what it is.
 * I was not there at the beginning of European Tour articles, but still it would make more sense to have this discussion at that time and not when we have 100 tournament pages and links for them are throughout hundreds of player's profiles. Why did people flagging it come now and not earlier? Should all pages be deleted and only one page per season be created? Who will do that? Who will fix all darts profiles? Still, at the moment where darts are growing and for Czech Darts Open will be in TV, it is major step back and in my opinion very unnecessary move for Wikipedia who serves as a good knowledge basis for darts fans, commentators, journalists etc.
 * Why I think some people are biased? Then I would recommend reading this part of "discussion" on User talk:Star Mississippi#JRRobinson
 * So passion for darts = lack of manners, apparently @Onel5969? I guess I'm in good company being an "idiot". Star Mississippi 17:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Did I miss something? Don't know how many folks would consider themselves in good company if equated with me. Onel5969 TT me 17:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Penepi is calling one of us an idiot. It's apparently endemic. Star Mississippi 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 * Oh, yeah, saw that and commented on it when I sent it to AfD (where he added another personal attack). Was unaware that there was this much vehemence and vitriol involved in darts. I thought that was only confined to FOOTY and ROADS articles. Penepi has the same philosophy as JRRobinson (who still doesn't get it, based upon their latest comment on their talk page). Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just saw the latter. Wow. But I'm sure they'll be blocked again soon due to the lack of getting it.
 * I do not think it is appropriate to just throw all darts editors in one bag and can't help myself but think these people (or admins) are actively trying to make a mess here. DarthBob (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is appropriate to just throw all darts editors in one bag and can't help myself but think these people (or admins) are actively trying to make a mess here. DarthBob (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Opinions wanted
I've posted on the talk page for the Grand Slam regarding a slight rewrite and I'm looking for opinions. Posting here for visibility. Talk:Grand Slam of Darts#Rewrite BDO invitations? - Coventryy (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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 tournament pages, including this one, against this policy? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Thoughts @Penepi? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @ItsKesha What you want to hear? You'll insist on your point anyway, just like you did a year ago with the flags, so virtually any discussion is pointless.
 * The averages are clearly stated in all of the given sources/articles. And above all, you yourself know very well that these are correct data. Moreover, it is not some excessive statistics, but the most basic statistics in darts. For example, the fact that all tournaments have a section about highest averages is directly related to this. Penepi (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They aren't "clearly stated", though, that's the whole point. You haven't addressed the salient point of "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Please can you address this in regards to including the stats? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They are "clearly stated", though, that's the whole point, your subjective feeling that they are not is utterly irrelevant. All my warmest wishes, Penepi (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you copy and paste where in the article the averages are listed, or just point me in the general direction within the source? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I can not. There is not a single rational reason for this. It is exclusively your problem that you have obvious problems with reading comprehension or vision. Penepi (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "No, I can not" - so this is an admission of synth? Thanks, I'll get round to deleting it then All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Penepi (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * So can you point me to the list of averages in the source? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can. Penepi (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Go on then please! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which source? Penepi (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter which one! Ideally both! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Watch any game of darts. Throughout the match they will constantly refer to the players a) 3 dart average and b) their checkout percentage. And in 95% of post match interviews they will mention at least one of these statistics to the player they are interviewing. They are considered highly relevant Dimspace (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. You include information that is sourced. We don't come to our own conclusions based on sources stating different content.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just commenting on their relevancy. This whole WP:SYNTH thing has been heavily discussed on the World Championship talk as well and Itskesha has been unwilling to actually explain in detail what their issue is outside of repeating "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". Any sources used for averages will state the 3 dart average. Selecting the ten best averages and putting them in a list is not implying conclusions, its just extracting data from a larger data set. If a source lists ten 3 dart average for a particular day and someone uses 2 of those data points in a "highest average of the tournament" that's not drawing conclusions, its basic data extraction and maths. Equally a match report may say "Player x finished the game with an average of 102.6", elsewhere in a the same report or another report it may say "Player y finished the game with an average of 101.5". Itskesha's argument seems to be that a list of the top ten averages in the tournament is not the same conclusion as a match report (i guess original research would come into play). But like I say, on the extensive thread on the World's talk page he has been unable to explain what statistics he was particularly referencing and how he felt they were a violation outside of just repeating the ""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?" line Dimspace (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_PDC_World_Darts_Championship#Stats_that_are_against_WP:SYNTH its the same discussion as there, and we didn't get any closer to understanding what the issue actually was. Dimspace (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The complaint seems to be about ordering these averages, which are apparently reported in sources at an individual level (e.g. in coverage of a match), in some kind of top-10 format. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, then there is some substance to the SYNTH claims: if no other sources are presenting these numbers as a ranked list then it could be OR to do so ourselves. JoelleJay (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what the issue is. The idea of collating every average from every match and ranking them is OR, and a SYNTH if you are using a load of sources to make that claim.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)