Talk:2022 PDC World Darts Championship

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

RfC: Which of "0" vs "N/A" is better in the Representation Table[edit]

There seem to be different approaches in the country representation table to the case when there is no one left to represent that country. The page for the 2021 PDC World Darts Championship uses N/A the pages for the 2020 and 2019 PDC World Darts Championships use zero. I did not check the years before that.


According to the Wikipedia entry for N/A, N/A has several meanings
- not applicable
- not available
- not assessed
- no answer.
For the Question: How many representatives of Portugal were in the second round, the answer is 1.
For the Question: How many representatives of Portugal were in the first round, the answer is 0.
This question is applicable, the answer is available, the answer is assessed and correct and there is an answer. So none of the things N/A stands for applies.
Instead of 0, one could also use "None". I will change all N/As to 0. If somebody wants to change that back to N/A, I would appreciate an explanation why N/A is to be preferred. --46.95.188.175 (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that {{n/a|none}} would be the best solution here DLManiac (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree None (and Zero, Null, Nought, Nobody, Nil) would work. in fact there was a time on Dec 23 when None was used Version from Dec. 23. But I see no reason to use N/A because, as in my original explanation, N/A does not mean "None", it either means "don't know" or "does not apply here". On other sports pages where you record wins draws and losses you may see something like W:9 L:3 D:0, but you will not see W:9 L:3 D:N/A. Since I am not an English native speaker and may miss some of the finer points, could you please provide a reference, why N/A is appropriate here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F0:1F17:FD9D:284B:2339:3D69:85A4 (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The time allocated for running scripts has expired.[edit]

Anyone else seeing this on the tournament tree and below? It may be that some of the PDC Flag links will need to be converted to regular links. OZOO (t) (c) 12:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yep unfortunately. I thought I had implemented a fix to this but apparently not. The qualifiers section would be a good place to start.DLManiac (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
strange, on reload, I’m not longer getting the error DLManiac (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting this issue again - will require some more substitutions (EDIT: The module has been sped up slightly - helping for now, but will probably require further looking into again in the future).DLManiac (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should remove the non-seeded players from the qualifiers section, see 2021 Wimbledon Championships – Men's Singles for reference. Write up some of who qualified in prose. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that tennis doesn't list non-seeds is not a very good argument for listing them here in my opinion. DLManiac (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an example of how another project approaches it without the entire section being clunky and filled with unexplained information i.e. WP:DIRECTORY. It's already explained in the draw section that some of them were international qualifiers (Q) and alternate players (alt). All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's happening again. The time allocated for running scripts has expired. It's on all references. (Fran Bosh (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
References back to normal now. (Fran Bosh (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Request for comment on usage of templates[edit]

Are there too many templates used on this page? At time of writing, it makes use of 489 uses of the dart score template alone. No other dart page has ever used this template prior to this, merely something like 3–0, using manual bold for emphasis. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that they are to many templates in here. I have (re-)removed a bunch which don't yield a technical benefit already.Tvx1 17:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 2021/22 William Hill World Darts Championship[edit]

That at least, is what Reliable Sources (i.e. The PDC and Alexandra Palace) call it. So why does that keep getting reverted? I do not dispute that 2022 is the common name, but 2021/22 is the actual name. OZOO (t) (c) 17:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the PDC is reliable, it's also a primary source. What do Sky Sports, The Guardian, the BBC, Sporting Life, the Mirror call it? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Sports call it 2021/22. As do Live Darts. The Guardian don't seem to put a year on it. But that's not relevant, since I'm not saying the 2022 name isn't the most common name, just that 2021/22 is the official name, for which a primary source is perfectly valid. OZOO (t) (c) 18:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Sports call it 2022 here and here. LiveDarts aren't a partisan or reliable source as their website is sponsored by, you guessed it, William Hill. You are saying it's the official name as you changed the name of the article and the title of the tournament here. Saying that it's called the William Hill WDC is fine, confusing readers by changing the year formatting of the event is not. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never changed the title of the article, although I agree I am saying it's the official name. OZOO (t) (c) 19:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In my opinion, the official name is only relevant if, 1)- sources show that is also the more common name found in "independent, reliable English-language sources", 2)- There is a valid reasoning to use the official name over one considered more common derived at by consensus. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics[edit]

Do we need these? WP:NOTSTATS after all, this is meant to be an article about the Championship, not a dumping ground for darts statistics. Additionally, these statistics are cited to http://live.dartsdata.com/ - which does not actually contain any of these statistics grouped in the way that they are on the page. OZOO (t) (c) 18:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think for quarter-finalists onwards. Any other important/relevant stats should be written in prose. And this should be done retroactively to previous championships. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to remove this large unnecessary table. This is at odds with WP:NOTSTATS.Tvx1 19:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the entire table is not necessary - including quarterfinalists DLManiac (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are player statistics not part of the tournament? Since when? With this logic, we can delete all sections, except maybe the introduction. Just write what the tournament is about and who won it. Penepi (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:NOTSTATS, Penepi? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and to be fair I don't really find any contradiction there. By that I mean that the list as such is, in my view, useful and readable. However, on the other hand, I must say that I have not been sure of the exact accuracy of certain parts of the list since the beginning of the tournament. Specifically, averages (and potentially also checkout av. %). To give you an example - I noticed that when a player played two matches in which he averaged 80 and 100, his tournament average is listed as 90. However, this is incorrect, as he threw a different number of darts in those matches. If someone checks this and it really turns out that this figure is incorrect in the list, then I'm in favor of deleting it - or at least the column. However, it would be ideal to find a reliable source and complete the correct data. Because I repeat, the list as such is, in my view, very useful and informative. Penepi (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't actually read it, have you? The first sentence says "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing". The stats have no absolutely explanation or context. They're just stats for stats sake. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have, thanks for the concern though. Rather, it looks like you haven't really looked at the statistics. Otherwise, you wouldn't write that it has no context. All my warmest wishes. Penepi (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to the folks what the context is of the statistics. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The context is obviously the tournament itself. Statistics of players from their matches. What's so incomprehensible about that? Penepi (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight - the context of the stats is that they are stats. My goodness what an idea, why didn't I think of that! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't know if you just have some compulsive need to troll, or you're just a fool. But I made it quite clear that the context is the tournament itself - players, matches, etc. With your logic, let's also delete the Draw and Schedule sections. After all, the context of the Draw is that it is draw, what kind of nonsense is that? All my warmest wishes. Penepi (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying you haven't read the policy. There is no policy about WP:NOTTOURNAMENTSCHEDULE or WP:NOTTOURNAMENTDRAW, but yes, there is a policy about WP:NOTSTATS. I'm all for mentioning important stats in prose, I'm definitely not for mentioning how many 140's John Michael or Roman Benecky got, I don't need to know the tournament average of Richie Edhouse or Madars Razma, nobody cares about the highest checkout of Daniel Larsson or Jermaine Wattimena. It's not important, there's no context or rationale behind including it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody? Are you joking, sir? Did you do a survey among all the readers? Or who are you to speak for all? It's just your subjective opinion that doesn't represent a majority. For instance, for me personally, these statistics are very interesting, and yes, I am interested in the highest checkout or average of individual players, and there definitely is rationale. Penepi (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody else in this discussion, other than you, even thought they were interesting enough to merit inclusion. Look, if I wanted to know how many 100+ scores Martin Schindler got, or what checkout percentage Chris Landman had, I'd probably go to a dedicated darts stats website, not Wikipedia dot org. But whether or not it is interesting doesn't even have a basis on the argument. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging OZOO, Tvx1, DLManiac - please provide guidance/opinions, Penepi is ignoring the above consensus and policy-based argument, and subsequently vandalising the article. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't need these. BTW there's more silly stuff in this article--a "Representation" table about who comes from where, full of MOS:FLAG violations, because there is no national representation here. The whole article is so full of flags that it looks like a kindergarten class got busy with it. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree by-and-large about the over usage of flags, Sky Sports (the lead broadcaster of the event) do use flags to indicate nationality as can be seen in this video for example, even though as you point out, there is no national representation. So I do think there should be some indicator or mentioning of nationality somewhere in the article. But that representation table, big yikes! And I also don't think they should be used in the schedule section. I don't mind the usage in the draw section although I can't cite any policy that allows or disallows it in specific instances. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Penepi I'm not reading all the above, however the other day I noticed that your nationality representation table numbers on every single PDC World Darts Championship tournament article, are incorrect on every single one, mainly for rounds 1 and 2.
If those were corrected, people might be more inclined to keep the tables. Danstarr69 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danstarr69 It is not mine. :) I actually did not edit this table at all this year (2023 WC). The apparent discrepancy you mention is due to the fact that 32 players were seeded into the 2nd round. It is then up for debate whether it is correct to include them in the table as participants of the 1st round as well (which they did not actually play). Penepi (talk) (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't change the tables. The informations is correct as it is. There are simply 32 players who only enter the tournament in the second round. That's how the tournament works and we should reflect those facts. Tvx1 21:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkout average[edit]

In the statistics tables there is a column for checkout percentage. Should that be percentage of finishing doubles? The numbers listed sound very high if they mean percentage of the time they checked out with 3 darts when they had the chance. MathHisSci (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_PDC_World_Darts_Championship&oldid=1196918175"