Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Darts/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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 Wikipedia: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 |QUALITY_CRITERIA=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:

Also future events were moved into Draft (that's ok, their time will come)

Other articles like

have been redirected only to 2023 PDC Pro Tour.

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)

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)

Multiple articles broken

I have just noticed that multiple darts articles are currently largely broken because of the maximum Lua time usable being exceeded. Examples are 2022 PDC World Darts Championship and 2024 PDC World Darts Championship. It's caused by an excessive presence of modules, specifically {{PDCFlag}}. This is something that needs to be resolved.Tvx1 00:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Transgender opinions

Noa Lynn van Leuven who is transgender recently won a Challenge Tour event (mixed gender) and a Women's Series event. Aileen de Graaf has apparently pulled out of a women's doubles event because she feels embarrassed. The source I have for this is the Daily Mail, which is not considered a reliable source. The same source says that Deta Hedman is against trans women competing in women's only events. Hedman & de Graaf's opinion on trans women would improve the articles. Are there reliable sources that give Hedman and de Graaf's opinion on trans women? (78.19.48.239 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC))

Alternative source: https://www.express.co.uk/sport/othersport/1881329/Transgender-darts-statement-controversy-news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.48.239 (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Layout for players

It would be great if we had some sort of consensus on when we should be using which templates for tournament finishes, which ones we should use, what order they go in etc etc :) Bazzabloodybenson (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Notability for players

Any chance we can decide on some initial parameters for notability for players? In terms of modern era I would be inclined to include any current/former PDC tour card holders, but would be interested to hear feedback on the following:

  1. MODUS - Weekly winners IMO should be notable but probably not ADC qualifiers who have played their once or twice?
  2. Challenge Tour - I dont think we can call every challenge player notable but perhaps those who have had significant success? One or more tournaments won?
  3. Development Tour - As above?
  4. WDF - Winners/repeated later stage appearances? Again we obviously cant have anyone who bothered to enter a WDF bronze event being a notable dart player! Bazzabloodybenson (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that we should probably start defining some notability criteria. I note that there's a user currently nominating around 30 articles for PROD having nominated about 20 previous for AfD so I'd like to know what people think is notable and isn't, or if we should just defer to GNG and not have any specific darts notability criteria similar to NFOOTY. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 09:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
that user itskesha I was under the impression they had been banned from all darts articles after the fiascos of the 2022 and 2023 edit wars. Did their ban expire? In which case I think it is fair to report their new wage of stuff as intentional vengeance tour to stir up trouble. You don't get banned from an entire topic and then return to mass delete articles without some sort of bad intention. Dimspace. 86.163.231.189 (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Hm. I'm not seeing any topic ban from darts in their history, so I think you may be under the wrong impression. I'm also inclined to assume good faith - one can disagree with the nominations without assuming the nominator is doing it with the sole intention of disruption/acting in bad faith. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
it was a result of the constant battles on the 2023 world championship pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2023_PDC_World_Darts_Championship - this was the culmination of long running issues with itskesha. This was escalated to an admin discussion, but i'm damned if I can find the link to that discussion right now, but the proposal from multiple admin/editors in that talk was that u/itskesha be banned from darts articles (one regular darts contributor was also banned from wiki completely) Dimspace (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
this carried on into 2024.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_PDC_World_Darts_Championship it was during or just after the 2024 worlds it got escalated to admin discussion page (still cant find the darned link) Dimspace (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive358#Can_an_uninvolved_admin_please_step_in_over_toxicity_and_BATTLEGROUND_at_darts-related_pages%3F was the ANI discussion. Can't tell if there was any actual admin declaration though. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 14:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
yeh, it seemed to end with @Nigej @Giantsnowman and @Tvx1 motioning for topic ban, but then the conversation just got archived out of the blue with no decision for some reason Dimspace (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
As for notability. My gut would be to go with the three appearances logic that some other sports like MMA have. 3 appearances in major ranking event. 3 challenge tour wins, 3 development tour wins. Finalist in WDF series event. I'm really not sure where I stand on Modus Super Series, my gut is that outside of monthly winners its not notable but that could be because i just dont pay much attention to it. Dimspace (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we should be creating criteria rather than using the standard WP:GNG; certainly I look at a few of the articles that have been PRODed/AFDed that are not dissimilar to

John Dartplayer (born whenever) is an English darts player. He won a Tour Card in 2016 and did nothing interesting with it.

and struggle to enunciate why they should be included. Far better to ensure we create articles about players that have coverage rather than waiting for them to hit a target we set ourselves. If the best we've got is a token link to Mastercaller or DartsDatabase to meet WP:PRODBLP, we probably can't justify them having an article. OZOO (t) (c) 14:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
i mean yes and no. An awful lot of sports have set defined notability criteria that stops any "interpretation" of notability and makes it black and white. Its not a discussion over individual cases that should or should not be notable, more about if a defined criteria should be in place Dimspace (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Darts Database

Sort of a sequel to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Darts/Archive 1#Darts Database obsolescence. It seems like Darts Database is on the verge of coming back. Problem is that the site has been moved from dartsdb to dartsdatabase.co.uk. Darts Database is an external link on most darts player pages but the original site now redirects to some website selling Mahjong. I think an effort to replace (with DartsOrakel for now) or remove these external links that are no longer fit for purpose needs to happen sooner or later. Greenflipper (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: I replaced the redundant link with the new one in the template, although there will be some left that were added as normal external links that would need to be replaced manually. Greenflipper (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

2025 in PDC article proposal

Hello fellow darts lovers,

I believe the "[year] PDC ProTour" articles can be improved, as we are using them to write about many non-related PDC ProTour tournaments, like Global Affiliate Tours and secondary tours. I have used the 2023 year to create the User:DFMalamov/sandbox/2023 in PDC article, that improves the current articles in few items:

  • This new article can be used as a landing page for everything related to the PDC in a year. Currently, the user experience in this aspect is poor, as the only element that contains all PDC events in the year is the template "[year] in PDC darts".
  • An article containing all events from a sports organization will standardize darts to another popular companies, like 2024 in UFC.
  • Added PDC Premier Events, both ranked and non-ranked events.
  • Improved the introductions on some section and adapted them to a more encyclopedic language, instead of a copy-paste from PDC.tv articles. Moreover, added the respective prizes for each secondary tour and GAT, and organized them in bullet points.
  • Reorganized the many tours in ProTour, Secondary Tours and Global Affiliate Tours. This also allows us to create sub-articles in an easier way, if needed.

Let me know how you like it and if we could start to implement it since 2025, as darts popularity is growing and many people use Wikipedia to be informed about all the events. If you would like to create Draft:2025 in PDC with content from my sandbox page, please feel free to do so.

Wish you a Happy New Year!

Kind regards Dimitar Malamov (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

PDC World Masters

The Masters is now ranked and in set play and has been re-named the PDC World Masters. Should we treat it as the Grand Slam was treated when it became ranked? Example: In the performance timeline boxes the Grand Slam is put only in the ranked televised section for all its editions on pages, even though it was non-ranked during the earlier stagings of the event. JamesVilla44 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

End of year rankings

Need for more consistency and clarity on end of year rankings on individual players' pages. Does it refer to pre or post World Championship ranking. For example Luke Littler's appears to refer to pre-2024 World Championship whilst Luke Humphries' is representative of post-2024. The general consensus appears to be post-world championship, however I hold the belief that as the world championship is the first tournament of the year, pre-tournament rankings should be represented. LBLM9253 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This is something I've been meaning to ask about as well.
Personally, I'm more in favour of the post-World Championship ranking. I see the 2024 Worlds as the culmination of the 2023 season. I think Littler's post-Worlds ranking of 31 is more indicative of his season and sudden presence at the top of the Order of Merit rather than the ranking of 164 which only represents his 2023 UK Open run as a Riley's Qualifier.
Another instance where I think it works more is with players who fall off the tour. It makes more sense for the ranking to correspond with the year the player's tour card ended in the infobox, like a player losing their tour card at the end of the 2024 season but having a 2024 ranking of 58 which is well inside the usual top 64 cut-off point, as opposed to their post-Worlds ranking of 68 for example. Greenflipper (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It's never even sourced anyway so should probably be removed. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Post-WC should be the only point that matters, since that's when the Top 64 is decided in terms of who retains Tour Cards into the next year. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 18:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm glad someone asked this because I’ve been thinking about it several times as well.
Essentially, we have four options. Let’s take the Year-end ranking for 2024 as an example:
a) Pre-2025 World Championship ranking (rank position after the PC Finals; as of 24 November 2024)
b) Pre-2025 World Championship ranking (rank position at the start of the tournament, when prize money from two years prior has already been deducted; as of 13 December 2024)
c) Post-2025 WC ranking (on 3 January 2025)
d) Live ranking as of 31 December 2024 (chronologically the most accurate date, but technically perhaps nonsensical).
I’m fine with options a), b), and c) because they all make sense. Option c) seems technically the most accurate, but it has a drawback: in the Performance timeline table, the 2025 World Championship would already be in the column for 2025, whereas the Year-end ranking – which would be heavily influenced by this tournament – is in the column for 2024, which could be confusing. Penepi (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Option c) seems technically the most accurate, but it has a drawback

Well then surely the table needs to change then? I know it's a little confusing with the tournament being numbered for the year that it ends in; but even by the PDC's own admission, it's part of the previous year's season — go to the tournament calendar and the Worlds is always listed as the last tournament of a particular year, rather than the first tournament of the next year.
If we take Littler for example, his table is currently showing end-2023 168th and end-2024 4th; but he technically ended the 2023 season 31st with £202,500 (which is what gave him his 2024 Tour Card); and his 2024 end is TBD until after the Worlds.
In fact, if anything this conversation is now opening up an even bigger can of worms than at first glance. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 13:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Reading the arguments here, I would have to agree that post-Worlds ranking would be the most suitable. This seems to have been what has been most commonly used and seems the most logical. The argument could be made to move the world championship to the bottom of the results table however as the most prestigious, it arguably should be at the top. The alternative seems to be changing the wording from year-end ranking to post-world championship ranking. LBLM9253 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I would agree that post-World Championship rankings can be the best option to consider as end year rankings. The World Championship is considered the last event before the Tour Card restart. PDC follows year-long seasons, but their year does not match with the natural year, as other sports' season may do. Dimitar Malamov (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Should that part of the performance timeline be renamed end of season rankings? (Fran Bosh (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC))
I would agree on post-World Championship rankings on 3 January. We could go with Fran's suggestion of end of season rankings to make it clearer.
I would like to point out one of the issues with option A and B. Between the Players Championship Finals and the World Championship draw there are World Championship Qualifiers, the winner of which will have £7,500 added to their pre-World Championship rankings, this can in a circumstance affect the seeding for the world championship. If a player is less than £7,500 behind the 32nd ranked player, but has not yet qualified for the World Championship as a ProTour qualifier or international qualifier, but then qualifies through the PDPA's Tour Card Holder Qualifier, they would jump into the seedings for the World Championship as a member of the top 32. It is an unlikely but possible circumstance which either of a or b would struggle to deal with. JamesVilla44 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The 32 seeds are the top 32 after the Players Championship Finals, the PDPA qualifier does not affect the seeding. Greenflipper (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah yeah
“2024/25 World Championship
Cut-off date: November 25 2024 (after Players Championship Finals)
Seeds: Top 32 in Order of Merit seeded through to Last 64
Qualifying Players:
Top 32 in Order of Merit
Top 32 in the ProTour Order of Merit not otherwise qualified
32 invitations at the PDC’s discretion (international qualifying Events, PDPA qualifier, PDC Secondary and Affiliate Tours). Full criteria to be published in due course.”
But what does apply is that a player can climb into the top 64 following the PDPA World Championship Qualifier, that was not in the top 64 after the Players Championship Finals. JamesVilla44 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Darts/Archive_2&oldid=1278970059"