Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:32, 30 December 2023

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Darts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Darts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Darts-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DartsWikipedia:WikiProject DartsTemplate:WikiProject DartsDarts ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 pages, including this one, against this policy? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

oh look who's back again this year

Perhaps you should ask this more overarching question on the WikiProject since it's a common thing across all articles. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 14:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

But it's pertinent here as it's an ongoing event and by far the biggest in the sport. But I'll add it there too. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The day this tragicomic person is finally banned will be the greatest day in Misplaced Pages history. All my warmest wishes, Penepi (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you try answering the questions posed in the original comment? Could you try that please? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How is it I look at darts talk pages about twice a year and every time it seems that one particular chatter has taken it on themselves to be the self appointed supervisor for all darts pages :') Dimspace (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

How is it whenever I visit darts Wiki pages they're always so badly or completely unsourced, with minimal prose and always formatted against the MOS? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The trouble is, and something you need to bear in mind, is the constant downputting of peoples work and nitpicking ultimately puts people off editing altogether. Have you noticed how much of a drop off there has been in 2023 in articles? Most of the european tour events didn't get articles this year. Not putting the blame for that on you, editors move on, have other commitments, but one editor constantly nitpicking and critising peoples work does not help Dimspace (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with the matter at hand? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

To be as clear (and alas, blunt) as one can: The people who spent their time putting the darts articles together over some time were perfectly happy with what they were doing. Whether that was through adding information, or creating the snazzy schedule templates, or the set-by-set breakdowns. Then all of a sudden, the popularity of darts increased, and users such as yourself came over to the darts articles. Suddenly, everything anyone had ever done for a decade was apparently not compliant with some wikipedia policy or other, and you went around removing, reordering and changing things that a group of people had worked on for some time, without so much as a passing thought for their opinion on the matter. The point you have consistently failed to understand is: This annoys, upsets and demotivates people. The result of this not that people are now complying with wikipedia policy and thanking you profusely for alerting them - the result is the information isn't there at all anymore. A number of users understand that no information is worse than information that doesn't perfectly comply with your interpretation of wikipedia policy, but you do not. And that is why (as this talk page shows), people are not appreciative of your contributions at all. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can't find sources and/or display information without "snazzy" formatting, that's your fault pal. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Some European Tour articles were created at the start of this season. At some point they were deleted, because they failed to meet the notoriety guidelines. So naturally, people stopped making them. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good! If a tournament has no notability (not notoriety by the way, that's not a policy 🤦‍♂️) then it doesn't warrant an article! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

How do we determine Dart tournaments notability. There is no agreed notability at all on the project page. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Darts#Notability - so how was notablity for those events/articles determined? The PDC is the top darts organisation.And the Pro Tour is its second most important ranking outside of the main Order of Merit. The Pro tour consists of two sets of Events, The Players Championships, and the European tour. They are second only in importance to the main ranking events (grand slam, world championship, masters etc). How did we determine notability if there are no agreed notability guidelines on the darts project page? If we dont have community agreed notability for darts, I don't understand how one editor can be making notability decisions Dimspace (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That point was made in the debate at the time, but it was deleted anyway. Perhaps it is high-time someone wrote some notability, to avoid that issue in future? 91.110.52.252 (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Dimspace and Penepi for once again providing practical and salient points for changes to this Darts article, although it is basically arguing with a brick wall for the second year running. The last couple years has seen the darts pages become shells of themselves. No Euro Tour results as you previously mentioned, and there is no longer a PDC calendar either which was always extremely useful. The arrogance of a single user to come in and dictate what has 'notability' and what should be changed with pointless and inane policy discussion is a joke, and it's high time that people like this be held accountable. I have not donated a single penny to Misplaced Pages over the last couple years due to this garbage happening all over their website, and I will continue to do so until things like this are addressed. It's a travesty the so-called 'bastion of free information' is now falling prey to those with editing powers that lack common sense. 2600:1700:1850:C710:F5B4:E426:F8AA:1E4A (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The WP:GNG of Misplaced Pages. Darts doesn't get special dispensation. You or any other Misplaced Pages user are not a reliable source for if the Pro Tour, the Players Championship events, the Euro Tour or the World Series are important are not. Just follow the GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

So if a sole wikipedia user cannot determine if something is notable, how did you manage to determine that certain events were not notable? Dimspace (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I never said a Misplaced Pages user can't determine if something is notable. I said a Misplaced Pages user is not a reliable source for if something is notable. A Misplaced Pages user simply saying "these events are notable" is not a reliable statement. However, a Misplaced Pages user making such a statement while backing up themself with multiple third-party sources is how it should be done. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"A Misplaced Pages user simply saying "these events are notable" is not a reliable statement." - well you managed to be a simply say "these events are not notable" and consider it reliable. I ask you, have ANY of the previous European tour event articles of the last decade been flagged for deletion as being "non-notable"? From my perspective, had multiple historic articles been flagged for deletion, then I would have tended to agree with you, but to my knowledge they have not been. If you really want to play by every little wikipedia rule, then surely you should follow that line of thought also? It is not down to one user talk to arbritrily decide events are non-notable when there is zero history of any of those events being flagged for deletion based on lack of notability. Dimspace (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Note, do not see that as a cue to start flagging old articles for deletion based on notability.Yours, with spit and vinegar. Dimspace (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can't prove notability using independent third-party sources, that's not my fault. Maybe all those old articles should be deleted too! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

What is your obsession with 3rd party sources? These are not pages for companies, individuals, where unbiased, third party sources are extremely important especially when it comes to things that could be deemed as "opinion". These are sporting events, where all that is important to the page is statistical data, and accurate data. There are no POV elements to tournament articles or issues with Bias etc etc, all that is needed are qualification methods, and results, and for those sort of data points, first party is totally acceptable, in fact, it could be argued preferable. Gary Anderson beat Simon Whitlock, 3-0. That is fact, and it does not matter if the source is the PDC, Sky Sports, Darts News, or The New York Times, that fact is not going to change. There are countless instances of sporting results page where the main source is the sport organisers, because they are the body that provides the official (and accurate) results. What elements of this article do you think would be improved by a third party source? There is nothing opinion based that needs it. Dimspace (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not an "obsession", it's literally how you prove notability. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

To finally focus on the reported issue, what is that purported "conclusion note explicitedly stated in the source" actually? Tvx1 01:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

well user User:ItsKesha has put the flag on the averages section. I have no idea how 3 dart averages can be considered "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." That makes no sense. Any source citing 3 dart averages can ONLY be implying that those statistics are related to 3 dart averages. So my belief is the flag should be removed because its nonsensical. What could 3 darts averages possibly imply other than 3 dart averages? I believe that we either have consensus to remove the flag, or, it can be removed because it was placed in error. The person placing the flag has had 5 days now to respond to the above comment and make their case and have chosen not to despite activity elsewhere in TalkDimspace (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Bold and italics

The use of bold and italics goes against both MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALICS. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you changed it in the "round a player is eliminated in" at the top. Can I suggest you also spend some time editing every single article on tennis Grand Slams, such as Wimbledon, on here? Here is one good example: there's 18 tournaments here alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/2023_Wimbledon_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_singles#Seeds -- then you've got the three other Grand Slams, and Wimbledon has been going for 100 or more years. Hours of fun contributing positively to wikipedia; nay, humanity itself. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So you don't have a counter argument other than "ITEXISTS"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Come on, chop chop! All those pages on Wimbledon are still wrong and you didn't change them yet? :( 91.110.52.252 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how use of italics is an issue. To Quote MOS:ITALICS. "Emphasis may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence, when the point or thrust of the sentence may otherwise not be apparent to readers, or to stress a contrast:" notably "To stress a contrast".. the use of italics was to separate player and qualification method, from their result in the tournament, two clearly distinct things. Apart from anything else, it is now much harder to read, and from an accessibility pov that is not great. And finally, before such a large change to established formatting it should have been discussed in talk and consensus reached without just ploughing forward with changes. So in this instance, i would "vote" revert Dimspace (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you want it to be easier to read, it would perhaps be better with a Template:Refn note next to the players name. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I've no idea why that would be considered easier to read. It involves a mouse-over for every single entry. That's even less accessible. Footnotes may be an accepted model in your mind, but this is really not a situation for footnotes/refn Dimspace (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Or, it could be reverted to how it was before, which complies with Dimspace's interpretation of the policy. I would also "vote" revert. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Good job voting is completely irrelevant then isn't it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Well its not. Had you wanted to change such a long standing formatting policy on this pages, it should have been discussed on the talk page FIRST, and then yes, people would have voted with their opinion and reasons for their choice of formatting. Dimspace (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

What policy is this you mention? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

"long standing formatting policy on this pages" - I think that is fairly clear. For many many years, numerous editors have use that formatting for the world championships and other major events. In such it became a policy. . It was a formatting adopted by individuals, for many years. Just as it has been an adopted "policy" on many other sporting pages. Its not down to a single editor to make changes to accepted norm off their own back without discussion. But, a look at your talk page seems to suggest that make changes off your own back without any discussion seems to be a trait of yours. And please stop with the passive aggressive warmest wishes. You don't wish me warm wishes, nor do I wish you warm wishes. Dimspace (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So, not a policy then. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Per the Oxford English Dictionary, yes, a practise adopted by a number of individuals is a "policy" Dimspace (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages, it's not. Pretty sure we're editing on Misplaced Pages, correct? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

you asked what "policy" you did not ask what "wikipedia policy". I would argue that multiple editors, over multiple years, over multiple different sports articles on the site using that formatting without dispute, constitutes an agreed policy. Certainly as far as the english language goes, it is. Yours, with spit and vinegar Dimspace (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"you asked what "policy" you did not ask what "wikipedia policy"." Are you for real? That's gotta be one of the dumbest things ever written 🤦‍♂️ I would argue that "the blind leading the blind" and "ITEXISTS aren't policies. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

"Policy" would mean the context used by the person who brought the word into the discussion. I clearly stated "long standing formatting policy" and so that is the "Policy" we were discussing. I always made it clear the policy was in context of these pages (and other sporting pages). I never once said "wikipedia policy" you decided to adopt my use of the word to your intended meaning of it. Yours, spit and vinegar Dimspace (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

And the context was a related talk page on Misplaced Pages dot org. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Player Stats Table Missing This Year

Good work all updating this year again. But why is their no individual player stats table at the moment, or will it be added after completion of the first round? It’s very useful in previous years for comparing stats and checking how many 180s have been thrown so far. Think we are on track to beat the 901 from last years tournament, but individual player stats are missing so far this year? 81.107.117.247 (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Because User:ItsKesha said so. As you can see from this talk page, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks when ItsKesha forms an opinion. 91.110.52.252 (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

And who are you? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Get rid of the italics from all the tennis articles, and you'll find out. :) 91.110.52.252 (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Sad act 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Country representation table is missing as well. Was always nice to check. 2A00:1CA0:1486:601:E859:3A46:5846:28A9 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I view this page a lot as a really useful resource for this tournament and its a shame not to see overall player stats for the tournament (average, 180s, doubles % etc) 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:8A3F:75FA:CE93:E428 (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes and I'm sorry for that, but there is a certain individual who feels that when an average reader opens this article in order to find out such interesting facts and data, he or she is much more worried about whether there are at least 94 independent sources and each of them must display given statistics in a *precisely defined form*. It does not matter that all the data is completely correct. If by chance that statistic or table contradicts even one word from any wikipedia policy, then it cannot be here! Why any flexibility to cater to the average reader and provide them with valuable (and I stress - correct) information. We'd rather delete most of the content that happens to not 100% follow certain policy, which was written in an absolutely general manner and not with regard to the context and content of specific article such as darts, for instance. Penepi (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please delete the personal attack. I've asked you several times to refrain from personal attacks. I won't ask again. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I don't see any personal attack in my post. I am not mentioning any specific person, so it cannot be a *personal* attack from the essence of the matter. So it seems the problem here is exclusively your vanity, one might even say paranoia. And I, in turn, ask you to avoid pointlessly mentioning wiki policies where they do not apply at all, and thereby wasting other people's time. I won't ask again. Penepi (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think they have made it too obvious they are a troll now and so hopefully will have got bored and leave this page alone now. It would be great if someone could put the overall tournament stats on as well! 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's the same as the attacks you made in edit several summaries, don't act stupid 🤦‍♂️ All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Please delete the personal attack. It is absolutely unacceptable to call someone's actions stupid. Penepi (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable especially when true 👍. Repeatedly using autism/autist/autistic as a pejorative, however, isn't. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Penepi please do not let ItsKesha draw you into a flame war. You know from experience that they will report you, and after rapidly editing their own insults, coupled with their "But I always send people warmest wishes" defence will see you banned from editing and not them, and that would be a detriment to these articles. Dimspace (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What on earth are you waffling on about? Are you OK? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Schedule vs Draw

Do we need the "Schedule" section at all? The "Draw" section appears to give sufficient information, and much of the information is duplicated across the two sections. 82.31.44.4 (talk) 17:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but you're forgetting "it looks nice" and "I like it" and "it's been this way for years"!!! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously we need it. And it is surprising that it needs to be explained and justified at all. It gives much more in-depth information than the Draw section - exact order of individual matches, time of matches, results of individual sets. For a casual reader, this section is probably the most useful of all. Penepi (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

100% agree with Penepi Dimspace (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why the articles needs "more in-depth information..." when it's a violation of NOTSTATS and NOTTVGUIDE. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. Read it better. Penepi (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you point out the pertinent information that mean those polices don't apply? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha Can I suggest that for your own mental health, and to prevent the complete demise of Darts articles in 2024 you just find another group of pages to cast your nitpicking wee eye over. I think its become clear that your presence here is disruptive and just annoying a lot of people. Or does it just need to reach the point where complaints need to start being put in? I'm sure you mean well, but your "assistance" is no longer (arguable it never was) being received in perhaps the way it is intended. Its notable that you don't actually provide any positive edits to darts pages. When was the last time you submitted a result?, a score of a match?, a tournament draw?, a high average? anything, you know, useful? (note: my own darts edits are minimal just because people are so darned quick at adding stuff :D)Dimspace (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because personal attacks are the answer to the question an you point out the pertinent information that mean those polices don't apply? Wanna answer the question? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. And otherwise yes, this is a de facto comprehensive answer to your yet another grotesque question, you would just have to be able to read between the lines; I understand that it is probably too much to ask from someone who can't even read the lines themselves. Penepi (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

So, for the sake of argument, let's pretend I can't "read between the lines". Can you point out the pertinent information that mean those polices don't apply? Also, please refrain from personal attacks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, so you want to cite the rules, etc etc. NOTSTATS states "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context."

Which "statistics are "unexplained". I guess one could claim the 3 dart average is "unexplained" but that is easily solved by a small "small number next to player name denotes 3 dart average"

Where are there "excessive listings of unexplained statistics" - again, "unexplained" is easily solved, and 3 dart average next to a player name is not excessive.

"lack context or explanation" - I do not see anything that lacks context or explanation. Tables are clearly marked with sets and its obvious to anyone what the scores represent.

"Statistics should be placed in tables" - which they are

"arcticles with statistics should include explanatory text". Personally I dont think anything is needed for the results, but a small line could be added to fill this requirement.

So ItsKesha where, exactly, does this article faily to comply with NOTSTATS that is not very easily resolved (without deleting vast swathes of very good information? Where is this "violation"? Dimspace (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, you've failed to address the need to have every single set individually broken down to show the score in every single game. Which is demonstrably excessive use of statistics. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope. It is you who have failed miserably to stand your point why it is NOTSTATS. Penepi (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha so how exactly does that violate NOTSTATS. You claimed it was a violation of NOTSTATS, its down to you to demonstrate why that is the case, the onus is completely on you. Specifically what part of NOTSTATS is violated? It does NOT say "Excessive use of statistics", it says "excessive use of unexplained statistics". The set scores are not "unexplained". So again, what is the violation? Dimspace (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Funny how you've just completely ignored NOTTVGUIDE, by the way. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

So by diverting to NOTTVGUIDE is that you accepting there is no "violation" of NOTSTATS. Ok, well lets move onto NOTTVGUIDE then. I quote.

"Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable."

It starts "An article on a broadcaster".. This is not an article on a broadcaster. So how exactly is it even possible for this article to constitute a violation of NOTTVGUIDE? Dimspace (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has been diverted. You've yet again failed to address the need to have every single set individually broken down to show the score in every single game. Which is demonstrably excessive use of statistics. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. No policy says that. Penepi (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case why aren't you taking this stance to other wiki pages like NBA for daring to put scores by quarter in their playoff pages, or the MLB baseball playoffs who have the AUDACITY to put the score breakdown by all nine innings?! God forbid a game goes into extra innings and they have to include that too. Makes no sense. I'm starting to think you had a family pet that was run over and a darts player was driving the car, honestly... I really don't understand why year after year you continue to harangue the darts entries when they are consistent with how all the other major sports show their stats. Heck, there are college teams that give annual stat summaries in basketball by player. It's not right to just nitpick on darts articles when you are the sole person that seems to have any sort of issue with them. 2600:1700:1850:C710:9D0F:B93C:E406:E1C7 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think they have made it too obvious they are a troll now 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody cares about the opinion of you logged out losers 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you follow darts? If not, just go away mate. All my warmest wishes though... 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Follow what? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, my last comment on this matter because frankly ItsKesha your aim here appears to be as disruptive as possible. A look at your talk page showing numerous warnings and bans for that very thing seems to suggest its a characteristic of yours. So to address for the final time as you continue to ignore contradictions to your claims (note you are now failing to address the not a tv guide claim), the two violations you are claiming.

1.NOTSTATS Nowhere does it say "excessive use of statistics"! I don't know if you misread it, misinterpreted it or are being completely disingenuous, but "excessive use of statistics" is NOT in that policy. It says "excessive use of UNEXPLAINED statistics". So please stop claiming that policies state things that they do not. If there is any statistics you genuinely feel warrant "explanation" then raise it, but I have put a note onto the 3 dart averages and my feeling is that the set scores are self-explanatory and dont fall under "unexplained" (although I am sure a short paragraph explaining how legs and sets work could be drafted if we really need to "explain" to satisfy NOSTATS.) EDIT: Details on how scoring, legs and sets work is actually detailed in 2024_PDC_World_Darts_Championship#Format so, these stats are also not "unexplained"

2 NOTTVGUIDE Clearly states " An article on a broadcaster should not". This is not an article on a broadcaster, and as such, NOTTVGUIDE simply does not apply. Again, I don't know if you misread, misunderstood, or are being completely disingenuous but fake threats of misunderstood policies need to stop.

I do not edit darts pages very often, but I am a regular visitor to them for information, and over the past 6-12 months I have kept a very close eye on the talk pages. I don't know what your issue is, but every instance of "misunderstood" violation threats will now be reported as will your ongoing disruptive behaviour. You are a detriment to this community as the disruption you cause far outweighs any contribution you make. Please refrain from wishing me well, because I am confident, you do not, have "warmest wishes" towards me, you merely use that sign off as you feel it will help you avoid any disciplinary action from admins. Dimspace (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum, anyone more familiar with WP:RFCBEFORE I think that is the more obvious route of sorting out these repeated and ongoing claims of "policy violation" Dimspace (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You don't half talk some shite. Look at the state of the 2024 article compared to the 2023 article, which I edited heavily, and try coming back here and telling me my editing is disruptive and that I'm a "detriment". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Not Enough Stats

This article would be even better and more informative if it had more player tournament statistics available 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes I need to know how many treble 19's have been hit and the weight of everybody's darts and what flights they use and their stance. More more more! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Weight of darts are already including on the individual players articles which are clearly linked from this one. I really don't need to see the need to duplicate information. Player 180's, highest checkout are certainly things of interest, especially when comparing to historical data and this is statistics we used to include on World Championship articles. Dimspace (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. But no, I suggest these wouldn't be useful. I think 180s, highest checkouts and tournament average probably would be though. Wishing you all my warmest of wishes 2A00:23C6:72B3:BC01:2D9B:4DCA:CE8:1748 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Darts articles
• Unknown-importance Darts articles
• WikiProject Darts articles