This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Darts C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Darts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Darts-related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. London C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]