Talk:2025 PDC World Darts Championship

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 12 November 2024 by reviewer Hey man im josh (talk · contribs).

Darts High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dom Taylor withdrawal

Source? I can find nothing on the Internet in writing to confirm that his suspension is resulting in a withdrawal prior to the draw. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 17:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this comment is from yesterday but just in case: Dom Taylor has now been replaced in the field by Robert Owen, per the PDC article referenced in List of qualifiers which was published after this topic opened. Greenflipper (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative Table

would it be necessary if i added the rep table like previous years ? (Although it hasn't been used for a few years)... Just a thought?... If you look on my sandbox, I've kinda made a start. You'll see what I mean. If it's not necessary then I'll not add it. L1amw90 (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used to love these type of statistics in older world championship pages, but they've become the victim of edit wars in previous years unfortunately. Giving it a try to bring it back would be great. 131.180.59.157 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. The table as a whole is unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 14:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big old Trivia. We don't need it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule

You can't read any of the player names in dark background mode. 2A00:23C8:4F2B:EA00:80B:8A45:3F99:CE6C (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What dark background mode are you using? One from your browser, or a skin on Wikipedia? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Browser. The dark mode as at the top right of the page. 2A00:23C8:4F2B:EA00:80B:8A45:3F99:CE6C (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can't change Wikipedia to fit your browser. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. But it's a default Wikipedia setting. It's the only page I've ever seen it on. Don't you think the settings somewhere are wrong for it not to display the correct format? Nice way to help readers eh? 2A00:23C8:4F2B:EA00:1094:A234:851C:CFBF (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we mean is that there is nothing in the article code explicitly setting the text colour, so the issue with dark mode is a Wikipedia skin problem rather than an article problem.

You'll need to file an issue with the "Report an issue with dark mode" link in the appearance settings. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 18:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I did some digging in the CSS for the dark mode, and I found the issue. There were a bunch of empty "background" calls in the styling of the schedule table, which was causing the text to remain in the default black colour, since it was expecting an explicit text colour to be declared as well.

I have removed these extraneous calls, and the schedule section now seems to look readable in dark mode. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 18:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of edits

It seems to be there is some violation of the three revert rule from AJP2406 and they have not explained any of their reversion’s in the edit summary. JamesVilla44 (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AJP2406, could you explain why you are reverting so many edits? Are there any issues with those edits? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

People, if you want to change something, see how it's done, for mercy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymiiiii (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Szymiiiii (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9 darters

How about a table of nine darters to go along with the table of 100+ in statistics? We have one already, may get more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:908:1433:E883:A781:1961:387F (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really needed, it's mentioned in the infobox and the prize money section, can also be added to the lead as world championship nine-darters usually are Greenflipper (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reliable and perennial sources like the BBC and the Guardian should not be removed if they are present on the page and relevant. L1amw90 has twice attempted to remove them, even though the use of only PDC primary sources on pages has been cited as a reason for the deletion of many darts pages. JamesVilla44 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't think they would be needed with the PDC references..? Don't think it's been an issue before? L1amw90 (🗣️ talk to me • ✍️ contribs) 17:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use of only PDC references caused the deletion of many 2023 European Tour articles as well as Players Championship, Challenge Tour and Development Tour articles. And the Pro Tour and European Tour and many premier event pages have often been tagged with being over reliant on primary sources JamesVilla44 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of the worst decisions that Wikipedia made, so much info was undocumented and not findable, was very frustrating, and I'm glad to see the articles back again. Next time anybody thinks up a plan like that, they need to be vetoed. 2001:1C07:194:A100:3946:CABA:E2E:4511 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works on what secondary sources say about a subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More references are always good as it showcases a more widespread reach. You can still have a primary first-party source, but a secondary source from another major website is good to have as well to back that up. It's why during the draft stage of this article, I was making an effort to get secondary sources for the international qualifiers. 🇮🇪 TheChrisD {💬|✏️} 14:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i mean don't get me wrong, I'm only adding what I think is best. Wouldn't it be better to add BBC etc in the schedule section, rather than have them on the draw? Just a thought...? L1amw90 (🗣️ talk to me • ✍️ contribs) 17:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had them in the schedule section and used ref name to also have the references in the draw section but you moved the references to only in the draw section JamesVilla44 (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I didn't realise that. I'll know for next time. L1amw90 (🗣️ talk to me • ✍️ contribs) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We much prefer secondary sources to those written by the promotion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]