Jump to content

Talk:Phil Taylor (darts player)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineePhil Taylor (darts player) was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
August 14, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
October 2, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Sexual Assault

[edit]

Can anyone give more details about Phil's sexual abuse court case? --richieb 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your edit; Phil Taylor was convicted of sexual assault. [1] [2] [3]
From his own website's forums [4]
I believe he talks about the incident in his autobiography too Jizz 14:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

O i never knew this where can i find more about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.187.85 (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Should this not be included in the article? It's a fairly major biographical event, and is easily sourced: [5][6][7] are but three articles that easily meet WP:RS. Yunshui (talk) 10:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It has been included in the 'Outside darts' section.

Questionable importance/Relevance tag

[edit]

Added this tag as some events listed in "Outside darts" are totally irrelevant and possibly even nonsense (don't think he's Graham Taylor's cousin). Is each tv appearance he makes worthy of adding in here? Would think that a paragraph on his Eggheads appearance is way over-the-top and should possibly only appear in a forum discussion. Seedybob2 15:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done See WP:TRIVIA; there are ways for cleaning this sort of thing up; there's been a lot of consensus progress on what is and isn't trivial in the last 2+ years. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true

[edit]

This match also made history with both players setting themselves up for 9 dart finishes in the same leg. Both failed with Wade missing the T19 and Taylor failing to hit the T20' .....Not true.. This has happened before on PDC with Dennis Priestley and Raymond Van Barneveld in 2007 Premier League. In BDO Raymond Van Barneveld again involved this situation with Mervyn King in 2003 BDO World Darts Championships Hopwas2007 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopwas2007 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This has been corrected.

Missing tournament win

[edit]

The results/ tournament wins section is already very complete and clear. I only miss one great tournament result: Taylor also has won the Winmau World Masters in 1990. This result/ tournament victory is not in the section already. I guess it has to been added to it. Because the winmau masters is an important and great event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.119.143.109 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It has been added.

OBE/MBE

[edit]

It annoys me that people like Chris Hoy have three good races and receive a knighthood and yet this man has been on the top of his sport for 20 years and is a model sportsman and professional and probably England's greatest ever sportsman (if you count darts as a sport) and still receives not even an MBE or any recognition for his acheivements from the queen or even from terrestrial TV channels like the BBC.84.67.53.0 (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done Allow me clear this up.. Taylor DID recieve MBE but was forced handed back afterwards after scandal in Scotland. Once you got criminal record, you cannont recieve knighthood, medals etc.. hope this helps you Hopwas2007 (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a final which Taylor still lists as the favourite of his career

[edit]

So what is it, Phil? Mike Gregory? Dennis Priestley? John Part? Raymond van Barneveld? It seems like Taylor gives a lot of contradicting statements.

It's very easy for the WINNER to declare someone as the "greatest player" or something as the "greatest match". However, Taylor has also stated that the PDC Championship Match against Raymond van Barneveld was the greatest final he had ever been involved in. And he lost there. So what is it? Like I said, it's very easy for the winner to praise the loser. But to be a gentleman in defeat? I think he only ever afforded that to 2 out of those 4. And both of those are among his best friends... 68.200.98.166 (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done See below. This article would do really, really well to stop focusing on subjective and mutable notions of "the greatest" anything, and get back to reporting reliably source facts, which is what an encyclopedia article does. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Greatest" NPOV dispute

[edit]
Resolved
 – Just removed the damn thing
See also: Talk:Luciano Pavarotti § "Most successful singer"

THE GREATEST: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.55.96 (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Calling him the greatest! - There is no real issue with calling him the greatest player of all time. Afterall he is regarded by most fans of the game and fellow players as the greatest. People have their favourites but no one can really dispute him as being regarded as the best ever. I think it should stay in. He is one of the most successful sportspersons of all time in any sport anywhere in the world. His standing as the outstanding great of his sport is not in any doubt so it should stay right in there.[reply]

Leave it there then, it isn't a problem it being there. Many are asking the question is Taylor the best sportsperson ever of any sport. So it's a simple fact he's the best ever. Sid Waddell says it every minute on commentery and he's been doing darts for over 30 years.

Check out these stats... tournaments wins etc...

http://www.teessidesoftware.no-ip.com/DartsDatabase/PlayerStats.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.55.96 (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue, it is the guidelines and policies of wikipedia. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL. - Toon05 21:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a darts fan? do you think he isn't the best ever?

I don't see what is wrong with saying that a lot of people regard him as the best ever, it's not even up for the debate it is a fact. Some people even question whether he's the best sportsperson ever.

Why do we have to be so sensitive on here? Darts fans know anyway, but for people that don't whats wrong with throwing in there what the majority feeling is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.55.96 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly" - it is an injustice to Phil Taylor to leave out the fact that he is regarded as the best ever. In Taylor's case this is being as nautral as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.55.96 (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we are in the business of writing about facts; like "His 13 World Championship titles and over 45 other major tournament wins makes him the most successful darts player of all-time." What you want to add is opinion. I do follow darts, and happen to agree with your statement, but the point is it's my opinion and your opinion, not actual fact. If you look at wikipedia guidelines and styleguides, this isn't the way the community has agreed articles should be written. Besides, what you are writing is basically covered in the sentence I've just quoted, and so is overkill. - Toon05 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite simple. This is a encyclopaedia, not a fan site. You can't say things like "x is the greatest y ever". That's a peacock term, which has no place here. Instead, you have to demonstrate how he is great, by referencing his tournament wins, etc. - and the article does a good job of that already. (Have a look at the weasel-words article as well and you'll see what I mean.) People aren't removing your statement because they disagree with you, they are removing it because it doesn't need to be said. DrFrench (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Pele's page and Roger Federer's page on this site both say that they are regarded as the best ever in their sport in the first paragraph at the time. There really is no reason why we can't have the same on Phil Taylor's page, anyone with any sense knows that Phil is the greatest player ever and it should be there stating that he is thought my most to be the best ever. Please explain to me why it's on Pele's page and Roger Federer's page and not Phil Taylor's ????? - (DAVO)

Why can't anyone answer me on the above question??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.55.96 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sure can: Those articles need to get fixed, too. Just because one or more other articles are screwed up doesn't mean you should screw this one up too. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this dispute has been unresolved for over a year. There is certainly no consensus to have this article at least arguably violate policy by claiming, or uncritically reporting the claim, that Taylor is the greatest player ever. This should probably be settled by WP:RfC on the topic instead of further back-and-forthing. It might even be better as a centralized discussion since it would affect other articles, especially in music (Pavarotti, etc.) and sports. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peacocks & weasels

[edit]

(Moved from User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2010/January#Peacocks & weasels)

Wikipedia cannot, even with sources, state that any article subject is "the greatest" at anything, as this is a violation of WP:NPOV. About the best we can get away with is a more neutral statement such as the most successful whatever, if that is supported by sources, and then if someone really notable in his/her own right, in a relevant context can be reliably sourced as stating that the subject is "the greatest" we can quote that luminary saying so, by name, later in the article. If this doesn't make sense to you, try inverting the situation: If we find some reliably published articles claiming that George W. Bush is an "idiot", we cannot call him an idiot in the lead, or even say that he's "widely considered" an idiot. We can note that his competency has been challenged by various parties, and after the lead, like in a criticism section if someone particularly notable for political commentary like Larry King can be reliably quoted as referring to Bush as "an idiot" we can quote that. PS: Why'd you delete two sources from Phil Taylor including the only source for Waddell having said anything at all, despite him appearing in the article at least three times? Please discuss major changes on the talk page and use explanatory edit summaries. "Cl sources" doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. :-/ My guess is "clobbered sources". Heh. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've really understood the policies you've cited. You're right that the article shouldn't state that he is the greatest, and so it doesn't. What it states is that he is "widely recognised as the greatest ever". This is accurate, verifiable, and essential to an understanding of Taylor's significance. It is entirely consistent with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK.
The BBC source specifically says he is "widely recognised as the greatest ever darts player", so it is verifiable. It does not say he is the greatest player.
WP:NPOV requires that constent should be written "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It also says (WP:UNDUE) that "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". In this case, informed commentators about the game are practically unanimous in their opinion, so there is no need to balance this with an opposing view. The difference from your George Bush example is, I think, obvious - Taylor's status is not a polarising issue at all. Saying "Bush is widely considered an idiot" (not "Bush is an idiot") would be true (though I don't know if it is verifiable); stating "Bush is widely considered a great statesman" is also true, however, and maybe verifiable. On the other hand, stating that Taylor is "widely recognised to be the greatest" is true, and verifiable, and the opposite is neither accurate or verifiable.
WP:PEACOCK states "When a person or event is in fact important, the reader must be shown how important, and why...A sourced statement that the subject is "famous", "well known", "important", "influential", or the like may be appropriate, particularly to establish a subject's notability in an introductory sentence or paragraph." In fact, the first sentence says "forgo unsourced or unexplained peacock terms that merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information." (emphasis mine)
An encyclopedia article which omits that there is no debate about his status as the game's greatest player would be ridiculous. To leave out the verifiable statement that he is (practically unanimously) recognised as the game's greatest player, makes for a much weaker and less informative article. He's notable not just because he's been a very successful professional player - he's relevant because he's generally considered the greatest ever.
On the sources, I removed them when adding the BBC source - my understanding from your edit summary was that they didn't support the statement "widely recognised as the greatest" though I may have misunderstood your point. The PDC source is not a good one - it states that he is the greatest, not that he is considered the greatest, and is not an entirely independent source. Moreover, it doesn't support the statment "most successful ever". I don't have access to the Waddell source right now, so don't know what it supports.
This isn't a major change to the article, and there was no need to discuss in advance. As for your inability to understand my edit summary, common abbreviations are explained here. --hippo43 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to WP:GAN and see what happens. The article will never be promoted with wording like that in it the lead. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 01:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right - I don't know much about the GA process. I do know that this article has far bigger problems - it's full of original research, and it needs serious copy-editing. It currently has two sections called "Awards"! I also know that the intro is consistent with the policies we discussed. --hippo43 (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, though. [I had somewhere else to be on short notice, so I couldn't get into it earlier.] It is undue weight. For every 1 source that actually says "Phil Taylor is the greatest player ever" (or something to this effect) there are probably 10 (or 50...) that do not gush so much. By selectively relying only on those that do gush, the article is now engaging in original research by improper synthesis. It's also obviously an impartial tone problem, and the addition of weaselwording like "widely recognised as" before an ultimate superlative claim is no more acceptable, because of clear if sotto voce bias, than simply slapping "allegedly" before a wildly negative claim.
I've gone over in detail how such a claim can carefully be worked into an article by carefully quoting someone else who is notable enough on the topic to be worth quoting, so I won't reiterate all of that here. The really basic problem with this sort of phrasing, however, is that it doesn't tell our readers anything useful. Taylor is not notable here because he's what some (even many, even most who are eminent in the field) consider to be the best (as of today). He's notable because of his actual achievements. His record of success is what leads his fellows to sometimes call him the greatest ever, and is what will impress our readers with his notability. It is not our/WP's job to force the reader to acknowledge the claims of others that Taylor is the best, but rather to show that Taylor is the best by presenting the facts in a neutral manner.
It's instructive to look at other articles. I've selected (based on Googling "greatest" with various other phrases) some individuals "widely recognised as" the greatest in their field (ever, or at their peak, as the case may be). Willie Mosconi (straight pool) doesn't do anything like this, it just lays out Mosconi's amazing record; it is a fully 6-criteria-assessed B-class article and a good WP:GA candidate at this point. Michael Jordan (basketball) directly quotes the NBA (the pro league itself) as having made a "greatest ever" statement. Even I've said that's appropriate (I wouldn't put it in the lead, myself, but oh well), and it's a WP:FA. Jim Brown (American football running back) again directly quotes, not just cites, The Sporting News (one of the top two publications in its field) on such a claim; it's only Start-class but is already getting this right. Johnny Unitas (Am. fb. quarterback) says "'one of the greatest" (emphasis added) but this is {{weasel-inline}} tagged and the article is only an alleged (unassessed) B-class piece, with various other problems. Enrico Caruso (early-20th c. operatic tenor) makes no such claims whatsoever, only presents facts; fully-assessed B-class, ready for GAN. Mario Lanza (mid-20th c. tenor) directly quotes two relevant notables calling him the greatest or one of the greateest, and even explains why they are eminent in classical music (i.e. why their opinion counts); it's an unassesed B-class but close to GA. Luciano Pavarotti (late-20th c. tenor) makes no such claims at all, just lists accomplishments; it's a GA candidate. Babe Ruth, (baseball), attributes external sources (poor ones - one another encyclopedia, the other unreliable and falsified anyay); it is only C-class. Ty Cobb (another baseball candidate; some top lists have him as all-time #1), a former GA under some reconstruction, does nothing of the sort; instead it cites specific facts, like his being the #1 Hall of Fame pick, #3 on TSN's Top 100 list, and so on, all reliably sourced. It is possible to find other articles that do what this one does – uncritically report that the subject is "the greatest" with a weasel constuction and some links, without ever making it clear whose opinion's we're rebroadcasting and why. An example is Stu Ungar (poker), which is written almost exactly the way this article is, and is only B class. I can't find a single GA much less FA that does what this and the Ungar article do.
I do agree with that the article is otherwise in bad need of work. This surely must be the #1 WP:GAN-target priority for the proposed WikiProject Darts, perhaps aside from the Darts article itself.
PS: Wikipedia:Edit summary legend is complete tripe; people have added all manner of unused nonsense to that just because they thought of it on the spot; then they forget about it and no one else ever notices it. I don't think anyone pays any attention to it at all any more. In over four years of editing here, I don't ever recall seeing anyone use the one you did, or over 90% of the rest of that page. Not a big deal, I guess. But it is better to be very clear when deleting sources from an article. That even red-flags anti-vandal tools, since there's a "tag" (in that other sense) for it. Expanding your abbreviation to "cleanup" still would not have explained why you were deleting the references. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: The above stuff is not as long as it is just to hear myself talk or to bug you. I'm trying to explore this in depth. This "greatest ever" kind of thing needs to be specifically addressed in policy or guidelines or at least an essay somewhere – it's one of the most common (especially in sports) yet unnoticed and subtle forms of non-neutrality on the whole system, because it at first looks like neutral and routing presentation of sourced information and understanding why it isn't is non-trivial. Some of this verbiage, after boiling down, might be a good starting point. So yes, I'm using you as a guinea pig. >;-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not bugging me at all, happy to discuss this. (My reply will probably end up being even longer.) Your later comments about the need for an essay on this tell me you maybe have an axe to grind with how the policy should be worded; to me, current policies are very clear on this, and the intro is entirely consistent with them.
“For every 1 source that actually says "Phil Taylor is the greatest player ever" (or something to this effect) there are probably 10 (or 50...) that do not gush so much.”
You’re missing the point - this source isn’t saying he’s the greatest ever - it’s reporting how he is viewed by others. Also, I’m not sure you’re correct. Almost every profile piece or biography refers to how he is seen within the game. (This is very different from passing mentions in reports of games etc.) Moreover, reliable sources are not saying the same about anyone else in darts.
“the article is now engaging in original research by improper synthesis.”
No, it isn’t - this is a referenced statement. I don’t think you understand WP:NOR here - can you explain which part of the policy you think this is not consistent with?
It's also obviously an impartial tone problem"
No, it isn’t. That section of WP:NPOV deals largely with disputes and contentious areas. It requires “a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.” The current tone is impartial - it is beyond doubt that he is widely recognised as the greatest ever - this is unbiased, uncontentious and verifiable. Which widely published positions on Taylor's status are not represented?
When the BBC, given its connections to the BDO, states that he is "widely recognised" as the greatest, we have a reliable source. This reliable source is not stating the author's opinion that he is the greatest, it is reporting that he is widely recognised as such - 2 very different things.
“weaselwording like "widely recognised as" before an ultimate superlative claim is no more acceptable … than simply slapping "allegedly" before a wildly negative claim.”
A spurious comparison. Using “allegedly” in this kind of context is vastly different from quoting a reliable source which documents the consensus view of Taylor’s status. WP:WEASEL is just a style guideline, not a policy, and as far as I can tell, it does not even try to preclude sourced statements using constructions like “widely recognised as”. Above, I explained why this wording is consistent with WP:PEACOCK.
“it doesn't tell our readers anything useful.”
Yes, it does. The most significant point about Taylor, as opposed to, say, Eric Bristow or Dennis Priestley, is that he is almost unanimously (more emphatically than almost anyone I can think of in their sport) considered the greatest player ever. He is not just a very successful professional. Per WP:NPOV, as I explained above, it would just NOT be neutral to leave this point out. It’s interesting to see this section of WP:NPOV, discussing art and artists - “it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. For instance, that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia.” You’re right that it is important to explain his successes in detail, but that does not preclude explaining how Taylor is seen in his field. We are not forcing readers to accept anything.
The other examples you quoted above don't really compare directly to this one - none of those is as unanimously considered the greatest in their field as Taylor is. I've contributed to the Michael Jordan article, and possibly the "greatest" debate there. His status is far, far more contentious than Taylor's in darts. There are at least 2 other serious contenders in basketball - there is simply no such debate among reliable sources covering darts. The fact that you refer to two American football players tells its own story - they are two of the many who are arguably the greatest in that sport; likewise baseball. Even Mosconi has to stand comparisons to Ralph Greenleaf. Maybe the most appropriate comparison would be Wayne Gretzky, though even in ice hockey there is more debate than in darts. Among considerably more gushing than this article, the last paragraph of the intro there includes the sentence "He is generally regarded as the best player in the history of the NHL" with references.
I think the difference between sports professionals and artists is obvious to both of us. It’s interesting to compare articles, but Wikipedia is wildly inconsistent - it’s much more important to assess the content against policy, and not GA criteria.
It’s clear that you don’t like the construction, and I empathise. If you take a look at my contributions, you’ll see I have little time for unsourced fanwank, and I’m not a particular fan of Taylor’s. I think you have tried to find confirmation of your view in various policies and guidelines, but they simply don’t support your view. --hippo43 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I had an "axe to grind" with the actual wording of a policy page, I'd take it up there, as I always do (cf. histories of WP:N, WP:ATT, WP:MOS, etc.). We need something on this, written clearly and in depth (whether the way I interpret it or not; whatever consensus comes down to) because views on WP:NPOV, WP:V and other policies as interpreted in cases like this and the others mentioned are self-evidently all over the map instead of consistent and predictable. "I think you have tried to find confirmation of your view in various policies and guidelines, but they simply don’t support your view." This is precisely my take on your defense of your position, so I guess we're at an impasse. The previous discussion, like the one at the Pavarotti page and others I've seen before seem to sharply divide right down the middle. Anyway, I may or may not respond to the details this time. I'm not here to argue for argument's sake, and you're not either. Might be interesting to discuss further, but I don't want to bicker. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 10:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article was tagged for evaluation of copyright concerns in July 2010 based on its resemblance to the official site. Investigation reveals that this content almost certainly originated on Wikipedia and was copied from here.

Let's take the first paragraph of the suspect source:

Born to Elizabeth and Douglas Taylor in in Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent, he left school at the age of 16 and quickly entered work at JF Sale and Co. in Burslem. His early working career consisted of him making ceramic toilet roll handles, earning no more than £52 a week at the time. Between jobs there were spells of unemployment, but Taylor indulged in his favourite hobby, darts. It was his playing in the pubs of Stoke-on-Trent that brought him to the attention of Eric Bristow, one of the most popular and well known figures in the game in the 1980s. Bristow decided to sponsor Phil to the tune of £10,000 on the condition that it had to be repaid. With this money Taylor could practise full-time and enter low-level tournaments.

While there is no archived version of that page, we can examine the evolution of the content.

In nascent form, it appears in December 2003, here:

Born in Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent to Douglas and Elizabeth Taylor, he left school at the age of 16 and quickly entered work at JF Sale and Co. in Burslem. Between jobs there were moments of unemployment, but Phil indulged in his favourite hobby - darts. It was his playing in the pubs of Stoke-on-Trent that he came the attention of Eric Bristow, one of the most popular and well known figures in the game in the 1980s. Bristow decided to sponsor Phil to the tune of £10,000 on the condition that it had to be repaid. With this money Phil could practice and enter low-level tournaments. His rise to the top from this moment was nothing short of meteoric.

The first major difference is the second sentence. This was added to the article in July 2008, here. First, it said, "His early working career consisted of making ceramic toilet roll handles - earning no more than £52 a week at one stage." In the next edit, the IP changed it to read, "His early working career consisted of him making ceramic toilet roll handles - earning no more than £52 a week at the time." The fact that the content was added nearly five years later makes it less likely that it was copied from the source.

Smaller changes are also visible. 2003's "moments of unemployment" becomes "spells of unemployment" and 2003's "practice" becomes "practise full-time" in May 2009--after almost five years. (Practice became practise somewhat earlier.) A few weeks after creation, "he came the attention" becomes "brought him to the attention".

It is very important to investigate copyright concerns when these are detected to ensure that we protect the project, copyright holders and our content reusers, and I appreciate the contributor who brought this matter up for evaluation (who also noted at my talk page the possibility of reverse infringement). Evidence suggests that the official site copied the content from us rather than the other way around. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split in darts

[edit]

Should this section be removed? Here are some reasons why:

  • Unreferenced
  • Too short
  • Pointless

What do you's say? Mr.Kennedy1 talk 12:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The split needs to be mentioned since Taylor was part of the breakaway, and it is a significant moment so should have it's own subsection. Should be easy enough to reference and I have no concerns over it's length. wjematherbigissue 08:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World No. 1

[edit]

Why does it say in the lead he had 8 spells as World No. 1 and in the infobox it says he has 7. Which is it? Mr.Kennedy1 talk 08:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

[edit]
Stale
 – Never really reached a conclusion

I think there is a bit too much focus on the period since 2006 (when the article started) – and it has the potential for exponential expansion. This can be addressed by losing quite a lot of details about various matches and lower level tournaments – wins are listed in their own section and it is unnecessary to go into such detail. The alternative is splitting these out into separate "Phil Taylor in xxxx" articles and expanding with full details. wjematherbigissue 16:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Yes, then you could make performance tables for that year etc. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 17:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The objectors "when the article started" is plain wrong, as the article started with Taylor's birth and include the events that led to Taylor's becoming a professional darts player. I've removed the Recentism tag. --Philcha (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, by "when the article started" I meant when it was created. Also, I was actually proposing stripping out the less notable stuff to avoid the inevitable need for a split later in the future. wjematherbigissue 21:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split some sections into separate articles

[edit]

The 2006 and 2007 seasons are short enough, and the 2010 looks likely to be short enough, so splitting out these seasons would likely be unproductive effort at no benefit to readers. The 2008 and 2009 seasons may have better case, but: splitting can make the content hard to read; I'd I'd look first at ways to make the sections on the 2008 and 2009 seasons shorter. --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yes, we could do that by cutting trivia out and making sentences more compact. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 14:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Performance timeline

[edit]
Resolved
 – Kept table with just WC's

I did not make the table, it was made by Slash99 in May 2010 and he put it into the article but Hippo43 removed it saying "I removed this. As we already have an extensive infobox, a table of performances in recent years, and tables about his world championships, I think it's probably unnecessary". I cannot see why he removed it, I think it is a brilliant table because it does not promote recentism and is very well laid out and useful. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 18:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I don't think we need a timeline for every single major tournament unless we have a separate article for that kind of thing. As such, I have reduced it to just the World Championships and moved it to that section. wjematherbigissue 19:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not going to change it back because the last thing I want is an edit-war but i'll give an oponion on it. Are you sure this is the best decision because this is a great table with all the majors and it is detailed and clear. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 20:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At my screen resolution, it is big and cumbersome, and not particularly clear. I also do not think it adds significantly to this article, since it does duplicate a lot of what is already there in other sections. An article specifically about Taylor's achievements and tournament record would undoubtedly benefit from it, but I think we are already overloaded with statistics here. Incidentally, I think that once this article is up to scratch, such an article will probably be justified. wjematherbigissue 20:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand how different stuff looks on screens of different sizes, i'm on a laptop at the minute with a small-ish screen and when I go to my compter which has a big screen, everything is completely different so I understand that it might look bad on your screen, so I think we can leave it the way you have it. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

[edit]
Unresolved
 – Ongoing

This article is very long (80 KB or 80,000 B) and according to WP:SIZERULE, it should be split into seperate articles. Here is a piece from WP:SIZERULE:

Readable prose size What to do
> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
> 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub.

What do you's think? Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 16:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an outside opinion, i think the section on tournament wins / world championships / high averages could be moved to a brand new article titled Phil Taylor career statistics or something like that. That would cut the article in half. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "tournament wins" section is redundant, as every win is in the infobox too. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tournament wins section needs to stay because Wjemather is changing the infobox by removing alot of the info. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 15:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could still be given its own article. There is enough info there to justify it. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Monkeymanman, an article for his career statistics would be suitable. We should wait until we get it up to GA first though. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 19:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that the GAN review is over (failed unfortunately) we should proceed with the career statistics idea. Where do we start though? Mr.Kennedy1 talk 23:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you could create a sandbox page for the tournament wins / world championships / high averages. Monkeymanman (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Phil Taylor/GA2

Notes

[edit]

Instead of explaining what a leg and set is in brackets beside where it is mentioned, why dont we use notes for explaining that sort of stuff. It would look alot better than it is now. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 11:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would improve the flow that way, especially as you have a wikilink to sets as well. 16:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

PDC career section

[edit]

I think that the PDC career section has a very bad flow. It is badly affected by the short paragraphs. Does anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? Mr.Kennedy1 talk 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010 Copy edits

[edit]

Hi, I will need a little help with the copy edit of the article please.

  • "a game which is first to three legs of 501" - No idea what this means so unable to improve it for clarity.

Thanks --Diannaa (Talk) 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A leg is a single game in which a player must get from 501 to 0. A set is when a player must get to 3 legs before the other player. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 10:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, so the first to win three sets of 501 points each will win the game match. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK Correct me if I'm wrong: The words "leg" and "game" are interchangeable. The scoring is sorta like tennis. Win games (also known as legs) which are grouped into sets. Win a specific number of sets to win the match. So "(a game which is first to three legs of 501)" could read "(each set consists of three legs of 501 points)". Please verify before I put this in the aricle. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You nearly have it, I wish I could explain it better but i'm useless at English. It dosen't have to be three legs as the set could end 3–2 which makes it five legs. Would using the term "best of five legs" be better. Maybe you could word it better though. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 18:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best out of five is the way we would word it in Canada. I will figure out the wording for next session.--Diannaa (Talk) 22:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next question: Please interpret the meaning so a non-player will get the gist: "Taylor ended the match with a 132 checkout". Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A 132 checkout is finishing the leg with taking out 132 in three darts. I will put an example in so maybe you can understand better. Taylor is on 132 and in three darts he gets down to 0. Do you get it now? Sorry again for the bad explaining. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 18:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; he had 132 points left to go and he did it exactly in three darts (the number you throw on one turn). The "checkout" is the sport-specific terminology which we will have to define so now that I know what it means I will figure out the wording and place it in the article. Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 07:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edits are all done. Good luck with your next GA nomination. Regards, --Diannaa (Talk) 14:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nine-dart finishes section

[edit]

An IP address converted the nine-dart finishes section into a table recently. I don't really like it this way as he removed references and added trivia–Who the commentators where, why would you need to know this. Should it be converted back to its old style? Mr.Kennedy1 talk 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GA reviewer remarked that the "worst offender is the nine-dart finish section which is merely an annotated list of his nine-darters rather than prose". I like the table because there is no way to polish up the prose version as it really is just a list of events. My opinion: The last two columns should be removed from the table and the sources reintroduced in the appropriate spots. Two introductory paragraphs for those who do not care to study the table that give a solid summary. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on that later. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 07:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with this if you are sure that is the way you want to go. Let me know if you want help. I will edit the paragraphs under the assumption they will be staying in the article. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I am not the kind of person that refuses help. I'll help out a bit if I have time, but recently I have been very busy. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I got all the discussed changes completed to the table. --Diannaa (Talk) 19:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The bar at the side says "2009 Hits seventh televised 9 darter in Championship League Darts against John Part", but this is not in the table, and it would make it ten in total, not nine. Something's gone wrong somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.164.255 (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The 9 darter he hit against Part in 2009 wasn't televised.

October 2010 rewrite

[edit]

Have tried to address some of the issues from the good article review. Noticed a few things that I've corrected along the way including The "Match of the Century" being removed and replaced with a spurious tournament from 1997 when Taylor beat Richie Burnett (1995 BDO Champ) - fixed. Also took out some real unnecessary stuff such as "achieved the seventh highest tv average of all-time". Still some work to do on this section Seedybob2 (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have completed re-write today, question I want to raise is whether there is any point in the tournament wins list in the main body of text? All this information is in the infobox so why duplicate it? Could reduce the article size dramatically if its removed, and since the info is already there I don't think it adds anything to the article at all. Seedybob2 (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the rewrite. In answer to your question about the tournament wins section; the infobox is under construction and most of the information in it is being removed. Thanks again. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 10:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it is ready for its third GAN? Mr.Kennedy1 talk 11:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the comments - hope it can also reduce the recentism due to the way I've ended the 2009 to 2010 section, but we'll see! As for the GAN, I've gone through some of the suggestions and these are still left to review in my eyes before nominating....
1) A quick scan through needed to see if anything needs referencing, a lot has been done in this respect
2) 3 things on Grammar review: Does every sentence have a full stop? Has the tenses issue been sorted e.g. failed, pluperfect, e.g. had qualified, imperfect e.g. was clocking up? Have we taken out all the jargon, such as "Part did not lie down"?
3) The issue with "An autobiography" not "a biography"; these are simple mistakes which should be picked up with a read through of the article before it is nominated. (has this been fixed - I don't recall the original issue)
4) I've put the two controversies into the main body of the article as suggested - the MBE annulment has gone into the awards section and the Mason incident has gone into the rivalries section (bit concerned that I've now created Manley, Mason, King & Wade as a section in itself that will create more recentism)
Having done the re-write myself that's something you don't always spot in your own work so a third or fourth eye over the issues above might need doing before it goes forward again Seedybob2 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omission

[edit]

Why is there no mention of his 2 charges for sexual assault? Or why were they removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherJohnLukeMason (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the single sentence section entitled "Sexual assault, MBE" as it was out of place, as there had been no prior mention of an MBE being awarded and it was unreferenced. The information is also to be found under section "Awards and records" where it is referenced and not so prominent as to give undue weight. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done It is now in the 'Outside darts' section.

'Rivalries'

[edit]

I think the 'Rivalries' section is too long. I know this is entirely subjective, but to me Taylor has only had three distinctive, identifiable rivalries - Priestley, Part, and van Barneveld. All of them have met him in numerous finals, had classic matches against him, and were considered as good bets to beat him.

The others are too one-sided (I know most players have a one-sided record against Taylor) or recent to be considered 'rivalries'. I think the length of the text under each 'rivalry' speaks for itself. Manley - too one-sided. Mason - no. King - no. Wade - never beaten Taylor in a televised knockout match? Not really a rivalry. Chisnall - too recent.

For now I am removing all but Priestley, Part, and van Barneveld. Any objections - feel free to discuss.--The Skeleton (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


You cannot really say that King and Mason don't have a rivalry with Phil Taylor. You must have seen the controversy of Mason and Taylor's match in the 2007 WC for example if not there is a good video here. There is also significant tension between Mervyn King and Phil Taylor, which includes Mervyn having beating him in major tournaments as well as well publicized incident in Premier League darts where Merv threw a dart over his shoulder. And your argument that Phil's matches against Wade and King are too one-sided is a strange one seen as they have just as good win percentage against Taylor as anyone.
Whilst I think rivalries is a strong word anyway, I do think that these controversies or incidents have a place in the article, so to remove them entirely seems to be an overreaction to the word 'Rivalries' when in fact they are significant so should be included. I personally think the best way to resolve this would be to redraft the section. User:joesayers talk 16:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the tension that King and Mason have with Taylor. But it is just that - tension. When I am talking about a rivalry, I mean a competitive rivalry, not necessarily referring to any personal feelings between the players. In that context I can see no way that Manley or Mason have had a rivalry with Taylor.
I also don't think the section should just be about players who have beaten Taylor occasionally or who have a good 'win percentage' a la King and Wade (and I have also pointed out Wade's terrible televised knockout record against Taylor). One thing that Priestley, Part and van Barneveld all had in common was that they were clearly the #2 player in the world and were often seen as the only men that could challenge Taylor at the time. King, Wade, Chisnall have never fulfilled this role.--The Skeleton (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many televised 9-darters ?

[edit]

From his record. 2009 Hits 7th Televised 9-darter

2010 Hit TWO televised 9-darters (These would be numbers 8 and 9)

2012 Hits 9th televised 9-darter. (This should be 10th not 9th)109.176.163.36 (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done As of 3rd September 2014, Taylor has hit ten televised nine-dart finishes. The nine-darter in 2009 was not televised.

Rivalry with Van Gerwen and Adrian Lewis

[edit]

I think Van Gerwen should be added to the 'Rivalries' section even if their rivalry is only just getting started. I'd add it to the section myself but I don't know how many times they've actually met for instance. Someone with all the facts could do a better job than me...

Agree he should be added. This shows all their past meetings. Spc 21 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks for that. I've added van Gerwen to the rivalries section now. I hope what I've written is ok or, at the very least, a good starting point.
I've added a little more detail into the van Gerwen section with everything I can think of as being notable with a bunch of references. Feel free to change/remove anything you think doesn't belong. Spc 21 (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen what you've done- excellent work! Now I'm thinking about possibly adding Adrian Lewis to the section. Any thoughts on that?
 Done I've now added Adrian Lewis to the section. I hope that's ok.

Prize money and win/loss record

[edit]

I would like to add Taylor's overall prize money and win/loss record to the info box under the heading 'Darts information' but don't know how- can anyone help me out here please?

Taylor's prize money as of 17th August 2014 is £6,085,028.

Taylor's win/loss record as of 17th August 2014 is 1562-195 (88.90%).

There would need to be some fields adding to {{Infobox darts player}} to cover this. Suggest discussing at the template talk page. Keith D (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response- I will do that.
 Done It is done.

Using long br lists

[edit]

I mostly fixed an wp:accessibility issue caused by creating two long br lists: one for the years, and one for the results. this is problematic for many reasons. the biggest issue is that when you cut-and-paste the content, it doesn't line up, since the data is not logically aligned. the second problem is that it is nearly impossible to read the wikitext. the third problem is that the list will not be in alignment if the browser decides to wrap the entries in the wrong place. so, the fix is to replace this with an inner table. in {{infobox football biography}} they fixed this by using more fine-grained input with years1, years2, years3, ... however, in the absence such a feature in the infobox, I simply replaced it with an {{aligned table}}. 19:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

US Open/WSOD

[edit]

On the Infobox it says 3 but lists 4 different years. Mobile mundo (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can find he won the WSOD in 2006 and the US Open in 2007, 2008 and 2010. I've changed it to four. I didn't follow PDC darts back then so I'm not sure what the difference between the tournaments is. Spc 21 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (Mobile mundo (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on Phil Taylor (darts player). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Taylor (darts)

[edit]

The list of major titles won adds up to 83, not 85.

Please amend BRACK66 (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No player has a winning head-to-head record against him"

[edit]

In their first ever meeting Rob Cross beat Taylor in his farewell game in World Darts Championship final on January 1st, 2018, so it is not true anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningwithhorses (talk • contribs) 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. GedUK  11:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phil "Philthy Animal" Taylor

[edit]

No one calls him that, his page should be called Phil "The Power" Taylor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmariomaster (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First televised nine dart finish

[edit]

John Lowe had a televised nine dart finish in 1984, so it's incorrect to claim Taylor had the first. 203.123.96.110 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox far too long?

[edit]

The infobox here is perhaps the longest I've ever seen for a sportsperson, or indeed anyone. Opened this page on mobile earlier, and it severely reduces the ease of reading the article. Considering the article is extensively long, as well a there being a separate article purely for Taylor's career statistics, should this be completely revamped? Likearaisin (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phil_Taylor_(darts_player)&oldid=1252196851"