Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Messages on user page
Do people find the messages on their user page that they've got the right answer helpful? I'm inclined to think we don't need them, unless the winner has gone 24 hours without asking a new question maybe. Stephen Turner 20:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- I too believe that we do not need them. Most of the time the person answering is sure about his answer. However, the person who asks the question needs to be around to say "over to you" - which may be aminor irritant, given that we operate across timezones. --Gurubrahma 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- No-one seems to disagree, so I'm going to remove this. Stephen Turner 14:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Scores
I was just noticing that the sum of the scores is 100 but it claims to be up to Q104. This might be deliberate (it's possible four questions went unanswered) but it could also be a mistake. Sorry to nitpick, but I'm always checking sums.. it's an ocupational hazard ;-) --Deville 04:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think some of them weren't ever answered. It could be as many as four, although that seems a little too high. Of course, if there is an error, it will continue to propagate. It's not easy to correct this, unless someone is motivated enough to go through all the previous questions and add them up again — and is it really worth it? Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- But maybe we could have a category of "unanswered" at the bottom to reassure people, and to check that the tally doesn't drift further. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Qs 84 and 87 were both in the style of serial musings rather than interrogation, and probably account for two of the missing ones. Perhaps we should move these and any other unanswereds across to this discussion page. Johnlp 12:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I think no-one got credit for Q6 either. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm convinced there are probably four, so I've added it to the scorecard. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I've done several of the tallyboard updates and am notorious for bad arithmetic so if there's a mistake it's probably mine. I think I'll let others do that in future. -- Ian ≡ talk 15:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Here's the definitive answer (or nearly definitive, looking at when the difference of (question number - total scores) changed). There were no correct answers for Q6, Q18 (Tintin got half of it, but not the whole thing), Q28 or Q84. Q87 was deemed to be worth a point to Jazzycab. Everyone happy now? Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rule 3
Perhaps anyone should be able to jump in, after the 24 hours of inactivity? --Paul 08:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I sent jguk an email. Let's see if he responds. Johnlp 09:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name
Um, this should all be over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz, surely? What is Wikipedia:Cricket? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Whoever set it up was confused. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well it was originally, but it was agreed to move it here [1] -- Ian ≡ talk 06:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- It was at WP:Cricket/Quiz and it moved to Wikipedia:Cricket/Quiz but it should be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Quiz. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks! I guess we need to get round to moving the archives some time too, when someone has a moment. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Forgot to mention - I did that. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Timings and enjoyment
Consider this:
It frequently takes between 12 and 24 hours for a new question to be set. + It frequently takes very little time for a correct answer to be given. = This quiz isn't much fun at the moment.
Sadly, Dweller 09:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Specifics based on last 3 questions:
Q. 250 - answered in 1/4 hour. Currently waiting for next q. Q. 249 - answered in 1/2 hour. 6 hours before next q asked. Q. 248 - answered in 1/2 hour. 15 hours before next q asked.
Please keep it moving! --Dweller 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could have a #2 quiz which runs in parrallel? It could even focus on one aspect - say ODI cricket (which I notice we don't get a lot of questions on). -- I@n 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. Many questions are answered quickly, some last several days; and we have Rule 3 in case of long delays. If you are bored, go and expand some of the player (sub)stubs that have been mentioned in the quiz - we are writing an encyclopedia, you know! -- ALoan (Talk) 09:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't see a problem either. I was just thinking out loud. the current turnaround is plenty fast enough if you ask me. -- I@n 10:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scores (again)
Does anyone have a view about the Number of correct answers table. I'm proposing dropping it. Its a pain to update and means very little. -- I@n 14:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not fussed. Perhaps a "Winner's Table" like the AFLQuiz would be sufficient. --Roisterer 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I update it every so often. I've just done it now. Only takes a couple of minutes. What I would like to know is how we do the archive of the old questions. I would do that if I knew how. KingStrato 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I would keep it. Archiving - create an appropriate sub-page, cut and paste the relevant text, and amend the archive template. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Happy B'day!!
This quiz has turned 1 year old today!! Keep the show going!!! --Gurubrahma 18:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stumped
In view of Watters achievement of absolutely stumping this knowledgeable group with an answer that made some of us (me at least!) go "D'oh! Of course!", how about an entry in the Correct Answers chart, under Extras, titled "Stumped"? I can't think of any other questions that fit in this category. Views? 164.36.38.240 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invincibles
As the invincibles template hasn't been updated since December is it worth keeping on the page? --KingStrato (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've never liked the adverts on this page anyway. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
