Jump to content

Talk:Quiz bowl/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Issue

I find that the three (usually) statements in the first paragraph seem really unprofessional. Someone more experienced with this article would do a good service to remove them. --71.113.162.164 04:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the geographically diverse nature of quizbowl, there really is no other way to describe the format except as usually consisting of 2 teams of 4 players on 15-20 question rounds. One state uses 5 players per team (Illinois), 1 national format uses more than 2 teams in a match (Panasonic Nationals) and most rounds do last from 15-20 questions, although NAQT runs up to 26, some Illinois formats can run to 24 or 30, and some formats are completely different and can have up to 65 (Panasonics, for one). "Usually" is the only true way to describe these facets of quizbowl. However, if it's an aesthetic quality you think it lacks, suggest your way - it may very well be better than what is currently there. Styxman 05:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've edited the first paragraph to both improve the style and to make it apply to pretty much every form of legitimate quiz bowl without resorting to kludges. Note: I am not the initiator of this discussion, but I agree that the previous wording was stylistically suspect. Buzzerzen 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Permission

Hi Qbmessiah, do you have special permission to use the contents of http://www.gwu.edu/~trivia/qbasics.html (where you found this article, apparently)?

The article was developed from an F.A.Q. and reposted on the gwu site (see usenet's alt.college.college-bowl for another version). It is public domain in the quizbowl community. It probably should be rewritten for style reasons, when time becomes available.

Some older versions

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=quiz+bowl+FAQ&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2dlbvd%24c8%40netnews.upenn.edu&rnum=5

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=college+bowl+FAQ&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=4ngp0j%24g5s%40epx.cis.umn.edu&rnum=3

Based on: Quiz Bowl Basics

Author : George Atendido, October 1997 (minor update qbmessiah April 2002)

Thanks to Hayden Hurst for formatting this page. dml

"In particular, ACF, CBCI, HCASC, NAQT and UC each have distinctive formats. Also, certain tournaments and programs have developed their own distinctive formats. A few of them include the University of Pennsylvania (Penn Bowl), University of Michigan MLK, Stanford University, and Deep Bench (University of Minnesota/Carleton College)."

So what is "distinctive" about Penn Bowl, et al? They're all just minor variations on acf/naqt rules. This seems a bit misleading. Gamaliel 00:32, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

QB Wikipedians

I'm wondering if we could set up a list of qb playing wikipedians, just for the sake of curiousity. I'll add my screenname.

Project: Quizbowl Answers

At User:DavidLevinson/ACF-Answers00 I have placed the answers (reformatted obviously) to the ACF regionals from 2000 (more or less randomly picked, though easy for me to script). The interesting things are what has blue lines (links) and what has red lines (no articles). The blue lines show how comprehensive Wikipedia is. The red lines of course are often alternative names and spellings which should have redirects, though there is the occasional glaring hole.

What I propose for the project is:

  • 1: Put all of the answers from all tournaments in Wikipedia format
  • 2: Ensure there are articles or redirects from every answer that deserves one

This will help ensure the quizbowl canon has wikipedia articles, and may in the future help quizbowl writers stay within the plausible.

Comments? Should this be a WikiProject? dml 29 June 2005 22:11 (UTC)

The Gulf of Bahrain doesn't have an article?? I don't know if this would actually make a WikiProject, but it certainly sounds like a good idea. Anything that comes up in quiz bowl is likely to be encyclopedic. Isomorphic 29 June 2005 23:12 (UTC
I set up List of quizbowl answers to provide a directory for these pages dml 1 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)
I think that's a really really bad idea. This is the sort of meta-data that should be in your user space like it was before, or on a Wikipedia: page, like the other lists of encyclopedia topics. It definitely should not be in the article space. Adam Bishop 1 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
Agreed. Please remove list of quizbowl answers and ACF Regionals 2000 Answers from the main namespace. These clearly belongs in either the user namespace or the Wikipedia namespace, but they are not part of the encyclopedia. Isomorphic 1 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)
Just to pile on with the above, I too agree. This sort of thing is analagous to Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics, which if you'll notice, is in the Wikipedia namespace. →Raul654 July 1, 2005 07:14 (UTC)
Moved to * Wikipedia:List of quizbowl answers. Now help contribute.

Some deletionists have put the page on votes for deletion, despite it being in the Wikipedia namespace. FYI see the following links:

dml 7 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

Just browsing casually over those lists, I identified a couple useful redirects and added them. Looks like a useful project. Thanks David. Quizbowl answers are also good for reminding us that even though Wikipedia has a huge number of articles, our content is weighted heavily toward current events and trash. Hardcore ACF answers are still likely to be red links. Wikipedia still has a ways to go. Isomorphic 04:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

IHSA Format

There is no set restrictions on the number of toss-up for regular season matches in Illinois format, however, the State series always has 30 toss-up/bonus combinations with replacements. I edited the section, but I'm sure someone can clean it up better than me.

Format comparison

Following some debate on Talk:College Bowl about the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the various formats, I propose collecting/centralizing the discussion of formats in one place. I'm thinking a section in here or Quizbowl formats, with each article about the four major non-trash formats (i.e. ACF, CBI, NAQT, HCASC) with a section like "comparison with other quizbowl formats". Distributions are listed in various places. A few I found are as follows:

The idea is to illustrate that the games are different in tangible ways, showing that players may prefer one over the other, to the point of "de-affiliation" with CBI.

Your thoughts? --Christopherlin 19:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm thinking it might be time to break this article up or otherwise spawn a number of articles. For example, the article about the Lithuanian game certainly doesn't belong with the state formats. Also, the description of the state formats may well deserve their own article. I don't want to do this alone, but this article is getting a bit long, IMO Shawn Pickrell 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A Canadian "High Q" (or a different spelling with similar sounding)

I'm not sure if anyone may remember, but does anyone, most probably from Alberta, remember a Canadian academic quiz show called High Q, which was produced for years in Edmonton? I watched this program for years on CITV (now Global Edmonton) on cable via the CANCOM system in eastern Canada (except for a 4-year gap when I moved from one town to another in the same area) until the series ended in the mid/late '90s. The host in Edmonton (I remember his name but don't want to get it wrong) still works for the station as a weather presenter during the morning (and some afternoon) newscasts. Maple Leaf fan '04 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I may have a fuzzy memory but I still remember the show well.

Study pages?

Are there any pages intended specifically for players to study? It seems to me, that it would only be natural for Wikipedia to host some of such pages. To clarify, I'm looking for lists of major works of classic literature and their authors. Also: • US Presidents, the span of their terms, and wars/battles that occurred during their terms, pictures. • Mathematical equations and terms • Interesting words?

I can't think of much more now. But I think you get the idea.

So, are they anywhere here yet? Or a list of external links to these things? ArtifexCrastinus 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

This article lacks pictures. I'm greatly tempted to take some at tomorrow's Maryland tournament and post them in this article. Raul654 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner needs WP recognition. I haven't played that long, but he is the greatest player I've ever seen. I'm adding a snippet to the NAQT page, but does he deserve an article, or at least a redirect to NAQT? SamuelRiv (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. Don't be silly. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
After further consideration, I've added a notable individuals section to the NAQT page, but that's it. Basically, I stumbled on a blog called "Fire Matt Weiner's Head" last night, and that got me strolling down memory lane of 2005 ICT. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

please leave me out of this disasterpiece Matt weiner's head (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the new Quizbowl Wiki (http://www.doc-ent.com/qbwiki). Also, it seems like hsquizbowl should be moved up in the link order, as it's at least more important to quizbowl these days than the Yahoo Message Board group. And it's probably a good idea to mention that it doesn't just cover high school quizbowl. --Ikillkenny (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Title

I think it is quite odd for Quiz bowl to be spelled as one word. It is usually known as two words, and there is also Math bowl and Spell bowl, not Mathbowl and Spellbowl. Anyway, the NAQT website at the bottom uses Quiz bowl. If no one objects, I will move Quizbowl to Quiz bowl. Reywas92Talk 02:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is spelled as one word at the Quizbowl Resource Center and the Quizbowl Wiki. NAQT is not the arbiter of common practice. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are the other two arbiters of common practice? I have found 67,000 google hits for quizbowl, but 196,000 hits for "quiz bowl". 208,000 without the quotation marks. Dictionary.com has no results for the one word, but suggests it as two. Football teams play the Super Bowl, not Superbowl. Reywas92Talk 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Reywas that the one-word rendering is unusual with respect to other types of "bowls", but both versions seem common enough. This seems like the sort of issue for which a little poll is good to help determine consensus. If neither version is favored by a wide margin, there would seem to be no outstanding reason to change the title (but neither would there be an outstanding reason to keep the present one!). Robert K S (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Like, quizbowl teams are notably not football teams. It's bizarre to argue by analogy that quizbowl ought to be spelt as Super Bowl for two reasons. First, one is an event, the other an activity. Second, there's no reason that the spelling of one thing ought to be tied to the spelling of another (or else I'll move football to Foot Ball because it ought to be the same as "Quiz Bowl" in your world. The fact that a number of individual competitions call themselves Quiz Bowl or whatever does not change the name of the activity. I've changed the article to be, at least, consistent with the article title, spelling quizbowl as one word. 140.247.23.67 (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Reywas92. After consulting several dictionaries, I found no entries for quizbowl. Nor does this spelling comply with AP, MLA or any other style manual. Jennings' book and several hundred newspaper articles use quiz bowl, or quiz-bowl when the two words modify a third, as in "quiz-bowl competition." It seems preferable to follow conventions of standard English. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I would think that WP:WEIGHT applies here??? Based on G-hits (not always the single best indication of what to do, but not to be wholly dismissed either) "Quiz bowl" would be the more common ... which would be consistent with the historic prescedent of "College Bowl". The only thing I might be worried about: is one vs. the other a regional usage? I can't remember (personally" seeing anything other than "Quizbowl" ... but that could be a regional custom that is not common outside of my area. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, since NAQT and Questions Unlimited are the largest companies, their marketing material will predominate in Google hits. Rather than giving hundreds of points of credit to one or two companies just because they have more pages on their website, a better application of WP:WEIGHT might be to count each meaningful entity in quizbowl as one "vote." We don't rewrite every computer-related article to use the terms that Microsoft uses, even though by market share and Web prominence Windows products would have a supermajority every time. Bullofconfusion (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
A good point ... as an example, all hits leading to NAQT's website should only count as a single piece of evidence. Even to extend: if a single journal may have multiple articles referencing a particular spelling, but that may be because of a preference on the part of the editor(s), and should count as a single source. This is a good illustration why g-hits have to be taken carefully. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Of the sources and links added to this article that use this term, twelve use "quiz bowl" and three use "quizbowl". Not only do the largest companies use two words, there is a still a majority of quiz bowlers. I just think it makes much more sense because it is comparable to College Bowl, Scholars Bowl, Knowledge Bowl, Science bowl, etc. Reywas92Talk 02:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you search Google news archive, "quiz bowl" is a much more common hit (8000 plus) than quizbowl (102). I have no objection to moving to "Quiz Bowl" and redirecting Quizbowl (right now its the opposite) --Milowent (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This is because newspapers follow Associated Press style. Does WP:weight trump WP:RS? If so, this may contribute to the consensus among scholars and educators that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, its well known that the titling of this article is causing havoc in the halls of academe. The funny thing about wikipedia is that although many people trumpet its weaknesses, they read it all the same. Which is why its the 6th most popular site on the interwebs. --Milowent (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Great points Milowent My apologies for the pedantry. Next we'll be debating how many angels fit on the head of a pin. In all seriousness, Wikipedia's popularity and the fact that spiders pull from its content to populate other sites is why editors of this article should make sure that it is as complete, balanced and readable as possible.
I agree on that. When I'm working on articles that are bad and/or up for deletion, I'm amazed to see how far the information spreads online. So it sounds like we should move the article then? --Milowent (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what "Associated Press style" has to do with this. Surely they do not have a guideline on "quizbowl" vs. "quiz bowl"? I think we need to figure out which guidelines apply and investigate the relevant evidence in a more thorough manner, before moving the article to the Questions Unlimited-preferred nomenclature at the behest of what 2 to 3 people who work for or patronize Questions Unlimited say. Surely, though Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is also not an oligarchy where such a tiny handful of people can simply impose their will. Bullofconfusion (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not know where you get this idea that we here work for or patronize a certain company. Yes, I am accustomed to quiz bowl, but in no way do I have a conflict of interest. Or maybe, as we have pointed out, quiz bowl is simply more common overall among major companies and article sources, grammatically correct, and in line with every other bowl. Reywas92Talk 21:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can look at your userpage and combine that with http://www.qunlimited.com/rank09.htm to figure out that you have an interested in defending the Questions Unlimited NAC, whose existence allows your team to make the laughable claim that it finished 11th at a "national championship" tournament, by attending one where the results mean nothing and all the good teams are boycotting. If we're going to keep bringing up things like Ken Jennings's NAQT affiliation, or scrub every mention of ACF or hsquizbowl.org from the article due to a selective application of WP:RS, then surely people with obvious biases on the other side should be cautioned to keep their personal feelings in check when participating. Bullofconfusion (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I am NOT defending them! First, my school did not even attend the QUnlimited nationals this year, that is another school in my town, and our/their success does NOT matter. You do NOT need to rudely call it a "laughable claim"! In fact, this year we may be switching to ACF due to another Indiana school's concerns! In no way is this a selective application: using all the the WP:RSs presented in the article, there is a clear majority for "quiz bowl". Maybe you need to consider YOUR biases ("the results mean nothing," "good teams"). Reywas92Talk 20:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
lol, quizbowl (or dare i say quiz bowl) slapfests (slap fests?) are hilarious.--Milowent (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I request that you stop editing this page if you have nothing to contribute but this sort of nonsense, Milowent. Bullofconfusion (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Calm down, Bullofconfusion...his humor serves to ease tension and stress...remember: laughter is the best medicine. And Milowent, that humor could have been better phrased. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably, so Ks0stm, but I couldn't help myself. I'd still like Bull to be my online wikifriend if he/she can stand me. The article has been moved at this point, so the title discussion is largely over at this point I hope. --Milowent (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Since the goal is to create a well-referenced encyclopedia article that is neutral in tone, it would be best to WP:FOC and support positions with WP:RS rather than speculation about other editors wp:civ and wp:npa. If no consensus can be reached, the article can be submitted for WP:DR.ObjectiveThinker (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no entry for quizbowl, but there is an entry for compound words (such as quiz bowl). Most style guides (AP, MLA, Chicago Manual, etc.) suggest that, if there is no dictionary entry for the word as a closed or solid compound (quizbowl), it should be spelled as an open compound (quiz bowl) or as a hyphenated compound when it modifies another word (quiz-bowl question). Even if you want to ignore conventions of English usage, simply typing the word quizbowl into Google returns a "Did you mean quiz bowl" query at the top of the results page. What Questions Unlimited, NAQT or any other question company prefers is immaterial, although it is likely that they consult style guides and dictionaries since they are in the publishing business. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(indent)Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) has the policy on titles. In general, it says that we should go with the most common usage in the English language (which is akin to saying: go with WP:WEIGHT). As noted above, while g-hits are an "in general" guide, caution needs to be made to avoid hits which duplicate sites or to duplicate sites. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says, "Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." The policy on WP:SOURCES states that, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The preponderance of these "most reliable" sources, including published books and newspaper articles, call it "quiz bowl," presumably because they follow style books, as discussed above. As a test, try searching Google/Books (zero uses of quizbowl) and Google/Scholar (zero uses of quizbowl) as well as the newspaper archive that Milowent referenced earlier. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Being WP:BOLD, I moved the article. What can be fix next? Some of these unsourced state sections?--Milowent (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Junior High started in 2007...?

I'm not so sure what's wrong with the part. It could be talking about a specific Junior High School quizbowl, but there has been a quizbowl for junior high around on the computer since the 90's. My school just held ours, and our team practiced by using older copies of the quizbowl. Some of the quizbowls were still on floppy disks, so it definately isn't new to 2007. I'm not sure where one would research this, but if anyone knows how, it could use some editting.--204.248.58.136 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

I know that this is off topic, but I thought that maybe all of you guys on the list might like a userbox if somebody else didn't already make a better one. You guys can use it if you want, go here to get it. Enjoy! Doin' Huh 3.5 19:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Where in the world?

Where is Quizbowl?

Milwaukee. Raul654 (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What does or does not belong on this article

Since it looks like the AFD nomination will be denied, I would like to work on fixing this article to whatever extent is possible. One of the major problems I identified was that the article, over time, grew to include small paragraphs on things like Certamen and Protmusis that don't appear to have much, or at all, to do with what quizbowl participants think quizbowl is (and conversely, the participants in those two activities would probably not describe what they do as "quizbowl). There should be some demarcation between what is "quizbowl" as opposed to what is a game show or what is any non-athletic competition between schools, as the first step to making this page a logically structured examination of the topic of quizbowl rather than an indiscriminate collection of information about every game-like thing that may or may not involve factual recall. Bullofconfusion (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Heya Bull,
1. i Moved your comments to the bottom of the pAge because ThaT is WherE new comments generally go.
2. If you caN find a rEliable souRce that defines quizbowl, and that excludes some of these (like certamen and Protmusis), by aLl mEAnS add it and citE it. My gueSs would be That if these Other things are not cited soon, they will be deleted. That is the normal Procedure. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there Anything the Matter with your keyboard, LoNelybeacOn? iT seems almosT as if you HAve a shifT key that's Broken or something unfortUnate Like that. if you'd Like, i can offer you some tips o Getting it fixed, thoUgh of course it's likelY To cOst you a little Money to get the job done properly. Matt Weiner's Gigantic Head (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is going on here? Bullofconfusion (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Disingenuous edit summary by ObjectiveThinker

User:ObjectiveThinker removed a link to http://www.doc-ent.com/qbwiki Quizbowl Wiki with this edit summary:

(cur) (prev) 23:43, 11 September 2009 ObjectiveThinker (talk | contribs) (57,052 bytes) (→External links: Deleted link to unverified source that lacks editorial oversight. Hard to determine who owns or operates the site since "About" page is blank.

The "about" page there is not blank, and the page that is actually linked to has the site owner's real name and e-mail address across the top in big, bold font. We can't have people making up stories as their justifications for edits. Bullofconfusion (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I see two potential applications of WP:ELNO in regards to this wiki:
#12 - Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
This is not an open wiki from the standpoint that not anyone can edit this wiki ... only registered users can edit. I suppose "substantial" is a matter of opinion, but it has been around a while, and it is pretty stable.
#2 - Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting.
While I would judge the site, overall, to be factually correct, there are some articles which are definitely opinions (even though they are supported rather widely). Given that some of the pages are opinions, that defaults them to fairly unverifiable research.
I agree that the About page was not blank, but that may be splitting hairs ... one sentence claiming to be a repository for quizbowl related material, while factual, certainly does not given enough insight as to the oversight and accuracy of the material.
This is one individual's opinion, and not one that should be construed as absolute authority. I would prefer for someone with more experience in handling links to comment. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


I agree that http://www.doc-ent.com/qbwiki is probably not valid external link to include, LonelyBeacon. I don't see why User:ObjectiveThinker could not have simply invoked the guideline you past above rather than making up a non-existent rule (is there a Wikipedia rule against linking to sites without an identifiable owner?) and making up facts (that the owner was not identifiable) to invoke said rule. Bullofconfusion (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I was basing deletion of this link on what journalists and editors of scholarly works consider acceptable standards for references, since that is my professional background. It appears as if Wikipedia standards are lower, but I will endeavor to cite the correct Wikipedia standards when making any future edits, so as to avoid any confusion. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who is involved with current quibowl fix the examples?

I strongly suspect that the example of a pyramidal tossup, among other sample questions in this article, would be laughed out of any serious tournament today. Can someone who knows for sure put in a better example with a cite? Bullofconfusion (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know ... you fix them to your satisfaction ... if there are problems, we can all talk. I wrote them a long time ago to demonstrate a balance between shorter and longer questions, and to demonstrate simple concepts. They by no means are representative of real questions ... so feel free to hack away at them. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please cite more than one state's rules to support statements as to trends, preferences, etc.

Perhaps it would be best to wait to draw conclusions until all states' rules are posted WP:weight. Better yet, limit discussion of what is preferred to the context of a particular state, association or tournament. Mensa1960 (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have restored this section which was referenced with a neutral, third party, authoritative source that specifically uses the term "buzzer beater" in reference to these types of questions. The section was replaced by non-referenced material, and the reference was deleted. When other reliable sources come to light, per WP:WEIGHT, then the terminology should be moved around. There is the possibility (though I doubt it) that no other source in regards to this may come to light. Until such time, the preponderance of weight is supported by the one neutral third party reliable reference that is provided .... unless there is a dispute as to whether the source meets the standards of reliability and neutrality ... though I think that would be difficult to do for a publication from a 100+ year old state level governing body of 500+ schools.

The term "buzzer beater" seems to be thought of as derogatory, but I don't see "quick recall" as more neutral because I've heard more than my fair share of people snickering at that term. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

One reason to avoid calling such questions "quick recall" vs. "buzzer beater".... Quick Recall is a specific variant of quizbowl. Referring to the short questions as "quick recall" can be confusing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Back a moment to the reversion ... if any editor is going to move a reference / citation, please make sure it is used properly within context. According to the Illinois rules, buzzer beater questions are not thought of in this way: dismissed as relatively simple in others, including Illinois The proper wording (from the rules) is that buzzer beater questions are "discouraged" ... as in "not to be used". There is a difference in meaning, and while I know no one meant to deceive, that reference was being used to support something it did not ... hence I reverted it back to await some more references. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
"Buzzer-beaters" does sound pejorative. Why not just call them toss-up questions or simple toss-up questions and then describe pyramid-style questions as a longer type of toss-up question, sans discussion of what is preferred or frowned upon? And, yes, the neutrality of the Illinois rules are disputed as an authority on quiz bowl in general. An analogy: would the Wikipedia article on same-sex marriage law in the U.S. meet the standards of [WP:NPOV] if it cited only the laws of New Hampshire, even using an authoritative and reliable source? Amusingly, that page appears to have generated considerably less controversy than that one -- perhaps because it cites the laws of all states and sensibly avoids arguments for and against same-sex unions. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
1. Agreed on the neutrality issue, and as noted below, that sentence was removed as it was in violation of WP:NPOV, in the absence of a reliable source.
2. I don't understand your concern about Illinois neutrality/authority, which are two separate issues. If you are concerned about the Illinois rules are written as a biased document, then you need to state that. We can start a request for comment and have others formally chime in with their decision on whether the document is biased. If you think the Illinois rules are not authoritative in describing the entirety of national quizbowl, you are correct, but no one was claiming otherwise. This is but one source that refers "buzzer beater" questions as "buzzer beaters". I am of the opinion (based on what I have read, not my personal bias) that this is the most common language used. I have established this with sources. I encourage and welcome any and all neutral reliable sources that call these questions something else. As Mensa1960 pointed out, the relevant policy is WP:WEIGHT. I have cited two sources (which I believe to be neutral and reliable) that establish that these questions are primarily referred to as "buzzer beaters". If more sources can be found which show another term, then "buzzer beater" needs to be relegated to parenthetical mention, and that section should be retitled accordingly. If there is a challenge to the source being neutral or reliable, then we should begin a request for comment to garner more editors to reach a consensus on their neutrality/reliability. I do not follow the New Hampshire example and how that applies here.
Another thing to keep in mind: WP:NOT#CENSORED .... even if it is in the opinion of many that it is a pejorative word ... if it is the term supported by references, it stays (I'm pretty offended by the term scientism, but there's a whole article on that ... it's referenced and cited ...
I know I have been labeled as biased here folks, and we all have our points of view, but I am working in good faith. The only edits I have reverted was the switch of a reference, and I have been diligent in deleting things that have not garnered (and are not likely to garner) references, even when I might not have thought they were wrong. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No issue as to using the Illinois rules as authoritative for Illinois competition. They are not WP:RS concerning quiz bowl in general, however. Actually, no source is WP:RS as to quiz bowl in general, which is why I supported deletion of this article. It's largely WP:OR that lacks WP:NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveThinker (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
the only thing I have established is that the term "buzzer beater" has been defined by a source that is neutral (does not take a one sided stand on the issues we are debating) and is reliable secondary source per Wikipedia's definitions of a reliable source (it is not original research, it is not a fringe group, etc). Again, as Mensa1960 said, let's see what other state's call tossup questions of this variety (or other reliable sources, they certainly needn't be state definitions), and as they become apparent, we can make changes to suit the number of reliable sources. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Buzzer Beaters

This text has been edited, and I think last edit by lonelybeacon put in "This type of question is written specifically to test quick recall skills of players, and does not discriminate the different levels of knowledge that the players possess, as pyramid-style questions do. As such, these questions are frowned upon by players with a deeper knowledge base because they lose their advantage." -- The last sentence is my concern because its not cited, and seems to be the type of statements getting everyone up in arms. An alternate way to write this could be "Eggheaded kids with slow reflexes usually perform poorly at these types of questions, while experienced strategic players may dominate and even overcome an opponent's superior knowledge in a subject." My suggestion is that these kinds of opinion statements need to go unless we have sources to cite to because of the apparent controversy they cause. --Milowent (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

removed per concern ... I was focusing more on the reversion of the referenced material last night, but this certainly should go unless it can be referenced. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
One more issue: the term "buzzer beater" has specific usage in the context of basketball. See [[1]].ObjectiveThinker (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
and the term bonus has usages in the business world, and the term score has alternative connotations outside of quizbowl. I only contend that "fast recall" has alternative meaning within the quizbowl community. Again, please find references and cite them for these alternative terms ... I saw you made some deletions in the Kansas section regarding the non-cited use of buzzer beater ... you were well within your rights. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Varied state formats

Since Milowent brought it up, I would be in favor of eliminating or greatly reducing the space on high school formats. On the one side, these are a fraction of those in use. On the other hand, even at this size, it may be taking up a section of the article that is not in proportion to WP:WEIGHT. Might it be possible to either eliminate or summarize, with references, in a table format ... something like: TU points, Bonus points, length of match, other notes (referenced)? LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Milowent meant that the article still requires sourcing. As it stands, it is poorly organized and unwieldy. I would suggest editing this into a relatively short article on quiz bowl in general, and then creating two separate articles on high school and college quiz bowl. For the high school article, it would make sense to list all of the statewide and national competitions. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts are flexible. While we could delete a lot of the state specific high school information without causing me heartburn, I think the students will keep re-adding their state information, because quiz bowl kids are the type of kids who would actually care about editing wikipedia for such a thing. Splitting out some of the detail, like we did with List of televised quiz bowl programs is a good thought. To start with High School state formats, what's a good title? High School quiz bowl formats? We could also break out Quiz bowl tournaments as well. --Milowent (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I can say as a high school student in quiz bowl that it's likely the students wouldn't want it removed...If we wanted to split off the information into another article, I would go for High school quiz bowl formats. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WP generally frowns on articles having trivia sections, however if a listing of every television series, film, opera, Broadway musical, podcast, webcast, and youtube series that ever had a quizbowl episode is going to start, it requires sourcing like everything else. IMDB is generally not considered a reliable source, and even a matched title is not the same; as title can have different (even ironic meanings. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Since the show in question has its own Wikipedia page, it's hard to see how this applies. ObjectiveThinker (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not a criticism of the notability of the series. Per WP:TRIVIA, it is generally frowned upon to create sections that deal with trivial matters related to the article, even if said list contains elements which are, themselves, notable, but only tangentially so to the main article.

New sources

I have added two new sources; two articles which were published this week in Scholastic Visions which is the newsletter of the Illinois High School Scholastic Bowl Coaches Association. There has been a criticism that "Illinois does not speak for the nation". I agree with that. I am posting this message to make an obvious and open declaration on the sourcing. I am citing these articles based on the idea that:

  • this is a neutral, third party source. The organization in question does not take a position on the matters being debated here.
  • it is a source that has been publishing for some time (15 years I believe ... it may be the oldest continuously published journal on the topic of high school quizbowl anywhere in the United States).
  • the articles are written by identified authors who are confirmed to have a level of expertise in quizbowl (as players, question writers) ... I understand that the level of expertise may be open to interpretation based on individual backgrounds.
  • in both of these newer articles, the subjects are not specific to Illinois.

I offer them forward strictly as a source that confirms elements of the Quiz bowl article. Like any editor, I am open to any other reliable source that counters these sources, and would be happy to see these alternative viewpoints espoused, supported by reliable sources, and in proportion to the sourcing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Trivia/Pop culture sections

Given the problems being argued over in this article, I would like to think that adding a trivia section is not high on the priority list. Per WP:TRIVIA, caution should be made as to whether or not these lists should be started anyway as they can easily become endless.

Further, the IMDB source given does not confirm that this episode has anything to do with quizbowl, and it is long established here that IMDB has limited uses as a reliable source, because edits are far too often unconfirmed by the website. True, that is the title of the episode, but there are plenty of television episodes in which the episode title has little or nothing to do with the actual content. At the very least, if a section like this is to be added, it must have reliable sourcing. I'd like to hear other thoughts on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument over whether IMDB is a reliable source is a red herring. The sentence that was added to the article contains a link to the "Quiz Bowl" episode. If you doubt that it pertains to quiz bowl, watch it.Mensa1960 (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

quiz vs. knowledge bowl

Quiz Bowl and Knowledge Bowl are not generally the same thing. They follow the same Q/A format but with a few key differences.
1. Time to answer questions; generally about 3 after break for quiz bowl, and 15 for knowledge bowl
2. Buzzer system; quiz bowl uses a lockout system because it is a 2 team competition, knowledge bowl is often a 3 team competition so has a system that shows who else has buzzed in
3. points; quiz bowl allows anywhere from 10-30 points for question w/bonuses, Knowledge Bowl is often 1, 5, or 10 points per question, which is set, so depending on the competition each question will be 1, 5, or 10 points, knowledge bowl also has no bonus questions all are "toss-ups"
4. round style, both have written rounds, quiz bowl is often set on a time limit, knowledge bowl is a 30-60 question round
5. tie breaking, quiz bowl has varying styles, knowledge bowl will either not worry about it, except when a championship is at stake, or have 1 extra question
I am on a Washington State Championship Knowledge Bowl team, so I know what I'm talking about on the one half, and my coach used to do quiz bowl and he told me these differences.
I suggest that we delete "Knowledge Bowl" from the list of alternate names for quiz bowl, I will not do this however until I get an OK
WARBEARS Will Rule The World!!! (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They are still the same thing. There are many varieties of quiz bowl/knowlege bowl/various other names whose formats differ from state to state and from organizer to organizer. However they are all academic questions and answers with buzzers. You are welcome to include these variations for Washington's format of knowlege bowl in the article, but they are still the same general concept. Also, there are other state contests or TV shows that call it knowlege bowl but with another format. Unfortunately there is no standard set of rules of academic contests, so this article covers them all no matter the number of teams, time limit, or points per question. My format keeps it simple with 1, 2, or 3 points per question. Reywas92Talk 01:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Qwertymac13,
While in principle, I agree, I don't think that is going to fly around here. To a lot of people "quizbowl" has a very strict definition, however since there are no reliable sources to confirm that, that particular interpretation is not recognized. Here at wikipedia, the policy of verifiability is important

Testing_Recall_About_Strange_Happenings

Of potential interest to contributors to this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Testing_Recall_About_Strange_Happenings--Milowent (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Examples - dropped again

If there is a need for examples, then they need to be drawn from published, secondary sources, rather than primary sources. If the press doesn't cover it, then in very general WP doesn't either. It is also unclear how the examples is are useful in the article.- Sinneed 17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ehh, in my opinion (maybe it's just my thinking process - examples) examples help enrich articles by giving details of how the article subject functions in real life. See for example (hehe) Severe thunderstorm warning, Storm Prediction Center (note that almost all of the references are published by the Storm Prediction Center or NOAA), and Tornado warning. In the quiz bowl article, I considered the examples to make the article say "Here's the textbook formats X, Y, and Z....here's an example of how X format is used in real world Kansas Scholar's bowl competitions." I don't know...it's probably just my thinking process. I have Scholar's bowl Regionals today, and I could upload a video of a round if it would serve the article better than the examples section. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It would not. Now, if CNN does a bit on it, that *might* be a good thing to include. Perhaps as an EL to, say, Youtube... but I don't think even that will find support.- Sinneed 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
What would you suggest instead? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

High school?

Am I the only one who's noticed that there is essentially nothing about high school quizbowl on this page? I am of the opinion that there's more high school (and middle school also, to a lesser extent) participation in quizbowl than is mentioned on this page, although that may be a byproduct of where I live and how big my school's team is. Anybody else have an opinion on this? Anybody have ideas on how to fix this? And (stupid question) are high school formats different than college formats? Doin' Huh 3.5 21:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There used to be information on it, but as said in the section above this, it was all removed. I think we should mention it, but that's just my opinion. Perhaps start a talk page request for comment about it. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite according to good quiz bowl?

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering but I figured I'd better ask anyway. Should this article be written according to the standards of "good quizbowl" and put a focus on organized events on the MS/HS/college level, or should it be kept as is, including info on stuff like quiz bowl TV shows being "quiz bowl", game formats used in leagues that espouse "bad quizbowl", and so on in order to not confuse readers who are more familiar with that kind of quiz bowl? It doesn't help that there are zero good sources differentiating between good QB and bad QB. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just saying, in the rare chance that someone looks here, that I've left info on "bad" QB in, for neutrality purposes. This is not an article for quiz bowlers to read, it's an article for average people to read. Shouldn't favor one format over another. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 20:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Not being a quizbowler, I don't know what a good and what a bad one is. Please clarify. 211.225.33.104 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
To use a broad definition, good quizbowl = fair formats + quality questions written in a pyramidal structure. Bad quizbowl possesses neither of those traits. Most TV shows that feature academic competition are either considered bad or just not quizbowl.
Obviously, this is a biased definition from a specific group of people, but considering Wikipedia's general audience and neutrality policies, I couldn't really find a good reason to just ditch the stuff on one-liner tossups and TV programs. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 03:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Good vs. Bad quizbowl is still something worth mentioning in the article since it's such an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's an issue, yes, but there isn't really a way to cover it since there are essentially zero sources that bother explaining the difference (and no, QBWiki won't cut it). It wouldn't matter much to this article anyway, I feel. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 05:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay this isn't mountains of information but most of the journalism on quiz bowl always glosses the issue of the "good quiz bowl" vs "bad quiz bowl". On another note regarding significance to the article good quiz bowl is really the first effort to standardize quiz bowl across all levels of play so there's that.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The issue I have is not "mountains of information" but all of the policy hurdles (mainly neutrality) and the fact that, as you said, essentially all journalism that covers QB glosses over the difference. It's not a big deal, bad quiz bowl is still quiz bowl, and we're writing this article for general audiences, not quizbowlers. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 06:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Ihink it would be good idea for there to be some, and if need be, brief explanation of the good vs bad qb controversy, and this is some thing I believe can be written in an way that follows wikipedia neutrality and isn't preachy like hsquizbowl posts. This is an issue that I feel a member of the general public whom we assume would be interested in the subject would benefit to know about. Also, it provides some sort of context for the number of tournaments and formats that are listed in the article. About the journalism thing, apparently I misused the word "gloss". What I mean is that quiz bowl journalism (I give the Slate article as an example), makes mention of good vs bad quiz bowl in their reporting, although there's never been any sort of media that's only about this issue.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Huh, forgot about that. The Slate article is a good thing to start with, but I'm mostly just too skeptical about the existence of any other journalism that covers this stuff to even bother trying to create a fleshed-out section on the issue. A section like the one you describe can be done, and be done well, but I'm not sure if it can be done with our current resources. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 14:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
What you have isn't bad, outside of some grammar/formatting errors. Could use a ton of work if it's to stay, though. The Slate article quotes Ken Jennings book; perhaps someone could find a copy and cite stuff from there? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 07:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Newspeak: criticism=positive aspect of

Oh, dear, what is this hectic world of instant "information" coming to? I read in the article that "One criticism of pyramid-style play is that it rewards deep knowledge over shallow knowledge." Except that my eye doctor told me not to rub my eyes, I would have done so thrice. The word criticism seems so out of place to me that I guess I should shuffle back to the 'fifties.211.225.33.104 (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering just deleting it. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 03:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

College and HS quiz bowl.

Dunno why I keep on bothering making talk page sections here, but I feel like this article focuses too heavily on collegiate-level quiz bowl, especially in places like the "Format" and "Tournaments" section. This is probably due to most of this article being written by college quiz bowlers at a time when high school quiz bowl wasn't really a thing yet. Right now, though, it's just not right how some passages give the idea that quiz bowl is only thing worth talking about with mentions of HS-level stuff being added as an afterthought. Seeing how large HS quiz bowl has become (arguably bigger and more popular than collegiate quiz bowl these days), I'm going to try to reduce this bias somewhat. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 03:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Media Coverage section

"There is no relationship between quiz bowl and Jeopardy! or any of the other TV trivia game shows". I feel like this is an unnecessary claim, plus there are actually more similarities than this.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's OK to point out that quiz bowl and Jeopardy aren't really the same thing. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 00:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
What did the writer mean by "relationship", it's still kinda vague?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 06:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not very sure. Perhaps he/she meant to state that quiz bowl isn't to be confused with Jeopardy? I agree that it's rather vague. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 08:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, this would probably mean removing the "relationship" sentence, but I think a good use of this section would be clarifying what quiz bowl is an isn't in the world of TV programming ([2]). The quiz bowl tv shows page was somewhat inundated with random quiz shows that clearly weren't quiz bowl.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess? I feel like the definition of what quiz bowl actually is vague enough to make a section like that not useful at all. It's not a major issue. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Self promotion

"Participants benefit from exposure to a broad range of school and cultural subjects, memorization and study skills, and an improved ability to cooperate and work in teams." This feels kind of bit like an ad for quizbowl, but in any case I'm removing it from the introduction until someone figures out where better to put it.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not an ad at all. Perhaps there could be a better place to put it, but there's little reason to remove it unless the sources is made up (and I'm not going to go searching for that book anytime soon.) TheStickMan[✆Talk] 05:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Quiz bowl

Should quiz bowl be defined as single game, or a family of games? I noticed in earlier revisions that the later was used, and then some time alone someone changed it. I feel as if in the scope of this article quiz bowl should be defined as a group of activities, especially when things like Knowledge Bowl and the NTAE are considered quiz bowl.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's less of a family of games and more like one, single game with many variations on how it can be played. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

American football#Etymology and names has section for etymology/names. I think it's important to make clear the different names for quiz bowl and and its origin of "quiz bowl" itself. There's seems to be too much confusion from the general public what terminology to use to no have a general section on the subject. For now most of the text is ripped from qbwiki. --Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's too simple of a topic to cover. Lots of activities, both academic and physical, are called some kind "bowl", and in this case, it is a "quiz" type of bowl. And then there are alternate names for it, just like how there are sometimes different names for many other things. You also provided zero sources, which makes the whole thing taste of original research, and you just admitted that you plagiarized the QBWiki. That's no good, and even if it really was a thing worth discussing and I just added citation needed tags and call it a day, the last thing is reason enough to remove it, which I will be doing. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I got cut off on my summary but I wrote the original text from the Qbwiki, other if for whatever reason Qbwiki is ABSOLUTELY again use of their content sure the text should be replaced. Also, quiz bowl
You'd still need a reliable source someone other than you wrote. Other community edited Wikis are not reliable sources. --Jayron32 05:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This is not QBWiki. It's fine on QBWiki because it's an informal database meant for quizbowlers. This is Wikipedia. What works on QBWiki doesn't necessarily work on Wikipedia. (I'm not 100% sure of what you're saying because your grammar is a little off and it looks like there was supposed to be more stuff after "Also, quiz bowl".) Just because it was covered in QBWiki doesn't mean it should be covered here. Alternate names are mentioned the lead. Calling anything "Something-something Bowl" is a common thing for many athletic/academic events and needs little-to-no deeper explanation. I can't see a reason to have that section at all, and I can almost guarantee that you won't find any sources given how insignificant this is. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 06:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo

I get a feeling that the photo is due for a change. It's pretty dark and doesn't seem to show much unless you zoom in. Thoughts?Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind a change, but be sure you find one that matches up with Wikipedia's policies. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, you don't need to make a new section whenever you feel like you want to do something. I don't own the article, nor does anyone else. Be bold, do what you want, and if it's a good idea it will stay, while if it's a bad idea it will be reverted and explained. No big deal. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I got permission from the Texas Quizbowl Alliance to potentially use an image on their facebook page. I'm just wondering what wikipedia's policy on privacy is because some of my preferences for a photo have easily identifiable people in them.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure about privacy, but if TQBA says it's OK, it should be OK. What's more important is the picture you want to use. Can you link it/describe it? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Some of my favorites were [3] [4] (they're both from HoHoHo V coincidentally), but I have several more in mind. Basically what I think it's a good show to show the equipment and sort of a game setup. The other picture had every turning their backs to the camera, so you couldn't really get a good view any of the equipment.

Another possibility also would be not to have a picture at all, the infobox looks fine now that it isn't in a really funky resolution.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with no picture.
If we were to have one, I'd prefer a picture that:
  1. Wasn't obviously held in a high school classroom (a college classroom/auditorium/hotel ballroom pic would be more preferable)
  2. Clearly showed both teams, equipment, and moderator
  3. Looked a little... cleaner?
I like the second HoHoHo picture a lot more than the first, just not a fan of that one player sitting next to his bag/the buzzer box. Obviously, my preferences aren't Wiki policy or anything, just not too impressed with either. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 14:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay

I deleted the subsections for tossup and bonuses. First an adequate gameplay summary is provided already making those somewhat redundant. Also this isn't supposed to be a game manual at least to the extent of how I interpret the style manual.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A summary of "people hit buttons and answer questions" is bare bones and really not adequate at all. Also, I'm not sure if you're mean that it violates the first point of WP:NOT but it's nothing like that, either. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Revisions

Seeing as massacring several sections didn't quite pan out I figured I'd open up a dialogue about what revisions we can make to this page. My general philosophy is pretty much "less is more" and that if a reader reading this article is seeking further information about anything they can go to one of the external links provided. I'm open to hearing whatever thoughts people have.

  1. Deleted the tossup and bonus section because they just restate info from the previous section. Additionally I don't think anyone really needs to know about variable bonuses and other archaic/seldom used game mechanics.
  2. Merged "eligibility" into "tournaments" section intro. Basically also just restated things and also said stuff like "graduate student cannot play at undergrad only tournaments" (no really). However it should still be noted that novice/UG tourneys are a thing. (done)
  3. Deleted "in education" section. (done)
  4. The intro needs some work and expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
First of all, here's how you deal with possibly controversial edits on Wikipedia: You make an edit, someone reverts you, and then you two discuss until a consensus is reached. Not you make an edit, someone reverts you, then you just say in the talk page the stuff you are going to do and then just go do it again. That leads to edit wars. Edit wars are bad. Try not to create situations that lead to edit warring.
Fortunately, I happen to agree with the edits that you've implemented so far. I don't get your problem with the "In education" section, though. It doesn't hurt to have it. I don't really know what gave you the idea to try removing it again, either. Some minor things: 1. Work on your grammar (it's usually alright but I see plenty of weird typos and grammatical errors from you). 2. The date in the maintenance templates are an "as of" date; you don't need to "update" them.
I'll probably have some thoughts for your other ideas later. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
[Later] I'm not sure about deleting the TU and bonus sections entirely. There is definitely content that really is just a restatement of the general gameplay article but I don't feel comfortable with eliminating them completely yet. As for the lead, it does look quite thin, but adding to it has never really occurred to me. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
About the education section, if you recall, the section was something we created to try to justify the Beverly Parke source being in the article, so the section doesn't really have much grounds for existence in the first place. Yet again I'm probably just irked by how short the section is and I haven't yet been bothered to expand it.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
About the Wikipedia consensus bylaws, how am I "just say in the talk page the stuff you are going to do and then just go do it again."?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
The section wasn't made to justify the Parke source; it was made because you had issues with it not fitting in the lead, and I saw where you were coming from but thought that it should stay, so it was given a section. I feel that it was long justified.
It's less of a Wikipedia bylaw and more of an etiquette sort of thing. You had not yet reached a consensus with other editors about your edits. Explaining them in the talk page does not mean an agreement of sorts has been reached, nor does it guarantee than an agreement will be reached later. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Lightning round name

A number of tv shows and NHBB call the lightning round, a 60 second round, or however amount of time it may be.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The various possible names due to the varying time limits is why I just left it at just "lighting round". It's the most general term for it and covers 60 seconds, 30 seconds, 21938 seconds, etc. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 06:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Issues

Just a couple of things that got reverted and others:

  • Honestly the alternate names list should be listed with et cetera. That way its not going to mislead readers into thinking those are the only four names for quizbowl.
  • A small issue, "sixty second round" is common enough of terminology so that it should be included in the article.
  • In terms of outdated content, the Brainiac source in particular is quite outdated. The section in the book that talks about quizbowl contains Ken Jenning's recollection about quizbowl in the turn of the century. Some other claims "Today, most major college-level competitions are run by either ACF or NAQT" (citing the boston globe source) are just plain wrong. Unfortunately there are few reliable non-forum non-qbwiki sources of information.

If I think of anything else I'll post about it.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I understood the point of adding the etc. but I'm looking around to see if there's a better way of putting it.
  • Lightning round should suffice, especially since not all rounds of the type are sixty seconds.
  • The thing with the Boston Globe source is that they used the word "major". In a sense, most "major" tournaments are still sort of run by ACF/NAQT, though I understand your concern. I don't have a copy of Brainiac on me but I do think information from it should still apply today. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Another thing, I tagged the format section because its really screwy and out of scope. Specifically it's way too focused on college formats without prefacing that fact.
About Brainiac, most of it is still relevant, there are just a few tidbits of information that have simply changed, Another example is "certain college tournaments and programs have developed their own distinctive formats", I think this was pretty common a decade ago, but the mACF format is pretty much the circuit now, with maybe a few exceptions. So yeah its just minor things like that.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Also I'll reiterate, an exact "sixty second round" is pretty standard practice and terminology as in [5][6] and [7]. Heck any of these rounds that isn't sixty seconds is what's referred to as a lightning round or something else.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
"The ACF format has a rigorous emphasis on academics, with very little popular culture and general knowledge." This seems to be born out the ACF IS IMPOSSIBLE mindset that is really not true at all, plus NAQT is hardly a walk in the park either. --Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Dunno about the format section, it's something I haven't really dealt with.
Minor updates to out-of-date info should be perfectly fine.
This is a small issue, but I don't see the problem with just lightning round. It's the more common name and covers anything that doesn't happen to be 60 seconds. The time limit may be standard but the name isn't, and since it's not worth covering all the names, just "lightning round" should be good enouh.
And that doesn't strike me as "ACF IS IMPOSSIBLE" at all. ACF likes less pop culture. This is true. If you think it's a statement about overall difficulty then I think you are reading way too much into it. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 12:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Well its the way that sentence is written. It just implies that no other format (namely NAQT and CBI) are as rigorous as ACF. The exact phrasing is pretty much lifted straight from Brainiac. I think I'll add an adverb to make it sound a little more moderate.
I suppose we're never going to agree on this in particular, but the name "60 second round" is almost standard BECAUSE the time limit is. I mean I'm sure this tidbit can be included without precluding the existence of rounds of different duration of time. Maybe something like "lightning round during which one team attempts to answer multiple questions as fast as possible under a given time limit, most commonly 60 seconds" or something.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
That sort of wording should be fine.
I have larger worries about your edits, though. In general, I find that some content here is needlessly wordy, unnecessarily detailed, etc. I dislike continuously using phrasing such as "the [insert QB organization here] format" and "blah blah at the high school/college/whatever level", since it seems to me like a really awkward attempt to sound "official" about certain things. I'm worried about WP:OR, because it seems that, without solid outside sources to rely on, you've resorted to "connecting the dots" yourself using sources that don't adequately support what you are trying to say.
I really do appreciate your attempts to improve the article, but I question how much is actually getting improved. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I take it the "connecting the dots" you're describing a violation of WP:SYN? In any case, I guess I'll scale back some of those kinds of edits.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, if the "official" sounding sentences are made less awkward, isn't that the point? It's supposed to be outsider-friendly information that I think in some situations should as specific as possible.
The "format" and "gameplay" sections might be able to be merged somehow, since there a bit of redundancy. Just a thought.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
SYN is exactly what I mean.
My point about "official"-sounding stuff was that some stuff is being needlessly formal. I'm not concerned about appealing to a general audience at the moment (I think this article is OK in that regard), I'm concerned about some stuff just sounding so darn awkward. Stuff like "Sometimes in this setup", "NAQT format questions", "Tournaments played in the style of National Academic Championship", and so on is what I mean.
And the redundancies in the format and gameplay sections ties into why I wanted to get the "Comparison of quiz bowl formats" article deleted (which it finally did) and why I dislike the current format section in this article. All "quiz bowl formats" are really just relatively minor spins on the exact same thing, and having to dedicate an entire section to that topic seems excessive. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 13:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
In that specific instance "Sometimes in this setup" is intended to mean that some but not instances of TU only formats use the following format. The phrase is kinda awkward, but "instead" doesn't cut it.
Also, I mean, there are some differences in format that are major enough to mention. Maybe your understanding about what a quizbowl format is different than mine, but in any case anyone reading this article who wants to understand quiz bowl should be aware differences between various competitions that are notable and significant.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Then I don't know why there's even a point in trying to link those two statements together then. Might as well sweep it all into a general statement about differences in formats.
Of course there are major differences, and of course they should be mentioned (either in this article or in their own articles, if they exist). I'm simply saying that you could condense a lot of what has been written in this article into a less-specific (and, in my opinion, less unnecessarily-detailed) passage. I just feel like you are attempting to make the article an exhaustive guide to all things quiz bowl, and if that's the case, Wikipedia is most certainly not the site for that. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 22:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

New "competition" section

I'm going to throw the "formats" and "tournaments" section into a "competition" section. Seeing as formats is fraught with redundancies from "gameplay" and "tournaments", I figured I'd make better use of the content by tying it into some of the info from the "tournaments".--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a fan of this change so far. Sure, they overlapped, but right now they seem crudely mashed together under a title that doesn't necessarily fit. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I'm beginning to think there isn't a good way to do it in the way I was originally thinking. Give it a week or so if it still doesn't work just revert it back to two sections.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

Why did you delete "There are many different varieties of quiz bowl, but a few standardized formats of quiz bowl are played primarily by high school and college students in the United States and Canada."--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Didn't really feel the need for the latter part, for reasons already stated. Perhaps the bit about there being multiple varieties could stay, though. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "latter part". If you mean "in the United States and Canada", [8] concretely says that directly towards the end of the page.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Wow okay ignore what I just said. But in any case, it's definitely true that "standardized formats" are played in the US and Canada, and I'll be on the lookout for a source. With of the WP:SYN things I should just ask NAQT to post something on their website, that'd take care of things...--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

College Bowl Inc.

UC is a licensed from the College Bowl company. I don't know if "involved" was the right word, but CBI does claim ownership over the format used in UC. A quick look at their website says that UC is a College Bowl product.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Link me? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 12:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
[9] Here ya go.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how seriously I should take an over three-year-old article that doesn't explicitly state that "UC is a College Bowl product". (I don't think saying "it's the British version" really counts.) TheStickMan[✆Talk] 18:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Excess detail

So user:32.218.39.57 recently tagged this article for excess detail. While I don't think it's this page's biggest problem, but I'm sure there are some details that can get axed.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a little confused by the tagging, since I've been spending most of my time with this article stripping away chunks I thought was unnecessary. Surely the IP could go into more detail? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 12:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm guessing it has something to do with the quite bloated "Competitions" section, which I'll admit I haven't tried to solve after merging the other sections.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Format section

I think a major problem with this article is the format section. The only thing people reading this article need to know is that variations on the game exist, and maybe some examples of said variations, and leave it at that. It shouldn't be a comprehensive section on the differences between NAQT, ACF, College Bowl, and some random TV show that isn't quiz bowl. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I personally think its within the scope of Wikipedia to include several examples of quiz bowl variants, and that the number of examples listed is the maximum. Any how the format section looks pretty concise and doesn't go into any excessive detail say, compared to past incarnations of the article.
About the mention of "random TV shows", NAQT's High School Quiz Bowl page mentions that "Other types of competition include ... competitions run by television stations", without going into any more detail. I would like to see some source that more explicitly spells out what is and what isn't quiz bowl however.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I may have mentioned this before, but I think it would be more proper to elaborate on various formats in their own respective articles (NAQT format in the NAQT article, CB format in the CB article, etc.). The article becomes no less informative on the general subject of quiz bowl by saying "here are some general rules, some formats have variations on these rules like X and Y, maybe a few specific examples", and maybe even redirecting readers to the appropriate article if they want to learn more. It's not necessary to contain everything about quiz bowl in this article, and there shouldn't be a problem with moving content to a place where they'd fit better.
I noticed that line in the NAQT HS quiz bowl page. I feel like, without some kind of source explicitly defining what sort of activities count as quiz bowl, we should turn to what the actual competitions say about themselves. In It's Academic's case, a quick search tells me that they call themselves a "television quiz show", which, to me, does not sound like quiz bowl, much like how Jeopardy is not quiz bowl. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
So I'm looking at the format section, now a subsection under gameplay, and it doesn't seem to go too well with the rest of the section. I'd like to figure out if A) the entire page should be reverted to [this revision], where the subsection is under competitions, or possibly even to an earlier revision where it's under its own section, or B) Disperse some of the information into the main gameplay section and just ax everything else.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Split pages

Is it feasible that one or more sections be split into its own article? Just a thought.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Quiz bowl as a countable noun

"The term "quiz bowl" is occasionally used as a countable noun, and competitions are described as "quiz bowls"." Honestly this is pretty important, seeing that some people use quiz bowl in the plural form, some people don't.--'Prisencolinensinainciusol 19:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It really isn't. The activity is still quiz bowl, and I don't think this article should bother with what people decide to call their quiz bowl tournaments. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Language usage is a pretty important thing, that being said there might not be much that can be said without resorting to WP:SYN.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

QBWiki

1) History of stability - well for starters registration is required and users are personally identified. Also, as I'm sure you can personally attest it's pretty well moderated and administered. Okay maybe it's not 100% but it's pretty close.

2) Substantial number of editors - Well here's the list of users with edits, even if some people made only a few edits, there are quite a few: [10]

QBWiki is outdated, unsourced, filled with joke pages, and maintained by editors who, for the most part, either don't take it seriously as a source of information about the community or use it as a soapbox to rant about things they don't like (read: Matt Weiner, who for some reason thinks articles about words he made up like "Mathturbation" belongs there because he's Matt Weiner). Also, the number of editors who actually regularly edit (which is what I interpret "number of editors" to mean) is extremely slim. Not worth linking in the EL section, period. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 20:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Two suggested revisions

I have a WP:COI on this topic (explained on the College Bowl talk page and my editor page) and so suggest two changes rather than making them myself: 1) History: see the Wikipedia article on Delco Hi-Q. As Scott Hi-Q, it debuted in 1948. That pushes the origin of quiz bowl up a few years. It can be pushed even further back to 1946, in fact, and I'll post about that here once it is available from a source Wikipedia deems acceptable. It is certainly undisputed, however, that the explosive growth of quiz bowl followed from the introduction of College Quiz Bowl on national radio and G.E. College Bowl on national television. 2) Under "Variations" the sentence "The Honda Campus All Star Challenge and University Challenge use similar formats." is no longer true for HCASC. HCASC has used a variation of the Africa Challenge format the past few years, and that is very different from mACF! See https://www.hcasc.com/games/gameformat.asp for a source for and description of the HCASC format. I have several other suggestions for improvement, but as some of them involve moving some content from the College Bowl article to this article, where it seems more appropriate, I'll wait until some starts on revising that other article. Tom Michael 21:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfmichael (talk • contribs)

Go ahead and make whatever edits that are needed. If anything gets too promotional or untrue, I'd imagine it will get reverted. About Del-Co high-q, the problem here is that, although it certainly resembles quiz bowl, it doesn't seem to be explicitly called quiz bowl. If you want to mention del-co high-q or some earlier activity/program, you'll want to say something like "Early examples of academic quiz competitions using game show buzzers include..." or something like that.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the invite to go ahead, but the WP:COI guidelines are quite clear that the only edits I can make on articles where I have a conflict are reverting obvious vandalism and removing potential libel. I think the issue with Delco/Scott Hi-Q not being called "quiz bowl" shouldn't prevent them from being considered as such. The term did not exist until "College Quiz Bowl" was created and named in 1953, but that should not preclude competitions in which teams of students competed against each other by answering academic questions from being considered as such. I also don't think the "buzzer" is a necessary requirement - if you listen to the College Quiz Bowl shows, you'll find that College Quiz Bowl didn't use a buzzer until the second episode - Wesleyan v. Northwestern, 10/17/53 - and that even then only the announcer in each local auditorium had the buzzer, and that for all three seasons of the show, the students signaled on toss-ups by raising their hands. (The above can all also be sourced from the College Bowl Valhalla web page and the College Bowl Valhalla Facebook Group, though the latter, being FB, is problematic as a WP source)Tom Michael 22:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfmichael (talk • contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quiz bowl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quiz bowl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quiz bowl. 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) 00:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quiz_bowl/Archive_2&oldid=1154314405"