Talk:24 (puzzle)

Merger proposal
24 is an game where you try to make 24 using dBoth this article and Math 24 cover the same topic. A merger is clearly needed, but I'm not sure what the proper title should be. As a kid, I always knew the game as 24 challenge or challenge 24. Any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravensfan5252 (talk • contribs).


 * Following the external link here, the article should exist at 24 Game. timrem 20:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC) -- To clarify, I believe "Math 24" is a misnomer of the "24 Game" and these should be merged to here. timrem 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it's completely different. Merger inappropriate Johnbibby 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I defifitly think that they should be merged as a "24 Challenge" page. I personally particpate in it. Coolbeans.555 20:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC) -- ravensfan is right. Coolbeans.555 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There used to be a 24 Challenge article, which was redirected here after a merge. 24 Challenge is just a contest based around the 24 Game, so the article should be placed here rather than at 24 Challenge. timrem 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

These are definitely the same game. The official name is 24 Game, so that should probably be the entry title... Carolyn K. 20:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, i agree that they should be merged, i was a contestant in the competition. Kidzclubhouse2004 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the two should be merged. I have been playing the game since forever ago and there is only one "24". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.54.28 (talk • contribs).

Merge them to this page. I have never heard it called "Math 24" until reading that page. If this has been in discussion since March, why hasn't it happened yet? --Piemaster1139


 * It has not been merged because their isn't consensus to where everything is supposed to go. At any rate, I have heard it called "24", "Challenge 24", "24 Game", "Math 24", and "Challenge 24".  How do we know that they are (or aren't) all correct? SmileToday☺(talk to me, My edits) 23:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Based on the Official website, it's called the 24 Game. Also on that website it describes how 24 Challenge is a tournament based on the 24 Game. I haven't seen any sources which refer to it as Math 24. I would say that shows which title is correct :) timrem 04:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Divide evenly
The article states thus:

The first player that can achieve the number 24 using only addition, subtraction, multiplication, division (the numbers must divide evenly), exponentiation, and parentheses wins the hand.

Why is it necessary that the numbers divide evenly if in the end you get 24? Such as in the following example: 6, 1, 3, 4: 3 ÷ 4 = .75; 1 − .75 = .25; 6 ÷ .25 = 24. There is no other way to do it. Perhaps the example should state that the number thus obtained must be exactly 24. 07:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. 4pq1injbok (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think your suggestion is completely correct. It should be taken into consideration that this game is (at least) designed for elementary and middle school aged children, which is why you must divide/multiply evenly, for the sake of simplicity. If you are looking for a challenge, however, there are fraction 24 cards in the 24 platinum cards series.Coolbeans.555 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Merging in Robert Sun
I'm for this, wholeheartedly. I've thrown in the Suntex article, too; the 24 game is the only thing mentioned there. 4pq1injbok (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, but the Robert Sun article should have a section about 24. LukePhiladelphia (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Blog spam from wheels.org
I have to revert Uucp's edit three times in the past 2 days. Uucp's source (a blog posted on wheels.org 2 days ago) is clearly in violation of the "No original research" policy. FWIW, the blog is titled "A perfect solution to 24s". The "perfectness" of this blog is not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24guard (talk • contribs) 02:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We're now well over 3Rr and it's time to bring in a moderator. I replaced material from one blog with what is superior material from another blog, and you have reverted repeatedly, using different objections, transparently irrelevant each time. Are you ready for a third party's involvement.? Uucp (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No blog posts are qualified as sources per wiki policies. I reverted your edit to pre-Uucp blog spam. What is this "another blog" are you talking about?


 * That blog should also be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24guard (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * All blog refs are removed, otherwise it's reverted to pre-Uucp. Original research is absolutely not tolerated per Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24guard (talk • contribs) 03:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me why you think removing all blog posts is an improvement, but let's leave it in this form for the moment as we wait for an outside party to review. I've posted this discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#24_Game Uucp (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The dispute resolution noticeboard seems the appropriate place to discuss this. Basically, the two of you have two options available: go through the dispute resolution noticeboard process, which will hopefully try and systematically look at the issues raised over things like sourcing, or continue to, well, not quite edit war, but go back and forth in edit summaries. That way lies animus, bad feeling and possible eventual blocking. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer
This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What dispute? --Paddy (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See above in regard to wheels.org. I missed the deadline to put up a rebuff to Uucp on the noticeboard but I am happy with the current page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24guard (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The dispute case was easily re-opened. User:24guard explained his scheduled did not permit him to reply within a reasonable amount of time and the case has been re-opened. However it should have been closed as "little discussion has taken place" (that should have been added to the closing and would have effected the status of "Failed" as simply closed as the wrong venue at that time) but because I closed as "Filing failed to attract participation". On the merits of the actual dispute I don't really see much here anyway, but the fact is the case has been re-opened and I will take a minute there to give an opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not at resolved. 24guard has offered changing explanations for his/her edits. These include the assertion that Wikipedia shouldn't link to blogs, which is wrong. S/he thinks that Wikipedia can't link to recently created web pages, which is wrong. S/he thinks that Wikipedia can't link to material that s/he is incapable of personally proving true, which is wrong. I do not believe that any of his/her reasons for editing the page stand up. The real shame is that there *are* problems with the page. This is a web page about a card game and about 80% of the content is about a single commercial version of the game. That deserves correction, not the issues that 24guard is worrying about. Let's put the links to the mathematical discussion of the card game back, or resurrect the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard process. Uucp (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Resurrect? Its still open. Even though I feel the dispute has been resolved by policy and guiddelines and you have not demontsrated anything to the contrary or even used the DR/N I give you the oppurtunity to do such. If you refuse to take part in the DR/N but complain about wishing to use it....I am not sure what you are even complaining about. There is a rough consensus. You are the only one refusing to accept it, live with it or offer a counter reasoning. perhaps that is because there does not appear to be one within policy. But the DR/N is still open. Take time to discuss there or the filing may be closed as resolved with a rough consensus. It still may be failed if all you do is argue without reason. --Amadscientist (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I initiated the DR/N and it was closed because 24guard failed to show up. Thank you for reopening it, but please don't say I "refuse to take part". I will add my comments there soon. Uucp (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your insertion of "wheels.org" violates wikipedia's Core_content_policies. Actually your edit violates all three of them. What makes you think I am INCAPABLE of verify the original research on wheels.org? And who's verified the "perfectness" of the wheels.org article? Any news report or publication so we can read the verification of the correctness of wheels.org's blogs? The burden is not on me. It's on Uucp.I didn't say Wikipedia can't link to recently created web pages. I only pointed out the TIMELINE of events. If wheels.org is read by millions of people, I would not be so worried. It's probably read by very few if any. And last, this page IS about the math 24 game. 24guard (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion should continue at the DRN page, since the thread has been reopened, rather than here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC) (a DRN volunteer)

DR/N has been closed as failed due to the filing editor's refusal to engage at the case they opened.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So, right after I post "I initiated the DR/N and it was closed because 24guard failed to show up. Thank you for reopening it, but please don't say I "refuse to take part". I will add my comments there soon." you close the DR/N saying *I* failed to participate. Did you not read my note, or are you just being prickly? Uucp (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)