Talk:World Quizzing Championships/Archives/2014

Apparent Error In Table
The table for 2010 described as 'Nation (Ranked by highest placed team member)' inexplicably omits England, which seemingly ought to be in 2nd place, based on Kevin Ashman's result. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There also appears to be a bit of Nationality swapping by certain players. An example of that is Barry Simmons, who on that list is shown as playing for Scotland. Yet one year earlier in the 2009 World Quizzing Championship he was playing for England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.114.75 (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Pat Gibson is inexplicably referred to as being from Ireland initially, but in the newer entries he has changed to being from England. According to his biography he is from Ireland. Flag and flagicons related to Pat Gibson have been changed to Ireland. Feel free to revert the changes if he officially plays for England. - Xachariah, 17:00, 04 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.86.248 (talk)

Open Championship!
More to the point, how can they be World Championships when the U.K. version arbitrarily bans individuals - if the event is not Open - it's not a World Championship as certain individuals are excluded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.210.252 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 January 2006.

Additionally, the phrase "Not for profit" is contentious as the IQA was inaugurated by directors of quizzing.co.uk - a U.K. Limited Company —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.211.171 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 March 2006.

So you're actually claiming that someone who is involved in a commercial business cannot be one of the many people involved in a 'not for profit' organisation? That's a very particular way to look at things. You seem to be having a personal vendetta against everything where Quizzing people are involved. Whether you have any right to feel that way is neither here nor there. I just think that Wikipedia is not the proper forum to have this discussion. Posted by: StevenDC.


 * Re: "You seem to be having a personal vendetta against everything where Quizzing people are involved." - If that comment was aimed at me, I'm afraid you've got the wrong person, as all I have done to this page is add information on unsigned edits and make this reply. Jw6aa 11:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote this I somehow thought the edit by 86.132.211.171 was yours. Still, I think my conclusion stands, that Wikipedia is not the proper forum for arguments like these.--StevenDC 21:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete 2005 results
The top-50 list for 2005 linked to is incomplete -- the Norwegian results are missing at least. Any allegations that I point this out due to vanity may well be correct. ;) OMHalck 09:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hope you are happy now :-) Are the questions available anywhere on the net ? Tintin (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you linked to a site that is in breach of copyright of the results. Hopefully this will be resolved soon. StevenDC 13:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can the results be copyrighted ? So can FIFA or IOC theoretically restrict the access to WC or Olympic results ? (I hope greedy sports associations like BCCI doesn't come to know about this or they will try to make money out of this too !) Tintin (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Tintin. The difference between football and quiz is that FIFA et al encourage the press and public to attend by selling tickets to events and providing special press facilities. The press then go to great expense to cover every game and gather data etc. from matches all around the globe (to which journalists etc. travel). The press then present reports on these matches, which they have attended, to their paying customers (e.g. people who buy newspapers). With quiz, so far, only the organisers are on hand to collect and collate data and present results to the competitors etc.. This involves a great deal of effort. And so a third party simply ripping-off the organisers data and then presenting it, for example, on their own website, is a million miles from the press sending journalists to cover soccer matches so that their newspaper can (legitimately) file a match report and print results etc.. --172.216.134.240 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In reply to User:172.216.134.240|172.216.134.240

From the officious tone of the above message I would suspect that it was posted by one or other of the Quizzing directors. But no matter who wrote it the issue I would challenge is whether the third party referred to can really be accused of "ripping-off" anyone. The third party being referred to does not run on a commercial basis. It does not engage sponsors to fund it's operation. It is also free to anyone who wishes to visit their site. The Quizzing website by contrast has used a succession of different commercial sponsors. It also bars certain individuals from accessing the information on it's site. If anyone can be accused of "ripping-off" then it is the Quizzing website who charge organisations to advertise on what is in reality a website of very limited a parochial patronage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canope (talk • contribs) 11:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Limited and parochial? Well over 30,000 registered users and over 226,000 postings would tend to refute the above comment. Interesting use of "it's" rather than "its". You'd think educated people would know better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.186.159 (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: 226,000 postings You keep quoting these statistics on that site aswell as though trying to convince everyone that this was some great achievement. One thing is very noticable on Quizzing. It is a small handful of members posting over and over again that form the great majority of the total postings. Take you (90.195.186.159) and your colleague (172.216.134.240). On looking at your Quizzing profiles I see that each of you have posted over 10,000 times. Each of you must have been posting half a dozen times a day.

Re: Copyright Surely Quizzing.co.uk breaches copyright too with all the pictures they keep posting on their caption threads. Most of those pictures are lifted from other websites but I doubt whether they ever seek permission before doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovidas (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

5.15 posts per day to be absolutely correct. On average each registered user has made 6.6 postings. Are there any other quiz sites which have a) so many registered users, or b) a higher average number of posts per member? On any web site there are always a few posters who post a sizeable proportion of the postings. A recently defunct quiz website was a prime example of this.

Re: Registered users

I don't think a having higher number of registered users makes one website superior to any other as many users could just log in out of curiosity, log out and never visit the site again. One also has to ask how Quizzing built up this high number. In the early days the Quizzing directors went posting links to their site over numerous other sites ( Do a search for sites that link to Quizzing). Fair game perhaps but just look what happened when anyone tried to mention the name of rival websites on theirs. The other issue about the number of registered users is that many of them are the same people logging out then logging back in again under different names. Quizzing.co.uk doesn't just promote the pastime of quiz it hypes it, talks it up, a bit too obviously. The relevance this has to this Wikipedia entry is that the "World Quizzing Championships" are similarly hyped. We've supposedly had some five years of "World Quizzing Championships" but who else other than those who have read this Wikipedia article or Quizzing.co.uk and it's allied sites would know anything about it. How many newspapers have thought it newsworthy enough to report?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovidas (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I can help you with this one, at least for Belgium. The World Quizzing Championships and European Championships have been reported on prime time national television, inlcuding a 45 minute program on VRT (the Belgian BBC) and features in the national news on VTM (Belgium's equivalent to ITV). Every WQC and EQC has been reported in almost all national newspapers and best Belgians have done numerous radio interviews. On average I would say the each World Quizzing Championships earned one feature on television, four on national radio and about 10 in national newspapers, often half pages. StevenDC (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the previous poster, who does have an axe, if not several axes, to grind, is unable to furnish an answer to my question. He also fails to mention that no other organisation, especially the defunct organisation with which he decided to ally himself some years ago, has been able to organise such a series of events over a long period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.186.159 (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer What does it matter that there are no other quiz sites with such hyped up numbers of user registrations? Agreed Quizzing is unique in that it has managed to accumulate a handful of obsessives who want to spend most of the day setting each other quiz questions and indulging in chit cahat onine. Then when it comes to the actual events it is the same old obsessives turning out each month to set each other still more quiz questions. It must get very boring after a while when you know in advance what type of question each of these members is going to set. Incidentally I see you do not answer my point on copyright. Quizzing.co.uk does breach copyright with it's caption images What do you say about that? Your website makes a huge fuss about other websites posting up the results of the World Quizzing Championships yet it does the same thing in copying other people's photographs and images without their permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovidas (talk • contribs) 06:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re reproducing copyright images (for captions etc.) the .phb software merely displays the image contained elsewhere (it is not actually on the site, it merely looks like it is, and, moreover, the image properties identifies precisely where the original can be viewed).

I fear that someone using the term obsessive has become obsessed by the fact that Quizzing continues to thrive while other organisations have failed. And he still doesn't know the difference between "It's" and "Its"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.186.159 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Which ever way you wish to describe it these images and photographs are displayed on the Quizzing site without the permission of the creators. The fact that the origins of the images can be obtained by clicking on the properties does not make displaying these images any more legitimate. Do many users click on properties when looking at a picture? Do many users even realise that this is how you find the origin of an picture? Knowing the Quizzing site displays other people's images on a regular basis it is rich to  see them threatening to report another quiz site owner to the police for reproducing the results of The World Quizzing Championships.

Presumably the reference is to an owner of a quiz site which is now defunct. When this other site ran events, were the very few people who went along to those obsessive? Were the people who attended the best quiz ever filmed (no hype there, of course!) obsessive? Presumably they must have been as all the questions were set by one person.

What has been neglected so far, amongst the comments made by a disaffected individual above, is the congratulations that should be given to Mark Bytheway on his tremendous victory in this year's WQC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.186.159 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This year's contest will take place in at least 21 countries, and may be in as many as 28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.66.187 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The World Quizzing Championships are like the Nuremberg Rallies. A few years from now you will be hard pushed to find anyone who will admit to having attended them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.107.200.230 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Re above-mentioned Nuremberg Rallies, lol. Can somebody please remind me of whose 'Law' it is that states that the longer an Internet discussion goes on the more certain it becomes that at least one disputant will compare their opponent or opponents to the Nazis? I understand that the disputant making the comparison is then conventionally deemed to have lost the argument.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Re 'Law' Is there such a 'Law' as desribed above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.58.2 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)