Talk:Lottery

Chances of matching different numbers of balls in a 6-from-49 lotto

The table in this article states the chances as 1 in 2.3, 49, 1176, …, 13983816, while Lottery mathematics#Odds of getting other possibilities in choosing 6 from 49 states these as 1 in 2.2938, 2.4212, …, 13983816. This needs a clarification. -- Paddu (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

i checked the history. it was originally entered correctly. someone changed it thinking they were wrong, but they calculated the chances for a particular number to match a particular ball, not the chances of any of the numbers to match any of the balls. so i reverted that edit.· Lygophile has spoken 17:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XingboGao (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by XingboGao (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2022

Under the section "England, 1566–1826" there is an error in one sentence. The sentence begins:

The 400,000 tickets issued cost £0.50 each

It should read

The 400,000 tickets issued cost 10 shillings (£0.50) each 86.20.82.23 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there any source indicate that 10 shilings at that time were equal to £0.50, if yes, please provide.@86.20.82.23 Lemonaka (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

That was fundamental to the entire £sd system. What you're asking for constitutes WP:BLUE. I'm making the change. oknazevad (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Opps, I thought this was changed during different time. Lemonaka (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Europe's largest jackpot record has been broken, edit needed

Already edited the lottery records page but this is protected for some reason so someone else has to do it for me. The jackpot is 371.1 million€ gross, 296,8€ net won in the SuperEnalotto lottery today. Sources:

(secondary) https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2023/02/16/news/superenalotto_centrato_il_6-388363602/

(primary) https://www.superenalotto.it/archivio-estrazioni/concorso-20/16-febbraio-2023 79.41.79.100 (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

A single ticket has won but there are multiple winners as it was a "split system" play where a large number of combinations are generated in a single ticket but the cost, and winnings, are split between several players 79.41.79.100 (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Number of winners has been announced, there are 90 winners. Source:

(secondary) https://www.ansa.it/sito/notizie/cronaca/2023/02/16/superenalotto-centrato-il-6-dei-record-vinti-371-milioni_de1ca9cb-526a-44fb-ac1f-8b3f60a75257.html 79.41.79.100 (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023 - The purpose of the editing is that I want to introduce more to everyone about the special meaning of the traditional lottery associated with the historical context in Vietnam.

Change

Vietnam

In Vietnam, there are two types of lotteries: the traditional lottery, which is separated by provincial scale, and the electronic lottery (notably such as Vietlott). The Ministry of Finance manages provincial lottery companies, and these lottery companies conduct lottery draws and award the winners.

To

Vietnam

In Vietnam, there are two types of lotteries: the traditional lottery (snip link spam), which is separated by provincial scale, and the electronic lottery (notably such as Vietlott). The Ministry of Finance manages provincial lottery companies, and these lottery companies conduct lottery draws and award the winners. Xsvietnam (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

References

•  Done. Good reference addition. Made a few other copyedits at the time. Looks good. Welcome aboard! oknazevad (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi oknazevad. I am very happy that my edit is approved and can introduce everyone to the history of Vietnam lottery. However, my edit has just been deleted, can you tell me the reason and what needs to be improved to make the reference source qualified? Xsvietnam (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Apparently another editor assumed that since the reference article is on a commercial lottery results website it was being used as spam. @Toohool:, can you explain why you think it was spam. I examined it and believe it is a legitimate addition. oknazevad (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Toohool. I am very sad when my efforts to contribute were not approved and judged as spam when this is only the first time I want to spread the culture of Vietnamese lottery to the world. This is a traditional lottery website in Viet Nam (specializing in providing all data about the Vietnamese lottery) and writes articles about the special historical significance of the Vietnamese lottery, so I think it is a reliable reference source with this topic. Can you tell me where further improvement is needed for the article to be approved. Xsvietnam (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Did you find anything to suggest that site meets the requirements of WP:RS? As far as I can see, it's a run-of-the-mill content farm built around lottery results and affiliate links. There are countless sites like this and spammers are continually trying to insert them into our articles on lotteries. Toohool (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick read of the content itself, which is a neutrally written short history. I assume good faith (you know, that core policy) that it was chosen as a source because it is a succinct secondary source. oknazevad (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If you review the policy on reliable sources, WP:SOURCE, the key is "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It has little to do with the content of the source, and everything to do with how and by whom the source is written. Random blogs and content farms, where we have no idea who even created the content, much less what their editorial process is, come nowhere close to meeting these requirements. Assuming good faith from editors who start right out of the gate with blatant spam is an utter waste of time. They never turn into good-faith editors. Toohool (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, see their global contribs. They are trying to spam the same site across Russian, French, and Vietnamese Wikipedias. Toohool (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the site claims to be able to predict winning numbers, which are apparently related to zodiac signs. It is fairly obviously self published and has no fact checking. Clearly not a reliable source. - MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. oknazevad (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Classical History – False

A sentence in the Classical History section reads:

"From the Chinese Book of Songs… comes a reference to a game of chance as "the drawing of wood", which in context appears to describe the drawing of lots."

This seems false. I’ve checked the Book of Songs, and phrase "the drawing of wood" is not there. I’ve also checked similar words/phrases – and every instance of the word wood.

I’m not an experienced editor so don’t want to delete without discussion.  Any views?

The Book of Songs (Shi Jing) University of Virginia https://cti.lib.virginia.edu/shijing/AnoShih.html MarcuH (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

PS I'm also having difficulty finding evidence that the Great Wall of China was funded by lottery – so that might be a myth too. MarcuH (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)