Talk:Lottery jackpot records

Sorting by annuity vs cash value

Should we sort the list of jackpots by the actual jackpot cash values and not the inflated annuity amounts to be more honest about the actual size of the prize pool? Obviously we should also list the annuity or advertised jackpot amounts.... but since they are manipulated by the lotteries by changing the payout length or adding inflation adjusted payouts, plus the effect of the interest rate at the time of the prize, this is like comparing apples to oranges. We should sort primarily by the size of the prize pool...and then state how many winners split the pot... and provide the annuities amount with a footnote explaining the payout structure in effect for that drawing... and whether the player elected that option... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.134.180 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the jackpots should be sorted by cash value first. The annuity value is misleading. Almost every (if not every) lottery winner chooses the cash option since it is financially wiser. Other editors, please chime in about making this change.

—Massmediazealot (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It should be by cash value. The annuitized value is a marketing ploy and is based on the interest rate at the time of the drawing. I think almost all winners take the cash value and of course can create their own annuity by how they invest it. 2600:1700:9580:A0E0:F0EC:8E2:24E7:F114 (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Too many..

Why do we need to care about 61 winners? It just seems like an unnecessary list to keep adding on to.

It's for the highest jackpots, not all jackpots over a certain threshold.

We can do the top 50. We don't need 61.

I want to see the top three marathon runners. I don't care if the 317 runners came in under 2 hours and 30 minutes.

Just my opinion. 🤷

Carry on. Jnickholds80493 (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Well I missed that part, obviously. So I'll just wish it wasn't based above a certain threshold. Jnickholds80493 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I like that the list includes all jackpots "of $300 million or more (annuity value)." A top 10, 25, 50 cut-off seems too arbitrary. There is currently 64 wins in the list, which span the last 23 years. The lowest cash amount is $146m, which is still high compared to lottery records outside the US.

—Massmediazealot (talk) 07:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

"A top 10, 25, 50 cut-off seems too arbitrary"

But "$300 million or more (annuity value)" is not too arbitrary? 104.12.34.41 (talk) 04:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Since this is a page about records, perhaps it should record the record amounts based on time? I'd be more interested in knowing how large the jackpots were in the 90s than knowing the 20th highest in the 2010s. Belltower (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Spain subsection needs citations

I made several (individual) edits to the Spain subsection (about the Spanish Christmas Lottery). It seems to be @71.218.82.72's baby, so I explained every edit in detail.

Please add citations asap. The info as it stands now is mostly incorrect.

It should all be subsumed into the Europe chart, anyway.

— Massmediazealot (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Should the whole page just be rewritten?

It is not "my baby" as you put it.

El Gordo has been at the top of the page for years because of the notability of it - the "lotto pool" for awarding prizes is the largest in the world.

You deleted the entire El Gordo section from this page and moved it to Lotteries by country#Spain.

You completely added/copied the table of "examples" from Lotteries by country#Notable prizes, some of them without citations. Please add citations asap of what you copied/moved from there.

As for being subsumed into the Europe chart, I don't know about that. Maybe others will add constructive thoughts about it. 71.218.82.72 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why Massmediazealot edited *my comment* putting things I did NOT write into my comment and reformatting my comment into individual sentences. 71.218.82.72 (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop with the attitude. Your style of writing is unorganized (among other things), so I added links to the pages you were referencing, for other editors who may be reading. I separated 2-3 of your points into individual sentences because I am going to address your points one by one for clarity. I was writing this reply as you submitted your follow-up reply. Please relax.

I called the section your "baby" because you clearly feel ownership over it, and you added it back after I removed it for being messy, out of order, unsubstantiated, and full of irrelevant technical drivel. The winning 5-digit number from the 2011 drawing is completely extraneous information, for example.

"El Gordo" has no business being the name of a top section on an English page about world lottery records. The first prize/jackpot of the lottery is only ~US$4.35m, which makes it undeserving of its own section, especially in the wrong language. The "lotto pool" may be the largest in the world, but the actual first prize/jackpot is not, and that is what the article is about.

I moved the El Gordo info from this page to Lotteries by country#Spain because it is a better fit there.

Yes, some of the info in the European jackpot table that I copied from Lotteries by country#Notable prizes is missing citations. Notice I added the "" template to many. I will add citations as time allows. Other editors can too.

I think the Spanish Christmas Lottery jackpots may not totally belong in the European table given that the €4m top prize/jackpot is so low, as I wrote above. It barely deserves being its own subsection. Other editors should chime in about this lottery's importance (or lack thereof) in the article.

—Massmediazealot (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

"It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct others' spelling errors, grammar, etc. Doing so can be quite irritating. The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." 71.218.82.72 (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not edit your reply to "change its meaning."

You were not following WP:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages (specifically Stay on topic and Be positive)—nor were you following WP:Talk page guidelines#Format standards (specifically "Talk page discussions should be concise")—so, according to WP:Talk page guidelines#Examples of appropriately editing others' comments, I simply sectioned it (with 2-3 simple line breaks) and fixed/attached links, to improve clarity & readability and to reduce your off-topic incivility.

I have to say—out of everything I wrote above about the Spanish lottery, I love how my (rightful) editing of your comment is the only issue you raise in your reply 🤦‍♂️

Now, please stop making this personal. This is not personal. This page is about lottery jackpot records. Drop your attitude. Familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Code of conduct, and keep your comments thoughtful and on topic.

—Massmediazealot (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't edit others comments to "correct" them. I'm not the IP, but they're right. And they point out the guideline stating that explicitly. Jus because you don't think a talk page comment is up to your standards doesnt mean you can change it. Leave other people's words alone. oknazevad (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not edit the comment to "correct" him/her. I also did not edit the comment to bring it "up to my standards." According to WP:Talk page guidelines#Examples of appropriately editing others' comments, there are many valid reasons editors can edit other contributors' comments. I simply sectioned his/her comment with 2-3 simple innocent line breaks to improve clarity & readability, and I fixed/attached links to reduce his/her off-topic incivility. I was well within my right. I did not change the meaning nor obscure his/her (malicious) intent.

Now please, let's stop making this personal. This page is about lottery jackpot records and improving it for readers. No attitude necessary. I am attuned to the Wikipedia:Code of conduct. We all should be. Let's keep our comments mature, thoughtful, and on topic please.

— Massmediazealot (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

'Sectioning' refers to adding new section headers, not what you did. Your edits weren't appropriate per the talk page guidelines. You've been doing this all over this talk page (for example [1], [2], as well as your wholesale deletions of comments) and you should stop. Talk pages are meant to record comments as they were made. I've just repaired the damage. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

None of my edits were "[in]appropriate" or "damag[ing]" in any way.

WP:Talk page guidelines#Examples of appropriately editing others' comments states: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is 'sometimes' allowed" and "Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion."

WP:Refactoring talk pages (also referred to as sectioning) states: redrafting/revising talk pages is useful to "improve the clarity and readability of a page; remove off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material; restructure discussions for clarity; and relocate material to different sections or pages where it is more appropriate."

I did not "wholesale delete" any "comments." I see you did not cite these alleged "wholesale deletions" in your reply, unlike the two other edits you cited. I did delete four old, unvouched, irrelevant sections that were outdated by 5-10 years—and two more from the Wikipedia bot @InternetArchiveBot which itself suggests removal of the sections to de-clutter the talk page—but you and @Oknazevad objected so I let them be archived since yall prefer that.

None of my (very minor) edits changed the meaning of anything that was written, nor did they obscure the intent of their original author. I edit thoughtfully (I admit I may be a bit anal), and I edit in good faith. That does not seem to be the case for others here. The fact that you just spent the time going through and "repairing" my harmless edits I must say is troll behavior.

The WP:Talk page guidelines does not say copy editing others' comments is prohibited, just that it is "not necessary." It does not state anywhere that "Talk pages are meant to record comments as they were made," so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Nor am I sure why yall are so opposed to adding clarity and readability to the page when it has no negative impact. Folks ought to be more thoughtful in their writing. Let's keep our comments mature and thoughtful please.

— Massmediazealot (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You have thoroughly misunderstood the talk page guidelines. If you don't believe me (and oknazevad, and the IP) feel free to bring this up at the noticeboard of your choice for further input. But do not 'refactor' a talk page again. Making personal attacks (itself a problem per WP:NPA) is not a substitute for understanding and following community guidelines. MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't misunderstand anything. I directly quoted from the articles. Adding minimal clarity and readability to a page, in good faith, with no negative impact, is not prohibited anywhere in the guidelines.

The only ones making personal attacks here are you, @Oknazevad, and @71.218.82.72. Posts that have been on here for 10+ years, ignored, you all of a sudden want to edit, after I reply to them. Stop trolling.

— Massmediazealot (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

'TBA' jackpot should not be in the table

The table in the United States section is labeled:

List of U.S. lottery drawings of $300 million or more (annuity value) with at least one jackpot-winning ticket (dollar amounts in millions):

and references lists of Mega Millions and Powerball winners. As the current Powerball jackpot does not yet have "at least one jackpot-winning ticket", it is inappropriate to list as "TBA" in this table. --198.44.200.254 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the title of the section is inconsistent with there being a TBA listed. So, I have changed the title to just "List of U.S. lottery drawings of $300 million or more" sans "with at least one jackpot-winning ticket". I think this is the appropriate way to do it, as the TBA still falls within the purview of the article. It is a lottery jackpot record, even if it is subject to future change. Internetronic (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)