Talk:Science Olympiad

Is that vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.53.218.27 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, got it. You can always be bold and take care of it yourself! (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring

Are you sure the method given for scoring is correct? I know at state and regional copetitions 1st is given 11 points (it's higher at state), 2nd gets 10 points, etc. highest score wins.

The article is correct for New York regional and state, at least. --AySz88 ^-^ 01:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wandered over to the SO forums after posting my question, and the way stated there is the SO recomended way of doing it.

not to be rude,but what do you think about plattsburg MO"s team? i mean they always smoke regionals and they do really well. i think they might go all the wya this year

__
Scoring wise, I think the article is correct- there are many different ways to do it. At nationals, and the way it is done in NJ, they give 1 point for first place, 2 for second, 3 for third and so on. At the same time, I believe some states do it differently.
Ursypretty 22:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Event and event description formatting

There's been some inconsistency for a while about the event list and their respective descriptions, so I'd like to check: should we create descriptions for all the events, or put the event list without any description? Just wondering... --Havocrazy 03:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the events and their descriptions. Perhaps have them in a nice little table/box. Willhockey16 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with events and their descriptions. I like the way they are now as apposed to before with no descriptions.Smartkid2 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll see how to create a wikitable or something sometime when I figure out what is the proper style/formatting for it... if anyone knows how to do it already, uh, would you be interested in helping to create it? --Havocrazy 07:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any more comments on this? I think I'm just going to set it up the way that the competition results are formatted, like the following example:

Event	Description
Anatomy (Digestive and Nervous)
Awesome Aquifers	Construct an aquifer and answer questions about groundwater concepts

And so on and so forth. Any comments? --Havocrazy 22:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me, go for it. Willhockey16 02:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me too.-- 24.184.12.248 00:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the insanely extended time period that's elapsed since I posted that formatting, but I got sidetracked by a combo of school and procrastination. Having returned, I'll try to implement the table and update what I can perhaps this weekend :). My sincere apologies! Havocrazy (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category?

Should Science olympiad aritcles be a subcategory of Olympiad? I just thought of that. Munkee madness 19:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people have tried to do that in the past, but their articles have been typically merged back with this main article. I think I'll set up a table for events and descriptions soon, if I can get some more feedback on it in the above entry. --Havocrazy 22:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

I'm not sure in other places, but in Ohio, Awesome Aquifer was removed, as was heredity. I don't want to make changes because I'm not sure of the other locations. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s ^{(Talk to Me)} 01:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not in new york