Wiktionary talk:Easter Competition 2010

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

new competition[edit]

Discussion moved from WT:BP#new competition.

Hi. I'm releasing Wiktionary:Easter Competition 2010 to the public. It should start tomorrow, but I'm not sure if the rules are clear, so please look at it and discuss. The goal of it is to get more cites into Wiktionary, and get people to follow one of my typical edit patterns (find something to read, weed out phrases that aren't in Wikt, add them to Wikt). --Rising Sun talk? contributions 10:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally consider a bit unfair the fact that I lately created various Portuguese words, therefore they wouldn't be worth 15 points anymore. :) Nonetheless, the rules are quite clear to me and the game is likely to be fun. I'm playing it. --Daniel. 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can an (deprecated template usage) opus mean a (deprecated template usage) website for the uses of this competition? I add about a dozen words most days from arXiv. SemperBlotto 13:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a website is not an opus...imagine "i found it on google". --Rising Sun talk? contributions 18:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the First Folio count as an opus? If so, I'm calling it. If not, I have other ridiculous choices I could use. --EncycloPetey 03:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that folio is comprised of several books. Sorry --Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does The Lord of the Rings count as an opus? It tells one story. (and I have the Lord of the Rings compiled in one single book) --Daniel. 09:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can say the same of the "First Folio", so presumably not. But someone should clarify, since Widsith has chosen The Faerie Quene, which I believe was also published originally in more than one volume, but can now be found as a single "book". I'd like to know what is meant by "book" and whether it applies to "original" publication; Ovd's Metamorphoses was originally published in XV "books" (scrolls) by virtue of the differences in ppublication limitations, but nearly all extant copies exist as a single or double volume work rather than as 15 tiny chapter books. This would also affect people's choices when it comes to Dickens, whose novels were originally published in smaller installments in newspapers. --EncycloPetey 13:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Faerie Queene (and Metamorphoses) is a single work, I don't think it's the same as Shakespeare's plays which were gathered together only later as a kind of compendium. Ƿidsiþ 13:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same is true of Stephen King's The Gunslinger (Dark Tower, volume 1). It was originally published as a series of short stories, then later compliled as volume 1 of his "single work" magnus opus (in seven ever-more-lengthy volumes). So, I want clarification before I begin, lest I have to change works. I'm considering Ovid's Metamorphoses, Schuster's Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North America East of the Hundredth Meridian (all six volumes), Leitgeb's Untersuchungen der Lebemoose, Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia (volume 1), Arnold Schwarzenegger's New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding, or something along those lines. (It's unlikely that people would "steal" quotes from me if I chose one of those works.) However, I have to know what constitutes a "single opus" since Jerome's Vulgate Bible, although produced and published as one work, is a translation of more than 70 items originally written separately by many authors over an extended period. --EncycloPetey 13:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Lord of the Rings counts, yes. If not only because I fricking love it. But also because it's sequential --Rising Sun talk? contributions 17:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. :) I also like that series very much. But since sequential stories are allowed, I'll strategically choose Harry Potter. Thanks for this clarification. --Daniel. 18:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I don't like Harry Potter. Damn, you made a fool of me. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You may consider creating a list of everything you like for purposes of delimiting rules. But if you do it, please do it when hosting another competition. I like how Harry Potter quotations are converted to game points right now. --Daniel. 19:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The competitve element is at odds with the statement in the rules that a player must add from a single opus. --EncycloPetey 13:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
true, this concerned me. Any suggestions of how to make it more competitive? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 18:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion:
"It is also possible to use opuses chosen by other editors. 3 points are won for each new citation from another competitor's opus, with 3 more for adding a new definition, and 3 more for creating a brand new entry." --Daniel. 19:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. yoink --Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does a "form of" line count as a "definition", or is the contest limited to lemmata? --EncycloPetey 03:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, form ofs are allowed. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 08:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we double-dip using the same quote for both a lemma and a form-of? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I don't like that idea, denied --Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it retroactive? I've been doing exactly this with every book I've read for the last four years. Ƿidsiþ 13:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

demand translations?[edit]

I'm thinking...should I demand a translation for non-English entries? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not - in the case of Don Quixote, finding a copyright free English translation is a piece of cake, but there are innumerable opera in other languages which have never been translated in English, including most of my favourite Russian authors such as Rozanov, Meščerskij or Leontiev. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 06:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
denied. In this case, please, add a translation. I'm perfectly happy with your own translation. You never know, you might find you're good at it, and get rich off translating Rozanov. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't the rules say "new definition"? "new translation" doesn't get a mention (but I think this should be changed for our Portuguese friend). SemperBlotto 07:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A definition, in wiktionary terms, is another # line. So, in this case, yes, I can bend the rules. Of course, verb forms are still allowed in this case. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same opus[edit]

"The opus must be the same in all cases, and not a translation." Please clarify this statement. Examples would be appreciated. --Daniel. 16:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K, if one user chooses War and Peace, then another user can't take bonus points (the 3 points) for adding citations from Война и мир. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy with one user chosing Война и мир as his opus, and another choosing War and Peace. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, this business with Don Quixote is perfectly acceptable, because they were chosen as the main opus by 2 different users. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 16:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective claim[edit]

I'm not really into this competition, but by pretty much coincidence I added two citations from a s:fr:Érec et Énide today. Can I claim them retrospectively, even though I haven't actually entered the competition yet? fruit is one (author not tagged in citation, yet). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can. Don't spend too long counting points or keeping the running total up to date, though. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-lemma forms[edit]

Do alternative forms, spellings and inflected forms also count for 5, 10 and 15 respectively? Maybe they shouldn't. But maybe they should. See my (deprecated template usage) vangier. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they're just as valid as anything else. --[[User:Rising Sun|Rising Sun]] [[User talk:Rising Sun|talk?]] [[Special:Contributions/Rising_Sun|contributions]] 15:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

multiple senses[edit]

If more than one definition is added to a single entry, does each additional definition count? See repeated, where I have found a quote that uses this word as an adjective in two different senses. --EncycloPetey 19:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I might have to look into that particular entry later, but it's valid under my rules --Rising Sun talk? contributions 23:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a week with no competition[edit]

The rules say there are "20 bonus points for each week (7-day period, start time irrelevant) in which no rival players add any other quotes from the chosen opus". I think what's meant is "20 bonus points for each week (7-day period, start time irrelevant) in which no rival players add any other quotes from the chosen opus, where no two such weeks overlap", right?​—msh210℠ 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, if you want to be pernickety about it. Otherwise some cheeky bugger could claim 20 points for April 1 12:00 - April 8 12:00, 20 points for April 1 12:01 - April 8 12:01, 20 points for April 1 12:02 - April 8 12:02, 20 points for April 1 12:03 - April 8 12:03 etc. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 19:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Easter_Competition_2010&oldid=8779334"