Wiktionary talk:New Year's Competition 2011

An interesting competition. For this edit to turn on, would I get one point? --Mat200 09:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And for this one three points? Two for the second extra definition, one for the quotation? --Mat200 09:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The second edit would count toward the contest. I want to notcount the first, as it merely splits an existing sense into two. What do others think?​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See my recent edit to the rules to allow for splitting definitions.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does this competition differ in title from previous ones, all of which mention explicitly Christmas rather than New Year? The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Because (a) it's starting later (I think) than previous Christmas competitions did and (b) someone mentioned that it's too late now to start a Christmas competition.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh oh, I hope this won't encourage things like (the original) (deprecated template usage) meant to be. Equinox ◑ 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

only English?

You mentioned "Any entry that has (as of December 14, 2010) at least five English senses in the same POS section". Why restrict it to English? Why not have it for any language?--Mat200 12:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of this competition is to improve our coverage of many-sense English words.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, English contest entries are easier for others to check.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Translingual is another language whose words are presumably easy to be checked. --Daniel. 08:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think German and French are two other languages in which entries are easily verifiable (the two main Europæan languages together with Russian). Hopefully they, or at least French, will be included. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

no abbreviations

I want to exclude acronyms and initialisms from this contest, because including them will encourage entries that merely add abbreviations of, say, company names and things, which, fine, it's good to have, but the point of the contest is to add senses of words. What think you all?​—msh210℠ (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"December 14, 2010"

The page makes "[a]ny entry that has (as of December 14, 2010) at least five English senses in the same POS section" (among other criteria) eligible for the game.

Is there a particular reason to expand only entries that have been already expanded before? If possible, can't we simply count points from the sixth definition onwards? --Daniel. 02:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I had something in mind when I wrote that, but now can't think what. I've removed it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

erm

Surely it would be too easy to just add all the entries to the Tea Room at the end to effectively exclude them from the scoring. I think it's OK to exclude RfD'd, RfV'd or RfC'd entries, but do we really need to exclude entries being discussed in the TR as well? -- Prince Kassad 01:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Daniel argued similarly, but as it's started already there's not much we can do. Anyway, presumably no one will do that.​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If presumably no one will do that, then we wouldn't need such a rule anyway. Also, let me quote my words from a relevant discussion with msh210.

If one player adds a nonexistent English word, according to the current rules he would gain 0 points from it if it is being discussed on RFV. However, if another player adds a word that exists, one can simply add a RFV tag to it to make it score 0 points too. This RFV tag can even be added in good faith: since a player is supposed to add senses that have not been added before, they are likely to be obscure, thus possibly challenged by other editors. People can also in good faith avoid adding a RFV tag to an entry, even if he or she is in doubt about how worthy said entry is, because he or she would know that it would automatically give only 0 points to the respective player. From my experience in interacting with humans, I suppose it would be possible to see someone politely starting a RFV discussion with something like "I really don't want User:Example to lose his points of WT:FUN if this entry is correct, but can we please double-check it?"

--Daniel. 12:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Start date

When does it start? I don't believe it says on the page. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

When I removed the "not yet started" notice from it (and announced in the BP that it's started).​—msh210℠ (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)