Talk:Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by California State University task force (assessed as Low-importance).

If we're going to have the 2005 and 2006 winning entries, why not have all of the winning entries? Also, why don't we switch the Paul Clifford and Project gutenberg links, so that Paul Clifford links to Paul Clifford, and Project Gutenberg links to the actual text, or something of that nature?Stale Fries 00:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a Grand Prize winner every year as long as the contest has run – 22 years by now, I think – so that'd be a lot of sentences. Winning sentences tend to be long. The "Lyttony..." link goes to a list of all the G.P. winners. Category winners (Detective, Romance, etc.) and Dishonorable Mentions stay on the contest site only a year.

On the issue of "unknown importance," the contest has a big following among people interested in writing and humor. The top sentences get translated into many languages and published around the world. However, there isn't much in this article that the contest site doesn't have. Cognita 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge article: It was a dark and stormy night

Wikipedia has an article entitled It was a dark and stormy night, which focuses on the phrase's widespread use as a cliché that describes "a certain broad style of writing, characterized by a self-serious attempt at dramatic flair; the imitation of formulaic styles; an extravagantly florid style; and run-on sentences." I propose that its contents be merged into this article and and that It was a dark and stormy night be turned into a redirect pointing to this article. It seems to me that the information from the two articles would more useful in the same place. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 18:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The phrase itself is notable, as is this contest inspired by the phrase. While the two should link to each other, they should not be merged. Gentgeen 20:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gentgeen. The phrase and the contest are related but different topics.

("Run-on sentences"? That usually means comma splices – sentences where two independent clauses are wrongly connected by a comma instead of a semicolon or a full stop. I'll bet the writer meant sentences that run on and on.)

Cognita 20:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Both are different and have enough information to be seperate articles. Adam Wang 23:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too like this as a separate entry. The phrase is strong enough to stand on its own, and has a history apart from the contest.

Worddrenched 18:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Worddrenched [I've moved Worddrenched's comment here. It originally appeared between the two paragraphs of mine, above – Cognita][reply]

Object. The two articles are clearly distinguished and focus on different aspects of the topic. It was a dark and stormy night discusses other uses of the phrase beyond the Bulwer-Lytton Contest, and to merge it in would be excessively limiting. DWaterson 21:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. If It was a dark and stormy night should be a redirect, then it should be a redirect to the Purple prose article, not this one. However, I don't think that's justified, either. The phrase and the contest are not the same thing, and should not be treated as such, and the the phrase is such a famous example of purple prose that it really does warrant its own article. Aervanath 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm the only one who feels this way. I'll take out the merge templates. Thank you, everyone, for your input. —CKA3KA (Skazka) 08:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the winners

A recent addition was an unreferenced tag for the 2008 winning entry. As the BLFC web site and past winners list are both in the External Links section, what is the best way to provide an appropriate reference for each winning entry? A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd someone take out the damn examples? They were far more illuminating than just a list of the winners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.75.149 (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad link

The link given for the contest website goes to a Not Found page. The correct URL is https://www.bulwer-lytton.com/ . Would someone who knows the code for getting links into Wikipedia articles please make the substitution? Cognita (talk) 06:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it. But the various URLs on the contest website are somewhat, um, whimsical ("Our Story" is at /contest-rules & "Rules" are at /copy-of-about-1), so they may be subject to change. "Our Story" says:

Please note our new site is still under construction. Questions/problems? Please contact our Grand Panjandrum's trusty assistant (the fruit of his loins, his daughter EJ).

Davemck (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I saw that parts of the site had been revised recently and guessed that the link had been affected. Cognita (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]