Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Fanzine/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 22 October 2010 [1].

Hugo Award for Best Fanzine[edit]

Hugo Award for Best Fanzine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): PresN 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, with the Hugo Award for Best Novel Novella Novelette Short Story Related Work Professional Magazine Semiprozine Fanzine, the category for fan, or non-professional, magazines. As always, comments from previous FLCs have been incorporated into this list. This looks to be my last one for a while as well as the last magazine Hugo award article- I've been really busy in real life, and I've run out of the buffer I'd built up. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
Personally, I find this passage, "Specifically, it must not meet at least two of the following criteria: ... and that announced itself to be a semiprozine." to be rather confusing. I wonder if recasting it as "it must meet four of the following..." would be clearer?
"Locus has won 8 times out of 13 nominations" Italics on Locus
"As editor of Locus Charles N. Brown" Ditto
"Entries with a blue background have won the award;" Well.. not quite. The blue is only for the year the publication won, correct?
Shouldn't the renames sort together?
You know what comes now, my ref nitpicking! Location/publisher for refs 1, 2, 3, 7.
Location for 11.

Courcelles 05:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Dan Dassow (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a comment.
  • Comment -
PresN, it looks like your final Hugo related list should pass through review quickly. I found very few problems with the list after a thorough review. I have two minor nit picks. I will support the promotion to FL once these are addressed.
I'm confused by the phrase at the beginning of the second paragraph, "Specifically, it must meet one or zero of the following criteria ...". Shouldn't that be "Specifically, it must meet one or more of the following criteria ..."?
No, I've tried to clear it up in the article, tell me if it works. Originally there were only the fanzine and professional magazine categories. When the WSFS created the "Semiprozine" category, they defined the border between a "fan"zine and a "semipro"zine with five criteria- if you meet 2 or more of the 5 criteria, you're a semiprozine; 1 or 0, and you're a fanzine. Therefore, the only formal definition of what a fanzine is is that it does not meet 2 or more of the semiprozine criteria.
There are no red links.
Whoops, winners now all linked.
There are two dead links according to webchecklinks. Both links return the message, "Sorry nothing found".
Ref 60: http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2004-hugo-awards/
Ref 61: http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2005-hugo-awards/
Fixed and fixed.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, addressed your points. --PresN 03:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Issues are resolved to my satisfaction. --Dan Dassow (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Infobox - the "won for" parameter, I always think this should read as a sentence, so start uncapitalised and end with a full stop.
  • Unless you really feel stringly about this I disagree. The "awarded for" and the description are two separte columns, and are not a sentence. None of the other rows in the box work as a sentence.
  • No, it's my personal preference so I can't disagree with your approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it may be worth linking "fanzine" to the non-Sci-fi related version, as some non-experts would never have heard of the term.
  • Sure, done.
  • Any reason why no 1958 award was made?
  • Not sure. They didn't have any formalized rules around the awards back then, so each worldcon decided which categories to include. That year they only did Professional magazines; it's possible that they tried to do fanzines as well but didn't get enough nominations, but if so no one wrote that down somewhere.
  • Fair enough, I hate it when these lists (including most, if not all of my noms) have "unexplained years", hence the question. If there's no evidence then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The award was first presented in 1955" vs "During the 58 nomination years" - taking account of 1958, I'm not sure how this works out?
  • 55, 56, 57, 59 = 4; 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's = 54, 2010 = 55, and the three retro years = 58.
  • Okay, so you're counting the retro years both as normal years and retro years? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the context of that paragraph (the counting part) I'm not counting them as one or the other- I'm using "nomination years", with no distinction made between whether the year was a regular one or a retro one. Your comment implied that they were being double-counted.
  • Yes, it's the double-accounting that I'm worried about. Still think it could be confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, tweaked it to "During the 58 nomination years, including Retro Hugo years, ..."
  • 1981 - Starship, sorting by Work, appears out of order.
  • And Speculation in reverse Work order seems out of order too.
Per Courcelles above, the magazines that got renamed are sorted by their first name, to keep them together.
Perhaps a note could be used. Otherwise this really could be confusing. And given two reasonably experienced reviewers have fallen foul of it, it seems likely to catch out the drive-by reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note added, but it's only one editor- Courcelles was the one who told me to do it in the first place.
With you. Courcelles recommended the rename, I got confused, right? A note would therefore please all the people, all the time...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on the last of the external links, not convinced it's suitable for us, are those fanzines printed legitimately?
  • Whoops, forget to check the external links.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied in-line. --PresN 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replied again. --PresN 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Looking at the list and seeing all of the resolved comments, I think that it passes FL criteria. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummm... what? The page you linked to is about how to make a table with Wikicode. It's not a guideline or even a suggestion, it's a help manual. I actually don't think I've ever seen a wikitable that used "scope="col"" or whatever, and it's certainly not a requirement. --PresN 19:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that's my fault. I should have directed you to WP:ACCESS#Data table. It is part of MoS but because people are not that aware of it there is some opposition to it. So again sorry if it was confusing. I linked to the help page because it shows how wikitables should be programmed. They are being slowly implemented e.g. Rihanna discography -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So... Basically one/a few people came up with a way to code wikitables that works out to better html (A good thing), and with no real discussion they then by fiat put it in the MOS. And now I'm supposed to spend a few hours rewriting the tables in all of my FLs in order to get the exact same visual output? While even you, who seems to be the only supporter of it in these FLCs that I see, admits that as soon as people actually found out about it there was opposition? I'm not feeling well right now so I might be a bit rude here, but I think I'll pass on this. Go back to WP:ACCESS and tell them to get a bot to run through all of the hundreds of thousands of tables on WP, rather than making people do manual drudge work on a few hundred FLs. --PresN 22:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Manual of Style Issues you said that you were going to retract your comments at all of the FLCs, so I'm just going to assume that you forgot this one. --PresN 23:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Hugo_Award_for_Best_Fanzine/archive1&oldid=1090424601"