Talk:Hugo Award

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hugo Award has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Featured topic star Hugo Award is the main article in the Hugo Awards series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 26, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
August 13, 2011 Featured topic candidate Promoted
September 24, 2011 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Awards and prizes (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards and prizes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hood Ornament Returned[edit]

Previously the article claimed that the original, 1953 Hugo was based on the hood ornament of a 1953 Oldsmobile Here's a picture of the 1953 Hugo trophy [1]

Here are images of the the Olds Rocket 88 hood ornament from circa 1950 [2]

This gives specific years [3]

The hood ornament, for most years looks nothing like the 1953 Hugo, except for the 1951 model. There the base looks a fair amount like it, but the fins are quite different. They are larger and there are fewer of them on the hood ornament. Presuming that Oldsmobile had the same hood ornament on all of its cars that year, the Hugo was unlikely to have been based after it.

Mike Glyer, the publisher of File 770, gives this story on a Polish website. It is based on an article by Ben Jason, ScientiFiction, Winter 1994. In 1955, Nick and Noreen Falasca wanted to bring back the Hugo for the 1955 Cleveland Worldcon. They hoped that Jack McKnight might make the Hugo, but he did not reply to their letters. Nick Falasca suggested that they use am Oldsmobile "Rocket 88" model hood ornament. That is probably where the idea came from that those ornaments were used. The problem wsa that they had a hollow underside, and the idea had to be rejected. Instead, Ben Jason made the rounds of machine shops looking for a way to make affordable Hugos. Finally, someone advised him to make a picture of it. Eventually, Hoffman Bronze Company prepared a pattern from it, and made six chrome plated replicas from it. This first batch was too flawed to be used as Hugos. However, the second was lathed to remove surface pits and fissures, and proved satisfactory. Today's Hugos are based on that design. [4]

Rich Dengrove 4 May 2008(UTC)

A question about the prize[edit]

The Nebula Award article states that there is no cash prize associated with that award. Is it also the case with the Hugo? It would be helpful if the article clarified this. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2012; 19:19 (UTC)

Delany in The New Yorker[edit]

The following seems to have material worth incorporating here: [5]. Choor monster (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

On one hand, I really don't want to make the puppy section any longer- it could go on forever with everyone's reactions. On the other hand, it's a good piece in the New Yorker (so bonus points for non-genre press talking about the Hugos) and it's also, you know, Delany, so I stuck it in anyway. I love how they just talk about the Hugos like the reader should just know what that is, instead of feeling like they need to explain these "niche awards" to their audience. --PresN 01:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggest new subheading[edit]

I'd suggest a new subheading in the History section, "Controversies", and moving the appropriate material from the "since 2000" subheading .

The current set of controversies is not the only controversy to ever hit the Hugos. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The only sourced controversy information we have right now is one small paragraph in the 80s/90s section, and the puppy section in the 2000+ section. I asked above about sources for any other controversies (or any information at all about them) but there was none forthcoming; unless we have enough information to fill out a section I'm not sure about pulling out two paragraphs into a separate section. --PresN 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you know of any? Doesn't have to be a reliable source, just any information to start looking from- I'm seen the equivalent of forum postings rumoring that Ellison has made mention of something happening in the 70s, but details are slim. --PresN 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately a bot has just archived my reply to that last time it was asked, but bluntly, aside from the highly unexpected nomination of a book by L. Ron Hubbard, that's because there isn't anything reliably sourced.
The Puppies love to suggest this sort of thing has always gone on - but they would say that, wouldn't they? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There have indeed been one or two controversies surrounding the Hugo Awards, but only the puppy-related stuff is really all that notable. I generally don't think a separate section for controversies is a good idea, because they tend to become shit magnets. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I was asking him specifically because he's Geoffrey A. Landis, if you didn't catch that, so I figured he may have heard something at a worldcon party or something. --PresN 19:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should avoid "controversies" sections because these tend to blow up out of proportion. Also nobody has proposed sourced content about earlier controversies.  Sandstein  20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I anticipate that when the Hugo awards are announced on August 22nd, there will be immediate high interest and reporting on the matter from non-genre journalistic sources shortly afterward, particularly if "no award" or slate-driven nominees win one or more categories. At that point, it might make the most sense to house the 2015 Hugo "puppy" related issues in a dedicated subsection of the 2000's section, or dedicated subsection of a the history section, or an entirely new separate section in the main article -- if not as a new, separate article. It's already overwhelming the 2000's section, and I think the situation up to now is already well resourced here. I'll leave it to experienced editors to guide us through emotional contributions from both sides of the issue that might not be appropriate, while still supporting adequate documentation of the subject, after the results are in. But may as well wait until the outcome of all this on the 22nd and the immediate aftermath of coverage to figure out the best way to house the information?

FYI, If you are interested in a heads up on how this may break in the news, the Hugo awards ceremony starts at 8pm (PDT) on August 22nd, at Sasquan in Spokane Washington. The ceremony will be livestreamed via Ustream, with text based coverage on Coveritlive. Results of the Awards will also be posted on after the ceremony. Dauphinfute (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually going to go the other way. The current section on the puppy saga is overwhelming compared to the prior 5 decades of history. Once Worldcon has passed and attention has died down, the section is likely to be cut down to smaller than it currently is, even after adding the results. Prediction (which is easy to make, seeing as I was the only serious editor on this page for years): the article will have a flurry of activity between August 22-30. Then it will stop until the following May. In between, the 2015 saga will get cut down to something reasonable, because the WP:RECENTISM will die down, and no one will be left to actually work on the page. Come 2016, no matter what happens, the new saga will balloon into its own paragraph, because new things are important regardless of anything. Come 2020, the entire thing will be a short mention in a section titled "2010s". --PresN 06:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
What about a 2015 Hugo Awards article to cover both the list of nominees and winners, as well as the related controversy?  Sandstein  06:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
There may be enough RS material for a standalone article on Sad Puppies - I noticed that someone recently put a pretty substantial sourced paragraph in Larry Correia's BLP but it was cut down as undue weight for that article. As to other controversies, I ordered a copy of A History of the Hugo Nebula and International Fantasy Awards by Franson & DeVore but it turned out to be little more than a list of the winners over the years. It didn't even give an explanation for the Dramatic Presentation "No Award" for 1976. The only other remotely reliable sources I've run across have been blog entries by George R. R. Martin and David Gerrold. Kelly hi! 08:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been waiting for the results to come out later this month, I imagine there will be more and better coverage then, much of it so far has been of the campaigning or speculative variety. Kelly hi! 08:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I have the Franson/DeVore book, it's rather disappointing as a source. --PresN 16:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is David French?[edit]

Here is David French's self-identification page on National Review. It's possible he's notable enough for his own article. I doubt anyone cares about his opinion regarding science fiction in general, I think the point of its inclusion here is that Puppygate has attracted the attention of people with a political/social axe to grind. Choor monster (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it really a surprise that a right-wing commentator, writing an opinion piece in a right-wing magazine, thinks the opponents of the right-wing group he supports are slanderous leftists? I fail to see how this quote has any value to this article whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Now removed as a part of condensing the paragraph to make room for the results. --PresN 23:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This is correct. So far as "Hugo Award" is concerned, Puppygate is small potatoes, and the finer details should be WP:10YTed. If/when Puppygate becomes its own separate article, the right-wing take becomes significant in that article. Choor monster (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I see we already have Sad Puppies. Never mind. Choor monster (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sad Puppies could use a few more eyes on it, given (eg) the credulous acceptance of the claim that the Puppy movements are unrelated, which we've disposed of here. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there reliable sourcing that they're related? Kelly hi! 21:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There's none that they're unrelated (which is why we don't say it). Pinkbeast (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Wired on the Awards[edit]

Check out this article: Wired. Of particular note was Martin handed out "Alfies", a new prize to sidestep the slate voting. Choor monster (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Also the Wall Street Journal.[6] Kelly hi! 17:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)