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)

Coordinated updates across articles[edit]

We need to get organized to fully coordinate updates across articles,as there should be some conformity in how this is handled.

1) update this article -- badly needed and overdue at this point.

2) at some point we might need a new article 2015 Hugo awards nomination controversy to cover everything, since there's a lot going on.

3) Need to update articles on:

  • Theodore Beale aka Vox Day - leader of Rabid Puppies, also publisher of John C. Wright
  • John C. Wright (author) nominated for three out of five slots for same award (?!) after being put on slate by Vox Day, called out in several articles for blogging anti-homosexual posts
  • Brad R. Torgersen a leader of Sad Puppies
  • Larry Correia another leader of Sad Puppies (and note that the editors on the talk page there are referring to the whole situation as a "witch hunt" which they don't want to mention at all, so the regulars appear to have a demonstrated bias on the topic.

DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As I've just commented on Talk:Larry Correia: if you're so keen for this topic to be mentioned in Wikipedia, why not be bold and add something yourself? I wasn't sure that sufficient reliable sources exist, though looking above it seems I may have been wrong. WP:Recentism is an issue though, along with BLP. It's a shame we don't have articles for the Hugos by year (2014 Hugo Awards, etc) as that's really where the content would belong, rather than this article which is about the entire history of the awards. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Granted, it is recent, but it is the most mainstream news coverage I've seen about the awards in, well, ever. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with starting an article solely about the controversy. There isn't "a lot going on", there's one event (a slate being produced for blah blah reasons) and its result (slate sweeps nominations) and a bunch of reactions to that. If you can't write at least 5 paragraphs of sourced information without going into trivial detail and a calling list of every single blog article posted about it, then it's not really worth an article.
This whole thing is worth, at best, a small paragraph in this article. More realistically, it shouldn't be included at all unless grouped with other controversies of years past. The Hugo Awards have been going on since 1953- if this event had happened in 1985 you wouldn't even bother adding it in; it's only because it happened in 2015 that you think it's of earthshaking significance. Come 2017 (probably) the only reference to it will be a sentence talking about how "No Award" works, how it won the 1977 Dramatic Presentation award and several categories in 2015 due to a negative reaction to slate voting. How do I know this? Because there's a small note on Nebula Award for Best Short Story that the 1982 winner refused the award because of people gaming the system, and that's the only mention of it. --PresN 01:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Are there any serious concerns remaining about writing a paragraph or two based on these sources? It should reflect the stated goals of the campaigners, the negative reaction by the rest of fandom, and the parallels to Gamergate as highlighted in these sources.  Sandstein  12:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
One paragraph should be more than enough and Ill add a few more sources.
A response from Larry Correia
National Review
Any source that didn't bother to verify some basic facts in the press release they got on this, shouldnt be used as they have demonstrated their unreliability. WeldNeck (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A source is much more likely to be reliable if it corrects errors, not the other way around. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd also include the response by Brad R. Torgersen, the organizer of this year's campaign.[5] I've also seen announcements that next year's campaign will be organized by Kate Paulk, and the year after next by Sarah Hoyt but I don't think we need to crystal-ball the future. Kelly hi! 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with adding something from Torgersen as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talkcontribs) 16:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we prove that the blog is written by Torgersen? We can use it to cite Torgersen's opinion if so, but unfortunately nothing else. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF applies. I don't think there's any doubt about authorship. Kelly hi! 00:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with PresN on this one, per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Regarding the sources, I honestly don't see a lot of fact being reported even in the articles User:Sandstein doesn't categorize as opinion pieces - certainly not if we exclude "facts" of the form of reporting the opinion of the parties involved. Nobody seems particularly interested in an actual demographic analysis of the slate, for example, or in sales figures for the nominated works, or anything else that could possibly pretend to be an "objective measure" of the claims being thrown about regarding "judging works on their merit" vs "racism/misogyny" etc. (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

One more thing - is Kate Paulk notable enough for an article yet, Sad Puppies aside? I keep seeing her name as a red link on SFF related pages. (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

65 names - 10 women, 5 "John C Wright", 7 works published by Castalia House (a publisher operated by the slate's organiser with a roster of a full ten authors, one of whom is a woman (with an impressive catalogue of one book, not on the slate)).
Perhaps there is a reason no serious source feels a detailed demographic analysis is necessary to examine the idea that works have been submitted based on merit. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The comment above about the 1982 Nebulas is a familiar line of spurious argument - "slates have always existed". Lisa Tuttle refused the award because one of the other nominees had sent copies of his story to SFWA members - presumably to make them more likely to read it. That is, perhaps, not quite the same thing as an organised effort to lock everyone else out of the awards for political reasons. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
David Langford's long-running Ansible should have something about this when it comes out (and did last year). Particularly, the reaction at Eastercon was (obviously) universally negative, but we need a RS to say that.
I think we should resist the idea that we stuff whatever is written full of self-justifying comments by the organisers. They are hardly reliable sources on their own motivations. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't abide by a claim that anyone is "hardly a reliable source" on their own motivations without very convincing evidence. By default, I consider people the most reliable source possible on that subject. To say otherwise about a person veers close to branding them a psychopath, or at least a pathological liar.
As for your remark Perhaps there is a reason no serious source feels a detailed demographic analysis is necessary to examine the idea that works have been submitted based on merit, you are conflating different things I said in a way that was clearly not intended. Obviously I meant that the merit claim would be substantiated by sales figures. And as for organised effort[s] to lock everyone else out of the awards, that is not substantiated - first off, you have no definition of "everyone else", and second you have no evidence of lockstep voting. (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple authors withdrew their work from the nominations. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've redirected Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies (both proper nouns, I didn't touch Sad puppies, etc.) to the section we have here on the slate. No action needed, but if we break out a new article those links should be updated. Protonk (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Older history[edit]

There are a few statements up above of people saying "I heard once" or "I read once" about a scandal like blah blah. Given that that sort of thing is pretty germane to the article that covers the history of the award, does anyone have any sources about prior scandals? Currently, the article has: the 4 times that "no award" won (though no real details) in 59, 63, 71, and 77; the time in 83 that scientologists were pushed to nominate Battlefield Earth en masse (didn't work); the time in 89 that one guy bought a bunch of memberships to try to get a work on the ballot (it worked, but it was super-obvious and the author withdrew when the Hugo admins let him know about it; they've never said who/what it was); and, of course, 2015 (with an added sprinkle of SP1 and SP2).

Does anyone have anything on the dark mutters by Ellison about something in the 70s? Or whatever scandals were supposed to have happened in the 90s? Was there a big uproar about Harry Potter winning once, or just a lot of eyerolling? While there's so much attention being paid to the article, lets try to do something with it besides jamming 20 sources repeating each other into the same paragraph. --PresN 23:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say this, of course, but I think the reason you won't find many sources about that is that it mostly is vague supposition - the Scienos unsuccessful attempts in '83 and '87 aside. AFAIK the "no awards" in the 50s-70s were simply because people didn't like what was on the ballot very much. Harry Potter was certainly just eyerolling - plenty of Rowling fans in SF.
Of course, I'm not an RS, but this is going to be a wild goose chase. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)