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 15:23, 17 August 2010 [1].

Hugo Award for Best Related Work[edit]

Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Related Work/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Pres N 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With Novels down through Short Stories done, the Hugo Award list nominations moves to non-fiction with the "Best Related Work" list. Besides the slight change in subject matter this list should be almost identical in form to the others, and I've replicated critiques made in the other FLCs to this list. Thanks! --Pres N 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—~~six links to dab pages (see the toolbox),~~ but no dead external links. Ucucha 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Pres N 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ucucha 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support meets standards. Good work. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FLC} 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Strongly Support—This list has 17 red links which probably skirts "Featured list criteria" 5a "minimal proportion of items are redlinked". The majority of these are to related works that should have articles, so this is not a major concern. I will change my comment to support if the red links issue is resolved. --Dan Dassow (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. In the last Hugo FLC, a reviewer asked that the winning short stories/books be redlinked, as they are notable for winning. I don't know what exactly you're looking for- you say that the redlinks are fine, but won't support unless they are removed? Does anyone else have an opinion on whether the winners should be redlinked? --Pres N 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some background: There was an RfC last year over this very issue (the result was no consensus). One concern was that nominators would delink notable subjects without an article so that lists would not fail this criterion. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, there are 17 redlinks out of what appears to be several hundred links total. I don't think that that's exceeding a "minimal proportion", especially as only winning works are redlinked, not all works or authors. --Pres N 18:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Comment to Support. I consider the red link issue to be resolved per the above discussion. I also found the list to be extremely useful and well done. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "To date, Retro Hugo awards have been awarded for 1946, 1951, and 1954, but the Retro Best Related Work Hugo was only awarded for 1954.[7]" Just stick the retro relevant to this list, and mention whether it was 50, 75 or 100 years (I guess 50...!) "Clute has been nominated a total of six ..." any reason to say "a total of"? "ntries with a blue background have won the award" + "and an asterisk () next to the author's name"... What is AAPPL? A couple of redirects on the titles (e.g. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns), which is absolutely correct? Ext link - is it "Hugo Award" or "Hugo Awards" here? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. Discrepancies for the redirects were mainly WP things- i.e. the title of the work is "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns", and the article agrees, but the article is located at "The Dark Knight Returns". Only odd one was "Conquest of the Moon", which is the name of the book that won the award, but the series of articles when the were first published in Collier's Magazine was "Man Will Conquer Space Soon!", and that's what the article is titled. The remaining redirects should be legitimate- autobiography's redirecting to a section in the subject's article and such, and I don't think they should be changed in case the article is ever created. --Pres N* 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"To date, Retro Hugo awards have been awarded for 1946, 1951, and 1954, but the Retro Best Related Work Hugo was only awarded for 1954.[7]" Just stick the retro relevant to this list, and mention whether it was 50, 75 or 100 years (I guess 50...!)
"Clute has been nominated a total of six ..." any reason to say "a total of"?
"ntries with a blue background have won the award" + "and an asterisk (*) next to the author's name"...
What is AAPPL?
A couple of redirects on the titles (e.g. Batman: The Dark Knight Returns), which is absolutely correct?
Ext link - is it "Hugo Award" or "Hugo Awards" here?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Discrepancies for the redirects were mainly WP things- i.e. the title of the work is "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns", and the article agrees, but the article is located at "The Dark Knight Returns". Only odd one was "Conquest of the Moon", which is the name of the book that won the award, but the series of articles when the were first published in Collier's Magazine was "Man Will Conquer Space Soon!", and that's what the article is titled. The remaining redirects should be legitimate- autobiography's redirecting to a section in the subject's article and such, and I don't think they should be changed in case the article is ever created. --Pres N 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support – Looked through it and didn't see any problems on top of what TRM posted. Take care of those and you can consider this a full support Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't there a usable image somewhere? Surely we have pictures of a few of the writers... Courcelles 02:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that adding some free pictures of authors really adds anything besides decoration. There used to be a fair-use image of the Hugo logo, but that got removed in the last FLC as being unnecessary. --Pres N 15:39, 16 August 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.