Talk:Hugo Award for Best Fancast

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hugo Award for Best Fancast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.litro.co.uk/index.php/2010/04/20/hugo-awards-announced/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414154525/http://www.worldcon.org/ to http://www.worldcon.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006193748/http://www.thehugoawards.org/about/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006193748/http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-categories/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-categories/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2012-hugo-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugo Award for Best Fancast. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103034223/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Delisting

I was looking into whether this article should be delisted or not. I asked at the Teahouse and the editor that responded didn't seem to think my rationale was necessarily bad, but I've recently had AfDs that went poorly so I figured I would drop my rationale here on the talk page and if someone else decides to pursue the delisting process they can do so. Here was my reasoning:

The article appears to have significant notability issues. According to WP:FLCR, featured lists should “cover a topic that lends itself to list format and ... meet the requirements for all Wikipedia content.” Most of the sources currently being cited are not reliable and independent secondary sources. Some of them don’t even mention the words “fancast” or “podcast” such as The Guardian article, which is about a book not a podcast. The only result on Google News for “Hugo Award for Best Fancast” is this trivial mention by Locus Magazine. Searching for “Hugo Award” “Best Fancast” gets some hits on Google News, but it’s all extremely WP:ROUTINE even for demonstrating notability of the award itself rather than this category specifically. Google Books and Google Scholar yield even fewer results with nothing that contains in-depth or significant coverage of this specific award category. I don’t see how this specific category of the award is independently notable from the Hugo Award and even if the Hugo Award is notable this category does not WP:INHERIT that notability. The subject of the article is very specific and I don’t think it’s appropriate to have a stand alone list per WP:SALAT. I also noticed while assessing the article that there are quite a few other “Hugo Award for Best <media type>” such as Hugo Award for Best Fanzine and Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer (it appears the same editor got at least 15 award categories promoted to featured sometime around 2010), but claiming that this article should not be deleted or not be delisted because similar articles exist would likely be considered an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The article was promoted to a featured list in 2015, but there doesn’t appear to be any discussion about the article’s notability during the nomination. I think the article should either be merged with the award or deleted, but delisting would likely be the first step.

I previously tried creating articles for the separate years of the iHeartRadio awards and in the end none of mine got published and others got deleted, which I understand this rationale would be considered WP:OTHERSTUFF but I think the example maps on pretty well and I'm trying to explain where I'm coming from here rather than persuade anyone of my above rationale. I'm wondering if I'm missing some really obvious policy or guideline and wanted some input. Don't ping me though if you're just here to yell at me. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Some comments:

• Yes, in ~2010 I got all of the extant Hugo categories to FL. Since then, since they've added a few new categories in the past decade, I've gotten Graphic Story promoted (2011), Fancast promoted (2015), and plan on getting Best Series to FL after the awards this year as it will have gotten long enough. There is one list per category, with the exception of the small one-off or short-lived categories, which are collected together in Discontinued Hugo Awards.
• My contention is that the "Hugo Awards", as a concept, are very notable, and winning a Hugo, regardless of category, is considered winning a major sff award. I further contend that as an extension of that, it makes sense for the categories that are long enough to support a list to be split off into their own list articles, and not jammed into the main Hugo Award article. Most of these 17 lists are quite long, simply due to being around for decades; this one is one of the shorter lists as it's one of the shorter categories.
• Merging this or any of the sublists into Hugo Award would create major undue weight to that article, as you'd have the article spend most of it's length talking about the awards in general and then suddenly spend a lot of time on a specific award category.
• There are actually quite a lot of sources that talk about winning the fancast award - notable authors, publishers, etc. - but the problem in regards to composing a list is that it doesn't add anything to the list to cite them; it's just "I won!" or "an author that writes for us won!", which doesn't translate to useful information to the reader. Generally, sources that have longer, more relevant things to say talk about the Hugo awards as a group, not specific subcategories.
• I see where you're coming from with the iHeartRadio awards lists, but I think there's a big difference between trying to make lists for individual award ceremonies for a 7-year old awards show and having lists for the entire categories of a 68-year old "premier award in science fiction".
• All that said, anyone can start an FLRC if they want! The process exists for a reason, and it will get a wider audience than this talk page. This is the first complaint of its nature in 11 years and 17 lists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong. --PresN 16:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: thank you for the prompt and thorough response. I didn't even realise you were still active on Wikipedia. I was expecting a much more abrasive answer and appreciate the tone you used. As I said above I'm not going to pursue the delisting, but hearing your rationale is much appreciated. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)