Talk:Dragon Awards

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dragon Awards. 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/20160909074505/http://awards.dragoncon.org/2016/08/29/the-dragon-awards-presentation/ to http://awards.dragoncon.org/2016/08/29/the-dragon-awards-presentation/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://awards.dragoncon.org/winners/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://awards.dragoncon.org/2017_winners/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/13/12461038/dragon-awards-shortlist-dragoncon-science-fiction-fantasy
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/3/16248888/dragon-award-dragoncon-sci-fi-fantasy-books-winners

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Some information on voting needed
Some clarification on the voting process would be useful. The Dragon Awards "process" page http://awards.dragoncon.org/the-process/ says: What does this mean, "reviewed"? Who reviews, on what criteria? How can ballots be issued more than once? Are there several rounds of voting?
 * Your nominations are gathered and reviewed to create a final ballot.
 * Ballots are issued in batches twice a week during the voting period, during mid-week and at the beginning of the week for anyone that registers after voting has begun.

--I will also point out with some horror that the nomination and voting is done by anybody with an e-mail address. That seems like just asking for gaming the system in the form ballot-stuffing; it is easy enough for anybody with a bit of internet expertise to put together a 'bot army and send in as many ballots as you'd like. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Our opinions (as editors on Wikipedia) regarding how they handle their voting and nominations processes is irrelevant. All we do is include information that can be cited to specific, reliable, third-party sources. Perhaps they do have ballot stuffing, though there are ways to determine that is happening, too (speaking as someone who has worked in IT for a while). However, whether they have it or not is not relevant to improving this article. There are plenty of internet forums where such things can be (and are) discussed). As for the other questions you have, I'm sure you could email them and ask them. They're the only ones that could answer, though they may be reluctant to share the methods in order to avoid providing information that could be used to game the system. ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Our opinions (as editors on Wikipedia) regarding how they handle their voting and nominations processes is irrelevant. Which is why I put this comment in the talk page, and not in the article.
 * The questions on how they put the ballot together, and the meaning of the weasel-words like "reviewed" (by whom?) definitely should be clarified in the article. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? The the award is given and administered by Dragon Con. Are you wanting names of people? That's generally not done for any award. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the article would be better if it made clear how the selection is made as to what works are put on the ballot. This is currently lacking. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem being that there is no information to be had anywhere that provides the information you demand. Dragon Con handles the entire process in-house from start to finish, so it's unlikely you are going to get any more specific information ever. There could be many reasons for it, but the blatantly obvious fact that only you seem to not grasp is that Dragon Con (interpreted broadly) is the one who "gathers and reviews" the ballots. You are never going to get specific names, and this article doesn't require or need to be more specific. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The fact is that we don't have the information. All we can do is say, "DragonCon's website says 'X' about the balloting. We don't get to question the details; we don't get to say, "Sounds kinda hinky to me", or raise issues like this at all. Unless some notable third party has done so, the discussion ends there. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

New article: list
This article seems a bit long because it lists all the nominees. I think it would be a clearer article if it listed the winners in each category, and there were a separate article List of Dragon Award Nominees that give the full list of nominees. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Works for me, though it appears you already moved everything, so "asking" seems a little belated. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:Bold. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes discussion
I reformatted the page a bit by doing the following:
 * Moved content out of the lead into the body of the article.
 * Created and renamed sections in order to hold that information.
 * Removed two refs to Newsarama due to the concerns expressed by here.
 * Removed all the tags as they were used for factual information, not for establishing notability. This is a perfectly appropriate usage for those sources per WP:PRIMARY.
 * Fixed most of the bare url references. The one I didn't fix was because I don't think it's a reliable source for the reasons expressed in the tag I left
 * Removed the notability tag because the awards have been covered on Gizmodo, The Verge, by SFWA, and others over the last four years, so they definitely meet general notability requirements. I'm sure more could be found with little effort.
 * Reworded the lead to make it more concise. It still needs to be expanded a bit so it properly summarizes the content of the article per MOS:LEAD.
 * Tagged the sources from Cora Buhlert and Camestros Felapton as unreliable. My comments were "Who is this person? This appears to be some random blogosphere critic's blog rather than a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. She has no article on Wikipedia, and she is not a notable person within fandom, so her opinion on the awards is no more valuable than that of a random person off the street." and "Who is this person? This appears to be some random blogosphere critic's blog rather than a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. Even the about page on the blog gives no hint as to the real names of the people involved.", respectively.
 * Tagged a couple things as needing citations.

I think we need to find some positive reviews of the Dragon Awards for inclusion in the renamed "Reception" section. In order to keep the article unbiased, we need some to counter the negative comments currently in that section.

I think that's it. Pinging as they have previously worked significantly on the article. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "I think we need to find some positive reviews of the Dragon Awards for inclusion in the renamed "Reception" section. In order to keep the article unbiased, we need some to counter the negative comments currently in that section." No, this is literally not how Wikipedia works. What do the RSes say? That's it - David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources that offer a positive view of the awards rather than the blatantly negative view in that section right now, then we should try to find them. If they exist, we should include them. That's literally how Wikipedia works. Present any and all points of view as long as they are supported by reliable, third-party sources. Where did you get the idea that wasn't the case? And where did you get the idea that I was suggesting anything else? I've been around for a very long time in Wikipedia. I know how it works. Assume a little good faith here, David. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are such positive sources as well, they should be cited, but as a general thing, a Wikipedia article should just be reporting what the sources say. If the sources are critical, there's no mandate to go on a search to find somebody with another opinion. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's exactly what I stated. We should search for as many reliable sources as possible, and not simply stop with those that are critical. All I'm saying is that we ought to make an effort to find positive reliable sources, if possible. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag - you really haven't substantiated at all that there are sources that say what you seem to want them to say. If you're sure the section gives an actually wrong impression of the Dragon Awards' reception, please do bring the third-party RSes - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Newsarama
Nihonjoe, I disagree with the wholesale removal of that source, unless you can show that it's been blacklisted by Wikipedia or equivalent WP RFC. Newsarama is a blue-linked source which does contain a section on criticism, but so do other sources which are canonically accepted as WP:RS around here. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Having a blue link does not in any way make something a WP:RS, where did you get that from? I marked it as unreliable based on its self-description: " Newsarama is the place where comic book fans and sci-fi enthusiasts can find the latest news, theories and speculation about their favorite characters, movies, books, games and shows. Mission Statement: To be a must-see 365-day-a-year comic book convention without the long lines." That's not the description of a mainstream journalistic RS - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strawman. I never claimed being blue linked makes a source a WP:RS.  Newsarama is a valid, RS for the fields of comic book fans and sci-fi enthusiasts, which is directly germane to this topic.  Anyway, there is clearly no consensus for elimination of the source. XavierItzm (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's literally not a Wikipedia-quality source, love it as you might - David Gerard (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate blacklisted by Wikipedia or equivalent WP RFC or it's just your opinion. XavierItzm (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine either way. If consensus is to remove it, we can keep it removed. If it's to keep the citations, we can include them again. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Never heard of Newsrama before, but taking a look at the site, seems to be a news site for the comics & comics-related film business to me, so I don't see any reason to delete it. Hardly important enough to argue about, though, if there are indeed alternate sources for the same set of facts. So if the citation is deleted, as long as some other reliable citation for the facts is kept, ok. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Best Military Science
There's a guy from the fucking 1500s in one of the attribution, I just found it suspicuous, if it was real attribution, so be it. 180.241.148.168 (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 winners
https://www.dragoncon.org/awards/2023-recipients/ 37.47.195.91 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)