Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Novel/archive1


 * 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 22:52, 19 May 2010.

Hugo Award for Best Novel

 * Nominator(s):  Pres N  00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've rewritten it and think that it should be a FL, given that it's the most famous sci-fi award there is right now. I based the format of it off of Aurealis Award for best fantasy novel, a recent FL. Have at it! -- Pres N  00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OPPOSE (due to table formatting) - I think the current style of the list is absolutely dreadful. Even knowing about and understanding the award, I found it painfully difficult to understand the table. The Aurealis award table has been modified since the article was featured: it was originally . I think that older style should be copied to the current article as a minimum before I think it could be a featured list. Even then, I'm sure there's room for improvement. GDallimore (Talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What about the other form are you preferring? The combined year boxes? The removal of the "ref" column? Or the way it's split up by decade? Because that and a lack of sortability are the only changes. Basically, what do you want/ not want? -- Pres N  01:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment, the table layout was changed on the Aurealis Award because it wasnt sortable and was per a request by The Rambling Man at the Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel nomination. Salavat (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what it needs, but I think both articles need a major rethink. Relying solely on colour and a star next to the title of the book to indicate the different between winners and nominees just strikes me as being wholly inadequate. GDallimore (Talk) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But even in your example of a better table, that was all that was used to denote winners. What do you think would make it better/more obvious? Bold text? Bigger text? -- Pres N  16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And you need to strike a compromise between our relatively weak mediawiki sorting code (i.e. making us expand each year out into multiple rows for sortability) and having just a static table with no sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I see no problems with the intro or sources. I support the current layout with its ability to sort the winners and nominees. One leaving note though, i assume your going to fill in the "Currently held by" field in the infobox when this years winner is announced? Salavat (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heck, I can do it now, with the 2009 winner. Thanks! -- Pres N  13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support my comments addressed well, and promptly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. have been available to be awarded for years 50, 75, or 100 years prior in which no awards were given Can you explain in more accessible language, what this means? Two 'years' in one sentence is confusing. Ruslik_ Zero 16:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, tried to clarify.-- Pres N  18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Nor I can Support this list. Ruslik_ Zero 19:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.