Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Fantasy Convention Award/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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC).

World Fantasy Convention Award

 * Nominator(s):  Pres N  19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey all, almost done with this latest article group: at #10 out of 10 in the World Fantasy Awards, and #36 overall in my perpetual sci-fi/fantasy awards list FLC series, we have here the World Fantasy Convention Award. Why is there a special convention award, separate from the general "did neat stuff in the past year" professional/non-professional awards, or the life achievement award? Unclear, since the WFAs seem to be allergic to writing down their own rules; which is perhaps why it has only been given out 11 times, the last in 1997. It's still an official category, though, and long enough to be the final WFA list to come to FLC. As always, the formatting is identical to other WFA/sci-fi awards lists, and I've brought forward comments from prior FLCs in the series. Thanks for reviewing! -- Pres N  19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So since you broke the ice with your review of the Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship I am returning the favor with your nomination.


 * Is there no images at all? Not even an award winner?
 * Not at present; I'm still working on getting a free-use photo of the trophy to put in these lists.


 * "More regular special awards are given out for professional or non-professional work in the prior year in" - I assume that since you worded it like this that the Convention Award does not follow that pattern? It is an assumption though, not actually stated in the article.
 * Reworded to "Other, annually-given special awards"; it's meant to contrast with the "in some years" from the prior sentence.


 * "Less than half of the winners are primarily known for their writing, as opposed to editing work or artwork." Since we have a definitive number perhaps it would better to say that X out of the 11 winners are primarily known for their writing, while the remaining are known for editing or artwork" or words to that effect.
 * Changed to be explicitly "five". I was trying to fudge because Wollheim did write things, eve if he's much better known for founding DAW and being an editor, but I agree it's awkwardly worded.


 * "In some cases the winner is well-known for their non-fantasy works," - Looking at Stephen King being on the list perhaps "best known" is a better term than "well-known"?
 * Eh, because the WFAs consider horror as a subgenre of fantasy he wouldn't be better known for non-fantasy, just also known; and besides, Norton wrote sci-fi and Brennan wrote poetry, but both were better known for fantasy.


 * While all awards in the list are sourced, the "work(s)" column seems to be totally unsourced and the award source does not list it.
 * Yes; this is based on the precedent from World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement (and several other similar FLs). The works are explicitly not meant to be a "reason" for the award, and are composed only of works that are plainly and uncontestably written/done by the person in question before the award was given, and are only there to provide some context and are not primary parts of the list or the award.


 * Sources. During a previous fantasy ward FLC I commented on it was established that the Science Fiction Awards Darabase is considered a reliable souce. Looking at the rest they look reliable too. Dates are consistent etc So sources check out.

A good list with just a couple of adjustments.  MPJ  -US 01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * responded inline. Thanks for reviewing! -- Pres N  16:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * remindin you of this; have I addressed all of your concerns? -- Pres N  18:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes i believe it's all covered, great work. Support  MPJ  -US 18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of comments from me - is there any information on why the award was given so intermittently?
 * Does the column need to be "Winner(s)" since there is only a single winner each year? I guess Arkham House might warrant the plural but even then its a single entity. Miyagawa (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * None in the slightest. The WFAs are annoying at the best of times about actually publishing information about the awards, but there's nothing about this one anywhere- not why the conventions themselves decided to give out an award that entirely duplicates the existing ones, not why the WFAs have it as an official category instead of ignoring it, and not why it's still listed as an official category, nearly 20 years after the last time it was given.
 * It's there because 1982 had 2 winners. -- Pres N  02:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I hadn't spotted the two winners! In that case, I can Support. Miyagawa (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - I hadn't spotted the two winners! In that case, I can Support. Miyagawa (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments –
 * One too many given in "Other, annually-given special awards are given out...".
 * Another couple of givens in the next sentence as well. More variety would be nice if possible. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cleaned out some givens; sorry for taking so long. -- Pres N  20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – Aside from those little complaints, the rest of the list looked fine to me. It's another great sci-fi award entry. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Source review
 * Spot-check: ref 9–19; all of the sources cite the winners.
 * Formatting: for consistency, add the publishers for The Guardian et al. Though the date format is somewhat outdated and not something I prefer, previous lists by World Fantasy Awards with this format have been promoted and so is fine. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * it's been brought up at previous FLCs, but with the review asking for the removal of the publishers - The Guardian's publisher is Guardian Media Group, The Star's is Star Media Group, Chicago Tribune is Tribune Publishing, and Locus publishes itself, so the "publishers" are excluded for being roughly the same as the "works". -- Pres N  11:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, cite web and cite news also advise to ignore publishers that are basically the same just with "Ltd", "Inc" and such. Anyway, source review passed. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.