Talk:Hugo Award/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Previous gaming of nominations / voting

  • Harry Harrison once wrote, in an introduction to one of his books, that he witnessed the gaming of the Hugos one year. (Sorry I can't be more specific.) Choor monster (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I would imagine that was the 1987 Hugos, where a novel by L. Ron Hubbard appeared on the ballot; it was generally believed at the time that the Church of Scientology might have been involved with the surprising number of people who nominated it, and the actual voting placed it below No Award. That's the most egregious example of abuse of the nominations procedure by slates until the Sad Puppies came along.
If you want to stick that in the article, I imagine David Langford has written about it... somewhere. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
George R. R. Martin recently wrote about the incident on his blog but we probably can't use that per WP:SPS. I ordered a 1981 book on the history of the Hugos, hopefully the incident is mentioned there. If so I'll see if there's a good way to include it. Kelly hi! 07:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Harrison was writing about something much earlier. My memory is still vague, but I believe he mentioned it in his introduction to his 1970 collection Prime Number (which ironically contains a story dear to all MRAs). He was commenting on how while he didn't have any Hugos, he did have his own named section at Big British Bookstore. He mentioned the Hugos were corruptible—he'd seen it. Implicit was the idea that the free market was of course incorruptible. As is well-known, the Scientologists went on to also game the best-seller lists. (For all I know, he may have been thinking of Asimov's unique Hugo for all-time best series, when everyone "knew" Tolkien was going to win it.) Choor monster (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Harlan Ellison apparently also spoke about this in 1995: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFR9TYxAVZQ 70.24.4.51 (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My memory is still fuzzy, and I feel bad about sending anyone on some wild-goose chase, but I now think that the Harrison comments about gaming the Hugos appeared in his interview with Charles Platt, printed in the latter's Dream Makers. Choor monster (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've given this a section heading, since it was in "Coordinated updates across articles".

I'm also going to take the slightly unusual step of discussing article content before it's in the article. A bit of narrative the Puppies love is the idea that of course this sort of thing has always gone on, and their current act of vandalism is not exceptional.

This isn't true. There's some reason to believe blocs have formed to put individual works onto the Hugo ballot - in particular, the '87 L. Ron Hubbard nomination. It's widely acknowledged that fans of an author with a strong back catalogue will be prone to nominate (and vote for) that author, and that sometimes that means someone gets a Hugo for one of their weaker books.

But there is no evidence, as far as I'm aware, that anyone has previously organised a nominations bloc to put a work into _every_ category, or that anyone has organised a nominations bloc because of a conspiracy theory. It is obvious that no-one has previously organised a nominations bloc to lock down every category by nominating five works, ensuring that no non-slate candidate can win. We should resist any suggestion, not backed up by cites from reliable sources, that this is not an exceptional incident. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. But it would be nice to collect all the past accusations in one place, all the better to see how right you are. Choor monster (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I expect someone disagrees with this - the drive-by IPs and whoever was banging on about SJWs are presumably Puppies. But I've no objection to what you're doing at all; I'm just saying, I expect at some point we'll get a neat piece of bogus synthesis. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

German source

My German is not up to http://derstandard.at/2000014347072/Was-George-R-R-Martin-zum-rechten-Hack-der-Hugo?_lexikaGroup=1 - anyone else? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Not much to add, except this is an RS that calls it "Puppygate". Also, they refer to "Doctor Who" fans as gaming the ballot repeatedly. See also The Guardian. (It is not the already sourced article.) These seem to be the only two so far. Choor monster (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
More than two. Here's a French use: 20 minutes, and there are several newsblogs that are probably RS, like The Mary Sue, Daily Review and so on. (Google "Puppygate Martin" so as not to get any other scandal called Puppygate.) Choor monster (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Older history

There are a few statements up above of people saying "I heard once" or "I read once" about a scandal like blah blah. Given that that sort of thing is pretty germane to the article that covers the history of the award, does anyone have any sources about prior scandals? Currently, the article has: the 4 times that "no award" won (though no real details) in 59, 63, 71, and 77; the time in 83 that scientologists were pushed to nominate Battlefield Earth en masse (didn't work); the time in 89 that one guy bought a bunch of memberships to try to get a work on the ballot (it worked, but it was super-obvious and the author withdrew when the Hugo admins let him know about it; they've never said who/what it was); and, of course, 2015 (with an added sprinkle of SP1 and SP2).

Does anyone have anything on the dark mutters by Ellison about something in the 70s? Or whatever scandals were supposed to have happened in the 90s? Was there a big uproar about Harry Potter winning once, or just a lot of eyerolling? While there's so much attention being paid to the article, lets try to do something with it besides jamming 20 sources repeating each other into the same paragraph. --PresN 23:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say this, of course, but I think the reason you won't find many sources about that is that it mostly is vague supposition - the Scienos unsuccessful attempts in '83 and '87 aside. AFAIK the "no awards" in the 50s-70s were simply because people didn't like what was on the ballot very much. Harry Potter was certainly just eyerolling - plenty of Rowling fans in SF.
Of course, I'm not an RS, but this is going to be a wild goose chase. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Coordinated updates across articles

We need to get organized to fully coordinate updates across articles,as there should be some conformity in how this is handled.

1) update this article -- badly needed and overdue at this point.

2) at some point we might need a new article 2015 Hugo awards nomination controversy to cover everything, since there's a lot going on.

3) Need to update articles on:

  • Theodore Beale aka Vox Day - leader of Rabid Puppies, also publisher of John C. Wright
  • John C. Wright (author) nominated for three out of five slots for same award (?!) after being put on slate by Vox Day, called out in several articles for blogging anti-homosexual posts
  • Brad R. Torgersen a leader of Sad Puppies
  • Larry Correia another leader of Sad Puppies (and note that the editors on the talk page there are referring to the whole situation as a "witch hunt" which they don't want to mention at all, so the regulars appear to have a demonstrated bias on the topic.

DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As I've just commented on Talk:Larry Correia: if you're so keen for this topic to be mentioned in Wikipedia, why not be bold and add something yourself? I wasn't sure that sufficient reliable sources exist, though looking above it seems I may have been wrong. WP:Recentism is an issue though, along with BLP. It's a shame we don't have articles for the Hugos by year (2014 Hugo Awards, etc) as that's really where the content would belong, rather than this article which is about the entire history of the awards. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Granted, it is recent, but it is the most mainstream news coverage I've seen about the awards in, well, ever. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with starting an article solely about the controversy. There isn't "a lot going on", there's one event (a slate being produced for blah blah reasons) and its result (slate sweeps nominations) and a bunch of reactions to that. If you can't write at least 5 paragraphs of sourced information without going into trivial detail and a calling list of every single blog article posted about it, then it's not really worth an article.
This whole thing is worth, at best, a small paragraph in this article. More realistically, it shouldn't be included at all unless grouped with other controversies of years past. The Hugo Awards have been going on since 1953- if this event had happened in 1985 you wouldn't even bother adding it in; it's only because it happened in 2015 that you think it's of earthshaking significance. Come 2017 (probably) the only reference to it will be a sentence talking about how "No Award" works, how it won the 1977 Dramatic Presentation award and several categories in 2015 due to a negative reaction to slate voting. How do I know this? Because there's a small note on Nebula Award for Best Short Story that the 1982 winner refused the award because of people gaming the system, and that's the only mention of it. --PresN 01:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Are there any serious concerns remaining about writing a paragraph or two based on these sources? It should reflect the stated goals of the campaigners, the negative reaction by the rest of fandom, and the parallels to Gamergate as highlighted in these sources.  Sandstein  12:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
One paragraph should be more than enough and Ill add a few more sources.
A response from Larry Correia
National Review
Any source that didn't bother to verify some basic facts in the press release they got on this, shouldnt be used as they have demonstrated their unreliability. WeldNeck (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A source is much more likely to be reliable if it corrects errors, not the other way around. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd also include the response by Brad R. Torgersen, the organizer of this year's campaign.[1] I've also seen announcements that next year's campaign will be organized by Kate Paulk, and the year after next by Sarah Hoyt but I don't think we need to crystal-ball the future. Kelly hi! 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Agree with adding something from Torgersen as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we prove that the blog is written by Torgersen? We can use it to cite Torgersen's opinion if so, but unfortunately nothing else. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:ABOUTSELF applies. I don't think there's any doubt about authorship. Kelly hi! 00:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with PresN on this one, per WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS etc. Regarding the sources, I honestly don't see a lot of fact being reported even in the articles User:Sandstein doesn't categorize as opinion pieces - certainly not if we exclude "facts" of the form of reporting the opinion of the parties involved. Nobody seems particularly interested in an actual demographic analysis of the slate, for example, or in sales figures for the nominated works, or anything else that could possibly pretend to be an "objective measure" of the claims being thrown about regarding "judging works on their merit" vs "racism/misogyny" etc. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

One more thing - is Kate Paulk notable enough for an article yet, Sad Puppies aside? I keep seeing her name as a red link on SFF related pages. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

65 names - 10 women, 5 "John C Wright", 7 works published by Castalia House (a publisher operated by the slate's organiser with a roster of a full ten authors, one of whom is a woman (with an impressive catalogue of one book, not on the slate)).
Perhaps there is a reason no serious source feels a detailed demographic analysis is necessary to examine the idea that works have been submitted based on merit. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The comment above about the 1982 Nebulas is a familiar line of spurious argument - "slates have always existed". Lisa Tuttle refused the award because one of the other nominees had sent copies of his story to SFWA members - presumably to make them more likely to read it. That is, perhaps, not quite the same thing as an organised effort to lock everyone else out of the awards for political reasons. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
David Langford's long-running Ansible should have something about this when it comes out (and did last year). Particularly, the reaction at Eastercon was (obviously) universally negative, but we need a RS to say that.
I think we should resist the idea that we stuff whatever is written full of self-justifying comments by the organisers. They are hardly reliable sources on their own motivations. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't abide by a claim that anyone is "hardly a reliable source" on their own motivations without very convincing evidence. By default, I consider people the most reliable source possible on that subject. To say otherwise about a person veers close to branding them a psychopath, or at least a pathological liar.
As for your remark Perhaps there is a reason no serious source feels a detailed demographic analysis is necessary to examine the idea that works have been submitted based on merit, you are conflating different things I said in a way that was clearly not intended. Obviously I meant that the merit claim would be substantiated by sales figures. And as for organised effort[s] to lock everyone else out of the awards, that is not substantiated - first off, you have no definition of "everyone else", and second you have no evidence of lockstep voting. 70.24.4.51 (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
A couple authors withdrew their work from the nominations. http://io9.com/two-authors-withdraw-their-work-from-the-hugo-awards-1698053027 ForbiddenRocky (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I've redirected Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies (both proper nouns, I didn't touch Sad puppies, etc.) to the section we have here on the slate. No action needed, but if we break out a new article those links should be updated. Protonk (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Delany in The New Yorker

The following seems to have material worth incorporating here: [2]. Choor monster (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

On one hand, I really don't want to make the puppy section any longer- it could go on forever with everyone's reactions. On the other hand, it's a good piece in the New Yorker (so bonus points for non-genre press talking about the Hugos) and it's also, you know, Delany, so I stuck it in anyway. I love how they just talk about the Hugos like the reader should just know what that is, instead of feeling like they need to explain these "niche awards" to their audience. --PresN 01:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggest new subheading

I'd suggest a new subheading in the History section, "Controversies", and moving the appropriate material from the "since 2000" subheading .

The current set of controversies is not the only controversy to ever hit the Hugos. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The only sourced controversy information we have right now is one small paragraph in the 80s/90s section, and the puppy section in the 2000+ section. I asked above about sources for any other controversies (or any information at all about them) but there was none forthcoming; unless we have enough information to fill out a section I'm not sure about pulling out two paragraphs into a separate section. --PresN 19:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you know of any? Doesn't have to be a reliable source, just any information to start looking from- I'm seen the equivalent of forum postings rumoring that Ellison has made mention of something happening in the 70s, but details are slim. --PresN 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately a bot has just archived my reply to that last time it was asked, but bluntly, aside from the highly unexpected nomination of a book by L. Ron Hubbard, that's because there isn't anything reliably sourced.
The Puppies love to suggest this sort of thing has always gone on - but they would say that, wouldn't they? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There have indeed been one or two controversies surrounding the Hugo Awards, but only the puppy-related stuff is really all that notable. I generally don't think a separate section for controversies is a good idea, because they tend to become shit magnets. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I was asking him specifically because he's Geoffrey A. Landis, if you didn't catch that, so I figured he may have heard something at a worldcon party or something. --PresN 19:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should avoid "controversies" sections because these tend to blow up out of proportion. Also nobody has proposed sourced content about earlier controversies.  Sandstein  20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I anticipate that when the Hugo awards are announced on August 22nd, there will be immediate high interest and reporting on the matter from non-genre journalistic sources shortly afterward, particularly if "no award" or slate-driven nominees win one or more categories. At that point, it might make the most sense to house the 2015 Hugo "puppy" related issues in a dedicated subsection of the 2000's section, or dedicated subsection of a the history section, or an entirely new separate section in the main article -- if not as a new, separate article. It's already overwhelming the 2000's section, and I think the situation up to now is already well resourced here. I'll leave it to experienced editors to guide us through emotional contributions from both sides of the issue that might not be appropriate, while still supporting adequate documentation of the subject, after the results are in. But may as well wait until the outcome of all this on the 22nd and the immediate aftermath of coverage to figure out the best way to house the information?

FYI, If you are interested in a heads up on how this may break in the news, the Hugo awards ceremony starts at 8pm (PDT) on August 22nd, at Sasquan in Spokane Washington. The ceremony will be livestreamed via Ustream, with text based coverage on Coveritlive. Results of the Awards will also be posted on http://www.thehugoawards.org after the ceremony. Dauphinfute (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually going to go the other way. The current section on the puppy saga is overwhelming compared to the prior 5 decades of history. Once Worldcon has passed and attention has died down, the section is likely to be cut down to smaller than it currently is, even after adding the results. Prediction (which is easy to make, seeing as I was the only serious editor on this page for years): the article will have a flurry of activity between August 22-30. Then it will stop until the following May. In between, the 2015 saga will get cut down to something reasonable, because the WP:RECENTISM will die down, and no one will be left to actually work on the page. Come 2016, no matter what happens, the new saga will balloon into its own paragraph, because new things are important regardless of anything. Come 2020, the entire thing will be a short mention in a section titled "2010s". --PresN 06:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
What about a 2015 Hugo Awards article to cover both the list of nominees and winners, as well as the related controversy?  Sandstein  06:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
There may be enough RS material for a standalone article on Sad Puppies - I noticed that someone recently put a pretty substantial sourced paragraph in Larry Correia's BLP but it was cut down as undue weight for that article. As to other controversies, I ordered a copy of A History of the Hugo Nebula and International Fantasy Awards by Franson & DeVore but it turned out to be little more than a list of the winners over the years. It didn't even give an explanation for the Dramatic Presentation "No Award" for 1976. The only other remotely reliable sources I've run across have been blog entries by George R. R. Martin and David Gerrold. Kelly hi! 08:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been waiting for the results to come out later this month, I imagine there will be more and better coverage then, much of it so far has been of the campaigning or speculative variety. Kelly hi! 08:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I have the Franson/DeVore book, it's rather disappointing as a source. --PresN 16:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wired on the Awards

Check out this article: Wired. Of particular note was Martin handed out "Alfies", a new prize to sidestep the slate voting. Choor monster (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Also the Wall Street Journal.[3] Kelly hi! 17:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is David French?

Here is David French's self-identification page on National Review. It's possible he's notable enough for his own article. I doubt anyone cares about his opinion regarding science fiction in general, I think the point of its inclusion here is that Puppygate has attracted the attention of people with a political/social axe to grind. Choor monster (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it really a surprise that a right-wing commentator, writing an opinion piece in a right-wing magazine, thinks the opponents of the right-wing group he supports are slanderous leftists? I fail to see how this quote has any value to this article whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Now removed as a part of condensing the paragraph to make room for the results. --PresN 23:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This is correct. So far as "Hugo Award" is concerned, Puppygate is small potatoes, and the finer details should be WP:10YTed. If/when Puppygate becomes its own separate article, the right-wing take becomes significant in that article. Choor monster (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I see we already have Sad Puppies. Never mind. Choor monster (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sad Puppies could use a few more eyes on it, given (eg) the credulous acceptance of the claim that the Puppy movements are unrelated, which we've disposed of here. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there reliable sourcing that they're related? Kelly hi! 21:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
There's none that they're unrelated (which is why we don't say it). Pinkbeast (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

2016 Finalists named

List here. It looks like the Rapid Puppies in particular had success with their slate, but I don't think they swept the nominations. I imagine Space Raptor Butt Invasion by Chuck Tingle will get some media attention. Kelly hi! 19:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

According to File770, it appears the Puppy slates did once again sweep most of the nominations. Just took a quick scan through the list - non-Puppy noms included a Best Novel finalist, a short-form dramatic presentation finalist, some of the editors, and a fan award or two. Kelly hi! 20:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is an article about the finalist list in The Guardian.[4] Kelly hi! 20:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Re recent edits

This only came out in edit summaries, but technically it's not an English-language award. In practice, of course, works won't win unless an English-speaking audience can understand them, and other-language works are eligible also based on their year of English-language publication. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, technically, yes, but it's defacto English-only, no matter what the rules officially state. In any case, its certainly not American- eligibility is worldwide, and worldcons have been in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, etc. --PresN 14:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Why Hugo ?

Why this name « Hugo » ? I can't find it out here... Thks for your help. --Marc-AntoineV (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

In honor of Hugo Gernsback, but you're right that (properly sourced, e.g., [5]), that information should be in the article. --joe deckertalk 22:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That's literally the source used for that information in the article. Second sentence of the "Award" section. --PresN 01:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yup I added the link after I wrote what I did, a bit of rewording on my part would have probably been in order. --joe deckertalk 02:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you, --Marc-AntoineV (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
And thank you for pointing out that an important point was missing from the article! --joe deckertalk 14:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on Hugo Award. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hood Ornament Returned

Previously the article claimed that the original, 1953 Hugo was based on the hood ornament of a 1953 Oldsmobile Here's a picture of the 1953 Hugo trophy [6]

Here are images of the the Olds Rocket 88 hood ornament from circa 1950 [7]

This gives specific years [8]

The hood ornament, for most years looks nothing like the 1953 Hugo, except for the 1951 model. There the base looks a fair amount like it, but the fins are quite different. They are larger and there are fewer of them on the hood ornament. Presuming that Oldsmobile had the same hood ornament on all of its cars that year, the Hugo was unlikely to have been based after it.

Mike Glyer, the publisher of File 770, gives this story on a Polish website. It is based on an article by Ben Jason, ScientiFiction, Winter 1994. In 1955, Nick and Noreen Falasca wanted to bring back the Hugo for the 1955 Cleveland Worldcon. They hoped that Jack McKnight might make the Hugo, but he did not reply to their letters. Nick Falasca suggested that they use am Oldsmobile "Rocket 88" model hood ornament. That is probably where the idea came from that those ornaments were used. The problem wsa that they had a hollow underside, and the idea had to be rejected. Instead, Ben Jason made the rounds of machine shops looking for a way to make affordable Hugos. Finally, someone advised him to make a picture of it. Eventually, Hoffman Bronze Company prepared a pattern from it, and made six chrome plated replicas from it. This first batch was too flawed to be used as Hugos. However, the second was lathed to remove surface pits and fissures, and proved satisfactory. Today's Hugos are based on that design. [9]

Rich Dengrove 4 May 2008(UTC)

A question about the prize

The Nebula Award article states that there is no cash prize associated with that award. Is it also the case with the Hugo? It would be helpful if the article clarified this. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2012; 19:19 (UTC)

Corriera "longlisted"

I welcome other editors' comments at Talk:Larry_Correia#.22Longlisted.22_for_the_Hugos; should the thousands of authors who have been nominated but failed to become finalists be described as "longlisted"? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hugo Award. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

YA Award

The 2017 business meeting ratified the addition of a new award for YA works. Like the Campbell this is officially not-a-Hugo but should be referenced here in the same graf as the Campbell. 18.26.0.5 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, will hunt down a source and add soon. --PresN 01:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
We have time. It shouldn't need to be up there until next year. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Money?

Is there any actual remuneration that goes with the prize? The Booker Prize, for example, comes with a considerable cash prize. Is there anything comparable with the Hugo?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No. Indeed, if you're David Langford you're eventually out of pocket because you need a longer mantlepiece. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Twenty-eight??? Sufferin' gods!
And why have I not heard of him before? Bad fen. No lembas.
*scurries off to the library*
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Do start your Langfording at http://ansible.uk/ as the best source for all your Langfordish needs. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I've known Langford, a/k/a User:DeafMan for decades; he was one of the nominators for my unsuccessful Trans-Atlantic Fan Fund candidacy.)

"Works are eligible for an award if they were published in English in the prior calendar year. "

In this article (and other related articles), there's a statement "Works are eligible for an award if they were published in English in the prior calendar year.", whereas Hugo Award official site states "They can be published anywhere in the world (or out of it), and they can be published in any language." [10]

--Fukumoto (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, this is in error. Fixing now. --PresN 04:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Award/Archive_2&oldid=1214674776"