Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Aurealis Award for best science fiction 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 03:23, 16 April 2010 [1].

Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel

)

Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel/archive1

Well following the trend of

Aurealis Award for best fantasy novel, here is its science fiction equivalent. Note, i omitted the "ties situation" sentence for this list because there hasnt been any ties as of yet, but if anyone feels it should be re-added ill do that in an instance. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - been a while, and I apologise for the lack of comments from anyone. So here's some stuff...

yearly - ok, accurate but would be happier with "annually"
- Changed. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Aurealis Award design given to the winner" do you mean the design on a trophy or something that is awarded to the winner?
- Further explained. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Awarded for Excellence in fantasy fiction" - your lead includes many more genres...
- Woops, oversight, changed to science fiction to relate directly to this list. Salavat (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% convinced you need to split into decades.
- It was only split to creat a shorter table. As it isnt a sortable table i didnt think it was a problem. It can be changed to one table if you feel that would be more appropriate or if it is decided to make sortable. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could look at Mercury Prize for how to create a sortable table with similar entries as you have here.
- I dont think the Mercury prize is that great because all it can do is sort the winner and the aurealis also have a publisher which would increase the amount of text in the short-list nominee box. I prefer the current format but if sortability is really an issue then i think this layout would be the most appropriate (also used here for another example Academy Award for Best Picture). Or it can be changed so that all columns are sortable besides the year column. Salavat (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Ive done a sandbox of 1995 here for an example. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Okay, ignoring my ramblings above, ive created a table now which is sortable and merges both decades together. Salavat (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voyager, HarperVoyager both redirect. Is that still accurate?
- Voyager is the old imprint they used. they now use an imprint called HarperVoyager. Salavat (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I prefer this format. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, now to go back to my previous featured lists and reformat them. Salavat (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC). Well well, we meet again![reply]

~~The caption is worded oddly; I suggest "The Aurealis Award design is often placed on the winning books' cover as a promotional tool." or something similar~~
- Changed to suggestion. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Is there any information on when (i.e. what month) in the following year the award ceremony is held?~~
- It doesnt appear to be consistent from a look at the locus online references. The last three years have been in january but before that they have been in february and march. And the only mention of the ceremony date on the official site is for this years ceremony and not an overall hosting date. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The article is using both "short list" and "short-list"~~
- Changed the un-dashed one to a dashed one. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think you're missing a comma after the year here: "Since 2003 hounarable mentions have been". Also, is there a reference for this change being made in 2003?~~
- Fixed the comma issue. The sentence on honourable mentions isnt really a referencable thing, its more like a statement to just say that they started. It wasnt a change to the awards and they dont give any direct reasons why they exist however you would assume the obvious. The only mention of honourable mentions is in the guideline for judges [2], but that doesnt state why they can be included by the judges. I dont think there would be any real reason other the the judges wanting to make a mention of the book, and they havent all started in 2003, eg young-adult cat only has 2005, it appears to be upon the judges whim, but as there isnt anything that states that i cant add it as a reason. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The section names should not include "novel". Thus, "Novel winners and nominees" → "Winners and nominees" and "Honourable mention novels" → "Honourable mentions"~~
- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is just a personal preference, but consider centering the tables by adding style="text-align:center" at the beginning~~
- Centered. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Since some books have multiple authors, I think the "Author" column heading should be "Author(s)"~~
- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Really nitpicky, I know, but I think the last column would look nicer without the period after "Ref."~~
- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find, I look forward to supporting once the above issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people would raise the question that your "meet again" might be a polite way of saying "stalking" :). But either way its all good to me. Thanks for the review, Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, never thought of it that way. Anyways, nice article. Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, stalking or meeting is always welcome at by featured candidates. Thanks again. Salavat (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jujutacular ^T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Try using: {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} instead of simply 2 columns. At wide resolutions, 2 columns looks awkward.
- Done. Salavat (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why have width="85%" for the table? At small resolutions, there is a lot wasted space. I don't think there is enough aesthetic gain for wider resolutions to justify it.
- So you you want me to just go the full 100% instead?? Salavat (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually just leave it out, which effectively makes it width="auto". That way, it takes up as much room as it needs to, but no more. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, so i took it out of then previewed the table without the widths set on the columns but now it looks strangly too narrow. Salavat (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yea, I think you're right. I put it back. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutacular ^T · C 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jujutacular ^T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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