Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology/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 08:16, 16 February 2015 [1].

World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology

• Featured list candidates/World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology/archive1

Nominator(s): PresN 21:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another scifi/fantasy award list, FLC #31/? in the series, and #5/10 for the

Responding in order:

• WFA is the top of the "fantasy-only" awards, of which there are few; it's been described as the third major spec-fic award after the Hugo/Nebula, though I've also seen people call the Locus awards the third. It's certainly #3 at best, though, Hugo/Nebula are much bigger now. In the 80s especially it was basically on par with the Hugo/Nebula, but they've gotten even bigger over time and have outsripped the WFAs. If you think this list is niche, do note that I have an FL on the
  A Stranger in Olondria won this years WFA for novel, and got a nomination for the Nebula; The Ocean at the End of the Lane got a nomination for both, as did The Golem and the Jinni. The Hugo hasn't had an overlap since A Dance with Dragons (nom for WFA/Hugo) and Among Others
  (nom for WFA, won Hugo/Nebula) in 2012, since it's heavily weighted towards sci-fi.

change "along with" to "along with the sci-fi awards". I got mislead into thinking fantasy=scifi by the current wording. I don't care if the awards are niche, but if they are, then a more introductory intro would help the reader get into the topic. You could mention some of the overlaps if you think they are notable.

Clarified that the other two big awards are scifi and fantasy. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Linked
• Mmm, I'd rather not- the award is given to the editor who puts the collection together and chooses the pieces, not the authors inside, and I was modelling this after Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine which also is given to the editor and not the authors. Some of these anthologies can have up to 20 authors or so, if it's all short stories, so this list would get incredibly long if I listed them all out.

• Now that I've thought about it some more, I'm really against this. Academy Award for Best Picture (the list or in real life) doesn't list all the actors who were in the films- because the award isn't given to the actors. This award is not given to the authors of the works inside the anthology, it's given to the editor who created the anthology. The works themselves are eligible for awards for best short story, etc., just like actors have their own awards separate for the one for best film.

The difference there is that those movies have their own articles. For the winning redlinks, I propose you add a footnote with the authors, or alternatively, add a link to amazon with its ISBN or something.

I'm really against treating redlinks separately from bluelinks in the article. Rather than argue, I'm just stubbing out articles for the winners- 9 done, 5 to go as of this writing. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Past consensus from reviewers for these lists is to link the winning work, even if no article exists, under the assumption that a work that wins a notable award is worthy of an article, and therefore a redlink (though I was missing a couple). These works do get articles created for them over time, as my watchlist informs me. I'd rather unlink them then make redirects to the editor, though.

See above

• A small statue; added with a ref. I'll backfill this to the other WFA FLs. I've used this ref for it's pull quote of the WFAs being a "prestigious fantasy prize" as well.
• The WFC is it's own entity, just like the World Science Fiction Society (Hugo awards) is its own entity. While many members of the board are themselves fantasy authors, I don't think that's a requirement. The list states that "The panel of judges is typically made up of fantasy authors".

The confusion I have is that conferences usually have organizers, or somebody to oversee things. For example E3 has ESA.

The World Fantasy Conference is run by the World Fantasy Board, which only exists only as a name for the organizing committee of the conference- it's not even a registered company. There is no separate entity that runs the WFC- the WFC runs itself. The ESA, on the other hand, does a lot of things as well as putting on a conference- most speculative fiction book cons are independent, self-perpetuating entities. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The judges change every year, just like they do for the Nebula awards. Do you mean just list who the current judges are?

Nvm

• I was under the impression that rowspans weren't
  WP:ACCESS
  -compatible, but it looks like they are, it's colspans in the middle of a table you have to watch out for. I'll play with this and report back, since it's not trivial and I want to see what it looks like.

• @
  Nergaal: Okay, done, and removed a lot of useless css code while I was at it. --PresN 21:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Much better, but put the year column as "!!", with grey background. No need to have them as blue

Done. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

Nergaal: responded to your other points. --PresN 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

--PresN 20:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As one list in a series of World Fantasy Awards FLs, there is the benefit of being consistent. This list follows the same style, format, layout, references, etc. as the others. However, I have a couple of questions/suggestions:

• An image in the infobox would help with the visual appeal. I see that the Lovecraft statuette may be replaced, but how about a photograph of a winner or a convention? Or a poster or ad for an event? Something should qualify as fair use.
• Who describes the award as prestigious? Perhaps reword as "fantasy journalists" or "critics" describe... or even the writer if notable.
• "7" should be spelled out (
  MOS:SPELL09
  )
• "Bust" doesn't seem to need linking.
• The table could be wider to almost fill up the page.
• The same blue shade is used in the year column as the winner row. It looks awkward. The use of rowspan is an improvement, but unshaded would be better.
• The winners are shaded in blue and have an asterisk. The different color should be enough.
• For FLs, I would minimize the use of redlinks to those with articles in progress. To the general reader, they may appear as mistakes or incomplete.
• World Fantasy Convention is linked in the infobox. An additional "See also" link is unneeded.
• "xo Orpheus..." is in the reference, but some may see it as a typo.

The lead is well written and the links and references check out. Good job. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

• I'll look around for a good image to use
• Expanded to say "book critics" and called out The Guardian specifically
• Spelled out
• unlinked
• Widened
• Changed to non-blue
• As per
  WP:ACCESS
  , color alone can never be used to differentiate winners and such- people with no/poor vision are unable to see it, as screenreader software won't mention it
• As I stated above, consensus for notable award lists is to redlink winners as worthy of an article; I'm going through and creating stubs for them though, so it's not an issue either way
• Removed
• I know, but it is what it is

@Ojorojo: Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – My comments have all been addressed. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• one of the three most prestigious speculative fiction awards, along with the Hugo and Nebula Awards which cover both fantasy and science fiction. - Unclear: does speculative fiction as a genre cover both fantasy and science fiction, or do the Hugos and Nebulas cover that but not the WFA? (I'd use a parenthetical here)
• they won the award seven times and were 38 of the 56 nominations - "were 38 of the 56 nominations" sounds off to me. "Represented"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Crisco 1492: done and done. --PresN 02:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]