Talk:Hugo Award for Best Fanzine

2006 Nominations

Much as I admire Emerald City - I'm an Aussie too, eh! - the nomination ballot doesn't show it. It shows File 770 edited by Mike Glyer instead. I shall pause before editing to make sure I don't fall on my face over this.--Kirok of L'Stok 03:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Cheryl moved it to the Semiprozine category (where it is a nominee this year). And File 770 should be part of the fanzine list.Shsilver 07:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fanzine articles

Removed link for STET because it links to an article about journalism jargon. There is no article about this fanzine or many of the others.

There is now. --Orange Mike 20:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to winners

[copied from talk page]: "I reverted your changes primarily because it is against procedure to wikilink multiple occurences of the same item (say, Dave Langford); only the first appearance should be linked. I may try to clean up the format of the lead there, though. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.--Orange Mike 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)"

In my opinion, all the winners should be linked, both to highlight them and so someone doesn't have to scan around the page to find the link. For non-winners, sure, link the top instance and then every screen-full or so thereafter.

—wwoods 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, actually, or at least follow your reasoning; but that's not the custom in Wikipedia. The offense is called "sea of blue" by some. Standard procedure is to wikilink the first, and only the first, appearance of any name or term on a page. I had my hand slapped on that once myself in the past. --Orange Mike 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hugo Award for Best Fanzine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hugo Award for Best Fanzine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hugo65":

• From Hugo Award for Best Short Story: "1965 Hugo Awards". World Science Fiction Society. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
• From Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine: "1959 Hugo Awards". World Science Fiction Society. Retrieved 2010-04-19.

Reference named "Hugo64":

• From Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine: "1959 Hugo Awards". World Science Fiction Society. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
• From Hugo Award for Best Short Story: "1964 Hugo Awards". World Science Fiction Society. Retrieved 2010-04-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugo Award for Best Fanzine. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103034223/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)