Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation/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 22:38, 19 January 2011 [1].

---

Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation

Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation/archive1

Nominator(s): PresN 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, back again, with the 10th of 14 lists. We're done with all the written works, the magazines, and editors, so now we jump over to Dramatic Presentation- comprising movies, tv shows/episodes, and on rare occasion plays, albums or audiobooks. This list follows the same format of my previous Hugo Award FLs- like editors, it was split into long and short form (in 2003) but I've chosen to keep them together in this article. It's a bit long, but that is primarily because the WSFF records the directors, screenplay writers, story writers, and original work writers as the people responsible for the work, so the rows get fat at times. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dab/EL check - There are no dead external links but there are three dab links on the page. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh, could have sworn that I got them all. Fixed. --PresN 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments "were not enough nominations made " ->"were insufficient nominations made"? Done. "category 4 times" - four times. Done. "with 4 Short Form awards out of 13 nominations" would prefer that 13 to become thirteen and all numbers in this sentence to be written out. Sentence? Or do you mean paragraph? I did the whole paragraph, so that it would remain consistent in numerals v. words. Picky but I wonder if you should have different demarcation for when awards were not presented? Sure, they're now marked with a gray background and a dagger (†). Also, I learned that that mark is called a dagger! Actually, switched to a plus sign (+) due to the discussion in the nom below that screen readers don't like daggers. I do wonder if 12 Monkeys should sort after 7 Faces of Dr Lao with 2001 and 2010 afterwards? I don't see why not, fixed. "Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form)" in the lead this wasn't in parentheses. Be consistent. Whoops. In the official site category description page they use parentheses, so consistisizing to that. "Retro Hugos have been awarded three times, for 1946, 1951, and 1954. All three of these awards were given..." no need to repeat "three". Done. Do you need Hugo Awards as a category when you have the much more specific (and still) Hugo awards cat? Nope, standard use seems to be that the list goes in the meta-Hugo Awards cat and the actual winners go in the specific Hugo award cat. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Addressed your concerns inline, should all be done. --PresN 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Is Torchwood's 2008 nomination included in Doctor Who's total of 13? No, good point. It is now. Buffy has three nominations, and Angel three, so the list of franchises with multiple nominations in the lede isn't complete. That could be fine, but it ought to indicate so. Added in. Since you mention Doctor Who's nomination count, what is Star Trek's... and, yes, I know "World Enough and Time" could make this debatable! Already in there (24!); played with the wording a bit to make it more obvious what I meant. Not counting "World Enough and Time"; I just don't think I should mix in a fan-created episode/series with the actual shows. 1968... all five nominees were Star Trek? Whoa... 1970 needs mentioning in the lede, since non-fiction won. First time I've seen that in this series. Mentioned. Yeah, it's not mentioned in any RS, but for a long time this category was the "catch-all" category for whenever the voters wanted to nominate something and it didn't fit in the more well-defined categories. Courcelles 03:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Replied in-line. --PresN 19:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Why do you write "(no award)" and then add a key, that says the same? Isn't that a little bit curious?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I need to designate what was the winner for that year- for the normal years I do it with a star/blue background, but with the (no award) years it's a plus and a gray background. Without them, there's not obvious clue that (no award) was the winner- if you read the text you know it must be, but just looking at the table it's not so obvious without a marking. --PresN 22:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Support I would do that either italicize the "no award", so that everyone knows that it is not the winner, or just put this key. Anyway, I support this huge list, because I couldn't see any issius.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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