# Talk:Hugo Award

@PresN I think that Best Video Game, rather than being separate in the Discontinued Categories page, should be included on the page for Best Game or Interactive Work once it gets created, with the understanding/explanation that it was a separate category intended as a trial run for the latter. FreeChurros (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hugo Award for Best Game or Interactive Work now created, and I did move the Best Video Game one-off to there out of the Discontinued page. --PresN 16:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the current section on this is too long for the article (WP:UNDUE). But this topic has stand-alone notability - I suggest we split it into a dedicated article, leaving a short summary here. Similar problem can be found at 81st_World_Science_Fiction_Convention#Ballot_controversy, where there is a similar section, unnecessarily duplicating the effort. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree—at two paragraphs, it's as long as the sad puppies, which has its own article—but I'm not sure there's much more to be reasonably said without going into a play-by-play of the information coming out. My plan had been to wait until after the 2024 ballot came out, then try to condense what's here down a bit, hopefully to one paragraph. --PresN 02:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@PresN The section at the 81st... is twice as long, roughly. We have enough material for a beyond-stub stand-alone article already, I think. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
PS. Ping editors who contributed to the relevant sections on both pages: @UnlikelyEvent @Daniel Case @Sariel Xilo @Ajd @Schazjmd @Bastun @Nosferattus @DragonflySixtyseven Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings either way, but I do have strong feelings that if this page is created it should be called "2023 Hugo Awards controversy", not "2023 Hugo Award awards controversy". Dan Bloch (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Danbloch Of course :) Please correct the error in the links if I don't get around to it (taking care of baby emergency now). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Done. Dan Bloch (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I felt we were going to get to that point eventually as more came out. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't really think a separate article is necessary. The blow by blow at 81st World Science Fiction Convention is overly detailed and not encyclopedic. The 2 paragraphs here seem more reasonable, although they could also be trimmed. I don't think 2 paragraphs is WP:UNDUE. A lot of ink was spilled about this. There's one paragraph about the controversy itself and one paragraph about the fallout and reforms. This seems entirely reasonable to me. I would prefer that we just trim both sections to focus less on minute details and more on the overall story. Nosferattus (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Nosferattus What I fear is that without a central article, we will end up with two innocent but de facto POVFORKS (or just forks) of the same content. Well, we already ended up with them. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That's a good point.  One possibility is to use {{excerpt}}, that is, replace the contents of 81st World Science Fiction Convention#Ballot controversy with {{excerpt|Hugo Award|2023 awards controversy}} Dan Bloch (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that a separate article seems unnecessary. However, I think the 81st awards article should probably be the central article with an excerpt in the main Hugo Awards article focused on the institutional repercussions (individuals censored censured by the WIP, they then resigned, 82nd awards commit to new public disclosure rules). I don't think a short breakdown of what occurred is WP:UNDUE in the 81st awards article; it received a lot of news coverage, two authors withdrew award acceptances and the various institutional repercussions occurred as a result. For example, I think including Dave McCarty's social media response to questions raised and then one his colleagues leaking emails adds necessary context for why he and others were censored censured by the WIP. Perhaps the changes for the 82nd awards should be trimmed from the 81st awards article (especially if those details are in the main Hugo Awards article & in the 82nd awards article)? Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC) (Fixed typos as requested by @DragonflySixtyseven on my talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC))
If there is no will to split the article out (although I think it would survive an AfD), I'd recommend linking from the shorter version (here) to the longer at the 81st... using {{further}}. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I added the further template. In terms of making this section shorter, what details do you think should be removed? Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward Sariel's viewpoint. The story of the puppies slates is complex and requires a lot of context and detail to make it understandable to an uninvolved reader, so it really needed a separate article. The Chengdu situation is much simpler (though no less important), so it can be appropriately covered in 81st WSFC without having to send readers to a different page. I also agree with Sariel about the detail currently in 81st WSFC; as a reader, I find it more informative, it gives me a better grasp of how it played out and why there were censures/resignations. Schazjmd (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Sariel. There's too much on the Chengdu worldcon situation here, but as it was restricted to one worldcon, it works as a part of a page. The Sad/Rabid Puppies went on for years, so it's not comparable. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction [1] devotes as much space to this controversy as it does to the 2015 slate issue, so I’m not sure it’s undue. I don’t oppose condensing, though. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

After reviewing the rules and documentation for the Hugo Awards (as well as related works such as the Locus Awards and Nebula Awards, I believe that the article has been using incorrect terminology regarding the difference between a "nominee" and a "finalist". I would like to propose a change in the terminology used in this article, as well as any article that references a Hugo Award finalist or winner.
In short, I contend that a "nominee" would be any work nominated on the first ballot. Any work appearing on the second-stage ballot should be called a finalist.
Per the Hugo Award FAQ (emphasis added):

Voting for the Hugos is a two-stage process. In the first stage voters may nominate up to five entries in each category... The six entries that get the most nominations in each category go forward to the final ballot.
Therefore, any work that receives at least one nomination could be called a "nominee" and only the top six works should be called "Finalist". I propose that we standardize the relevant articles by preferentially using the CFinalist tag over the nom tag, as below.

Further support for this change can be found in this Locus article which uses the term "finalist", as well as the official 2024 Hugo Awards site which differentiates between "nominee" and "finalist."
This may seem pedantic, but I believe this change would be in the best interest of accuracy and clarity. I appreciate  input from other more experienced users. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Your definition is correct, but there's one point of usage that I disagree with.
The top six-ish entries that go on to the final ballot are indeed the finalists, and most of the Hugo articles indeed incorrectly refer to them as nominees.  The reason for this is that they were officially nominees until 2014, when the World Science Fiction Society changed the name to finalists.  And yes, we should update our articles.  I don't mind doing this (for the Hugo articles), but I won't get to it right away.
The point where I disagree with your usage is your discussion of how the nominees should be treated.  The treatment of nominees is simple:  non-finalist nominee status shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia.  Its use is strongly discouraged by WSFS (and it is a tremendously low bar--you just have to buy a Worldcon membership and vote for your story and presto, it's a nominee).
See the Hugo Award FAQ question specifically about nominee status and the Hugo Awards post on finalists vs. nominees for more details. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I apologize if I was unclear; I would not recommend mentioning non-finalist nominee status in any article. I would recommend changing articles that say “nominee” to “finalist” as appropriate. I wanted to ensure that other editors were in agreement before I began making any large changes. Thank you for your input! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
No issues with changing the terminology here and on the lists to "finalist". I'll do a run-through tonight. --PresN 01:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

First, a thank-you to the editors who have worked on this article. It's quite good! The article might be improved by early on describing more thoroughly the nomination and ballot process. We could present the concept of voting membership, the ways wsfs members nominate, the way hugo administrators determine eligibility, how the short list of nominees is generated (e pluribus hugo, etc.) and instant-runoff selection of the winner, all before delving into the sad puppies and chengdu controversies. Also it might help readers if we introduced the shortlist and longlist terminology somewhere. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 16:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sdsds: I agree- later sections rely on details about the process that aren't explained earlier, and the article as a whole got written in the first place prior to 2017 and so isn't very clear about the current rules. I've tried to clean it up with a new "Process" subsection, which hopefully makes it clearer. --PresN 14:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)