Talk:Nebula Award for Best Novel

message: Anybody know why the best post apocalyptic science fiction novel ever written won a Pulitzer and not even nominated for a Hugo or a Nebula?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv (talk • contribs) 19:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Road by Cormac McCarthy 

message: Anyone know why I can't print this page? Multiple attempts, all failed when I don't have issues with other webpages, including webpages from wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.49.155 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Printing issue

message: Aren't all the dates in this table (and the tables for the Nebula awards for novella, novelette, and short story) all wrong? The first line of the section "Winners and Nominees" states: "In the following table, the years correspond to the date of the ceremony, rather than when the novel was first published." However, shouldn't it list the year corresponding to the year of the award, as indicated by the Nebula award official web site at http://www.sfwa.org/nebula-awards/ and in the yearly volumes of the Nebula award winning stories? For example, the web site lists "The Windup Girl" as the winner of the *2009* Nebula award for best novel. Also, in the book "The Nebula Awards Showcase 2011", the list of winners including "The Windup Girl" is stated to be the 2009 Nebula award winners. However, the table in this article shows the year 2010. The tables on all four pages are off by one year, as reckoned by the official web site and the awards volumes. Shouldn't this be rectified?Markjoseph125 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Locus, on the other hand, (http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula2011.html) uses the way this article does it, and probably for the same reason- the way sfwa.com numbers it makes no sense until the rules change in 2009. Sure, now the "2010 awards" cover works that were published in 2010, but prior to that it didn't - to copy Locus's explanation, "a work published in July 1998 may gather recommendations until June 1999; if it gathers 10, it is placed on the preliminary ballot for awards given in 2000". So, by the sfwa.com numbering scheme, the "1999" awards are the ones given in 2000 for works that may or may not have been published in 1999. It's a confusing mess. I'm just using a system that is clear and matches the refs (and matches the Hugo Award lists, just for an added bonus.) --PresN 00:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's true that SFWA's nomenclature made less sense before the change, it was still their call to make.  Perhaps they assumed that a book published by June of 1999 was likely written in 1998.  At any case, it's not up to us how they organize their awards.  The SFWA's own nomenclature is used by Worlds Without End, Award Web, and by the SFWA's own web site.  If you are worried about the award years matching the refs, perhaps we should reference one of the sites that lists the awards accurately, rather than the Locus site.--Icowrich (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you really want to change them, go ahead. Just make sure you do it for the novel, novella, novelette, short story, and script articles, so that they're all consistent. --PresN 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just finished the ones for this page.  I'm working on the others, now.--Icowrich (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do the dates keep flip flopping.  I think Icowrich was correct that the dates on Wikipedia should match the official dates from the award.  PresN, why did you agree to this change and then a year later revert it back without discussion?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offsky2 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Icowrich not only changed the dates, they also completely redid the references, to a much less reliable and notable site, which is suspiciously run by icow (username: icow rich). He also only changed this article, and not the other 4 lists and 1 regular article to match. I also reconsidered, a year later, that the Nebula awards lists should match the dates of the Hugo and World Fantasy Awards, and the year the awards are given in, for the same reasons I stated above. I don't think one major change per year is "flip flopping". I also don't see the point in a hypothetical discussion- I wrote the Nebula/Hugo/World Fantasy Award lists, and no one else really edits them, so there's no one to discuss it with- people drop by to wikilink book articles they wrote, and that's about it. If you're willing to change all 6 articles to use the "year before the award was given" numbering scheme, go ahead, I won't revert you- but given that this comment was the first edit you ever made, I have my doubts that you're going to do the legwork, rather than try to push someone else (me) to do it for you. --PresN 06:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to fill the Wikidata page of the Nebula Award for Best Novel when I realized about this problem. Some Wikipedias (such as the spanish one which I was working on) are already using the year assigned by the SFWA and start the list in 1965. I don't know which is the correct one but we need a general consensus about this, since Wikidata potentially affects everybody. Thoughs? --JavierCantero (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Update: the vast majority of Nebula dates already present in Wikidata records were 1965-based, so I've changed the remainder ones (a few in the short story category) in order to be consistent. --JavierCantero (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in the table 

message: Quote:'The award has been described as one of "the most important of the American science fiction awards" and...'   Is vacuous.  I mean seriously.  How many American (USA) national sci-fi awards are there? I am going to remove it.  I apologize if I should have allowed discussion on this, but as I write this, it seems obvious that I am correct that it does not advance the article.216.96.77.46 (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's several dozen, actually. How is a reader supposed to know that this one matters somewhat, as opposed to, say, the Skylark award? Because a respectable source like the Guardian said it does. --PresN 18:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacuous verbage in Introduction 

message: I tried to fix this but I could not get it to work. I'm not used to editing the tables and when I tried it duplicated the title. RoBunsen (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I linked it for you. --SouthernNights (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: And I fixed it, you broke the sorting. Check the result for future reference, both of you- the sort template takes two arguments; the first is what to sort by, and the second is the actual text/link you want to display, which can include a wikilink. --PresN 17:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So weird. I'd previewed the edit to make sure it was good and everything looked fine. My bad.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theodora Goss' book not linked 

message: The Hugo Awards are announced each year at their convention. The Emmy's are announced each year during a televised event. Are the Nebula awards announced during an annual event? Is it scheduled about the same time every year? Seems like the sort of details that belong in an article like this. ErinHowarth (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From this article:  --PresN 16:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  When will the next award be announced?