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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): PresN 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Huh, could have sworn that I got them all. Fixed. --PresN 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 03:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.