Talk:Women eligible for 2009 SF Awards - Revision history

Ktempest: /* Alternate Name For Page */

2008-04-02T18:17:55Z

Alternate Name For Page

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:17, 2 April 2008
Line 13:		Line 13:

	:: I like '''Women and works of 2008''' because it is short and gets the point across. The page intro will explain about being awards-eligible. Anyway, I vote shortness over precision, though Laura might disagree. I also like it being one big long page preferring to scroll & search, rather than click & switch; it's easier on the hands. - --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)		:: I like '''Women and works of 2008''' because it is short and gets the point across. The page intro will explain about being awards-eligible. Anyway, I vote shortness over precision, though Laura might disagree. I also like it being one big long page preferring to scroll & search, rather than click & switch; it's easier on the hands. - --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

			::: Point taken. I made a separate page, but I could port everything on the Works page over here easily enough. I guess we should have that page redirect to the new page, but I have no the slightest clue how to do that. The only reason I would argue for keeping the awards bit in the title is for folks who find the page through Google. It's very clear about the purpose of the page. Obviously all of these thigs would be nominated, but they ''could'' all be. [[User:Ktempest\|Tempest]] 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Liz Henry: /* Alternate Name For Page */

2008-04-02T16:28:31Z

Alternate Name For Page

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:28, 2 April 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:How about '''Women and works of 2008'''? The "SF" part is a given from this being on the FemSF wiki, and the "awards" part is a bit misleading since some of these works we wouldn't recommend for an award.--[[User:Madeline F\|Madeline F]] 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)		:How about '''Women and works of 2008'''? The "SF" part is a given from this being on the FemSF wiki, and the "awards" part is a bit misleading since some of these works we wouldn't recommend for an award.--[[User:Madeline F\|Madeline F]] 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

	:: I like '''Women and works of 2008''' because it is short and gets the point across. The page intro will explain about being awards-eligible. Anyway, I vote shortness over precision, though Laura might disagree. I also like it being one big long page preferring to scroll & search, rather than click & switch; it's easier on the hands. - Liz		:: I like '''Women and works of 2008''' because it is short and gets the point across. The page intro will explain about being awards-eligible. Anyway, I vote shortness over precision, though Laura might disagree. I also like it being one big long page preferring to scroll & search, rather than click & switch; it's easier on the hands. - --[[User:Liz Henry\|Liz Henry]] 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Liz Henry: /* Alternate Name For Page */

2008-04-02T15:43:18Z

Alternate Name For Page

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:43, 2 April 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:
	:How about '''Women and works of 2008'''? The "SF" part is a given from this being on the FemSF wiki, and the "awards" part is a bit misleading since some of these works we wouldn't recommend for an award.--[[User:Madeline F\|Madeline F]] 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)		:How about '''Women and works of 2008'''? The "SF" part is a given from this being on the FemSF wiki, and the "awards" part is a bit misleading since some of these works we wouldn't recommend for an award.--[[User:Madeline F\|Madeline F]] 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

	:: I like '''Women and works of 2008''' because it is short and gets the point across. The page intro will explain about being awards-eligible. Anyway, I vote shortness over precision, though Laura might disagree. - Liz		:: I like '''Women and works of 2008''' because it is short and gets the point across. The page intro will explain about being awards-eligible. Anyway, I vote shortness over precision, though Laura might disagree. I also like it being one big long page preferring to scroll & search, rather than click & switch; it's easier on the hands. - Liz

24.5.187.110 at 15:42, 2 April 2008

2008-04-02T15:42:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:42, 2 April 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:Thanks for making this page! I was thinking about it, but I've always thought the title was unwieldy, so I was holding back to see if something better appeared. Alas, I think '''Works by Women eligible for 2009 SF Awards''' is also too long.		:Thanks for making this page! I was thinking about it, but I've always thought the title was unwieldy, so I was holding back to see if something better appeared. Alas, I think '''Works by Women eligible for 2009 SF Awards''' is also too long.

	:When I was nominating for the Hugos this year, it was enormously helpful to have everything on the same page, so I could ~~scoll~~ down looking at titles names etc while opening other tabs to search out specifics. There were tabs everywhere; huge mess; would have been even tougher with two pages for the list. So I enormously favor having only one page for everything.		:When I was nominating for the Hugos this year, it was enormously helpful to have everything on the same page, so I could scroll down looking at titles names etc while opening other tabs to search out specifics. There were tabs everywhere; huge mess; would have been even tougher with two pages for the list. So I enormously favor having only one page for everything.

	:How about '''Women and works of 2008'''? The "SF" part is a given from this being on the FemSF wiki, and the "awards" part is a bit misleading since some of these works we wouldn't recommend for an award.--[[User:Madeline F\|Madeline F]] 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)		:How about '''Women and works of 2008'''? The "SF" part is a given from this being on the FemSF wiki, and the "awards" part is a bit misleading since some of these works we wouldn't recommend for an award.--[[User:Madeline F\|Madeline F]] 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

			:: I like '''Women and works of 2008''' because it is short and gets the point across. The page intro will explain about being awards-eligible. Anyway, I vote shortness over precision, though Laura might disagree. - Liz

Madeline F at 03:42, 2 April 2008

2008-04-02T03:42:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:42, 1 April 2008
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:When I was nominating for the Hugos this year, it was enormously helpful to have everything on the same page, so I could scoll down looking at titles names etc while opening other tabs to search out specifics. There were tabs everywhere; huge mess; would have been even tougher with two pages for the list. So I enormously favor having only one page for everything.		:When I was nominating for the Hugos this year, it was enormously helpful to have everything on the same page, so I could scoll down looking at titles names etc while opening other tabs to search out specifics. There were tabs everywhere; huge mess; would have been even tougher with two pages for the list. So I enormously favor having only one page for everything.

	:How about '''Women and works of 2008'''? The ~~'''~~SF~~'''~~ part is a given from this being on the FemSF wiki, and the ~~'''~~awards~~'''~~ part is a bit misleading since some of these works we wouldn't recommend for an award.		:How about '''Women and works of 2008'''? The "SF" part is a given from this being on the FemSF wiki, and the "awards" part is a bit misleading since some of these works we wouldn't recommend for an award.--[[User:Madeline F\|Madeline F]] 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
	--[[User:Madeline F\|Madeline F]] 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Madeline F: /* Alternate Name For Page */

2008-04-02T03:40:30Z

Alternate Name For Page

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 1 April 2008
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Or perhaps we can keep all of this information on the same page but change the title reflect that it's a list of works ''and'' individuals eligible.		Or perhaps we can keep all of this information on the same page but change the title reflect that it's a list of works ''and'' individuals eligible.
	--[[User:Ktempest\|Tempest]] 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)		--[[User:Ktempest\|Tempest]] 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

			:Thanks for making this page! I was thinking about it, but I've always thought the title was unwieldy, so I was holding back to see if something better appeared. Alas, I think '''Works by Women eligible for 2009 SF Awards''' is also too long.

			:When I was nominating for the Hugos this year, it was enormously helpful to have everything on the same page, so I could scoll down looking at titles names etc while opening other tabs to search out specifics. There were tabs everywhere; huge mess; would have been even tougher with two pages for the list. So I enormously favor having only one page for everything.

			:How about '''Women and works of 2008'''? The '''SF''' part is a given from this being on the FemSF wiki, and the '''awards''' part is a bit misleading since some of these works we wouldn't recommend for an award.
			--[[User:Madeline F\|Madeline F]] 03:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ktempest: Alternate Name For Page?

2008-03-31T20:44:35Z

Alternate Name For Page?

New page

== Alternate Name For Page ==

Can we possibly make this page two different pages? I'm thinking that it might be more useful to have an associated page called '''Works by Women eligible for 2009 SF Awards'''. Mainly because there are more categories where a work is up for consideration, not the author herself. Women eligible for awards can focus on those awards that nominate the author or artist individually. The Campbell not-a-Hugo, for instance, or Fan Writer, Best Artist.

Or perhaps we can keep all of this information on the same page but change the title reflect that it's a list of works ''and'' individuals eligible.
--[[User:Ktempest|Tempest]] 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)