Talk:Women eligible for 2008 SF Awards

praise

Oh, wow!! Fabulous work, y'all!--Liz Henry 19:28, 18 April 2007 (PDT)

Gotlieb

While looking up publication dates, I just found Phyllis Gotleib's Birthstones (with an afterword by Nalo Hopkinson), and it sounds really promising!

"Space Opera has the reputation - not entirely undeserved - as being the power fantasies of maladjusted teenage boys. But, for over fifty years, Toronto author Phyllis Gotlieb has proven that this subgenre can be complex, intelligent and even feminist. Her new novel, "Birthstones", is no exception. ... It is this deftness, as well as Gotlieb's sensitivity to character, that earned her a Governor General's Award Nomination." -- Sunday Book Review

"A visionary novel in the tradition of Ursula K. LeGuin and James Tiptree, Jr., by a leading feminist author."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madeline F (talk • contribs) 2007-04-18 23:21:11.

Gotlieb is one of the most under-rated SF authors around, IMHO. Cheryl 18:20, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

Gotlieb rocks. A lot of her work is out of print but still easy to get. Wish someone would reprint it. What we need are critical editions.--Liz Henry 17:37, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

Questions

• Should things be broken down by SF and fantasy since there are genre-specific awards? Maybe it's easier just to note which they are? --LQ 09:13, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

• Also on the LibraryThing discussion groups avaland listed some titles (fsf) but I'm confused by the organization and don't want to misplace something. Margo Lanagan's "Red Spikes", a collection, is something I'd like to list; it was published in Australia in 2006 but will be published in US in October 2007, so eligible for Hugos, and ...? --LQ 09:27, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

• Should we list works where female authors have co-written with men? I'm also wondering if it's a good idea to link author pseudonyms to the real name. --Nicole 22:29, 28 April 2007 (PDT)

• My first instinct is yes, let's list cowritten works; we're trying to increase recognition for women authors, period. If (!) there is bias (unintentional or otherwise) then it may be less of a problem for works cowritten by men or otherwise, but it may not. With doubt, let's go for inclusion. That's my instinct -- other ideas? --LQ 10:28, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

• linking author pseudonyms - I think it's a good idea to do it to facilitate finding information. Are you making a suggestion to do that, or raising a concern about authors who are closeted with their pseudonyms? If the latter, then I think we should try to be respectful of closeted identities and not include that information. However, many (most?) pseudonyms are public information and not really an attempt to hide or create privacy. Other thoughts? --LQ 10:28, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

redirect

• hey i redirected the first page to this one and will fix links. --LQ 13:43, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

campbell new writer?

surely there are many more writers eligible for the campbell best new writer award? --LQ 06:07, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

There are - see the list on Writertopia that I linked to. But I'm not sure whether that has been updated for 2008 eligibility yet, so before adding any of them I'd need to go through and see if they are first year or second year. - Cheryl 18:20, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

Sound Mind

I have removed Tricia Sullivan's Sound Mind from the list as it has a December 2006 cover date and is therefore ineligible. A shame, because it is a really wonderful book. Cheryl 18:24, 26 April 2007 (PDT)

page split?

I can see that as this page moves on maybe we should split to three pages:

a) list of women & works

b) award activism

c) 2008 awards eligibility criteria

--LQ 10:31, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

I like it as one big page. In fact rather than split I think we need to move the eligibility rules to be right above each individual list or category. I keep paging up and down again to see the lists next to the rules to figure out what goes on the list! As one big list it could be very handy to print out. --Liz Henry 17:39, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

Hmm, the print-out thing is a really good point. ... I'm just thinking, it's only April, and if this list is say 3x bigger in works and also bigger when all the awards get added is it going to be too big? whatever "too big" means -- i guess, hard to edit, hard to read. ... i also *loved* the awards activism section that someone wrote an want to link directly to that from other places. ... if for whatever reason we do eventually decide splitting is a good idea (i'm not advocating, just musing), one option we have is "transclusion" -- we could make a for-print version that transcludes all the pieces together. i think. we could sandbox something and just transclude all the pieces. just put the page name (with the page names in curly brackets) on the page ... for instance at User:Lquilter/sandbox2 i transcluded a template, the Barbara Hambly page, and a FSFwiki:something page. Just been figuring *that* out and I think it will come in really handy at some point. --LQ 19:08, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

I tend to agree that the page needs to be split up. The stuff about individual awards really belongs on the pages for those awards. And I'd be very happy to see the awards activism section get more visibility. Glad you liked it. :-) Cheryl 20:10, 29 April 2007 (PDT)

I agree that the page should be split. It's my understanding that the point of a wiki is to network a bunch of stuff? I would like to keep a page of just eligibility stuff, so there's a one-stop place to consider who and when to bring things to award-givers's attention, but the eligibility stuff should also be copied to the individual award page.

Sorry I have no idea how to sign this. Wiki syntax is completely baffling and makes me want to cry and I'm too daunted to hunt down more wiki syntax info on wikipedia this evening. --Madeline F

I have copied two of the sections to their own pages: Eligibility and voting by award and Award activism. --Ide Cyan 00:23, 30 April 2007 (PDT)

most but not all (liz?) are on board with splitting; ide cyan copied the content so i'm going to delete from the original page lest we start getting two different versions. if consensus moves the other way we can remerge. --LQ 04:15, 30 April 2007 (PDT)