This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Podcasting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable podcasts and podcast-related information on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PodcastingWikipedia:WikiProject PodcastingTemplate:WikiProject Podcastingpodcasting articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
There are a lot of podcast awards out there, how is this one notable? There are no references in the article so it's difficult to determine its notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parsec awards present at dragon con. They are mentioned in this dead tree media:
It's sponsored by FarPoint Media Network which is in wiki ergo notable. It appears reasonably notable. Another example I think why wiki needs notability for podcasting and not piggy back it on web content. Mindme (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that the sections I added on the list of categories and the process may not satisfy verifiability guidelines because they come from the original source. This underscores a problem with this process in that it requires somebody else to actually write about the Parsecs in a venue that's recognized by WP:WEB guidelines. Do I need to back those changes out? Nlowell 2010 (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Organization by year doesn't provide the best grouping, in my opinion. I will be re-organizing by the award type instead, and then the winners will be listed by year below. These awards aren't large enough for a yearly page. I will draft the change here before incorporating: Draft:Parsec Awards/Winners overhaul. -2pou (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@2pou: if we did do an overhaul and grouped awards by category/award type, how would you suggest handling categories/award types that only occurred once or twice. For instance, most of the awards given out in 2006 and 2007 either never occurred again or only reoccurred once or twice. Would you group them in with similar categories that occurred later? For instance, the 2006 "Best News Podcast" could be grouped with other "News" related categories such as "Best Speculative Fiction News Podcast" which occurred between 2007–2009, and the "Best Speculative Fiction Fan or News Podcast (Specific)" and "Best Speculative Fiction Fan or News Podcast (General)" which occurred between 2010–2018. To clarify the differences between years we could either include footnotes or add a column called something like "format" or "type". Regardless, if we do end up doing the overhaul there would be categories that would only have a single award such as "Best Youth Driven Speculative Fiction Podcast", which only occurred once and there are no other categories that are similar. How would we deal with that? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TipsyElephant, as evidenced by the red link... I kind of abandoned this idea. I have requested the draft to be restored to see where I ended up, but I recall having more or less the same dilemma you're asking about. I think the idea I had was to have blank entries on those categories that didn't have any relationship to others. We'll see where I ended, but I was also doing stuff offline in Excel just to see how many categories even carried over (or were related) year to year. I think there were also some inconsistencies between long-form and novel that made me question the value of the effort... -2pou (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2pou: I'm not sure organizing by category will work, but as the article is now it just seems cluttered with award categories. I'm not sure what to do with it to be honest. I don't see similar award pages that do just winners from each year in a single list, and I think the category names that they used are just excessively long. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
