Talk:Ditmar Award

	Australia portal Ditmar Award is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian literature (assessed as High-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Awards Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

What's up with the Greg Egan incident? The 'explanation' is confusing and doesn't explain why Egan would have wanted to refuse the award in the first place, and the chain of events is unclear. Pimlottc 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two pages[edit]

Do we need to have two pages to deal with the Ditmar Awards? It gets confusing as to which page we link to from individual author pages.

I'd prefer to see one page. If it's too big then it's just a matter of the correct layout.

Also weren't these awards called the "Australian Science Fiction Achievement Awards" in the first instance?

Perry Middlemiss 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of precedent for breaking articles up like this. The results are of subsidiary interest, and would make the main article far less readable. And yes, the award was originally called that—actually "Australian Science Fiction Achievement ('Ditmar') Awards" was the Real Official title afaik—but the name was changed some time last millennium.  JEREMY 05:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the opinion that two pages would work in this instance also. An example of where it works is the Archibald Prize and List of Archibald Prize winners. In this page there is a need for the history of the award and its various iterations. For the list of winners, wouldn't it be more logical to see the award categories grouped and then the winners for each year listed? The formatting is a bit overwhelming in the results page, and it is difficult to see "like" writing - i.e. Best Australian Fiction. Stellar 13:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the motion for a single page. Ghostwords (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20060820052946/splints.customer.netspace.net.au/ditmar1024res/intro.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the article history?! False vacuum (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A broken external link[edit]

The 1st external link, http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar.html gives a 404 error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.20.2.198 (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ditmar Award. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809025345/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Ditmar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]