Edit: that was the joke, moose

And even if they were, we aren't nearly popular enough in the right circles to win.

This isn't a bad thing, note — we're not paid professionals (well, most of us aren't). Most (if not all) of my favorite pieces on the wiki fall short of these standards, and yet they're still awesome.

But it is still a thing.

Not that I object to Aelanna's proposed site template change — I think that would be fine, but for other reasons.

Although I definitely think that the wiki getting an internationally-recognized award would be thoroughly awesome, it appears that they're given to individual pieces of work, rather than mass collaborations like us. Also, who would actually get the physical award? (I volunteer, btw.)

The Hugo Awards are voted on by all of the paying members of the club, and there's no formal nomination process. Supposedly you can send recommendations into various hangouts where they can be brought up, but it's not a guaranteed thing.

I'm also confused as to certain aspects of the award, but it does say that websites are explicitly allowed to win the award.

The Nebula Awards appear to be specifically targeted at individual works, and thus the website as a whole would not qualify. They also specifically target works published within the last year.

The Locus Awards are similar to the Hugos in that they are voted up on by the individual readers of the magazine. Similarly, there's no real way to influence the vote except by the list of recommended reading published by the magazine itself.

If this is something the administration wants to pursue, then I see no harm in it, but I think that the site would need to be significantly cleaned up in order to be presentable; the site template is really quite awful and worthy of shame.