Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page lists active nominations for future featured articles. For general information about the featured article process, consult Fanlore:Featured Articles.

Nomination Criteria

When thinking of pages to nominate, try to focus on pages of interest that are well-developed (though not necessarily "finished" or perfect) and will spark interest in visitors and would-be editors.

A Featured Article nomination should fit the following minimum criteria:

  • The article should be thorough and have a solid amount of information about the topic.
  • It should follow Fanlore policies.
  • It should have a good first (or first two) paragraph(s) introducing the topic well. (These are used to spotlight the article on the main page.)
  • The article should not be flagged with Template:Stub, Template:ExpandArticle, or have headers with no content in them.
  • The page should be up to date, or as up to date as it can reasonably be.
  • It should not have been previously featured on the Fanlore main page.

For more detailed criteria, refer to Featured Article Nomination Requirements.

Adding a Nomination

To add a nomination, add a subsection with the format below in the 'Current nominations' section of this page. Featured Article Nomination process has additional information.

===[[Page title]]===

Nominated by [[User:Username|]] on DATE. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. 

(Add other comments here)

Please try not to truncate this - if the page doesn't fulfil one or more of the criteria listed above, consider whether this can be addressed before nominating the page.

Voting on a Nomination

Check out the sections below and add your approval, rejection or other comments. Make sure to bold the main word(s) in your vote: 'yes,' 'no,' 'hesitant yes,' and so on.

If you have reservations about the quality of a nominated article, explain your concerns as specifically as possible, with tangible suggestions, so others will be able to address your points. We encourage editors to follow up on their own suggestions, but improving a nominated article is not the sole responsibility of the original nominator or commenter. All editors are welcome to fix problems that have been flagged up and say the issue has been resolved.

An article needs at least four affirmative votes to successfully qualify as a Featured Article. A user voting 'hesitant yes' (or 'nearly', etc.) should clearly outline the edits needed to turn their vote into a full yes. A hesitant vote can be counted as an affirmative once these suggestions have been addressed.

If an article acquires three or more negative votes with no votes in favour, it may be disqualified before the three month voting period has ended. Nominees with split votes or active conversation will remain active at the discretion of Fanlore Policy & Admin.

Please don't forget to sign your comments ("~~~~" will insert your name and date)).

Some example votes with comments:

* '''Yes.''' That looks great! --~~~~
* '''Yes.''' Good one! --~~~~
* '''Hesitant yes.''' Maybe that intro could be fleshed out a bit more? It doesn't really explain much. --~~~~
* '''No.''' This needs more [[PPOV]]. --~~~~

Please do not remove any nominations, or edit content signed by other users. Fanlore Policy & Admin and gardeners monitor this page and will archive or move nominations to the list of upcoming nominations as needed.

Past Nominations

Current Nominations

The Impact of Blogging on Fandom

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on 3 Jan 2024. I love the pages introduction and how it emphasises fans opinions on blogging in their own words. No content flags. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe: the intro seems a little off to me and I think needs to be reworded, how it says "Below are a series of excerpts from essays dated 2002-2005" like that doesn't seem like something you'd want to read on the front page. -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, " (content from earlier or later years is welcomed)" makes the page sound very work-in-progress. And I do appreciate that the lede is signposting a particular period of years that the article is going to focus on, i think that will make it a much more manageable article to construct. But the title suggests a much broader scope than that ("blog" as a term dates to 1997, and obviously blogging continues to impact fandom to this day) -- maybe a title change is in order? That seems easier than broadening the scope of the article (it's already very long). -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
It's the scope of this page that I really like, and the notion that it's a work in progress. I don't see the quote you refer to anymore (about adding content?), but an overarching look at specifically how blogs have impacted fandom is exactly what makes this article interesting and that's why it should change and be added to as things change. Though the essays are mostly dated from 2002-2005, its because they are quoting fans words to make a point about blogging and certainly the impact of blogging would be most seen as it comes into fashion and probably later if/when it goes out of fashion. Having a broad article to capture this makes more sense to me than a narrower article and then a second article with a new time frame... Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The "quote" is the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede. And there *are* some essays from as late as 2010 but they're retrospective. All of the discussion on the page (that i've skimmed at least) is about people reacting to the shift from Usenet/mailing lists to Personal Blogs as the central locus of internet interaction. If you want to keep the broad scope then there's 20 more years of blogging that needs to at least be acknowledged. [e.g. the "death of blogs" to social media was a HUGE deal last decade, surely people had something to say about that in a fannish context?] -- Quaelegit (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I sort of get what you mean, in the sense that most of the quotes come from specifically that reaction to change, and some recent discussion might be cool to add too. I suppose my argument for the broad scope is twofold. Firstly, I think the header points (blogging is about the self, etc etc) as raised in the TOC seem to accurately parallel my assessment of discussions of the impact of blogging in Fandom; it remains accurate and reasonably comprehensive, to my knowledge. Newer discussion might reiterate similar points (and might be worth including, just to prove that!) but that is why it ought to all stay one article because a second article about say, the end of longform blogs for socmed would likely have the same thing to same about blogs as this article. So even though more could be added, I think it falls under the same points and structure of the existing article, if that makes sense? Secondly, I think its sort of becuase of that shift from mailing lists to blogs that this discussion surfaced at all? So its not bad for the article to prominently include that context; the impact of blogging was the shift and all the knock-on effects on fandom. Am a lil sleepy rn so I hope my point here is clear :' )
Edit/addon - after a closer look though, some of the discussion is particularly around the dynamics of livejournal/diaryland blogging, as opposed to tumblr blogging... see the point at the bottom about the friendslist, which only applies on websites like those. If there are enough points where livejournal blogging differs from tumblr/wordpress blogging, it seems worthwhile to separate the topics. So upon consideration while I wouldn't want the page to be restricted by time (like 2002-2005), it might be worthwhile to change "impact of blogging" to ... impact of livejournal/diaryland? Open to suggestions. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Good idea on the "livejournal/diaryland" change. MPH 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes It is almost academic in length and content :-) -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Hesitant yes. I think it's a good source of info for anyone looking into the topic when it comes to LJ. Nothing strikes out to me as particularly featured article worthy though, I don't know of any other subject matter regarding fandom that would use the same format this article uses to describe a fandom-y thing unless it also relates to journal sites (with the way it quotes from journals, which are more coherent than most social media posts.) I also think the refs on this article are strangely formatted but I'm a glass house throwing stones complaining about that --Cavewomania (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes (I've been working the introduction.) MPH 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Not yet: This doesn't read like a wiki page to me, just a collection of quotes from discourse, and the description of the page ("below are a series of excerpts from essays that were written at this time. Woven into the excerpts are general thoughts and observations contributed from the recollections of individual fans.") suggests this too. It's difficult to parse without prior background knowledge on the migration to blogging and the sites themselves (which I don't have).
I agree with Quaelegit that the main problem is the scope of the page. A possibility could be reworking this page to be more generally about early fandom migration to blogging sites, and rename the page to something like "Early 2000s Fandom Migration to Blogging". Having a look around, we have a page for Fandom Migration generally that doesn't go in depth on any particular migration, pages like Livejournal that have information about migration to LJ specifically, but as far as I can tell, no page on this more broad occurrence in the early 2000s except for this page.
That doesn't necessarily require chopping this article down too much IMO — the main change would be adding a section at the beginning for context/summary of the migration itself and the reasons why it occurred (similar to the Livejournal page) and perhaps making the sections of this page into subsections under a "Impact"/"Discourse" heading. Even if the page isn't reworked in this way, I still think it would benefit from summary/context given to the topic as a whole. I wasn't around in fandom at the time the shift from mailing lists, Yahoo Groups etc to blogs occurred, and so I have very little understanding of (a) why this shift occurred (e.g. new websites launching), and (b) what the physical differences between the two modes of doing fandom were (as opposed to philosophical, which is what the page currently focuses on), which makes the page as is difficult for me to follow.
I would also like to see the length/number of quotes pared down a bit — Fanlore is a wiki, not a record of every example of something, and I think the quotes could be a lot more streamlined for better readability (summarising the arguments made in the quotes at the beginning of sections would also be help with this I think).
I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is and work on the structure & style of the page if others agree with what I've said above, but my knowledge of this era of fandom is pretty limited so I'll need some help filling in the content. Castille (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for your extensive thoughts on this! I think you make a few great points. I would support the page rename & crosslink to Fandom Migration - have added a link on that page for now. There's a lot to say about fandom migration and not enough deep dives into it IMO. I also like your suggestions for more context around why there was migration and the physical differences between the two websites - thanks for picking up on that blind spot.
I'd only disagree with the length / number of quotes, but that's because I feel like each quote is illustrating a fresh point, and are examples of rather than every example. There are lots of quotes because it was a big discussion with many perspectives. (I haven't dug through the references - if its similar essays cited again and again then maybe we can pull from alternate quotes). Though ofc there could improvement around the framing for clarity and readability and your help would absolutely be welcome in making the article tighter! I just want to make sure none of the "philosophical" discussion around the fandom migration is lost, because that is the sort of perspective I think is tricky to search for since its so perspective and experience based and hence important to archive. -Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I have the bandwith to help much with this in the near term but I like Castille's proposals. My first instinct is to agree with Distracteddaydreamer to lean on the side of reorganizing/contextualizing quotes instead of paring them down, but I haven't read the page thoroughly in a while so maybe when I re-read i'll see some options to combine/summarize. Maybe I can help with that, as well as with checking the references (I skimmed the references and I didn't see a lot of repeats but I *did* see a lot that could use reformatting/filling in info). Yeah, I'll try help with that soon. -- Quaelegit (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

MBTI and Fandom

Nominated by User:Night Rain on January 9, 2024. No content flags, plenty of sources, ands gives what I hope is a thorough overview of the topic and its relation to fandom.

Not Yet: Think the criticism section could be larger, I'll see what I can find. Think it should be clearer in the lede too that it's not just skeptics but the scientific community as a whole that are against taking it seriously. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I initially went with "skeptics" over "scientists" because I didn't want to exclude laypeople with science blogs. But you're right that "the scientific community" works as a more inclusive alternative. As for expanding the "criticism" section, this is a fandom-focused wiki. More in-depth coverage of scientific criticism of MBTI seems more suited to Wikipedia or RationalWiki. The article may already be toeing a line in terms of non-fannish content. But an overview of MBTI itself seemed necessary for helping readers to understand the fandom-related portions. I did search for fannish criticism of MBTI and that lone quote was all I came across. Perhaps I wasn't searching in the right places or with the right keywords. So feel free to add other fannish criticisms you've encountered. Night Rain (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I also want to stress that I've tried to strike a balance with the inclusion of non-fannish content in this article. The mention of official vs. unofficial online testing gives an insight into why there aren't fan surveys before the 1990s. The brief primer on the typology itself gives an idea of what all the four-letter combinations mentioned throughout the article mean. The mention of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter and its sub-groupings is necessary for explaining the origins of the 16 Personalities character fandom. The "criticism" section doesn't serve to underpin information elsewhere in the article. I included it because it seemed necessary for a balanced overview of the topic as a whole. But scientific criticism shouldn't warrant special extended focus when explaining the intricacies of the typology doesn't. This article is about MBTI's relationship to fandom, not the MBTI system itself. Night Rain (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll take another look when I get the chance to see if I can change my vote. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree with OfMonstersAndWerewolves -- Kingstoken (talk)19:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Now I'm upset. I pared the "canon" section to the bone in the last article I put forward as an FA candidate due to concerns over excess non-fannish content. Now multiple editors are demanding the addition of blatantly non-fannish material. Fanlore isn't RationalWiki. It isn't Fanlore's mission to extensively debunk concepts disputed by science. Where would that end? Long sections in merpeople and soulbond (trope) explaining the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of both mermaids or souls? I looked for fannish criticism. What I found is in the article. Night Rain (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
For clarification of a few points:
  • I wasn't really expecting a substantial non-fannish account of criticism. A brief summary perhaps, but primarily from fans or, at a push, the way that non-fannish topics such as science or politics often intersects with fandom, especially on sites like Tumblr. My main complaint was the lack of mention in the lede. The Omegaverse page does a similiar thing by briefly mentioning outright that the trope is based on outdated research on wolf dynamics, in order to not perpetuate outdated information.
  • I find comparison between Myers-Briggs and the likes of merpeople etc to be a false equivalence, mostly because of general perception of those topics. Most people generally know the scientific viewpoint on the existence of Merpeople; Myers Briggs on the other hand is still often viewed by many to be a valid scientific tool, partly because of how the test is often presented to audiences. There's a misconception with MBTI that doesn't exist with merpeople and other such tropes, and I didn't want Fanlore to contribute to that.
  • Similiar false equivalence in regards to ships like Reylo being seen as controversial. Whether a ship or character is seen as controversial is primarily based on opinion, rather than scientific fact as in the case of MBTI. Though I concede there are perhaps better ways of expressing it than describing it as 'controversial'.
I'll take a look and see if I can find any other fan responses. I feel like I've seen folks who recognise it for what it is, and enjoy it from a fannish perspective with a certain level of knowledge and self-awareness, and try to advocate for other fans to treat it in the same vein.
-- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
MBTI has popular acceptance in both fannish and non-fannish spaces. In my experience those who feel a need to actively debunk it represent a corner of the skeptic movement. MBTI isn't astrology. It's rooted in material ideas – psychology, neurology, etc. – rather than mystical energies. For many people that's real enough for it to serve as a tool for self-understanding and character interpretation. In any case this seems perpendicular to Fanlore's mission. PPOV allows us to document fannish disagreement where it exists. It doesn't give us leave to designate controversy where we feel it ought to exist. It isn't within Fanlore's remit to try to cure "misconceptions with MBTI" or "advocate" for fans to feel one way or another about it. If MBTI isn't widely disputed in fannish spaces, extended coverage of criticisms would be undue weight.
This really isn't a subject on which I ever anticipated friction. I wasn't expecting this article to be more than a gallery of chart memes and maybe a mention of some character metas. I was fascinated to discover Gayle Stever's research and a whole sub-fandom of drawing and shipping types. To me this feels like the very definition of transformative fandom. It's taking a somewhat dry abstract concept and turning into something vivid and new. I wanted to share the fun discoveries I came across while researching this topic. But with this reception I bet it's gonna be a real gas if I ever get around to writing an article on fannish potrayals of zodiac signs. Night Rain (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes: Interesting read, I never knew about this fandom, (though I knew about the fannish use in categorizing characters). To address some concerns above, I moved the criticism section into the explanation section near the top, expanded it, and added another explicit reference to pseudoscience, and added a link out to the Wikipedia article's criticism of MBTI. I think the lede on criticism is no longer buried, so please take another look if that was your concern with this article. -- FBV (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll take another look when I have the spoons. I'm thinking though whether we should move it to MBTI and Fandom to make it consistent with other pages? -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. The article is about two different uses of MBTI in fandom - one to apply the types to characters and fans, and another about the "anthropomorphic MBTI test results" fandom, so a broader name like that is probably more accurate. -- FBV (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Moved it -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes I think the critism section makes it clear that this something like zidiac signs. I have seen Scully being labelled at least 7 different MBIT types, so I guess there is bit whishful thinking/Mary Sueing by fans, that their fave matches their types. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, article has been renamed to MBTI and Fandom, we've reworked the intro, included more criticism, and linked out to Wikipedia criticism section. Any additional eyes on this on what we could add to make it look good? -- FBV (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes - Though I did revise the criticism section to reflect what I actually read within the linked reference article and deleted the paywalled reference, which other editors are free to revert if they disagree with me. I personally feel the criticism section should be as brief as possible and highlight only the most important points with ref links out for more reading if needed . Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


Nominated by Aerlko on March 7, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flag. Last year we did Archive Featured Article, I feel like this year Wiki is a good call.

  • Yes. --TheVioletHowler (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Not Yet: what's there is fine (although I messed with the lede and I'm not super happy about the state I left it in, would appreciate if someone could go over it and streamline it/decide if those examples/external links should be left there or presented elsewhere in the article). But this is basically a very brief/surface level intro to wikis and then a list of some fandom wikis. It doesn't even discuss the history of wikis. Also I would like some cites/expansion on "people don't like it when wikipedia is refered to as "wiki"" -- obviously i've seen complaining *on wikipedia itself*, but do other wiki communities mind? We can probably dig up some quotes and cite them in that section. I added some comments in the lede and some external links as further reading, but i'm not gonna have the time to follow up on those for a few days yet and honestly i'm not sure if I'm motivated enough to. Hopefully if some other people can step in we can address these as a group project. -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Not yet: Echoing Quaelgit's observations that the article is very surface-level for an topic that has a lot of history and information and is outdated. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree with what others have said, it seems like it needs a little more filling out -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


Nominated by Kingstoken on March 19, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I don't think we ever featured anything from the Hercules fandom, so I thought this might be a great place to start.

Yes I'll see if I can't find some more fanart. -- MPH 00:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe: There's something here, but I think it needs some beefing up to be featured.
* The lead is extremely short and needs some beefing up.
* The canon section is also extremely short. In particular, I'd like to know what Iolaus' characterization is like; at the moment, all I can really glean is his role in the story.
* Why did a majority of fandom activity gravitate towards Iolaus? What makes him appealing to write about? What are the forces behind certain trends? Those are questions that I found myself asking when reading the fandom page and they aren't answered.
* Needs a copyedit run, especially for tenses - while the fandom may not be as active as it once was, the fanworks still exist to my understanding, so it makes it confusing to refer to the fanworks as if they no longer exist. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

Nominated by Kingstoken on Apirl 2, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. One of the OG fandoms, and I think this is a fairly good overview.

Almost: The introduction needs to be a little longer before its featured. I'd like to see some more detail on the fan response to Sherlock's death, but I know with such an old fandom, that info might not be available. --Auntags (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Not voting on the article right now, but for "response to Sherlock's death" i bet there's some good academic papers about it. Does anyone have jstor access and know how to search for this? -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Kid Dynamo

Nominated by Rossi on April 16, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. This is one of the cornerstone fics of early X-Men comics fandom and I think the page is a good example of a fanfiction page.

Hesitant yes: I think this has potential to be featured, but first I'd like to see the lead rearranged to put relevant info first and maybe part of it split off into a fic overview section (?). I also think some summary of the reactions and reviews to contextualise them would be a good addition. - Castille (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I agree with Castille, it has great potential for a featured article, but some of the intro paragraph does feel like it could be maybe split off into a separate section -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ned Stark Lives!

Nominated by Kingstoken on Apirl 24, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought this one might be interesting to feature, and it has been about six months since we last featured anything from ASOIAF/GOT.