Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2018)

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

About this page

This page lists Featured Article nominations that were posted on the Fanlore main page in 2018 or that were rejected during 2018 due to insufficient yes votes. For current nominations, visit Fanlore: Featured Article Nominations.

Approved nominations

We Didn't Start The Fire

Nominated by Mrs. Potato Head on September 28, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Multifandom, highlights a vid, accessible, touches upon privilege, race bending, and more. MPH (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes! This looks amazing. I have also never seen the vid, so thanks for the rec :D --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
YES <3 Somefangirl (talk) 6:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
YES --Syd (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
YES MeeDee (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Big Name Fan

Nominated by Mrs. Potato Head on December 3, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes, definitely. I think that's a great one to feature. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes--aethel (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes --Oxymora (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes --Somefangirl(talk) 6:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
YES MeeDee (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Milk

Nominated by aethel on November 25, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Well, that was a fun read XD It seems like an interesting corner of fandom. Yes from me! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. MPH (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
yes --Oxymora (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes --Somefangirl (talk) 6:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Goodreads

Nominated by MPH on December 11, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yesssssss. This is a fascinating page and would make a great featured article! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes -- sparc 20:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes --aethel (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
yes It's a great page, and I think a lot of people would be interested in it Victorywings (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Courts of Honor

Nominated by Mrs. Potato Head on September 28, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Beautiful art, good story, K/S fandom classic, fascinating history in terms of fandom. MPH (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes! This is a great page. Image gallery really makes it for me, and there's a lot of interesting twists as you scroll down the page. Somefangirl (talk) 6:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes --Oxymora (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes --Syd (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Tentative yes... It's an interesting article; I didn't really like the introduction, which is why I haven't added my vote before now, but I just went in and rearranged the intro and padded it out a bit. One thing that still makes me hesitate is the way that the article refers to Courts of Honor as part of a three-part series including Mission to Mrinn, which I can't find confirmation of. I've added a note about this on Mrinn's talk page. It might seem like a small thing, but if it's not correct, that looks pretty bad on a featured article. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes -- Mlemley I love the image gallery! And the writing of the article is good quality. 03:58 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

TheoryofFicGate

Nominated by MPH on December 11, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Oooh, yes. A very interesting page to feature. (I've made some small improvements in the form of SPAG edits). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 17:11, 01 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes: seems very welled researched --Kingstoken (talk) 18:19, 05 January 2018 (UTC)
YES!!!!! I loved reading this article!!! It's an interesting moment in Fannish history that I had never heard before. -- Mlemley 04:12 8 January 2018 UTC
Also yes: Very interesting and historical relevant. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture

Nominated by MPH on December 18, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes, great nomination - I bet the acafan community would love it. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:10, 01 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes--aethel (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes! This page is actually super interesting, and I think a lot of people would also be intruiged! Victorywings (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes Interesting read WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes--Oxymora (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Grovelfic

Nominated by Mrs. Potato Head on December 3, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Hesitant yes. I moved the History section up and added a sentence, but it could use more attention.--aethel (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Mlemley I feel the content and examples could be a bit better fleshed out. 04:05 8 January 2018 UTC
Yes - I've made a bunch of edits to the page today with more detail on the origins of the term and some fan commentary. There's always more that can be added, but I'd be happy for it to be featured. aethel and Mlemley, what do you think of the additions? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think its way better after the edits WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Oxymora (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

De-Aging

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on January 15, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Fun pan-fandom trope, has a comprehensive article with lots of examples, and an image to boot. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes!--aethel (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yessss Such a cool page! Victorywings (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes --Oxymora (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Feral

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on January 1, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I vote yes. MPH (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Also yes. Very detailed article. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes Victorywings (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes --Oxymora (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Whoosh!

Nominated by MPH on December 11, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes I tweaked a few things; otherwise good.[1] --aethel (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Made some tweaks here too. A very interesting corner of 90s internet fandom! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 17:34, 01 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes --Oxymora (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, maybe could something be added about the prevalence of the website? Article says it's extensive and was updated in 2006 (which isn't bad considering how long the Xenaverse has been off the air.) WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

News for the OBSSEsed

Nominated by MPH on January 10, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Being totally unbiased (Not. ;-). Yes! WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, interesting article. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Oxymora (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. Very thorough! --Mlemley (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Interrogating the text from the wrong perspective

Nominated by MPH on January 14, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes It's always interesting when creators engage in such a way (because it usually never goes well for them). The further readings Industry and Journalism links are especially interesting. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes!--aethel (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a classic. Oxymora (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I agree 100% with WhatAreFrogs? --Mlemley (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. And the article may have current relevance soon! --Shadowkeeper (talk) 15:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

chemicalromance

Nominated by User:aethel on 4 February 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes! A very interesting piece of fandom history and a comprehensive page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes Looks good and has lots of information WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Good one! --Mlemley (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. --Oxymora (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Hanahaki Disease

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on March 4, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

One of the most popular tropes on Fanlore (it gets linked to a lot on social media). The page has been fleshed out considerably in recent months and has good coverage of the trope. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. MPH (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes! --Oxymora (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Good one! --Mlemley (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Rooster Teeth

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on March 25, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Comprehensive page, interesting RPF fandom. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes. My hesitancy only lies in that I'm worried that a certain recent troll may start targeting us again if we're promoting RPF. If we're sure he's been dealt with, then it's a wholehearted yes from me. --Mlemley (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
We've got him pretty comprehensively blocked, and also by the time this gets approved as a Featured Article some time will have passed, so I'm optimistic that it won't be an issue. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes If what Enchantedsleeper says is true, then I'm 100% for this one. Mlemley (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes If the troll wants to troll he will come back anyway with a new account, IMO... WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- MPH (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Wings in Fanworks

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on March 4, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

In-depth and interesting page. I added to the Wings in Cosplay section in order to remove the content flag, but I'm honestly not sure about how well it fits with the rest of the page. Additional thoughts and edits are welcome. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Changed my answer to YES since we are suspending Trope Tuesday and Ship Sunday during April Showers. Enough time will have passed.. previously objected due to use of this page for Trope Tuesday Mlemley (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes --Oxymora (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Also Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- MPH (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Kink Meme

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on March 27, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Strong page about an important part of fandom culture. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- MPH (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes A great way for people to be introduced to that side of fandom. Mlemley (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 1:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Holes in My Yard

Nominated by Mrs. Potato Head on December 3, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Maybe... I like this article, but by itself it feels lacking in context as it's just one piece of the wider MZB fanfiction debacle. But I followed a link to the Marion Zimmer Bradley Fanfiction Controversy main article and my god, it's extensive. What do you think about featuring that one instead? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I was wary of nominating the main page due to.... reasons. One of the many reasons is the MZB contro page needs to have some very focused eyes on it that are not mine. It is a complicated page, and I picked the "Holes in My Yard" page as kind of a back-door entrance to the topic. I hope others will weigh in with their opinions. Mrs. Potato Head on December 4, 2017
Yes, I think it's a neat page and links to the more complex/controversial stuff. Oxymora (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes I think it covers the topic well. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. I like using it as a way to introduce people to the idea. --Mlemley (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, There's so much to read on the MZB Fanfic Controversy page This is a great and easily consumable piece of it. Somefangirl(talk) 7:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Witch and the Chameleon

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on March 25, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Comprehensive page about a fannishly significant zine. The only downside is that there are two red links in the intro, including one in the first line. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Good one! --Mlemley (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes: Great page, and perhaps featuring it will draw more attention to those red links - and someone with an interest will be inspired to edit! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Lots of great art, and the page is well formatted. (And I really enjoyed reading about the letterwar.) --Somefangirl (talk) 8:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Ms.Scribe Story: An Unauthorized Fandom Biography

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on April 20, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

A really well-researched page about a notorious episode (if it can be called an episode) of fandom wank. I had considered nominating the main MsScribe page, but this one is better-written and would still serve as a good intro to the topic for newcomers. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. I just read through this article hanging onto every word. I can't believe I never knew about this! --Mlemley (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Enough said :P -- Somefangirl(talk) 8:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. I never knew this happened. Off to read the full story --Auntags (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- MPH (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes! except I think the lips icon needs to be moved to the right and below the infobox as it squishes the text for screens with smaller screen resolution.--aethel (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Done - I moved the lips icon down to the "Real People" section, as it's more closely related to the content there. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Reading and Viewing Print Fanworks in Public Areas

Nominated by MPH (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC) on March 4, 2018.

Yes - Very interesting read, especially for those of us who missed the print era entirely. --Auntags (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, I think it's a little thin overall. --Oxymora (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It brings me back to my early fan days. --Mlemley (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes I added the Fanwork in the digital age section. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC
Hesitant yes: I think the introduction needs to be fleshed out more to better introduce the page. The page at the moment is a sort of disconnected collection of observations and comments on reading print fanworks in public, which can work as long as the introduction ties it all together. Maybe some more detail on how prevalent the practice was and how things have changed now in the digital era? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant yes: I'm almost leaning towards a no vote on this - I think it needs some work before being featured. Very interesting topic, but it doesn't hang together/feel substantive enough. Definitely agree with the comments above re: intro and added details. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes: I guess my feeling is that it's so relatable that we don't really need a good intro. The fun is looking at all the pictures and quotes! --Somefangirl (talk) 8:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Update: I've expanded the introduction, and reorganised the page structure to group the quotations together more thematically, as well as adding a new section. Would anyone who was hesitant like to take a second look at the page and see what they think? (Though we do have enough yes votes to go forward). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Slash Fiction is Like a Banquet

Nominated by MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I like featuring more fandom meta content and that's a nice example --Oxymora (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I love a good meta and this one is gold! --Mlemley (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes very interesting read. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes --Somefangirl (talk) 8:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant yes. Could maybe use a little more fan reaction --Kingstoken (talk) 18:44, 05 May 2018 (UTC)
I added a bunch of commentary. MPH (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Ray Wars

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on April 20, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

  • Yes. Very robust! Great feature. --Mlemley (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Great page, and the perspectives from 'post-war' are also incredibly interesting. --Somefangirl (talk) 8:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes Very detailed --Kingstoken (talk) 18:34, 05 May 2018 (UTC)
Also Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Filing Off the Serial Numbers

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on April 29, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Extensive page about an important fandom issue, and something that has become more and more commonplace over time. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes Very relevant topic, and well researched -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:40, 05 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- MPH (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes I made some edits.--aethel (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Fandom Trumps Hate

Nominated by fandomgeographies on June 3, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: Seems well filled out with a lot of detail -- User:Kingstoken (talk) 23:11, 03 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes! I loved reading about this - a well-structured page, with lots of interesting detail. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes MPH MPH (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes Very informative page and very relevant topic --Auntags (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Puppygate

Nominated by fandomgeographies on May 22, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Heck to the yes! I fell down the rabbit hole of learning about this incident a little while ago and it's fascinating. Great page as well. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes--aethel (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes MPH MPH (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes - even though I'd prefer a subsection on "Rabid Puppies," because the two groups had some substantial differences. Elf (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Scanlation

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on June 1, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Super detailed page, and covers a topic from non-western fandom, which it's always good to feature more of :) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes! This is super cool. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes: Very detailed -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:14, 03 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes MPH MPH (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Also Yes from me. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

11 Scott McCall-Stiles Stilinski Fanfics That Prove Teen Wolf Fans Are Nasty AF

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on June 5, 2018. The page has a good intro, no content flags and is well cited.

Yes: What a name! I very much enjoyed reading the page - I'd never heard about that incident before xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes MPH MPH (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes Auntags (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Boldly Writing: A Trekker Fan and Zine History, 1967 - 1987

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on June 4, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I came across this page and really enjoyed reading it. It's a well-written page about an interesting piece of fandom history. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes: A lot of citations and references, which is nice to see Kingstoken (talk) 22:56, 04 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes MPH MPH (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Godawful Fan Fiction

Nominated by MPH (talk) on June 13, 2018. Was a popular site (for differing reasons), and part of an on-going fandom culture war. Lots of fan reactions on the page.

Yes This is quite an extensive page! WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes Very detailed with lots of citation Kingstoken (talk) 14:41, 07 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes This page is ready to go! Mlemley (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Bellarke vs Clexa

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on June 3, 2018. The page has no content flags

Yes MPH MPH (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes Shipwar. Juicy. ;-) WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Almost yes. Would love to see someone with more familiarity expand the intro a little bit - some of the info from the "About" section could probably be moved up, and it would be a good spot to mention the timeline of the ship war (when it started, how it's evolved at this point). I've made some edits to the page but don't feel qualified to work on the intro. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I know the timeline is a little vague, I am afraid I didn't join the fandom until after season 4. Tracking the beginning of the ship war through Tumblr can be difficult, from what I have been able to gather, it began late in season 2 (spring 2015) around the time that Lexa kissed Clarke, but the most intense part of the ship war occurred during season 3 (2016). The ship war is still occurring, you still see twitter posts pushing Clexa or Bellarke, but it has died down a bit. -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:54, 03 July 18 (UTC)
Changing my vote to a yes now, based on changes to the page. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I remember when this happened. Tumblr was such a dark and scary place for a while. --Mlemley (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality

Nominated by enchantedsleeper (talk) on July 8, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

A well-known fanfic both inside and outside fandom, with a detailed and well-researched page. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:21, 08 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes Very detailed and lots of citation. One question, did the audio book ever happen? -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:32, 08 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes Interesting and balanced page. Lots of fan reactions, reviews and extra reading. Don't think the audio book was ever finished but open to correction -- Auntags (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, as it turns out, the audiobook was completed in 2016! I've updated the podcast section :D -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Enchantedsleeeper --Auntags (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes Very good page! Mlemley (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes It's a great article! I do notice though that it's missing any mention of the rationalist fanfiction trend that it... inspired? Pushed forward? Rationalist fic/the rationalist fiction movement would definitely be an entirely different article but the fanart section is really sparse especially when there's so much recursive fanfiction that looks to still be updating and other fandom activity. Maybe the recursive fandom needs its own page, too, but it also seems like the fannish activity it inspired should get a little more attention. Hoopla (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm probably going to keep adding to the controversies/criticism section because I'm having a grand old time reading all 45ish pages of the Dark Lord Potter thread about this fic but def my concerns have been addressed and I think this is ready. Hoopla (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Hoopla! I was going to comment here when I finished off the fanart gallery, but it looks like you already spotted my changes ^^ Thanks for the suggestions, I think the page is much improved for them. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Sound of Windchimes

Nominated by MPH on July 25, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. A very early, and classic, X-Files fic.

Maybe:A few unanswered questions, are there any details about the accidental release in 1993 and was there any response from author about the unofficial re-release in 1995 -- 14:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC) -- Kingstoken
I can't pin down the "accidental" release cite. Will keep looking. Turns out the unofficial release in 1995 has some comments by the author using a different email and pseud, so perhaps it wasn't that unofficial. I added the comments to the page. MPH (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC) I added the info about the "accidental" release. MPH (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes!:I think overall I'd appreciate more context for the quotes from the author. A discussion of the impact of the story, a summary of the various fan reactions, and maybe some context (a sentence or two? at least a link to the First Wave section, but I'm curious about specifics!) on what was going on in the X-Files fandom in the late 90s before and after the fic was posted would really go a long way to understand why the author wrote such long comments in 1996 and '97 and would make them interesting to read. The X-Files page claims that this fic was "influential" but... how so? An actual summary of the events of the fic would be nice too. --Hoopla
Added some context to the two quotes. I think that the discussion of the "impact" of the story is illustrated in the fan comments (which there are many), but other commentary is certainly welcomed. The story summary is also illustrated in the fan comments, tho I added some casual fan comments as they were looking for it on Usenet as well. MPH (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
It looks great! I do really like the addition of the casual fan comments in the summary section; it's good to understand the contents of the story (especially what sticks out to people who are looking to reread it) before reading the author comments and the context on those is really great. Hoopla (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, looks good! I really enjoyed the phrase "relentless hamburgers" xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes I also thought the "relentless hamburgers" comment was quite amusing. Mlemley (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Robin of Sherwood Fandom and Slash Fanworks

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on July 27, 2018. As of this writing the page has no content flags.

interesting article showing how TPTB can interfere in fandom and highlighting how views of slash and homosexuality have changed from the 1990s -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- I added to the intro to give it more context. MPH (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes I found this article rather fascinating. Mlemley (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes: Very interesting article! I also added a bit to the intro, plus some wikilinks and a few cross-links to other articles about TPTB intervening in fandom. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Metafandom

Nominated by Elfwreck (talk) on June 10, 2018. Good basic page covering part of fandom history that newer fans aren't likely to be aware of.

Hesitant Yes: Feels a bit short, but I guess that there isn't more on the topic? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant yes: I think there's more that can be added by the way of fan reaction - I've poked around a bit and already found some more comments that can be incorporated. It sounds like this newsletter was a pretty important part of fandom, so it'd be good to reflect that with more anecdotes. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:00, 01 July 2018 (UTC)
Update: Lots of improvements have been made to this, so I'm happy for it to be approved as a featured article! -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I thought it had pretty balanced commentary on either side and a good intro. --Mlemley (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes from me. MPH (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

What Shipping Richonne Taught Me About Racism

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on August 11, 2018. As of this writing the page has no content flags (and it's not about Star Trek).

Yes from me - I gave some of the fan comments individual references and also added some related reading links. I think this will be an interesting page to feature. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Mlemley (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Somefangirl (talk) 6:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Constructed Reality

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on August 13, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

A wonderfully detailed page about vidding - quite timely as well given the last Vividcon just took place. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Mlemley (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes! Informative, well-explained, with new terminology (for me) and lots of examples. Somefangirl (talk) 6:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Foresmutters Project

Nominated by fandomgeographies on July 25, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: For an article with a lot of quotes it has very little citation -- Kingstoken (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe that all of the quoted comments are sourced from the reference mentioned in footnote 2. If it needs to be formatted differently, I can work on that? - Fandomgeographies (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes - Thank you, Fandomgeographies, if you would do that citation work. MPH (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC) One of the most interesting things about this page is the incredible push-back from some very vocal fans who felt threatened by this project. MPH (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Citations have been added for the quoted comments! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes: Alright, changing to a yes vote -- -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes Super interesting! I really loved seeing the conversation, especially. Hoopla (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Almost yes: The page has a wealth of valuable detail on the reaction to the project at the time it was created, but what it feels like it's missing is some more recent perspectives on the project. One thing I uncovered is that Foresmutters Project was the very first test case for the Open Doors archive preservation project, which is hugely significant and definitely deserves a section. I would also love to add some more recent fan commentary about the project and its legacy, if there is any to be found. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
MPH added some info on this (thank you, MPH)! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes Lots of great commentary and a great way to plug the Open Doors Project. Mlemley (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes It has a great name, and the page is interesting to boot!h. Somefangirl (talk) 6:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Dalton

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on July 3, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags, and is very detailed.

Influential fanfic in Glee fandom, that spawned its own fan following -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:22, 03 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Very detailed and interesting page. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:31, 08 July 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes The page is very detailed, however there are a lot of red links. Mlemley (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Detailed, interesting, and reads well. -- Somefangirl(talk) 6:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I created stubs for a bunch of the internal links. There are two left in the intro, and I think one is maybe a typo? (See talk page.) - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that is a typo, according to Wikipedia Trese is a horror comic book series, we just don't have a page for that fandom. --Kingstoken (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thank you! I created a stub, so now it looks like the intro paragraph is free of red links. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes This is quite an extensive article for a fic! WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Wave Theory of Slash

Nominated by fandomgeographies on July 25, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes --- I added more comments to the linked discussion page to give 1993 context and reactions. MPH (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Almost yes It's a hugely important essay and definitely deserves a feature. As I read through the page and delved into many of the other meta essays which reference and draw on it, I wished that the page reflected more of the impact that the Wave Theory had on the meta which came after it. I realise that the Fan Discussion and Meta subpage deals with meta created in response to the essay, but I think that the main page suffers because of how much important content is contained within that subpage.
Is there a way that we could confine the scope of the subpage a bit more (e.g. to focus just on fan reaction), or incorporate more of its content into the main page? I think there's a lot to be said about how the essay changed the language with which fandom was discussed and the way in which slash was thought about, beyond just "this is an essay which references Wave Theory". --enchantedsleeper (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes Very good meta Mlemley (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes I don't think it's a big deal that the meta/responses are on a different page. It's nice to be able to finish reading one of these pages, and interested parties can always click on. --Somefangirl (talk) 6:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes Definitively an interesting meta article. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Killing Time (Star Trek tie-in novel)

Nominated by MPH (talk) on July 28, 2018. As of this writing the page has no content flags. A fascinating subject with lots of meaty comments.

Yes: Very comprehensive and interesting -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes! This was really fascinating. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Unenthusiastic yes While the article is incredibly comprehensive and very well-structured, we do a LOT of Star Trek-oriented Featured Articles. I understand that the Star Trek fandom has been around for quite some time, and that it set a lot of Fannish cultural norms and practices, it's important to also make sure we're covering a very diverse array of fandoms. Mlemley (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It's good article with lot of Fannish content. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Telepic

Nominated by User:aethel on 3 September 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes. Very cool! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 1:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Never heard of the term until now - Interesting! --Jaetion (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I love this! Also never come across it before :3 -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes That a very interesting article WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Delicious

Nominated by Shadowkeeper on October 14, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

It's got a bit of fandom history, fandom's use of tools, and is up to date.
Yes: The section on on fannish migration could be filled out a little more, and how fans were maybe already starting to stop using bookmarking sites. Other than that, very detailed -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes! A very important fandom article. One small note (partly a note to self, as I can probably address this), but the line about the URL at the end of the intro seems a bit of a non-sequitur and could do with some more context about why this was significant. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
ETA: I've shifted the URL change information over to the infobox. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. MPH (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Starships! (multifandom vid)

Nominated by Shadowkeeper on October 18, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

A one-shot curated page on a popular fanvid. There are reactions, screenshots, and reference links.
Yes-- Kingstoken (talk) 9:58, 18 October 2018
Yes, looks good to me. I moved the list of sources out of the intro and into a separate "Featured Fandoms" section. I'm inclined to format it as a bullet point list rather than a single paragraph, but I know it would be very long - does anyone know how to make a multi-column list? -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2018
Done! I could also float them in a box under the infobox or make the list collapsible, though. - Hoopla (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I had time today so I made Template:BlankInfobox‎‎ and put the list of fandoms into that template on the page — hope that's alright! If it's not, just undo my edit. Also, please let me know on the template's talk page if you think it needs any other features, like... collapsing and expanding or something. - Hoopla (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

FictionAlley

Nominated by Shadowkeeper on October 15, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Up to date, even mentioning the move to AO3 from a few months ago.
Yes-- Kingstoken (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes Maybe the Timeline could be updated? The last entry there is from 2015... WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Almost - The article actually has a number of "soft content flags" - for example, the timeline section that WhatAreFrogs? mentioned has "[much more, please add]" at the end. The 'General Fan Comments About the Site' section also has a "[we need a lot more comments here! please add]" note at the end. Because these aren't official content flags, they slip under the radar, but obviously aren't great on a featured article.
I can fix these ones up, but it's not the first time I've noticed this, and I'm thinking that we might need some specific rules about "unofficial content flags" in Featured Article nominations. - enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Update: I added to the timeline a bit, moved the comment that was in General Fan Comments and added a section for reactions to the Open Doors import. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Iolokus Series

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC) As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. This may be one (if not the) most controversial fan fiction in Philedom.

Yes: I am just wondering if we can get any fan reactions from around the time it was published, one quote mentions that the fic caused heated discussions and flame wars on the usernet boards, it would be nice to have that documented, but maybe it is no longer available or lost to the mists of the the internet. -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I could dig through the archived ATXC and ATX discussions if there are any discussion if the series....any message board discussion might be lost, sadly. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes: There were some 1998 comments about controversy on the page already but they were not labeled very clearly as such. So I fixed that. Plus, I added some more from ATXC. MPH (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, a very interesting fandom classic to feature. One question - at the beginning of the Series Overview section, the page says, "Written in The X-Files". This currently wikilinks to the X-Files fandom main page, but was that the intent? Is it meant to mean it was written in X-Files fandom or for a mailing list called "The X-Files"? The wording seems quite specific so I thought I'd check. - enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed it. MPH (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Gen

Nominated by enchantedsleeper (talk) on November 11, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

A thorough page on a fic genre that cuts across fandoms, but sometimes gets overlooked. I think it would make a good topic to feature. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes interssting article. I added a few more wikilinks. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes! I reorganized it a little to make it easier to read and I think it could use more recent meta if there's any laying around — I looked very briefly but could not find any :( — but it's a great article. - Hoopla (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Assassin's Creed Unity Lack of Female Playable Character

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on September 15, 2018. As of this writing the page has a detailed intro, and I don't think Fanlore has ever had a featured article about video game fandom.

Yes - Very good article with commentary from both sides. I feel it could do with some context though, maybe a reference to Gamergate and the fact that female gamers were (and still are) open to harassment despite making up 50% of gamers. Also there's 4 articles in the references list that appear not to be linked to any text in the page itself.--Auntags (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes Interesting topic and article. I added some wikilinks. Assassin's Creed and Video Game meta could use some love... WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes - great page and definitely worth a feature. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes - This is SUCH an interesting article but I think it needs a little work. Most pressing, I don't think it actually has an introduction at all, or rather its introduction is only the first sentence, and then it launches right into the meat of things. Ideally, the introduction (everything above the content box) should be a few concise paragraphs that sum up the topic of the article, and all the nitty-gritty details should be under the Table of Contents. Most of what's above the TOC now should be under it, and probably separated into a background section about female representation in the Assassin's Creed games plus maybe context re:gamersgate like Auntags has suggested, and then a second section with information about E3 2014 (also, E3 is a gaming convention, right?) and the developers' excuses. I don't really know enough about the subject to be able to help make those changes, though. I think slightly detailed background about the games and the women characters in them is probably especially a good idea because we're so sparse on video game info in the first place. I also am very impressed with the amount of quotes in this, but I wish they were more often in quote boxes because with the long ones it gets kind of hard to follow what's happening. - Hoopla (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I think I have all the quotes, within the main body of the article, all within boxes now. As for the intro, I might need help from someone within the fandom, or someone who is just really good at intros, they are not my strong suit. -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I restructured the article a little to have a context/background section and put most of what was previously in the intro into the main body of the article. I think it's still missing a good bit of context, though (A, do we want a discussion of fannish response to Assassin's Creed: Unity? and B, is the Unity section maybe kind of jumping the gun by going directly to Ubisoft's reaction, without any discussion of the build-up/fannish expectations for the game or the actual contents of the E3 presentation?) and also I'm not sure that media responses and fannish responses should be folded into the same section like they are now; in other articles I think we keep media response and fannish response separate. But, uh, I too am not in this fandom so I'm floundering a little to add the things I think the page needs, content wise, having gotten everything off Wikipedia I thought might help.
The intro itself should be easy to write... if the article is fleshed out enough, because intros should just be proportional summaries of the articles they're introducing, but this article feels like it's missing a lot of stuff and it's hard to separate the fannish reaction from the media reaction and that makes writing an intro for it hard.
Also, do we want an info box for this? If we don't have anything that fits I could just make one. -- Hoopla (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, wait, also, shouldn't the title of this article be "Assassin's Creed: Unity's Lack of Female Playable Character" or "Lack of Female Playable Character in Assassin's Creed: Unity"? - Hoopla (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I've added an infobox and filled out the intro a little bit -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2018
Thanks!! This is really coming along. I think the intro is good and we'll be able to complete it once we have some more fan response stuff to summarize. - Hoopla (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, article starter here. I agree the page title ought to be changed. And yeah, I've wanted to do something about the linked articles that aren't used for direct referencing. I'm going to work on that a little now. Assassin J (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Alright, I "cleaned out" the bare links that weren't used as refs, and added stuff about our newest female protag, Kassandra. -Assassin J (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I have added a bit to show that people were already pressing Ubi for women protagonists in the main AC games even a year before the Unity controversy. I agree with Hoopla that we could use some content on the fandom expectations for/reaction to Unity. I'll dig for some when I'm back on my main computer later this week. (They did have a major female NPC/love interest, but she was killed near the end of the game.) -Assassin J (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
It's looking great! I'll see if I can find anything about it, too. Also, do you think it's worth it to have a separate fandom page for Unity, or all all of the games pretty much the same fandom? Because having red links for all the games is a little... bad looking. If you think we shouldn't have separate fandom pages for all the games, we can either direct those red links to the wikipedia articles or make subsections for each of the major installments on the fandom page. - Hoopla (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Nah we can definitely do fanlore pages for each game, I'll put that on my to do list as well. - Assassin J (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, Assassin's Creed: Unity page created. I think I hit most of the main points. As for this article, yeah I really feel that a name change is in order. The current one is kinda iffy just on grammar if nothing else. Plus there is now quite a bit of content there about the female protags/lack of female protags in the non-Unity AC games. Perhaps something more broad would work? Female Protagonists in Assassin's Creed Series? (Debate on) Female Representation in Assassin's Creed Series? WomenAreTooHardToAnimate? I don't know; I'm super open to input. -Assassin J (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
My vote would go to 'Female Protagonists in Assassin's Creed: Unity' or 'Female Protagonists in Assassin's Creed', because that game/series is still the jumping-off point for the page, and something much more general might make the page read oddly. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:33, 09 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, guys - seems like the discussion around this has died down. Shall we move the page renaming discussion to the article's Talk page and feature this under its current name for now? (We excerpt the intro on the front page, so the page title won't actually show up in the excerpt anyway). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I got sucked into NaNoWriMo and forgot about this. I think Female Protagonists in Assassin's Creed: Unity sounds good and clear, but this discussion should probably be put on the talk page whether we change the title now or later. Also, changed my answer up above! The page looks great, I think it's obviously ready. - Hoopla (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Last Outpost Of All That Is

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on November 06, 2018. As of this writing the page has an intro and no content flags.

A fic considered a classic and must read in Supernatual and Wincest fandom, that inspired the creation of fanworks. I also thought it might be nice to feature something about Supernatural fandom, because it is such a juggernaut and I don't believe we have featured anything about this fandom before.
Yes - interesting fic, nice page that seems to cover it well. I added a line to the intro that spells out its significance a little bit more. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes seems to be a very important fic in the SPN fandom. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes it's an interesting page! - Hoopla (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Recursive Fanfiction

Nominated by enchantedsleeper (talk) on November 22, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Detailed page with a comprehensive intro, which deals with an interesting pan-fandom type of fanwork. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I wrote the entire page so I think I'm biased. I'd be very interested in anything people think the page needs to be better because revision is a never-ending process for me. I would also like to have the opinion/thoughts of someone who participated in fandom in the 90s and earlier about if fic of fic was common/how it was talked about or, you know, anything. - Hoopla (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes: Overall it's an informative article, but I find the beginning section a little hard to read. I can't pinpoint exactly what's wrong, maybe it is just the flow or wording, but it is not enough to stop is from being a featured article. -- Kingstoken (talk 15:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. This might just be my dyslexia talking, but I think the problem with the intro is just that it has a lot of dense sentence structure and larger paragraphs. We could go through and do some surface readability edits? But overall I think it looks great and it's a really interesting topic. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I've rewritten the intro! How's that look? The page as a whole might still need some readability edits and I'd hella encourage people to do so. I'll also go in and add archive links for everything later.
I'm also wondering if people think I should expand more on the TV Trops conversation that coined the term and if anyone has any suggestions for other fannish terms with overlap? - Hoopla (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The intro looks great now, and much easier to read -- Kingstoken (talk 20:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Squick

Nominated by Shadowkeeper on 2 December 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Informative post with discussion and perspectives.
Yes: But it does have citiation needed tag, so that would have to be cleared up -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:16, 02 December 2018 (UTC)
Fixed! Along with some initial clean up of proscriptivist language. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes: I really like how this page goes over squick versus trigger, and the fannish uses throughout the years. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes! A really awesome, detailed page. I enjoyed reading and learning from it. -enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Was Fanfic Any Different in the Olden Days?

Nominated by Shadowkeeper on 2 December 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Lots of fan reaction and discussion.
Yes: Wish there was a bit more in the Femslash section, but other wise very interesting. Also, it is pretty ponderous in length, if we could find a way to collapse some of the sections, so people could click if they wanted to read more, would be helpful -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:25, 02 December 2018
Yes I'll get to work on Kingstoken's suggestion about the collapsable sections; that shouldn't be too hard. Can we figure out how to redo the sections with little summaries of the topics? It would let us move the internal links out of the section headers and maybe cut down the length of some of the section titles. - Hoopla (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Kids today, they don't know how good/easy they have it nowadays. Not reading through 2 pages of disclaimers or being sued by the IP owner ;-) WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes - I think this will make a good one to end the year with. I've added to the intro, which was a bit too sparse for a Featured Article, and also added a section at the beginning talking about the original post and what it covered, because there was a weird lack of any detail about the original Ask and response that sparked it all off. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2018
Nomination approved.

Rejected nominations

Genderswap

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on November 19, 2017. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Very comprehensive article about a popular trope, and deals with the controversy around it well. enchantedsleeper (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. MPH
Maybe. It's an interesting page, but I don't think it's ready yet. Parts of it seem very outdated in terms of examples and what follows the word "recent". See the Trans Issues section. I also added comments to the talk page about confusing language and disorganization.--aethel (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Not yet. I agree with aethel. Oxymora (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Hesitant yes It has great potential, but it is in need of an update.^^^ Victorywings (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes It definitely needs some updates, but that can be part of the Featured Article promotion. Mlemley 04:02 8 January 2018 UTC
Yes looks very comprehensive to me. Not sure if something could be added how the trans community thinks about this kind of stories (do they welcome them or do they find them insulting? etc). Especially tumblr seem to have a lot of people that are like to name things "problematic", but I'm not well-versed in that regards. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been a few months since the nomination; too many objections and hesitant yeses.

Hobama

Nominated by User:aethel on 4 February 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Needs improvement. The page has empty sections on it - which I think were added since nomination, but it does seem like it needs fleshing out a fair bit before it can be featured. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe as long as its still missing significant content, I added some links, as well the {{Expand}} content flag WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Only because I can't wait to see the comments on social media! --Mlemley (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Not yet, as long as the content flags remain. --Oxymora (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Not yet: still feels like it could use more content/further expansion. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Not yet, I agree with everyone else --Somefangirl (talk) 7:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been a few months since the nomination; too many objections and content flags on the page.

The Romulan Commander (female)

Nominated by MPH (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC) on March 4, 2018.

Maybe - Interesting example of a character been characterized by fanon, but vid section is empty. Maybe someone could add examples, or remove if that section doesn't apply.--Auntags (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Not yet, I don't like that the intro basically starts with a disambig in the text, see talk page for suggestions. --Oxymora (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Follow-up: I made a disambiguation for the two characters, but my vote remains not yet, because while looking through the links to the page I figured that the page could actually be expanded on quite a bit... --Oxymora (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree not yet; the page has a lot of potential but it lacks context, such as information on when and how she appears in the episode. Some of the sections also feel incomplete and need more detail to flesh them out. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:23 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure. I added 4 Fanvids. Seems like there be some shipping with Spock and her (based on the vids), maybe this could be added to the page? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Not yet. I think this page needs more fleshing out before we feature it - as is, lots of good examples of fanworks featuring the character, but not enough context for the fan response. Before featuring, I'd love to see more fan discussion/meta, ideally, and a more detailed intro. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been a few months since the nomination; too many objections and issues with the page.

Zayn Malik

Nominated by user:aethel on 9 May 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Maybe I'd say it's 2/3 of the way to being a featured article - lots of interesting detail on the page. But the introduction as it stands needs work, because that's the bit we pull out and put on the front page of Fanlore. "he was the prettiest member of the boy band One Direction" is such a strange and unsubstantiated statement - we can't put that on the front page xD Also, a lot of the details cited in the body of the article, like the rumours of drug use, need citations - these are dangerous allegations to be throwing around without a source, even if they're well known within the fandom. enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Not yet. Definitely agree re: the need for an expanded intro, and I think many of the sections need more information/citations. In general, I'm a little ambivalent about featuring this page - but with some work, maybe it could be a good it. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with others who have said it needs a better intro -- - Kingstoken (talk) 23:23, 03 June 2018 (UTC)
Not Yet. I think the intro feels too short and I don't like the "see Wikipedia" for details. I'm missing some more content in regards that he and Payne seem to have been much more famous in the fandom and in media and why that could be in the intro. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not yet The intro and tin hat sections are really lacking. --Mlemley (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been a few months since the nomination; too many objections and issues with the page.

Virtual Season

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on June 4, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I think this is a really cool topic (and not something I'd come across until very recently) and the page is quite comprehensive, though most of it is taken up by a list of examples. Do people think it's worthy of a feature? Does anything need adding first? I'd love to hear thoughts. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: interesting topic, but it still feels like the article needs something, maybe some fan reaction, I'm not sure -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:48, 04 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Kingstoken, it needs some fan reactions. MPH MPH (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe I also would like to see some Fannish reactions there as well. How are Virtual Seasons seen in some of fandoms, for example if shows get rebooted later. Maybe some of this can be found in some of the articles linked in the list on the article? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes I'd also like to see some meta here in regards to this. --Mlemley (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been few months since the nomination, and the page still needs work.

Fan Run

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? onJune 25, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. My first article nomination, ever. I worked quite a lot on this, please let me know what you think.

Not yet. Interesting general article, but needs to be thoroughly SPaG beta'd. Greer Watson (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it is such a broad topic that the article doesn't quite feel cohesive enough for me. -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:46, 04 July 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant yes It has the bones of what could be a great article, and mentions some of the sites that caused problems in the past, but I think it could do with mentioning some of the events as well, such as 2009 GeoCities Shutdown or Strikethrough and Boldthrough
Rejected. It's been few months since the nomination, and the issues with the page still need addressing.

Drabble

Nominated by Shadowkeeper on 2 December 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

The fanfic format.
No, because... This article has previously been approved as a Featured Article - it was nominated in June 2017. At some point I think we might open up previously-nominated Featured Articles for re-featuring, but it's not been that long since this one was featured, and there are other pages on the wiki that we can feature ahead of this one.
Also, we're working on making it easier to find and browse the Featured Article archives, as I realise they're not that accessible currently ;) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thought this one had been nominated before, if you scroll down to the bottom of the page you see both the tag and category "Previous Featured Article" -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:12, 02 December 2018
Rejected: Ineligible to be featured again so soon.
✪ This article is part of Fanlore Featured Articles. You can find out more about these below.
How To & About About Featured ArticlesHow to Nominate
Past Featured Articles 201920182017
Featured Article Nominations 201920182017