Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2019)

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this page

This page lists Featured Article nominations that were posted on the Fanlore main page in 2019 or that were rejected during 2019 due to insufficient yes votes. For current nominations, visit Fanlore: Featured Article Nominations.

Approved nominations


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

Recently updated and up to date.
Yes: A well filled out article, I added some links. However, I do think the common tropes in G/B fanfiction needs to be filled out a little more, it mentions a few tropes, but dosn't go into any detail. Also, I have complained about too many Start Trek nominees in the past, but I think this one, if approved, would probably be featured next year so it wouldn't add to the five we've had this year -- Kingstoken (talk 22:16, 02 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes: Very interesting and detailed page. I understand the temptation to avoid ST nominations. But when there's a revival of a fandom and a ship, it's a brand new to many and I think its important to highlight. I added a Shippers guide to the galaxy meta vid on this pairing. --Auntags (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes: It's a good artticle. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


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

A well known fanvid
Yes: If a little more about how it went viral could be added this would be great, especially because it wasn't on YouTube originally. But other than that it is interesting -- Kingstoken (talk 22:29, 02 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes: Although I also feel it's missing a bit on why it wen viral and where. Also almost half the fan reactios are not in Egnlish, so it seems it might have had some larger inpact outside the anglophone world? I think I even rememberind seeing a bit of this on morning televison in Germany as well when the 300 boom as huge. But then the movie inspired lots of memes... WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes: I agree it would be good to get more detail on how it went viral, but my search hasn't turned up anything so far. Still, I think it's a strong page and subject to feature. I also added another English-language comment to the fan reactions section. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Horizon Fan Club's 1999 Discussion Regarding Adult Fanworks

Nominated by MPH (talk) on December 25, 2018. A "timely" 1999 discussion.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes: -- Somefangirl (talk) 5:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes - very interesting, and I agree it would be a timely one to feature. I've made some light edits to the page, mostly around consistency when referring to the email leak. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. My only thought is that the formatting of the first bit of text under "The Proposal" is a little weird, but I wasn't sure how to edit it - if anyone could take a look, that might be good. But not a big issue, and it's a great article. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I gave the formatting in the proposal section a try. Not sure if it's better now? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the indentations definitely make it look clearer! I've also bolded the text to try and make it more evident that it's an email header and not just... random html we added by accident, which is what I thought when I first saw it xD (I tried adding code formatting first, but while the font looked great, the box around it did not...) -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Friend Book

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on January 03, 2018. Interesting way in which some fans found each other pre-internet.

Yes MPH (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes! It's cute and has lots of pictures Somefangirl (talk) 5:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This is so cool! And featuring it might prompt fans to add more information to it - I think it's good to feature as-is, but would be great to see more fan recollections. Nice! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes The pre-internet stuff is also so fascinating. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes - Not absolutely necessary, but the addition of info about when this practice faded would be nice. Maybe it can be related to current practices like Kpop pen pals. —caes (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes. It's a very sweet part of fandom history I wasn't aware of & was glad to learn more about. I think it's a great choice for a feature. – Gem (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. My immediate response to reading this page was to send it to all my friends. Punkpixieprince (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Help Haiti

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on December 17, 2018. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes MPH (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Somefangirl (talk) 5:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes! :D - Fandomgeographies (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I love Fandom charity articles! :-) WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Gendry Still Rowing

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on February 03, 2019. As of this writing, this article has no content flags

Have we ever featured a meme? I thought it might be nice to highlight the more humorous side of fandom.
  • Yes! I think we could expand the article a little before it's featured, though. A description of the meme being referenced would be within fanlore's scope, I think, especially if we add reactions like the ones in the article used as reference. I also wonder if there's non-manip fanworks, like drawings or gifs? But I don't know where I'd look for fanworks because I'm not in this fandom. - Hoopla (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I added the drawing from the 2014 Reddit thread Kingstoken (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I added a bunch of stuff! I think it could use more fan reactions and probably someone who's seen the episodes I described should make sure I didn't mess that up. Maybe a very quick page for Gendry would be good so that his name isn't a redlink?
Also I was thinking about maybe replacing the drawing from the 2014 reddit thread with a screencap instead (because it feels like the picture title is a very integral part of it? Considering the rowboat drawing isn't specifically of Gendry) especially if that's the picture that's going to end up being used if this nomination is approved. - Hoopla (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: Ah you're already on that page thing! \o/ - Hoopla (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes! The edits made today are really helpful, thanks y'all. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. I agree, the new categories added news coverage are great. –caes (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes to highlighting the humorous side of fandom :D And this looks like a great article to do it with. –enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

So I’m on AO3 ...(the forgotten history of disclaimers)

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on October 18, 2018. As of this writing the page has no content flags.

Viral Tumblr post that covers a lot of fandom history
Hesitant yes: I really like this topic and think it makes a great subject for a Featured Article. The only reason I'm hesitant is that it feels like the page could use some additional structure to make it more reader-friendly. Having said that, it's already subdivided by topic and I know how hard it is to structure something that's literally a conversation, never mind one that took place on Tumblr over a long period of time. If everyone else is happy with the structure - or doesn't think it needs anything extra - then I am *thumbs up* -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2018
Maybe: I like this as a topic but I really think the structure needs to be improved. Maybe some way to thread the chosen comments, so it's not constantly "Y's reply to X person" such that you're scrolling up and down to see who's who? --Math-is-magic (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
We could use the thing I have at the bottom of my talk page? I could also try to come up with a New Template but I'm not sure what it would look like. - Hoopla (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Not Yet: I'd love to have this article featured but I agree with Enchantedsleeper that it needs structure and with Math that it's too hard to read. So far, to help fix this, I've made Template:NQuote and Template:NQuote2 and I've switched all the comment quotes over to NQuote and started nesting things but it's a lot or work — almost none of these comments have citations so to find out who's actually replying to who I had to go hunting for tumblr posts. So far I have only completed the Anne McCaffery/Pern section and it took me all day even though I didn't even do anything with most of the reference tags. All of the "x replied to y" information is about x reblogging from y, which unfortunately makes it really hard to follow the conversations as they actually occur because there could be thousands of silent reblogs between one comment and the next. I'd welcome opinions on how the nesting looks and also help sourcing all of these quotes.
I also wonder if we should cut down the number of comments in some sections (I think the pern one is maybe overly long?) or do some summarizing or... something? - Hoopla (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I vote yes because it covers a very important part of fandom history on a very broad base. I also added/fixed some wiki links. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes' MPH (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I also vote yes. While additional structure makes pages easier to read, ultimately I think that fanlore should focus on featuring all the types of things that we have, and deep dives like this with lots of perspectives are really special. With the tumblr purge having happened, I also feel as if it'll be a lot harder to track everything down -- maybe we could put a banner up and ask people for help sourcing? Somefangirl (talk) 5:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Changing my vote to yes now that the format has been changed. – caes (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Ring of Soshern

Nominated by MPH on September 15, 2018. It is one of the earliest circulated slash media stories, and the hook into the highly controversial print zine Alien Brothers is also interesting. MPH (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes this is a very detailed page. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes very interesting, one question, do we know if the author was upset about the unauthorized publication? The article says she never intended it for publication, but it doesn't really specify her feelings after the the fact. I am also going to mention, because someone else is bound to, that we have a lot of feature articles about Star Trek, I know it is kind of unavoidable considering how much apart of fandom history they are, but if this article is approved this will be, I think, the fifth featured article this year related to Star Trek fandom. -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2018
The Alien Brothers page has a tiny bit more info on that, though it doesn't mention how the author felt. I'll add a cross-link to the page, though. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2018
Maybe not It's a very interesting page, but... well, maybe if it's the last Star Trek nomination of the year? But I just don't think it's good advertising to overly favor one fandom (especially an old western media fandom) in the featured article section and we should start thinking about that. If we want to show off more interesting old Star Trek things, adding some kind of section on fannish history would be great and allow the Fanlore social media accounts to show off more than one article a week... but with Featured Article nominations the spread should be a little more even, I think. -- Hoopla (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes! I think Hoopla made a good point, but it's been a few months since then... - Somefangirl (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved

Coffee Shop AU

Nominated by Punkpixieprince on January 24, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: A good history of the genre, but I wish there was a little more about how insanely popular the genre has become in recent years, there have even been news media articles written about it (I'll see if I can find some). Also, there is a citation needed tag, so that would have to be cleaned up -- Kingstoken (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes: changing my vote to a yes, because of the additions to the article and added citation Kingstoken (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I edited the article and added some content that I think works to address the above - but I'm still unable to find a good way to cite that claim re: popularity becoming widespread by 2008. I added a note about that to the talk page, and I think that once we've sorted that out, this should be good to go. Fun topic! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Added citations for this - thanks to Hoopla and Kingstoken! - Fandomgeographies (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes! After the edits, this looks quite comprehensive. Thank you, Fandomgeographies! Somefangirl (talk) 06:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes Looks good now. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes Good page and good topic. – caes (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.


Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on February 11, 2018. As of this writing the page has no content flags.

Disney fan vid that went viral, and has over 6 million views on Youtube (also I think this would be the first possible featured article in Disney fandom)
Yes: I added three more reactions and reformatted the reactions section. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Looks good! - Hoopla (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Great page. - Fandomgeographies (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes - what a great article to feature! I expanded the intro a bit so that it stands on its own, and also added details of the audio used for the vid. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes!: I created some pages for other works that inspired this vid, so it can lead to more about the AMV community. – caes (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Fanzine Archives: A Library for the Preservation & Circulation of Fan-created Material

Nominated by Fandomgeographies on February 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Very interesting and great pictures. -- Somefangirl (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Great article. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Can info be moved around to make the history of the archives and the fandom context more distinct? – caes (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Rearranged the page, so changing my vote. – caes (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Bruce Banner Syndrome

Nominated by Fandomgeographies on February 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

No. It's a solid page, but I think first Archive_of_Our_Own#Filtering and Filtering Tools have to be updated with more info on the history of AO3's filtering tools, especially the change to filters in June 2018, which definitely affects BB Syndrome. Hoopla (thank you!) gathered great sources on this subject at Talk:Filtering Tools. – caes (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Uh, I'm gonna stay out of the discussion about whether this is ready or not because I'm definitely biased, but the new filtering tools don't have any effect on bruce banner syndrome. With bruce banner syndrome, the problem is at the user end, tagging fics that sometimes just mention bruce banner (or another tag) in one sentence. Being able to filter things out doesn't fix that problem. Uh, if that's not clear from the page, I guess I should fix that, though? - Hoopla (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Changing my vote – caes (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I am saying yes, because even though the filtering system has improved greatly it doesn't completely overcome this problem. Also, even if it had been fixed completely it doesn't change the fact that this was historically a problem that fans used to face when using A03 -- Kingstoken (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: Interesting article. I think mentioning that AO3 has tried to improve this should be included on the page (even if still fails) for the reccords. Also does doesn't suffer from that? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC) is typically cited as a site that doesn't suffer from this problem because there is an explicit limit on the number of characters you can "tag" - thereby preventing people from tagging characters who don't have an important role in the fic. Also, AO3 didn't really set out to improve this situation with the new filters. The filters were designed to help people better find fics that they want to read, sure, by allowing them to filter out certain tags and be more precise with what they can filter. But if a character is tagged, they'll show up regardless of how you filter. That's what causes "Bruce Banner Syndrome" - overtagging. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I feel this issue deeply and I didn't know there was a word for it, so I love this. Should we mention that the current only "workaround" is to type ""Bruce Banner" -"Steve Rogers/Tony Stark"" or something similar in the search box? It's true the new filters don't mitigate the problem, and so that's the only thing people looking for minor characters or pairings can currently do. IDK if that falls within the scope of this page, but since people were so keen to discuss the filter system I thought I'd bring it up. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added a few lines about AO3's filtering system and the extent to which it does and doesn't address the issue of Bruce Banner Syndrome. For what it's worth, I don't think being able to filter out major ships helps a whole lot, because there might be a Bruce Banner-centric work with, say, Stony tagged as a side pairing (imagine that! xD) and you would be filtering it out with this kind of search. It also doesn't do anything to increase the already-small pool of available BB-centric fics, or to stop people from tagging Bruce in fics where he barely appears. But the page now reflects that it's become slightly easier to search for these fics with the new filters. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Sharing Deleted Fanworks

Nominated by Caessius on February 20, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes, a great page and very informative. I just read it straight through because it's that interesting! I updated the language around orphaning fanworks on AO3, because the page previously made it sound like AO3 and orphaning were still new, when they've been around for some time now. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Good page. I never knew Tumblr reblogs survived deletion!! --Auntags (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This page ended up sending me down a bit of a rabbit hole b/c I didn't know what Gafiating and Fanac meant, so it's a great page in a technical wiki sense as well as an information sense. Also I learned we have a Fannish Regrets page which made me chuckle, because mood. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Audiofic Archive

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on January 27, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

A good page about a very important podfic archive. We may need to confirm whether the Archive really is still active (it doesn't appear to have been active since 2016), but otherwise it seems up-to-date. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes: It looks like the the last fics posted were in February 2017, do we know if they are still accepting fics? -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2019
Yes. (Based off this exchange on Twitter, I think it's pretty much inactive?) - Fandomgeographies (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: A solid article about a significant archive, but I think it would be a lot stronger with some quotes from archive maintainers, especially from 2016. – caes (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I got some good quotes from various maintainers in 2016, and other volunteers. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet: the infobox mentions years 2016-2017 there seems to be not information on the article what happened after 2016? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I've built up info about the crash and the aftermath, so I think that's good. I added a Reactions & Reviews that I hope can have quotes to express how widely used and convenient the archive was. – caes (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I added a ton of reaction throughout the archive's history, and even more crash aftermath information and reactions. I think we're good here, honestly. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Changing my vote because I made quite a few updates and added a ton of reactions. I'm still going to go over and fix cosmetic things so it reads better (and I have to put the formatting of the quotes back, which I purposefully stripped so I could move things around), but content-wise I don't think we can argue this page is incomplete anymore. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.


Nominated by Fandomgeographies on February 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: Is this the only use of this word in fandom? For actor ships? Because I could have sworn when I was active on r/asoiaf back in the day they used to use the term in connection to fan theories, like someone would would post a fan theory, and someone would respond with "lets put on our tin hats", or something of that variety. -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The page has been updated with various uses in fandom, and the origin and spread of the word. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes I would like to see more examples for the second definition where people use this term to refer to "fans who deliberately ignore parts of a canon they dislike in order to continue enjoying the media, for example bad writing, questionable relationship choices, etc." or at lease some kind of source. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This has been added to the page, but I'm not entirely sure what definition you're referring to here. Do you have extant uses? --Punkpixieprince (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks like the wording had been amended to a better description, so changing my vote to Yes. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Changing my vote. The fictional tinhatting ships have been added, and some of the other concerns about the page have been addressed. While it might not be perfect yet, I'd say this is a strong article overall, with only small gaps. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.


Nominated by Caessius on March 20, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: But it has a citation needed tag so that would need to be cleared first -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, looks good. I addressed the Citation Needed tag with a relevant LJ post and also added some detail from that post to the Remix Challenge section lower down. The post also has a ton of links which I need to rifle through at some point and add to Fanlore! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes Very interesting article about a very important fan activity. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes. It could use a few more examples of remixed works, but that could easily be rectified by making it a featured article. As an article on remixes, it's solid. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Save Ianto Jones

Nominated by Cancennau on March 27th 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. (It also happens to be the campaign's 10th anniversary in July, which may spark some interest)

I say Yes because I don't think we haven't featured any Torchwood/Dr. Who stuff recently and the page is decent enough. I also have a soft spot for fan campaigns, so I might biased. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes – I'd like to add some pictures to show the widespread involvement in such a fan campaign. – caes (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes it's good and detailed! --Punkpixieprince (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes Agree with everyone above me! somefangirl (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The GDP Series

Nominated by punkpixieprince on March 20, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Here's my pitch: This fic became a fandom juggernaut and popularized a lot of subtropes in Sentinels and Guides are Known fic and Sentinel AUs as a whole. It's thus part of the explanation for how Sentinel AU tropes look so different than actual Sentinel canon, which I think is an important thing to highlight. Also, the fic (and its discourse) is kind of wild, so it's fun to learn about. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Almost - I think the primers should go with the external links and the "about the series" section should be expanded a little. Like, it looks like there are 45 stories online at the first primer link — but that's not all of them, right? Do we have a definitive count for how many there were or for how many have been taken down? Also, all the fan comments seem to be able the controversies and that section is GREAT but usually we have general comments, too. Maybe we could use more general comments (if they exist?) to beef up the "about the series" section. Also, the influence section could be much better. Does anyone have examples of other fics that have used those tropes laying around? Can anyone speak to how Sentinel fic was different before this series, if it was different? Also, all those redlinks for the vocab... if we can't make at least stub pages for them all really quick, then we should define them on the page, because I've never read a Sentinel AU so I have no idea what's going on. Also, maybe we could use Template:Annotated Fanwork on the inspired work and give more details about them, if we can't work them into the tropes section or something. Are any of them recursive? Finally, I wish there were more comments from the author on the page — the only one is hidden in the references, and that seems like a shame, although I know we maybe just can't find more quotes from her. (...also despite my laundry list of things that could be improved, this is such a great and interesting page!) - Hoopla (talk) 03:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
...Oh yeah, also, there's no dates in the infobox D: The author's 2016 comment says it was written "ten years ago" but there are comments from 1999, so...? - Hoopla (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added the dates to the infobox; I'm pretty sure the author just misspoke or miscalculated when she said "ten years ago", since there are dates on her website from 2001 and, as you say, fan comments from 1999 onwards.
As for the other edits, I'd like to suggest that we pick that conversation back up on the Talk page since it looks like it'll be quite an in-depth editing job that needs attention from someone who knows the fandom well. They're all very valid points, but we can still continue to work on this article after it's featured! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:29, 05 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes from me. Has quite a lot fandom perspective and covers the topic quite well. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Telephones and Fandom

Nominated by Fandomgeographies on February 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Concerns raised in the discussions have been adressed by more recent edits.

I think the "Phones in Fanworks" section to be expanded to include more about how the ways in which phones are used or avoided, particularly in fanfic. I've added to Talk:Telephones and Fandom. – caes (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I've separated Phones in Fanworks into a different page. This page is now primarily related to fan communication and doesn't have any glaring holes, although the ubiquity of smartphones and apps could still be expanded on. – caes (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I hesitate because it seems to feature two different topics, how fans used to use the phone to collaborate and contact each, and how phones are depicted in fanworks, and I am not sure if they merge so well -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I think quite a lot of fans nowadays use customized phone cases depicting fan art for their mobile devices and their fandoms, this is something I definitively would like see included there. Also maybe WhatsApp group as new channel for fannish connections? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I have added what I mentioned above in the 21 Century section, but left the {{ExpandArticle}} notice for the time being because I'm not sure if I managed to address the point good enough? Anything else missing since the advent of smart phone in fandom that I didn't cover or what could be expanded? If that notice is removed, I change my vote to Yes WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I tried to add a little bit about smartphone use w.r.t cameras and app usage. It's a little redundant with the Apps section, so I don't know what to do about that. I think it's good enough, but have left the {{ExpandArticle}} up for others to consider. I believe separating out Phones in Fanworks has addressed the above concerns, so it'd be great if caes and Kingstoken could take a second look? somefangirl (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Us (multifandom vid)

Nominated by caes on May 1, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro.

The Examples Wanted tag is just for the list of fandoms that are included in the video, which I'm unable to identify by myself. – caes (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: It is good article, but there is something about the intro paragraph that I don't like, but I can't put my finger on what it is exactly, but probably something about the wording. Also, it would be good to have at least a partial list of included fandoms, I'll try and add a few, but I am afraid I couldn't watch a lot of the vid because it bothered my eyes -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In relation to the intro, I found it very difficult to read, because it used a lot of compound sentences with semi-colons. All around a very interesting and detailed page. I'd say yes, if the intro was changed. --Auntags (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes: changing vote to yes because intro paragraph has been changed, however I am sure there are still missing fandoms from the featured fandoms box, so if anyone can add them that would be helpful -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Looks like the mentioned issues were resolved by now. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Dead Dog Party

Nominated by Fandomgeographies on February 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Maybe; I think it needs more quotes/examples to illustrate what the parties were like -- Kingstoken (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: The first time I heard about that. Would be nice to know if this still a thing in recent cons (pro con and fan cons?). WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Added to the page to say that this activity is only done at fan cons. MPH (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Changing my vote Yes then. I think it gives a good overview over the subject, even if the page as not as detailed as other - but given our somewhat broader approach on Featured Articles I guess some topics can be still properly featured. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes! I was very interested to find out about this tradition. I've added a little more detail here and there and added a section about auctions. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes. Still concerned that it lacks detail. It would help if more fan comments about organizing and attending parties were added . – caes (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Having a few more fan comments would be a nice addition to the page but I don't think it lacks any necessary details at this point. Gem (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Avon: A Terrible Aspect

Nominated by Caessius on May 18, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes -- I love this page. It shows the differences in how fans perceived characters and how that clashed with the "official" view. It illustrates fans' self-censorship with their reviews when they knew TPTB was reading their comments. It is an example of an actor attempting to write fanfic about his own character, and illustrates the fallibility and challenges of TPTB and character interpretation. The novel was published at the beginning of a destructive and far-reaching fan/TPTB collision, a filter that almost everything was run through at that time. MPH (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes -- That is a great article (and it's not that often that someone from behind the camera creates published fan fiction. I can only think of Babylon 5's Claudia Christian who published some B5 book that filled in some canon gaps for her character after the show ended). WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes - A very interesting piece of fandom history. I particularly enjoyed the alternate book titles XD -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Character Bashing

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on March 03, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Not Yet but I would love to see it featured! I think it needs more fan comments and that something about the history of the use of the term in fannish circles would be nice — the earliest I found was 2004, but the phrase "character bashing" was used in a new york times article in the late 90s so fannish usage could certainly have started at least that early. I also think that the notable examples section might benefit from being less of a straight up list and instead have small sections for some of the really notable/interesting examples, then a list of other examples at the end. Like, I think Jar Jar Binks, Wesley Crusher, Harry Potter character bashing in general, and maybe Mineta would all make interesting sub-sections of a couple paragraphs. I could definitely do the Mineta one to give people an example of what I'm thinking.
I also think that the way character bashing is used to further whump/woobies would make a good section? I found some comments on it! Which, yes, by the way, I added a linkspam of relevant meta and discussions on the talk page, but I don't have time to work them in anytime soon. - Hoopla (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Changing my vote b/c the page improvements are great. - Hoopla (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I thin it covers the topic quite well as it is. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I agree that it covers the topic well and I'd love to see it featured. Effietheant (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I agree that a History section would be nice but I don't think we need one before it can be featured. The page doesn't feel like it has any glaring omissions (there is always more that can be added, of course) and it's an interesting topic. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:23, 02 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes It's a good bit of fandom that should be covered as well as it being a well-written article --Lemonflavouredbleach (talk)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by enchantedsleeper on May 20, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

An extremely significant Doctor Who fanvid that became influential in the discussion of canon, and even reached the show's creative team. (Also, watch it - it's amazing). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I added quote boxes. Plus, it would also be nice to have a few more reactions/reviews since it was a viral vid, but it's not absolutely necessary -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I added links to two popular youtube reuploads in the description section that are good sources for comments. – caes (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Hoopla (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on March 17, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Not Yet — I think it's a good idea to feature this fic, but I think the page could use a little more detail and more fan comments? Also, I found this rec on the first page of google results, a 2010 review with a long list of warnings that could give readers an idea of what exactly "it's dark" means. I also think we could use a longer explanation of premise (or maybe a plot synopsis?) and more negative comments. I also don't think most of the author's note is actually relevant to the page. Also, has discussion/people's impressions of this fic changed over the uhhh almost 20 years since it was published? Are other X-Men darkfic influenced by it? Was the fic in anyway a reaction to what was going on in the fandom or with the source material at the time? Like, ideally, I want to learn something new about the X-Men fandom or fandom in general in the 2000s from a featured article like this. - Hoopla (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes Good improvements. - Hoopla (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I think this page is fine as-is. It has a lot of fan comments already (I've added an excerpt from the rec post that Hoopla linked above, with a note in the reference about the triggers, which I don't think need to go on the page itself) and the subject is intriguing - it's enough to make me want to read the fic, even though I know that it's absolutely not my thing xD
While it would be nice to have all the things listed above, I will say that Featured Articles don't necessarily need to be all-singing, all-dancing. I'm not sure it's possible to turn this one page into a snapshot of X-Men/2000s fandom and I don't require that to find it interesting. Also, while not all of the Author's Note is 100% relevant, it doesn't seem long enough to warrant truncating and it also serves to give a sense of the fic and its setting. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: The page is intriguing as is, but agree that it could use a brief synopsis since most people don't have the time to read a 200k+ fic. – caes (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2019‎
Yes since synopsis has been added via a fan comment by now and this seems to be the Iolokus of the X-Men fandom ;-) WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Assassin_J on March 11, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Not Yet: The article has no fan con reports and no reactions from fans. The article has a good history of the event, but I think it needs more to become a feature article -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You know what, that's true. Thanks, I will be on the lookout for more content like what you mentioned.--Assassin J (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Changing vote, because of improvements made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Fannish reactions have been added and I think it's good to feature some gaming topics one in a while. Page should be good enougt for a Featured Article. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
When I attend next weekend I will try to get some good photos for the article too. I have photos from last year but they're not terribly good. --Assassin J (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I've never heard of HavenCon before, but I feel the article gave me some sound basic knowledge of what the event is about. --SecurityBreach (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I have also not heard of this before, and feel the article is a really nice intro to the convention :D --Maitimiel (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes!: -- somefangirl (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Dirty Laundry (Voltron fanfiction)

Nominated by Hoopla on June 6, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Both an important Klance fic and an in-depth example of tumblr witch hunts. Also, the Bee Movie meme. - Hoopla (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: But, I have to admit I still don't quite understand what all the controversy was about -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: A nice bit of recent history, very well documented! And, yes, the Bee Movie meme. -- Everlastingmuse (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I second what everyone above says. Recent, well-documented, and the commentary on later fallout is interesting. -- somefangirl (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Wow. I just read almost the whole page in one sitting and I am fascinated. I almost wish I could read the fic now despite never having been anywhere near this fandom or ship xD It's a great page with so much interesting detail about the fic, the responses to it, and what happened after the backlash. I hope other people can get similarly engrossed :) -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Maitimiel on June 16, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I like how it details the practice of fansubbing in different contexts and through different times.

Yes! This is a common fan activity, and the page is long, well-written, and has interesting external links. I like the legal discussion section. -- somefangirl (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: however I do wish there were less red links in this article -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. It's a well-written article. I particularly loved learning about the behind-the-scenes process of producing fansubs. Gem (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This seems nicely organized, and the legal and meta sections are interesting. --Shadowkeeper (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by SecurityBreach on June 4, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: But I am going to move the canonical examples out of the intro paragraph and put in separate section titled "Mpreg in Canon" -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: (I revised the intro to be less repetitive, and hopefully better. See what you think?) I also moved the phrase "dead link" to the ref itself so it didn't look so glaring. MPH (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I added a line about Mpreg and A/B/O because it seemed like a major oversight to ignore the extent to which Mpreg has now been subsumed into that trope. It could probably use a full section, but I think it's still fine to feature the page as-is, so long as it's mentioned. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes! somefangirl (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Quest (writing)

Nominated by Hoopla on June 6, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I think that this is a really interesting form of fannish activity that not a lot of people know about! I am a little unsure of the "(writing)" disambiguation but when I made the page I went with that because I couldn't think of anything better. - Hoopla (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Interesting, they are kind of like Choose Your Own Adventure stories, but in real time. I had never heard of them before, so they would defiantly be something cool to feature -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Almost There: Very thorough and well-written, but I didn't really understand what a quest was like until I googled Bard Quest and started reading the examples listed. Maybe screenshots and images on the page would help. – caes (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I've added a couple of screenshots as visual examples. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Well-written, thorough, and the history is quite interesting. Also covers a section of fandom that fanlore often doesn't touch, judging by the mentioned sites. -- somefangirl (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I hadn't heard of this type of fan writing before reading this page, and it was laid out to give a nice introduction. Some of the examples of popular works have links to the pieces, so people can find them easily. --Shadowkeeper (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I can also say I'd never come across this before, though it reminds me of forum RPs. The influence from Homestuck is pretty interesting, as are the fannish examples. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Paradigm of Uncertainty

Nominated by MPH (talk) on June 8, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. It's an early Harry Potter fic, one that had a big part in defining the genre and fandom MPH (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes: I am not sure I like how the Legacy section is formatted, but overall a well filled out article -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I moved the info in that section to the review area. I like that better, too. MPH (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Featuring old HP fics are always a good idea! My one concern is that the listing of fics under "this story in context" is a little confusing given it's not really a page about those other fics. I don't mind if we include them but maybe if we put them in paragraph format it wouldn't look so authoritative and we could give more context for why their inclusion is necessary? Even the mention of the other authors in the intro is a little jarring, in that they seem to get as much attention as things about the fic itself. Not sure how other ppl feel? -- somefangirl (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Good suggestions. I removed the line from the intro about other authors entirely, as it's repeated later. And I moved the Inspired Fics section to the bottom of the page. Hopefully, this is better. MPH (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Very interesting to learn about such an early and influential classic. I made some minor edits and changes to the page order, including moving the genre section to Reactions & Reviews and rewording some subheads. I also added a line about its influence on other classics to the intro. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

It's a Fanmade World: From One Direction to Soderbergh

Nominated by Caessius on April 10, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. A great read as a piece of news media and fandom discussion.

Yes: There are a few red links I would like articles made for, especially that America Captain and perhaps for the writer Anna Todd, but overall a solid article -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Solid intro, lots of links (even if some lead off Fanlore!), and a lot of interesting fan commentary from different parts of fandom (or at least different hangout places). somefangirl (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Almost there: I feel like the reams of fan commentary could use some organisation by topic rather than just platform. I started organising the FFA comments by topic (which was quite an easy job) and then looked at the huge wall of Tumblr comments and was too exhausted to carry on. xD Do other people think that organising by topic would be useful, or is it just me? If yes, should we group by topic regardless of platform, or divide by platform and then subdivide by topic? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:28, 05 May 2019 (UTC)
Changing my vote to yes because moving many of the fan comments to more specific articles has made this unnecessary. Also, I think the balance of the article has been improved - though since two of the essays in this collection got a lot more fan comments, I also think it's fine to have more emphasis on them. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:08, 07 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Not too fond of the red link in the into paragraphs either, but the rest of the article looks good, so I can live with the red links. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet - I'm going against my own nomination because I've realized the reception on the page is almost entirely focused on two of the essays in the collection, so I think that's a big gap to fill in. Anyhow, I'm nominating A Fanfiction Syllabus because that individual essay is well-covered. – caes (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Not Now for the same reasons caes lists. I vote for "A Fanfiction Syllabus" instead. BUT, in the end, I'd be happy with either. MPH (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Since A Fanfiction Syllabus still has a content flag in this articles seems longer. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by enchantedsleeper on March 25, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

An interesting and informative article about a fan practice originating in non-western fandom. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes: It would be nice to feature more things from non-western fandoms. It does have quite a few red links and it would be nice if they were blue, but I don't think that would absolutely necessary in this case -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Interesting topic. Would also love to see at least on example fanwork. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Added a few images to illustrate what they can look like -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes. There's definitely some gaps here; while the section about western fandom is good, there's also a huge culture where doujinka make doujinshi for western fandoms, which only has a brief mention (and thus makes this section a bit confusing at first). There's also some general page restructuring to make this a bit more understandable and readable, since right now info is all over the place. (There's also inconsistent translations and a lot of unsourced quotes and references). I think it's definitely all fixable in time, though. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe Not. I'd also like to see more about non-western fandom, but featuring an article about something so general seems strange. I wouldn't understand featuring the Zine article because that's a widespread practice that one doesn't need to read a page about to understand. Instead featuring a more specific article about Zine Art, Zine Production, or such would lead to people learning more about a large subculture of fandom. I feel the same way about this page. I'm interested in building up an article like Doujinka, Doujinshi Circle, Kojinshi, etc. to feature it. Creating a Doujinshi in Western Fandom would also be cool. – caes (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I think (and obviously I'm new, so I don't know Fanlore's customs yet!) that it would be good to feature this even though it's a very general page. The OTW has had criticisms for being so Western fandom-centric in the past and while obviously it's a complicated issue, I think the fact that the majority of folks on Fanlore likely are from Western fandoms means this might be entirely new to them. I'd look to the XKCD 10,000 a day concept -- everything is new to someone. --Spacegandalf (talk)
Almost I agree with Punkpixieprince that the article needs at least a little work and with Kingstoken that it would be nice (but not quite necessary) to fix some of the red links. I wonder if some of them could just point to Wikipedia? Actually, can we redirect to wikipedia? As for it being too general, I've actually run into some younger fans who don't know what a zine is either, so I think featuring general articles is OK. Other things. Right now I just think the page needs just a little love to get it ready, especially if we can find more references/quotes/meta/resources for the bottom of the page, which is a little sparse, although I think the structure of the article is the biggest hold up. - Hoopla (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant yes: I really like the article and think it would be a good choice, though I also think having less read links would be good --Maitimiel (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Everlastingmuse on June 3, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro.

Not yet: The article has an Examples Wanted content flag - that needs to be addressed before it can be featured. I'm also not sure about the "Crackfic Tropes" section, which is highly subjective (wingfic, for example, is rarely crack in my experience). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:23, 03 June 2019 (UTC)
Update: I'm a yes to featuring this now that the tropes section and content flag have been removed. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with enchantedsleeper the examples wanted tag would have to be dealt with. Plus, the crack vid section is very scant, and those have been pretty popular, almost every fandom has at least a few crack vids. -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes: but I agree that the tropes section should either be revised, or I vote for removing all together. I also added a section on the premise of crack and how it can change with time. MPH (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Not yet: Yeah, the tropes examples should be removed. Mpreg is on there, too, which seems weird. I think that we might want to touch a little more on "crack treated seriously" and I also wonder if we should change the formatting so that the fan quotes are in the quote template? although that might make the page look a little sparse. - Hoopla (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The trope section has been removed. MPH (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Almost - I'd like to see some art on the page itself, and a note that what's considered a "crack" concept changes over time and varies by fandom. Elf (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I've added a line to that effect in the "Crackfic" section, plus it's also mentioned in "Definition & Criteria", so I think we've got that covered now. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:53, 03 August 2019 (UTC)
Maybe: I did some additions in June but it has still a content flag in FanArt (unless it is exhaustive enough by now?) I'm on the fence on this one. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant yes. I see the flag is there, but I feel like it could come off. Of course more examples are always nice, but there's 10 there already which feel like a good basis. The rest of the page seems well organized. --Shadowkeeper (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the flag, since we have more examples listed now. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Madness Underneath

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on August 17, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

A popular Vampire Diaries fic, I don't think we have featured anything in this fandom before -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This looks nice and thorough for an entry about a fic. There's some nice use of fanart too --Shadowkeeper (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. MPH (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes Fixed a tiny typo and link to the ebook.--Auntags (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I added to the intro, which was pretty short for a featured article and lacked some needed info about where and when the fic was published. I also noticed there was no mention of the sequel that was later published, so I added that. I think this will make a good feature! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I think it is good article WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The three generations of fanfic

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on August 29, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Stumbled over this article during article grooming and I think it is very interesting, has a lot of Meta (also I'm sucker for those fandom history type articles).

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, fascinating read. There's a few red links but with sites that old, I think that's to be expected. --Auntags (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, though we should double-check the title as per talk page. MPH (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes - This is a great article, lots of fandom history to get lost in. I added a note to the Talk page re the page title - there's no issue with it that I can see. –-enchantedsleeper (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by MPH on August 19, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Also links to remix and unauthorized sequel. MPH (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: The only reason I hesitate is because of the response to canon section, almost all fic, it can be argued, is a response to canon, and I have never seen this term used in this situation, you are more likely to see "fix-it" fic or canon divergence, etc. -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I do agree that response to canon seems slightly redundant? As in nearly all fanworks could be considered response to canon. But the rest of the page seemed laid out nicely, with examples and fan responses.--Shadowkeeper (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC
Would it be better to take the canon section out, or perhaps edit that section or somewhere else on the page to comment that "Responsefic applies to repsonses to fanworks. Nearly all fanworks could be considered a response to canon where the terms "fix-it" fic or canon divergence, etc. are more accurate." Or something like that? MPH (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
MPH, I think that would be a good phrasing to use. I also notice the page doesn't much mention of the overlap with recursive fanfic (fic of fic), so I might see if I can add that in. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Good article and looks good now after the tweaking. Added some wikilinks and removed some obsolete spaces. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I added a mention of the link to recursive fic, so I think this is good to go! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Blake's 7 Wars

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on September 1, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I don't think we have featured anything from the Blake's 7 before -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Glad to see something else then Star Trek nom'd ;-) WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) September 17, 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Oh, this is so comprehensive, and definitely a great Featured Article candidate! Everyone loves a good historical fandom wank xD enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:23, September 19, 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by MPH (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC) (talk) on September 15, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes - always a relevant topic and one that I'm sure will resonate with people. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I can't believe we haven't featured that one before :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes! It's such an informative article! Would make for a great feature. Gem (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

A Caution About Public Criticism

Nominated by User:WhatAreFrogs? (talk) on September 15, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Some meta about the challenges of newly-public online communities against the age-old discussions about feedback posted to

Hesitant Yes: I think the intro needs a little more work -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I tweaked the intro. Better? MPH (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you MPH, the intro is a lot better, changing my vote to a Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: This is an interesting piece of fandom history and a look at how far back the debate about fic feedback goes. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) September 24, 2019
Yes: I always love a good look into the history of fandom and I think it's nice to be featuring meta. Flyingthesky (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: SecurityBreach (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

When the Moon Fell in Love with the Sun

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on September 12, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

An influential fic in The Hunger Games fandom. I have been working on the article over the last couple of weeks -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: It's a bit shorter that the usual Features articles but it looks decent. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) September 17, 2019 (UTC)
Yes I agree with WhatAreFrogs? - it seems short, but there's nothing more that I think needs adding to it. It sounds like a cool fic. :) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes I'm in favour. Fairestcat (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Fan Reaction to Fallout 76

Nominated by flyingthesky on 23 Sept 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

With the upcoming 1 year anniversary of Fallout 76 in November, as well as the release of the Wastelanders DLC/introduction of human NPCs to Fallout 76, I feel like now would be a really topical time for this page to be featured. Also I've spent like an entire week updating it/making sure most of the redlinks are no longer redlinks so I personally feel like it's in really good shape. Flyingthesky (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Ooh, A gaming article! (more of these, please) - an a meaty/very thorough one as well ;-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: So much fine work. MPH (talk) September 24, 2019
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: ooooh, definitely yes! Fairestcat (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Alone on the Water

Nominated by MPH (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC) (talk) on September 17, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Lots of feels in this "rite of passage" Sherlock fic, and some interesting commentary by the author.

Yes: Although, it might be nice to have a few of those art pieces displayed in a gallery on the page, but not strictly necessary -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Looks good. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes - Very interesting to know that the fan reaction to it is still going today! I do feel bad for the author being on the receiving end of such strong responses ^^; --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:31, 07 October 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Agent With Style

Nominated by MPH (talk) October 8, 2019 (UTC) (talk) As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. It's a big topic. I have some concerns about including the highlighted, bolded statement at top of the page on any blurbs, but I feel comfortable in retaining it on the page itself. I wrote up an intro to the page just now, as the page didn't have one, but it could use other eyes to make sure it looks okay.

Hesitant Yes: I am not a fan of that header at the top of the article, I think it should be moved elsewhere in the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I moved the header down. MPH (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you MPH, I'll change my vote to Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes - This page is a phenomenal piece of work, and definitely deserves to be featured. I'm amazed that the business kept going until so recently! All of the comments and controversies have been so well-documented as well. I added a few wikilinks to the intro. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes from me. Great page. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Nomination approved.

Softly, Softly: The BBC's LGB Research Commission and The Johnlock Conspiracy

Nominated by flyingthesky on 21 Oct 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. This is a pretty interesting piece of meta in terms of TJLC and I just thought it would be an interesting article to feature.

Yes: This is very detailed and interesting article. SecurityBreach (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: An excellent page around a really interesting topic. It does particularly well to cover the topic so thoroughly when a lot of the reactions and discussion around the meta have been lost to time (well, to Tumblr). -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Kirk/Spock (TOS)

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on June 6, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, it does have one content flag asking for more example of social media communities.

I know we feature a lot of Star Trek, but I think it has been roughly 6 months since we had a Star Trek related article. Plus, I am kind of surprised this wasn't nommed before, it is the original juggernaut ship -- Kingstoken (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Almost: I think that this is a good page to feature and it's super fleshed out! I think it needs a little updating, though. For example the "First Time" fanzine is mentioned as still running "in 2011" but the editor has been deceased for awhile and the zine stopped publication in 2017. There are probably other minor things that need to be updated like that, you know? I also think that the links at the bottom to communities, fanworks, and further meta could use more -- there's a Needs Expansion flag on the social media sections, at least, and it feels like there *must* be more than 4 pieces of K/S further reading/meta that we could link to. - Hoopla (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Not yet: Since it still has a content flag and could use some tweaking as Hoopla mentioned... WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I worked on this page a bit, mainly the intro. Hopefully, an improvement. MPH (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes: In my opinion this would be a great article to feature as it's such a classic ship and was so influential in media fandom. There's so much info and the intro reads really nicely. I've refreshed the Online Communities section a bit, added more examples to the Social Media Groups section and removed the ExpandArticle flag. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) September 24, 2019
Almost: Could someone check the notes and decide if some of them can be cut down? At times there are long or unobjective tangents and other parts seem like they should be integrated into the main text. —caes (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes: SecurityBreach (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: K/S more or less founded modern 'shipping' as we know it, and it's a beautiful example of fandom's merits, IMO. Braigwen (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Slash Dragon

Nominated by MPH (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC) (talk) on September 15, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: Although, it would be nice to have more examples of when and how the term has been used by fans. Plus I think this is the first nom from Merlin fandom which is nice -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I'm also missing some more recent comments etc since the last one is from 2013 - although not sure how much life is left in the fandom? They used to be pretty active.... --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we could do with more fan comments, but based on what I can see from the Tumblr tag the term hasn't been in active use since 2013, so I don't think we're going to get any more recent examples. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I added several more current examples of use. There's more, at least from a cursory twitter search, but after a point I feel like they get very similar? So we could still add more, but I feel like it'll get repetitive after the point we're currently at. Flyingthesky (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I added some more examples of fan comments from Tumblr, and also added a bit to the intro. I'm now ready to give this one a thumbs up! It's a fun little page and I think it will be great to feature it. I'm sure it'll be a blast from the past for a lot of fans. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Probably yes: I can't speak to its completeness or interest to general fandom, but it is complete enough to understand, and I found it interesting. --Bikedancelaugheat (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Detroit: Become Human

Nominated by flyingthesky on 21 Oct 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I don't actually have a cute reason to nominate this one like I normally do, I just overhauled the page because I thought it would be nice to feature more video game content.

Hesitant Yes: because as far as I can tell we have never actually had a fandom page as a featured article, is there a reason for this, that I don't remember? -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kingstoken: In theory, no - there's nothing preventing a fandom page from becoming a Featured Article. However, fandom, ship and character pages have always been rare as nominations because I think most of us (as nominators) find it harder to rationalise why one particular fandom, character or ship is "noteworthy" or "interesting" enough to be a Featured Article. It's easier to make that argument for a piece of meta, a trope, or a fannish community.
However, if it's a thorough and interesting page, there's no reason why it can't be a Featured Article (as long as enough of us agree on it qualifying!). -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: SecurityBreach (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Though I'd like to see more pages for characters and ships in the fandom before this is featured. —caes (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I love the game and always like when Gaming articles are featured but I agree that it would be nice to have at some more pages there. The page is inteersting and detailed, nonetheless. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk)
Nomination approved.

Bitter Old Fanfic Queen

Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 2, 2019.. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

This article was already nominated earlier this year and rejected. I took a look at the revision history and noticed that a lot of work has been done recently. So perhaps it's time to try again? Please let me know what you think.
:Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Kudos to SecurityBreach and MPH for expanding/adopting the article :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, WhatAreFrogs? SecurityBreach (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes - this page is great and has come on so much. I still thought it needed something to describe how the term has gone from being an insult to being seen as more positive, so I added a couple of lines to the intro. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you :D SecurityBreach (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Mineta Minoru

Nominated by Hoopla on Novemer 13, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

It's possible we might want to somehow include some information on how this character is viewed in Japan before we feature it, but I think that the coverage of the English fandom is interesting and afaik basically comprehensive. Plus: animanga page! Hoopla (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I remember reading this page a while back and it's really interesting. I did wonder about non-English fandom while reading the page but it doesn't read as if there are glaring gaps in the information. It might be nice to have a longer introduction, perhaps adding some of the positive fan views about Mineta as well. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I agree on the point about the Japanese fandom and I've added info about the popularity polls. —caes (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Just to feature something non-Western for a change (page is decent as well). Any ideas how we could get some view from the Japanese fandom? --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I added some info on that, but unfortunately it's mostly Western fans speculating about Japanese attitudes. —caes (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Yaoi Paddle

Nominated by caes on November 29, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

It's a fun page about an interesting era in anime fandom, and it's about convention culture.
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Emyn (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Oh man, I remember yaoi paddles. Such a weird and distinctive part of anime con culture xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:22 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Qfer (Beauty and the Beast zine)

Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 12, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: Always nice to see Beauty and Best articles nominated. Good article. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Rejected nominations

RaceFail '09

Nominated by Kingstoken (talk) on July 10, 2018. As of this writing, the page has an intro and no content flags.

Not yet but almost. I think this will be a great Featured Article, but there are a few issues to sort out before we go forward - I've made some edits to the page and flagged unaddressed issues on the talk page. (It's mostly citation/reference stuff.) - Fandomgeographies (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant yes Overall it does a good job of explaining the event and has a lot of reaction, but the beginning of the How It Began Section is... idk it just throws me off a bit. Mlemley (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant yes This is very sensitive issue which may upset some people. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. While there might still be room for improvement -such as giving the How It Began section a more comprehensive structure- the article is overall highly detailed and rich in information. It also documents a pivotal event in online fandom culture that younger fans might not fully be aware of. I believe it's important to preserve and feature this particular aspect of fandom history, as uncomfortable as it might make some people. – Gem (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. While it might not be perfect, I think it still has a lot of important information, and while it is, as WhatAreFrogs mentioned, a sensitive issue, I think BECAUSE of that it deserves a place of recognition. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been few months since the nomination, and the page still needs work.


Nominated by enchantedsleeper on October 12, 2018. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

It's challenge season, so this would be a very timely article to feature; the page is thorough and interesting. I should note that the challenge was co-founded by astolat, which could make us (as an OTW wiki) seem to be promoting our "own" challenge. But in my opinion Yuletide has enough fandom clout and history behind it to stand on its own. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe - It is a very detailed article, but a little disorganized (eg, has "History" and "The Yuletide Archive and Collection"; "How It Works" and "The Challenge";) plus parts of it slip into advice about how to best participate ("The urge to sign up for any source you've ever even heard of is strong. It's important to remember...") and I think there's a stark lack of internal links, probably because when it was written there weren't many exchange terms defined on the site, and still aren't. Not that anyone would know because you can't find exchange glossary terms for love or money in the challenges section. I also wish the culture section had... more? I don't know enough about Yuletide to say if there's more to be had, but still. - Hoopla (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: Very detailed, but I agree with Hoopla. Also, it seems a little choppy and repetitive in some places, which maybe more of a wording issue if nothing else. -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes Interesting article. ) added some wiki links, fixed some typos and made a small addition (re: Secret Santa but with fics and reveal of the gifter) since I found the description how it works made it sound way more complicated than it is... WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been few months since the nomination, and the page still needs work.

Crack Van

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

Hesitant Yes: The article talks a lot about the closure of the site, but doesn't go into great detail about what Crack Van was like in its hey day, how influential it was, and it only gives three fan reaction quotes, for something with over a decade of importance that seems kind of scant -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes I'm with Kingstoken, this one could use some more "meat". WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes: This article has improved a lot since we featured it as part of our recurring Fannish History Friday on social media - many thanks to MPH for rounding up all the great recollections it prompted! I think the page is much more reflective now of Crack Van's importance and has more reminiscences about its heyday to balance out the detail about its closure. IMO, it's good to go :) -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes! It's detailed and easy to read, and is a good article on an important LJ fandom staple. The sections on the closure and shifting of fandom perspectives are particularly nice. Punkpixieprince (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: The article focuses mostly on the end of the community. Excerpts or links to notable recs and primers would be helpful. / caes (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been a few months since nomination and the page still needs work.


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

Hesitant Yes: it has a lot of canon, but some fandom activity seems to be mixed in with the canon info. I'm not sure, it's well done, but at first glance it appears that one has to scroll down quite a ways to find fandom activities -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:22, 02 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe there is a Discord section which is currently empty so this an case of {{Expand}} and thus not yet eligible (or the discord section should be removed)? I also remember some hoopla around the movie with certain fanboys not to pleased with the movie because it dared to differ from the graphic novel (see here and here for example searching for Watchmen and fanboys) which is also missing from the article (or maybe should be part of Meta section or Watchmen Fandom in the media?) WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Maybe: Along with the empty Discord section, the Tumblr section doesn't really have anything? Also, there's a {{Template:Timeline Watchmen}} that shows up as an empty image, even though that's actually a page. The timeline page itself is blank, was edited (and shortly deleted? for reason I can't puzzle out?) by one person on one day, and has no talk page, but wasn't marked for deletion. I don't want to delete anything without understanding what happened here. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Rejected. Nomination failed due to objections.

Female-Presenting Nipples

Nominated by MPH (talk) on January 4, 2019.

Hesitant Yes: I hesitate because I am afraid that it might be a little too new. It is obviously timely, but it still has content tags asking for examples, and I think it will probably get a little filled out as time goes by. Although if you are trying to get new users interested in helping with an article this one would probably be attractive. -- Kingstoken (talk) 2:26, 04 January 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant yes. I like the article a lot, and I'm personally not too concerned about it being too new - but I do think that while it has Examples Wanted/Needs Expansion flags on it, we might want to hold off. But if other editors feel it's good to go, I'd be inclined to say yes.- Fandomgeographies (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I'm with Kingstoken, I think the topic is still too new. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Also hesitant, but keen: I do think this would be a great subject to feature and a good "window" into the wider issue that is the Tumblr NSFW Content Purge. It's funny, people relate to it, and there are some great memes xD But we should take care of those content flags before we feature it. I will see what I can do to add more detail about the responses and discussion (also not sure if those two need to be separate sections? A restructure might be in order...) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes. It's a very engaging article but my only concern is that it doesn't technically fulfil all the Featured Article criteria due to the 'needs expansion' flags. However, perhaps bending the rules on this one might result in people adding more content post-feature. – Gem (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Rejected. Nomination failed due to lack of votes.

Alternate Universe

Nominated by Caessius on February 04, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro.

Yes. I'm voting yes, although we do need to resolve the Examples Wanted flags first. I think the template under subtypes could be removed - it'll never be a completely comprehensive list, but it covers a lot of ground. It might be nice to add more under canonical use, but again, there's some good information there. Maybe an editor would be up for working on this page and posting on the talk page about removing the templates, once any additional content has been added as needed? - Fandomgeographies (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I am saying yes, but something will have to be done about the expand tag in the canon uses section, I didn't fell comfortable removing it, because perhaps it is not comprehensive enough, but I could be wrong. I removed the examples tag from the subtypes section, because we have a lot of examples listed. Over all a well filled out articles if a few minor tweaks can be made. -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet Since article currently still has an {{ExamplesWanted}} flag in the Canonical Use section. Also the Comments by fans could use some more content, since there is quite a gap between 1993 and 200. I'm sure there is more content about that out there. Also if Coffee Shop AU is featured soon (see above) we might want to hold on this one a bit since it's similar to that. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I added two examples of canonical use that I think are important, but they're both from western media. So I didn't remove {{ExamplesWanted}} in case it was looking for more anime/manga examples. Maybe whoever put that tag in could clarify or remove as appropriate. Also there's a citation error at the bottom of the page that I don't know how to fix. I like this page, but not ready to weigh in on it yet. --Auntags (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Fixed the citation issue -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the examples tag. I initially added it when I split Canonical Uses info off from the general intro. – caes (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I streamlined the canonical section so it could be moved up the article and used as background info; most of the exact details went into references notes, which allowed to me to add more anime/manga. Some things I want to see addressed but didn't get around to/can't do myself:
  • Marvel's What If...? and other canon AUs could use a footnote.
  • Is the single sentence about Constructed reality adequate?
  • Two new flags to expand the article have been added for Mirror Universe and Uber,
Also, please see the talk page for thoughts about the last two paragraphs in the intro section. - Hoopla (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet. Reading through these concerns, as well as the concerns on the talk page, there seems to be a lot of work still to be done and clarifications to be made. --Punkpixieprince (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Rejected. Nomination failed due to lack of votes.


Nominated by Fandomgeographies on February 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: I think it needs more examples, to give the reader more of an idea of what a flamewar looked like -- Kingstoken (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I agree with Kingstoken. I think this also extended to Zines (as in letter sections), Message Boards and most can still be witnessed on recently social media plattforms like Twitter and Facebook as well? I think could be included first. Maybe there are famous examples around? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet: The intro seems unclear and the page doesn't do much to explain how a flamewar starts, what one is like, or much fannish opinion about them. – caes (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet: I think there's a lot more to be said here. Just looking at the related articles, there are examples of flamewars between fans on different sites and flameswars as a result of comments or incidents involving BNFs. There's also loads of meta, and interviews/comments by fans who've been through the wars. Also Star Wars vs. Star Trek is a red link. --Auntags (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I made a redirect for that red link. MPH (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Rejected. Nomination failed due to lack of votes.

Get 'em

Nominated by Fandomgeographies on February 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: I think it needs more examples -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Not yet: I agree that more examples are needed, but also more contextual information like - was this more popular in certain fandoms? Involving certain characters? I remember that 'Get Jack' fanfics were so popular in Pirates of the Caribbean fandom that they were referenced in a fourth-wall-breaking fic series I read. In the same vein, this page's coverage is mostly confined to the 70s and 80s/zine era of fandom when these stories definitely existed in the internet fandom era. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Not yet: Are there recent fanworks of this? Or is this a thing of the past? Is this a mostly zine thing? I would like to see these questions answered first. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Not yet: From reading this page I'm unclear on how the genre rose/fell in popularity, if its popularity coincided with or developed into hurt/comfort, and if it's a kink or character bashing thing. – caes (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Rejected. Nomination failed due to lack of votes.


Nominated by Fandomgeographies on February 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Maybe: I am wondering if it might be important to mention the fridging of woman and how that can be used as a source of a character's manpain, also it is such a broad term now, I think that it is used outside of it's original context -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet I like Kingtokens suggestion. Mulder ought not to be the only one who has manpain especially because for fridging women out there? This seems quite common in comics books (both Superman and Spider Man come to mind) as well as in video games (Zelda, Super Mario) narratives as well. Edit to Add: also isn't this also a trope by now? WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I've added a section for discussion. Check the talk page for ideas about restructuring to build it up and add/link resources. – caes (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Rejected. Nomination failed due to lack of votes.

Lemon Chicken

Nominated by MPH (talk) on February 18, 2018. As of this writing the page has no content flags.

Not yet, because although I'd be very interested to learn more about this SGA trope and see it featured, I... don't really understand this article, probably because I don't know anything about the fandom or Stargate Atlantis. What does the trope mean? An indication of angst-level, as the essay in the last section suggests? What kind of mistakes were made in the episode "Trinity" and why is that relevant to lemon chicken? How much is the term "lemon chicken" used to rate(describe? label?) fic, and is that related to fics where lemon chicken is "some kind of topic" or are they separate things? Also, what kind... of topic...? Some of these questions could probably be answered by clicking to a new page and reading that page, but that shouldn't be necessary for a featured article, I think. Also, there aren't any fanwork examples, and I think there should be. They would be particularly helpful if they came with annotations about how lemon chicken is used in the fic. (If lemon chicken is used in the fic? I'm not sure if the lemon chicken fic involves literal actual lemon chicken being eaten by characters or not.) - Hoopla (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree with Hoopla, if you are not from SGA fandom it would be every hard to understand what this article is about. I think it may be just a wording issue, I'm not sure, but I think the article would need to be improved, and maybe examples added showing the use of term -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Not yet: A very interesting phenomenon, but there are a couple of issues with the page as it stands. I had to click through to the page for the meta essay in order to understand exactly what "lemon chicken" was all about, and I added what I hope is a slightly clearer explanation (as I also don't know the fandom, or the canon, at all) to the intro to spell out why this trend is referred to as "lemon chicken". However, what's unclear is whether this term is actually a trope or just a rating system for fanworks. The page refers to it as a trope, but a trope is a motif that crops up within a fic, not something that is used to describe a fic. As I understand it, "lemon chicken" as referred to in the essay is symbolic of a certain trend in fanworks, which may or may not actually involve lemons, or lemon chicken.
However, it seems like literal lemon chicken does also crop up in many of these works - so "lemon chicken being served in the mess" is a trope, but "lemon chicken" is also used as a rating system for a specific type of fic (post-Trinity fic). The confusion comes from the fact that the page doesn't make it clear where one begins and the other ends, referring to the rating system as a "trope". I think "lemon chicken" as a rating system was coined in response to the "lemon chicken being served in the mess" trope, but that trope isn't always required for a fic to qualify as a "lemon chicken" fic. It may also be that the rating system caused more writers to feature lemon chicken in their works. But the rating system in itself encompasses things other than lemon chicken.
Tl;dr I think there is a lot of interesting stuff going on here, but the page needs a rewrite in order to focus less on the essay and more on the fic trend that it talks about, the hallmarks of a "lemon chicken" fic, and also how the trope of actual lemon chicken comes into things and is influenced by the rating system. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:33, 03 March 2019 (UTC)
I think this a a fun page and topic, so why not? I don't think it's too essay heavy (anymore). WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Rejected. Nomination failed due to lack of votes.

Bitter Old Fanfic Queen

Nominated by Caessius on March 1, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Not yet: Interesting topic, but there's relatively little to this page as it stands - just a brief description of the term and examples of its usage. It could do with some detail on how the term has spread and evolved, whether its usage is confined to a specific period or is still current, and whether it tends to be used more as a pejorative term (as the original essay would imply) or whether it has been reclaimed by those it was originally intended to insult. The original essay seems to tie it to a specific type of fan with a specific attitude towards the X-Files, but it appears to have become used more generally to refer to someone who has been in fandom for a long time. It would be useful to delve more into that and perhaps also how the term ties into more general issues surrounding age and fandom, since surely there's a strong link to be drawn there. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:47, 04 March 2019 (UTC)

Not Yet: I agree with everything Enchantedsleeper said, it needs a little more meat before becoming a featured article, but it has definite potential -- Kingstoken (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet My fandom but I haven't heard of that term before Fanlore. I'll see if I can find more information on the news groups etc. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Rejected. Not enough votes for approval in the time since this was nominated.

A Fanfiction Syllabus

Nominated by Caessius on May 25, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro.

Maybe: It depends on whether we decide to feature It's a Fanmade World: From One Direction to Soderbergh or not, if not then I could maybe change my vote to a yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes for many reasons, one being that it encompasses "It's a Fanmade World." MPH (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Almost because I want to say yes, but: I think that the last section ("On Consultants") ends kind of abruptly (although I'm not sure how to fix it), that it would be nice if we had any quotes or whatever from Abraham Riesman (although I know such a thing might not exist, so I wouldn't hold out for it), and most importantly that we need to do something about the "please add examples" box for the covers gallery. If we fix the examples flag thing then I'd say yes right away; the other two things aren't enough to hold up its approval I think. - Hoopla (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Almost - The opening paragraphs are a bit weak, and there's some duplication of info. I removed the four red links from the second paragraph (they were listed farther down the page), but most of the intro paragraphs are still repeated elsewhere on the page. I'd love to see info on how the author contacted the fans he consulted, rather than (or in addition to) the general info on what's in the complete collection. If we can't get that, more context about "what was fandom that year" would be good. I also concur that, if "It's a Fanmade World" is used, this should either not be used, or be separated by several months. Elf (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet Still has a Content wanted in covers, so I would go with It's a Fanmade World: From One Direction to Soderbergh for the time being. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet: I've made some improvements to the intro to reduce the duplication of information, but there's still the issue of the content flag; also, between this and It's a Fanmade World, I think the latter would make a better feature thanks to the improvements that have been made to it. (It also has more votes in favour overall xD) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:13, 07 August 2019 (UTC)
Rejected due to the similarity with It's a Fanmade World, which has now been featured, as well as a lack of consensus around the nomination.

Master and Apprentice (Star Wars: TPM archive)

Nominated by caes on June 6, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

This page has lots of images and I think it's fun that there's a tie-in novel called Master & Apprentice now. – caes (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe: I think the intro paragraph needs to be filled out a little more. Also there seems to be some discrepancy in the numbers, it says that there were 1100 works imported to A03, but there was 4200 works on the site, did some of the fanworks not get imported? -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I've expanded the intro paragraph to include a bit more detail on the archive's focus and when it was active. I've also added an aside which might explain the discrepancy in fanwork counts. On Master and Apprentice, individual story chapters were posted as separate "works", but I suspect they were collated into a single work during the transfer to AO3, hence the apparent shrinkage. It's also possible that some of the postings were discussion and not fanworks. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree with Kingstoken that the intro is too sparse. Over half of it is a list of what webrings the site is/was a part of and while that's definitely information we should document I don't think it's the kind of thing we want in the featured article blurb. The page is also definitely out of date and doesn't cover the move to AO3 or the original contents of the archive very well. I also think we should flesh out the history section using the linked Fan History essay (which is still available via WBM thankfully) rather than just hyperlinking to it. But I do think that this would be an excellent article! - Hoopla (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree with the above. This one could use a bit of more work. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Rejected: it's been some time since the nomination, and the page still needs work.


Nominated by MPH (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC) (talk) on September 15, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: That is very detailed article. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: There is just something about the intro that I don't like, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. The rest of the article is well filled out -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I think the issue is that part of the intro doesn't summarise the article, but contains info that would be better off moved to the History section. I'll see if I can fiddle with it. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: The history section is AMAZING and honestly a wonderful read, but the "Fandom" section is completely blank except for a link to a ship manifesto and a link to a gifset. I mean, the history section is so good I almost want to say we should consider just getting rid of the fandom header, but... it'd be weird to have a ship page that was really just a history section and fanwork examples, right? I think? So I don't know exactly what should go there, but maybe we can come up with something instead of just getting rid of it. Garak/Bashir (featured earlier in 2019) has a "Fan Perspectives" section, while Harry/Draco (featured earlier in 2017) has a section for common tropes and a section where the article discusses how fanfiction writers dealt with canon developments. Also, there's an 'examples wanted' flag on the page that I agree with... at the very least, all of the individual han/luke fics are from 2004 or earlier and it seems like we should have more recent things there too. - Hoopla (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Almost: I agree with Hoopla about the fandom section. I'd like to see tropes, fanon, trends, etc, before this is featured. —caes (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Rejected: it's been more than three months since the nomination, and the page still needs work to bring it up to scratch.
✪ 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 20242023202220212020201920182017
Featured Article Nominations 20242023202220212020201920182017