Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2020)

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

About this page

This page lists Featured Article nominations that were posted on the Fanlore main page in 2020 or that were rejected during 2020 due to insufficient yes votes. For current nominations, visit Fanlore: Featured Article Nominations.

Approved nominations

doofenperry twitter au!!!

Nominated by caes on December 1, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Page about a more recent type of fanwork which was very influential, and very different from anything that's been featured before.
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Emyn (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes: I had never heard of this but I love learning about it and it should 100% be a Featured Article. I added some more commentary from fans and rewrote the introduction in places to be a litle more accessible to outsiders. Also definitely went down a Twitter rabbit hole looking for more works it inspired (I've started a Talk page thread about that). -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:29, 05 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.


Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 30, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Tie-in is a glossary term and I'm really not sure if that category qualifies for a featured article. However, I feel that some of the points discussed (like, fanfiction vs professional novels) could be interesting to fans. SecurityBreach (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm I really like this page, but the fan comments on female authors in Star Trek tie-in novels feel out of place, and I think they really deserve their own page in the Star Trek Category. There's a few other fandoms where tie-novels played a huge role in fandom that probably deserve their own page too. I've put my specific ideas on the Talk:Tie-in page for discussion.--Auntags (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Following discussion on talkpage, I've moved the female Star Trek authors section and started a new section, Notable Fandoms and Authors. I'll be adding a Doctor Who tie-in novel page in the coming week, so hopefully that red link won't be there for long.--Auntags (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes - Forgot to change my vote following changes--Auntags (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes - I think this looks good with the changes made by Auntags! I also added a bit more info to the introduction about their repuatation/significance in fandom. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Great Australian 1985 Radio Show Fiasco

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 08, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

I think it is an interesting perspective on things have somewhat changed in fandom, and how known slash is now
Yes --Auntags (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes --SecurityBreach (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Very interesting and a good pick for a Featured Article. I added some wikilinks and related pages in the "See Also" section. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Professionals Circuit

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

I was looking at this for a future Fannish History Friday link, but it is in fact a really thorough and well-done page about a cool bit of fandom history that I think would make a great featured article.
Almost: I think it will make a great Featured Article with a couple of small improvements. I've changed the online archive end date to 2010 because nothing has been archived since that date, and the page itself says that the archive "may have fallen into limbo" since then. However, the circuit dates are still listed as "1980s - present" which I doubt is still accurate, though I'm not sure how to gauge when "the circuit" might have ended.
Secondly, the intro is currently very vague and doesn't do the content of the article justice, especially as it will be featured on the front page on its own. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Yes: After the edits made by MPH in November I think this article is now good to go - the intro reads well and it is a very interesting subject overall. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with enchantedsleeper, the intro needs to be improved, if it can be fleshed out a little more it would be a good featured article -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Changing vote to Yes because of changes made to article -- 11:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree that the intro is a bit wonky (I added a bit of context in form of wikilinks, but it still could use a little bit of tweaking?) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
I did a bunch of work reorganizing the page, using different headers, and hopefully improving the intro. MPH (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This is fantastic work, MPH - thank you! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes I struggled on my first reading of this page, but the changes MPH made are excellent and really help the flow of the page. Fascinating topic too! --Auntags (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

All this talk about unpopular writers reminds me of how tumblr fandom is really lonely.

Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 20, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

I think the article documents an interesting discussion between fans on tumblr from a few years back and highlights some aspects of fandom on the website.
Hesitant Yes: I wish the intro was bit more filled out -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
i added some context and streamlined the intro! - flyingthesky (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Yes after the changes made to the intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Maybe the comments could be sorted into different topics, but it's not absolutely necessary. —caes (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: i agree that potentially we could sort out the comments, but i'm not sure how and it's fine for featuring as is. - flyingthesky (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The J2 Haiti Fic

Nominated by caes on December 16, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive.

There's one Expand flag for the "Tone" section, but I think that's already covered is the sections for discussions about racism and could be removed. —caes (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant yes. I'm not familiar enough with this specific controversy to know whether or not the tone section can be removed. If there was talk of tone policing, which it looks like there might have been since there was talk of derailing with the misogynistic comment discussion, then I think that's actually quite different from the discussion about racism and should probably be pulled out. The section about racism is about the fic itself. A section about tone would be about the commentary/controversy surrounding the fic. It's not really necessary, per se, but I'm wary about removing it if it was a significant part of the controversy. flyingthesky (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Yes after the edits made by enchantedsleeper! - flyingthesky (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I'm not sure the tone section even needs to be there, maybe it just be a note like "See Also Tone Argument" or something similar -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I've addressed this by rolling the Tone section into the Misogyny section, because as far as I can tell it did stem directly from fans using misogynistic slurs, the subsequent excessive focus on that rather than the fic's racism, and the comments about tone that resulted. I also added an additional quote to that section to flesh it out. I haven't been through everything - and it's difficult to know whether there was more, separate discussion that has been lost to journal deletions - but I feel like this does capture the essence of that discussion. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Because of the changes made by enchantedsleeper I'm going to change my vote to Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I think this is a comprehensive and thorough page about an important fandom incident/debate. I've renamed some of the sections to headers I think are a bit more representative of their content, and added some more quotations in places to represent additional perspectives. The only thing I think the page could still do with is more links in the "Meta/Further Reading" section - there was so much meta around this topic that it's weird we only have one link in that section. But I've run out of steam to add anything further to the page xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: That one is quite extensive and the tone issue has been resolved. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I feel the recent edits have fleshed out the page alot, with added opinions and nuance. Definitely a worthwhile featured article. --Auntags (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.


Nominated by Kingstoken on November 30, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Almost: I think this is a good article, but a couple of things could use work: a lot of the references date to 2010-2013 and it kind of shows, as the info is out of date in terms of the communities they refer to and the prevalence of certain ships within specific fandoms. Also, I would like a bit more fandom info up front in the intro, not just talking about what polyamory is but its significance to fandom and the attitudes of fans to poly ships. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Changing vote to Yes: The point about having more fandom info up front has been addressed nicely, and I'm satisfied that there's much more up-to-date info and references on the page now. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Not Yet: I think it's important to resolve the page title discussion on Talk:Poly before this can be featured. —caes (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: While I think the ships section could still be cleaned up, it's not really a detracting issue for me personally? - flyingthesky (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: from me. Looks good to go! :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Down to Agincourt

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 12, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

It has been over a year since we last featured something from Supernatural fandom, last time I nommed a wincest fic, so this time I will nom an influential Destiel fic series that has inspired it's own fandom
Yes: MPH (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I always enjoy reading about fanworks that have inspired mini-fandoms. I added some more info on the author's own spin-off series, a few more links to fanworks of different types (podfic, fanvids) and a bit on author interaction with fans. We could potentially add more varied responses to the reviews/reactions section, but I think the page is good to go as-is. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Article looks great. WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Looks good, very interesting fanwork! - flyingthesky (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Scully Effect

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on January 30, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Scully's birthday on February 23rd, would be neat to feature it on that week or around 11 February which is International Day of Women and Girls in Science day - but then the resurrected Bitter Old Fanfic Queen was featured not that long ago which is also a Philedom glossary term and we may want to favor other fandoms for the time being...?

Yes: I'm not concerned about having featured previous X-Files articles MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: SecurityBreach (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: The quotes were very touching! Can we push this over in time for the week of Scully's bday? somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yescaes (talk) 08:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Sherlock Sketchbook Project

Nominated by caes on February 9, 2020. As of this writing, the page is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: I wish the intro was a little more filled out, but overall the work to try and document this lost project, and all the great images, is really amazing -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Very cool project, and all that's left of it is documentation! Featuring it may also allow people who remember it/having some material lying around to add to what is still trying to be recovered by Cancennau. I also love the work Hoopla did overlaying the images of the names of the artists. somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Love a good fanartist project! We feature a lot of fic, so it's nice to have art take the stage and I agree with somefangirl that featuring it might allow some of the history to be recovered. - flyingthesky (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

We're Not Gay; We Just Love Each Other

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on February 14, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

An interesting article with good commentary about a historical slash fandom trope. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

:Maybe: It looks like their is a empty section, "We're Not Gay, We Just Love Each Other" and "WNGWJLEO", so that would have to be dealt with -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I added that part today, then took if off a few hours later because I combined and expanded it in a section much further up the page. MPH (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Changing vote to Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk)
Yes: I think this page could use some more fic examples, but otherwise its a very good page. I clicked into related articles, to see if there were any fics linked to this trope, and it returned no related links. But it looks like an error as the whole page name is not displayed. I think it's a technical problem caused by the semicolon in the title. Can we fix this, without renaming the page? --Auntags (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
it seems to be trying to encode characters in the url it's not meant to and doing it wrong so i don't really know if there's a good non-rename fix beside hard-coding the infobox - flyingthesky (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm. I tried to fix this by replacing the semi-colon with its html code and moving the page, but it didn't work because those aren't allowed characters in a Fanlore page title (ironically). It occurs to me that we could just swap it out for a comma? It's not as correct, punctuation-wise, but given that a number of the examples of this phrase in action use a comma I think we have a good argument for it (besides "it won't break the page title").
I'm gonna move this discussion over to the article Talk page so we can continue it there and also have a record of it somewhere more permanent than the nominations archive. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Aside from the issue Auntags mentioned, which I'm not sure there's really a good fix for, the page is great. - flyingthesky (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Great article! SecurityBreach (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Rejected nominations


Nominated by flyingthesky on 17 October 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. The Gundam franchise is currently celebrating its 40th anniversary so now is a great time to feature this article and maybe entice someone into making any of the like eighty things I redlinked? One can hope.

Yes: A very extensive page. Would be great if the red links in the intro could be taken care of first but that isn't a showstopper for me... --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
I thought about doing that, but since they would all be stubs I figured it would be better to leave for someone who actually knows more than I do about UC Gundam/Gunpla or really wants to tackle the entire history of Hello Kitty/Toonami. Flyingthesky (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes: The red links are a little irritating and unfortunately I know too little about the topic to help you out. But I think the article is well written and contains a lot of interesting stuff so I vote 'yes'. SecurityBreach (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Leaning towards no: I sense I'm going to be outvoted on this one, but I'm not convinced by this page because it seems to feature very little fannish content? The vast majority of the article is taken up by an exhaustive history of the Gundam franchise and while there are mentions here and there about fans' reactions to things, to me it doesn't read like a page about Gundam fandom, as it's more concerned with the releases of various different series and model kits - the primary focus is on the official canon, not on the fandom or fanworks.
This wouldn't bother me so much if there were more to the page than just the history, but after that there's just one section on Japanese versus English fandom, and then external links. While I realise it's hard to do this on a page that is so general, I would like to see it have some content on fanworks and also fan communities.
The red links don't bother me nearly as much as the lack of fannish content, although I might just go away and create a stub for Hello Kitty because I can xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe: There are lot of red links, it isn't usually necessary for featured articles for all links to be blue, but this seems to have more than most. I also agree with enchantedsleeper that the Japanese versus English section should be filled out a little more, and it needs more fandom content overall -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been three months since the nomination, and the page still needs edits to address the concerns raised during the nominations process.
✪ 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 2020201920182017
Featured Article Nominations 2020201920182017