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.

Tie-in

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.

Poly

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.

Minotaur

Nominated by Somefangirl on Feburary 16th, 2020. As of this writing, this page has a good intro, a nice series of comments from fans, and has no content flags.

Yes: I was totally going to nominate this page myself! *high-fives Somefangirl* Though we've never featured a page about a fan before - and I think it's fine to be cautious in doing so - I think certain fan pages are well worth featuring, and I don't see any negative backlash coming from this one (also, the fan in question is sadly no longer with us). I read this page with great interest and I think it would be a lovely feature as this fan was clearly beloved, well-known and would bring back a lot of positive memories for people. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes - flyingthesky (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Your Vagina is a Bigot; My Vagina is a Saint

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on February 23, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A very well filled-out page about a well-known, if not infamous piece of meta about some hot button issues in fandom including racism and sexism. There's lots of detail on the debate, different reactions and comments that sprang from it.
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Nine Worlds Geekfest

Nominated by Cancennau on 16th December. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Nine Worlds looks to be dying off since they haven't found a new director, so being a featured article might encourage others to share their memories of the con.
Hesitant Yes: It would be nice to have a little bit more history on how convention started, the article mentions a kickstarter page, but not much else. It would be nice to know more about the original founders, who's idea the convention was, how did the planning and kickstarter come about -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I've aimed to address this a bit by adding some information from the con's Kickstarter bio page about who founded it; I also added a bit about how it set itself apart from other cons. I'm not sure if much other info is recorded about how the con came into being, but maybe some attendees of early conventions will be able to add to the page? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I added more about the early history of the con, but it would be good to have more info/quotes about fans' and attendees' experiences and their reactions to the con's closure. —caes (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I leaned towards voting 'hesitant yes' too because I also feel the article needs more information on the early history of the con. I did some research online and it's not that easy to find out about although the con's site is still online. However, one of the Nomination Criteria is 'pages of interest that are well-developed (though not necessarily "finished" or perfect) and will spark interest in visitors and would-be editors'. I think this could work in this case. The last Geekfest was in 2018 and there must be plenty of people around who visited the con or were involved in organising it. So I agree with Cancennau that 'being a featured article might encourage others to share their memories of the con'.
I added a quote from 2014 to the section 'Commitment to Diversity and Safety'. SecurityBreach (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I think it a good article that deserves to be highlighted - even if it is not yet perfect. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) MPH (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I've added a bit more background to the page and added a picture that I took at 9W 2017. I do think it would benefit from more comments and recollections from while the con was still going, but since that's part of the reason why we want to feature this page, I feel okay with giving it the thumbs up. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Huddling for Warmth

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 14, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: MPH (talk)
Yes: I think it could do with a wider variety of examples, particularly from non-western fandoms, but it's not enough for me to vote it down. --enchantedsleeper (talk)
Yes: I agree with enchantedsleeper but it is still i good page. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Self-insertion

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on April 6th 24, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags and I think this a very interesting topic.

Yes, agreed! This is very interesting and covers the topic comprehensively. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Very detailed page on an interesting topic --Auntags (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Letters of Comment

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on April 5, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

An interesting article about an aspect of zine fandom and fannish feedback culture.
Yes I agree, very interesting article --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Very detailed page with some great examples. I fixed one link, but I'm wondering if trekffandom should be redirected somewhere? I don't know enough about Star Trek to make that call --Auntags (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Hm. Based on the context it seems as though the writer was just talking about Trek fandom, i.e. Star Trek fandom, but decided to make it one word?
Can anyone who knows Star Trek comment on whether this is a common term? -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
it's a frequent hashtag on Twitter, but i suspect that's more for character count/visibility than it being a distinct term, although it does have a wikitionary entry. doesn't appear to be in use on tumblr? it's probably fine if we convert it into two words. flyingthesky (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Animated Gif

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 26, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

I think this might be an interesting article to feature considering how prevalent the use of gifs/gif sets are in fandoms -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes Great nomination. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes! Very good idea; what a fun page. somefangirl (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes: The intro was lacking a bit of fandom context, so I added that along with a bunch of icon examples. Ah, LJ gifs :D --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I like the progression in this page and all the aspects of gifs that it covers – GoldenFalls (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Sexy Lamp Test

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on April 5, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

This article gets shared a lot on social media, and is an interesting (and so far as I can tell, comprehensive) coverage of the test's origins as well as some of the related "tests" and the issues they deal with. The only thing it lacks perhaps is a section on fannish commentary/discussion, but otherwise it doesn't seem to have any glaring holes.
Yes Just saw a post about on this on tumblr yesterday.--WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Hesitant Yes: I think the intro could be filled out a little more, or reworded slightly, I can't quite put my finger on what's wrong, but I think the intro needs a little work -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I did some fiddling with the intro to describe what the test is about more up-front and add a bit of additional detail. Let me know if it addresses your concerns? :3 --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Changing vote to Yes: thank you for your edits, the intro is much more readbale now -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes One of our most commonly linked if tweets are anything to go by. Sure to generate some discussion. somefangirl (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Evil!Sam

Nominated by Somefangirl on April 26, 2020. As of writing, it has an intro and no content flags

I find this article interesting as someone who hasn't been in Supernatural fandom; it's similar to many Evil!Character tropes but the interaction with canon makes it acquire more depth. Plus it's got lots of nice links to fanfic, art, and fanvids, and I have a bias towards pages with art on them. somefangirl (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes: It's a good article, and has lots of visual examples which is a bonus. My only hesitation is that we have already had two SPN/SPN RPF featured articles this year, but if everyone else it okay with that, than so am I -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I think the page is laid out well, has given broad examples of terminology, examples of works, and even archived links in case any of those contained in the article become dead. -- Jacksbrak (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Isnt' this the Supernatural equivalent to the Evil!Spock trope? (minus the beard? (-; ) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I have the same slight reservations as Kingstoken about featuring another Supernatural article, but well, the series is ending - we can let them have this ;) It's an interesting article and we don't often feature character-specific pages or tropes. I made some changes to the introduction to make it a bit clearer and easier to read. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Sweet Charity

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 28, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Yes: Looks good to me. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes! Comprehensive, good quotes, pictures, and uplifting! Everything we need! somefangirl (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Yay for good LifeJournal era articles. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: but could the quote at the top of the page be moved under the first paragraph? It'd provide a bit of context for the quote, to people unfamiliar with the charity. --Auntags (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved the quote down -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

University of Iowa Fanzine Archives

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on May 1, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A really interesting project/piece of fandom history preservation with a well-filled-out page.
Yes: I'm wondering if we should move the quote box at the top of the page to the bottom of the intro paragraph, it's not necessary, but it does look a little odd starting with a quote, but maybe that's just me -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Interesting and relevant to fanlore! I also think we should move the quote box because it looks like it might be related to the redirection question. somefangirl (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I moved the quote box down to the bottom of the intro paragraph -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Glad to see something likes this nominated. Good article :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Fascinating project --Auntags (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Shipping

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 07, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Ship and shipping are such common fandom practices now I thought it might be nice to feature an article about it's history -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes!. Just saw your most recent edit and was checking whether this has been a FA before and wanted to add it here, but you beat me to it :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Hard to believe we haven't already featured this! I added a section for "Anti-shipper" as I feel like that variation on the term and its evolution is important to mention. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes!: I'm amazed we haven't featured this already, as well. A no-brainer! somefangirl (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: --Auntags (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Big Bang

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 22, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Although not a perfect article I still thought it might be interesting to feature, because if someone is new to fandom and sees this type challenge their first thought is probably "what is it?" And it seems like every major fandom has at least one Big Bang Challenge -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes! It's a classic term and I often find myself explaining Big Bangs to people who are new-ish to fic/fandom.-- somefangirl (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes I agree that this is a term one can see often and the page is decent enough. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes! As others have said, it's a little lean in some areas but this term comes up ALL THE TIME. Plus, if it's featured, more people might organize them! :D --JessC (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I felt that the History section was lacking so I fleshed it out with more context based on details found elsewhere on the page and some info from the original Big Bang's Fanlore page. I made some other additions and tweaks including to the intro. I think it's good to go :3 -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Sparklypoo Comic

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on May 31, 2020. As of writing, this has a good intro and no content flags.

I went looking for this comic (which I remember fondly from the 2000s) and was gratified to learn that it had a decent Fanlore page. It was very influential in HP fandom and could make a good Featured Article subject.
Yes: It's a very good page and I think it would be nice to feature some fanart. --Auntags (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Good page and I agree on the fanart angle. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I am unfamiliar with this glorious thing and my life is now richer because I read about it on Fanlore. --Roamingcataloger (talk) 04:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I just added the type of medium to the infobox, and the links are archived/up to date. The page overall is well put together. --LaserBeam1 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It's a very nice-looking page, with interesting external links, as well as the sample image of the comic. Also back-up archived many links to Archive.Is. Would be willing to source link parse them if someone wishes. -- Jacksbrak (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Buffy/Faith

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on June 2, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

This is an iconic femslash ship from early 2000s fandom and has a decently filled out Fanlore page. Worth a feature, I think.
Yes: I think my Buffy bias is well known but it's a good summary of an important ship. I added one example of fanart, and a link to an episode review by Passion of the Nerd that goes into all the early instances of subtext.--Auntags (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I feel like there must be more common tropes that could be added, but overall a pretty well filled out pairing article -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: As an outsider to this fandom I find the article very informative and comprehensive of the ship! I especially like the trope section which does a great job of expanding info on the ship/fandom practices. Patchlamb (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: MPH MPH (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
FYI, I expanded the trope section to clarify things a bit (I hope). Also added info on Buffy season 8 tropes.--Auntags (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: It's a good detailed page, very informative, about an important femslash ship with a large fandom. EvilToTheCore13 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)EvilToTheCore13
Yes: A good, thorough look at the pairing, without being too overwhelming! Julie (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Lots of good content here --Mokuroh (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Lysator

Nominated by MPH. Lysator was the first Blake's 7 mailing list, and it has an interesting history.

Yes: Great page that made for a very interesting read. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: However, I do think the intro could be filled out a bit more -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I beefed up the intro a bit, see what you think? MPH (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Looking better, thanks :) -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: An interesting read, and a useful look into how fandom worked in the early days of the internet. Julie (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: No content flags. Bit of a niche topic that would otherwise be buried in other fannish history. -- Error cascade (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Fan History Wiki

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

This is a hefty article, but it makes for very interesting reading (so much wank) and by my assessment doesn't seem to be missing anything glaring. I'm reasonably confident that featuring this wouldn't bring any undue controversy down on our heads after so long but let me know if you think otherwise.
Yes: This is one of my favorite fanlore articles for its extensiveness and just plain old excitement factor. I've even seen people commenting on this specific article on tumblr once or twice. -- Error cascade (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes I think I may have been one of the last people that used the wiki back in 2018 before it vanished forever :-( --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

"touched" (multifandom zine)

Nominated by MPH on June 22, 2020. It was an early femslash, m/m, and gen letterzine. It was more overtly political and lesbian than usual for zines of that era. The publication was also known for being copylefted (free to copy) at a time when zine editors frequently inveighed against zine piracy.

Yes: I suspect we may get a few votes saying "more fan comments?" but I'm assuming that we would have more if we could. xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: At first I was worried it wouldn't be that engaging to someone who wasn't really into print zines, but I took a more thorough look and it looks fun and quirky. It also seems appropriate to feature a zine since fanlore is particularly strong with documenting them. :) -- Error cascade (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It's a zine that was unusual in many ways and as such is worth of wider attention of fan history aficionados --Erimia (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Whump

Nominated by Somefangirl on May 24, 2020. As of writing, this has a good intro and no content flags.

Not Yet The article currently has 2 content flags. I added some X-Files stuff but the Example Fanworks and Example Uses could be fleshed out more. The latter ones are also missing cites since they seem to be quotes?
I thought it'd be easy to find references for the example uses, but they appear nowhere on the internet other than this fanlore page... I think they should be removed (unless we can find citations) and we should look into finding some other examples of fannish use of this term. Or some fan opinion on whump appeal. I'll have a look for those --Auntags (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: the content flags would definitely need to dealt with, so that means more fanwork examples. I'm also not a huge fan of the phrasing of the intro paragraph, it feels a little weird to lead in with the "character bashing", maybe fully explain the concept first than compare to the other concept. -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes: changing vote to yes, because the intro has been rewritten, it flows and better explains the topic, plus it looks like a lot of fanwork examples have been added -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
hesitant Yes: I rewrote the intro and did what I could to address the content flags. I pulled a lot of whump fanwork examples from related pages. It could still use some more fanart examples and I'm not sure if the canon section is really showing relevant canon examples, or if its needed. Same with example uses. Personally, I'd remove both sections. But I think it is an interesting topic to feature. --Auntags (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I think it's a yes if someone adds a few more fanart examples. The intro re-write by Auntags fixed the biggest issue. -- Error cascade (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I added some fanart.MPH (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like a more fleshed out gallery now. :) On another subject, I know there's an examples needed flag on the usage section, but a couple of examples seems fine to me, since it's essentially just a glossary aide. -- Error cascade (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: This page has come along a lot! I found it a great read. I updated the section on social media as its language was quite out of date.
It looks like the other issues raised with this nomination have been addressed, so I think we're good to go? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Kirk Spock Erotic Paper Doll Set

Nominated by Error Cascade on June 7, 2020. As of writing, this page has a fairly good intro. I looked through the previous nominations and there seems to be very few (if any) pages related to fancrafts. Out of the fanwork pages in the crafts category, this is the most developed. If chosen, some sentences might need a quick edit for clarity, but there's no content flags.

Hesitent Yes: It is fun page (I can immagine some the reactions already;-) ). But I would love the see more comments by fans from the years? --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: However, I do agree with WhatAreFrogs? that more fan commentary or reaction would be nice -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree about comments, however, I've done a lot of searching over the years for fan comments, and there just aren't very many. MPH (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: This is a fun page (always good to see another appearance by various vulcan genitalia XD). As the page also has other examples of fan interaction with the dolls like uses of them "in the wild", I think a lack of fan comments is fine. This was after all the pre-internet era, so before we had endless textual commentary about everything preserved online xD --enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Yes then -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Yes MPH (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

SurveyFail

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on July 7, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A well-filled-out page about a notorious 2009 fandom wank incident.
Yes: I had never heard of this incident, and the article is very interesting -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Ditto to what Kingstoken said above. I do think we should try and make the further reading/meta section look a little neater, maybe by adding subheadings instead of just bold text for better navigation, but it's a yes either way. -- Error cascade (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes:Very interesting and well written article. --Auntags (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Never heard of this before either, very interesting stuff. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Nomination Approved.

The Johnlock Conspiracy

Nominated by error_cascade on July 15, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A really meaty page, with lots of content and citations. I think it does a good job with PPOV as well.
Yes: My only quibble is that some of the language needs to be changed to the past tense, because as far as I know there is no more BBC Sherlock in the works -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes By the way: Season 5 still seems to be a possibility in the next years. Both leads are very busy. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Yes somefangirl (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Erimia (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Sockpuppet

Nominated by caes on February 11, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: Interesting and thorough article. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes!: Lots of fun links in this one. somefangirl (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: i kind of wish there were a section explaining the explicit definition of sockpuppet versus just a second account/what a sockpuppet is and isn't, especially now with so many younger fans just having alternate accounts to write porn (i see this a lot in the A/B/O tag for instance) or not be horny on main and the use of pseuds on AO3. the rest of the page is good, i just feel like it's mostly good for a specific era of fan and maybe we should make it a little more inclusive before featuring it? - flyingthesky (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree, it's a good page but it feels out of date. "Socking up" is popular in exchange fandom for a bunch of different reasons. I'll try to add some stuff about that. - Hoopla (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so the way that I see it is that the common usage of "sock" to just mean an alternate account isn't the same as "sockpuppet" (even though it originates from that usage) which has a more explicit implication of someone who created a duplicate account for trolling purposes. I mean, how many people would call their exchange fandom alt account (or porn account, or whatever) a "sockpuppet"? I think that "sock" should be regarded as a separate term with a different usage to "sockpuppet". -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
plenty of people? that's why i'm saying the page needs more distinct definition/history of the term. like yeah, i personally agree with your definition but that's not the only definition i've seen used (especially more recently) and a bunch of people use "sockpuppet" and "sock" interchangeably in fandom. it's also pretty common to call an account for posting memes to a meme community a "sockpuppet" in roleplay, which has no connotation of trolling. - flyingthesky (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't know that, I've only ever seen "sock" used. -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with flyingthesky, this feels a little outdated, maybe a section could be added about how socks are not generally currently used for the same reasons they originally -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes from me. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes - I added some clarification that a sock is not just an alternate account, and added a few details to the "notorious sockpuppets" list. I wish we had a picture to add (screencap with IP #s?) but it's okay as it is. --Elf (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Recent edits have really cleared up the definition and the page avoids any confusion with other uses of the term--Auntags (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
My only remaining concern about this article (after everyone's feedback about it) is that the intro still focuses mostly on journal sites/fandom and on the "troll" definition of sockpuppet rather than modern uses of the term. I think it would be good to reword it a bit before we feature. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I did rework the intro a bit to make it more balanced since it IMO focused too much on the negative use of socks. Please let me know what you think. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
I like your additions, WhatAreFrogs? - I moved some of them down into a separate section dealing with new identities as the page was getting a bit top-heavy, and I also created an "Overt Sockpuppets" section for the obvious/self-acknowledged use of sockpuppets. I then rewrote the intro to try and give a sense of how the term is used outside and inside fandom, with a paragraph at the end acknowledging the more recent usage. It is still hard to find examples "in the wild" of the term being used in exchange fandom but I did my best based on Hoopla and flyingthesky's comments above.
I'm going to leave this open for a few more days in case anyone has any immediate issues or feedback, then I think we can approve the page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Folgers "Home for the Holidays" Commercial

Nominated by Kingstoken on August 17, 2020. The article has a good intro and no content flags. It is an interesting look at how fandoms can be unexpectedly created from small bits of media. It is a little early for Holiday related stuff, but it sometimes takes awhile to get enough votes so I'm nomming it now.

Yes: A nice off the beaten path choice. (Honestly I saw that commercial as a kid and was really surprised when it wasn't a boring romance commerical. Sister? Such a reveal.) -- Error cascade (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Today I learned. Very fresh choice indeed, reminded me of the old series of Nescafe ads about polar explorers spawning a fandom in Russia. -- Erimia (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. MPH (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. My only reservation is with the section titled "Subtext" - it reads like a fan comment, but it isn't, it's just commentary on how the commercial is shot and framed from the perspective of an unknown editor. I understand that it's there for the purposes of explaining the appeal of the commercial, but it's odd to have this kind of "opinion" content on the page. Could it be substituted for a fan comment or two?
It's not a dealbreaker for me, so I'm still voting yes and if other people feel strongly about keeping that section the way it is, then we can. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

HPforGrownups

Nominated by error_cascade on August 12, 2020. As of writing, this page has a good intro, is comprehensive, and has no content flags. As mentioned in the interview, this mailing list was a big part of early Harry Potter fandom. I also thought it would be very appropriate to feature something from the Yahoo! Groups project.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- The section on June 2001 and Cassie Claires FFN ban could use some editing for readability (I might get to it tomorrow). Also the citation only says that comments may have been deleted. No confirmation that there were comments, or that they were intentionally deleted so I'm leaning towards removing the references to list been censored or revisionist, before featuring this page.(Unless someone can confirm this information is correct) --Auntags (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Auntags, I'm not quite clear what you mean about the last part of your vote regarding the comment deletions. MPH (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Following the archive link, the full comment cited is, "There may also be missing posts on the Harry Potter for Grown-ups list, but I couldn't find those last year when I was researching the incident on mailing lists, so I assume that deletion is of much longer standing." Our citation only references the second half of this sentence. We have no source confirming there were comments that were deleted. I wasn't in HP fandom, so maybe it's something people remember and no citation is needed. I just found the citation we do have a bit misleading, and the reference to censorship and revisionism a bit much. --Auntags (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I took out part of that sentence as it was a bit strong, and I expanded the quote in the footnotes. Hopefully better? MPH (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. MPH (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes A very comprehensive page --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Professionals

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on August 2nd, 2020. As of writing, this page has a good intro, is comprehensive, and has no content flags. I stumbled over this very comprehensive page during name replacement sweeps. Plus there are tons of articles about this fandom on Fanlore so we could show it some love.

Maybe: This is a really comprehensive article and I found parts of it interesting even though I'm not really in buddy cop shows/history of slash fandoms. My /only/ concern is that the intro is really long (almost a short essay into itself with 7 paragraphs and substantial quote) and I'm not sure how that would look as a featured article on the main page. (Would change vote to yes if that was addressed in some way/there's an obvious solution I'm missing/etc.) -- Error cascade (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I majorly tweaked this page (no removal or addition of information, just rearranging), so take another look? MPH (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
That fixes it quite nicely. Thanks MPH. Changing vote to Yes -- Error cascade (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I was fascinated to read about the rich history behind this early media fandom. I found that some of the page structure didn't flow intuitively with many sections about similar topics in different places on the page, so I took the liberty of restructuring it to nest them under subheadings e.g. Fandom History, Fanfiction, Zines. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

History of Star Trek Fan Campaigns

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on August 23, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

An interesting page detailing Star Trek fan campaigns over the years. Seems comprehensive with some good details and images.
Yes: Although, I do wish there was a little more information on the other campaigns listed near the bottom of the page -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes --Auntags (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Zine Pirating

Nominated by Somefangirl on July 27, 2020. As of writing, this page has a good intro, no content flags, and some images.

Very fun to read the history and commentary. The sections seem a little random but actually flow historically if you read it. Not sure if we want to reorganize a little. somefangirl (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: It looks like an interesting article, but it is lacking any introduction, that would have to change before becoming a featured article -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes: changing vote because of changes made to the introduction -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I thought the first section (What is Zine Piracy) functions like an intro. Could we use that? -- Error cascade (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh gosh! When I nominated this I definitely thought the first section... was the intro! Hah... I think with a little working it would serve as an intro... -- somefangirl (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree it should have a sentence or two that summarizes the concept for an intro. Since the list in the article is somewhat contradicting, maybe there could be a focus on the piracy part as in "doing something with a zine and it's content without asking the editor/distributor" aspect? Do zines fall under normal copyright law? You are allowed to make private copys of commercially released music and movies (as long you don't crack copyright protection) but not zines (I don't think so)? Would Fair Use apply? Otherwise it is an interesting article and I had no idea that this even a thing. Although as long as people steal fanworks, why not zines as well... --WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
I forgot to add here that I reworked this page a bit last week. MPH (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The new intro looks gerat, MPH so I'm chaning my Maybe to a Yes. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes MPH MPH (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Error cascade (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I love all the fan comments, makes for an interesting read. And the new intro is really good. thanks MPH --Auntags (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I love the amount of detail, from anti-piracy stamps to open letters to anecdotes from conventions! A great page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

The Bridge

Nominated by MPH on August 22, 2020. It is a controversial 1989 story in a fandom that had more than its share of strife, Beauty and the Beast (TV). The page has comments from the author regarding its inception and reception including the statement that "a story belongs as much to the reader as to the writer." The page addresses the topic of a PTB's vision of their creation and how to accept it, twist it, or ignore it. And, to top it off, you can read it online. MPH (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes - I'm not in love with the intro, it is a little too broken up, but if it could be reworded I think this might be a good article to feature -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I did a major re-tweak of the intro. Hopefully better? MPH (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I also tweaked the intro a bit but I'm going with Yes -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Very interesting story; I enjoyed the author's comments on it particularly. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes from me. This is a very interesting page, and NGL, it made me click on the story link to see what's the fuss about... --Roamingcataloger (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Critical Role

Nominated by Roamingcataloger on October 6, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: Good article, I've seen a lot of Critical Role stuff floating around on tumblr. -- Error cascade (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Really impressed by this article's comprehensiveness, and having not really known much about the fandom before (despite it being so well-known) I now feel much more familiar from reading this page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Great, comprehensive article. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Balkanization

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on October 9, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

I've had my eye on this one to nominate for a while, as it is a very interesting term with a specific history and context. I've worked on fleshing out the intro and adding detail and fan comments, and I think it is ready to be featured'
Yes: I've never heard of this term before, very interesting article -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I also never came across this term before. I agree very interesting topic to feature. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I have come across this term before but I never realized it applied to fan convention-goers as well. Very interesting --20:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I'm familiar with the term but never heard of it in the fandom context -- Erimia (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.


Deep Dish Nine

Nominated by Mokuroh on October 10, 2020. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I don't think it's been nominated before, and it's an interesting example of a shared fanwork universe with a wide variety of examples.

Yes: I don't think we have featured something DS9 related in a long time and AU seems always to be a draw. The article is interesting. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk)
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes: However I added a bunch of new content so I would appreciate it if everyone who voted Yes already would go take a quick peak at the changes as see if anything is objectionable, particularly because I've added most of the content to the page overall, so an additional eye would be welcomed. -- Error cascade (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes: I think your additions are great, Error cascade! I had previously thought the page needed a bit more to it but I'm very happy with it now. :) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Agree with everything enchantedsleeper added --Auntags (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Nomination Approved.

Rejected nominations

Gundam

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.

Misogyny in Fandom

Nominated by SecurityBreach on November 9, 2019. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: Great article. I added a few internal links :-) --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: Very good article. I fell down the rabbit hole with this one, following more internal links than I'd meant to.--Auntags (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk)
No: Personally, I still have a really hard time processing this page. Those concerns are detailed in Talk:Misogyny_in_Fandom#Reorganizing_Page and solutions have been discussed but not implemented. —caes (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I hesitate because it feels like the article just scratches the surface of the issue, and it seems like it is trying to cover too much, although with an overview article like this it is hard to cover such a massive topic. I will say I do think some of these topics and bullet points should have articles of their own, like I know there has been some discussion this past year about how badly teenage girls were treated, back in the day, because they dared to like Twilight, most notably the video essay by Lindsay Ellis, and that is just one example -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes: Gianna (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been more than three months since this was nominated, and the issues raised haven't been addressed.

Costumes Are Not Consent

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 24, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: Much like Sockpuppet, I feel like this page is fine, just mildly outdated. In more recent years, the movement has shifted from a focus just on sexual harassment (which don't get me wrong: HUGE problem at early 2000s anime conventions) to the fact that wearing a costume does not qualify as consent to have your picture taken because of a huge upsurge in creepshots taken of cosplayers. These buttons are becoming more common and there's a big discussion about taking photos of cosplayers. Generally speaking, as cosplay has gotten bigger and more elaborate, it's become more and more common for cosplayers to get literally ambushed by a mob for pictures and it's not like. On the one hand, it's flattering that someone wants to take your picture for most people. On the other hand, sometimes I have somewhere to be or something to do and I literally don't have time for photos and there's a weird sense of entitlement convention-goers have about their right to a cosplayer's time. - flyingthesky (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I also feel that the page could use a bit more (recent) content maybe? --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Not yet: The conversation has shifted to taking photos with cosplayers without asking them, as well as online, and the page doesn't mention it at all. So it doesn't meet the criteria of being up to date. --Roamingcataloger (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Rejected. It's been more than three months since this was nominated, and the page still needs work.

TPTB's Involvement with Fandom

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on April 5th 24, 2020. As of this writing, it has a good intro and has no content flags.

Not yet: I think this has potential, but it needs some work. The intro was too short for a Featured Article; I've expanded it with some details about how fan interaction with TPTB has changed over time, but I think it could be improved. Some other issues that I noted - the page is heavily focused on the late 90s, early 00s era of fandom, but there's a lot more to be said about the social media era and how that has impacted things. The page mentions Sherlock and Supernatural, but there don't seem to be any examples more recent than the early 2010s.
I also think that the page structure could use some work; there is a whole section given over to Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, but no other sections dedicated to specific examples; some of the sections are just citing one fan's opinion. There's a section about "Visibility and the Internet Makes Everything More Complicated" way down at the bottom, which could probably be rolled into an overarching section about "Copyright". I would probably create some more general headings, rearrange the structure and perhaps flesh out the sections that are largely bullet-point lists. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Not Yet: I think it needs more work, the topic of social media and TBTB barely scratches the surface, and could probably be it's own article. It is such a broad topic that maybe it would be better to feature articles focusing on specific instances in individual fandoms -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The social media topic has been moved to TPTB and Social Media, so I don't think that missing content is an issue on this page anymore.--caes (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Not Yet: I think it needs a mention of the difference between show (or whatever) creator(s) vs actor involvement, and a mention of fanservice as a potential form of involvement. --Elf (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes. I think it would do well with more info, but overall I think the article was pretty detailed, I liked reading it, interesting stuff. --RubyPhoenix (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Rejected: It's been more than three months and there still seems to be a consensus that this page needs more info to be featured.

The Grandmother and The Demon

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 4, 2020. As of this writing, it has no content flags.

A piece of collaborative original fiction that went viral on tumblr on a few years back, thought it might be cool to feature something showing the collaborative nature of online platforms.
Not yet: I've seen this post in the "wild" and I'm very fond of it. But as a Fanlore page, there's very little to it besides a description of the story itself (and a piece of fanart). It's missing the fandom - are there any fan comments we can add? What about derivative fanworks or other pieces of fanart?
I found a repost of the story by eatbreathewrite that has some good comments on it and I'll add that to the page. I think there's more to this that we can add, but right now the page needs more to give a sense of the story's impact and its variations (for example, in this version the grandmother is called Ethel, so I think the story actually branched off in a couple of different directions). -- enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree that for such popular work (460,000+ notes!) the article could use more comments and reactions. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with what everyone else is saying that it isn't quite enough for such a popular post. I don't think it necessarily has to be completely comprehensive though, and I would consider it a yes if a a little more content was added. -- Error cascade (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Rejected: It's been more than three months and the page still needs work in order to be featured.

✪ 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