Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2022)

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 2022 or that were rejected during 2022 due to insufficient yes votes. For current nominations, visit Fanlore: Featured Article Nominations.

Approved nominations


Nominated by flyingthesky on 8 Dec 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags.

I believe it's been a while since we had a Harry Potter nomination and with the 20th anniversary coming up, I figured now is an especially good time to feature one of the very first Harry/Draco fics! - flyingthesky (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I think the intro needs to be improved a little bit first, because it is was one of the very first Harry/Draco fics maybe a little could be added about it's influence or importance in the fandom. -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Changing vote to yes becuase of changes made to introduction -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've added a bit more to the intro about what made it noteworthy, as well as its fandom classic status. Let me know what you think? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, that does look better -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: While I agree that there could be more about this fic’s influence/importance in the pairings history I do think the rest of the article is good and I found the information on how readers reacted to a slash pairing at the time interesting. Also the 20th anniversary reunion is showing in the next few days so a HP article would be timely. -- Eliadan (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes: A well-rounded page about an interesting fanfic. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes - OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Fandom Ghost: Created Out Of Wholecloth By Fanon

Nominated by Auntags on 4 January 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. An interesting meta from 2016 about unconscious bias in shipping preferences.

Yes: I remember this post and think it would be fun to feature in the wake of another tumblr snafu. - flyingthesky (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Can't believe I never thought to nominate this myself. (Also it's weird because I was thinking about the Fandom Ghost like... earlier today...) Lots of interesting responses to read here and the intro is very nice as well. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: same as ES I think about this article all of the time and it DESERVES a feature --Mozaikmage (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do

Nominated by OMAW on 10 December 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. I'm never quite sure how long articles need to be, so whilst it's relatively short, it seems pretty decent.

Not Yet: I think it needs a little more meat to the article, and a few changes should be made for it to ready, for example, the intro includes the story's summary, which should be it's own section, but if you take the summary out that leaves the intro a little scant. I would like to see more reactions and reviews (I'll try and see if I can find some). Plus, were there any fanworks, aside form the big bang art, inspired by this one? -- Kingstoken (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes: changed vote because of changes made -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
To try and flesh the page out more, I've added a dedicated section for the additional pieces of artwork, plus one for follow-ups & fanworks inspired by the fic. I don't think there's a lot more that can be added as this isn't one of those fics that inspired a ton of fanworks, but I think it does make the page more rounded? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: There could probably be more added, but I think it's fine as it! - flyingthesky (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Short and sweet, and more reviews have been added since December. Patchlamb (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I added a couple of sections (see above) as the page still felt a bit thin, but I'm happy for this to be featured now. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by PictoChatCyberBully on 31 Oct 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I feel like the sections could be renamed to be slightly more clear about what the section is and the first section expanded to a paragraph or two so the reader gets a better sense of the linked page. - flyingthesky (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

:Almost: I'm confused by the "Explosive Growth, Overreach, and Its Demise" section which, if I'm not mistaken, is pretty much just a redirect to a section lower down on the same page? --Greedy dancer (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes Changed my vote following edits by Mrs Potato Head! Looks good to me now. -- Greedy dancer (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Almost: Interesting article but I agree with Greedy dancer that this section, in particular, is confusing. It essentially links to a later section, but even that one doesn't fully cover the explosive growth or overreach part of the title, just the demise. This leaves the article feeling like it's missing something. --Eliadan (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes Also changed my vote following edits by Mrs Potato Head, thanks for the work! —Eliadan (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I tweaked this page quite a bit. MPH (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes Really like the changes made to this page. It would be a good feature. --Auntags (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Lot of work done on this page since initial nomination in October. Looks good to me! Patchlamb (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Kingstoken on January 16, 2022. As of this writing the page has a good into, no flags, and many fanwork examples

Yes: A good mid-length article with a balance of canon and fandom references. I like it! Patchlamb (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: A very fun article. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Looks good to me! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Great read! -- SecurityBreach (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Carrochan on 18 December 2021. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Intro updated after feedback from Kingstoken. KuroKen Day is January 5th as well as May 1st. Match 18th is also an inofficial kuroken day. Since these dates are coming up and I've recently added some example fanart etc, it would be great to feature the ship on Fanlore.

Maybe: the intro would definitely need to be improved before becoming a featured article -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Maybe: I think the intro is probably fine now but I would like to see more detail added to the fandom section - it's quite short in relation to the amount of canon detail, and mostly focuses on fic. I think a bit of a sense of the history (has it always been a popular pairing?), what type of fandom communities there are for this pairing and also how people interact with the ship beyond fic creation would help to round it out. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Updating my vote to Yes based on the recent edits made to the page - kudos to Flyingthesky for adding some great fandom detail, and making other improvements to the page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: The fandom section has since been expanded, and even though it's still rather short, also comes with a plethora of fanart links and internal links that enrich the article. Patchlamb (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: It's a decent article and I'm always in favour for showcasing articles besides the main stream ones. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by PictoChatCyberBully on 2 Feb 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes: However, I do wish the intro was a little more filled put (I know I always complain about intros, but that is what people see on the front page), lower down in the article it's talks about how influential imeem was in convincing live-action vidders to try streaming, it would be nice if we had a line or two the introduce paragraph referencing that -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: This page is well worth a feature and my only suggestion relates to a different page. There is no discussion of streaming on the main Vidding page, or the Digital Vidding page. I think a lot of the context here for why imeem was so important should also be on those pages. I'm not saying it needs to be moved or copied there, but looking at this page makes me realise our other pages might be lacking. --Auntags (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I added a bit to the intro as I agree with Kingstoken, this was a really interesting article and I don't think the intro fully captured it. But happy to give a yes vote, as I said I found the article very interesting and explained well. --Eliadan (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes - Very informative page! -- Greedy dancer (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I find it interesting that this page does double-duty in capturing some live-streaming vidding history as well as charting the rise of imeem. I think those two histories are intertwined and it's good to have that context on the page. Auntags has a good point about also adding that to more general vidding pages, however. Anyway, for the feature I'm a yes. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Amplificathon (challenge)

Nominated by Greedy dancer on February 05, 2022. As of this writing the page has a good into and no content flags. This was an iconic annual challenge for the podfic community which ran for 8 years.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Interesting and robust article. --Eliadan (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Loved reading this page in its entirety. A great feature and piece of podficcing history. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- I'm pretty sure I've actually read this one before! Really cool piece of podfic history Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Slow Show (Good Omens fanfiction)

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 03, 2022. As of this writing the page has a good into, no content flags. A somewhat famous AU fic in Good Omens fandom.

Yes - OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I edited the intro quite a bit because there was something I didn't understand about the tags, and so everything I learned is now in the intro. I also found this exchange between wranglers about the experience of wrangling Slow Show but I'm not sure if it belongs here when there's no comment on how the fandom viewed Ao3's tagging policies. --Auntags (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Almost: I find the clarifications about tags very clarifying and useful, but now wonder if they might be too detailed for the intro & perhaps should have their own section? --Greedy dancer (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Changed my vote in response to edits by Auntags! --Greedy dancer (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Good point. I've started a new section and edited the intro --Auntags (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: impressive. Also: I found the wrangling section very interesting. Greer Watson (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Very well written and structured, contains lots of interesting information. Great read! - SecurityBreach (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I've heard so much about this fic from having been in Good Omens fandom (still haven't read it though!) and I really enjoyed the page. The wrangling section is a great addition and very entertaining to read. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by OMAW on February 06, 2022. As of this writing the page has a good into, no content flags.

Yes: I do wish the intro flowed a little better, but it is not a deal breaker -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I feel the intro buries the lead just a bit. If this was England's only fiction zine at the time as the quote in General Reactions and Reviews suggests then that should be in the intro. The intro does say "With the exception of Alnitah, fanzines were duplicated", but doesn't specify that the fanzines that were duplicated were originally produced outside England. Otherwise a fascinating and really comprehensive page! --Auntags (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
In the notes at the bottom it explains that it wasn't the only at the time, but it was the most popular and best known zine. I will try and add a line about that in the intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Very comprehensive, although agree with prev comments about the intro: it could make what's unique about the zine stand out more. --Greedy dancer (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I did some work on the intro. Hopefully, it's an improvement. MPH (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Love to see a zine page featured and those one is an interesting piece of history. - flyingthesky (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: The intro reads well! I enjoyed learning about this zine. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Uhura (TOS)

Nominated by WhatAreFrogs? on Jan 23rd, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Great, long article about on of the female trailblazers in SciFi.

Maybe: I don't like the intro paragraph, I don't exactly know why, but it just doesn't flow and I don't think it is a great intro to the fandom surrounding the character. Also, if you took out the section on the name controversy the rest of the article feels a little scant to me. -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

:Almost: Agree that the intro needs more work, at the moment it looks like it could almost be its own "name" section. Perhaps intro could focus on character's appearances and impact in fandom (and outside)? -- Greedy dancer (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I did some work on the intro. Hopefully, it's an improvement.MPH (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Did a little more work on the page on top of Mrs. Potato Head's edits, and I'm notw happy to change my vote! --Greedy dancer (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Great page with some great recent edits. Thanks all! -- Auntags (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I love this page - especially the name section, which is fascinating and I love that Nichelle Nichols herself endorsed 'Penda' as a nickname for Uhura! What a heartwarming thing to read. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Agree with everything the Greedy dancer and enchantedsleeper have said. --Eliadan (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Tara Maclay

Nominated by Auntags on February 14, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. (I'm not sure if this page is "ready" to be featured, but if its not, I'm interested to know what editors think it needs!)

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Knowing nothing about Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Tara's character I thought this was a well-developed article that covered a lot of ground. I do think a few more fan reactions wouldn't hurt but happy to give a yes vote as is. --Eliadan (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I really enjoyed reading about this character and learning about her impact. (Diving into the related impact of Willow/Tara is really interesting too). I have added a bit more fannish reaction to the page in the form of fan comments, including a general fan comments section. Though I'm not sure if the "Fannish opinion" section of "Tara's legacy" was meant to be more general? It strikes me as mainly focused on what she represented to fans as a character and so I felt like another section was needed for general criticisms of her narrative role, etc. But I'm not sure. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Really good page about a much beloved character. --SecurityBreach (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Mystery Flesh Pit National Park

Nominated by Pinky G Rocket on February 11, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Blatantly showing off my own work, but I'm really happy with how this page has turned out. Not a large fandom by any means, but lots of example fanworks and a solid amount of info on the fandom.

Almost: Very interesting page - the only thing I feel is missing is a bit of explanation as to how the canon/project works, for those of us who don't follow it. How frequent are updates, and what form do they generally take? (From looking at the Tumblr it seems many are visual, but are there narrative posts as well?) Are updates from all three of the main time periods outlined in the Canon section, or do they all take place in the "present"? I think this info could be added to the Canon section, or perhaps the introduction (or both - a brief summary in the intro, with more detail in Canon). --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with enchantedsleeper, this canon maybe needs a little more explanation because it doesn't fit a standard basic format, like a TV show or a comic -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
enchantedsleeper, Kingstoken, I made some changes to try and explain how the project and Tumblr plays out more. Let me know if you need to change anything else. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Pinky! I think that looks good - happy to update to a yes vote. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes Perhaps my next vacation spot! It's a lovely page. MPH (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes Seems comprehensive to me! Eskici (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes I think after the above mentioned edits the page looks good and is a very interesting read. --Eliadan (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Beauty and the Beast Fans and TPTB

Nominated by MPH on March 26, 2022.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Really extensive and comprehensive article and a very interesting read. My only suggestion is if the beginning of the intro was slightly reworded. Thinking about it on the front page, I think it would read better if the initial paragraph mentioned the thin boundaries that are talked about later on because "interacted with each other in a variety of ways" is kind of vague for a lead-in. But happy for it to go ahead. --Eliadan (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I retooled the first sentence to be more specific about the high level of fan-TPTB interaction and lead in to the rest of the intro. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes: This article was a wild ride and is very comprehensive --Auntags (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes: What Auntags said! --MomeRath (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Kingstoken on March 29, 2022. As of this writing the page has a good into, no content flags. I thought this one might be a good one to feature, it is fairly comprehensive, and this a huge section of the DCU fandom

Yes -- MPH (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I made a slight edit to the intro paragraph just to break it up into a few smaller sentences (all the various comic and book names made it a bit unwieldy to someone unfamiliar), but great article overall. --Eliadan (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes -- Eskici (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Patchlamb on Jan 20, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Could use more meta, but I believe it's otherwise a decent article.

Not Yet: It could be fleshed out a bit more, particularly the History section. Maybe some of the intro could be moved to history and fandom. I also don't understand the first two sentences in Rise of Popularity section and haven't come across f/o before (I googled it - fictional other). I would be a good page to feature if these bits could be worked on--Auntags (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
ETA: Changing my vote to Yes in light of recent edits by Patchlamb --Auntags (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Almost: I think this is nearly there, but I agree with Auntags that the beginning of the Rise to Popularity section is very odd. And I mean, have Reader-Insert fics really had a "Rise to popularity" as such? I mean, I came to fandom through Quizilla reader-insert fics and so it feels to me like they've always been popular, it's just that fandom as a whole is bigger now (and they're mixed in with everything on sites like AO3 instead of being siloed off on quiz websites) so they're more noticeable.
Another thought - Wattpad should probably be mentioned somewhere on the page as there's lots of XReader stuff there. Maybe the size of Wattpad also has something to do with there being a lot more of these works now? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Updating to yes: The edits have done a good job of addressing the issues raised here; the page still lacked a mention of Wattpad, though, so I added that in. I also removed the references to specific fandoms in the History section as it wasn't really clear when these were supposed to have been popular. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Maybe: this type of fic seems to have gained some popularity in the last months at least on tumblr(?) (no idea why, though), would love to see that reflected in the article as well. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I think the article does a pretty good job with the history section, but I think some mention of tumblr (I first discovered this type of fic on tumblr), or maybe wattpad, is needed, or maybe just a more general statement about changing platforms and how that introduced new readers to the concept. Also, more fanwork example would be nice, but not strictly necessary -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Almost: Might be interesting to add that in 2021 "Reader" was one of the characters who got the most works added to AO3, cf (toastystats 2022 AO3 stats post) --Greedy dancer (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Good one! I added the information as resquested above. -- SecurityBreach (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes --Eliadan (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

And is there Honey still for Tea?

Nominated by OMAW on 11 April 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. This fic sounds fascinating: an apocalyptic AU Winnie the Pooh fic. I think it needs a bit of a restructure, but overall I think there's enough here for a very interesting featured article.

Yess -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I added one more quote. I wish the intro was a bit longer, but I do feel the page is well worth a feature, and I'm not sure what more can be said --Auntags (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes -- Greer Watson (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by enchantedsleeper on 20 April, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

As the earliest known example of the Bed Sharing trope, I think this would be an interesting feature. It is short as there's not a lot out there about the fic - no fan comments that I can find other than those from the next zine issue, only one article that talks about it, and no directly inspired fanworks that I know of (unless you count the entirety of the Only One Bed trope). But any suggestions on additions are welcomed. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes: While it is a short article I think it’s as comprehensive as can be, I also tried looking around for any further fandom connections but couldn’t find anything. As it’s the starting point of the trope I think it would be interesting to feature. --Eliadan (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I agree with Eliadan, I wish we could add more to the article in way of reactions and reviews, but I don't see how we could find those -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes: It can be difficult to find discussion/comments on older stories printed in zines. I feel this is as comprehensive as it can be, and a fascinating feature. --Auntags (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes --SecurityBreach (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

An Algorithm for Mistakes

Nominated by OMAW on 24 March 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. It's not particularly long, but if any Teen Wolf fans want to add anything more to it - like inspired fanworks if there are any, and the intro is expanded, it could be a decent featured article?

Yes: I wish it had a little more info on what made it such an influential fic, and maybe more inspired fanworks, but those aren't deal-breakers -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes: If this is featured, I think we should use the art in the gallery (and not the art in the infobox) on the main page. The art in the infobox was created for lunchee's podfic and not the original fanfic. --Auntags (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you think we should flip them? Put the other cover art in the infobox and out the podfic art in the example art gallery? -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it strikes me that those two should probably be swapped over. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree! I swapped the art like Kingstoken suggested. Thanks! --Auntags (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Auntags! I’m here to do the minor edits enchantedsleeper suggested, thanks for doing this already! Joanna R (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes -- User:Mrs. Potato Head MPH (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Almost: There are just a couple of small things that I think could be improved before we feature this, and they're minor, but I don't think they would be too difficult to address: the 2014 stat in the intro reads oddly to me, because why specify that this was among the most kudosed/bookmarked Stydia fics in 2014 specifically? It also has some caveats in the reference that undermine that title a bit, so I'm inclined to think we could take it out, but didn't want to do that without other opinions. The other thing is that the fan comments seem to boil down to two types, praising characterisation and praising setting, and I wonder if we could add a few more that comment on other aspects of the fic.
I have added about 3 more comments - one on the visualness of the setting (not just the geography which was already highlighted), and two on the science/biology themes in the fic which people seemed to enjoy in the AO3 comments. Honestly almost ALL comments were about Lydia’s characterization, so I’m not sure how many other aspects we can find, heh. The reference coding is somewhat cleaned up although could probably be a little more uniform. Joanna R (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Amazing work! Those are great finds, love the Lego scene :D I am happy to update my verdict to a Yes! enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I've had a look for other "inspired by" fanworks and really can't find any, so I think that part of the article is as comprehensive as it can be. A few more comments I think is all this really needs. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I found & added a Lego scene from the fic!Joanna R (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes --SecurityBreach (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes -- Greer Watson (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Thing (1982)

Nominated by Pinky G Rocket on 4 April 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Probability that one or more article editors may be infected by intruder organism: -75%-. If possible and approved, I'd like this earmarked for the week of June 19th-25th to coincide with the film's 40th anniversary; not a huge deal, just something I'd think would be fun.

Maybe:The article feels every much like it is focuses on a few key people, I'm sure they are very important to the fandom, but I think it would be nice to understand what the larger fandom is like -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes: changed vote, because of changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Bulked up the fandom intro section to address your feedback. Let me know if I should do more research or add more. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes I think it's a fine page. MPH (talk)
Almost: I think the intro needs to be bulked up a bit more for a Featured Article, since the intro is what gets excerpted on the main page and right now it doesn't mention anything about the fandom, so it would be good to have a paragraph or two that sum up what the fandom is like - types of fandom activity, how big/active is it, that kind of thing. Also, I noticed the "Tropes in Fanworks" section is empty - if you check out the Nomination Criteria it's mentioned that Featured Articles shouldn't have headers without any content, so that would need to be filled out.
You mentioned that it would be good if the article could be featured in mid-June - I'm not sure how easy that will be, because we tend to queue up articles as soon as they're approved and not for a specific date. If we turn out to be very well-off for Featured Articles we could potentially feature others ahead of this, but we would need about 7 in order to last us until mid-June. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
enchantedsleeper- the main intro and fandom intro has been bulked up. Tropes in Fanworks section has been cut; the content that would be there has been more to the beginning of the Example Fanworks section. Please let me know if there's anything else I should add or change.
Scheduling is not a big deal, it's just something that I think would be fun if the planets align right. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Good work with those! It's looking good to me - updating my vote to a Yes with those edits :) --enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's an interesting and informative article worth reading. --SecurityBreach (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
(started a page for Kurt Russell so there's one red link less) --SecurityBreach (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Angel in the Dark

Nominated by OMAW on 7th May 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags.

Yes: It might be good to put a line in the intro about how the work was removed form the AO3 and the work to re-upload it, if we can find a why to say that succinctly -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I added to the intro like Kingstoken suggested. --Auntags (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I added some more detail around the zine removal debate as well as some more detail about the removal in general (e.g. how comments were retrieved) from the Dreamwidth posts. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Kingstoken on January 19, 2022. As of this writing the page has a good into, no content flags

Not yet: I would love to feature this page but the controversies section is very bare. I feel there's a lot to be said there, or we could replace the controversies section with fan comments both positive and less-than-positive to show the wide range of fan reactions to this ship (cause it did cause reactions, and gained media attention)--Auntags (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I'm sorry I didn't see this sooner. Changing my vote to yes! The fan comments and other edits really flesh out the page.
Not yet: What Auntags said. This Ship is controversial, and the article seems kinda to gloss over that by simply linking to the incest article. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Not yet: agree with the above comments -Greedy dancer (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
It could probably use more, but I added some fan comments both about the ship's appeal and from the perspective of antis about the incest controversy. Eskici (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes: It's been worked on quite a lot since nomination, and I added some positive quotes as well. I think it's pretty comprehensive. Patchlamb (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I've added some more fan comments to the page which I think are a bit more reflective of a variety of criticisms and defences. Auntags, WhatAreFrogs? & Greedy dancer, would any of you be able to take a second look to decide if these additions have addressed your concerns? I think the edits from Eskici have hit on the main suggestions (flesh out the Controversies section, and add fan comments) but the section deals mostly with the incest aspect. Is that the only/main thing it should reflect? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Against the Sith

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 24, 2022. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags. I stumbled across this article and I thought it was a really interesting look at an early zine in Star Wars fandom.

Yes: I loved the intro, a really fascinating view into early SW fandom. And the sections and reactions I read were very interesting. I've never not read the full page before but this is a very long page. Still I think I've read enough to vote yes.--Auntags (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes: One of my favorite pages. :-) -- MPH (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC) MPH
Yes: Massively detailed, and very interesting. Greer Watson (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes--aethel (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Purple Pages

Nominated by User:aethel on May 30, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Very interesting example of the early history of RPF and an analog technology for copy protection.

Yes: I do think it could be reorganized slightly, because the intro paragraph isn't separated from the rest of the article, but I do still think it is very interesting and worth being featured -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I worked on the intro a bit. Hopefully, an improvement? -- MPH MPH (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I saw that, it looks better, thank you! -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I loved learning about this fascinating piece of history. I added in an extra comment from the Drawerfic page which contains a possible reference to The Purple Pages, and also has some good context about the fandom culture at the time. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes as is, though as a minor note I'd love the "purple paper as a privacy method" explanation to get its own section, so it would stand out more! --Greedy dancer (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to MPH for adding this! :3 --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes very interesting read; I also appreciate the changes that were made recently. SecurityBreach (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

J. Michael Straczynski

Nominated by MPH on March 26, 2022. This is an interesting topic, mainly due to the pros and cons of JMS' close interaction with fandom and of the online archiving of his posts.

Not Sure: It's a good article, but I am hesitant to approve it, because we have never featured an article exclusively about a professional person before (we've had articles about specific incidents, like cease and desist letters), and I know this is about his interactions with fandom overall, but because we do make posts about the featured article on twitter I would be a little uncomfortable with the thought that they might see it -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay. I understand. MPH (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a good opportunity to have a conversation about how we want to handle Featured Articles related to a professional individual. I am more comfortable with the idea of featuring this than I would be about featuring a fan (given that we've only occasionally featured articles about fans who have passed on), and while I agree that promoting this on social media could be a bit awkward, we can always take the decision to feature it but not post on social. I find it an interesting article and I think it otherwise fits our criteria. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I feel along the same lines as enchantedsleeper, I think it's better to maybe not promote on social media but it's an interesting article and much of the focus is on fandom interactions. It also gives a nice insight into one author's perspective on fanworks and the legality from the creator's side. I agree that I would be more comfortable featuring an article based on an IRL person like this versus one about a general fan (which I don't think would be a good idea in most cases). --Eliadan (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I think this is a super-interesting article about an active professional creator, and it provides a lot of insight into why that may or may not be a good thing for fannish activity, with a perspective (JMS’) that isn’t against fanworks but primarily conscious of his professional constraints. JMS and Babylon 5 was my first experience with an active professional creator, and at the time (not being aware of transformative fanworks) I didn’t see a downside. I confess I also don’t see a downside of featuring this article, whether or not we advertise on social - why wouldn’t we? It’s well known that JMS is and was active in the fandom, so I’m sure he’s seen plenty of thoughts documenting that. With PPOV as a value, we-as-Fanlore are not trying to make a case one way or another about his involvement, so it all seems interesting to me.
Yes: I agree this is a very interesting article, which seems to give a good, even-handed account of a significant series of interactions. (I only say "seems" because I wasn't even on the fringes of the B5 fandom, but I was around at the time and was aware of this and other instances). This is an important part of fandom history, occurring during a time of great transition, and there still isn't 100% agreement on how we deal with interactions between fans and professionals online or IRL. Maybe we never will! Meanwhile, it's important to document the stepping stones along the way. TL;DR: Yes, and I don't see any harm at all in sharing it as we would any other featured article.
Yes from me - I basically said as much earlier/above but I don't see an issue with featuring this, regardless of what we decide to do with social media (which can be a separate conversation), and it's a very interesting article. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. I think this is really interesting and quite robust! --effietheant (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Unauthorized Sequel

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 15, 2022. As of this it has a good into and the article is responsively comprehensive. It does have an examples wanted tag, but the rest of the article is very well done.

Not yet: I really like this page; it covers the topic from the 1970s to the 2010s. I'm only saying Not Yet because of two sections at the bottom of the page - Changes in Attitudes Over Time, and Different Attitudes in Different Mediums. They both appear to have placeholder text designed to prompt an editor to add more information. Maybe we can address those before featuring? --Auntags (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes : changing my vote. Thanks for all the work --Auntags (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry I missed the sections being blank at near the bottom of the page, I must skimmed right over them as I was reading. I'll see if I can find and info for those section -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I think the page is quite complete as it is - perhaps if no one has any ideas as to what to write in the "empty" sections we can move them to the talk page for now? I don't think they're particularly crucial to the page's integrity (and I certainly wouldn't know what to add.) --Greedy dancer (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I've moved the "Changes in Attitudes Over Time" section to the Talk page as I think that's a good suggestion and gives room for us to debate what to include, if anything. I also removed the placeholders in "Different Attitudes in Different Mediums" as I don't think they were really needed.
I notice that the "Some Examples of Unauthorized Fanworks" section has an Examples Wanted content flag - is that new? Do we think many more examples are needed? I noticed Ellakbhesse has asked about a Snarry fic with an unauthorised sequel on the Talk page, in case anyone familiar with the ship wants to take a look and see if they can help. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- User:Mrs. Potato Head MPH MPH (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. This looks great IMO! --effietheant (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Memnoch the Spec

Nominated by auntags on June 10, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

This is a short page about one of the earliest Anne Rice fanfictions on the internet
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Some kind of visual would be ideal, but if none have been made for it, the article's still fine as is. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- User:Mrs. Potato Head MPH (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Almost: The one thing I find myself wanting from the page, after reading it, is a sense of what the fic is about. I know there isn't an author summary we can easily include, unfortunately, but would anyone who has read the fic be able to add a couple of lines of summary to the page?
I also posted a question about the Related Works section to the Talk page, since it seems as though there ought to be more than just the one work listed there. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the related works list and I'll work on the summary tonight. I've also added a talk page comment about why I don't feel comfortable directly linking to the fics in this case. (pre-emptive id protection) -- auntags 11:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
A rough summary has been added to the intro. May need another once over to make sure it makes sense to folks outside the fandom--Auntags (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. especially after all the good work done recently. SecurityBreach (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Hanky Panky

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on June 1, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A comprehensive and interesting page about the first ever slash S&H letterzine. If we feature both this and The Purple Pages, we may want to space them out a bit as their subjects are similar, though not completely the same as one is RPS and the other is not. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes: as long as we can have a large space between featuring this one and the Purple Pages -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I support the idea of a break between the two articles. SecurityBreach (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes Eskici (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes very comprehensive! --Legendofthefireemblem (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Peter Parker/Wade Wilson

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 27, 2022. As of this writing, there are no content flags, and seems to be a good overview of the pairing.

Yes: I've added a lot of fandom info and fleshed out the intro. This page is now at a similar standard as other comics couples we're featured in the past. --Auntags (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I've added tumblr archiveurls and an art tumblr. SecurityBreach (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Alternate Ending to Catharsis

Nominated by OMAW on June 21, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes: As long as we can have a little bit of time between this and Hanky Panky, we had a quite a few S&H featured noms recently -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
This one is The Professionals, in fact, not S&H! You might be thinking it seems familiar because we recently featured (well, technically are about to feature) Unauthorized Sequel, of which this was one of the sequels mentioned? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I must have confused the two-- Kingstoken (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes MPH (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes Eliadan (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Blue Sky

Nominated by Patchlamb on May 12, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. This was a really popular video game fanfic that some people made printed copies of, could be interesting to feature.

Hesitant Yes: a couple things need to be changed for me, one: the plot summary needs to be trimmed down considerably, a simple outline of the story should do, two: the second paragraph in the intro feels like it should be in an article about the author and not about the fic itself, we could say that this is the author's most well known fic, but anything about the author themselves should probably be moved over to a different page about them -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes: changing vote after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I cut down the plot and moved info about Waffle to her own page. Patchlamb (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this, Patchlamb! I’m doing some edits to improve this page so it can be featured, and this was helpful! Just FYI I’m also going to remove the comment that the author also wrote other Portal fic, with the list, because you did include it on the author’s page and it’s more relevant there. Prolly just an accidental oversight that it’s still on the Blue Sky page. Joanna R (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I know nothing about Portal so I did find this page a little confusing, mainly the plot summary. For someone who's uninitiated to Portal, it lost me on the first read through. I think it would help to put the focus on how the fic starts, pointing out which characters are human/robot, and how Wheatley as a human hologram begins to have dreams that hint to his origins. I also wonder if full summaries that give away the ending might discourage some from reading the story themselves. --auntags, 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Almost: I feel like the plot summary is still very long and (too?) detailed. Perhaps a section on the story's tropes would be interesting, to link it to wider fannish trends? --Greedy dancer (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I was working on clarifying the plot summary, Greedy dancer, and I found some internal links I could add, but perhaps I don’t read enough robot-related fic because no major tropes jumped out at me, more internal links welcome! Joanna R (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Though the others bring up good ideas for improvements, this page is already worthy of being featured imo. — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes but specific…: Since Kingstoken, Auntags, and Greedy dancer all focused on the plot summary, I focused on rewriting that and did not review the rest of the article. I am not familiar with the game at all, but I used the existing pages to get the plot summary such that I think it’s understandable to a random person (meee!), and I hope the game fans will pardon the way I abridged it. So based only on review of the plot summary, if my revisions seem reasonable, I’d vote yes now. Joanna R (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes MPH MPH (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

101 Ways To End Up In A Canadian Shack

Nominated by MPH on June 6, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: a few more fan comments might be nice, and a list of some examples of fanworks created for the challenge would also be good -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes: changed vote after the changes that were made -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I agree with Kingstoken, would be a great addition, but still needs some expansion and maybe a reorganization of the sections? --Ellakbhesse (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Placeholder: not a full vote yet because I need to go back to check links and SPAG. However, the page should be much more comprehensive now!
Yes: this has lots of details from the development of the original challenge preserved, I added some fun links about authors who did both challenges and which fandoms they chose, and I love all the internal links to fans and tropes that were already there.
Ellakbhesse I didn’t precisely reorganize the sections, but I did include a lot of text explaining how the links fit together, so I hope this’ll seem more organized.
Kingstoken I included a summary for several fans who have Fanlore pages AND wrote for both challenges - the AO3 links are ugly, but they should be search results straight to creator searches in both 2001/2011 collections.
I tried to use web cite for most of the links (some may still be using the “source” template because I didn’t double-check them all), although I am not pulling all the links into a list yet since that’s a separate discussion, and the DW ones do need archival links still. Joanna R (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I added a bit of detail to the intro to clarify how this went from a trope/fanon to a fic challenge, and I think the rest of the page looks good! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Good page, and it's nice to have an opportunity to feature a challenge --Auntags (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

A Fine Line (OUAT story)

Nominated by kingstoken on August 3, 2022. The article has a good intro and no content flags. This is a well known SwanQueen fic that I thought might be good to feature. I might be wrong, but I don't think we have featured anything SwanQueen related before

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes - Could use a brushover, such as adding archival links for vids, and author names for reaction/review quotes. I also changed the intro to be a bit more clear, as the name SwanQueen isn't immediately obvious as a ship name - at first, I thought it was another fandom, haha. Otherwise, looks solid to me. Pinky G Rocket (talk)
Yes - I added archive links for the fanvids, but I think the quotes are fine without author names as we don't attach names to every quote (for fan reaction sections like this I think the norm is not to use them). I also added a bit more info about the fic content to the intro but removed the list of stats from AO3 and, as those tend to date very quickly and so I think we should avoid using those unless there's a way to make them evergreen. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by aethel on 31 May 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Almost: Amazing concept! lol Maybe some images to flesh it out a little? --Greedy dancer (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe: I agree with Greedy dancer, it feels like it just needs a little bit more -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes: changing my vote based on the changes made to improve the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Almost: Some more fan comments and wider discussion? From those who love it, those who don't. Since this is a very visual thing, at least one image? MPH (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes MPH MPH (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Almost: The first line confused me because I assumed it meant Sherlock as a whole, but the paragraph under it made me think maybe it was BBC Sherlock centric instead. Maybe the intro can be re-worked and the page tidied up a little, I agree an image would me nice. I think it would also be cool if there was a section that outlined how the term came to exist; one quote touches on it but didn't go into detail. Patchlamb (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes yes: I disambiguated the internal links to make it more clear this came out of the Sherlock BBC fandom (and included commentary on the original post’s date to explain why). I included some images because I definitely agree, this is a visual concept! (Any edits to my alt text welcome, I tried!) Lol I’m sorry, I didn’t look for any comments from haters because I think this is so adorable heh. Plus with my Fanlore hat on, this has archived versions of all links, so that’s a great idea since it’s from a few years ago. Joanna R (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Not yet: Raised issues specifically on the formatting of the citations (OK with using the Template:Cite web, but dislike the Citations/Works Cited split) and the intro sentence, on the Talk page. Joanna R (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Abstaining: Sitting this one out, since I had so much delight working on this page, loved the tone and the fanwork examples chosen, and specifically preferred the versions without inline/full citation split, so I don’t think I can calmly evaluate PPOV or respond to documentation discussion. Joanna R (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes! This is a fun trope to feature. I fleshed out the intro a bit with some more context around the trope's emergence to lead into the rest of the page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes:Good one! (also, I made a stub for mofftiss so we have one red link less) SecurityBreach (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Almost - This may be splitting hairs, but while I think the content of the article is good, I think there are some general grammar/style errors going on. Namely, there are a number of adverbs in the opening of the article, some confusing use of tense, and the block quotations should make use of the source argument for the template. In addition, the references sections should be split between notes and actual citations to avoid confusion. I'll do a sweep on these issues now, then reply here or on the Talk page if I think there's anything else to discuss. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
After doing further work on the page, I have found a number of nagging issues that need to be addressed before it goes live. Due to my unfamiliarity with Sherlock, I don't feel comfortable addressing them myself.
hansoeii quote - this is the biggest one. I double-checked the link, and the link that was used for citation goes a different blog that does not actually contain the quoted statement. I threw up a needscite template on the quote until the issue is resolved. Source found by Joanna. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Here is the link for further reference - (it does not currently have an archived version that I saw). Joanna R (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
first note/2016 examination - it's rather longwinded and important for a note! it should be moved out of notes/ref and incorporated into the main section of thee article.
Origin and Discussion - this section does not actually explain the origins or explain how people talked about tunalock. the section simply consists of different quotes from discussions and tumblr posts without further context. are there conflicting origins, or one definite origin? what was the initial reaction? did it change over time? even just something simple, along the lines of the intro section in the 'resurgence' section, would suffice.
tumblr and fanwork dates, notes, and summaries - is this information necessary? in my opinion, that kind of information is superfluous in an examples section. from what I've seen around fanlore, when it comes to making example fanwork sections, only the author is included for attribution purposes.
link archival - some of the fanwork links are archived, and some of them are not. this is an easily addressed issue, but i'm starting to wind down for the night; i'll address it tomorrow if it still needs work. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I am willing to take back on refining the citations for this page, but before I make too many other changes, I disagree that the page doesn’t explain the origins - it’s explained in one of the block quotes re “it all started”, as much as it can be for a crack-y concept, and in the original line drawing in the infobox - and I like all the info in the fanwork examples section like summaries of what the link is to. To me, it’s only the citation needed for hansoeii that is an issue. (Yes, we can also make sure there are archived links for everything.) Joanna R (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I took a closer look at the origins section and at the article. First, while the lead of the article states that the trend stemmed from a Tumblr post, a quote in the origins section states that the Tumblr post was created in a response to a live stream with friends. This is burying the lede a little bit, and I believe that this is relevant information that can be included in the lead of the article.
Secondly, the lead of the article, and the first quote of the origins section, imply that Tunalock was created as satire. However, the actual quote from thisfishyisonthemove doesn't imply or state anything of the sort: from what I can tell, it was a silly joke. Therefore, I believe the 'reportedly' in the lead can be changed to "According to some fandom members, Villain's post was a satirical response..." or similar so it's less "this is exactly what happened". I think this is the source of my confusion regarding the lead of the article and the origins section. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Pinky G Rocket: I think some confusion crept in here because of the way the wording of the intro has changed (and due to some ambiguity in the original wording). The intro originally didn't say "Villain's post...", it said "It..." But that "It" was referring to Tunalock as a general meme/trend, not the specific origin post. That's why it now reads oddly; it was intended to say that the trend as a whole was satirical, not just the post that sparked it off. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The dates in fanworks sections are in my view essential and are missing from many pages. I add dates whenever I can and I recommend everyone else do so as well. As time passes even topics that the original editor thought of as being of the present moment become historical topics, and without the dates as a signal it's harder for later readers to understand the context. Fandoms change over time, and these changes can be illustrated by linking fanworks produced in a particular time and place in the example sections.--aethel (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I’d like to propose we revert the page before Pinky G Rocket‘s edits, with the caveat we can rectify any specific concerns:
  • I know one clear concern is the citation needed for hansoeii, which I have found.
  • Another concern was the “tone” of the first sentence, which I have raised on the Talk page that some of us actually liked as light-hearted and befitting a crack-y idea.
  • Anything else?
  • The issues re LDR citing are a larger issue, but meanwhile we had 5 positive votes + 2 others (Greedy dancer and Patchlamb) who didn’t change their votes yet but whose concerns have been addressed. If Featured Articles don’t have to be perfect (but I edited this to address all the other concerns) + so many of us liked the page previously + LDR (for references) is a larger/separate issue, I wish we could not hold up this particular article for a larger issue. Joanna R (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I like to explore other options before reverting my edit, as I made other changes to the page as part of my edits last night. Besides the formatting of citations, I made some SPAG and style edits elsewhere in the article outside of the intro and standardized dates across the articles. In addition, I added archival links for some references, and repaired links for other references; for the latter, some links lead to Tumblr links which are not visible to those without an account on the site.
Dates, I can see an argument for. However, notes, especially exact note counts, are an odd choice in my opinion. Namely, they're hard to keep track of due to the constantly changing nature of Tumblr and social media in general. If we keep them to show if something has gone viral, I would like to suggest chopping them down to rough estimates (e.g. around 30,000, 30K, etc.) would convey the information in a slightly shorter package. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I know that there are a few improvements that have been suggested for the page here and there is also a separate discussion on the Talk page about citations. In the interests of consolidating them, can I ask which edits are the real deal-breakers for the Featured Article nomination (i.e. really must be addressed before it can be featured) and which are more minor? That way we can prioritise the deal-breaker ones and shift discussion of the others to the Talk page. I think things like SPAG and style edits aren't really major enough to hold up a Featured Article nomination, so is it just the ambiguity of the intro that we need to address? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Addressed issues I found. Lots of changes and don't want to try and juggle to reply to a bunch of threads, so detailing them here.
* Added citation for sourceless quote.
* Dates standardized.
* Reworked intro paragraph to better reflect the origins of Tunalock, the surrounding analysis, and the diversity of fanworks.
* More Tunalock fanblogs added.
* More quotes adding additional insight into origins, initial reaction, and analysis added to the Discussion section.
* Contextual sentences added to the Discussion section.
* References changed to List-defined references format.
* All external links archived and changed to use Template:Source.
This list will be endless if I try and detail all the changes I made, as the page increased in size by ~6,800 bytes from my edits over the last few days. Any feedback on my changes will be greatly appreciated. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for all your work on this, Pinky G Rocket! This has added a lot to the page and I think it's looking more Feature-worthy than ever :D There's just one bit that I'm a little hesitant over (though I hate to make this discussion even longer xD) - in the "Initial reaction" section, the exchange between oropherr and thisfishyisonthemove seems odd without any context, since there's no direct reference made to Tunalock. Is there a way to contextualise it, or to use an example that references Tunalock directly? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thisfishyisonthemove is a sideblog by katzensprotte dedicated to Tunalock, which is stated under Origins. Given the focus of the blog, I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption to assume the exchange was about Tunalock. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Right, I gathered that about the blog but I still think the exchange reads oddly without context - while it probably is about Tunalock I feel like it would help to have an explanation of what it's in response to. Or alternatively an example that has more of an "embedded" context. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I've found a couple of examples from the same blog that are pretty good sarky exchanges, so I've switched the Ask out for those. As we definitely have enough Yes votes now, I'm going to approve this! Thank you to everyone who worked on it! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Holmesian Federation

Nominated by enchantedsleeper on 8 August, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

A thorough page about an interesting zine - noteworthy particularly because of its involvement in the Chelsea Quinn Yarbro incident (aka A Matter of Willful Copyright Infringement).
Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Almost: I think we could do with the contents of Issue 3 if anybody can find them? -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
OfMonstersAndWerewolves: I've just realised the reason why there isn't a contents list for Issue 3: it only contained one story, which is listed in that section, so there isn't a need for anything additional! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Great page on a crossover zine that started in the 1970s. I probably shouldn't be surprised that the term crossover goes all the way back to the 80s but I am, and this is definitely worth a feature --Auntags (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes: --Eskici (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Mandalorian, his son and the Storm Trooper

Nominated by auntags on 18 Aug 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Not sure if this is ready to be featured, but at one time the fandom for this fic was probably bigger than the fandom for its source material; the Star Wars TV show The Mandalorian

Hesitant Yes: I think the intro paragraph needs to be slightly reworked, I think some of that info can be put in a separate section about the canon of the story -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes: changing vote after the changes made -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: cut down the intro and shuffled most of it down into a section about the series and i think it's ready to be featured now. this fic is such a weird example of recursive fanfiction because like auntags said i'm pretty sure that for a while most of the mandalorian fandom on ao3 WAS just this fic's fandom that i'd love for more people to get introduced to it. - flyingthesky (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I've also created a few stubs for a few of the red links so there are fewer of them now. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I haven’t even read the whole article yet, and I am learning so much! It feels easy to follow as someone who is barely-knowledgeable about SW and worthwhile to realize how big of a recursive fandom this ‘verse is creating! The section on the “Works in the Series” feels a bit long, but each summary is short and it’s a good overview of where the series goes, so this is not a deal-breaker to me. There are a nice amount/variety of example fanworks linked. Joanna R (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Joanna, I'm the one that made the change to make the works in the series section be a table. The chronological note could be confusing, so I decided to add a table so everything could be clear + save a bit of space. Pinky G Rocket (talk)
Oh nice, Pinky G Rocket! I didn’t have any issues with the format of a table itself - in fact it makes it easy on the eyes - it just seemed like a long section, but I think that’s simply because there are a lot of works. The summary of each work is short and to the point, so I think there’s no way around the summaries. It was notable in that I noticed it, but it made sense when I thought about it so that’s what I tried to reflect in my vote. Joanna R (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I was fascinated by this glimpse into a fandom within a fandom! I added some more fan reactions as I thought the page was originally a bit light on those for such a famous series. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Been giving it a bit of shine/polish, but I think it's a good article that's ready to be featured regardless. Pinky G Rocket (talk)
Nomination approved.

The Expanse

Nominated by Joanna_R on 12 Aug 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: Hesitant because it’s a self-nom, so I may be biased. This is a fandom that seems to engage by creating gifs or meta, discussing the show and its relation to the book series (in this area like GoT), and learning the conlang. Plus being passionate about evangelizing, i.e. one of the notable successes in save-the-show campaigns. Believe it or not, I’ve tried to summarize canon and indicate how fans interact with it, but since I tend towards being verbose, I’m not sure if that comes across to other readers, heh. So bottom line, I don’t know how a new reader would find it - open to feedback! - but I also feel it’s a good summary, i.e. I’d be confident a new reader has the gist of the show.
flyingthesky’s edits really sharpened the focus! Joanna R (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe: I do think it is a good overview of the show, but I'm not 100% sure about the fandom. The majority of the fandom section is about the #savetheexpanse campaign, which could maybe use it's own article at some point, but the rest of it feels pretty scant. I'm not sure how big the fandom is, and how much more that could be added, but I feel like if you took out the canon info this would be a every short article -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at it, Kingstoken. It is honestly a pretty small fandom (800 works on AO3 even with the popularity of the show), I think it’s mostly Reddit discussion and people actually learning the conlang, so I’m not sure there’s much wiggle room around it being a scant article. I agree that #SaveTheExpanse campaign is an interesting campaign/event, and I did almost think about a separate article? But I’m not sure what else I’d put there except the links I’ve already included. Something to ponder for the future. Oh and thanks also for sorting out the category situation, I’m never sure what to put. Joanna R (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Not yet: Lots of information about canon, but besides the fan campaign, most of the fandom information is a high-level overview. In particular, I'd like to see more information about the subreddit, the online roleplay community, fans studying and practicing the conlang, and cosplay. Pinky G Rocket (talk)
Do you have suggestions on what types of info you want to see? (Not sections, which you list, but concrete examples, which are helpful to me in addressing concerns.) I’ve provided a lot of links for all the fan activities, summarized what’s on the various discussions and resource lists, hashtags for appreciation weeks, etc., so it would be helpful to know what would be more meaningful. Joanna R (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes: i reworked the page a little and i think moving the lang belta section down from canon to fandom, since it's more of a fannish activity than something that needs to be in the canon section (at least as far as fanlore is concerned) balances the page to the point where it's fine to feature. like Joanna said, the fandom's pretty small so it's hard to get into too much more detail without it starting to feel a little bit confusing to people not overly familiar with the canon. - flyingthesky (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you again so much for this work, flyingthesky! Rearranging the Lang Belta section really made a huge difference in highlighting it as a fan activity, and re-balancing the page towards fan engagement with the show. Like we both agree heh, it’s a small fandom - passionate but a little hard to reflect on Fanlore because it’s so much discussion-based. Thank you, all the minor re-phrasing edits to the page really highlight what I was trying to say! Joanna R (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Thanks to everyone who worked on this page. It has come a long way! --Auntags (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: The page is looking great, and I think the fandom side of things has been well fleshed-out. I loved learning about the sciencey fandom for this franchise as well as the campaign to save the show! Really interesting. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Protège Moi

Nominated by Kingstoken on September 6, 2022. As of this writing, it has a good intro and the page has no content flags.

An early Wincest vid that was well know for it's style and colouring, interesting as a vidding example article, as well as a SPN one
Yes: One thing unrelated to this page. I can't find a definition of vidlet on Fanlore (I think its a vid that's less than 2 min long?) We may want to address that redlink before featuring (if folks agree to feature) --Auntags (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I created a short page for vidlet based on what I could find online -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Good one! SecurityBreach (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Seems like a notable fanwork to feature, and I don't see any major issues with the page. Patchlamb (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by MPH on June 6, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Yes: I added a few more quotes to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Hesitant yes: I wonder if this could benefit from a list of notable examples? I know that we already have a page for domestic fanworks with examples there, and we might have to think about what the overlap between the two would be if we do add one.
If there is anything to add about the prevalence/development of the trope over time, I think that would also be a good addition to the page, but I don't know how easy that would be to track down. Right now the page is somewhere between a Glossary and a Trope page, because it contains more examples of usage of "Curtainfic" as a term rather than examples of the trope (in fanworks) or info about its development. So my thinking is that it would be nice to shift it more towards the "Trope" end of the spectrum.
Unless we want to make it a Glossary page about the term "curtainfic" and have the Domestic page be about the trope/genre. 🤔 I mean, Curtainfic and Domestic fic/AUs are exactly the same thing (the two pages even contain the same info about the overlap with kidfic), Curtainfic just happens to be a particular term that gets used to describe Domestic fic/fanworks. So maybe that would be a way to solve the overlap. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
OK I took it in this direction - it had a lot of fan comments with usage of the term so I put it as a Glossary page and referred to Domestic as the general trope page. I rearranged and tweaked where all the content is put (some links I moved to different sections to be consistent, but I didn’t remove anything). All refs should be in the cite web template & most have archival links. I’m sure it could still use more examples but hopefully it is easier to navigate. Joanna R (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I added another example to the History section, though it's still referring to an already established term. | Julie (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes; I think the quotes have a good spread across the timeline, and come from a variety of fandoms. The illustrations are fantastic! I wouldn't be opposed to a "Notable Examples" section but I enjoyed reading it as-is. ---Mokuroh (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
* The article lead section is too long and could be cut down, with details being moved to the body of the article.
* While I don't disagree with the idea that the term most likely originated in a zine, who is saying that? If it's Fanlore editors theorizing, we can probably be more clear that we're the ones putting forth that idea.
* Examples fanart gallery could use some 2000s and 2010s era examples; all of the posted examples are from zines, and are pre-2000.
* Some of the fan comments and history quotes lack context.
* Would like to see some more detailing on how curtainfic manifests in different fandoms. Right now, it's primarily Supernatural focused. Due South is mentioned, but is not detailed. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The issues with the article lead section have been addressed, and I also clarified the wording around the zine thing as well, and added context to the fan comments and history quotes. Regarding the fandom-specific quotes, we can really only include quotes from fandoms that have been talked about, and my impression is that Supernatural has a lot of these types of fics (and more discussion as a whole), hence why it's easier to find comments there. We can add to it progressively, but I still think it's worth having that as its own section.
The fanart could stand to have some more recent examples, I know I've seen one and I annoyingly can't find it right now but we can add this point to the Talk page as one to keep working on. It's a fair point but I think as we've addressed the other issues to the best of our ability I feel comfortable with Featuring it, and as Joanna said, there are still things we can keep adding to the page overall. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes - but I hope we keep adding to it!: I pulled the ‘related tropes’ into their own section, which makes the intro a normal length and perhaps makes this Page a little more clear it’s a glossary term but related to many tropes.
Re organization, i wonder if 1) we should move the Example Fanworks later in the article because that’s commonly just before the Ref section in pages and 2) if we should stick the Manifestation in Diff Fandoms into the Fanworks or Fan Comments sections just for consistency’s sake?
Otherwise, I really do think it’s a good intro to a term that produces a lot of discussion and it would be nice to get more examples/fan memories but that’ll just come over time. Specifically, there’s a reasonable phrasing in the Page/references that “hey here are the earliest terms we’ve found but we’re not sure exactly where it originated”, and when we take the Page as a whole there’s a lot of comments/examples from different fandoms. Perhaps we could somehow extra-encourage fans to add to this page? :shrug: Joanna R (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Aside from maybe moving Example Fanworks below Fan Comments, I think this is ready for the spotlight. Splitting off Tropes made it look a lot better and more easy to understand at a first glance. -- FBV (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Talking Stick Series

Nominated Kingstoken on September 25, 2022. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I've never voted on Featured Article noms before, and I still don't feel like I have a handle on the judging criteria, but I really enjoyed reading this article, learning about the fic and the fandom's response to it! I reworded the lede slightly to present the information more clearly, hopefully that's good -- if people disagree, this is the edit to revert (I also made some prior edits fixing up the references and adding archive backup links, pretty sure people will want to keep those). -- Quaelegit (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
There's no strict judging criteria - the page just needs a good intro and to be reasonably fleshed out and easy for folks outside the fandom to understand. That's my criteria anyway :) --Auntags (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Very good page with lots of fan comments. --Auntags (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I made some further edits to the intro to better fit it with the page name (though, side note about that - is there a reason this page is not called Talking Stick/Circle Series, as that seems to be the more common name? I left the same question on the Talk page). I also foregrounded the detail about the original inspiration for the story/series being a Native American writer's desire to better write a Native American character a little bit more, as I think that's really significant. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Amy Pond

Nominated by OMAW on October 5, 2022. As of this writing it has a good intro and the page has no content flags. Think I've managed to get it up to Featured Article standard. What's everyone else's thoughts?

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I'd like to go through and add archive links to the example fanworks and a few more sources, but I'll hopefully be able to do that tomorrow. Done! -- Quaelegit (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Almost: I think we need to discuss the Moffat Women trap in the Agency section. There were a lot of discussions about whether or not the character and/or her storylines were sexist. I'll see if I can find anything at the weekend --Auntags (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
There's two essays about Amy Pond and sexism (and the second specifically address Moffat's writing of her) in the #Meta section of the article. I pulled a quote from one of them for the #Agency section, but I'm not sure how you want to incorporate the "Moffat Women" angle into the article (maybe as it's own section?) --So I'll wait for further direction on that. Also OMAW, can you try to dig up someone arguing the "counterpoint" mentioned in the agency section? I tried looking for myself but I wasn't successful. -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the page with some further quotes and links. There's quite a bit of extensive meta and counterarguments in the spaces I inhabit, so trying to decide which ones to include that would still make sense for non-fans was a little difficult. Hopefully I've managed it. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for adding those links and comments. I'm changing my vote to Yes --Auntags (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Looks good to me. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Seconding this, the article is a great read! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Arcane Asylum

Nominated by OMAW on September 6, 2022. As of this writing, it has a good intro and the page has no content flags. Think it could have potential.

Hesitant Yes: I think the intro needs a little work, like the summary should probably be in it's own section. I will try and see if I can find more reviews online -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: changed vote after changes made to article -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Changed the formatting around a bit and added the translation info at the start. Not sure what else to put there though. Perhaps any genres or key tropes not mentioned in the summary? -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for moving the summary down into it's own section that looks a lot better. I'll have to think about what else to add to the intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes: The lede still looks short to me, but I don't know what other information I would want to have there. More experienced F.A.N. judgers, is it long enough work on the Front Page spotlight section? Anyways, I'm "hesitant" because I would like to reformat and clarify a bunch of the references, they look pretty messy to me right now. I'll try to do this myself in the next few days, and if they aren't bugging anyone else don't let my intentions hold this article back from nomination -- The actual content of the article looks pretty thorough to me. (Though maybe we could have a section about fandom recursive works beyond the podfic and chinese translation? If any exist.) UPDATE 2022/10/01: I reformated the references, as much as I could at least. I'm happier with them now. Also, I went looking for fanart of the fic and didn't find any. Changing my vote to unqualified "Yes". -- Quaelegit (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes Looks good to me now. I say, let's go for it. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: An interesting read! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Wide Awake

Nominated by Kingstoken on October 2, 2022. As of this writing it has a good intro and the page has no content flags. This was a very popular Twilight fic that I thought might be interesting to feature

Yes: Article looks good and extensive, although the Twilight fandom seems to be very anemic by now, so not sure how much interest we can gather with that ... --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I edited the intro and added a tame quote from fandomwank to show this fic wasn't universally loved. --Auntags (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: though I would like to see some examples of people using "unicorn" as a fandom reference (in "community names or pseudonyms") in reference to the fic, as is claimed in the #Impact on Fandom section. -- Quaelegit (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Muskrat Jamboree

Nominated by Kingstoken on October 2, 2022. As of this writing it has a good intro and the page has no content flags. This sounds like it was a fun fan-run convention, and the article seems like a good overview.

Yes: Made a small tweak to the intro to improve the wording. If I had to make a suggestion, it would be to pull out some fan comments/reactions from the con reports for 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2015 as there are for 2013, to give that additional fan perspective. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Not a vote (yet) -- this one's got a lot of WebCite links, which are unfortunately no longer accessible. I'm going through and replacing the ones that I can with links, should we leave the remainder as evidence that someone at least tried to back up these links in the past? -- Quaelegit (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately WebCite once a great site is kind of defunct now. My feeling is replace what archives links you can and leave the rest as is -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Looks good. Would nice to have a few more fan comments/reactions but maybe there isn't more to source from? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: would still like to add more quotes to the page but I think i've got it up to a state where it addresses Enchantedsleeper's request enough to feature. -- Quaelegit (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for adding those! I love the additional quotes on the page. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Goodbye, my brothers...

Nominated by Kingstoken on October 20, 2022. As of this writing it has a good intro and the page has no content flags. I thought it might be interesting to feature and article about a fanart piece, plus I don't think we have ever featured anything related to TMNT.

Yes: The page is thorough and the introduction is well written. It would definitely help to diversify the featured pages. -- Sobqjmv sphinx(talk) 1:00, 21 Oct 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Thanks for adding discussion of the artworks' popularity and spread in response to my questions on Discord <3 -- Quaelegit (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: User:Mrs. Potato Head MPH (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

see it all in bloom

Nominated by Quaelegit on October 24, 2022. I think I took care of the content flags, and the story info/tropes/development history could probably use a little work but I was hoping for your guys' input there how you want me to expand it. It's been about 10 months since we last featured any articles about anime/manga topics, so Fanimangalore Month seems like a great opportunity to get some articles up to Featured standards!

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: User:Mrs. Potato Head MPH (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I don't see anything wrong with the article, looks good! Patchlamb (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Kingstoken on October 2, 2022. As of this writing it has a good intro and the page has no content flags. I thought this one would be interesting to feature because how ubiquitous the term has become.

Almost: I'm really liking this page, the only thing I think it could use is a cite for this, if one can be found: mimesere from the X-Files fandom is anecdotally credited with either being the originator or a very early adopter of the term. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Per the Talk page discussion, I've added a cite to this and also added to/cleaned up a few other citations on the page. Yes from me. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I'll start a talk page discussion about the issue enchantedsleeper raised. Basically I think we can point to the edit history and talk page discussions to let that statement stand, without a citation, if we can't find one. --Auntags (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there seems to be no archive of the original OBSSE mailing list entries of to cite the claim. Mmimesere either no longer is in the XF fandom or moved to other fandoms (I'm not even sure if they and the vidder from Angel/Buffy etc with the same fan name are the same person). I added "Your Sister in St. Scully - An Electronic Community of Female Fans" of The X-Files by Sarah R. Wakefield as a ref that mentions that "The Abbey" uses the term for "the trauma of being a male", but doesn't credit a specific member for coining the term. Looks like this is was good as it gets-- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: MPH (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Looks like an interesting term to feature and is generally thorough. Patchlamb (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I didn't manage to vote until you already approved it b/c I took too long cleaning up the references to my satisfaction, but i think this is a great article to feature, with a thorough explanation and lots of fascinating fandom discussion. I've made some minor grammar tweaks and added a quote to the article in addition to archive links, hopefully that doesn't make much difference to the overall point of the article. -- Quaelegit (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.


Nominated by Mrs. Potato Head on October 17 2022. It's long and meaty, and I think an interesting look at shared universes, control, and influence.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Not a vote yet: I'm a little confused by the organization of the page. I haven't read most of it yet (it's very long) but wouldn't it make sense to talk about the origin of the shared universe and *then* have a section about how it "outgrew its nest"? Some of the other sections seem confusingly organized to me also, though I'll have to read more to make constructive suggestions. -- Quaelegit (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Quaelegit - I took a look at this and made several edits to the page organisation:
  • I moved "The Queen of Created Universes" up to become the first section and retitled it "The First Kraith Story", as I think this made a nice lead-in to the whole article
  • I moved "Outgrew its Original Nest" under "The Origins of Kraith", and moved that up to sit just underneath
  • I made a subheader for "Characteristics of Kraith" and grouped various relevant sections under that, and made another one for Kraith as a shared universe, turning "Shared Universes and Other Effects" into the main header and grouping sections relevant to the shared universe under that header
Hopefully this helps make the page flow more intuitive! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes: It's such an in-depth and interesting article (and even Henry Jenkins has commented on this 'verse)! I made some minor edits to the intro to make it more compact and reorganised the page structure as detailed above, to group more of the subsections by theme. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

The Celestial Toybox

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 14, 2022. As of this writing, the page has no content flags. Thought this one might be a fun one to feature, it has such a wide variety of fandoms in it.

Yes: asterisk is because I noticed some minor formatting issues (mismatched brackets and similar) on my first read through, and I want to do a more thorough read-through when I'm less tired. This should all be quick to fix. [EDIT: fixed!] But content-wise it seems quite comprehensive. Appreciate all of the images, quotes from the editors, and reader responses. -- Quaelegit (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I don't really see any issues and I agree that it's comprehensive -- TernaryFlower53 (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes: looks good to me -- SCG (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Good one! -- SecurityBreach (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Captain My Captain

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 14, 2022. As of this writing, the page has no content flags. This fic seems interesting, and I don't think we ever featured anything from The Lord of The Rings fandom.

Almost: agreed this sounds like an interesting article to feature! I'd like to rework the lede and add archived/backup links for all of the references but I'm too tired to do it right now, so I'm making a note in here for later (i should be able to get to it sometime this week, but if someone else has time/inclination, feel free to pre-empt me). The "History, Reception, and Awards" section alludes to popular headcanons that spread from this fic to the fandom more broadly -- I'd like to know what they were! I'd also like to see more examples in the "Inspired Fanworks" section -- the "History, Receptions, and Awards" section talks about several art pieces and recursive fics, we should track those down and add a few of them. -- Quaelegit (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Changing my vote to yes! Great work tracking down that art, Kingstoken! -- Quaelegit (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes: A lot of good work has been done on the article since the nomination and I would like to see it featured. SecurityBreach (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes: looks pretty good to me! -- SCG (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Sex Pollen

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 13, 2022. As of this writing, the page has no content flags. Might be an interesting trope to feature.

Not yet: There's some really unspecific wording on this page, e.g. DC having a lot of sex-pollen " thanks in part to the canonical sex-pollen, but also because it's just that kind of fandom." -- what is "just that kind of fandom"? On fanlore in generally I usually try to roll with this kind of phrasing, but for a Featured Article I'd like to see more precise and justified discussion.
In fact, that whole section kind of feels like unjustified speculation to me. I don't really have evidence either way (I don't read sex pollen fics) so maybe I'm being too uncharitable, but I find myself wondering "do these fandoms actually have an unusual amount of this trope, or are these the fandoms that the author(s) of the article happen to read in?" Frankly, I find myself wondering that a lot on Fanlore trope articles, but since this article is being nominated for Featuring I'm asking it here, lol. -- Quaelegit (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I can confirm that DC and MCU fandoms have a lot of sex pollen, compared to other fandoms I read in, but its less popular/common in DC in recent years. But that doesn't really address the issue you raised. I think you're wondering if Example Fandoms is a useful section on trope pages, or is it a list of fandoms that's influenced primarily by who is writing the page? --Auntags (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's a *problem* to have a section like this, but I think it's often redundant with "Example Fanworks" (which is a much more standard section across the wiki). In this case, it's not exactly redundant because it has further info about the source of the popularity within each fandom, and sometimes trends specific to that fandom. Actually, what might make me feel better, is to re-title that section something like "Trends within specific fandoms" -- or maybe someone can come up with something more concise? But basically framing it as "here's some examples", less so than "these are the most prominent/imporant examples", which feels like it needs more justification to me. -- Quaelegit (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
This is entirely for reference - across all languages/all works on the archive as of 7 Dec, MCU has the most in the Sex Pollen tag (650) plus there’s the Avengers fandom with 350 but I didn’t do the work to tease out if a work has both fandoms on it. BNHA (400), SPN (330), Star Wars (290), and the Batman - All Media Types (270) are the rest of the top 5. Joanna R (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Tentative Yes: I agree that the "Sex Pollen-y Fandoms" section seems to be mostly a list of popular fandoms and would benefit from either being cut or being retitled to something like "Fandom-Specific Justifications for Sex Pollen" . I think the rest of the article is okay, though. -- TernaryFlower53 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Updating my vote to Yes: Almost: I've started a talk page discussion on renaming the section Quaelegit and TernaryFlower53 mentioned. --Auntags (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Voting Yes after recent edit. SecurityBreach (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes: Though I wish the history section included more definitive dates and sources for it's origins, I think it's reasonably comprehensive enough to feature. Patchlamb (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Yes: Agreed with Patchlamb, though honestly i have no idea how to do that. Anyone have ideas? (Also, I'd like to add archive links and standardize the formatting for all of the fics linked, i'll try to do that across this week). -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

On the Prowl

Nominated by Kingstoken on December 11, 2022. This page has a good intro and no content warnings.

Yes: I do wonder if we should format the fan comments as quotes, for readability, or maybe that's just me. --Auntags (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I reformatted the quotes into quote boxes -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you <3 --Auntags (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes --MPH 20:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes --SecurityBreach (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes -- SCG (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Mary Sue

Nominated by Kingstoken on December 10, 2022. This page is very comprehensive, it does have one content flag, but it's just asking for more examples, so maybe that can be overlooked in this case? I thought it might be a good time to feature it, because there has been a lot of talk about what is and is not a Mary Sue in the media lately.

I added some more recent examples to show that the trope is still in active use (both played straight and parodied), but there's already a ton of examples, I think we can just remove the flag. Also, what's the media fuss? (Not a vote, sorry, need to finish reading the page tomorrow) -- Quaelegit (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. This article looks good, it's in-depth and well-explained, and I think it has a good sense of PPOV. I agree that there are plenty of examples, though I do think it skews more toward older fanworks. Not sure if this is a huge issue or not though, considering the length of the page already.--Travvymybeloved (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to go find more newer fanworks, if people think that would balance the page. EDIT: unless you mean adding sections of the article for newer discussion? I could try searching tumblr for recent meta, i don't know anything off the top of my head that wouldn't be redundant with what's already in the article. (In fact, looking at the citations, a decent number of the refs seem to be from the last decade. Given that, I'm not too concerned about anti-recency bias in the article.) -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. --MPH 01:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes --SecurityBreach (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Almost -- I reworded some stuff in the lede and added a few internal links. I've only skimmed the rest of the article but I think at least some of hte other sections could also use a....what's the word... wiki-gnoming?? whatever, pass over for minor grammar and flow and clarification. I'm too tired to do that right now. Agree that this article is really thorough and raises a lot of good points. 11:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Quaelegit - I've given the article a comb-through and made some minor edits, moving some sections around slightly and shuffling a couple more examples to the Examples section, where I've also removed the Examples Wanted flag. I added a bit about the Mary Sue fervour of the internet age to the introduction while also mentioning the defence of Mary Sues. Hopefully that helps! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I think this is looking very well-rounded and thorough. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Nomination approved.

Rejected nominations

Dead Dove: Do Not Eat

Nominated by PictoChatCyberBully on 10 Jan 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Not yet: At the moment the page seems quite insubstantial for a fairly widely-used term; it only goes into the use of the concept on AO3 but not anywhere else in fandom. Just searching for Dead Dove on Tumblr finds plenty of uses of the term and also mentions of something called "DDmas" which I can only assume is an event for dark/Dead Dove content. I think this needs to be fleshed out more with usage outside of AO3 and with some kind of links back to the fannish creation of dark content and perhaps also warnings. It might also be worth touching on the similar concept of NSFL which stands for Not Safe For Life, i.e., something that is extremely disturbing. -enchantedsleeper (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree with enchantedsleeper, it needs to be filled out more -- Kingstoken (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: I agree with all points mentioned above. -- SecurityBreach (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Not yet: The article lacks substance. At the moment it is a glorified stub and could some more comments and usages. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Not yet: I started fleshing this out yesterday (added a discussion section re:meaning drift & purity culture), but agree that it needs more work still! -Greedy dancer (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Nomination rejected. It's been a while since this was nominated and it still needs work to address the issues raised.

Suez Canal Obstruction

Nominated by PictoChatCyberBully on 21 February 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, with no content flags. — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe: It does explain pretty what the concept is, but it just feels like something is missing, and I can't quite put my finger on it -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe: I know it was big on Tumblr but this was also a pretty big event on Twitter when it was happening. I don't have time at the moment to edit but I'm pretty sure this thread live-tweeting the events was the biggest one at the time. The original tweet has over 100 thousand likes. --Eliadan (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: It's pretty close, but there's a lot of aspects of it as a fandom phenomenon that just linking to individual memes doesn't really cover, I think. Will try to add some to it myself soon. --MomeRath (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Almost Added a couple sentences myself, but agree a little more content wouldn't go amiss! --Greedy dancer (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Almost: It has a decent amount of content but it feels like it's missing a bit more about the fandom --Legendofthefireemblem (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination rejected. It's been more than 3 months since this was nominated and the page still needs more additions to address the issues raised.

Banned Together Bingo

Nominated by SecurityBreach on 25 April, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: I feel like the intro needs a little work. Some quotes of the criticism might be a good idea. Also the Meta/Further Reading section is blank, so that needs some examples or should be removed -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I changed the name of the section to 'Further Reading' and added a link to a Dreamwidth thread. I'm also looking for more quotations, especially about the criticism. I agree that the intro could be fleshed out. --SecurityBreach (talk) 08:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll try to find time to make some edits on this page, as I think it would be a good feature. Another thing I've noticed just on an initial read is that the page references two different sets of stats as to how many items are in the collection, one dated to 2021 and one dated to 2022. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: I think the page would benefit from mentions of the US political context which seems to have exacerbated responses to the event (George Floyd murder and protests throughout June 2020), as well as from direct quotes being featured in the text as was mentioned above - both from the mod's announcement that they were going on hiatus and why, and from critical fans, especially POC. A Race and Fandom link somewhere might be helpful as well, to direct to the wider discussion/context. --Greedy dancer (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: I really like this article, but I agree with others that it needs to be more fleshed out before being featured. woahpip (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination rejected. It's been more than 3 months since this was nominated, but despite appreciation for the page, it still needs more work to address the issues raised.

The Endless Forest

Nominated by Patchlamb on May 12, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. An old, but maybe not well known, furry MMO fandom. Was mentioned in two books.

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: The history section looks like a history of the game rather than the history of the fandom. The relationship between fans and games may be different from fans and other media properties, but the section has a very large quote that's all about the game's development history and only gives player growth statistics in the last paragraph. I would expect the history section to start with when people started playing it, how word spread, when activity on deviantart and/or other forums started. The last paragraph of the history section also seemed like an odd shift, so I revised it slightly and added a Further Reading section. If other academics or journalists have written about the community, those would be great to list as well.--aethel (talk) 02:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: for all the same reasons aethel mentioned -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
The "Community" section includes information on activity on DA and it's forums. It also has quotes about how the community changed over time. Would it be better to remove the community section and include the info there under "History" instead? Or could there be bits of pieces from the Community section that should be moved to History? Or would it be more clear if History was re-named to something else, like "Development History?" Patchlamb (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, most of the material in the community section would work for the history section. The problem is that "development history" is inappropriate for Fanlore so most of the long quote in the history section needs to be removed; the source could be linked in the further reading section instead. The wayback machine info about the official website also seems extraneous. The history section should be a history of the community itself and not a history of the game: a community-centric history would start with when fans/gamers became aware of the game, when the forums started, the use of deviantart and discord, etc. --aethel (talk)
I think for a small indie game based in an MMO if a short amount of gameplay/plot is allowed then a short amount of development history should be allowable too. I don't think the section is much larger than a canon section on other pages, save for the quote. However I could cut down the information about how the game's website developed, though I still think that information is relevant to how the forum was displayed to members. Let me bring up this discussion on the talk page itself, I feel like maybe there should be more discussion on the allowance of video game development history (when relevant) alongside canon sections but I don't want to clutter the Featured Article page. Patchlamb (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the mention of the Wayback Machine, that part may just be a little unclear, because as I was reading I wasn't sure if it was referring to the website itself being a blank white page at the time or just in the Wayback Machine. It says "The Tale of Tales Endless Forest website was accessible as early as 2005 ... The website would begin to display for The Endless Forest in 2006." So the website was accessible at the time? Or was it blank? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
ETA: Having checked out some of the removed info in the edit history, I think the details about the forum are fandom-relevant and so I would be in favour of adding those back in. However, I'm unclear about this line: "As of 2022, the forum's sidebar links only to a white page. However, the "The Endless Forest Community" (TEFc) forum still remains active into 2022" Is this a sidebar on the forum, or a sidebar on the website that would lead to the forum? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Not yet. The history section needs work; as brought up on the talk page, canon information is should be kept minimal and just provide context. More information from Feminist Theory and Digital Cultures would be useful to include. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination rejected. It's been more than 3 months since this was nominated and the page still needs work to address the issues raised.

Babylon 5

Nominated by MPH on June 6, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Hesitant Yes: I wish the intro had a little more to it, but I'm not sure what else to add. Also, there are a lot of red links on this page, and it might be nice to have a little more info about the more modern fandom, because I know with streaming that a lot of people have been discovering this show again or for the first time -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
If some more info could be added on the modern fandom, I think a line or two about that would also round off the intro nicely? --enchantedsleeper (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Some more information on the modern fandom, as mentioned above, would be awesome! I also would not be opposed to some example/notable fanworks. Even so, I found this a very interesting read, as someone unfamiliar with the fandom (beyond scrolling past a few surprise gifsets). -- ephemera (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Not yet: I'd like it to include some example fanworks and probably a bit more art - fanart, or a convention flyer, or cosplay, something like that. There's a lot of quotes about fan activity on the page, but not much about fanworks or other fanac. I might want the majority of the "JMS interactions with fans" stuff to move to its own page, with a brief overview and link. - Elf (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Not yet: I agree with Elf that much of the "JMS interactions with fans" stuff should have its own page. It seems to have taken over. (Fascinating material, but overwhelming.) As far as adding examples of fanfic goes, it seems clear, esp. from the first quotation, that such 90s fan fiction as did get written was then mortally hidden, and got lost as tiny old sites and archives vanished. However, there must surely be more recent fanfic on AO3 and If there are links to those archives on this page, then I've missed them. And yes—more examples of fan art would be a reasonable alternative to fic. Clearly that did exist, and presumably some still does. Greer Watson (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Nomination rejected. It's been more than 3 months since this was nominated and the page still needs work to address the issues raised.

Elf AU

Nominated by MPH on June 6, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Maybe: I think the intro needs some work, and maybe some more fan comments, and is this a trope that is still popular? Or is it more of a thing of the past? -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Kingstoken, this is next up as I’m trying to work on Featured Noms, and although I will keep my eye out for other fan comments, it occurs to me that this page has a lot of example fanworks - fic and art - and discussion of them, which kind of feels the same to me as more fan comments. Do you think the number of examples on the page counterbalances the few number of comments? Joanna R (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I think this is a very good article which deserves it's place as an Featured Article. However, I agree with Kingstoken: in my opinion, the intro needs some work, too. Especially the first sentence. SecurityBreach (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Hesitant Yes: I added to the intro but I think this page still needs more fan comments. From a quick look at Ao3, I also wonder if the Elf AU tag is been used to tag AU stories about canon elves? This might be a recent development or a not very common interpretation of this trope, but it might be worth a mention --auntags 18:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
auntags, I changed the AO3 link to the AU - Elf tag which has 212 uses, up considerably from works tagged specifically “Elf AU” which is only 54 (as of today’s date), so that’s one thing. It seems like it’s pretty scattered across a lot of fandoms, because even the most (the K-pop group BTS) only lists 15 works. Meanwhile, the LOTR fandom which has canonical elves only has 9, so it doesn’t seem like it’s a common interpretation of the trope - i.e. it may even be people mis-tagging the works (if you’re writing about canonical elves, an Elf AU isn’t an AU the way it would be for humans, but I can imagine that logical distinction may be tricky for some). I can keep looking through the tag, but canonical elves using that tag doesn’t seem too significant… I’ll keep reviewing the article, but wanted to comment on my findings so far. Joanna R (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Joanna R, that's really interesting, thanks for doing the research! (I do want to point out, that even in canons with elves, you could still have an "Elf AU" story in which a character who canonically isn't an elf, is in your AU. I don't know if stories like this exist though -- wait, maybe i"ve seen some in Tolkien fandom?? Will look into it myself). Anyways, it's going to be hard to get a diachronic picture of the usage over time from AO3, because it sounds like the heyday of these elf AUs (or at least complaining about them) was 80s through early 00s media fandom. Still, I think it *would* be worth discussing findings like this in the article, in some capacity. -- Quaelegit (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Quae I do think that’s how a couple of the folks tagging Elf AU in the LOTR fandom meant it, i.e. there were characters who are not canonically elves that are elves in their story. It’s an example of me either mis-reading/remembering or the term being a little fuzzy anyway, because what I thought it meant was an AU in which elves exist at all, from a canon where they don’t. (I.e. that exactly who is an elf or not wasn’t the same thing.) But :snaps up fan: I really don’t know. ;) Joanna R (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
These are definitely good points, and I'd to see more exploration of both of these in the article. I think we should move discussion over to the article's talk section, if it's okay i'm gonna quote our conversation over there as well. -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Neutral/Vote pending - I'm not voting quite yet, but I do want to give a heads-up that I've reworked the lead section for the article, since that seems to be a common factor for the hesitant yes/maybe votes. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: the lede looks great to me now (thanks Pinky G Rocket and anyone else who's added to it in the past few months!) However, I have qualms about the rest of the article:
  • Move those left-aligned photos: I don't like this "photos on the left, infobox on the right, main body text in a narrow column in the middle" page layout. Maybe it's just my computer, but it doesn't look great. I know we want to keep them near the top of the article for spotlighting purposes, but can we move those photos...somewhere else? Would it be okay to put a horizontal gallery right below the lede?
  • Fan comments: I don't really see what most of these have to do with the article subject, tbh. The third one (from 2007), sure, but the first two seem to be about some "theory of slash fiction" and a complaint about AUs in general.
  • Both the "Other Epic Elf AUs" and "Sample Fiction" secton seem to be listing fanfic example -- perhaps they should be combined? I'd also like to do some some minor copyediting of the discussion in those sections, hopefully I can do that in a few days.
  • And once again I want to clean up the references, also something I'll try to take care of myself soon.
  • Suggestion to add: it seems like a lot of the fan comments and meta are very negative on elf AUs. If possible, I would like to see some discussion in the article synthesizing/summing up why people tend to dislike them so much, and if possible some viewpoints from the other side, of why people keep writing them. -- Quaelegit (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: It feels somewhat incomplete, esepcially the lack of fan comments (there is a huge gap) seems odd. Maybe The new Tolkien show will breathe some more life in this? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, but the huge gap in time is an unfortunate but hard to avoid side effect of our realms of expertise here at fanlore -- we have a bunch of info about zine fandom from the '80s and '90s (b/c incredible editors have done A COLOSSAL AMOUNT OF WORK gathering that info over the last decade), and we can use tumblr and other social media sites (and to a certain extent, AO3 tags) to see what people have been creating and talking about in the last few years, up to maybe a decade. But that gap of years in between, when people were on older websites that us modern editors don't know about or have access to, we just don't know how to find out what was happening! Or at least, this is a pattern I've noticed in my own wiki contributions. I would definitely welcome a discussion of how we can improve our coverage of that time period (both "we as a community" and suggestions for me, specifically). -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomination rejected. It's been more than 3 months since this was nominated and the page still needs work to address the issues raised.

Things with Beards

Nominated by Pinky G Rocket on June 21, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags.

Not Yet Right now the page needs a "Needs More Fandom" flag and doesn't look appropriate for Fanlore. If I understand this correctly, "Things with Beards" was professionally published--how is this possible if it was fanfiction? The page does not address copyright issues or whether fandom debated whether or not it counted as fic. All the quotes from readers appear to be SF readers in SF publications. It has its own entry in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, where it is described as a short story and not fanfic. The way the article is framed makes it sound like it wasn't fanfic, which means the template is incorrect. The way the Fanlore page is written now, it looks like a science fiction story that received some science fiction awards, and it's not clear what the connection to fandom is or why it should be on Fanlore at all. That is, maybe it does belong on Fanlore, but currently the page does not explain why.--aethel (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a transformative work based off The Thing (1982), without authorization or approval from anyone that worked on the film. In addition, it has been self-described by the author as fanfic.
Essentially a fanfic sequel to John Carpenter’s The Thing, my story follows MacReady after the events of the movie, returned to his life with his memory full of weird holes.

It's also not the first time that transformative work has been published in Clarkesworld. I'll add the author's description of it being fanfiction, but given that is a transformative work, I do believe it is suited for Fanlore.
I can see that you're drawing a line in the sand between this being a professional work and a piece of fanfiction, but I'm not really sure where or how you're drawing that line.
Copyright issues and if it counts as fic or is not really something I found while doing research for the article. The most I found on that front was a quote from a review that decried derivative work being nominated for professional writing awards.
And by the way, isn’t that stealing? Shouldn’t the Nebula nominees be original works, with original characters and original ideas?

In general, The Thing fandom is a small fandom that does not engage heavily with fanworks in the same way that other modern-day fandoms do, so I think trying to find discussions on copyright issues and "is this fic" is trying to chase down something that doesn't really exist. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
@Aethel I would dispute that "it's not clear what the connection to fandom is", because to me this is clearly the work of a fan and arises from the fandom surrounding the film. And so I wonder if the venue where it was published necessarily takes away from that? I am assuming the argument that it doesn't qualify as fanfiction is that fanfiction is inherently amateur (which our page on fanfiction alludes to although it's not strictly stated as part of the definition, but one line refers to "true" fanfiction -- or at least, identifiable amateur stories by fans using copyrightable creative works so I'll assume that's our working definition of a fanfic). But it does still arise from fandom and is therefore at least fannish. Perhaps we could debate about the suitability of the Fanfiction infobox for the page, but that doesn't mean that the subject itself isn't suitable for Fanlore at all.
This isn't just a sci-fi story, because it's a sci-fi story that uses the characters, concept and IP of The Thing (and doesn't even attempt to disguise that fact, like other works that file off the serial numbers). So I don't think it's right to regard it as if a Fanlore page was made for a sci-fi story with no discernible link to fandom; the link is there. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
For me the main issue is that the page doesn't read like a page about a fanfic. A fanfic that got published professionally is noteworthy, but the reception section just says it was controversial for being gay. I think the page itself needs to state how unusual this is and why/how it got published. Clarkesworld making a habit of publishing fanfic would be an interesting addition to the page. If no one bat an eye at this being published, then that is itself noteworthy. If The Thing fans don't really write/share fanfic as a hobby, but instead publish it professionally, then that is something that can be explained on the page itself. If The Thing fans tend to be homophobic men, demographic differences could be highlighted more explicitly as well.
Where I draw the line between fanfiction and not fanfiction is who is reading it/how it was received/what is the context of the work. Do people who read fanfic read this story? Do people who read this story think of it as fanfic? Being published for money doesn't mean it can't be fanfic, but professional publications are usually at a remove from fan community activity, so if it's published in a professional venue, then it's less likely to be a fandom document/part of a fan community's history. That is, if Fanlore is documenting fandom history, then we cover fanfiction because it is a record produced by fan communities and is evidence of the communities' activities.
I reread the page, and I think it'll be fine with more context added, but I don't want to see a situation where Fanlore starts creating pages for every published Sherlock Holmes and Jane Austen pastiche with New York Times book review quotes for the fan reaction section. That's what I was worried about.--aethel (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Not Yet: This feels like a wikipedia page since it still lacks the "Fannish" aspect IMO. Also I didn't notice from the first paragraph that it's noteworthy because it is professional work and was considered controversial, so if that could be incorporated (also the "controversary" isn't mentioned/ I like how that seems to be euphemicals called "social themes", maybe that was the way to do this when it was released?) Maybe worth looking into that more to flash the article out? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
When User:Pinky G Rocket has time to work on this again, perhaps she can clarify, but that was not my impression of why this fic is noteworthy. I thought it was noteworthy for the controversy (mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede) and generally being a widely-read story with much discussion (probably a lot of people were reading it if it was nominated for three awards!). -- Quaelegit (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I'm confused at the voters saying this lacks a fannish aspect -- the "reception" section has a good variety of quotes from fan reviews. As far as I checked (most of them), these are all from peoples' personal blogs, not paid industry reviews. I think it would be great to feature this as a reminder that transformative media, and fannish engagement with transformative media, happens outside of Tumblr, AO3, and Livejournal. -- Quaelegit (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes: I am also confused by those saying this lacks a fannish aspect, though maybe those parts of the page have been elaborated on since this article was initially elected. I think Things With Beards would be a really interesting choice for Featured Article, because and not in spite of its publication status, even if it doesn't qualify as traditional fanfiction. It is still a fanwork, has fan responses cited on the page, and is overall an interesting read. There are some parts of the article that have odd wording, but nothing that makes it impossible to understand the article. --Travvymybeloved (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Nomination rejected. The page was up since June 21 and didn't receive enough 'yes' votes. And, although the article has been worked on, not all concerns mentioned in the discussion have been addressed and worked on.