Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2023)

About this page

This page lists Featured Article nominations that were posted on the Fanlore main page in 2023 or that were rejected during 2023 due to insufficient yes votes. For current nominations, visit Fanlore: Featured Article Nominations.

Approved nominations

The Weight Collected

Nominated by SecurityBreach on December 15, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Yes: it would be nice to have a few more fan reactions, but I know that can be difficult to get sometimes for zines -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes (but): Love the page. I've reoganized the images at the top into a gallery b/c it looks a lot nicer to me this way, but if other people disagree then this is the edit to revert. The (but) is because there's inconsistency in how the component stories' titles are formatted (are we putting them in quotes, italics, or leaving them plaintext) and I'd like to fix that but I don't know which format people would prefer. Any opinions? -- Quaelegit (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer quotes around individual story titles for consistency, even though "The Weight" is more than long enough to be a novel on its own. It was never published as a standalone story. However, if they're only mentioned once, I never mind if they're plaintext with a wikilink instead of getting quotes or italics. Elf (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm moving the page to 'approved' and would like to suggest we continue the discussion on the talk page. SecurityBreach (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: MPH 20:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I've added a link to The Weight itself (which wasn't there before), link to the AO3 collection, and a few other internal links. - Elf (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes" This was fascinating. --Shiningpaperclip (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Gossamer Project

Nominated by SecurityBreach on January 12, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. SecurityBreach (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: although when I tried the link to the site it wouldn't go through, is this site still active? -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing this out! I poked around a bit and found the following url: http://fluky.gossamer.org/ I also found a huge Wikipedia page which I think isn't linked yet (Wikipedia also uses the other, 'slow' link). I'll go and fix it :D SecurityBreach (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes-- What an awesome project! Patchlamb (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- interesting article! SCG (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- fascinating! I am curious, though, about this bit in the intro: "In the mid to late 1990s, the Gossamer Archives/Project was one of the "big three" single media fandom-focused archives on the Internet, [...]."

What were these "big three"? As there's no link, I gather this isn't a glossary term. It might be a good idea, though, to have a footnote listing them with links to the articles on the other two. At any rate, that's the only question I have; and I had it as soon as I hit the phrase, i.e. at the very top of the page! Greer Watson (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking! I did some reseach and think I found the source of the information. The archives in question might be Trekiverse and the Due South Archive. I added my reseach to the discussion that was recently started on Talk:The Gossamer Project. I agree the statement might need to be reviewed and I'd be happy if you joined the conversation (that is, if you like). SecurityBreach (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Do Not Interact

Nominated by Patchlamb on Jan 13, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. A multiplatform practice starting in the mid 2010s that could be interesting to feature.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- SecurityBreach (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- SCG (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Greer Watson (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

B7 Complex

Nominated by OMAW on January 12, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

'Hesitant Yes: I am not a fan of how the wording of the intro paragraph. I think about it and see if I can make some improvements. Other than that, it is an interesting article -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I agree the intro could use a little rephrasing but overall, it's a great article I'd like to see featured. SecurityBreach (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Some more revision of the intro. Does this help? Greer Watson (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Thank you very much! SecurityBreach (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I think the revised intro is great, and the article is a very interesting read. Amazing to read about the technical hurdles that fans had to go through to get hold of the media back then - we're so lucky now! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes MPH 23:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes Greer Watson (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

All The Young Dudes

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 23, 2023. As of this writing it has a good intro and no content flags. Probably the most influential Wolfstar fic ever, and spawned it's own fandom.

Yes - A fanfic that spawned its own fandom? Of course I'm interested. Also, I think the article is well written and contains a lot of information worth knowing. SecurityBreach (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes - It'd be lovely to feature a recent fic where the fandom grew out of TikTok. I'm just curious about the comment on legality and wonder if we could add some context to that comment. --Auntags (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it is referring fans either fanbinding or paying to have prefect bound book style imprints of the fic. When I was looking for fanworks on tumblr and other places it was not at all unusual to come across posts that were like "look what just came back from the printers!" and it was a printed book of ATYD -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The article looks great and I'm obsessed with this fic! There's definitely been a recent resurgence in the marauders fandom so it's a great time to feature the article. --Elishevabee (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Murder on San Carmelitas

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 14, 2023. As of this writing it has a good intro and no content flags. An influential Starsky & Hutch zine.

Yes Actually, I'm impressed by the sheer amount of information collected on the page and the long history of fannish support of the zine. Enjoyed the read! SecurityBreach (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes - though I'd like to completely revamp the intro 1) move all that dry info on different editions to a separate section, 2) a more interesting intro that describes the story itself a bit more, as well as a sentence summing up fan comments. Are folks okay with that? MPH 13:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes - SCG (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Duncan/Methos

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 23, 2023. As of this writing it has a good intro and no content flags. I'm not sure if we have ever featured anything from the Highlander fandom, but this migh be a nice place to start.

~~Almost~~: I think the intro could be longer, but the page itself looks good -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Changed vote to Yes due to improvements made -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I updated the intro to try and summarize the page a little better and I think it would be an interesting article to feature! - flyingthesky (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes SecurityBreach (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: An interesting page --Auntags (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Unofficial Bridgerton Musical

Nominated by flyingthesky on 1 February 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Also I promise I'll make stubs for the creators later so the red links in the intro go away.

Yes: I've never heard of this fanwork before, and it won a Grammmy!! This is also a fascinating recent example of a fanwork running into legal issues because of commercialization. --Auntags (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: interessting, a pity that are still so many redlinks in the article especially in the intro. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Like Auntags, I've never heard of this. (Not very familiar with Bridgerton.) The page does seem both comprehensive and interesting. Greer Watson (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

TARDIS (Doctor Who)

Nominated by Kingstoken on December 27, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a really good intro, it does have one citation needed flag, but it is fairly minor. I thought this one might be a fun one to feature, considering how ubiquitous it is even outside Doctor Who fandom.

~~Not Yet~~: I've started doing a bit of work on the page: I moved some of the intro stuff elsewhere and swapped it for other stuff. But I feel like there's still a fair bit missing, especially regarding the TARDIS in the various DWEU sections of the fandom. I'll try and add some stuff when I can. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

OfMonstersAndWerewolves when you get a chance can you take a look at the changes made to the article? And see if it has been improved enough -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Changing vote to Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Did some work on the external links to help the page. SecurityBreach (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I added fanworks last week and then completely forgot to vote xD --Auntags (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Quite extensive. Looks good -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Beatles

Nominated by SecurityBreach on 2 February 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. SecurityBreach (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Not yet The Fanart section stil has a "Expansiion needed" tag.... Besides the rest looks great. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Uppps, sorry! I must have overlooked it because of my enthusiasm for the article. I'll look into it. Thank you so much for pointing this out :D SecurityBreach (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue has been worked on by Flyingthesky on February 6. SecurityBreach (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Added some examples to the fanart section and removed the flag. Love how comprehensive and fandom-focused the page is. - flyingthesky (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this looks great :D SecurityBreach (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- SCG (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Manip

Nominated by Kingstoken on December 18, 2022. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought it might be neat to feature more art related stuff.

Yes: --SecurityBreach (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Not Yet: The history section only talks about the early 90's. I see there's some fandom comments from later years in later sections of the page, though, perhaps the page could do with re-organizing? (Also, unrelated, but any objections i go find some more recent examples to add to the gallery? Right now it kind of gives the impression that manips are mostly a thing of the past, but afaik they're still quite popular.) -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

(Reply to myself, hope that's not confusing) -- i think the last quote (from 2016) would be good to move up to the History section. Alternatively, we could just rename the history section as something like "Origins" or "Initial Popularity"? -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I think naming history to origins would make more sense, but otherwise I think it's decently filled out and has lots of examples. Patchlamb (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I added a sectron for links to example archives and websites that feature(d) a lot of manips. Feel free to expand further -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

House of Cards (BTS story)

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 9, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I don't think we have featured anything from BTS fandom before, but I thought this might be a good place to start.

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- SCG (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I did reorganize the page a little, because I found it confusing it have the bulk of the information about the fic itself under all of the reviews and reactions, but I think it's a really cool page! - flyingthesky (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Ahadi

Nominated by OMAW on February 13, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. There's a couple of things that still need refining, but otherwise I need some fresh pairs of eyes not in the fandom to say if there's anything more that needs clarifying or worded differently.

Yes: I cleaned up the page slightly, but I think it would be a very interesting page to feature! - flyingthesky (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Good read! - SecurityBreach (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Very interesting, always amazing when fandom fleshes out minor characters -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Interesting page and a cool glimpse into a fandom I'm not too familiar with. One thing I can't help but be curious about is how Ahadi came to be "jossed" as the intro states, since it isn't mentioned? Is there a cite we can add (or maybe it belongs in the canon section?). But I don't really consider it a dealbreaker. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

BuzzFeed Unsolved

Nominated by OMAW on February 9, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Maybe: the intro bothers me because it is just a canon overview and tells me nothing about the fandom except that it was popular, even a couple of lines about the fandom would be helpful. The rest of the article seems well filled out -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not in the fandom myself, but if anyone is and wants to try and change the intro to something more fannish related, that would be good. Otherwise I might look myself when I get the chance, see if I can add anything based on what the fandom section says. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Changing my vote with the changes made to the intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: If anyone wants to fix the redlinks in the intro, feel free but otherwise I cleaned up the page and I think it's good. - flyingthesky (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: The intro is looking good now! I'm also not overly bothered by the redlinks, and I think the page is well-fleshed-out and interesting. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Tobi x Deidara

Nominated by Alpha on January 20, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good amount of info and no content flags. I have been told it would be good to have more ship pages as Featured Articles so I wanted to nominate this one I've been working on. It is not one of the main ships of the franchise, but due to all the radical changes the ship went through as more canon information was released about Obito's true identity, it makes an interesting case. Alpha (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Not yet -- The content is good. I've tried reworking the "Covid-19 Lockdowns and Tobidei Fandom" section; but I suspect a bit of polishing is probably still needed elsewhere as well. Greer Watson (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

BNHA Aro & Ace Week

Nominated by OMAW on February 16, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Don't think we've had an aspec focused page as Featured Article yet, and thought this looked quite interesting.

Yes: Love how comprehensive this page is for a challenge and it's always good to feature aspec stuff. - flyingthesky (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good to me! - SCG (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I say Go! -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Wham, Bam, Thank You, Sam!

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 22, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I don't think we've featured something from Quantum Leap fandom before, but I thought this might be a good place to start.

Yes: Looks good. The more fandoms, the merrier :-) -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: Only because I think the intro could maybe do with being slightly longer. But at the same time, it's not too bad, and I'm not quite sure if there's much else that could be added. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes: There's some information that I would have liked to see included but I wasn't able to turn it up myself, and they're more "nice-to-have"s. Callmesalticidae (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Looks good to me! --Travvymybeloved (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Yet Another Halloween Fic

Nominated by Auntags on March 19, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. (I lie, it has an examples wanted flag, but not sure if that can be removed?) This page might need work. Its about a fanfic trope that started with one small challenge and grew to take over the fandom; annoying everyone xD

Yes: it does have one content flag "more examples needed" but that could be easily dealt with -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Almost: I do think the 'Examples Wanted' flag is warranted as there could be a few more examples from the early/mid 00s (when did this trope actually originate? It would be great to put a year on it if we can) given how prevalent these fics were. I think we could also use more fan comments - I've added a couple from one of the forum threads linked in Meta. Again, since these were so prevalent, there must be more fan commentary discussing this and their effect on fandom. It's definitely an interesting page, though! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Edited to add: Actually, the intro is also a tad long and I wonder if we could break part of that out into a section dedicated to describing the trope? And leave the intro to talk about their prevalence, quality, and overall reception in fandom. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Pretty sure I fixed the issues enchantedsleeper brought up, aside from fan commentary. I can't actually find a ton of it? And I suspect that might be because it was mainly contained to now-defunct forums, mailing lists, and deleted livejournals. Not much I can do about that, but I still managed to find a couple quotes to add and I threw up a bunch of examples, trying to help pinpoint when the term originated. The trope itself seems to have existed since the airing of the episode in syndication (~2003). - flyingthesky (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I want to add archive links to the examples and references but the article body looks great! -- Quaelegit (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Destielgate

Nominated by Quaelegit on October 6 2022. Okay gonna try throwing my hat into this nomination business and say this one's looking pretty comprehensive! No content flags. TBH I'm surprised it hasn't been nominated before... unless it's Too Soon? (Also maybe we've featured too many SPN articles recently?)

Maybe: I don't know, I was in SPN fandom at the time and this period was insane, I really feel like this article doesn't cover everything, but then again maybe it just isn't possible to cover everything -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes: changing my vote to yes, because of all changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

~~Not Yet:~~ I know Finale section is a brain dump, because I dumped most of it there. That section could be fleshed out, maybe with examples, citations or fan comments. Also the metafandom link goes to a page about a newsletter, so I think we need to define metafandom and expand that section. It's a page worthy of a feature, but it needs a bit more work before its ready. --Auntags (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've disambiguated the LJ Comm from the glossary term and expanded on the concept on the latter page. I can't really help cover more or expand on what's there because I was very much in that metafandom penumbra. I guess I could try to track down the tumblr posts being alluded to in the bullet points of the Finale section? -- Quaelegit (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I actually didn't know the definition of meta fandom before this! The Finale section is on top of the SPN S16 Episode section with all the bullet points. I'll try to add some reactions and citations there --Auntags (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Would it possible to get some fan comments/reaction from the finale for the FInale Section on this? Looks like the fans we really angry at TPTB back at the time, not only the Destiel shippers... -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Yes: Thanks for the expansion :-) -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

~~Changing my vote to Almost:~~ I've fleshed out the Finale section a bit and the metafandom section looks good to me. There is just one citation needed flag that needs addressing and I haven't been able to find the comment so I think it should be deleted, if no one else can find it. --Auntags (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at hairasuntouchedaspartoftheamazon's blog and the comment is nowhere to be found in that time. Also did some google searching, it doesn't appaar. removed the unsourced fan comment -- FBV (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced that quote with several others that express similar sentiments, let me know (or feel free to remove some yourselves) if you think it's too much. I'll also try to keep improving the article -- I think i've addressed some but not all of the comments made here, but I'm optimistic that I"ll be able to cover the requests and get this article featured sometimes this year! -- Quaelegit (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Yes --Auntags (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes looks good to me with the fleshed out Finale section -- FBV (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: This is extremally thorough. I think we need a hard yes or no on this one since it was nominated in Oct 2022 and has had several expansive edits since then. Patchlamb (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Photo Reference

Nominated by Kingstoken on September 4, 2022. As of this writing, the page has no content flags.

I thought this one might be an interesting one to feature, it talks about the artist process and how some non-artists misinterpret it. plus it has lots of great examples.

Not yet. Pinky G Rocket (talk)

There needs to be clarification between using photos to reference anatomy/design, basing a piece's composition/layout/etc. off a photo, photobashing, and direct tracing. All of these concepts are mixed together in the article.
I like to see professionals' take on the issue; since many professional comic artists, animators, illustrators, etc. also create fanart, I'd imagine many have things to say.
Some sections of the article could use more contextual information, rather than just quotes. The quotes are also long and run into "wall-of-text" issues. Trimming down quotes and adding some information from quotes into contextual paragraphs would make the article easier to read.
The examples gallery is long and rather unwieldy; I think examples can be trimmed down, or relevant images can be put together into composite images.
There is only one link in the 'further reading' section, and the live link contains malware/adware (!)

Yes Interesting article, I like that there large and varied selection of examples. As for the link containing malware. How do we want to handle this? This may happen after domains are abandoned. The archived version works, should we replace the link to avoid people accidently infecting their systems? --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that done on other fanlore pages and I think it's the right course of action. In fact i'll go ahead and replace it right now, w/ a note that we're linking to an archived backup. -- Quaelegit (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Not yet. I agree this would be a great topic to feature, but I don't think the article passes muster quite yet. The lede definitely needs work, right now that opening paragraph makes me think "we do we have a fanlore article instead of just linking to wikipedia?" Obviously the the content of the article shows that we have a lot of fan-centric material and history to discuss that makes this a feature-worthy article for fanlore, but the lede needs to reflect that!

Also, I'm not super happy with the section titles. Some of them are good, but some of them are kind of vague and confusing. I'm sorry I can't offer more concrete criticism (if I could, i would probably try to fix the article myself) but I think perhaps some re-organization is in order. I'll keep thinking on it and try to reply here (or maybe on the talk page) if I figure out anything more helpful to say.

Finally, the references have some formatting issues, but I'll try to clean those up myself tonight. -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes: Interesting page, enjoyed the read. SecurityBreach (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes: --MPH 20:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Almost: As Quaelegit says, I think the intro could do with being a bit longer. I'll see if I can add anything when I get time. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost: I enjoyed reading about this from a fandom point of view. As Quaelegit says, I think fleshing the intro to clarify how reference (which is absolutely accepted as part of regular art making) engenders unique fandom controversies would do the trick. Somewhat related: it'll be interesting to see when AI really hits fanart. --Shiningpaperclip (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I enjoyed reading this and love the wealth of examples from across multiple decades. The intro could use some expansion. I'll think on it. --Dawn Felagund (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes: While I agree the intro could be a bit longer, I think the page itself is still overall thorough enough to be featured, so the intro isn't a huge detriment to me. This particular page was nominated in September 2022, but several good additions like more quotes were since added, so I think a hard yes or no decision should be made on it soon. Patchlamb (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Tweaked one paragraph in the intro. Overall, the page is pretty good, especially with respect to quotations and examples. I'd say it's probably good to go. Greer Watson (talk) 05:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea (Hawaii Five-0 story)

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 26, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I don't we have ever featured anything from Hawaii Five-0 fandom, this might be a good place to start.

Almost: -- I know the summary is copied from AO3, but it's really not very informatie. Maybe we can keep the quote but also writeup a short paragraph summary? Tbh I think I could gin one up from the quoted reviews (they're very informative reviews!) but I'd rather someone who's a more familiar with the fic give it a go. Other than that, though, I love the article! We should definitely feature it. -- Quaelegit (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

One more thought: can we search around and see if there's any more art or recursive fic to link in that section? [EDIT: found some; if people want to do more looking; i already checked livejournal and tumblr pretty thoroughly] -- Quaelegit (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Reformatted the page a little and added a little more context given... I spent weeks of my life reading and listening to this fic. Anyway I think it's good now and it was immensely popular in Hawaii Five-0 fandom, so a great fic to spotlight. - flyingthesky (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: flyingthesky's edits more than address my comments, the page is looking really good! -- Quaelegit (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good. Greer Watson (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Tumblr Bug Race 2023

Nominated by Quaelegit on April 25th, 2023. The Lede could probably use some work but I've got the fan response and fanworks pretty well documented. -- Quaelegit (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Not really a nomination thing, but if it does get approved, can we use This image I just added to the page for the featured article blurb? I think having the poll as the first image on the page is useful, but these cute voting stickers might make for a nicer promo image. -- Quaelegit (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I wsh the intro was a bit longer, but I'm not sure what else to add. This is a fun read. -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Same. I'll keep thinking on it. -- Quaelegit (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: There could probably be more added, but I think it's at a place where it can definitely be featured. - flyingthesky (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have specific suggestions for things to look into or discuss on the page? I was following the event pretty closely at the time and I think I've covered everything I saw about the event itself, but if there's something I missed then I definitely want to know about it! (Well, One thing I think there's was a lot of interesting discussion about how the Tumblr community used polls as an artistic/game medium --I can't find the posts anymore but this Verge article covers some of it -- I do think that would be pretty interesting to discuss, but I don't think it belongs on the Bug Race page and tbh I'm not sure if it belongs on Fanlore at all -- it's not really about Tumblr in its "home for fandom" capacity but rather in its "social media in general" capacity.) -- Quaelegit (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: hell yes, fuck yes. — Hheyhalley (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Ash Connection

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 11, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I don't think we have ever featured anything from Pokemon fandom, I thought this might be a good place to start.

Yes: more love for Pokemon is always appreciated! -- Aerlko (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Cleaned up the intro a little, but I think the page is otherwise good unless there's some sort of... story? Behind why the third fic in the series seems to have never appeared. I'm not familiar enough to know if that's the case. - flyingthesky (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I searched their twitter and it appears that the third fic just never happened as far as I can tell, they mention back in 2019 that they still plan to write it, but they have gotten into a different fandoms, in 2020 they mention it again as a "someday I'll get to it type thing", but there has been nothing since, so it looks like the idea has maybe been abandoned by the author -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Clark/Lex

Nominated by Aerlko on April 12, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and examples wanted content flag. I added some examples for the section with said flag, hopefully it's enough, otherwise more examples is always welcome.

Yes: there is an examples wanted tag near the bottom, but that can be easily dealt with -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Almost: Needs a copyedit run.

The tone of the article feels conversational/extremely casual. This isn't a dealbreaker, but to me, it makes the article strange to read. I've gone and done a bit of cleanup on this in the lead section and , but it's present in other sections as well.
'This pairing's popularity is greatly, if not solely, contributed to the show Smallville.' - isn't this page limited to the Smallville ship and fandom, with a page for the broader ship? This phrase in the lead section should be rewritten to be more clear.
Confusing or incorrect use of tenses in a lot of places.
Examples section could be cut down.
'Much of this is discussed further in the Smallville entry.' - this should be a See Also or Main Article hatnote, or the relevant content from the Smallvill article should be moved if it's ship-specific information.
'perception of homoerotic subtext between the characters was not limited to those in the slash community, but was fairly widely perceived by general audiences and critics alike.' - would like to quotes from professional critics/reviewers about this
'"It's more than destiny. Their relationship just *is* and has been from the moment they met."' - this should be a blockquote
Needs an infobox image. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

If I'm remembering correctly, this page was created by splitting another page in two. That would probably explain most of the formatting issues. I also don't think this needs a infobox image to be featured - I used to think every page needed an image before it was featured but I've since been told that they don't. I usually wouldn't remove examples but here, we have multiple examples from a number of authors and I think it should be pared down to give only one/two examples from each author--Auntags (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I added some thoughts above in a reply. I think the examples wanted flag can be removed if we can't find additional examples. Unfortunately, this was largely a LJ fandom, so its very likely that many of the links we do find will no longer work --Auntags (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Lots of content in that one. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Almost: Literally the only issue I have regarding it is the question of why is the Smallville ship of Clex titled Clark/Lex but the general one is called Clark Kent/Lex Luthor? Is there a fandom specific reason, else I'd expect it to be called Clark/Lex (Smallville) or something of that ilk. Otherwise it's just a little confusing is all. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The reason the two ships were split apart is because the Clark Kent/Lex Luther relationship in the comics and the superman movies is very different from the Smallville television show, at least to my understanding. Plus Clex was the juggernaut ship for Smallville, but Clark Kent/Lex Luther is a rather small if not rare ship in most other Superman adaptations, -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh I get that, my question is more in regards to the title of the page I guess. Like when I first saw it, I assumed it was the general page rather than specifically the Smallville page. I know the article provides context and the 'for the general ship, see here' thing, I was just wondering whether a differentiation in the title itself might be helpful. That make sense? -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Do mean like "Clark/Lex (Smallville)"? -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, like it feels a bit arbitrary at the moment, like you could swap titles (ie have Clark Kent/Lex Luthor as the Smallville ship and Clark/Lex as the general) as I don't think it mentions anything in the article to explain it. It's not a big issue or anything btw, it's just a bit confusing why it isn't Clark/Lex (Smallville). -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll put a note on the talk page about possible disambiguation -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Both pages have a "You might be looking for" note at the top. I suspect there's no disambiguation in the page title names because people in those fandoms are aware of the distinction. --Auntags (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It might be clear for those in the fandom, but not if you're outside looking in, which I think can be an issue for a featured article. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: passed the vibe check. Hheyhalley (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Goncharov

Nominated by Aerlko on May 22, 2023. As of this writing, the page has good intro and no content flag, and I think the article as well as the phenomenon is a delightful read.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes but I would like to see beelzeebub get a mention in the introduction. --Auntags (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe. I think it's an interesting idea for an article but it needs some brushover. Right now, it just feels like a list of blockquotes and bullet points, rather than solid documentation. Namely:

* Is the hatnote linking to Ivan Goncharov needed?

* I've reworked the lead section for clarity, but beelzeebub (Alex Korotchuk, per Wikipedia) needs to be mentioned in the lead section as well.

* Needs more information on media coverage and analysis of the fandom. Not just typical "internet culture" outlets such as Polygon and Kotaku covered it; Goncharov articles appeared in outlets such as The New York Times.

* Some citations appear to be inline instead of properly formatted citations.

* Needs more information on notable individuals responding to the meme. From a look at the Wikipedia article, Lynda Carter (alleged to be a cast member), Neil Gaiman, and Ryan Reynolds all responded to the meme.

* Canon overview should include a summary of the purported plot.

* The game jam, joke Letterboxd entry, and public Google document should all be added. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Most have these issues have been dealt with -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- MomeRath (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Podfic Cover Art

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 14, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought this might be a fun one to feature.

Yes: Interesting article, albeit a bit on the shorter side. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Added some examples of cover art, but I think it's a fun page to feature. - flyingthesky (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Very readable, learned some interesting stuff :D SecurityBreach (talk)

Yes: Interesting read! - SCG (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: this is really interesting, and i love looking at all of the examples. woahpip (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Fake Peppino

Nominated by Pinky G Rocket on June 6, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Fanlore never ends! Silliness aside, I think this page would make for an interesting feature, as we don't often feature articles from video game fandoms, and Pizza Tower is a relatively recent and popular fandom. I still need to at least launch a stub on Peppino Spaghetti to get rid of the redlinks and format the references, but besides that, I think this article is ready to go. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Rossi (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: This looks like a pretty comprehensive article. --CobyCat (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Greer Watson (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Fifth Act

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 6, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. We don't feature a lot from video game fandoms, so I thought this one might be a good one to feature.

Yes. Peggy Sue stories are great! --Alpha (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I like that there's a section of recursive fandom and the intro; it shows why this fic is significant :) --Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes. -- Mokuroh (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

bandomstuffsit

Nominated by OMAW on 26th April 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Maybe: It's an interesting article to feature, it just feels rather short. I wonder if we could copy over the masterlists, or at least have a section of example fanworks created for this challenge -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote to yes -- Kingstoken (talk)

Yes: I added a history section and reworked the intro, which I think makes it more in line with a featured article. I guess we could copy over the masterlists, but I never find that kind of stuff very useful when I look at pages like this? So I think it's fine. - flyingthesky (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: It feels rather short to me as well. --WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC) 19:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

WhatAreFrogs? if you could take a look at this again, to see if you can now approve with the improvements made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Yes: We had shorter FA before, so fine by me :-) -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: MPH 19:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Eskici (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- JoeyW (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Greer Watson (talk) 19:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I like its succinctness. Not all Featured Articles should be epics, imo. -- MomeRath (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Cats (trope)

Nominated by Alpha on June 12, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro no content flags. The gallery of this article is in my opinion one of the best in Fanlore, featuring artworks from different decades and fandoms. The article also contains cat memes, famous cats, fannish and canon tropes related to cats. Lots of cats, big and small. It could be a good featured article for international cats day, if it gets approved.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: (though we should add the artists' names in the gallery) (also, would it be helpful to separate the illos in the gallery by year? I volunteer if yes) (P.S. thank you for the kudos on the gallery in your nomination, Alpha)- MPH MPH (talk)

By year would be good. I was also wondering if we should split them up by type, like some of them are human characters as cats and some of them are characters interacting with cats -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Dividing by year is straight forward. Dividing by "as cats" and "with cats" is harder. Does "as cats" include characters and heavy symbolism that they are cats, like https://fanlore.org/wiki/File:Vincentsworld7-11.jpg or the spirit animals in The Sentinel such as https://fanlore.org/wiki/File:Blended.jpg or https://fanlore.org/wiki/File:PI2.jpg ? MPH 18:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I see your point -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll put them in alpha order and add artists. Then we can go from there. MPH 21:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I had noticed too they weren't in chronological order but it crossed my mind that they might be arranged in that order for any other reason, so it didn't cross my mind to change it. But it would be nice to have them arranged by year, I agree! Thank you for volunteering for the task and for your work on the article MPH! -Alpha (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Dead Dove: Do Not Eat

Nominated by Aerlko on June 12, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I understand that this article was rejected for Featured Article last year, but the page has been updated and fleshed out a lot since then. At the moment, I think it's informative and covers several aspects related to the term.
For reference, here is last year's discussion. Joanna R (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: It's a term with widely-varying, much-discussed meaning, but I think this page does an excellent job at capturing how that FEELS. There are plenty of references about Arrested Development and its initial proposal as a fandom term, and there's also wide-ranging references to discussions across tumblr, twt, Reddit, etc. Kudos to Aurorasulphur who added a lot of citations, and good idea from Eatingcroutons to use a Discord server's channels as another example of the range of interpretations. Joanna R (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, :elmo fire: Silent oath (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: --Auntags (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Masquerade (fanfiction event)

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on June 9 2023. This page is updated to my knowledge, and I think this is a really interesting fan activity! It is pretty niche, but very fun and I think it would spark interest in others.

Yes: I do like it when our featured articles are about things I didn't know existed. Niche is interesting! --Auntags (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: My only concern is should this be called (fanfiction event)? It feels more like a challenge to me -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not so certain about the terminology! I remember though my thought process was that there were soo many pages on the disambiguation for Masquerade, I was trying to come up with a name which wouldn't have to change should we discover yet another fan activity with the same name 🫠 -- Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: It is an interesting event, sounds fun and the article is detailed. Alpha (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Well-written and organized, and good coverage/explanation of the event. - MomeRath (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Sansa Stark

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 11, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. It's been a little while since we last featured something from GOT, I thought this might be a good choice.

Yes -Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: - MPH MPH (talk)

Yes: my beloved /clutches chest dramatically/ Silent oath (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Almost: I think the intro could do with being a bit longer as it feels a bit short atm. Rest of the page looks good though. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

OfMonstersAndWerewolves can you take another look at the article, I've expanded the intro a bit -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Changed to Yes: I've added a bit more to the intro too. You can approve it. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Looks pretty well rounded with no major thin spots! Landofspaceand (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Good read, I have no objections to having it featured. SecurityBreach (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Pete Wisdom

Nominated by Rossi on June 28, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. While not one of the "big" X-characters in fandom, Pete occupies an interesting niche in that his fandom popularity in the 1990s was due also entirely to Luba and her archive, Fonts of Wisdom. I'm also interested in getting more interest in comics fanfic as a whole and getting a Featured Article would help. ;)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- Greer Watson (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- MPH (talk) MPH 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

McKay/Sheppard

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 9, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I don't think we've featured much from the Stargate fandoms, so this might be a good place to start.

Yes. I think this looks good! It's reasonably comprehensive in the history of the ship without being overwhelming for someone outside the fandom. Patchlamb (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good, thank you for the nomination. SecurityBreach (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

~~Not Yet:~~ I think someone is planning to do additional work on this page, as a citation needed flag has been added and there are two new empty sections for Fanwork Tropes and Fan Comments. --Auntags (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Auntags can you take another look at the article now that the Tropes and Comments section has been filled out? -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It is, but the citation needed flag is still there, and I'm not sure which statement(s) require citation--Auntags (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea to what the citation flag is referring to either, it was placed on the article after I nommed it -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've started a talk page discussion about the flag, and asked editors to point out what needs citation--Auntags (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing vote to Yes --Auntags (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No opinion, but note: Hi, just wanted to point out that this note is still on the page "Untalented And Completely Unprepared, But Giving It His Best Shot Anyway by Dasha -- (Better choice for either John or Rodney or Season 2 page?). (12/2005?)" so maybe that ought to be moved or the question removed before it is featured :) -JadedPrism (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the note from that fic example, thank you for catching that JadedPrism -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- MPH (talk) MPH 22:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Pistilverse

Nominated by SecurityBreach on January 10, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a short but sufficient intro for a trope/genre article and no content flags. SecurityBreach (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: neat concept, but the intro paragraph would have to be filled out more before being featured -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote to yes after changes made to the page -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Almost: This is a really interesting choice for a Featured Article, and it would be great if we could feature it. I've added a bit to the intro, but there isn't a lot to say about the fandom appeal as it seems to still be quite niche. I think we also really need more fanwork examples on the page - right now there are only two fanfics and one piece of fanart. I think it's good to look for examples that are significant in some way, but it would be good to have more from sites like Twitter and Tistory, and maybe one more each from AO3 and Naver. enchantedsleeper (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment and your work! I have added three examples of the trope (fic, art, meta). SecurityBreach (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If google translate is correct, some of the links you've already dug up for the history section are also meta and fanfic -- they should go in the Fanwork Examples section as well! (I, for one, am more likely to notice and click on them down there.) Also, would it be possible to get any sense of the size/popularity of the trope in Korean language fandom? I know not all sites have nice aggregation tools like AO3, but it would be nice if we had some comparison to that "18 works on AO3" -- is it similarly tiny in Korean fandom, or more talked about? -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I do agree with Quaelegit in that if we're going to call this a "popular" trope in the introduction, we should probably have a sense of whether it is popular (outside of English-speaking fandom) - otherwise we can just refer to it as a trope? But I love the improvements that have been made to this page. I added a bit to the intro to embed more of a worldbuilding explanation.

If we can resolve the popularity question (either by determining popularity or by removing the word "popular" from the intro), then I'm a yes! I also added a question to the Talk page regarding the distinction between worldbuilding additions and headcanons. --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: Would love to see some Fannish commnentary/reactions, but if there aren't many to source, the article is interesting enough to go . -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This has been addressed, there is now some fan quotes on the page -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Almost: I'd like to see more examples of the Korean fandom and fanworks, since the discussion on the page says it's more popular in that language. TBH it looks like you've already done the hard work of tracking down sources, so I would just feature them more obviously on the page. E.g. those explanatory blog posts linked in the "History" section should definitely be listed as Meta in the "Fanworks" section. I think some of those links are fanfiction, they should be in the example fanworks too!! This might not be possible on the blogs and forums where most of the Korean language examples seem to come from, but can we get a sense of size of the Korean fandom? number of works/users/commonly used tags?? Because "18 works on ao3" makes it sound... a lot smaller than the rest of the article, but I'm guessing that's because of the language divide. -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I like this AU, idk. It is very niche, in my opinion, but still pretty relevant on postype for what I've seen. Kinda picked up a few years ago and it's been dying down since, we've only recently picked up on it in the west because that's how things happen with language barriers. Seanide (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes: The edits and examples have made this page more fleshed out and I think it's something interesting to feature --Legendofthefireemblem (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: It's an interesting article. --Folk melody (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Vash the Stampede is mentioned in this article. It deserves some love -- Aerlko (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

(Still) Not Quite Yet: I mean there's already five "yes" votes so I'm overruled but I'd really like the wall of links in the History section to be presented differently -- probably they should be References or Notes; maybe some of them should be linked down in the "meta" or "Fannish Resources" section as well. I'll leave a message about this on the talk page as well. If we can fix that (maybe I'll be able to do so but not today) then I would immediately change my vote to a "yes" btw. -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I think my main concerns have been addressed; thank you User:Silent oath for all the work you did on the History section!! I still want to tweak the formatting of the references and add archive links, but I think this article is up to the standards of many articles we've featured in the past, and I'll do that tweaking on my own time. -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

enchantedsleeper and WhatAreFrogs? could you have another look at the artilce? Several changes have been made since it's nomination -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, kingstoken - I've added my updated thoughts above! --enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes --JoeyW (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Jason Todd

Nominated by Aerlko on June 22, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flag. I and many other editors have been working on this article for a while now, and I think at the moment it is reasonably comprehensive with lots of information.

Not Yet: The fandom sections are extensive, which is great, but I'd like to see some significant rearranging/organization there; as-is, it's pretty scattershot. I think the content's pretty much all there, but it's in want of some polish. - MomeRath (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Page has been reorganized. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

MomeRath can you take another look at the page? It has been updated and changed since your vote -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Kingstoken Thanks for poking me! It looks good to me now; I'll change to a Yes. MomeRath (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: I wish the intro had a little bit more about the fandom for this character, but that is not a big deal. One thing I didn't really notice until now is the tropes section, like each trope has a paragraph, which may be needed for some tropes that have a lot of discussion, but most of them are just like one sentence and I feel like they could be condense down into a list like format, see Sam Winchester or Dick Grayson for examples of what I mean.

Yes: Changing vote to yes after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I learned so much from this article! And I think the organisation has really improved.

Dropped your signature, bud. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk)

Yes. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: very informative! Greer Watson (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Joker/Bruce Wayne

Nominated by OMAW on 14 June 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Found this page and thought it could be a good one for getting up to featured article status. The intro needs to be a bit longer, and perhaps a gallery could be included, but it's not too bad at the moment. What's everyone else think.

Hesitant Yes: I think the intro needs some work before it could be featured -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote after changes made to the intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I've made changes to the intro, but I'm not quite ready to vote yet (i might be biased xD) --Auntags (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I think the page provides a good broad overview and is ready to be featured, but I wish we had some more examples or references to the Arkham Asylum games and comics like Europa. --Auntags (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- MPH (talk) MPH 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ye :yes-nod: Silent oath (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

A Fannish Taxonomy of Hotness

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 5, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.

Not Yet: It feels like the video itself is missing on this page. While it's sort of described in the intro, this video feels like it's much more important to the history of vidding, with the amount of times it's been cited, and nothing on the page is really about that. - flyingthesky (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there are two links in the info box now. One is offline, but the archived one still works: Internet Archive - SecurityBreach (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I mean that if I read this page without having seen the vid, I don't really get a sense of what the video itself is or why it's important enough to have been cited so many times. There's no sense of why it was created or what the vidder's intent was and I don't think the page can be considered well-developed enough to be featured without that. It's like if we featured a page about a fic and it was just a bunch of comments about the fic but nothing really about the fic itself. - flyingthesky (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have the same issues, it feels there is stil some fannsih perspective missing. For example: How many views did the video have? Do people still talk about it today, 10 years later something like this? Has it inspired other fan works? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Issue taken care of. Spoke to voter, they agreed to a yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

~~: Not Yet: Seconding flyingthesky: there's a lot of information missing.~~

~~A summary of the content of the video would be useful.~~
~~There's no information on why the video is important or what kind of impact it made; the discussion section mentions just mentions that it is impactful.~~

~~The lead section mentions that the vid was featured in a New York Museum exhibit on vidding, and I'd like to see more information on that as well. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)~~

Hesitant Yes: It's been expanded a lot since the last votes and I think it seems pretty complete now (I am only hesitant because I am relatively unfamiliar with the guidelines). — Sobqjmv sphinx (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2023 (EST)

Yes: MPH 19:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes I'm agreeing with Sobqjmv sphinx above - the page seems pretty complete now Kittycesario (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- JoeyW (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

flyingthesky, ~~Pinky G Rocket~~, ~~Sobqjmv sphinx~~, Kittycesario, and ~~WhatAreFrogs?~~ could you all give this one another look, the intro has been expanded and other information added -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Updating to Maybe. I'm still very eh on this article, namely that the professional discussion sections and fan reaction/reviews sections are simply a list of quotes without summary or synthesis. (though this is a topic that I often disagree with other editors on) Did rework the lead section for a Featured Article nomination a while back. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Sobqjmv sphinx (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2023 (EST)

I think I commented here but never actually voted, so here it is: yes. SecurityBreach (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes from me - Rossi (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Greer Watson (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Death (Puss in Boots)

Nominated by OMAW on 14th September 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flag. Been working on this page for a while and I think it's getting there, so I wanted to nominate it now to get fresh pairs of eyes for feedback on what it still needs. I don't think we've had much furry fandom stuff featured iirc, and nothing from the Shrek universe yet. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I made a couple of slight wording changes to the intro, and think the rest of the article looks pretty good -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, hell yes! Silent oath (talk)

Yes -- very excited to see this featured! -- Aerlko (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Hermione/Bellatrix

Nominated by Joanna R on 14 June 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags.
This is based on conversations and feedback from active Bellamione shippers, so I think it covers the canon/fandom reasonably well.

Hesitant Yes: the intro needs to be filled out a little more before it could be featured -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote because of changes made to the intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to your sentence addition - and thanks Alpha for the very sensible idea to explain who these characters ARE if someone isn't familiar with HP! - the intro is built out a little more, although it's still not as long as ideal. I'm working to find a couple fan reaction quotes to the overall pairing, too. Joanna R (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Good read, especially after recent edits. SecurityBreach (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: --Auntags (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but "Fanon!Bellatrix has become fleshed out over time (...)" - this part feels a bit... incomplete (?), for the lack of a better word. While the details would eventually belong to Bellatrix Lestrange, I think a few more words here on what the fanon characterization (that makes the pairing convincing?) actually looks like wouldn't hurt. --Potpotkettle (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I still stand by what I said above, but I don't want to make unreasonable demands. So here is an alternative proposal. If it is hard to capture the fanon characterization(s), can the first part ("Fanon!Bellatrix has become fleshed out over time, because") be dropped in the text, perhaps? --Potpotkettle (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Potpotkettle I have removed that line from the article so it could be approved -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Nice article. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Sacred and the Profane (Good Omens story)

Nominated by Kingstoken on September 09, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flag. With the Good Omens revved up again I thought this might be a fun one to feature.

~~Hesitant~~ Yes: ~~Only hesitant because I think it would be interesting to see if there's been any new responses or inspired fanworks after the second series.~~ -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No longer 'Hesitant' -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes Nice to see something more recent suggested/featured . -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes looks good, interesting read -- SCG (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Kista

Nominated by MPH on 2 June 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I like the topic of a very capable Christine Chapel, an added plus is a ping for Open Doors.

Hesitant Yes: I think the article is interesting, glad to see positive representation of Chapel, but I feel the into needs a little bit of work, although I can't quite put my finger on exactly what it needs -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote to yes with the changes made -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been working on the page a bit. Hopefully, it's improved. MPH 02:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: I feel like the intro is overly long with the quotes and I think there should be a section about the actual content of the fic and perhaps some of the history before it's featured. It just feels weird that there's no real... plot summary? I have no idea what this fic is about from this page, just that it features Christine Chapel and is Spock/Chapel. - flyingthesky (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Almost: It is an interesting article but I feel like it's just missing a clean-up + summary of the story --Legendofthefireemblem (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe - Seconding Flyinginthesky and Legendoffireemblem's comments that the article needs a summary of the story, more history, and a reworked lead section. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've worked on this page. Take a look? MPH (talk) MPH 23:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes - Interesting article, thank you for recent edits. SecurityBreach (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

~~Pinky G Rocket~~, ~~Legendofthefireemblem~~, flyingthesky can you all give this one another look? MPH has made several changes -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No vote change. I reworked the lead section but there still isn't a good summary or synopsis of the story on the article. A lot of comments and official writeups appear deliberately vague or don't mention much about the plot to avoid spoilers, but we are a wiki, not a listings page. The page also needs comments and analysis on the cover, since the lead section mentions the cover is notable to fans (to be clear, this was there before my revisions to the lead) but the body doesn't support that claim. Themes, Tropes, and Inspiration section is incomplete. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes - looks good and contains a lot of interesting info. Rossi (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes - the changes make it a lot more comprehensive Legendofthefireemblem (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Greer Watson (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Looks great and has lot of good content. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes - JoeyW (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Jack Frost/Elsa

Nominated by Kingstoken on July 10, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flag. I don't think we ever featured anything from the Disney or Dreamworks fandoms, plus crossover pairings rarely the level of popularity that this one did.

Yes: I think this is a good article topic to feature - Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- MPH (talk) MPH 22:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Not yet: I think the intro is still a little bit short right now? I'd love a longer intro with more information about the fandom aspects of this ship.

Quick skimming over the canon section, I think it needs another copy-edit run.
Not a deal breaker but I'd love to see more of fannish reactions to the pairing. -- Aerlko (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Not yet Addendum 9/6: Lovely work so far, but I still think there are some remaining kinks to work out. No vote change. :

~~Extremely short lead, needs to be bulked up.~~ Addendum 8/24: Lead is still short, but reads as complete now. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Canon section assumes the reader has knowledge or has seen Rise of the Guardians, Frozen, and Frozen 2. Plot points are mentioned from all three movies without explanation or context. As someone who has only osmosised knowledge of those canons, it is extremely confusing.
~~Canon section is written as an essay for why the ship is compelling to the writer/editor, not an overview of relevant information from canon.~~
~~Canon section has a section on people 'defending the ship', which does not fit the purpose of a canon section.~~ Addendum 8/24: Canon section has been reworked by Kingstoken. It looks and reads a lot better now :). Will review the rest of the page and update my vote with further thoughts and feedback in a bit. Pinky G Rocket (talk)
Fandom section is also written as an essay. Addendum 9/6: still unresolved.
"Canon Compliant: Many fans have tweaked the movies' timelines in their own works..." - if you're tweaking/changing canon events to fit your fic, that's not canon compliant, no? The description describes canon divergence. Addendum 9/6: Resolved. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Too long examples section, links need to be archived, ~~descriptions/summaries need to be cut.~~ Addendum 9/6: Links still need to be archived. Also unsure about using the two-column method outside of references.
~~Fan comments need to be integrated into the body of the article.~~ Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Addendum 9/6: Partially resolved; the one comment is integrated better, but there needs to be a couple more quotes.
Addendum 9/6: Ship section is written as an essay, and I would like to see another quote or two from fans expressing why they find the ship interesting or intriguing.
Addendum 9/6: The term "The Big Four" needs to be defined for people unfamilar with animated fandoms/Rise of the Brave Tangled Dragons.
Addendum 9/6: Although, this is a popular trope in fiction pairing an immortal with a mortal, the tragedy of their separation through the test of time a preferable tool for drama and angst. - awkward sentence
Addendum 9/6: And although not officially confirmed, many fans believe that, after the happenings in Frozen 2, Elsa, as the Fifth Spirit, has also become immortal. - plot point without explanation or context
Addendum 9/6: Would like to see quotes about both postive and negative experiences in the ship's fandom from fans. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: JoeyW (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: It is a bit on the sorter side but look comprehensive. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Probe (Star Trek: TOS zine)

Nominated by Aerlko on June 7, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro no content flags. I just love some old fashioned TOS zine and would love to see it featured.

Not yet - The article is incredibly long and unwieldy, and lacks overview/summarization of reader reviews and comments, making it very hard to parse. This also contributes to a second issue, in that many statements and quotes are confusing or lack context. For example, the statement 'Apparently some readers didn't realize it was a satire' is disconnected from everything else; it's not evident that it's connected to the anthology piece 'Star Trek is a Racist Program'. Another example includes the section 'A Fan Comments' - who is saying this, why are they saying this, why is this a dedicated section from the rest of the article? Details on the controversy surrounding the homophobic comments also seem to be scattered across the article, rather than all being contained in the dedicated section. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: the intro feels rather short, and I think maybe the article could do with a little reorganization, like it seems strange that the article begins with controversies over origins -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Changing vote to yes after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Not yet: I agree with Kingstoken. I think it would be better to just summarize the existence of controversies at the start, and then shift the long discussion of controversies to a later section. -- Greer Watson (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've worked on this page. Take a look? MPH (talk) MPH 23:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No vote change. The lead section is too long: the quotes need to be cut and statements Howlett's views and addressing of social topics need to be summarized more concisely. The main page image needs to be moved to the infobox, and the caption needs to describe the image pictured. Still has length and structural issues: this is reflected in the signposting in the body of the article explicitly pointing people to different sections. Signpostings should be cut. Reactions and reviews sections need to be subsections of their respective article sections and could probably be rephrased to Reception to be more concise (although this is splitting hairs). Gallery images could make use of thumbnail displays to save space. The use of inline images positioned on either side of the page in the issue sections makes those sections hard to read, as the reader's eye is rapidly bouncy back and forth. Captions on images need to state what the image is, but some image captions lack description, only stating "from issue X" or similar. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: MPH (talk) MPH 04:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: SecurityBreach (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: JoeyW (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Anders (Dragon Age)

Nominated by Night Rain on August 28, 2023. As of this writing, I consider this page a comprehensive and balanced examination of a complex character, with plenty of CC-licensed art and no content flags.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- Greer Watson (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Not yet:

There's too much canon and much of the canon that is written is extremely hard to follow, as someone who has never played Dragon Age, nor has osmosised any knowledge of the franchise beforehand. In particular, characters, locations, and concepts are brought up without any explanation or context. Some people (such as Jessica Hylton) are also brought up without context.
Would like to see an overview of ships with Anders in the article itself, rather than just a list leading to other articles.
There are a lot of extremely long quotes that veer the article into "wall of text"; I would either try to integrate them more into the body of the article via synthesis, pick specific sentences rather than quoting entire long comments, or cut some of them.
All images in the body of the articles (besides the infobox image) should be aligned to the right.
"Cat person" bullet in the "Tropes in Fanworks" should be renamed to "Cats" to avoid confusion with animal hybrids.
The interwiki link for "The Electricity Trick" is a sinkhole, and the bullet name should be changed to "Sex Magic" to avoid confusion.
Would like to see a more varied example fanworks section; right now, it only focuses on a few popular formats.
Needs a copyedit run. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
1. Should the "Canon" section be shortened? Or would it benefit from greater clarity? It seems to me that addressing one would come at the expense of the other. "Canon" dedicates one paragraph per Anders-inclusive official media release. This seems fair to me and consistent with other articles. Most of the info is necessary for contextualizing content in other sections. It's handwavy in parts because it needs to account for multiple player choices and weird continuity, e.g. Anders being alive, free, and merged with Justice in DA2 regardless of if he dies or is given to Templars in Awakening. I left out continuity/player choice details because I hoped to pare "Canon" down to the bone. I added some parenthetical descriptions of canon concepts to hopefully improve clarity. But I don't believe it would be possible to write a self-contained plot synopsis of multiple games sufficient for non-players without making the section a lot longer.

2. Jennifer Hylton is mentioned in "Sexuality and Romance Arc." I'd hoped "in an academic analysis of queer representation" would provide context. She seems to be an acafan.

3. As Anders is a polarizing character, I tried to present multiple perspectives on him, in keeping with Plural Point of View. Some of the quotes run longer because I felt it was important to present them (mostly) unedited to show their full context. The amount and length of quotes seems consistent with recent FAs built around quotes, such as Wham, Bam, Thank You, Sam!, The Gossamer Project, Photo Reference, and Mary Sue. There's a couple other things I wanted to cover – notably the Anders vs. Fenris rivalry, and its corresponding fan divide – but at a certain point I decided to focus on the main points of controversy on the "this article should be readable in one sitting" principle.

4. "The Electricity Trick" is the term generally used for the trope in DA fandom. The link was included to show that an AO3 tag for the trope actually exists. Moved it to a reference. Night Rain (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

5. Fanart, fics, and cosplay are the fanwork types that generally seem to be highlighted in example fanwork sections. I agree "Fanfic" is a bit thin at the moment. That's mainly the result of my not knowing whether I should link ship-centric Anders fics on his character article or the corresponding ship articles. I was also hoping for more contributors to add links, to avoid the section becoming a personal rec list. If anyone reading this likes Anders, please feel free to highlight more fanworks! Night Rain (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinky G Rocket the article has several edits since your objection in August, could you please give this a another look -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Nice job, I love the Cosplay gallery -- Alpha (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Good read, especially after recent edits -- SecurityBreach (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes MPH 02:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Still not yet: I can fix it, I have the technology. There is SO much context in this ridiculous fandom that this article is missing. Gimme a bit. MomeRath (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Closer (Star Trek vid)

Nominated by Kingstoken on September 26, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Viral Trek vid, with a fairly comprehensive article.

Yes Article looks goood. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes Looks good to me! -- SCG (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes This vid includes a heavily impled rape scene, and I just want to flag that in case we need to take extra care with socials/front page, when this article is featured. --Auntags (talk)

That is a good point, thank you for bring that up Auntags, we may have to add a note to any social media -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

It runs DOOM

Nominated by flyingthesky on 30 May 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Yes, I will make the page for DOOM to clear the red link in the intro before it goes up on the main page..

Maybe: it's an interesting history of the meme, but I'm a little unsure how it's fandom related, like does DOOm have it's own fandom? Or is this more of a meta video game fandom thing? I'm just not sure -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote to yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

DOOM definitely has its own fandom, with memes such as this, the DOOM/Animal Crossing/ Doomguy & Isabelle memes, importance in the speedrunning community, mods and influences from DOOM being a huge part in the evolution of first-person shooters as a genre, fangames and modding, and so on. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Perhaps provide examples of the fandom for It Runs DOOM? There's a lot about the canon (things that run DOOM) but not so much about the fannish response besides items listed in the "Other" section. Is there fanfic? Fanart? Rossi (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It runs DOOM is a fan activity or fan work in the fandom for the video game DOOM. Like Harry Potter fans play quidditch, or Naruto fans do the "Naruto run". The DOOM video game fandom is the fandom, and making unlikely devices run the video game DOOM is one of the signature fan activities/works done by that fandom. Do you think the current page needs more explanation for clarity? —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe:

* History section contains too much meta/real-life information about DOOM that really isn't relevant to the article or to Fanlore.

* Needs an infobox image of DOOM running on weird things to provide context and illustration. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Cut some extraneous info; added infobox image. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

No vote change. Still too much extraneous info, and I'm not sure why foone gets an entire section- that section seems to be more about them than the history of the meme as a whole. Very messy example section. "See also" section needs to be split into "Further reading" and "External links". About to start winding down, but I'll do more revisions tomorrow. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 02:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is fun. Silent oath (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Almost: I just want to make sure there won't be any accessibility issues with having a gif as the main image in the infobox. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

We won't use the gif for the front page -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes Very nerdy, lots of techy (and propably not really fannish) redlinks in the later paragraphs, but yes. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes Moved detailed foone content to foone and left a summary with important details and a link on It runs DOOM. Fun read, good fan history, looks good to me. -- FBV (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes - changing my vote to yes with the various edits. It makes much more sense as a fanwork now. Rossi (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Man of Iron

Nominated by MPH on October 18, 2023. I nominated this Blake's 7 "fanwork" by Paul Darrow as it is a great example of an actor faltering in translating his own character, of authorial intent and missteps, and of fans taking it and transforming it into their own via turkey readings. Plus that super fanart.

Yes: I don't think we've ever featured anything from Blake's 7 before, so this might be interesting -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes - it's also an interesting example of the crossover between pro and fan that sometimes pops up. Rossi (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes - SecurityBreach (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Looks good to me. --Cavewomania (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Fraser/RayK

Nominated by Kingstoken on October 13, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. It has been awhile since we featured anything form due South fandom, so I thought this might be a nice one to feature.

Yes: SecurityBreach (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes MPH 02:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes Alpha (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes! --Mokuroh (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Phantom of the Opera

Nominated by PictoChatCyberBully on 2023-03-21. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. — PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: the intro tells me about the canon and nothing about the fandom, the rest of the article feels well filled out, but the intro would have to be changed before featuring -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote after changes made to article -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Not yet:

Article lead section needs more information about the fandom, and needs a more broad-level overview of canon than just focusing on adaptations.
Adaptations section needs to be changed to Canon and have a short summary of canon. Right now, it just focuses on adaptions.
Fandom section may need a lead.
Would like to see some digital/more recent fanart added to the fanart selection. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: The intro has been reworked somewhat so that there is now some fandom info. It is very extensive article. But I guess since it trying to bascially fit all 4 iterations of the whole thing (novel, the musical and its sequel as well as the movie adaption) in one article it comes of a bit clumsy since it is not one fandom but 4 which may overlap - or not. Not sure if the whole thing wouldn't work better if the different versions and fandoms are split in an article fo their own? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Changing my vote to Yes. Looks good now. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes I revised the article lead and adaptations section -- I think the article is really interesting, and I liked the introduction to a fandom where the fan work is really very well known. It feels kind of unwieldy long though. Perhaps it would help by moving sections around so that the adaptation headers in fandom are treated like a 'history of fandom', and then group 'online fandom', 'controversies', and 'fanon' together? Also, I was never really in this fandom, but it seems likely to me there would be musical fan works (since many fans were attracted by the musical). I'm also not sure what happened after the 2000s, fandom wise, though I know the musical has remained very popular. (I don't think the adaptations should be separated, it does feel like one whole fandom to me but with a few schisms caused by the different adaptations) -- Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Good read. SecurityBreach (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes: JoeyW (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I reorganized the Fandom section as suggested by Distracteddaydreamer, splitting history and culture, and moving "fanon" from fanfic into the culture section. This was a good read. -- FBV (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Looks much better and is very well organised. Rossi (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Looks good to me. --Cavewomania (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Case Story

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 6, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. It's an interesting trope that many fans would probably be familiar with, even if they didn't know the specific term.

Yes -- Rossi (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: It's very X-files-centric right now, I think more quotes and examples from other fandoms would help balance it more. -- Mozaikmage (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: I agree its too focused on X-Files and the trope section needs fleshing out. Also, can we include a short section on the early Sherlock pastiches as (possibly) the first casefics?? I'm not sure if they could be considered casefics...? --Auntags (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe - The article's title isn't reflective of the term being used; having it be called "case story" and then referring it to casefic is confusing. Way too focused on X-Files, needs quotes and examples from other fandoms. A lot of jargon and acronyms that folks may not be familiar with. I'll rework the lead and do some general cleanup. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone object if I just... move it? B/c very much agreed that at this point "case fic" is the standard term. EDIT: Discussion on the talk page over the last ~6 months has been pretty unanimous so I moved it.-- Quaelegit (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: JoeyW (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes: if it is too X-Files centric than propably there weren't any case-fic type of fan fics before or there weren't labeled as such and other fandom jumped on the band waggon later one, especially not law enforcement type ones. AFAIk case file and casefic may be used synomously in the XFfandom. Article looks good to me. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk)

I did some work on the intro, added wikilinks, added other fan comments that weren't X-Files, reworked intro to both highlight X-Files but also downplay it. 01:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes MPH 01:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Not Yet I'd like "case fic" or "casefic" to be more prominent on the page. Right now, I think the word/phrase "case fic" or "casefic" doesn't appear until the second paragraph. I think it should be in the first paragraph or first sentence, since that is a very common term people are familiar with, and they'll probably read the first paragraph before looking over to the infobox. This is a good article and if that phrase were more prominent I think it would grab people more. Other than that, looks great, and a nice read. -- FBV (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I put casefic/case fic in the first sentence. MPH 23:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes Looks good to me now -- FBV (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone object if I just... move the page?? In my experience "Casefic" (with or without spaces) is FAR more dominant usage than "case story" at this point, and going by the quotes on the page itself that transition happened pretty definitively between 2010 and 2012. EDIT: Discussion on the talk page over the last ~6 months has been pretty unanimous so I moved it.-- Quaelegit (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost:You guys have done a great job broadening the discussion on the page beyond the x-files fandom! However, the organization of the page doesn't make sense to me. What the heck are "Doing It Well" and "Example fandoms with Stories"??? I guess the first one could be "fan commentary on how the genre works" and maybe could be converted into a "further info" type of section, but I don't even know what the second one is there for. It just seems like a list of random fandoms to me, and there's no context. I wouldn't want to feature this article without addressing these two sections. -- Quaelegit (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I worked on this page some more, hopefully addressing some concerns. MPH 14:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Custom Remix

Nominated by Pinky G Rocket on April 15th, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. My only concern is the amount of redlinks; I don't know if that's going to be a dealbreaker or not. Regardless, this is a fanwork format that I see a lot in video game fandoms, but little discussion/documentation on, so I think it would make for an interesting feature. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: I don't know if it is just me, but I read this and I really didn't understand what it was, aside from it has something to do with video games. The article looks very well filled out, but I'm just not understanding it that well, but this may be a shortcoming on my part -- Kingstoken (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote after changes made to the intro, I think I understand it better now -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the lead? I've reworked the lead section with flyingthesky over on the Fanlore Discord to try and be more clear on what custom remixes are. I'm not sure how to better explain the format in the lead section without going into too much detail for a lead section. The primary hurdles I'm trying to clear is that custom remixes are essentially three different formats hiding in a trenchcoat that often overlap with each other + follow a very particular format that is hard to explain textually.

Alternatively, if it's possible to upload videos onto Fanlore (or if I could get an gardener/admin to do it), would a video example in the infobox serve better to demonstrate the format? Pinky G Rocket (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: Same here. I have an understanding in gaming an modding I'm still going 'huh' after reading that article. Is it modding (e.g. replacing game content and actually running the game with changed asstets? Since this is usually only possible on PC or emulators and would be hard to do on a console, not sure how "mod-friendly the Nintento DS is, though since it had a flashcart interface?) or more like fan/art vidos where people adapt the look of the game and create games themselves in tools like PRG maker or Flash or Java or something like this? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

WhatAreFrogs? and Kingstoken, I've posted a reworked lead section in the Fanlore discord for review, and I'm still looking for feedback before I put in the live article. Let me know if you would like me to crosspost it here or to the article's talk page. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't touched this article for a while and it looks like I never posted the reworked intro into the live article. Additionally, WhatAreFrogs?, I only made a few minor edits after your initial vote on May 14. May I ask why you updated your vote? Pinky G Rocket (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thaks for the heads-u and whoops, that was supposed to go under the TPOTO article above. Sorry for any confusion. I moved it no accordingly. I hope I'll find your reworked intro on the Discord... -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Not Yet: I added a stub for niconico so it's not a redlink. On the article itself, I think I had some difficulty with the original section telling whether this was something more like a music video, or something more like a game mod. Ex, is the fan creator, when they make a custom remix, making a custom game level for someone to play, or are they making a video for someone to watch? It seems like the answer is that they are making a video for someone to watch, but the video itself is designed to look like it is a custom game level that is being played in a game. I think this is a difficult concept to convey concisely. Here's how it currently is laid out:

Custom remixes are a type of fanwork specific to the Rhythm Heaven fandom. Most commonly, the term refers to audio and/or video edits that replicate 'remixes', a type of level in the Rhythm Heaven series that involves playing a series of minigames to the beat of a song, with custom remixes using music of the creator's choice.
I might change it to be like this (changed emphasized):

Custom remixes are a type of fanvid specific to the Rhythm Heaven fandom. Most commonly, the term refers to audio and/or video edits that replicate videos of 'remixes', a type of level in the Rhythm Heaven series that involves playing a series of minigames to the beat of a song, with custom remixes using music of the creator's choice.

This makes it clear from the start that the common use of the term refers to a type of fanvid, and later paragraphs can clarify that there are some cases where it refers to a mod or a new game entirely. I think leading the article with the word "fanvid" in the first sentence, and "videos of" in the second sentence would make this easier for people to understand at a glance. -- FBV (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

WhatAreFrogs?, Kingstoken, and FBV, I've revised the lead. Check a look and throw further feedback my way? Pinky G Rocket (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Changing may vote to Yes Thanks for the improvements, Pinky G. Rocket. I now have an understanding based on the lead of the article what Rhythm Heaven custom remixes are. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes - new lead looks good to me, thanks Pinky G Rocket! -- FBV (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I added examples and fixed Lemon Demon redlink.--Cavewomania (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes i think its pretty clear now! Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

MCYT

Nominated by Serilly on December 20, 2023, after multiple people have encouraged me to nominate. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. The page contains a detailed history writeup of the fandom and information on some of its many subfandoms, many references, and a large amount of example fanworks from various subfandoms. It does have a lot of redlinks, but the MCYT Fanlore Project is chipping away at them, and there are none in the introduction. -Serilly (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Very informative article, I enjoyed reading it a lot. SecurityBreach (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Kingstoken (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: This is a great page, but I had to google PVP to find out what that means. Maybe we should explain acronyms on their first use - for folks who know nothing about Minecreaft or gaming. --Auntags (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I added in parentheses the meaning of PVP and SMP the first time they are mentioned :) -Serilly (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: comprehensive and a fun read. -- Aerlko (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Animation Meme

Nominated by Aerlko on October 18, 2023. This article has a good intro with comprehensive information about the topic. It had an Example Wanted flag previously but I deemed it's safe to be removed by now. Also the topic is a fun read.

Not Yet - there's way too many redlinks in the article; I'd suggest rather than making the "Notable Animation Memes" list with Fanlore pages, you link directly to examples via external links, since without visual examples, it's hard to work out what makes the memes different from each other. Also, there's references to "tweening", but no definition of what that actually means for us oldies. ;) Rossi (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I added a link to the Wikipedia article on Inbetweening (tweening). SecurityBreach (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there has been a lot of work done about the red links and other issues so I think moving the article to 'approved' would be justified. SecurityBreach (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Not Yet: I found the explanation of what exactly this is a little confusing. I think now that I have watched a couple of the vids that I kinda get it, but if I hadn't watched the vids I don't think I would understood -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I edited the intro to explain it better, please have a read? -- Aerlko (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

~~Almost~~: The intro has been vastly improved (thank you, Aerlko) but I agree there are still too many red links. I managed to fix one and started a discussion on the talk page with a vague idea on how to deal with the software links. -- SecurityBreach (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I managed to fix a few red links and I think that fixing all of them would take a lot of diligence. Maybe having the article featured could draw attention to the situation? SecurityBreach (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

yes: understand the criticism about the redlinks, but the topic is really interesting and the text feels well written to me, enough so i now understand the topic. maybe featuring it will encourage people to flesh out the red links! Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I may be a bit biased since I initially created it, but I'm not particularly bothered by it being featured with a list of red links. I think it's still decently detailed and informative, red links or not, and agree with the above that being featured could potentially encourage others to work on getting rid of red links. Patchlamb (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

tagging Rossi and Kingstoken, please take a look over the current article? Lots of changes have been made since you two first voted. -- Aerlko (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: For the redlinks, we could add an external link to Know your Meme, beside the redlink. Other notable examples already links out to Know Your Meme and it feels like a good source for more info, while also encouraging editors to create pages on Fanlore. But I'd be happy to feature even without that change - it's a good page. --Auntags (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I have started linking those red links to Know your Meme in October this year. It takes a lot of time because I also archive those links on Wayback. I also started a page for Animation Software (see: Talk:Animation Meme) so I guess the red links might not be an issue any more. SecurityBreach (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Rejected nominations

Dragon AU

Nominated by Quaelegit on December 5, 2022. No content flags, page definitely needs some cleanup but I'm nominating it now partially so that I'm more likely to remember to do it. It's got some interesting discussion on how the trope tends to get used in different fandoms.

Hesitant Yes: I would like the intro to be a little more filled out, but I can't quite put my finger on what it needs -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe: There is a citation needed flag in the trope conventions section. I also wonder if the Trope Conventions could have something about Dragonrider AUs, because that doesn't have its own page yet? For the Popularity and Spread section, we could add a wider range of examples, outside of Ao3. I know that there seemed to be a lot of Dragon AU fics in J2 & SPN fandom back in the day. --Auntags (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for catching that! I'll try to do some research on HP Dragon AUs and see if there's something i can use there... though also i'm wondering why someone added the CN flag in the first place

Re: Dragonrider AUs, that's a great question that I don't really feel like I can address, because I haven't read anything on that myself beyond a handful of BNHA fantasy AUs (and I'm pretty sure that Pern crossovers and other western fantasy influence is what you're talking about?). I can try to look for J2 and SPN examples on livejournal or ffn though. -- Quaelegit (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I started a page Dragonriders of Pern AU and linked it from the info box of Dragon AU. It's still a stub though. SecurityBreach (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not Yet: It would be interesting to see more about how this trope pops up in/around Asian media, particularly in the xianxia/related fandoms, such as the prevalence of Dragonji (Dragon Lan Wangji). I agree re seeing more examples outside of AO3. -- Shiningpaperclip (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be a great addition to the page!! Will require a lot of research though -- I don't know much about xianxia, or cmedia in general. (And obviously it would probably be good to look into fandoms from other countries and languages too). I would appreciate any help people have to offer here! -- Quaelegit (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: Feels still a bit short, the gallery could use some more additions, but then not all Faetured articles are super long if they cover the topic. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair. People have raise some really good ideas for expanding the page already, but if you (or future voters) think of more please suggest them! -- Quaelegit (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Not Yet: is it okay to vote on my own nomination?? Anyways, people have raised some really good points for expanding the article and I really think we should address them before featuring it. I don't think i'll be able to do the research and expansion on my own (certainly not any time soon), and this has sat on the FAN list for a long time. I think it would be better to can the nomination for now, and re-nominate once we've actually done the work on the article (I'll move the points raised here to the article's talk page. -- Quaelegit (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination rejected. It's been over three months and many issues have not been dealt with. Plus the original nominator asked that it be set aside for now.

Carry On

Nominated by SecurityBreach on January 25, 2023. As of this writing, the article has a good intro and no content flags. Contains a spoiler warning at the top of the page. SecurityBreach (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: the intro bothers me because it seems more like a canon summary than a summary about the fandom, not that you shouldn't have some canon info in it, but most of this seems like it should be put in it's own canon section. The rest of article is well done -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: I have the same issues as Kingstoken with the intro. It lacks some fandom/Fannish scope. Like since when is there a fandom around and where/how prevalent/ties to the HP-fandom, perhaps if there is influence? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe:

The spoiler warning isn't really a dealbreaker.
The lead section is confusing and needs a rework. It focuses too heavily on canon, but at the same time, I don't really get a good sense of what Carry On is about, as someone who has never heard of it.
The connections to Fangirl and Harry Potter may be tangential. In creating the page for The Thing (1982), I was told to keep the professional influences to a minimum as it may be offtopic. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: The intro could use a better description of the novel in fandom terms - it is a gay romance? Fantasy? Is it kinky? Does the series 'verse have a name? Do the song lyrics from the titles connect to the stories in any way? (Maybe just a mention that they are named for lyrics, like many fanfics.) It should probably have a "plot" section or at least a mention of the plot, ideally in fannish terms - is it tropey? The Characters section should have an intro instead of starting with a bullet-point list. (Lots of characters? Only a few? How much do readers know about non-POV characters? Do they have nicknames?)

Overall, it's pretty good but could use some bits to help readers who know nothing about the fandom itself. - Elf (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination rejected. It's been over three months and many issues have not been dealt with. Plus the original nominator asked that it be set aside for now.

Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2023)

About this page

Approved nominations

Rejected nominations

Navigation menu

Search