Fanlore:Featured Article Nominations/Archive (2024)

About this page

This page lists Featured Article nominations that were posted on the Fanlore main page in 2024 or that were rejected during 2024 due to insufficient yes votes. For current nominations, visit Fanlore: Featured Article Nominations.

Approved nominations

Papa Don't Preach

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 28, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, and no content flags. I thought this vid might be a fun feature.

Yes: It's a fun vid --Auntags (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Good read! -- SecurityBreach (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Really interesting piece of history - and still interesting fandom blind!

Nomination approved.

Ororo Munroe/Logan Howlett

Nominated by Kingstoken on November 23, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, and no content flags. I thought this one might be fun to feature.

Yes: SecurityBreach (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes: Pushing my Valentine's Day FA Agenda Alpha (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good! SCG (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Omegaverse Litigation

Nominated by SecurityBreach on Nov 15, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I think this is an interesting example of an attempt at commercializing a fannish genre.

Yes, Good read and good anecdote. -Alpha (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No opinion, but if we decide to feature this page, I'd suggest protecting it from edits before its featured. This page was previously protected because of contentious and misleading edits to the page. I just don't want to see that happening again if we promote the page --Auntags (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: I only hesitate because I know one of the authors involved is quite litigious, and has sent cease and desists to a Youtuber that talked about the topic, so I am hesitant to draw attention to this page. Other than that, the article is really well done. -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing vote to Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Very detailed and informative page on a hot issue that's since simmered down. Patchlamb (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Daycare Attendant

Nominated by Patchlamb on Nov 12, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. DCA is its own little pocket of Five Nights at Freddy's fandom that also spawned its own subfandom so I think it is interesting to feature, especially with the FNAF film having released recently.

Almost: I really like the article and would vote yes, but right now, I think that the canon section is too detailed and could benefit from clipping. SecurityBreach (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I trimmed the canon section, though I think what remains is short relative to the length of the article and adds context to the way some fans treat the DCA (specifically the naming conventions and Eclipse's existence). Patchlamb (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Voting yes after recent edit. SecurityBreach (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: I reworded the lede the lede because I found it confusing. But a) I'm not in this fandom b) I'm not really familiar with language for talking about systems, and given the rest of the fandom discussion on the page I'd like someone with more familiarity on at least one of the two to look over the lede & make sure we're not misrepresenting things or going to offend most of the fandom or something. Thanks! -- Quaelegit (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost: I think there needs to be some mention in the lede of them being referred to with the names Sun and Moon, not just as sun/moon-themed, as that's what I kept hearing fans refer to them as (I'm not a fan myself, but FNAF is a Fandom-in-Law so I'm familiar with it to a certain extent), and the rest of the page itself refers to them as such too. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I edited "Sun and Moon" into the intro section, OfMonstersAndWerewolves. Patchlamb (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Changed vote :). -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes MPH 17:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Lumity

Nominated by OfMonstersAndWerewolves on 12th January 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Thought this could be a good one for Femslash February. I'm still improving it atm (mainly been focusing on the lede and gallery so far), but thought I'd nominate it now so I can get any ideas for things that might be missing.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's a good overview with a nice gallery and will be fun to feature for Femslash February (or maybe Lesbian Visibility Week if the schedule doesn't work?). I didn't know there were so many canon sapphic juggernaut ships from animated series. But I feel the article still has room to grow. "Common tropes" is an area to potentially focus on expanding. It might benefit from more detail on how fans approach these tropes. For example, Amity is said to be a different species than Luz, but this species isn't specified. Amity's article doesn't offer clarity on this matter. If canon is vague regarding her species, have fans developed any headcanons? What familial angst is the focus of hurt/comfort fics? Why do Amity and Luz start out as rivals? These aren't things someone unfamiliar with this series would know going into the article. A little illumination (bad pun, I know) could help the article really shine but it's good-to-go right now. Night Rain (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- I don't know the ship well at all, but it is a very solid article, good introduction. MomeRath (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Hollywood Walk of Fame

Nominated by SecurityBreach on January 8, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I think this is a very detailed and informative page about how a mainstream promotional institution affected fandom.

Yes: I had no idea that fans raised money for stars and this is a very interesting read. The intro might need a small bit of work - we should remove this line at least, "For more, see Wikipedia." --Auntags (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback! I moved the line you mentioned to references. SecurityBreach (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you notice that all (but one) of the other links in the lede are also to Wikipedia? It seems weird to link to Wikipedia's articles Hollywood (the LA neighbordhood) and Hollywood Boulevard (the street) but not to the wikipedia article about the actual Walk of Fame itself (which has a lot of info we don't cover in our fanlore article). Can I add the wiki link back in somehow?? Maybe just an external links section at the bottom? (But then all the other wikipedia links are in the lede.....) Does anyone else have suggestions to solve this? -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Quaelegit, I'll add it back. The Wikipedia link was in a reference that I deleted for being excessive real-life information when reworking the lead. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Good catch! I removed those Wikipedia links because I don't think we need to link out to the pages for Hollywood or Hollywood Blvd. --Auntags (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: - Interesting! SCG (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not Yet: what's there seems really good, but all of the discussion/quotes are over 30 years old. The Walk of Fame still exists; I bet people are still fannish about it, can we get some more recent coverage/discussion on the page? -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

hey Quae, just a note because I'd talked about this with kingstoken - she may have told you this already but putting it down on record - the page does address this in the (current) last sentence of the intro: "In later years, this process was much less home-grown, and it has been completely taken over by official public relations." So just circling back to let you know this wasn't ignored, re more-recent content. (Also resolves one of PGR's points below). Joanna R (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Not yet:

* Page structure is confusing.

* Some sections are severely underdeveloped or missing information. For example, the Brian Keith section states that fans raised money through zines for his star - What spurred this? Were they successful? etc.

* Some sections read more as an essay than as an encyclopedia.

* Seconding Quealegit that the page is outdated; there are a large number of high-profile deaths over the last few decades that spurred fan activities along the Walk of Fame.

* Needs a page image. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes Though I'd recommend taking out the two Wikipedia links. I also just did a bunch of revision to the intro. As always, revise if needed. MPH 16:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I added a section about the more commercial apsect nowadays. -- 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Kiss (Klimt painting)

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on Dec 9 2023. The page has a good intro, no content warning flags, and an extensive gallery of gorgeous art that crosses fandoms. Plus, Night Rain made the page for Art Noveau so it also is well linked to other fanlore pages. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 12:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: I love the amount of examples in the article, it really shows how popular this style is, However, examples aside, there is not a lot to the article itself, it is basically just the short intro paragraph -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This is "my" article and I'm similarly conflicted. I suppose that may be because it doesn't quite feel like an article for me. I think it would benefit from some prose content contextualizing this painting's relevance to fandom. On the other hand, I've also seen multiple articles built primarily around quotes become FAs, so I feel there may be some latitude in how Fanlore articles are constructed. Night Rain (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I like this kind of article a lot, where a trend in fandom is explored across multiple fandoms, it gives everyone something to read and shows some cool stuff in fandom culture. Do we have a good idea of what we'd want to add to make this a bit more of an article so we could feature it? -- FBV (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I added some fannish views found on Tumblr. There might be deeper discourse out there. This Guardian piece sums up why I've never liked the original. Night Rain (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Art history sort of pages aren't super common on Fanlore (see new fanlore project on it?) so we don't really have a model for what a "good" fandom art history page would be, i think. Which is to say I see your point but not sure what to add beyond the fannish views Night Rain brought up. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the new project! You're right that there currently aren't guideposts for making a "good" art article. This is definitely something we could discuss at a project level. In terms of this article, some possibilities for further development could be 1) expanding the short paragraph on canon imitations of The Kiss into a full section, 2) adding coverage of earlier fannish opinions and zine imitations of The Kiss (this is out of my wheelhouse, unfortunately). Night Rain (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: The article definitely feels meaty enough to feature now, good work everyone!!(If we want more discussion -- maybe non-fannish Art History Rundowns of the painting? -- we can just stick them in the essay section.) And the gallery section has art from zines going back to 2006; and at least one from the 20th century. If people have the skills to dig for more older stuff that would be welcome but we're not neglecting that era entirely. I say feature it! -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Although maybe move the essay section to the bottom? That's where it usually goes & tbh I think more people will want to see the gallery (it's really impressive!) than the essays. In fact I'd even consider moving the tumblr quotes below the gallery... though that's the opposite of how we usually order things on fanlore. -- Quaelegit (talk)

22:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to weigh in with why the essays section is high up- it's because to me it feels like the expansion / explanation for why the Kiss has that appeal, since I don't have much art knowledge, and in my head it's like a description of the "canon" - though in this case if you're getting metatextual, it's the fan-responses to the painting that aren't art. But I agree the star of the show is the gallery, so I am supportive of arrangements that spotlight it. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Agreed with Quaelegit that this article is now meaty enough to feature. Loved the fannish views section and the gallery is nice. I think we could order the sections as 1. Gallery, 2. Fannish Views, 3. Fanart by Fandom, 4. Essays/articles. This would be an unusual ordering for Fanlore but I think bringing Gallery to the top may be appropriate for this kind of page. I'm also satisfied with the current layout. What do others think? -- FBV (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: I had no idea that this has been used in so many fandoms (also added another). I know of another 90s Photoshop X-Files incarnation which doesn't seem to be online anymore and not archived :-/ -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

From Eroica With Love

Nominated by Kingstoken on October 1, 2023. As of this writing, the page has a good intro, it does have one content flag for "examples wanted" but I don't think that one is necessarily needed. This is an older Manga fandom that seems to have had quite a western following, so it might be really cool to feature it.

Not yet: Confusing, way too focused on canon, and needs cleanup.

• Extremely messy lead with a lot of superfluous canon details and not much background on the fandom. Also, I'm not keen on linking to scanlation sites directly in the lead. I know legal stuff surrounding scanlations is weird and muddy, but doing so outright in the lead is very likely to attract piracy wank.
• "Canon plot and backgrounds" section reads like a listings site, and not a summary or synopsis. There's a lot of tropes and influences lists, but I don't quite understand what the manga or its plot is after reading that section.
• The same goes for the character section; the writing style is unclear and leaves me more confused than informed. The Characters and the Canon section could also likely be merged into a single section, with fandom stuff spun off into a Fandom section.
• Pairings section feels incomplete and is too focused on canon.
• Connections to Lead Zepplin is too focused on canon, and doesn't have many connections to fandom besides linking essays that are on other pages.
• 45th Anniversary Tributes sections is incomplete and might need be cut, as it focuses on tributes created by professionals. Professionals can make fanworks, but this doesn't feel like a fanwork if it was part of an officially sanctioned tribute.
• Stage play's inclusion in the fanworks section needs to be reviewed, from the article it's not clear if it's a fanwork or official
• Online Resources and Resources sections are extremely messy and need to be cleaned up. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Not Yet: Article has an "Examples Wanted"-Flag for the time being, although the rest looks is okay, IMO. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I added some examples and removed the "Examples Wanted" flag. MPH 22:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, MPH. It has now a International Focus Request Flag, but I guess sice this isn't a showstopper, so I'm changing my vote to Yes. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Voting yes after recent edits. SecurityBreach (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes: -JoeyW (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Looks good to me. --Cavewomania (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No vote change. I've reworked the lead and cut a few things, but the page is still too focused on canon in a manner that is confusing and doesn't make sense for someone unfamiliar with this manga. The page is also largely focused on Western fandom, and I'd like to see some insight into the Japanese fandom. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I added some about the differences between Western and Japanese fandom. https://fanlore.org/wiki/From_Eroica_With_Love#Differences_in_Japanese_and_American_Fandom MPH 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: There's always more than can be done on these articles, but I think what's there now is a good representation of what we want in a solid, balanced FL article. MomeRath (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes MPH 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Friends at the Table

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on 18 Feb 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro. I think it does a good job of providing context and then focusing on fandom activity for someone like me who's never heard of it before - and its a podcast, which I don't think we've featured something similar to recently. I thought the active existence of fangames for an ongoing podcast was super interesting. Many of the internal links exist and the category is pretty well fleshed out, though there's still content flags, i believe it can be removed and is more a matter of opinion. - Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes: I've done a lot of work on the page over the last six months or so, so I vote yes! :) I think you're right about the content flags - at this point they're mostly there to keep track of what would be nice to add to the page, which could easily be moved to the talk page. -Malcontent (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Almost: Good start, but needs some brushing up:

* The lead section is short and is written in a promotional tone. It name-drops a lot of people and lists the appeal of the show, but I don't understand who these people are, what the show is, or what separates it from other actual play podcasts in terms of content. The lead should also be expanded to include more information about the fandom.

* The article "List of Friends at the Table Seasons" could probably be merged into the Canon section of this article; tables for canon sections, while unusual, is not out of the question for anthology or serialized works.

* I'd like the Fandom Overview section to start with a summary of the fandom; it talks about how people got into the fandom, but it doesn't give me a good idea of what the fandom is like.

* I'd like the "Fan Reviews & Reponses" sections to include a summary of why fans like the show, rather than giving straight quotes without further context. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sincere question, asked as the person who wrote the lead section as it currently is: what other information should the lead include? I'm asking because I always struggle to write lead sections. For context, I based it off of the Critical Role lead section, since Critical Role was featured a few years ago and that article includes roughly the same info: it's an actual-play series, it's hosted by Person X (I hear you re: the long cast list btw), + a brief quote about it (that's what the "critical worldbuilding...between good friends" bit actually is, I should have put it in quotes but was being cheeky because it's also a fandom in-joke). There's actually no fandom information at all in the lead for the Critical Role article, now that I'm reading it again. In the Friends at the Table article, I was hesitant to talk much more about the canon in that section since that's not what Fanlore is for, but also didn't know what fandom information should be included. -Malcontent (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes: There are an awful lot of red links in the ship section, but that is not a deal breaker. Overall, it seems like a good overview of the fandom. -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Rossi (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Time v.3.0

Nominated by Kingstoken on February 29, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Since it appears the Doctor/Master article may possibly not be approved I am going to suggest a different Doctor Who related article.

Yes - well structured article with plenty of interest. Rossi (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, mostly - though I'd like someone who understands it to give the lede a touch-up. What is "the fluidity that is the Whoverse"? -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Almost - Short, but sweet. The lead needs a brushup, and I'd like to see an original synopsis and not a quotation of the author-written summary. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This issue has been dealt with -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: I've tried to add a bit of a synopsis to the intro, but this fic is very difficult to summarize. On the question Quaelegit asked, I think fluidity referes to the fluidity of canon. DW canon sometimes contradicts itself and fans usually just assume there's a time travel reason for the change. --Auntags (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Shout out to the Faction Paradox reference in one of the reaction quotes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

That's All (Due South vid)

Nominated by auntags on March 29, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. The intro might need some work. Its about a constructed reality vid that took two character who barely spoke and made them kiss xD

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The two links to the vid on the LiveJournal post: one won't download for me due to a "security risk" and the other one needs a password. Do you know if there's another place to watch it? MPH 00:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You can download the vid from their website http://www.sdwolfpup.com/dsvids.html -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: -- MPH 23:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: MomeRath (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Doctor/Master

Nominated by Kingstoken on January 11, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought this one might be fun to feature considering this is a long standing enemyslash ship. It does have a long canon section but I think that is somewhat understandable.

Yes:[Edit: removing my vote pending article reformatting] Though lots of external links that we should try to add archive backups for. -- Quaelegit (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Almost: I think the canon section could be streamlined a bit. I need to go through the rest and see if there's anything major that might need adding to the fandom bits too. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Gonna post this on the talk page too but: we have this page of The Doctor/The Master in general, but we also have Twissy, SpyDoc, and Ten/Master pages. I'm wondering whether we could create some of the other popular versions, like Three/Master, and then move a lot of the canon stuff specific to each era that's still relevant over to those pages instead? Or heck, even just those three already made as there's literally no canon section in any of them. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Updated Thoughts: Looking much better, though now the lede looks too short. Might see if I can add to it a little to make it a bit more substantial and I should be able to change my vote to yes. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Change of vote to Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Not yet: Extremely long lead that needs to be brushed. Also, I know the canon section will be long no matter which way you slice it, but it takes up the majority of the article, at around 5k words, as compared to the fanon's section 1.7k, minus the bottom lists. Raw word count isn't everything sure, but it's an indication that there's either not enough fandom aspects documented, or we're detailing too much when giving context. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: I enjoyed reading this article very much and I'll try and put some work into those internal links. Thank you very much for nominating! SecurityBreach (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: The Doctor articles are usually quite long, since this is an ongoing show for what ... 60 years now? Lot's of canon and fannish engagement here -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes MPH 00:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Asexuality and Fandom

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on Dec 2 2023. The page has a good intro. Though it has an examples wanted content flag for discourse, but I believe it can be removed even if there is still more discourse that can be included. It's well fleshed out, especially the examples, and I think it would be interesting to queer people in fandom. There's also potential scope for improvement if more people get their eyes on it since it's a very broad topic!

Maybe: I think before featuring a few issues would have to be dealt with: one the intro I think needs to fleshed out a little bit more, right now it is basically a definition and then it goes into mentioning fictosexuals, which I found confusing when I first read it. I'm also not sure I like the way it's formatted, like it goes from the intro right into a list of ace characters, I'm wondering if it might be better to move the list down, although I'm not sure, but I think it needs better flow overall -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, though I'm not sure I have the bandwidth to go in and fix it. Thank you for pointing out these issues!

Changing vote to Yes because of changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Almost: The intro does need fleshing out, but overall its a good page that looks at the main points around the depiction of asexuality in fan discussions and works. I'm going to propose making Ace a disambiguation page on the talk page, but I don't think that should impact the decision to feature or not. --Auntags (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's an informative overview of the subject in its current form. That said, I do feel there are potential areas for expansion, and would prefer clearer delineatation between canonically ace characterss and interpretations/headcanons. Could also do with a proofread. Night Rain (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe: An admittedly quick skim through and I feel like there's things missing. Particularly around acephobia and the rise of ace discourse around 2016-ish, especially on Tumblr, and how that affected fandom. I'll take a look at some point and see if I can add anything. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: I agree that whole LBTQ discourse/non-inclusion sectionin "Inclusion in Queer Spaces" is bit short, but still a good article. Maybe featuring it will help expanding that section? -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Rossi (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• No: I've added to the article, but information on the page as it stands currently feels too cluttered for it to be featured article worthy. The topic is so broad though that I don't know how it could be edited better... Maybe discourse should come before characters? --Cavewomania (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Reworked intro to include a paragraph about ace fans and communities. Columnized the fanworks section so it takes up less space. Added content to aphobia section and removed examples wanted template. Structure looks good now. -- FBV (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Barbverse

Nominated by auntags on Apirl 5, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. A fanfic series that's been going for 20 year and it's still not finished.

Yes: Interesting! Do we know if this series has inspired any fanworks like fanart? -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I added some to the bottom of the article but I fear alot of related fanworks are lost to closed down forums and deleted LJ accounts. I know Barb created some art for her own work, but all the image links I could find are broken. --Auntags (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes: I think this is good! I dug around on the author's Tumblr and found a comic she'd drawn set in the universe, and have added that to the page as well for a visual. Castille (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, though: For such a long series and apparently quite beloved, I really did expect more fan activity / discussion. It's weird to me to not see it on the article, but a cursory search didn't turn up much I could figure to add. I also was looking for critical discussion, but couldn't really see much besides people who didn't like kidfic, and I don't think that's necessary for an article like this. But it really is the rare million word fic that has mostly fans, low activity, and high praise :0 or maybe I'm hanging out in the wrong circles. ETA: clarification, not a bad thing. But since I'm not in the fandom I just want to be sure the coverage is relatively complete! -Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Mal/Evie

Nominated by OMAW on 26th April 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. Deep in a Malvie hyperfixation right now and wanted to nominate for Featured Article. First Descendants page, and it's always good to have some femslash. Still sprucing it up here and there but wanted fresh pairs of eyes to see if anything wasn't clear or I was missing anything obvious.

Yes: A good introduction for the pairing fro someone who doesn't know the fandom. It would be nice to have a few more examples of fanart, but that's not strictly necessary -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: It's a nice overview of the ship covering a lot of different aspects of the fandom, and as a complete outsider to the fandom I found it an interesting read. --Malcontent (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Great overview of the pairing (who I also don't know, but I am now very convinced they should be a couple :D). Good structure and I really like the shipping fuel section. Cookies and chaos (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Lots of quotes and examples, and a fun read, even for someone who isn't in the fandom!--Poisongardenz (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Ned Stark Lives!

Nominated by Kingstoken on April 24, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought this one might be interesting to feature, and it has been about six months since we last featured anything from ASOIAF/GOT.

Hesitant Yes: Only hesitant because I'm curious if the series had any inspired fanworks itself? -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I've had no luck finding any -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Got rid of 'hesitant'. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: It would be nice if the intro was a bit longer, but its not a deal breaker --Auntags (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Very interesting article. Greer Watson (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: for reasons other than someone asked me to vote yes, of course :nods: xD Silent oath (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

MBTI and Fandom

Nominated by User:Night Rain on January 9, 2024. No content flags, plenty of sources, ands gives what I hope is a thorough overview of the topic and its relation to fandom.

Not Yet: Think the criticism section could be larger, I'll see what I can find. Think it should be clearer in the lede too that it's not just skeptics but the scientific community as a whole that are against taking it seriously. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I initially went with "skeptics" over "scientists" because I didn't want to exclude laypeople with science blogs. But you're right that "the scientific community" works as a more inclusive alternative. As for expanding the "criticism" section, this is a fandom-focused wiki. More in-depth coverage of scientific criticism of MBTI seems more suited to Wikipedia or RationalWiki. The article may already be toeing a line in terms of non-fannish content. But an overview of MBTI itself seemed necessary for helping readers to understand the fandom-related portions. I did search for fannish criticism of MBTI and that lone quote was all I came across. Perhaps I wasn't searching in the right places or with the right keywords. So feel free to add other fannish criticisms you've encountered. Night Rain (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I also want to stress that I've tried to strike a balance with the inclusion of non-fannish content in this article. The mention of official vs. unofficial online testing gives an insight into why there aren't fan surveys before the 1990s. The brief primer on the typology itself gives an idea of what all the four-letter combinations mentioned throughout the article mean. The mention of the Keirsey Temperament Sorter and its sub-groupings is necessary for explaining the origins of the 16 Personalities character fandom. The "criticism" section doesn't serve to underpin information elsewhere in the article. I included it because it seemed necessary for a balanced overview of the topic as a whole. But scientific criticism shouldn't warrant special extended focus when explaining the intricacies of the typology doesn't. This article is about MBTI's relationship to fandom, not the MBTI system itself. Night Rain (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look when I get the chance to see if I can change my vote. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not Yet: I agree with OfMonstersAndWerewolves -- Kingstoken (talk)19:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Changing vote to Yes because of the changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm upset. I pared the "canon" section to the bone in the last article I put forward as an FA candidate due to concerns over excess non-fannish content. Now multiple editors are demanding the addition of blatantly non-fannish material. Fanlore isn't RationalWiki. It isn't Fanlore's mission to extensively debunk concepts disputed by science. Where would that end? Long sections in merpeople and soulbond (trope) explaining the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of both mermaids or souls? I looked for fannish criticism. What I found is in the article. Night Rain (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

For clarification of a few points:

• I wasn't really expecting a substantial non-fannish account of criticism. A brief summary perhaps, but primarily from fans or, at a push, the way that non-fannish topics such as science or politics often intersects with fandom, especially on sites like Tumblr. My main complaint was the lack of mention in the lede. The Omegaverse page does a similiar thing by briefly mentioning outright that the trope is based on outdated research on wolf dynamics, in order to not perpetuate outdated information.
• I find comparison between Myers-Briggs and the likes of merpeople etc to be a false equivalence, mostly because of general perception of those topics. Most people generally know the scientific viewpoint on the existence of Merpeople; Myers Briggs on the other hand is still often viewed by many to be a valid scientific tool, partly because of how the test is often presented to audiences. There's a misconception with MBTI that doesn't exist with merpeople and other such tropes, and I didn't want Fanlore to contribute to that.
• Similiar false equivalence in regards to ships like Reylo being seen as controversial. Whether a ship or character is seen as controversial is primarily based on opinion, rather than scientific fact as in the case of MBTI. Though I concede there are perhaps better ways of expressing it than describing it as 'controversial'.

I'll take a look and see if I can find any other fan responses. I feel like I've seen folks who recognise it for what it is, and enjoy it from a fannish perspective with a certain level of knowledge and self-awareness, and try to advocate for other fans to treat it in the same vein.

-- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

MBTI has popular acceptance in both fannish and non-fannish spaces. In my experience those who feel a need to actively debunk it represent a corner of the skeptic movement. MBTI isn't astrology. It's rooted in material ideas – psychology, neurology, etc. – rather than mystical energies. For many people that's real enough for it to serve as a tool for self-understanding and character interpretation. In any case this seems perpendicular to Fanlore's mission. PPOV allows us to document fannish disagreement where it exists. It doesn't give us leave to designate controversy where we feel it ought to exist. It isn't within Fanlore's remit to try to cure "misconceptions with MBTI" or "advocate" for fans to feel one way or another about it. If MBTI isn't widely disputed in fannish spaces, extended coverage of criticisms would be undue weight.

This really isn't a subject on which I ever anticipated friction. I wasn't expecting this article to be more than a gallery of chart memes and maybe a mention of some character metas. I was fascinated to discover Gayle Stever's research and a whole sub-fandom of drawing and shipping types. To me this feels like the very definition of transformative fandom. It's taking a somewhat dry abstract concept and turning into something vivid and new. I wanted to share the fun discoveries I came across while researching this topic. But with this reception I bet it's gonna be a real gas if I ever get around to writing an article on fannish potrayals of zodiac signs. Night Rain (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Interesting read, I never knew about this fandom, (though I knew about the fannish use in categorizing characters). To address some concerns above, I moved the criticism section into the explanation section near the top, expanded it, and added another explicit reference to pseudoscience, and added a link out to the Wikipedia article's criticism of MBTI. I think the lede on criticism is no longer buried, so please take another look if that was your concern with this article. -- FBV (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll take another look when I have the spoons. I'm thinking though whether we should move it to MBTI and Fandom to make it consistent with other pages? -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. The article is about two different uses of MBTI in fandom - one to apply the types to characters and fans, and another about the "anthropomorphic MBTI test results" fandom, so a broader name like that is probably more accurate. -- FBV (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved it -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I think the critism section makes it clear that this something like zidiac signs. I have seen Scully being labelled at least 7 different MBIT types, so I guess there is bit whishful thinking/Mary Sueing by fans, that their fave matches their types. -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, article has been renamed to MBTI and Fandom, we've reworked the intro, included more criticism, and linked out to Wikipedia criticism section. Any additional eyes on this on what we could add to make it look good? -- FBV (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes - Though I did revise the criticism section to reflect what I actually read within the linked reference article and deleted the paywalled reference, which other editors are free to revert if they disagree with me. I personally feel the criticism section should be as brief as possible and highlight only the most important points with ref links out for more reading if needed . Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I think adding in the point WhatAreFrogs made about how often one character is assigned multiple MBTI (sometimes with very detailed reasoning) would tie the criticism of MBTI in general to some of the fandom issues and debates, but I couldn't quite get the wording right. I'll have another look later, but maybe someone else may have a better idea how to tie that point in? Figured out a wording that tied in the general criticism to fandom use, it wasn't a deal breaker, just a little thing for me so changing answer to yes. Cookies and chaos (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Beauty and the Beast Consummation Scene

Nominated by MPH on May 15, 2024. The "Lava and Roses" scene was silly and disappointing; it inspired much commentary from fans, as well as a lot of fun creative responses.

Yes: Interesting, good to know fans haven't changed all that much -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Never heard of this before. It's a really good page with lots of comments and detail --Auntags (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Almost: The layout and formatting of the first five or so quotes and images is a bit offputting on desktop (haven't checked mobile), both when showing and hiding the contents. Might see if I can do anything to rectify it. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the layout a bit if anyone wants to take a look at it now and compare it to its previous look and voice any thoughts. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks good on an Android phone at my end. The desktop version looks better now, but the overlap of the "Comments from "Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture": 1992" section with the image containing "a poem in the form of an open letter by Lynette Combs, see "Dear Mr. Koslow"" looks a little odd still. Maybe it's just because there's whitespace on the left and there isn't usually in articles?Cookies and chaos (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for working on the formatting. MPH 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Interesting read and lots of detail and fan commentary. The one bit that made me a bit confused, causing the Almost and not an outright Yes, is under Fanworks in Response, the first bulletpoint is: "of course, many stories that extrapolate on this scene" then there's a single fanwork mentioned which is a fanvid. It reads a little like something's missing? Changed from Almost to Yes with MPH's additions. Page is looking good formatting-wise, too, with the tweaks. (Also forgot my signature last time...)Cookies and chaos (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I added that section at the end of the day; now I'm awake and added some more examples. I hope it's better now. MPH 14:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Great read. Alpha (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Caryl vs Bethyl

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 15, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I think the ship war has been mostly over long enough now that we can saftely feature this article, plus it has been awhile since we featured something from The Walking Dead.

Not Yet: Could do with more of a timeline. It's good, but I was surprised to see how long it lasted. If we're able to identify peaks and sparks at various points, I think that would be better. — Sobqjmv sphinx (talk)

The timeline for when the ship war ended is fuzzy, I put 2020 because I think that was the last time I saw something ship war related, but I could be very wrong about that and it could be over sooner than that. I'll try and see if I can find anymore info. -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes: It looks great. I know timelines are difficult and it was really only a minor complaint, but your addition is great. — Sobqjmv sphinx (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes: I agree w/ Sobqjmv sphinx that a timeline would be a good addition to the page (even just noting the publication dates in the citations would help give a sense!) but honestly i already like the page as is, I think it gives a good explanation of the events and coverage of fandom response. Shame about the deadlinks in the citations though (particularly https://twitter.com/QueenMamaCarol/status/492351919084425216 -- maybe we can find a similar meme to cite instead of this one?) -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I can try creating a timeline, but some of it is going to be vague and approximations because it was a fluid situation for a few years, and a lot of the original posts are now gone forever (people who were in ship wars often like to deny that they were later) -- Kingstoken (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sobqjmv sphinx and Quaelegit, I tried my best to create a timeline covering the main points of the ship war, this mostly from my own memory from being in the fandom at the time and what was complied from the sources -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes: I've never watched The Walking Dead, but I was able to get a decent sense of the context around the ship war and understand it all. Great article. -- Cookies and chaos (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Great page. I know the intro may look short but I think we can just merge the intro and About sections together if that's an issue --Auntags (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

And This, Your Living Kiss

Nominated by Castille on 21 May 2024. Page has a decent intro and and no content flags, and contains what I think is a good overview of fan reactions to the fic. It reads very positive but that's because I couldn't find any criticism of the fic other than it not being some people's vibe.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was an interesting read. --Cookies and chaos (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- MPH 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes--Poisongardenz (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Iolaus

Nominated by Kingstoken on March 19, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I don't think we ever featured anything from the Hercules fandom, so I thought this might be a great place to start.

Yes I'll see if I can't find some more fanart. -- MPH 00:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe: There's something here, but I think it needs some beefing up to be featured.

* The lead is extremely short and needs some beefing up.

* The canon section is also extremely short. In particular, I'd like to know what Iolaus' characterization is like; at the moment, all I can really glean is his role in the story.

* Why did a majority of fandom activity gravitate towards Iolaus? What makes him appealing to write about? What are the forces behind certain trends? Those are questions that I found myself asking when reading the fandom page and they aren't answered.

* Needs a copyedit run, especially for tenses - while the fandom may not be as active as it once was, the fanworks still exist to my understanding, so it makes it confusing to refer to the fanworks as if they no longer exist. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes! - Castille (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Kid Dynamo

Nominated by Rossi on April 16, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. This is one of the cornerstone fics of early X-Men comics fandom and I think the page is a good example of a fanfiction page.

Hesitant yes: I think this has potential to be featured, but first I'd like to see the lead rearranged to put relevant info first and maybe part of it split off into a fic overview section (?). I also think some summary of the reactions and reviews to contextualise them would be a good addition. - Castille (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: I agree with Castille, it has great potential for a featured article, but some of the intro paragraph does feel like it could be maybe split off into a separate section -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: changing my vote after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've done a bit of editing - see how it works now? Rossi (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes Cookies and chaos (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Mrs. Potato Head 12:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes Looks good! Legendofthefireemblem (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes Looks great to me! Sobqjmv sphinx (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

World Ain't Ready

Nominated by Legendofthefireemblem on 5 June 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is fairly comprehensive, with no content flags. It'll be the tenth anniversary of the fic being posted in September and I don't think anything from Les Mis has ever been featured.

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Oh my GOD, I've actually read this one in spanish and never knew it was a fanfic, amazing! Silent oath (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Mrs. Potato Head 15:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes - SCG (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Winter in Camelot

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 4, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. This fandom specific trope might be fun to feature, plus I don't think we've featured anything from Merlin fandom in awhile.

Maybe: At the moment the vast majority of the page seems to be heavily Merthur, understandable to an extent given it's the juggernaut ship, but there's not much indication as to whether this is Merthur specific or whether other ships or gen works also use the trope. Think there needs to be more clarity in that regard, perhaps with examples of fics for other ships like Gwen/Morgana or an explanation of some sort. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Agreeing with OMAW - if there's other fanworks for characters other than Merlin/Arthur, it would be nice to see them included.Rossi (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the indication and the two previous comments, I believe that as I have been editing some pages of the Merlin fandom maybe I can find something about the trope beyond the merthur worksand maybe give it a chance to get more votes for yes, how about that? -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I searched Ao3 and I added some Gwen/Morgana and Gwaine/Merlin stories to the page -- Kingstoken (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I also added some Gwen/Morgana fics from AO3 -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes The addition of examples for more rels really helps! Legendofthefireemblem (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This is looking good! I've added another prompt-based fest, some works with the rarer pairings, and updated some entries with more info. I'm happy that it's good to go. --Julie (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Looking good with the extra fanwork additions. Cookies and chaos (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Unicorn

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 31, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought this might be a fun one to feature, plus it has lots of lovely zine art!

No vote yet, but... - Needs a page move and disambig, as we have four pages that "Unicorn" may refer to. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I only see one other page titled Unicorn, Unicorn (Star Trek: TOS story) which is mentioned at the top of the page and is already disambiguated. The others are "Unicorn Press" and "Unicorn Horn", both of which are distinct enough -- Kingstoken (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes - Interesting and not something I'd ever seen in fan works before! I'll see if I can find some more recent fanart/examples to add, but even without that it looks good!--Poisongardenz (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes from me also - I've done a pass through the "unicorn" page links and added a few more images, plus a couple of other things, like the infamous Twilight story that used "unicorn" as a euphemism for "orgasm". Rossi (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hesitant yes -I do think this page is really filled out, only have a small worry about the variety of websites the fanfic examples are from (not a big worry tho haha) MapleSchmaple (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes - I noticed that they mention the unicorn only as a symbol of purity for virginal representations of characters and I remembered works like Harry Potter where killing a unicorn is a symbol of a curse, or the search for the powers of the unicorn horn presented in various works such as Dungeons & Dragons or Barbie. I added a little of what I remembered, but I also believe that another drawback is the issue of currently citing the topic as cliché and dated without any source or citation for it. As for the issue of disambiguation, I think there could be more information -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything fandom specific about unicorns being cliched, but I did find a couple of online discussions about unicorns in general being considered that, see talk page https://fanlore.org/wiki/Talk:Unicorn -- Kingstoken (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes' - Stunning gallery and for that alone it deserves my yes. Would use more recent examples since the last one is from early 2010s. I'll try to find some suitable ones. Alpha (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes - Interesting page and really great images from many different years. Cookies and chaos (talk) 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Unrealized Peacekeeper

Nominated by auntags on 6 June 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is fairly comprehensive, with no content flags. It's an abandoned Farscape story.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not yet: Red links in the first paragraph -- MaybeCatherine (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I made those pages! No more redlinks in the lede :D -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good, and redlinks can easily be taken out and replaced with normal text--Poisongardenz (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Almost: The lead could stand some polishing up, i think. Nothing incorrect or missing (afaik at least) it's just awkwardly written. Otherwise my vote would be a "yes" -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Looks good! Reminds me to finish watching Farscape! :D --Fitz (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Page does look a bit short, but it's organized, readable, has no flags, covers the info required of a Fanlore article. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk)

Nomination approved.

Shatter (Thor story)

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 13, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought this one might be an interesting feature, and even though we've had lots of articles related to the MCU this might be the first Thor related one.

Yes. Great page! Intro might be a little short, but I think it's well structured with good info! --Fitz (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes - the page looks great and has good information about the reactions and why this is a good story to share. Kittycesario (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Almost - the selection of comments are great, showing why this is an influential fic! I think it could use just a little information about plot/themes with internal links to glossary terms/tropes? E.g. the tags include the theme of Family of Choice, etc. I did update the intro to place fic's date in relation to the Thor 1 movie + the bookmarks/comments/hits/kudos tally, but I didn't get a chance to do more. Joanna R (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes - I get a good idea of where this fic exists in the development of the MCU and why it is influential. Fan comments were a good read. -- FBV (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Almost - the comments are good, but there's a couple of spots where some text is needed to provide more information - the summary, for example, should have a little more to "advertise" the story. Basically some text to round out the quotes? Rossi (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes - SecurityBreach (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Captain Swan vs. Swan Queen

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 26, 2024, As of this writing the page has good intro and no content flags. I think this article gives a good general overview of the situation.

Yes: looks good to me! Adding some context/summary of fan quotations in the last two sections might be useful but altogether it reaches the Featured Article threshold for me even without those. - Castille (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hesitant yes. I like it, I think it's a pretty good article overall. The "hesitant" is because I feel like the intro paragraph could be expanded a bit more? maybe just to include the where and when shown in the info-box but in prose? I also agree with Castille (above^), but as they said, the article seems ready even without those potential additions.--Tzerj (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I expanded the intro some -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. With the changes made to the article I'm dropping the hesitancy.--Tzerj (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I love some shipwar post being featured on Fanlore homepage. Comprehensive and informative article! -- Aerlko (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Alpha (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

No Beta We Die Like Men

Nominated by Aerlko on July 28, 2024. As of this writing, the page has good intro and no content flag, bonus it's a fun read and a fun fandom phenomenon.

Yes -- fun page, covers the topic well I think. -- Quaelegit (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- The article is excellent for the topic, and I find the topic incredibly amusing.Tzerj (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- SCG (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Racetrack Higgins

Nominated by Sobqjmv sphinx on June 23, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a (decent?) intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. I am nominating with some hesitation and in part with the hopes of getting suggestions for expansion and especially for how to format the intro paragraph.

Almost: I think it needs a little more polish before featuring. First, I think there should be more fanwork examples, for the most popular character in the fandom he should have more than two fics as examples. Is there any fanart examples? Could we get a piece of fanart for the infobox? Also I would like to see a few more popular tropes/fanon for the character, I think you have a good start with him possibly being Italian and neurodivergent, but are there other themes or tropes that keep coming up in fanworks for this character? -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote to yes after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping. I've added a ton of examples now and started on some other tropes. I'm going to look into getting an image for the infobox but I'm not certain yet. — Sobqjmv sphinx (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Added art for the infobox now. — Sobqjmv sphinx (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes from me. Rossi (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes - looks good to me! A good read even if you're not that familiar with the fandom. -- FBV (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes - I'd like to add archive links for all the citations and example fanworks, but that's not a hold-up for featuring it. I can't spend much time on this for the next few days but I'll try to keep working on it as I can, and I would appreciate other peoples' help. -- Quaelegit (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

For Guidance, Please See the Corporate Interpersonal Relationship Policy

Nominated by Quaelegit on August 18, 2024, As of this writing the page has good intro and no content flags. I think this would be a fun one to feature because of the way it broke containment and is still legendary in the Canadian bureaucrat corner of the internet; and also how many people who are neither Naruto fans nor Canadian public servants enjoyed its specific domain knowledge.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: This is wild, love it! - Castille (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: We could flesh out the intro a bit, so its longer, but that's not essenital for featuring. It's a very good article --Auntags (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

[Editx2: actually just rewriting my reply since the old one was so off-topic] Good call, the lede needed some more specifics! I tried to add stuff but I think the wording is a little awkward now, would appreciate anyone looking it over and improving it. -- Quaelegit (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Rocket's Blast

Nominated by Rossi on August 26, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. This was one of the earliest comics zines and is an example of how comics fans managed their collecting before comic stores and the comic book price indexes. G.B. Love is also an interesting individual, but more is needed on his fanac in Star Trek fandom in Houston in the 1970s before I nominate that one. ;) Rossi (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: Interesting article. I wish the intro was a bit more filled out, maybe it could mention what a reader might expect to find in typical issue of the zine -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: changing vote after changes made to intro -- Kingstoken (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hesitant Yes: A lot of info, and it seems a particularly large bunch of illustrations, that are organized quite nicely! It would be nice, and more in line with other Fanlore articles, if the intro and history sections were a bit longer. But there may be reasons why they don't have much more info for those sections. In general, nice article! -- Landofspaceand (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Added a sentence to the intro. Looks good to me. -- FBV (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Looks really good, pretty comprehensive considering it is an old physical fanzine. Tzerj (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Of the Devil's Party

Nominated by Kingstoken on July 27, 2024. As of this writing the page has good intro and no content flags. I thought it might be fun to feature some femslash fanfic, and I don't think we have ever featured anything from the Elementary fandom.

Yes: I've fleshed out the intro a bit. Its a good article with lots of fan comments --Auntags (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Almost: Like Pinky G said for the previous nomination this page could really use a plot summary that explain's more than the author's blurb. The fandom response section is also bare quotes, but in this case I'm okay with that, i think the quotes stand on their own and explain themselves. -- Quaelegit (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. (Not voting yet.) —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes: I feel the plot summary is contained within the intro (epistolary romance that starts with poetry and has slowburn + mystery) and hence there's no need to repeat it. While that paragraph could be moved under summary, I don't think it has to be. But well more content doesn't harm anyone Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. A more detailed plot summary would be welcome, but the article currently seems to match the quality of previous featured articles. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 2024-11-21 08:54 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed on the wobbly distribution of info; the intro is very nice but the summary is a bit sparse. It could technically be shuffled around, but overall it does have the info and quality, I think. —Faal (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Good Omens Coffee Theory

Nominated by Kingstoken on September 3, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and with no content flags. I think this might be fun to feature, and it has been long enough now that we wouldn't have to worry about spoilers.

Yes. I agree it is a fun one --Alpha (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Looks pretty good to me. Tzerj (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Oh! Fun, and looks good. --Faal (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes Looks good here. Rossi (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Banned from Argo (filk)

Nominated by Mrs. Potato Head 19:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC). It's been a while (if ever) that we've nominated a filk. And this one is a doozy.

Yes: I went through and listened to the song and was delighted -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely Yes!: This is a great article and a great slice of fandom. Rossi (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Interesting article! - SCG (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Found it really interesting, especially all the transformative works of the filk over the years. Cookies and chaos (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Third Verdict

Nominated by Kingstoken on July 1, 2024, As of this writing the page has good intro and no content flags. I stumbled across this article and thought it might make a good featured article.

Not yet. Lead needs bulking; the page needs a plot summary instead of just a quote from a blurb; image layout needs to be fixed; "reactions and reviews" needs synthesis/a summary instead of just using raw quotes. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Edited image layout, added synthesis of reviews. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 2024-11-21 08:54 (UTC)

Yes. Mrs. Potato Head 18:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes Looks good now.Rossi (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes: --Auntags (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Rose Tyler

Nominated by Kingstoken on August 19, 2024. As of this writing the page has good intro and no content flags. I know we've already had two Doctor Who pages featured this year, but I think this one is well filled out and might be a good feature.

Yes. —PictoChatCyberBully (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Mrs. Potato Head 18:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes Rossi (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. — Erimia (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Dracula (1980 zine)

Nominated by Kingstoken on Sept 9, 2024, As of this writing the page has good intro and no content flags. I thought this might be a fun feature with spooky season coming up.

Yes: -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- Malcontent (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- Erimia (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Don't Go (She-Ra story)

Nominated by auntags on 11th September 2024. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags. It's a very popular femslash fic, with some interesting theories about the author's identity. It might need some work before featuring.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- SecurityBreach (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes -- Greer Watson (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes! -- Mokuroh (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Smiler

Nominated by OMAW on 10th September 2024. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags. Not quite finished but wanted fresh eyes on it for anything that needs adding or elaborating. Similiar to the Dracula nom above, could be a good option for October for spooky season.

Hesitant Yes: I find this very interesting, and we've never featured anything to do with Theme Park fandom before. I only hesitate because of the "2015 Accident" section, it seems like a strange thing to have on a fandom page, and yet it is related. I'm just not sure about that section. -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing vote to Yes after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering if that might bring up an issue. I was trying to include it in a way that was subtle, without drawing too much attention but I don't think I've succeeded yet. But it's sort of one of those elephant in the room things, where you can't really talk about The Smiler without at least acknowledging it. Especially since it's as well known as it is in part because of it, and there's a definite underlying idea that the coaster being controversial to the general public has added to its reputation in fandom, especially with the horror theming, even if only implicitly, and does get referenced occasionally (the controversial archetype of its Sexypedia page for instance).

I can try and merge it into the 'canon' section or elsewhere so it's a bit less conspicuous when I get time. -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Done -- OfMonstersAndWerewolves (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Mrs. Potato Head 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes.: Interesting topicand the reworkings are good to address previously raised concern, I think Cookies and chaos (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Honestly, I am one of those folks who did not know a rollercoaster could have a fandom, but after reading about it I think it makes perfect sense. Tzerj (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Eye of Argon

Nominated by Kingstoken on October 06, 2024. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags. This is a rather infamous story, and I think the history around it is very interesting.

Yes. Mrs. Potato Head 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Cookies and chaos (talk) 10:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Tzerj (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. There was a redlink in the intro to OSFAn which I have remedied by creating a stub. -- FBV (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

slow dancing in a burning room

Nominated by Kingstoken on September 17, 2024. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags. I think this could nicely highlight a type of story vid, plus it never hurts to highlight more femslash!

Yes. Mrs. Potato Head 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Tzerj (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes Rossi (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes Reasonable length, a good intro to the fanwork and fannish reactions. -- FBV (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Shore Leave (US convention)

Nominated by Mrs. Potato Head on October 20, 2024. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags. Shore Leave is a Star Trek, multi-fandom, comics convention that also has science programming. It's coming up on its 45th year.

Yes: -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes - great job on what was a lot of work! Rossi (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes!!! -- this is incredible work!! the links to more detailed programming for each year? amazing! one thought/suggestion - maybe it would be nice to drop them a note when its featured / time the feature to the conference? i feel like it would be a cool touch especially if you've gone before to see what coverage of the conference happened in the past. set up the 2025 page and see if people fill it out after the convention. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent idea, Distracteddaydreamer. Actually, I contacted the con chair via the webpage mid-October and explained that I was working on this page, and encouraged folks to add to it, that the con's history is most worthy of preservation, and more voices/perspectives. I also suggested that they could make this page/the con's history a panel this July. The chair was appreciative and said she would pass the info along. So, we'll see what happens! Mrs. Potato Head 16:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes - this is fantastic, really enjoyed reading it.Cookies and chaos (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Melbourne Science Fiction Club

Nominated by User:GeoffA on 2 November 2024. As of writing the page has a good intro and no content flags. It summarises the 70+ year history of the second oldest SF club in the world. The page explores a number of chronological and thematic events and gives voice to a variety of perspectives, while also retaining the option to add further historical content as this becomes available.

Yes: the article is a good overview of the group -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I wholeheartedly approve. Mrs. Potato Head 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes - Really interesting read. Cookies and chaos (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Impressive amount of work! Rossi (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

The Good Earth

Nominated by Mrs. Potato Head on October 14, 2024. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags. It's a kidfic in the Tolkien fandom with some adorable world-building.

Hesitant Yes: I do think the summaries from each story should be separated out from the fan reviews in some way, because if you're doing a quick read through it easy to miss that those are summaries and not just another reaction quote. Also, is there any inspired fanworks of this story, like fanart? Those things aside it seems like a good article -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing vote to Yes after changes made to the article -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Good points. I'll move the summaries up. And hopefully find some fanart, though this is not my forte. Mrs. Potato Head 01:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes Rossi (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes - and I am delighted to learn about the existence of the Cabbage Patch Hobbits trope through reading this! I love fandom. Cookies and chaos (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes Nice article. - WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Gabriel (Supernatural)

Nominated by Kingstoken on September 14, 2024. As of this writing the page has a good intro and no content flags. I think this is a good character page we could feature.

Yes. Mrs. Potato Head 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes Rossi (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes Looks good to me! In the intro, it might be a good idea to link to Sam and Dean instead of calling them "the brothers" but I also think it's fine as is. Good article and a good read. -- FBV (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I changed "the brothers" to Sam and Dean -- Kingstoken (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hesitent Yes only for the fact that I have the feeling we have features several SPN articles this year already, and I would like to see other fandoms as well.

I checked, and surprisingly we've only had one featured article (And This, Your Living Kiss) that was specifically about SPN fandom this year -- Kingstoken (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination approved.

Rejected nominations

Chin-Stroking Scene

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on Dec 5 2023. The page has an intro & no content warning flags, and concisely fleshes out why this scene had any significance. I think it's interesting because MCU is such a big fandom and it crosslinks to pages that are well-fleshed out like Hydra Trash Party. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe: I think this needs a little bit of work before featuring. The intro describes the scene but not how it connects to the fandom. There is a citation needed tag in the Hydra Trash Party section. Also, I'm not sure why "Winterbaron Pairing" is under controversial, it seems like some of the tropes used in fic are themselves the issue, and I'm sure not every Winterbaron shipper uses those tropes, although I could very well be wrong about that -- Kingstoken (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the lede summarizing the discussion of HTP & Winterbaron further down on the page, but I'm not into this fandom at all so it would be better if someone who knows more could go over it & recontextualize the scene better. And why is the first section "behind the scenes"??? That needs to be worked into the article better (why are we even talking about BTS? Did fans care about it? Did the BTS tweets make them care about the original scene or was the scene already popular for itself? Did it shape the discourse/common interpretations of the scene??? Idk that all of these questions need to be answered I'm basically just shooting in the dark trying to figure out why that section is so prominent in the article). -- Quaelegit (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not Yet: I do think this could be made into a feature article, and once Kingstoken's concerns are addressed I'd like to re-evaluate! In the meantime, perhaps we could nominate Hydra Trash Party instead?? as Distracteddaydreamer it's quite fleshed out as well, and makes more sense as a page if you're not already familiar with the relevant fandom. -- Quaelegit (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I see your point! I don't really know this fandom well, but talk around dead-dove stuff is topical and MCU is a biiig fandom, which are the reasons I nominated this. I think given these concerns we can retire this nomination early because I'm not familiar with this fandom and I won't be able to fix it HAHA Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not Yet: One of the shorter articles that has a "Needs Citation" flag, which should be adressed, since this could by wanky, if this not PPVO . -- 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• No: I added a little to the page to reword some things. I think its a cute article for a cute subject, but not featured article worthy unless info is clarified more. Definitely "Needs Citation." --Cavewomania (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination rejected: it has been three months and the issues have not been dealt with, plus the original nominator asked that it be rejected because they did not currently have the time to improve it.

Wiki

Nominated by Aerlko on March 7, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flag. Last year we did Archive Featured Article, I feel like this year Wiki is a good call.

• Yes. --TheVioletHowler (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Not Yet: what's there is fine (although I messed with the lede and I'm not super happy about the state I left it in, would appreciate if someone could go over it and streamline it/decide if those examples/external links should be left there or presented elsewhere in the article). But this is basically a very brief/surface level intro to wikis and then a list of some fandom wikis. It doesn't even discuss the history of wikis. Also I would like some cites/expansion on "people don't like it when wikipedia is refered to as "wiki"" -- obviously i've seen complaining *on wikipedia itself*, but do other wiki communities mind? We can probably dig up some quotes and cite them in that section. I added some comments in the lede and some external links as further reading, but i'm not gonna have the time to follow up on those for a few days yet and honestly i'm not sure if I'm motivated enough to. Hopefully if some other people can step in we can address these as a group project. -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not yet: Echoing Quaelgit's observations that the article is very surface-level for an topic that has a lot of history and information and is outdated. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Not Yet: I agree with what others have said, it seems like it needs a little more filling out -- Kingstoken (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination rejected: as requested by nominator, it has been two months and no improvements have been made to the article.

Aesthetic Edit

Nominated by Kingstoken on June 13, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought this one might a fun feature, it has lots of great images.

Not Yet: I think it’s a fun feature and would be a good featured article, however I feel we should figure out the name before making it a featured article. Concerning-aragorn (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree about sorting out the naming first, I didn't realize this was going to spark discussion when I nommed it -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Not Yet: I think some dates/history would be helpful - when did this type of post start being made? And is there any discussion we can find from people who create these posts? Why do they do it, who do they do it for? There's no references in the page text, so how do we know all of this about "aesthetic edits"? Is there any debate about whether fancasts count as moodboards? (I certainly didn't expect that! Fancasts, when I see them, are formatted *way* differently than moodboards - not usually as mosaics, mostly just lists of pictures with paragraphs under each.) --Endofthyme (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Not Yet: Same reasons. I think it's a good article if it's changed to "Moodboard", but it doesn't showcase/discuss the variety of other aesthetic edits, e.g. this one, this one with quotes or another common trend is character instagrams like this. Edits are so common in book fandoms. --Fitz (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking Fitz that the character instagrams you mentioned should mostly like go under Social Media AU -- Kingstoken (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

That makes more sense I agree with that! And r.e. Ellakbhesse. I agree. The examples I mentioned here are all tagged as "Edits" and made using aesthetics (opposed to official images). I don't think they need to be included on a "Moodboard" page. My point is the page needs clarity if it's talking about only moodboards or all "edits" made using aesthetics. --Fitz (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Not Voting: Fitz the different editions you mentioned are not moodboards, are aesthetic characters and montages to look like social media (a very common manipulation when making modern fic or related to social media). These are good examples, but they are very different from moodboards and perhaps they should be cited as different, but not introduced in the article in question when it changes its name. Endofthyme some fancasts can be made using moodboard templates, but not every moodboard is a square mosaic, some are made like intriguing mandalas, I think I'll add some non-mosaic examples so we expand the view of the article how about that? -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination rejected: the is some lengthy discussion about changing the name of this article, will nom again the future once this has been settled.

The Impact of Blogging on Fandom

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on 3 Jan 2024. I love the pages introduction and how it emphasises fans opinions on blogging in their own words. No content flags. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe: the intro seems a little off to me and I think needs to be reworded, how it says "Below are a series of excerpts from essays dated 2002-2005" like that doesn't seem like something you'd want to read on the front page. -- Kingstoken (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, " (content from earlier or later years is welcomed)" makes the page sound very work-in-progress. And I do appreciate that the lede is signposting a particular period of years that the article is going to focus on, i think that will make it a much more manageable article to construct. But the title suggests a much broader scope than that ("blog" as a term dates to 1997, and obviously blogging continues to impact fandom to this day) -- maybe a title change is in order? That seems easier than broadening the scope of the article (it's already very long). -- Quaelegit (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the scope of this page that I really like, and the notion that it's a work in progress. I don't see the quote you refer to anymore (about adding content?), but an overarching look at specifically how blogs have impacted fandom is exactly what makes this article interesting and that's why it should change and be added to as things change. Though the essays are mostly dated from 2002-2005, its because they are quoting fans words to make a point about blogging and certainly the impact of blogging would be most seen as it comes into fashion and probably later if/when it goes out of fashion. Having a broad article to capture this makes more sense to me than a narrower article and then a second article with a new time frame... Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The "quote" is the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede. And there *are* some essays from as late as 2010 but they're retrospective. All of the discussion on the page (that i've skimmed at least) is about people reacting to the shift from Usenet/mailing lists to Personal Blogs as the central locus of internet interaction. If you want to keep the broad scope then there's 20 more years of blogging that needs to at least be acknowledged. [e.g. the "death of blogs" to social media was a HUGE deal last decade, surely people had something to say about that in a fannish context?] -- Quaelegit (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I sort of get what you mean, in the sense that most of the quotes come from specifically that reaction to change, and some recent discussion might be cool to add too. I suppose my argument for the broad scope is twofold. Firstly, I think the header points (blogging is about the self, etc etc) as raised in the TOC seem to accurately parallel my assessment of discussions of the impact of blogging in Fandom; it remains accurate and reasonably comprehensive, to my knowledge. Newer discussion might reiterate similar points (and might be worth including, just to prove that!) but that is why it ought to all stay one article because a second article about say, the end of longform blogs for socmed would likely have the same thing to same about blogs as this article. So even though more could be added, I think it falls under the same points and structure of the existing article, if that makes sense? Secondly, I think its sort of becuase of that shift from mailing lists to blogs that this discussion surfaced at all? So its not bad for the article to prominently include that context; the impact of blogging was the shift and all the knock-on effects on fandom. Am a lil sleepy rn so I hope my point here is clear :' )

Edit/addon - after a closer look though, some of the discussion is particularly around the dynamics of livejournal/diaryland blogging, as opposed to tumblr blogging... see the point at the bottom about the friendslist, which only applies on websites like those. If there are enough points where livejournal blogging differs from tumblr/wordpress blogging, it seems worthwhile to separate the topics. So upon consideration while I wouldn't want the page to be restricted by time (like 2002-2005), it might be worthwhile to change "impact of blogging" to ... impact of livejournal/diaryland? Open to suggestions. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Good idea on the "livejournal/diaryland" change. MPH 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes It is almost academic in length and content :-) -- WhatAreFrogs? (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hesitant yes. I think it's a good source of info for anyone looking into the topic when it comes to LJ. Nothing strikes out to me as particularly featured article worthy though, I don't know of any other subject matter regarding fandom that would use the same format this article uses to describe a fandom-y thing unless it also relates to journal sites (with the way it quotes from journals, which are more coherent than most social media posts.) I also think the refs on this article are strangely formatted but I'm a glass house throwing stones complaining about that --Cavewomania (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes (I've been working the introduction.) MPH 02:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Not yet: This doesn't read like a wiki page to me, just a collection of quotes from discourse, and the description of the page ("below are a series of excerpts from essays that were written at this time. Woven into the excerpts are general thoughts and observations contributed from the recollections of individual fans.") suggests this too. It's difficult to parse without prior background knowledge on the migration to blogging and the sites themselves (which I don't have).

I agree with Quaelegit that the main problem is the scope of the page. A possibility could be reworking this page to be more generally about early fandom migration to blogging sites, and rename the page to something like "Early 2000s Fandom Migration to Blogging". Having a look around, we have a page for Fandom Migration generally that doesn't go in depth on any particular migration, pages like Livejournal that have information about migration to LJ specifically, but as far as I can tell, no page on this more broad occurrence in the early 2000s except for this page.

That doesn't necessarily require chopping this article down too much IMO — the main change would be adding a section at the beginning for context/summary of the migration itself and the reasons why it occurred (similar to the Livejournal page) and perhaps making the sections of this page into subsections under a "Impact"/"Discourse" heading. Even if the page isn't reworked in this way, I still think it would benefit from summary/context given to the topic as a whole. I wasn't around in fandom at the time the shift from mailing lists, Yahoo Groups etc to blogs occurred, and so I have very little understanding of (a) why this shift occurred (e.g. new websites launching), and (b) what the physical differences between the two modes of doing fandom were (as opposed to philosophical, which is what the page currently focuses on), which makes the page as is difficult for me to follow.

I would also like to see the length/number of quotes pared down a bit — Fanlore is a wiki, not a record of every example of something, and I think the quotes could be a lot more streamlined for better readability (summarising the arguments made in the quotes at the beginning of sections would also be help with this I think).

I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is and work on the structure & style of the page if others agree with what I've said above, but my knowledge of this era of fandom is pretty limited so I'll need some help filling in the content. Castille (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your extensive thoughts on this! I think you make a few great points. I would support the page rename & crosslink to Fandom Migration - have added a link on that page for now. There's a lot to say about fandom migration and not enough deep dives into it IMO. I also like your suggestions for more context around why there was migration and the physical differences between the two websites - thanks for picking up on that blind spot.

I'd only disagree with the length / number of quotes, but that's because I feel like each quote is illustrating a fresh point, and are examples of rather than every example. There are lots of quotes because it was a big discussion with many perspectives. (I haven't dug through the references - if its similar essays cited again and again then maybe we can pull from alternate quotes). Though ofc there could improvement around the framing for clarity and readability and your help would absolutely be welcome in making the article tighter! I just want to make sure none of the "philosophical" discussion around the fandom migration is lost, because that is the sort of perspective I think is tricky to search for since its so perspective and experience based and hence important to archive. -Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I have the bandwith to help much with this in the near term but I like Castille's proposals. My first instinct is to agree with Distracteddaydreamer to lean on the side of reorganizing/contextualizing quotes instead of paring them down, but I haven't read the page thoroughly in a while so maybe when I re-read i'll see some options to combine/summarize. Maybe I can help with that, as well as with checking the references (I skimmed the references and I didn't see a lot of repeats but I *did* see a lot that could use reformatting/filling in info). Yeah, I'll try help with that soon. -- Quaelegit (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Almost: It was really interesting to read, especially how some of the same issues/fears about loss of community/fandom interaction that we are seeing now with new platforms we also there during the move to blogging. I enjoyed reading the article. I agree with other points made and think if a few changes were made, it would be solid. It does seem primarily Livejournal/specific early 2000s focused so I agree the title and framing of the article might benefit from shifting to that perspective, because an article about all blogging platforms might be unmanageable.Cookies and chaos (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination rejected: it has been six months since nomination and still has not received enough yes votes for approval

Sherlock Holmes

Nominated by Kingstoken on Apirl 2, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. One of the OG fandoms, and I think this is a fairly good overview.

Almost: The introduction needs to be a little longer before its featured. I'd like to see some more detail on the fan response to Sherlock's death, but I know with such an old fandom, that info might not be available. --Auntags (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Not voting on the article right now, but for "response to Sherlock's death" i bet there's some good academic papers about it. Does anyone have jstor access and know how to search for this? -- Quaelegit (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Also not voting yet, but answering Quaelegit's question I remember that ACD received many unfriendly letters regarding the character's death that later led him to revive him, If I'm not mistaken, I read some articles in Brazilian Portuguese, but I would have to research a little more -- Ellakbhesse (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination rejected: it has been four months and the issues have not been addressed and it has not received enough votes for approval.

strive seek find yield

Nominated by Kingstoken on May 31, 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and no content flags. I thought this Star Trek:AOS fic might be an interesting feature.

Almost: I've rearranged it a bit to have a more clear lead and overview section and added some internal links, but still I think the lead needs more info — I'm not familiar enough with the fandom to know if the fic is known for anything in particular, how popular it is etc. I'd also like to see some commentary/context given to the reactions. - Castille (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Almost: Looking at the page compared to other Featured Articles on fic, it doesn't have a section for inspired fanworks (fic, art, podfic, translation...), , as well as still lacking the info mentioned by Castille Hazel (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No vote, but... Per internal discussion, the fandom-specific fanfiction infoboxes are getting deprecated. I'll jumpstart work on the Star Trek infobox replacements today, but I'd like to wait until the infobox for the page is switched out before featuring it. Pinky G Rocket (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

In this case, could I just change it to using the regular fanfiction infobox, since it uses no AOS-specific fields, and add Category:Star Trek AOS Fanfiction to the categories at the bottom? -- FBV (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination rejected: Nomination failed due to lack of votes

Dream SMP

Nominated by MaybeCatherine on 8 June 2024. As of this writing, the page has a good intro and is reasonably comprehensive, with no content flags. Streaming and YouTube based fandoms have gained a lot of prominence over the past few years, and this article is an interesting introduction to one of the more significant fandoms to come out of that.

Hesitant Yes: Very comprehensive and informative article. However, I would prefer some re-organisation for the current Canon section, as I worry it might overshadow the fandom aspect of this subject. Maybe some abbreviated summary of events or links to external wiki re canon section and shift the focus from retelling the canon events to how the fandom reacted to such events? -- Aerlko (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Almost The fandom section of the article doesn’t feel as comprehensive or organized as the rest of the article, and I feel like it has a lot of room to be expanded before it becomes a featured article. 90PercentHuman (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Rossi (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not yet: It comes across as an article about "canon" - there's little talk about the fannish reactions, just what happens in the server. And while "what these people do with this video game" counts as fandom activity, I would like the canon section to read less like the plot of a tv series and more like a fandom activity. Maybe some fanart of the various canon events, or mention of specific fandom reactions to them. Right now, the whole "fandom" section seems focused on shipping, rather than any mention of popular vs less popular storylines, or favorite characters, or how the fans reacted to events as they were streamed. - Elf (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not Yet: I agree with what others have said, I think the fandom section needs more work -- Kingstoken (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Not Yet: Article has potential and would be a good fandom to feature, but agreeing with above. Some trimming/streamlining of the canon section and more on the fandom around DreamSMP would benefit this article I think. Cookies and chaos (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination rejected: Nomination failed due to lack of votes

On-Hold nominations

Blocking of AO3 in China

Nominated by Distracteddaydreamer on March 16 2024. The article has a strong intro, no content flags, and a really long list of references and research. Especially if we want to have a focus on non-english speaking fangroups, I think this was a big incident particularly for cn slash fans. There are some areas where I think we can improve coverage (see section I added to the talk page) - and maybe it could be broken up a little for length - but its overall well-organized and shows a wide range of fan views and an effective breakdown of the situation. Distracteddaydreamer (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes: --Auntags (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe: it is a very well filled out article, however I worry about possibly featuring it, because it could draw a lot negative attention, it being a still somewhat contentious issue -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

On Hold: Acting as Fanlore chairs, we are placing this nomination on hold until further notice - details on the article's Talk page. Joanna R (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)