Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/April 2008

Main page	Articles
Manchester United F.C.	List of Manchester United F.C. managers - List of Manchester United F.C. players - Manchester United F.C. seasons

I've not been involved with featured topic discussions before, but I've given a quick read over the featured topic criteria, and I'm glad to nominate those said articles for (collective) featured topic status. Rudget (review) 16:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This might be a bit too small for a topic on a team. The other three featured topics on teams have 7-8 articles in them, including stuff like the article on their main stadium, a seperate article on the history of the team, and a "statistics and records" list. There is a case for saying that your topic is already complete, but president suggests that it likely isn't. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Criterion 1. Not a complete topic see Featured topics/Gillingham F.C., Featured topics/Ipswich Town F.C., Featured topics/York City F.C.. Zginder 2008-04-15T19:03Z (UTC)
  • You're right. You're right. If you know the proper procedure for withdrawal of nominations, please close this. Thanks for your comments. Rudget (review) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn by request of nominator --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page	Articles
Hungry Hungry Hippos	Hippocrates - Hippopotamus - Pygmy Hippopotamus - Horned Asian Hippo - Horned Hairy Hippo - Hippogriff - Malagasy Hippopotamus - Augustine of Hippo - Hippocampus

This is my first Featured Topic nomination, so apologies if I got the formatting wrong. I think you could make the case that Hippopotamus should be the main page of this topic. I went with Hungry Hungry Hippos, because there are scholars (I am personally agnostic) who consider Hippocampus not to be a form of hippo. Please note that Hippodrome, which is not GA, is actually an unrelated type of building which is used primarily for horse racing and not hippo racing. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to working to address any objections during the course of this FTC. --JayHenry (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools? :) What does hippo mean anyway? And why are all these hippo- articles so high-quality? Fascinating. Wrad (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like hippos. --JayHenry (talk) 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it passes. Wrad (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wrad. I will quit in fury if it does not pass. I've been working on these articles for eight months. --JayHenry (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So "hippos" is greek for "horse"? Wrad (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article doesn't go into this, but Hippopotamus is a construct of universal grammar: when people see the animal they automatically know to call it Hippopotamus. The Greeks started calling equines Hippos because Solon noted that horses were pathetic versions of hippopotami. --JayHenry (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – For the sake of topical completeness, you would have to add Hippocratic oath to get my support. Otherwise, a fascinating collection. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—Criterion 1.b. "The articles have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope." What is the similarity of content? Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, hippos, of course. But I would include Hippodrome; there is nothing in the article saying that you can't race hippos in it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Hippos frighten me. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure you don't have them confused with Heffalumps? Wrad (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They are not all related per the criteria. Maybe try a hippo (the animal) FT instead. 02blythed (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools is over, close this nomination! igordebraga ≠ 13:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed as April Fools joke

You forgot about the Hiphopopotomus. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page	Articles
Chicago Bears	Chicago Bears Seasons - List of Chicago Bears head coaches

All articles are either featured articles or featured lists. They are all nicely written, sourced, and of course - they are accurate. The Main Page (Chicago Bears) nicely illustrates the topic. Note: List of Chicago Bears head coaches is not a FL yet. It is to be closed soon. Please see the nomination here for more info. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It seems to meet all the criteria. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 01:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I didn't realize all those other articles exsisted. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - cherry-picking. Why aren't History of the Chicago Bears, List of Chicago Bears players, Chicago Bears statistics, List of Chicago Bears starting quarterbacks, or Chicago Bears logos, uniforms, and mascots included, all of which are also on the first line of the navbox for the Chicago Bears? Other than the fact their not GA+, of course. --PresN (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Incomplete per PresN. Teemu08 (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — per Criterion 1. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 11:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. However, if both the team's history and the list of players could be brought up to GA status I would be willing to reconsider. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I withdraw - will be back after those articles are improved. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page	Articles
List of UEFA club tournament winning managers	List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers - List of UEFA Cup winning managers - List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winning managers - List of UEFA Super Cup winning managers

All articles in this proposed featured topic are featured lists. The main page for the topic is an accurate and well illustrated overview of the child lists. The statistics are double-checked by the use of decent secondary sources and all child lists are well referenced and also illustrated. Overall I think the consistent style across all five lists, along with the references and images makes this an ideal candidate for a featured topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Easily meets the criteria, and a great set of lists which seemed to pop out of nowhere. Well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fantastic set of lists which are fully deserving of featured topic status NapHit (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I supported all these lists when nominated at FLC, and see no reason why they shouldn't be grouped together for a featured topic. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:34, 27 March, 2008
• Comment Please could you explain why the UEFA Intertoto Cup has been omitted from the topic. Granted, it's less prestigious than the three major trophies, but it is a UEFA club tournament, and (WP:OR alert) rather more competitive than the UEFA Super Cup, which is basically a glorified friendly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had expected this. There is no outright Cup winner really in the tournament, and the rules have changed recently to allow eleven clubs to "win" qualification with the "actual winner" being the one who progresses furthest in the UEFA Cup. I didn't really consider this to be needed but should it be considered essential then I'll have to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree the pre-2006 format doesn't readily lend itself to a list of winning managers, and it'd unbalance your main article totals table something awful. But excluding the Intertoto while including the Super Cup does strike me as leaving a gap in the topic. Perhaps others would disagree. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -If that other tournament has no winning manager, then it is not a gap to exclude it as this is for tournament winning managers. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just for clarification: the Intertoto Cup is a UEFA club tournament which does have winners, and hence winning managers; until two seasons ago it had three winners per edition, and now has one. What it doesn't have is a unique "final" or "playoff" game. The Super Cup isn't a tournament, it's an exhibition game played originally between the winners of the European Cup and Cupwinners Cup, now between the winners of the Champions League and UEFA Cup (see UEFA site). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support —Per above. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also discussed this with TRM before this nom. As I don't believe any Intertoto winners receive an actual cup, if the topic name were amended to "...club cup..." instead of "...club tournament..." would that address the point? --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the case? This would appear to indicate otherwise. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bastogne. OK, back to the drawing board. --Dweller (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all, supporters and commentators - thanks for all your time and efforts so far here. I've concluded that Struway2 is right and the list would be incomplete without Intertoto Cup winning managers. Despite being in a relatively strong position of support I still feel it only right to withdraw this FTC and work on filling in the gaps. Thanks again to you all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by request of nominator --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]