Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/March 2008

York City F.C.

Main page	Articles
York City F.C.	History of York City F.C. - List of York City F.C. players - List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year - List of York City F.C. managers - York City F.C. seasons - List of York City F.C. statistics and records - KitKat Crescent

This set of articles relating to York City F.C. has been worked on considerably over the period of the last year, and so I now nominate it for featured topic. I believe it satisfies the criteria at WP:FT and so I wait to see what everyone thinks! One article, Fulfordgate, has been audited for quality through a peer review, but failed a GA nomination. Nonetheless, I feel this doesn't harm its meeting of the set criteria. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Support - I am pretty sure that the check mark is for articles of a very limited scope or something that is relatively new, such as a new province not having had enough elections to be a featured list. The stadium article, however, was built at least 70 years ago, so I think it has to be brought up to GA status first. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the stadium did only last for 10 years, so subject matter is only very small. And I don't really see how this makes it not pass the criteria given at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think that Fulfordgate is needed for a complete topic as it is a former stadium. The article should not be in a featured topic as it is expandable (otherwise there would not be section stub tags). I will support if that is removed. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be added later as a supplement, but is not crucial for this nomination, so bring it back when it's GA :) If you remove it, I'll support. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed Fulfordgate from the topic. Hopefully it will get to GA eventually, so it shall return then. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - fantastic for a relatively small club like York City to receive this treatment. I've been privileged to work with other members of WP:FOOTBALL and Matty on helping get some of these articles promoted and it's great to see the topic here. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support topic with removal of the old stadium. It could possibly be included in a supplementary nom in the future though. Fantastic work on these articles, I know what it is like and I agree with TRM's sentiments completely. Woody (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Very well done. Per TRM mostly. Rudget. 17:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Fantastic collection of articles, a lot of work has gone into them, and they are worthy of featured topic status. NapHit (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• support,MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic. Me677 (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support excellent collection of articles covering the topic without any gaps, brilliant work. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Close as promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/York City F.C./addition1
2. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/York City F.C./addition2
3. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/York City F.C./addition3

Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow

Main page	Articles
Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow	Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow - List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow - Soma Cruz - Alucard (Castlevania)

With the remaining items becoming GAs and FAs, I believe this is ready for a featured topic nomination. This series is part of the greater Castlevania series, starting with Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, and including its sequel, Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow, the character list for both games, the protagonist of both games, and another character in both games. This is similar to the Final Fantasy VIII featured topic. With all the items linked by a template and and in-text links, I believe it meets the featured topic criteria. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Clearly defined topic with a clear lead article, great potential to get the final two GA's to FA, and more than the required number of FA's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am not sure Alucard (Castlevania) belongs in the featured topic. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 23:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• He was a character in both games, and is linked at List of characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series. I see no reason he shouldn't be. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support–I do not like the fact that the lead article is a article about only half the topic, but I do not know how that could be avoided. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• This was discussed previously here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_criteria#Multiple_lead_articles. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 15:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Castlevania: Sorrow" seems to be a fanmade name; it's not official. The one Castlevania series doesn't appear to have subseries officially speaking. FightingStreet (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I've wondered about that for a while, but that's what the name was when I found the articles, and I left it as such. Topic name changed. As for the continuity issue, Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow are a continuous storyline within the larger one, and I believe it successfully defines its own topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, This topic has no lead article per criterion 2. --Mika1h (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• The main article being the original game is fine. Everything else is based off Aria of Sorrow, and the sequel is considered an aspect of the primary game that started and defined the series. One can logically follow how every part of this topic comes from the Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow article, whether it be the character list, protagonist, sequel, etc. (as there are sections for all aspects of the topic: the characters and sequel specifically). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"2. The topic has an introductory and summary lead article." Aria of Sorrow doesn't summarize fully the rest of the articles. It doesn't mention Alucard at all. --Mika1h (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the rest of the articles are adequately represented. Alucard (Castlevania) is not specifically mentioned because he is present as Genya Arikado, and his entry on the character page links to his page in any case. If you want, I can link directly in his character description by mentioning it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, didn't notice that. Reading through the article again I guess it would be a sufficient lead article. --Mika1h (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Support, I think I finally can add my support on this, since there's no better alternative for the lead article and from the looks of it, all of these articles have a clear connection. --Mika1h (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: - Well, I'm not sure what to think about this. It seems to fit the FL criteria, but something does seem a bit off. I guess the whole sequel aspect of it is throwing me for a loop. But when I look at it like the FFVIII topic, it does makes sense and I see no real reason for it not to be promoted. They are a set of similar, interrelated articles of high quality, with Aria of Sorrow as the lead of the Aria of Sorrow Topic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 02:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
• Comment - I think a good way to consider this topic is the Aria of Sorrow topic, with its sequel included as an article within that topic (which makes sense), not as a co-topic or something like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Judgesurreal777. Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow is the main article of the topic. FightingStreet (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Question — Could you please explain what makes these games a unified topic apart from the rest of the Castlevania games? Are these their own series in a separate timeline from the rest of the games? Are they all made by a different company than the other games? Are they all on a different system than the other games? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• The entire Castlevania series has a continuous storyline, but Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow occur on a part of the storyline separate from the rest (for the in-universe context, they are set in 2035 and 2036 respectively, while the rest of the games occur further in the past). They thus constitute their own bloc in the greater storyline, and have a unique cast of characters. This is not the case with other games; for instance Castlevania: Lament of Innocence and Castlevania: Curse of Darkness do not share character casts, gameplay elements, and occur on widely different parts of the overall storyline. As for gameplay, Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow share unique elements not seen in the rest of the series (i.e. Tactical Soul system). If you need further clarification, let me know. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Remember that it's now the Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow topic; it's not an Aria of Sorrow+Dawn of Sorrow topic. The nominator didn't cherry-pick a group of unrelated games, he picked one game and built a topic around it (thus it has to include the direct sequel). See also the Final Fantasy VIII FT for an topic focused on a single game (which also includes a related game, Chocobo World, in the topic, but not all the other Final Fantasy games, just like this topic include Dawn of Sorrow). FightingStreet (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support that's a quirky way of creating a topic, but totally valid (and more solid than the last one of this kind). igordebraga ≠ 18:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• support MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Close as promote — All oppose votes addressed and nomination has been here for over ten days. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ipswich Town F.C.

Main page	Articles
Ipswich Town F.C.	History of Ipswich Town F.C. - Portman Road - List of Ipswich Town F.C. players - List of Ipswich Town F.C. Players of the Year - Ipswich Town F.C. seasons - List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers - List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records

The main article is about the football club itself and all other articles relate directly to the history of the club, its ground, its players, its seasons, its records and statistics and its managers. All are featured articles or featured lists and the topic group is stable - the individual pages may need updating periodically but I can not envisage any other subjects that relate to Ipswich Town F.C. that aren't already here. As ever I'm grateful to the community for any comments, support or otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Fantastic work, TRM. I can't think of any way that this topic could be expanded upon, and each item that has been nominated is already featured in its own right, so this nom has my full support. – PeeJay 18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Gillingham F.C. is already a Featured Topic and this is even more comprehensive, so this nom has my total support ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 18:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Horseytastic. --Dweller (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic collection of articles well done NapHit (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support Of course. Fantastic set of articles which comprehensively detail Ipswich Town, well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support A complete and rounded topic with no gaps, meets the criteria and is a good footprint for all WP:FOOTY articles. Well done. Woody (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support A complete topic within which each individual article has already achieved featured status. Excellent work. Struway2 (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, wow! Great work! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{that one guy who buried stuff} 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support: great work, all fas :-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Ipswich Town F.C./addition1

Atlantic campaign of May 1794

Main page	Articles
Atlantic campaign of May 1794	Glorious First of June - Order of battle at the Glorious First of June

A short three article topic, these articles between them cover a major naval campaign between Britain and France during the French Revolutionary Wars. Atlantic campaign of May 1794 (GA) is an overview of the campaign, Glorious First of June (FA) is an article on the principle battle of the campaign, and Order of battle at the Glorious First of June (FL) provides and overview of the ships and notable officers involved. Hopefull this all meets FT criteria.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support meets the requirements. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 01:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. --jskellj - the nice devil 13:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support per Zginder. Juliancolton (Talk) 16:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Seems to comprehensively cover the event. It may be interesting to see if any individuals who won acclaim or notability from the event could be added in the future as a suppliment. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Close - Consensus to promote. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Atlantic campaign of May 1794/addition1