Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Featured Topic Drive

History of the NHL

Wouldn't that become a subtopic, too? Maxim_(talk) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, as would the Stanley Cup articles I threw together. I just threw together articles that I thought were keys to the NHL's history: the NHL itself, history articles, and articles related to the Stanley Cup and it's history. It is entirely possible that Scorpion gets the Stanley Cup articles to a featured topic in it's own right, the four or so history articles form a separate FT, and the NHL article moved to FA as a stand alone. It's all good. Resolute 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Scope and article breakdown

The first thing I think we need to figure out is how to break down these articles. The more I look at it, the more I personally begin to favour a four article division, broken into 25 year periods, and 1992 to present. Thinking on it, I believe that History of the National Hockey League then becomes redundant to National Hockey League's history section, so once complete, that should probably be reduced to a simple index/disambig page pointing to the sub-articles created.

So, as far as scope goes, this is what I propose:

• National Hockey League
  • History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942)
  • History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967)
  • History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992)
  • History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)

I am already writing the first history article in my sandbox, and will probably have it moved to article space before anyone sees this message so as to encourage others to work on it, if they wish, or grab a different era to work on.

Comments, ideas? Resolute 04:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• It seems that the date ranges were arbitrarily changed on the project page. You should one break point should be pre-expansion. Pre-war may be another good one. After that, I don't know others. However as a Buffalo Sabres fan I think the 1972 break point used on the project page is illogical.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I just never updated the main page after coming up with this alternate. My original idea behind ending with 1972 was for the second article to end after the completion of the first expansion cycle (1967-72), but before the WHA, Summit Series, etc. I later decided on a straight 25 year block, as denoted above, as it makes the first two articles align with eras perfectly. 1942 is when the Original Six era began. The only change I might make later, is to end the third article at 1991 rather than 1992 so as to fit the start of the Sharks with the rest of the 90s expansion period. Resolute 04:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template

{{Evolution of the NHL}}, shown right, really needs to be updated. Clearly it is not focused on the evolution of the NHL, but of ice hockey itself. As part of this project, we might want to look into redesigning that template to be more accurate. Resolute 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Canucks GT

I had an Ideal for a Good Topic and I though I would make a suggestion here to see if people thought it would pass and what all would need to be included. So here it goes. With all of the hard work by User:Orlandkurtenbach most of the 2010-11 Vancouver Canucks players are at or nominated for Good Article or better status. All of what I would call the "regulars" are in that group, meaning all players who have played over 30 games this year. I was wondering if there was a way to make this into a good topic, such as 2010-11 Vancouver Canucks roster or the more encompassing 2010-11 Vancouver Canucks. I'm guessing the first one won't fly but as I think this is quite the unique case I wasn't sure. There are issues with both as I see it.
1. Calling it the 2010-11 roster would be less encompassing which would probably mean that it would require ALL players to be at the GA level and not just the regulars. This would leave 13+ player articles who are not at GA or nominated to be improved.
2. If it is to be the 2010-11 Vancouver Canucks would the Canucks article need to be brought up to GA or just the 2010-11 Vancouver Canucks season or both? Not being solely confined to the roster should allow for only the major players to be involved excluding guys who played only a handful of games. However, would other players need to be added such as Marcus Naslund who had his jersey retired this year or the four new members of the ring of honor introduced this year? Since these have been big events in the season would they also need to be included in a topic about the year?

I looked at the good topic page and there is a topic for the 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team with only the parent article and 3 players. I'm not sure what all would be needed or if something like this would qualify, any suggestions/advice would be appreciated (of course like most of the work I do around here this is in the ideal phase no word on if it will ever move to the completing phase). Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the rules are that all notable aspects of a topic have to be represented, so you would need the 2010-11 article and all players. Personally, I really am not a fan of the GT/FT process, as I'd say there is a chance that a reviewer might throw a "but 2010-11 NHL season and 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs have to be there too, since Vancouver was involved." I had plans to do a Calgary Flames featured topic until I encountered that exact idiocy in the History of the NHL FTC. Nowadays, I figure if an article has a star or plus, adding a second won't change its quality. But good luck to you guys if you go ahead! Resolute 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I notice that discussion on the History of the NHL (I thought it was absurd), those were some of the things I was concerned about. It seems like once someone says something needs to be added other jump on that wagon right away. I guess moving forward it's going to depend on how motivated I am to work on the Canucks page and the 2010-11 season page before I even give it a try. Thanks again.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)