Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Featured Topic Drive

message: Wouldn't that become a subtopic, too? Maxim(talk) 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  History of the NHL 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scope and article breakdown 

message: , 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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vancouver Canucks GT 

message: I mean, nobody really uses this page anymore. The steps to create a History of the NHL featured topic seem to be in motion, but nobody is talking on this page. XR228 (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need this article