Talk:FA Cup/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Compliment

This is an outstanding effort - and up to date! - keep it up!

- an impressed user

Thank you 212.67.109.240 for the implicit compliment of removing "this deserves more". I still think that there's quite a lot more to say, though. --rbrwr

War World Cup

Message to 66.9.236.210. I've found no reference to War World Cup of 1940 in which West Ham defeated Blackburn Rovers 1-0, so I have removed it. If you have a source for this information please enlighten us. Mintguy

I'll take you up on that, Mintguy - it was actually the Football League War Cup. Here's a Google search for you. It seems to have been one of a number of wartime competitions: it was played again in 1941 with Preston winning, but after that it seems to have been replaced by regional competitions. It's probably worthy of a little article, but it's not the FA Cup and doesn't belong in the big list. --rbrwr

Well done!! BTW good work on this article. I'd made some half hearted effort on it, but it was a big project and I got bored. Mintguy

Results

Why are some of the results in the table in bold type? Bob Palin 00:29, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The winners in those seasons also won the Football League championship (or, in recent years, the FA Premier League) thus completing the Double. I've highlighted the explanation of this in the text of the article. --rbrwr ˆ

Thanks, I hadn't realized there were so many doubles in recent years. Wouldn't it be more intuitive to just highlight the winning team's name? I'd be happy to make the edit if you agree. Bob Palin 17:17, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Be bold. If anyone really hates it they can revert it, though I personally think it's a good idea. --rbrwr ˆ

Copyright problem

Some material added to today was copied from The FA's website. I've reverted it and pointed out the faux pas to the anon involved. --rbrwr ^± 12:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Scottish FA Cup

Other countries also have their own FA Cup, but they are obliged to make reference to exactly which Football Association the tournament is run by, for example the Scottish FA Cup.

This sentence is actually wrong, it is the "Scottish Football Association Cup" (organised by the Scottish Football Association or the SFA) not the Scottish "Football Association Cup". The English "Football Association Cup" is also obliged to make reference to the football association it is run by, the English "Football Association" (just so happens that the FA doesn’t have the country's name in it). Sounds like nitpicking but the Scottish in "Scottish FA Cup" isn’t an adjective describing the FA it is organised by or what FA Cup it is, it is the actual name of the organisation who runs it. Also, in practice it is very rarely described as either the "Scottish FA Cup" or the "SFA Cup" it is almost universally known in Scotland as the Scottish Cup or (obviously) "the Cup". Although I can see why this sentence is here, I think it is unnecessary and doesn’t really add to the other points in the article show that it is a legendary tournament.

Page Length

This page is longer than Wikipedia's recommended page length. How about the winner's section be put into a new article, along the line of 'FA Cup Finals'? This seems a pretty standard thing to do: see Superbowl. I'll do this, presuming that no-one will have any real problem with it? Robdurbar 09:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Teams - is vs are

Team is a collective noun, in American English it is usually treated as singular - "the team is playing" - in British English it is usually plural "the team are playing", since this article is about a British subject please use British English. collective nouns Bob Palin 01:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Lose a tie?

I'm no football expert, but the line "Bournemouth and Boscombe Athletic who beat Wolves and Tottenham Hotspur in 1957, before losing to Manchester United in a closely fought quarter-final tie." doesn't make any sense to me. How do you lose a tie? Or do they play a few games each, so it's based on goal differential. Thanks. Awiseman 02:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I think this is Enlgish/American differences. In British English a 'tie' is a synonym for a round or a match in a cup competion. A 'draw' would be the equivalent of the american 'tie'. Robdurbar 09:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, weird. Must be. Maybe we should change tie to match then, so it's clear to everybody. Awiseman 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I made that change as I guess we should try and avoide these words that mean different in both Robdurbar 20:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't one put up an article with the FA Cup results this year so far

—Preceding unsigned comment added by John wesley (talk • contribs)

One did. (FA Cup 2005-06)
Slumgum 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks John wesley 17:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeading vs Newcastle not historic

I removed the section about the Yeading vs Newcastle tie being historic because it was the first time two teams six levels apart had played each other. This is certainly not true. To give one example, in January 1992, Lincoln United, then playing in the Central Midlands League Supreme Division faced Huddersfield Town in the first round, losing 7-0. [[1]] The gap between the teams at the time would have been as below

Division 3 (Huddersfield Town)

Division 4

Football Conference

Northern Premier League Premier Division

Northern Premier League Division One

Northern Counties East League Premier Division

Northern Counties East League Division One

Central Midlands League Supreme Division (Lincoln United)

Making 7 levels apart. Valenciano 23:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but it was the first time that a Premiership team had faced opposition seven levels below them in the pyramid, and the first time such a gap had been represented in the third round. --Stevefarrell 17:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either of those distinctions make it any more "notable" in their own right - they are both subjective qualifications. - fchd 11:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Current final

RobD is right, a final should ultimately stand the test of time. Steves reasons are wrong - the recent final wasn't the first time in 53 years six goals had been scored - ManUtd Palace 1990 finished 3-3, it also wasn't 1st time since 1966 that a team had come back from two down as ManUtd came back from 2 down in 1979. Why include the 2006 final but not include finals like 1979, 1981, 1983, 1989 or 1990? All of those were described at the time as one of the most exciting ever. If we include all such finals the list would be impossibly long. Valenciano 05:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

agree with above. Even if it had been factually correct, coming from 2-0 behind or scoring 6 goals is not at all notable in the greater scheme of things. I inserted Sunderland 1973 victory over Leeds (first time in over 40 years a 2nd Div. side had won the cup) and it was removed. If that is not notable I don't know what is. Since it already had it's own reference in Giantkilling I didn't force the issue - but I still maintain it was "a notable event" - and much more so than a 6 goal final or coming back from 2-0 down leaky_caldron 07:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I removed it because it was mentioned twice, though you're probably right. In fact, it could be moved from giant killing to notable event, where it would probably fit better anyway. --Robdurbar 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, we'll re-add it in a year or so when people are still talking about it. Lists like this do tend to get ludicrously long though. (And United v Palace was a semi final, if I recall). --Stevefarrell 09:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

there is nothing notable about it now so I can't see it being notable in a year. I'd be surprised if people outside of Liverpool are still talking about it next year. I think there is a tendency to confuse a notable event with one that sticks in the memory as being particularly exciting or of special personal interest. As a neutral it was an exciting game – was it notable for the reasons given (or any other reason)? – definitely not. leaky_caldron 09:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

fine, but why be nasty about it? --Stevefarrell 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve, if you mean me, I wasn’t being nasty and I cannot see anything in the other views that would qualify as “nasty” either.

You may be reading too much personal meaning into a basic statement about your intended edit. Looking at WP:EQ I cannot see that there has been incivility in the comments. leaky_caldron 10:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I felt there was an unnecessary ganging up on me because of my edits being 'wrong' (which I merely improved; I did not introduce them). Not nastiness per se, but a concerted group effort to show how wrong I am, while at the same time allowing trivial finals such as the 2005 one (only a year ago) to remain and be considered 'notable'. --Stevefarrell 11:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I know how you feel, having experienced a similar situation recently. Don’t let it worry you – there is no evidence at all of a personal or concerted attack on your contributions. It’s just they way things go sometimes leaky_caldron 11:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No United Palace was the final, finishing in a 3-3 draw. The semis that year were also high scoring ManUtd 3-3 Oldham and C.Palace 4-3 Liverpool which may be where the confusion comes in. Valenciano 09:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that notable does not mean 'interesting' - for example, for 2005, the first use of penalities and a record number of appearances (Roy Keane) is a more notable fact than 'that was a bloody good game'. Besdides, Steve, no one mentioned anything about your edits; they felt that the includsion was wrong. --Robdurbar 11:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve there's no personal offence meant to you at all in the editing process and I hope you continue to edit here. Valenciano 12:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sunderland v Leeds '73

Continuing the debate started above – was Sunderland’s victory in 1973 a “notable event” or only giant killing?

It’s noteworthiness stems from it being the first time since 1931 that a Second Div. Team had won the cup. There is no doubt that it was giant killing.

Should it be left where it is, moved to “notable events” or duplicated in notable events with a link to it’s own article FA Cup Final 1973? leaky_caldron 13:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd move it to notable events, I don't think a top division losing to second division is ever really 'giant killing' propoer is it? --Robdurbar 14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd already placed it there under the "orange ball" notable event. I agree with your general sentiment about giant killing D1 v D2. However, the event at the time was so momentous because of Leeds stature as the pre-eminent team in England. I suppose the modern day equivalent would be Chelsea or Liverpool being defeated by Coventry or Stoke leaky_caldron 14:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Scottish cup

why is it relevant when the scottish cup started?

Musungu jim 06:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not, really --Robdurbar 09:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - leave it out. leaky_caldron 10:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Welsh league teams???

I changed this sentence The Cup involves English and Welsh league teams, as it sounds like teams from the Welsh leagues enter the competition, which I don't believe is the case. I assume this sentence was referring to the fact that some Welsh clubs play in the English League System, which I think I've now explained more clearly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dave w74 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Welsh teams do enter. Swansea F.C. and Newport County F.C. for example. Jooler 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Swansea F.C. and Newport County F.C. both participate in the English league system. Dave w74 was referring to the fact that it could have been misunderstood to mean that teams from the Welsh leagues participate (which they do not).Drc79 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So he was. I misinterpreted his words. Jooler 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Argument made by the Arse, Wenger - Should replay be abolished

The arguement should be in the article, but how to write it? kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 06:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't even this it's worth a mention in passing. - fchd 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Replays avoid the travesty of penatly shoutouts in rounds where money is not the porblemo. In the finals when paying fans expect a result one way or the ither we need finalty immdiately, buit in the secind or fourth round, let the League and non league teams play and play. Chivista 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

USA comparsion, there is the NCAA tourney

It's a mad house. It's got th e underdogs just like FA cup! Where do I make the analogy? Chivista 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a comparison at all? The NCAA Championship tournament is in no way related to the F.A. Cup - fchd 12:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Page double with Fa_cup

I noticed this page is doubled with Fa_cup whereas this page is FA_Cup. Some links link to the other page where the information is outdated. Bugsy2126 10:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Appears it got fixed. Bugsy2126 13:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Giant Killing and Shock results

What? No mention of Tranmeres giant killing and shock results?

What about the 3-0 defeat of Everton at Goodison Park, or the 4-3 comeback against Southhampton? There are more, but not having them to hand prevents me from elaborating....

Other Finals

Further finals: The 1999 and 2001 ones. I don't think that 'first under a roof' is notable; 'last in the old wembly' im less sure. Thoughts? --Robdurbar 13:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first under roof would be notable - further covered events surely wouldn't be?

Last at old Wembley is presumably as notable as the first. leaky_caldron 13:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion debate on Commons

There is a proposal to delete the image of the FA cup on Commons used by this article. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:FA Cup.jpg William Avery 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FACUP.jpg

Image:FACUP.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)