Talk:FA Cup/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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of a number of wartime competitions: it was played again in 1941 with Preston winning, but after that it seems to have been replaced by regional competitions.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. --rbrwrˆ
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. --rbrwrˆ

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)

Venues

The first finals (up to around 1914) were indeed played at the Crystal Palace, but not at the National Sport and Recreation Centre which was established after WWII. I think they were played on the cricket ground.Bebofpenge 02:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal/Sheffield United

Wasn't there an incident a few years agon in the FA Cup where Arsenal beat Sheffield Wednesday on a disputed goal and then offered to replay the game because of it? I'm sorry, I am just a Yank and don't know the details, but I would think it would be a good addition to the Notable Events section.--Gangster Octopus 23:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was Arsenal vs Sheffield United in 1999.[2]. As I can recall it: United played the ball out because one of their players got injured. From the throw-in, Nwankwo Kanu (on his Arsenal debut) received the ball and ran through the Sheff U defence before crossing for Marc Overmars to tap it in. Sheff U manager Steve Bruce got upset and ordered his players off (an act which should have been severely punished). Somehow the players came back and played the remainder of the match, which Arsenal won 2-1. Afterwards, Kanu was upset as he was unaware of the custom in England to return the ball to the team that played it out (if they played the ball out in order for an injured player to receive treatment). Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger generously offered to replay the match. Steve Bruce wanted the replay in Sheffield, but it had to take place at Arsenal. The home team won 2-1. Again.[3]
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


Official name

As far as I know, the full name of the competition is Football Association Challenge Cup Trophy--Nitsansh 00:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the FA 'The Cup shall be called "The Football Association Challenge Cup".' Matthewmayer 01:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


There are 207 associations in FIFA today. FIFA is The Association in football. England, like 206 other nations, has an association. England has the special place of being the first FA, of having invented the game. And, rightly so, I think the article should mention this, if desired. However, England's FA is not FIFA and so referring to it as "The Association" I think is highly misleading and should be avoided.

Other nations have open cups for their football associations, England is not the only one. I don't know about other countries, but the USA has one. I added links to/from England's open cup and the USA's. Suggestion: why not a separate page with a list of all the open cup tournaments in the world? If so, why not have that link replace my link to the US Open Cup. --da bum 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • See the template at the bottom of the page. The name of the F.A. Cup is the "F.A. Cup". I'm reverting again. - fchd 17:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see the links. Under "National Football Cups." This is good. It links your FA Cup to similar competitions around the world. That's part of what I was talking about. Thank you. But, as for the name. The name is "FA Cup." Sure. But, it is England's "FA Cup." It is not the world's FA Cup. This distinction is important and needs to be made clear.da bum 18:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Not really. The Football Association - whose cup it is - is not called the "English" Football Association. --Robdurbar 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely, to every person born and raised in England it's obvious that "The FA" is in England. But, this is an online encyclopedia. Used, potentially, by people from around the world. People of different cultures. By people who are new to the sport. And young school children doing research for a short paper for school. A lot of different people use the encyclopedia. You can't assume that the reader knows anything at all about soccer or the history of the game. So, the article must be written in very plain terms: "In England, there is this thing called a 'football association' and it has this very big tournament called the FA Cup." In Kicker Magazine, sure, it would be safe to assume everyone already knows. But, this isn't Kicker Magazine, it's an online encyclopedia and so my main point is we can't assume the readers will already come here knowing anything at alll about the sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beach bum7 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Famous Shock Results

We need some sort of policy on this section to avoid it balooning. For example, two more results have been added from this Saturday's matches, the Burton 1 Peterbrough 0 game and Hartlepool 1 Tamworth 2 game. These results are notable in the context of one season, but also occur every year.

I would suggest the following needs to occur for a result to be 'famous':

  • The teams need to have two spereate leagues between them (e.g. level 2 club v level 5 club)
  • Where the result occurs in a later round, this rule could be relaxed (e.g. a level 3 club beating a level 1 club in a quarter or semi final)
  • Other results might be notable if the team who loses in particualrly well known, or the team who wins is particularly obsucre

Thoughts? Robdurbar 10:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the particulars, but there needs to be some criteria applied when choosing which shock results to include. We need to deal with fact, not opinion as to what is and isn't a shock. Looking at the list, some giant-killing acts are by clubs who have been in the Premier League in the last few years. For example, a loss by a top flight club to Wimbledon in 1975 would be a huge difference to a loss by a top flight club to Wimbledon in 1995. Losing to a top-flight club in the final eg. 1987 or 1988- can that ever be a true shock? (Coventry finished above Spurs in 1987 and it's still on the shock list). Therefore, some context needs to be applied, i.e. Why was it a shock and which divisions were the two clubs in? Did the 'big' club field a weak XI or were all their superstars humbled?
Also, should we look at the clubs' status, either at the time of the shock (hard to find out) or at the end of that season? Or at the end of the previous season? eg. Wrexham-Arsenal 1992 as it was 1991's 92nd vs 1st.
Here's three examples for one shock result:
  • Shrewsbury Town 2 Everton 1 (2003, Round 3)
    • In 2003, Shrewsbury were relegated from the Football League and Everton finished fourth in the Premiership.
    • In 2002, Shrewsbury finished 9th in Div. 3 and Everton finished 9th in the Premiership.
    • Emerging England starlet Wayne Rooney and his Champions-League-chasing teammates were humbled by Shrewsbury, a third division club struggling to retain their league status.
Maybe a statistical approach could enable us to choose the top 20 shocks, to prevent the list from growing exponentially.
Slumgum 01:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar - you're right about this list getting out of hand. Brentford 2 Sunderland 1 today was hardly a shock at all. And surely getting a replay can't really count, can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiadms (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that. Sunderland, rock-bottom of the Prem, away to a decent league one side. We all saw that one coming. Hardly up there with Birmingham v Kidderminster or Shrewsbury v Everton--Ukdan999 01:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
My point is that we therefore need either certain criteria, reduce the number on the list dramaticaly to include only the biggest shocks, or ...? Robdurbar 16:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Chester City 0 Ipswich Town 0 (2006-07, Round 3) was placed into this category today but I promptly removed it. I don't see how a draw at this stage between teams 2 leagues apart can be classed as a famous shock result'. TN2006 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I also removed todays wins by Forest and Swansea over sides struggling near the bottom of the premier. Third level sides beating first level sides or sides two divisions apart beating each other is not uncommon and if we include all these, then the list would become impossibly long. I would suggest that there should be a gap of three divisions before we include any such results or else there should be a set number of league places - say 50 as a minimum as a struggling league one side beating Chelsea say would be a shock. Valenciano 19:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed Palace beating Liverpool in 2002 - two teams one level apart - a mild surprise certainly but not a major shock of the sutton beating coventry variety. Similarly I again removed Swansea's win over Sheffield Utd and Forest's win over Charlton. In both cases the winning teams are flying high in League One and the losing teams facing relegation from the Premier so it's not unlikely that both teams involved in each tie will be playing in the same division next season. It's interesting to note that on the football predictions group that I'm on,[[4]] out of 31 people predicting for the Forest game, 13 forecast a Forest win with only 12 predicting a Charlton win. It's a small sample but it does suggest that it was hardly a shock given Charlton's recent dire form. In future I would suggest that we apply RobDurbars criteria above or go with my suggested 50 league places between as a rough guide. Valenciano 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Shock results are so frequent and there are too many to put on this page..

Would it not make more sense to create a new article, 'Famous Shock Results', to link to and save space on this page..?

Alistairlp 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I just added 2 'Division 3' wins over top flight teams this weekend, then discover they had already been previously removed before.Statto74 10:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of merging both "famous shock results" sections. It would be good if we could get some sort of consensus on what constitutes a shock result so that we would have some sort of guideline in future, otherwise the list will become impossibly long. As for the two that you've added - see my reasoning above. The Forest win wasn't really a shock at all as a lot of people saw it coming. In both cases a third level team chasing promotion beat a first level team facing relegation - in situations like that where both teams are likely to be playing in the same division next season it's dubious. Furthermore, while both results may be notable in the context of this season, such results happen every year and thus they certainly don't meet the "famous" criteria as the average footy fan is likely to have forgotten them by next year. I would suggest that both teams should have either 3 or 2 and a half divisions between them. Exceptions could be made for later rounds ie semis and final which are likely to be remembered or maybe for the top teams like Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool or Arsenal losing to third level opponents. I'll hold off from reverting any more until we get a consensus. Valenciano 12:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll reassert my original proposals:
  • That there are two full divisions between the teams. For example, a League Two side would have to beat a Premiership side; or a Conference side beating a Championship sdie; Conference North beating a League One sie
  • That at the Quater-Final/Semi-Final stages this be relaxed slightly so that a victory by teams with one division between them be noted (I'm thinking of that painful Leicester loss to Wycombe a few years back)
  • That if the losing 'giant' is a Legaue Two or Conference side, the winning team would have to be very obscure
  • That either exceptionally heavy defeats (say by four or more goals), or a losing 'giant' who was perhaps the previous season's champions or a top five premiership team, we would relax these regulations
No offence to Swansea fans, but such victories happen every year. If we're listing 'famous' ones, then we need to have a relatively high bar to keep the list from expanding massively.
As for alternative statsitical/top twenty shocks/50 positions between approaches - I'm all ears!

Robdurbar 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Do people think that results where the 'giant' is league one or below (e.g. walsall v slough) should stay? As good an achievment as this is, I'm not sure whether it counts as 'famous' or not? --Robdurbar 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that they are. I think people are missing the point of the section which is for FAMOUS shock results - not just including any old surprise result. Your criteria above are fine as we need a bit of flexibility rather than a rigid statistical cutoff. Wimbledon beating Liverpool and Sunderlands win over Leeds were memorable shocks, games featuring lower league sides are unlikely to be remembered outside of those towns involved. I've therefore removed the following

Chesterfield 0-1 Basingstoke Town Burscough 3-2 Gillingham Slough Town 2-1 Walsall

Also Cardiff City 2-1 Leeds United is dubious as Cardiff missed automatic promotion to Level 2 by just 1 point although Leeds were then a top five club but I've left it there for now. Swindon losing to Stevenage is another borderline case although more notable for being an away win. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valenciano (talk • contribs) 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. We need to come somewhere in between just using dry and statistics and making reasonable value judgements. Bare in mind the Swindon v Stevanage was a Premiership v Conference game at the time. Leeds being a Champions Leauge club at the time was also my reasoning behind that one.
As for Wimbledon... I kinda know what you mean but can we really label a victory by one club over another in the same league a 'famous shock'? I'm uncertain.
BTW, another way to do this would be to demand sources for each result that back up our 'famous shock claim'... Robdurbar 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this section has sort of lost it's way by being determined solely on the gap between the sides rather than the actual "shock" value of the result. For instance, Wimbledon beating Liverpool would come up more often as a "shock" result rather than Vauxhall Motors beating Queens Park Rangers a few years ago (which isn't in the article either). Was Tottenham's 1901 Final a "Shock" at the time? - fchd 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I asked the question before - was Wimbledon beating Liverpool really a 'shock' or just a memorable final (I ask it in all curiousness - I'm too young to remember it!)? To bring it round, if Reading beat Man U or Chelsea in the cup final - it would be unexpected, a memorable final etc but is one team beating another in the same league a shock? I don't really think so. Certainly, though, the whole shock thing isn't dictated by such rules and whilst I think these should be indicative, they're not meant to be hard and fast exclusive rules. --Robdurbar 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Wimbledon / Liverpool would be one of the exceptions to strict rules. Liverpool were the dominant team of the era and arguably reached their pinnacle that season, stringing together a 29 game unbeaten run consisting of numerous 4 goal wins. A few weeks before the cup final they'd thrashed Forest 5-0. Few people gave Wimbledon any chance and I remember in Match magazine and Shoot magazine at the time a number of pundits suggesting 4-0 or 5-0 wins.

Overall I think such a section is always going to be problematic. Including links to justify results might be one way but the difficulty there is that the sources themselves will often be subjective and/or biased. Valenciano 19:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Where's Wimbledon's defeat of Liverpool??? --Howard the Duck 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Forest vs. Charlton a 'shock result'? Bookies would probably have given you better odds on Forest! That really ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.3.154 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Royal Marines

Someone told me yesterday that during the war the Cup, after being won by Portsmouth in 1939 was consigned to the safe keeping of the Royal Marines. It did the rounds of various peoples private homes in Portsmouth during the conflict. It seems to me as thought his is a bit of history worth recording in the article, even though its unlikely ever to be verified. Frank.corr 08:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Wimbledon

Wimbledon do not exist anymore, they are seperate to both MK Dons and AFC Wimbledon. AFC were set up before Wimbledon moved to Milton Keynes and changed their name therefore technically they could have met each other in the FA Cup. Even though MK Dons have now given back the trophies won to AFC. AFC and Wimbledon are a sepperate entity, its not like Small Heath becoming Birmingham City, AFC is a different club set up by fans in response to the owners of Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenomorph1984 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, this does not tally with the facts. Wimbledon F.C. moved to Milton Keynes, played there as Wimbledon F.C. for a season (at least) before changing name to Milton Keynes Dons. There is a clear lineage. AFC Wimbledon, while worthy, are completely irrelevant in this context. Perhaps it is better to remove the "No longer exists" markings, as it doesn't particularly add anything, and leads to disputes like this? - fchd (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable achievements / history section

There seems to be a bit of overlap between these two sections. I'd be inclined to eliminate the natable achievements altogether and move it to the history section, except where we can't tie the achievements to a specific season. As a start, Curtis Weston and DiMatteo's feats are certainly notable but I'm going to move them to the history of the cup article and other feats which can be linked to specific seasons should probably follow for consistency reasons. Valenciano (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Providing a little too much

"Arsenal is the only club to win doubles in distinct decades, and have in fact won in three different decades.". I don't think the statement is of much value when the 1998 and 2002 wins are so close together. At the very least it should be reduced to "Arsenal have won doubles in three different decades.", but I don't see the value of the inclusion at all as "decades" really don't have much importance. The fact Arsenal have won doubles 3 times is great and is the important part. Leave the interpretation of the other data to the reader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Optimizerone (talk • contribs) 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Current text seems to be NPOV now. Paulbrock (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect win totals

The win totals listed for Manchester United is incorrect. Manchester United has won the FA Cup 11 times, not 12: 1909, 1948, 1963, 1977, 1983, 1985, 1990, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2004. Unless someone can explain to me where the 12th win is, this is an error that should be corrected as soon as possible.

Mranthro 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Current text is now correct. Paulbrock (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect 2007 result

The 2007 result is wrong, vandalism i expect as nobody can have failed to ntice the fact Ronaldo did not score and Drogbas fine effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.236.12 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just some MUFC vandal on the net hahaha --Howard the Duck 06:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Results no longer listed here. Paulbrock (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Famous shock results revisited

Once again this section seems really unsatisfactory. Editors seem to be missing the point that the section is not for shock results but for famous shock results. Recently we have had a number of Shrewsbury town results added which I doubt that most people outside of Shropshire would know. The shrewsbury results aside, the shocks seem okay up as far as birmingham versus kidderminster but after that things go awry with people adding their own teams surprise wins thereafter, most of which are long forgotten by neutrals. With the third round approaching and the strong likelihood of people adding their favourite teams results, we really need to have a look at this. It may be a case of simply scrapping the list and replacing it with a few notable results backed by third party sources. Valenciano 11:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

List was scrapped, so should no longer be a problem. Paulbrock (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Minnow

Why link minnow to the disambig page minnow rather than the term implied in the lead as in underdog (competition)? Can someone explain why we expect the reader to click through twice when we can easily put them in the direction of the correct term with just one click? Peanut4 (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks fixed now. Paulbrock (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

FA Cup "Champions"

I have never heard the phrase "fa cup champions" A Minor edit to text box so that it reads "holders" or "winners" would read a lot better IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto999 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


Venue

This article says that "The team who plays at home is decided when the matches are drawn", but doesn't explain how it is decided. I don't know how it is decided, someone how knows it could, please, add it to the article. Thanks. --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:03md have added the explanation under the venue section. Thank you. --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wembley rebuild

Is there a reason they chose to use Millennium instead of, say, Twickenham for the final while Wembley was being renovated? After all - the Millennium Stadium isn't even in England! 124.184.96.26 (talk) 12:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The RFU has always resisted football being played at the stadium, mainly as they don't want to antagonise lccal residents. Also, the stadium would need significant reconfiguration to make it suitable for football. 83.244.215.254 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Replica FA cups

Is it worth mentioning that clubs are given a replica FA cup upon winning it? Although I'm not totally sure whether this is still done? Are they given a mini replica.

I know Tottenham have a full size replica in the lobby of White Hart Lane, the lid has been bent out of shape. The story goes that when Paul Gascoigne was handed the trophy in hospital after the 1991 cup final, he dropped it and dented the lid (other reports say he lifted it too high and hit it againt the ceiling). The cup was sent back to the FA who then sent the club a replica cup with a dented lid. Shenko316 (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What does it all mean?

As a person not terribly familiar with the ins and outs of soccer/football, I'm curious as to just how meaningful it is to win the FA Cup. Obviously, it's better to win than not, but how does winning a Cup compare in prestige terms to, say, actually winning the Premiership? This is just one of the things that so bewilders many of us more open-minded Americans about soccer, excuse me, football: you have a playoff of sorts that is utterly unrelated to the rest of the season. It's just all very foreign to me, if often intriguing. Is Chelsea's win today more or less a consolation prize after what was likely a disappointing season within the Premier League, or is that selling the achievement far short of its actual meaning? To forestall any "Wikipedia is not a forum" comments, I ask this because it is exactly what I came to the page to find out. What does it all mean in the bigger picture of English football?--172.190.211.103 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Eligible teams

From the article: "All clubs in the Premier League and Football League are automatically eligible, and clubs in the next six levels of the English football league system are also eligible provided they have played in either the FA Cup, FA Trophy or FA Vase competitions in the previous season. Newly formed clubs that start playing in a high league, such as F.C. United of Manchester and MK Dons, may not therefore play in the FA Cup in their first season."

This is poorly worded. It would create a never ending cycle whereby these teams could never qualify! 2.25.151.178 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how. New clubs automatically qualify for the FA Trophy or FA Vase but have to wait a year to enter the FA Cup, so no never ending cycle. Valenciano (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Removed the MK Dons example as it's totally contradictory. Their first season was in Football League One and they were a rebranded Wimbledon F.C., not a new club starting from scratch like FC United. VEOonefive 23:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

'Fixing' issues in the draw for the 5th Round

I dont know if this is a genuine issue or not, but according to the statistics in this blog http://davey13.blog.com/2014/01/04/hello-world/ the 5th Round of the FA Cup is always 'tilted' in favour of certain teams. If the statistics check out it might be worth mentioning 'fixing' in the article as it seems to be mentioned on the internet in several places. 213.114.41.96 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all, a blog is not a reliable source, so we couldn't use it in this article even if we wanted to. Second, the data in that article are totally spurious. Looking at data from the last few years proves nothing – although the frequency with which the top teams are drawn at home appears to be higher than it should be, there is nothing truly outside the norm. – PeeJay 22:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible Troll Attempt 17th May 2014

Someone put on the article "It was fun while it lasted, Wigan. May 11th 2013 - May 17th 2014.", I have now deleted it but as this is not informative and a possible troll attempt, I think we need to add more security to this article. (Z2a (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC))

Countries

In the infobox, shouldn't Wales be included under countries as teams from Wales participate in the FA Cup? --Mas 18 dl 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Guernsey, as well, have a team in the competition. PsyMar (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Pre-Third Round Upsets/Giant Killers

In the small section of giant killers, anyone else think there should be a mention of Chasetown from 12/07. No I am not a Chasetown fan. Yes it was before the third round proper. But the fact that a team from the EIGHTH tier of the English system made it to the third round should worth something. No team that low has ever made the third round. And a "minnow" going that far, isn't that what shock results and "giant-killing" is all about in the FA Cup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nygoodliving (talk • contribs) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Giant-killing seems fairly self explanatory - "killing a giant." I doubt even the most optimistic Vale fan considers their club a giant. There's also the concern of 'recentism.' In 1999 Bedlington Terriers, a club at the same equivalent level as Chasetown, beat Colchester, a level three side and that result is now forgotten. Time will tell if the chasetown result is remembered. A team from the eighth tier making it to the third round is indeed notable and that's why the Chasetown result is in its proper place in the article in the notable events/history section. Duplicating it is completely unnecessary and does a disservice to proper giant killing results which have stood the test of time - Sutton beating Coventry, Wimbledon's feats in the 70's, Altrincham's win over top flight Birmingham etc etc. None of those results is included in that section which is a brief summary. Valenciano (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am uncertain why my addition to this section about Barnsely's victories over Liverpool and Chelsea in the 2007-08 cup was removed? I think this qualifies as giant-killing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.40.66 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As do countless other results down the years. Barnsley isn't notable in the grand scheme of things and it's best to keep that section to a minimum. Valenciano (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess I would argue it's relevant because it is the most recent example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.60.40 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
And hence isn't relevant per WP:RECENTISM. Peanut4 (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


Also why do some of you guys see it as fair to delete the Woking giant killing content, Woking have arguably had some of the best giant killings and deserve recognition. An Isthmian league side beating West Brom and running Everton very close deserves a mention as much as Telford and we also have the Millwall game in recent years. Let us have our part on this artcle as Woking are one of the top FA Cup giant killers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.69.132 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is if you add Woking, then why not add every club? I'd guess that the majority of clubs in the League pyramid have at least one and probably more "giant-killing" under their belt. I'd actually remove the Telford example as well and leave it as simply a couple of sentences saying that "Giant Killing" has become a tradition in the FA Cup and is important to its general appeal thanks to the traditional British support for the underdog. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "recognise" achievements, but to inform readers about the subject. Now, if someone were to start a separate article detailing all the FA Cup giant-killings for which stats are available, that would certainly be something that could be linked to the article, but I don't really think there's room for too much on this on the main article. Brickie (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The separate article has been done and led to a lot of headaches before it was deleted due to lack of agreement on what constituted a giant killing. I'd agree with you that Telford should be removed. Valenciano (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, I've given that section a rewrite and removed all reference to specific clubs and games. Hopefully this should take away the impetus to say "well, if we've got this result in there, you should have that one as well because it was just as notable". It'll probably fall foul of Weasel Words instead, but hopefully it might work for a while... Brickie (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, baby and bathwater perhaps? It seems a shame to replace a well referenced section, with some issues, with a poorly referenced very general discussion. I agree to about the WW problem. I like your first paragraph and think this should stick. But comments such as The last time a non-league team beat top-flight opposition was Sutton United's victory over Coventry City in 1988–89 are useful, a good context for what we mean by a giant-killing, provide historical information and are a shame to lose.
I don't have a problem with reference to certain key results or events. Rather, I think we should avoid discussions of supposedly 'giant-killing' teams eg Altrincham, Yeovil etc. If you look at the first paragraph of the previous version and the much trimmer version of July 2008, you'll see that much of the content has remained stable.
I'll have a go at reinstating some of the previous text, then, but with a few caveats and comments to hopefully prevent its expansion - see what you think. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I did the edit as 129.234.252.66 as my session timed out, and tagged it as Cuccir as I was getting confused with my user name on another site! --129.234.252.66 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I can live with that version - and I did try and find a way of leaving in some of the more significant ones. Then I found myself going "Ah, but what about Wrexham v Arsenal in 1989 - famous because it was the teams that finished top and bottom of the 92 the previous year?" and all of a sudden I realised I was getting into "well if you include result A, then why not result B?"

But yeah, let's leave it as is, and see if it sticks. I guess you need someone to just periodically come back and do a quick slash-and-burn on the cruft that accumulates, and put up with fans whining that their own club's achievements aren't being sufficiently recognised. 90.204.38.14 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me Brickie (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In this section it says "Other than Tottenham's non-league victory, the FA Cup has only seen 24 finalists from outside English football's top division – all from Level 2 – with a record of 7 wins and 17 runners-up.". WHat about Southampton's two Final appearances in the early 20th Century when they were still in the Southern League? There might be other examples as well, but I don't have time to check it all out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackburne1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on FA Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent actions on this article

Recently I made several changes to this page, all fully explained and perfectly logical. And Qed237 immediately reversed them, and has now repeated this reversal multiple times, without explanation (except one belated attempt about one part, to argue that the Trophy does not need its own article, which is hardly convincing). What his problem is with the rest of my changes is anyone's guess - he appears to think I don't warrant an explanation. He has now resorted to threatening me for being involved in an edit war and told me I will be blocked if I don't stop, even though he is the other party in it. I have yet to receive any kind of apology or even explanation for this behaviour, but because I don't want to get blocked and I do want to improve this shit-pile of an article and am not about to let him get in the way or allow him to bully me, I will rise above it and open a discussion on the various changes I made and why.... Rabono26 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have said on my talkpage that I am sorry if I have offended you, that was not my purpose, but even when I gave an explanation you reverted anyway. Also that does not excuse your behaviour and especially your name calling, saying I am an a**hole. If you want me to make a full apology, maybe consider looking at your behaviour as well. What is the most pressing issue here is all reverting which is no good. Anyway, I think it is best to discuss each section individually so I will respond under each header in due time. Qed237 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't particularly want any apology from you at all, and certainly not if it has to be requested. I just want you to stop obstructing changes designed to improve this article. But on the issue of personal behaviour, the facts are clear - right from the outset I was explaining all my efforts, you only offered one explanation for one small part of your objection (the trophy) which is hardly compelling, and by that time, you had edit warred with me multiple times, and with no hint of irony, began to warn me to stop edit warring and told me to start talking. Your objections seem to only stem from either your unwillingness to accept or even your inability to understand what I had done, and so the reverts seem to be only because of an apparent assumption on your part that if you can't understand them or don't wan't them to stay, they all have to be reversed until I can get positive agreement. Even though nobody else had objected during the entire edit war. So my actions in response are in my opinion, fully justified. I call it as I see it. You did offend me, you did anger me, and you have now taken up a hell of a lot of my time, and so I am going to be very interested in seeing if you actually have any really good reasons for reverting my changes, reasons based on what makes the article better. Rabono26 (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It does not seem like you are willing to listen, when you say My version (B) is quite obviously superior like you did at Talk:Laws of the Game (association football). Also it is never justified to start with name calling and attacking other editors, there is a strict view on those things and if you can not show some selfcontrol and blame others for your actions, I am afraid it may lead to a block. Qed237 (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm perfectly willing to take responsibility for my actions. Now its becoming clear that your reversals were pretty mindless (you're now saying you agree with a lot of the changes, and will to others with minor tweaks), and that you were engaged in an edit war without apparently having fully considered what you were doing and without talking to me at all, are you going to do the same? On a ranked list of actions which require little self control, that would seem to be at the very top, no? Above name calling even? If not, it really should be. It should be noted that I was very close to just walking away from this entire farce because of you, and so the article would have been worse off. Hardly seems a good trade off, just to save you from being offended by reaping what you sowed... Rabono26 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
My edits were not "mindless" and I simply restored an earlier version of the article because of multiple issues, that is no way near as bad as name calling. Now stick to discussing the content before you step on the wrong toes. Qed237 (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There is no meaningful difference between you edit warring without giving a reason, and you edit warring for multiple reasons which you didn't bother to explain to anyone. Both actions will appear to onlookers as mindless. It is wrong of you to accuse and threaten me for edit warring and not discussing, when you were doing the same, indeed you were doing worse, since I had fully explained all my edits. If I step on anyone's toes by pointing out such obvious facts, so be it. Rabono26 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Trophy section/article

The Trophy section is/was abysmally obtuse. I had to read it quite a few times to even realise the basics (2 designs, 5 used trophies). After initially trying to remedy this with sections, which looked ridiculous, I realised there was already enough detail there for it to be moved into its own article, as I attempted to do with FA Cup Trophy. If anyone actually bothers to write a decent article on what is an important subject, it will obviously only get longer. All that really needs to be here is a short paragraph explaining the basics, which is what I did. See the change here: [5] Rabono26 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As you know I dont think the trophy needs it's own article, however I agree that the text can be improved. What is wrong with putting the modified text in the existing FA Cup article? Qed237 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree the trophy section can be improved, but the FA cup Trophy is not independently notable enough for its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, you aren't supposed to summarise sections in their own section. What I wrote here is meant to be a summary of a separate, detailed, article, on the history of the various trophies. If a separate article cannot exist, then the way forward would appear to be to summarise the contents of the Trophy section at the top of this article, leaving people to then decide if they want to wade into the detailed narrative in the section here. I think it unlikely that a proper review would conclude that the trophy in of itself is not notable and doesn't warrant a detailed article of its own (just look how much it was possible to write about it from just one BBC news article - that's a clear sign that there's more to be written) but it's an acceptable second preference given the state the article is currently in. Rabono26 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Trophy is not notable in any shape or form, its notability is conferred by being the object of the competition. It should not have a separate article. The size of the relevant section is an editorial choice. Concise is great, but well sourced material that is coherent does not hurt. Re-write the section into something coherent. And no, the lede doesn't particularly need to summarise every single paragraph or subsection. The fact that a trophy is won is enough of a reference. Koncorde (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Have you actually done any research? Examined whether or not the trophy is written about in enough detail to be notable? Or is this just an assertion. Nothing wrong if it is, except it is rather undermined by the existence of articles like FIFA World Cup Trophy. I cannot be the only one who would have trouble figuring out why your assertion doesn't also apply to that article? Doubly so for a trophy like the European Champion Clubs' Cup, which has existed for less than half the time of the FA Cup trophy. Rabono26 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
? You are the one engaging in an edit war trying to justify yourself. The existence of other articles is irrelevant (particularly if the significant majority of the content is either not particularly notable, or a repeat of content from a main article in order to pad it out). The FIFA World Cup in particular though is very specific case, in the same way that the Ashes are notable, they have been written about independently and / or have a history separate to the actual competition (in the World Cup case it has been stolen twice). The FA Cups notability is photographs of it during parades and award ceremonies, there's no significance beyond periodic re-design. Its age is not of any particular significance, nor is it the first ever trophy, nor the first football trophy, nor the first competitive sport trophy or anything thereabouts - it's not even the original trophy.
The European Champions Clubs Cup is also not in and of itself notable either, however I can understand why someone sliced away the content given the level of detail it descends into discussing additional badges, multiple winners - most of which appears to just be duplication of the main article that could be just as equally summarised in the main article without forking. Koncorde (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You're the one not making much sense. You claim the World Cup has its own history separate to the actual competition, using the fact it has been stolen - have you not noticed that this trophy has also been stolen? You also claim the fact it is not original undermines it's significance. Again, the World Cup is not original. So I have to ask again, to be absolutely clear - are any of the above claims about what does and does not exist by way of independent writing and the supposedly otherwise unremarkable nature of the FA Cup outside the competition actually based on any actual research that you have actually done, or are they just your own assertions? I can't say for certain either way, I'm just finding some of your claims to be, well, frankly, beyond belief. The idea that it's only ever been written about when it's been redesigned (once) or remade (four times) is quite obviously false. A quick Google search of something like "FA Cup trophy iconic" yields plenty of results which prove that it really isn't considered to be as unimportant as you claim. What is certain is that what is here in this article right now about the trophy is not exactly the product of some serious in depth research. Even so, it is still almost the same length as what is written in both articles I mentioned above, and doesn't include any irrelevant padding, like listing winners or mentioning badges etc.. Rabono26 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Copa do Brasil trophy actually changed its display a number of times, and I'm not warring against a half of WP to get what I think it's right. That's why we should discuss to reach a consensus. And, as far as I know, the consensus here is that we should not have a separate article for the trophy. If you want to help that much, why don't you expand the section related to it? Ah, and those trophies have their own page in WP because they're trophies from a Continental/Worldwide competition (FIFA World Cup/Champions League). It makes no sense to allow the creation of a page related to a National Cup trophy. Then, we would subsequently have to allow some pages like: Coppa Italia (trophy), Taça de Portugal (trophy) and so on. MYS77 ✉ 17:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I already had expanded it, and I thought it looked utterly ridiculous. Because there is so much to be said about it (because it is actually quite obviously independently notable), requiring several sub-sections even after making the text concise, it looked exactly like someone had tried to incorporate a separate article on the trophy in this article. So I punted that text out to form the new article. There is obviously no consensus here that it should not have an article (since consensus requires sensible discussion of the issues, using evidence and logic, not simple personal desires and illogical positions), but rather than fight that battle and waste even more of my time on this idiotic so called encylopedia, I suppose I might as well simply reinsert my version as a least worst outcome. Done. [6] 20:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabono26 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Media coverage

The Media coverage section is/was crap. Possibly the worst part of the whole article currently, in need of much work. All I did here was to separate it into Domestic and International sections, and then finish the tabulation of the details of the international rights, which someone had sort of started at the very bottom. See the change here: [7] Rabono26 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree, worst section of this article. Far too much information in my opinion, we dont need to know every broadcasting detail. Your change makes it better, but it could probably be cut more. Compared to the trophy, the trophy is a lot more interesting to read about than Broadcasting history and article should reflect that. Qed237 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Re-done.[8] If you can improve it further, then go ahead - sadly someone else also saw how crap this section was and also tried to improve it [9], but as far as I can tell all they did was convert the straggling table entries into prose, whereas I think this is better presented as a table, and this is standard in other articles that I've seen. Rabono26 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Introduction

The introduction is/was poor. This competition is commonly known as the FA Cup, and that is the title of the article, so that is what should come first. Yes, it's full name is "Football Association Challenge Cup" and it's also called the "Emirates FA Cup" for sponsorship reasons, but I'm sure everyone can see the logic in only mentioning those less common names once it has been explained that the competition is organised by and named after the Football Association. See the change here: [10] Rabono26 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Here I disagree, the real competition name and how it is known should be mentioned first as it is the most important thing. This is standard on wikipedia. Qed237 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Support current wording, as it's the standard Wikipedia introduction for things (X, officially known as Y, and known for sponsorship reasons as Z). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support this idea that this is the most important thing about this article? If it was so important, why is it not the title of the article? I think the obvious truth is that no, it is not important. It is basically a factoid, something which will probably make people say 'oh, I never knew that', and then move on to read about the FA Cup. Given there is no actual explanation in the entire article of why it was originally called the Challenge Cup, or that this is still its proper name, it should arguably be removed until someone improves the article to reflect that information, with a source. My version reflects reality - this is basically the FA Cup, and the fact its original and proper name is the FACC has become largely irrelevant, even to the FA. Rabono26 (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Look again - the current version is not in that format. The version you want would be like this: The FA Cup, officially known as Football Association Challenge Cup, and known for sponsorship reasons as the Emirates FA Cup). Even that seems idiotic, since the article then goes on to say it is named for and organised by the FA. Which is kind of obvious at that point. Rabono26 (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The article is named per WP:COMMONNAME but as said by Joseph2302 The first sentence of the article should be X, officially known as Y, and known for sponsorship reasons as Z, in this case The Football Association Challenge Cup, known worldwide as The FA Cup and for sponsorship reasons as The Emirates FA Cup. This is standard. Qed237 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Why are you not getting this? If that is how it's supposed to be written, then this is what should be there: The FA Cup, officially known as Football Association Challenge Cup, and known for sponsorship reasons as the Emirates FA Cup...... Clearly, that is not what is there right now. And indeed, never have I seen the phrase "known worldwide as" used in any other article, even the ones where the official name is different from the common name. The current version could possibly even be read as if the competition is known as the FACC in the UK, but as merely the FA Cup in the rest of the world, which is obviously nonsense. Rabono26 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Poor intro needs rewriting. The sponsorship thing is really not of any primacy as it's a transient reference. Koncorde (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, someone needs to make up their mind as to how these things are meant to go, because your rewrite is still not in the format "X, officially known as Y, and known for sponsorship reasons as Z". And I still cannot see how the word order of "The Football Association Challenge Cup.....is organised by and named after the Football Association" can be described as anything other than poor, especially when there is no explanation of what the FA actually is, or how they relate to English football (which is talked about in the intervening text). Obviously readers might surmise that the FA is responsible for organising English football (or follow the link to find that out), but if Wikipedia is assuming readers are smart enough to figure that out, why is it assuming they're too dumb to spot the relation between the name and the FA and are spelling it out for them in such an excruciatingly tortured manner? Why not leave out all mention of the FA until the second paragraph, where its role, the dates of it being established and the fact the Cup was their first competition can be dealt with, and leave the first paragraph to only mention that it takes place in England and its really old? Rabono26 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that in my absence, nobody here bothered to figure out what is going on here. In the absence of any evidence that the objections were based on any sound reasoning, or any supposed convention (if it exists, it is clearly not being applied correctly), I have fixed this problematic opening again. [11] Rabono26 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, if people have some logical explanation for the previous version being the correct one, then the place to explain that is here - there is no point in claiming it is simply better when it has already been argued above that this is nonsense. As before, I am all ears if someone can show how this nonsense version meets some rule or precedent that I have somehow not noticed before. The title of the article is FA Cup, and there is plenty of precedent, as well as plain common sense, for referring to that name first in the introduction, dealing with other names only after they've been put into context. The only exception I've seen is people's names, where's full names are put in place of common names, and the Cup is obviously not a person. 15:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabono26 (talk • contribs) Rabono26 (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

What a surprise, no comment. Just noting for the record, to aid those writing the future book "Wikipedia: what it was and why it failed", that it has now been changed again [12]. Ignore the edit summary which claims I am somehow rowing against some tide of disagreement, this person seems to be confused themselves and simultaneously seems to have had no idea what version I want and also failed to remember what version he originally restored it to (full name first) - that's what happens when you don't bother reading the talk page. Anyway, now it is in a form halfway between the original and my version - the common name is mentioned first, as it seemingly should be, but the full name is mentioned immediately after it, as if somehow it's super important and its appearance in the text absolutely cannot wait until it's been clarified to the reader who the Football Association are, which happens a whole two lines later, not even far enough to be missed on smartphone screen. Still waiting for some kind of explanation why that is remotely necessary.... Rabono26 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Such an adversarial attitude is unlikely to win people over to your side of the argument. – PeeJay 23:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
This comment would only make sense to me if I was sure you knew what the argument even was, or had read this talk page section, even now. So far, I'm not convinced on either front. Looking at the rest of your contributions, you appear to be the sot of editor people mean when they complain of the hostile environment here. Rabono26 (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Winners and finalists section

The arrangement of this section is/was horrendous. What brought me to this article in the very first place what the utter horror show that is the "Winners from outside the top division" sub-section of this part. What a complete mess. By applying a little bit of common sense, I managed to remove all the redundancy and focus the section on the subject, without removing a single detail. See that change here: [13]

I then went further and moved some of the text in the rest of the section around to create more logical sections which grouped related information. I did this because the previous version just rambled around in a quite jarringly incoherent manner. I suspect multiple people had just been adding bits and pieces over time, without thinking about how the whole section read. See that change here: [14] Rabono26 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The first change I can completely understand and with minor changes I can agree with that. I think the years should be in parenthesis like ... Barnsley (1912), West Bromwich Albion (1931), ... and so on. I also do not like that you write "West Brom" instead of the full name and some other minor things. The second part, I also understand that it may need some rework, but it also needs a lot more sources (as do the rest of the article). The FA Cup is a team tournament, as much football is, and my personal view is that is is to much focus on individuals (i.e. Messi vs Ronaldo), and in this case Ashley Cole should not have this much focus being almost on top of the section. Maybe the Records section should have two subsections, "Club records" and "Individual records". Qed237 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, since nobody else could be bothered to comment, I've gone ahead and redone it [15], with brackets on the years, and with team/individual record sections. I don't see why West Brom is an issue when the full name is given in the first occurance - this is standard practice elsewhere, nobody wants to read West Bromwich Albion three or more times in the same section. Rabono26 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FA Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FA Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on FA Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Titles by city and by region

Suggestion: tables with number of titles by city and by region.

Att., Alexandre M. B. Berwanger (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Using the more accurate word of 'exemption(s)' instead of 'bye(s)'.

I have in the past changed the word 'bye(s)' for 'exemption(s)' before it has been reverted back in copyedits. I want to make the point that the majority of the time the word 'bye(s)' is used, particularly in format/eligibility sections, it would be more accurate to say 'exemption(s)'.

Not only is 'exemption(s)' used instead of 'bye(s)' in official FA documents, publications, and media to describe how clubs from certain divisions enter at different stages, but it also has a different meaning/process to 'byes' which is used to describe a leftover team in a draw that makes it through to the next round without being scheduled a fixture.

For example, you would say that clubs in the National League (tier 5) are exempt to the Fourth Qualifying Round, clubs in League One and Two exempt to the First Round Proper, or Premier League clubs exempt to the Third Round Proper. Conversely, because of the expulsion of Bury, the 2019–20 FA Cup had one less team in the First Round Proper (where Bury would usually be exempt to), meaning an odd total number of clubs in the draw, which meant that the final team drawn out of the hat, Chichester City, received a bye into the Second Round Proper. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with this. Common parlance is to refer to byes. Even if one is "technically" correct, most people would be more familiar with the term "bye". – PeeJay 16:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FA_Cup/Archive_1&oldid=1188372196"