Talk:2008–09 FA Cup

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

Abandoned games[edit]

Normally, games abandoned before 90 minutes are stricken from the record and the game is replayed from the start. They are then usually not listed in any record of that seasons competition. Should we keep to that convention (my opinion is yes), or add them with appropriate footnotes? - fchd (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick to convention, but I do think that some mention of the abandoned match should be made. – PeeJay 19:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly think that we should list the abandoned matches. While they are removed from the records, they did happen and Wikipedia deals with facts, not the conventions of statitions. Listing the score as A-A clearly shows that the match was abandoned, with a footnote allowing for more detail (such as when it was abandoned and why). The alternative (as currently used on this page) is to list the finished match and then a footnote mentioning the abandoned matches, which requires the reader to scroll down to see the footnote.
Look at it from the point of view of a reader. Listing all the matches makes it easier to see what happened:
  • The reader sees that Chesterfield's first match with Droylsden was abandoned
  • They then see that the replay led to a draw
  • Next they see that the replay due to the draw was also abandoned
  • Then they see that the replay of that match finished with Droylsden winning
  • Finally, they see that Droylsden were thrown out and Chesterfield went through
If footnotes alone are used, there are two possibilities for what the reader does. The first goes like this:
  • The reader assumes that the first match was a draw, probably not realising that there had been an earlier attempt to play the tie
  • The reader sees that the replay was won by Droylsden - they think this was the second attempt to finish the match, when actually it was the fourth
  • They see that Droylsden were thrown out and Chesterfield went through
  • Now, they notice the footnotes and scrolls down to find the two abandoned matches, requiring them to think for a moment and work out that they were actually four matches, not the two that they thought there were
The other possibility is:
  • The reader sees that the 'first' match was a draw, but they notice the dagger, indicating a footnote
  • They scroll down to see the footnote
  • They realise that the match was actually a replay of an abandoned match
  • They scroll back up
  • They look at the 'second' match, which they realise was actually the third match and see that Droylsden won; again, they see there is a footnote to look at
  • They scroll down to see the footnote
  • They see that this match was also a replay of an abandoned match
  • They scroll back up
  • They now know that the two matches listed were actually four matches
  • They see that Droylsden were thrown out and Chesterfield went through
The reader is the most important thing here. It is undeniably notable that this tie took four matches to complete (even before Droylsden were thrown out) and is information that the reader should know. With complex issues like this, simple chronological order is often the best way to display the information.
Therefore, all four matches should be displayed in order. - Green Tentacle (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the motive behind this, but personally I favour the "FA stance" on this - that abandoned matches are struck from the record and are treated as if they never happened. Unless abandoned matches are abandoned for violent behaviour or somesuch - the kind of thing that leads teams to be disqualified rather than forced to replay the match - then they aren't really that interesting, especially since they don't even produce a match result. Others might summarise this point as saying that abandoned matches aren't "encyclopedic knowledge". As I've been caught out on before myself, there's a limit at which information on a topic is too minor to be worth including, and to my mind that's the case here. Personally I wouldn't suggest even having a footnote about abandoned matches, but others may disagree. Falastur2 Talk 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoned matches tend to be stricken from the records, so in those cases a footnote will do. Those that count can be listed. Peanut4 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going by that logic, you could argue that all matches that do not produce a winner should not be listed. I think that abandoned matches are notable and I'd expect a Wikipedia article to include them. If we're going to list every tie, then we should include every match in the tie, finished or not - that is encyclopaedic knowledge. Rarity makes it encyclopaedic knowledge.
The FA's preference for ignoring these matches is irrelevant. Lots of organisations would like Wikipedia to publish their viewpoint, but Wikipedia is neutral. I do not believe that Wikipedia should go down the route of pretending events that happened did not happen. That's the kind of thing Stalin tried to pull off! - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Abandoned matches do not count towards club or player records. A draw will always count towards club and player records. We're not pretending they didn't happen, hence the footnote. Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already know that abandoned matches do not count towards players' records, while draws do. I was replying to Falastur2, who said that we should not include any matches that 'don't even produce a match result'. He also said that we shouldn't include a any reference to the matches, even a footnote. We seem to both agree that there should be some reference to them.
While drawn and abandoned matches are very different, to declare one worthy of inclusion and relegate another to a footnote (which, as illustrated above, actually confuses the reader) is splitting hairs and unhelpful. I'll say it again: if we're going into enough detail to list every tie, then we're going into enough detail to list every match. - Green Tentacle (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Peanut alludes to, abandoned matches aren't stricken from the records because they fail to produce a winner, they're stricken because something occurs to prevent the result being reliable, and so the existing score is erased to allow for a fair rematch. Draws are different as the result is reliable, and the competition rules are very specific on numbers of replays allowed. Abandoned matches exist outside these rules, and therefore are ignored. Falastur2 Talk 00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the result being 'reliable' (for a start, I would argue that 'match abandoned' is a perfectly reliable piece of information) - it's about what happened. Wikipedia deals in facts and a match being abandoned is a fact.
Furthermore, abandoned matches are very much part of the FA Cup's rules. - Green Tentacle (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my use of the term "reliable". I didn't mean it in the way that we talk about information being reliable to use on Wikipedia. I meant it in the sense that if the referee decides to abandon a match it's because something occurred which meant that the final result of any game played would not represent a fair match played on equal terms between the two teams under acceptable conditions. Also, the only references to abandoned matches in the FA rules are to say that abandoned matches have to be followed by a rerun of the match, which is common sense but logic and perverse behaviour from the few means that such obvious rules need to be codified. Nowhere in those rules does it say that abandoned matches are relevant, count towards a team's progression or affect the competition, and that's my point. Falastur2 Talk 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And nowhere does it say that drawn matches are relevant, count towards a team's progression or affect the competition, but we still include those.
If we're going to bother having every tie from every round listed here then we should include all the matches. I really don't see how not including these small pieces of information is going to improve the article. - Green Tentacle (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got to agree with Green Tentacle here. I think it would be better for the article if all abandoned matches were featured in the results tables. If, however, the consensus disagrees with this, then the current dagger footnote markers should be wikilinked and superscripted rather than expecting the user to scroll down. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, the FA's FA Cup site mentions the two abandoned matches, and not just as a footnote, but with the same prominence as the other fixtures. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Green Tentacle. Abandoned matches should be included. For some reason, Peanut4 and PeeJay2K3 seems to dislike more information. More information is good is as it gives the reader more knowledge, and makes it more clear. Furthermore, my decision to add the referee's column for each match is swiftly rejected and removed by Peanut4 and PeeJay2K3. Furthemore, PeeJay2K3 have lived in Singapore for 7.5 years in Singapore, which is my country and I wished he would be more kind towards a fellow Singaporean.SYJYTG 16:51, 13 February 2009 (GMT)
Why, what valuable information does including references to matches that officially never happened add? - fchd (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The match happened, it just didnt finish. SYJYTG 17:20, 13 February 2009 (GMT)

Round order[edit]

Everything seems to be out of order, why would they start the 5th round when Arsenal and Cardiff City haven't played their 4th round replay? To me, it feels like a disqualification. – Michael (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? No one's been disqualified. They're just delaying Burnley's Fifth Round tie against either Arsenal or Cardiff until the opponents have been decided. Happens all the time. – PeeJay 20:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but when that happens, it's like you're playing a quarterfinal match during the semifinals. – Michael (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total attendances for each round?[edit]

Is this really that relevant? What possible effect could the total attendance have on the tournament? – PeeJay 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut4, please see my usertalk as to why I think the time of the draw should be included and for all users, please see my usertalk as to why I think total attendance should be included. I do not wish to retype it here as it is quite long. And PeeJay2K3, as for the qualifying rounds I think TBC should be added in case viewers wonder why is it blank. I initially thought, that somebody forgot to fill in and went to check for my attendance and found out that it was actually yet to be counted. Syjytg (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it might be relevant to include them. But I think it's confusing to do so in the table, perhaps in the text. However, I think Syjytg's reasons verge on WP:OR. Peanut4 (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut4, I said that as the round progresses, there are more top-tier clubs, hence the total attendance increases. This is very logical and is not pure speculation. Syjytg (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how is it relevant? It is common sense that the total attendance by round will decrease as the tournament progresses, as there are less matches played in each round, while the average attendance per match will increase as the teams with smaller stadia get eliminated. The exact figures are largely irrelevant. Furthermore, when you factor in that different numbers of replays are played in each round, and some matches are played at the homes of teams with smaller stadia, the total attendance becomes more and more trivial. – PeeJay 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the total attendance for each round should be removed from the results tables. I think that the figure is almost totally useless. I understand that you can use that to say "Oh well the average attendance was roughly XYZ..." but even that is problematic because while I can look at the last tie to see how many ties there were in the round, I would have to go through and count the replays to get the exact figure since the total includes replays. Even then giving the exact average would be better, but still of little value. On his talk page Syjtyg gave the reason that it illustrates how the average attendance and total attendance go up as the tournament progresses, but that probably makes intuitive sense, doesn't it? As bigger clubs with bigger stadia enter the competition and everyone is playing more meaningful matches as the tournament progresses, I would expect the average attendance to shoot upward, but is that notable? This also completely disregards the idea that attendance is a notoriously dubious and unreliable statistic to begin with. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument that some people might find it interesting, but I don't think that is enough of a reason to introduce a new feature to a series of articles, when one of the most important jobs for the WP:FOOTY community should be in my rarely-if-ever humble opinion to bring consistency to football articles from yearly article to yearly article, so that people coming to Wikipedia for information can expect a certain level of information from these articles and can go back through the years and compare several different tournaments. I also in no way intend to discourage Syjtyg's entrance to the WT:FOOTY community, and though he's had a rough patch for the last few days (God knows I can sympathize there ;-) ), it is clear that his heart is in the right place when it comes to improving the encyclopedia and the project. I'm just not sure this is a very productive contribution to the article. Just thought I'd give my $.02. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, your removal is unjustified as it is currently a 2-2 split. Your view is not of the majority for it to be removed yet. Syjytg (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Syjytg, Wikipedia works on consensus of argument not on a mere vote. Personally, I don't see the need to include the total attendance and worry your own desire to include it is verging on original research. Peanut4 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hold on. There's nothing wrong with aggregating statistics that are already in the article. The problem is that that calculation adds little value to the article. Syjytg, I realize that you want them in the article, but PeeJay and I gave several good reasons why not to include this in the article, and your only real argument is that you want it in the article and people might find it interesting. I don't think that those are very good reasons. Either way, the established consensus for the whole series is against you, so the burden to prove that this is a worthwhile addition lies with you now that you've been reverted. Maybe if you could better explain why you think this adds value to the article? -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscoring chart[edit]

Most other goalscoring charts use rowspans for those with the same number of goals. I personally think it looks much better this way. I can't read the current version with each played having 4 goals saying as such as clearly as I can one with one simple easily readable one entry. Peanut4 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rowspanning gives the impression that the goals are shared, when only the rank is shared. We wouldn't rowspan the points collumn in a league table if two clubs were tied on points, and so we shouldn't do so for goalscorers for exactly the same reason. The table is not hard to read at all, as evidenced by the fact that you manage to read tables with many more numbers and are quite a bit wider across all the time (a la the league tables in all sorts of articles). -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full league tables are easy to read because they are purely rows and have no shared columnspace. I really don't understand how rowspans give the impression that goals are shared. Rowpanning both rank and goals shows that all players in position one all have four goals. And that makes it easier for the reader. Peanut4 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rowspanning everything but the names defeats the purpose of the table entirely. What you want is a list like in the national team articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but doesn't make any sense. You say "defeats the purpose" but don't say why? Secondly what lists in the national team articles? Peanut4 (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Italics[edit]

Can somebody explain to me why italics are considered essential ? I don't object to them, but I'm still baffled. --Darvit Chandhurai (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, in the example of "Arsenal or Burnley", the italics should be left in in order to make it perfectly obvious to the lay man that the team's name is not "Arsenal or Burnley" but that "Arsenal" and "Burnley" are the two teams involved. – PeeJay 00:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And anyway, it's only temporary. Peanut4 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal-Hull 6th round[edit]

I made it clear way there is no date, with links to suport the facts. The FA, Arsenal and Hull will hopefully made it clear when it will be played.

Wikipedia is not a news source. I don't see any point saying when the game might or might not be or list contradicting sources yet. Leave that to the BBC, etc. I'm sure by tomorrow morning the date will be clarified so I don't see any reason why not wait till then. Peanut4 (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth round proper?![edit]

Who on earth calls it that? Quarter-finals, surely?? 217.41.247.51 (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FA calls it the Sixth Round Proper. – PeeJay 11:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-final kick off times[edit]

GMT needs changing to BST. Or you could make the times 16.15 and 15.00 GMT. see here for kick-off times Stu.W UK (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-final penalties[edit]

It seems to me a bit excessive to include the details of who scored and who didn't in the semi-final penalty shoot-out. For consistency it should be in all instances (e.g. Altrincham v Luton in Round 1) or none. Dancarney (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the level of detail from Round 6 onwards is fine. The Sixth Round, Semi-Finals and Final are often referred to as the "later rounds", and hence a bit extra detail seems fair enough. – PeeJay 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008–09_FA_Cup&oldid=1196535668"