Talk:2007–08 FA Cup

Byes/exemptions
In the table at the top of the page, listing the number of teams in each round, etc, it seems to me that the Byes/Exemptions column is out of sync. Surely the entries in this column should each be moved up a line, so the first byes/exemptions come in the extra prelim, not the prelim round, for example. Taking this at the most obvious point of reference, take the third round proper. According to the table, in the 3rd round, teams ranked 1st-44th (premiership and championship teams) are given a bye - but as most people who know anything about the FA Cup will point out, the 3rd Round is when those teams are first entered into the competition. Surely those teams get the bye in the 2nd round, allowing them to enter into the Cup in the 3rd Round (which they do)? Infact, a case could be argued, in my opinion, that those top teams get byes at every stage until the 3rd Round, though I won't overcomplicate the issue by asking for that to be done too (and the seeding by which the best teams enter latest in the Cup probably means that technically this is incorrect anyway, but I'm not brilliant on the jargon).

Chances are I've just misunderstood the issue, but could someone please point out to me where I've gone wrong, or if I am right, back me up so that I can determine just whether or not this does need changing. Falastur2 14:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Byes/Exemptions column is currently showing which teams enter at each round (except for the first row). I think this is a good way to list it, though by typing that message you have proven it is misleading to certain readers. To fix this, the simplest thing that comes to mind is to rename the column to something less misleading, though I can't think what to rename it to, any ideas? - MTC 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, it was me being thick then. Figures. How about "New entries"? Or something involving the word "entries", anyway? That's the only thing which springs to mind immediately, though I'll continue to puzzle it over. Falastur2 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Entrants" perhaps? Falastur2 15:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "New entrants" or "New entries" would work, better and more specific would be "New entries this round" but that might be too long. - MTC 17:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That crossed my mind, too. Falastur2 17:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the table to show the byes/exemptions at the correct round some time ago (July?) but it was quickly reverted with no explanation. I didn't have the heart to take it any further. fchd 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've changed the column title now, feel free to choose another one if the one I put is too long, but I think it looks okay. - MTC 17:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks fine; kinda surprising considering it seemed like such a long title. I'll consider the matter concluded then. Falastur2 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Calendar
Should the calendar-table also include the dates of the draw per each round, since the dates are available at thefa.com and the dates of the next draw any how seem to be a constant worry, right after one round has been played. I admit the table will get very wide if extra column is added and thus I started this discussion prior the change. Tuxnduke (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're siginificant enough, to be honest. - fchd (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar articles concerning Champions League has separate table that lists rounds and related draw dates. Tuxnduke (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you ever feel the need to refer back to the date of a draw for a round of the FA Cup? I can't possibly imagine the circumstances, but if you can, let us know. - fchd (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point you have there, I agree. But that point applies to the actual dates of the rounds also, at least to a certain extent I think. And onec again, this doesn't seem to be an issue with UEFA champions league seasonal articles :) Tuxnduke (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd add the date of the draw as information just above the list of results, see the wording under Second Round of this article, so that it's there for reference, but I'm not sure it's needed in a table. Certainly, it isn't needed twice in the same article, and most (but not all, I notice) of the rounds do have the draw date written, as the second round linked above. Falastur2 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sixth round proper
Since there is a detailed section for this round, which includes attendance, scorers, link to report, etc, is there any need for the table above it? Any objections to deleting it? Feudonym (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather delete the second section, and keep the article standard throughout. - fchd (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * but surely there needs to be extra info.. like there is for last year's article (and also Champs league, Carling Cup etc, which also includes the Quarter-finals). Feudonym (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the table should be deleted. I was considering removing it myself earlier today, as it happens. – PeeJay 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about using the tables as found in the Football League Trophy 2007-08 article? Here's a preview:

Last updated: 9 March 2008 Source: http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/Results/
 *  glennb28   t/ c    21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That table is basically the footballbox template put into a collapsible table. I don't like it. – PeeJay 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the table as well, if there is a detailed version of the matches there should not be a little table I think it was good that it was removed. Crazywax


 * So why do this for the quarter finals and not the earlier rounds? Sorry, I think this makes the bottom end of the article look horrible. - fchd (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If we did it for all the rounds, it would clutter the table no end, making the page far exceed Wikipedia's suggested cap on page length (somewhere around 40kb I believe, which it probably already exceeds) and I suspect it would make it hard to find individual games for the average user, and even harder to scan a round's results. I shudder to think what the article would look like if we introduced this level of detail to the qualification rounds' article too. What's more, the goal scorers etc are quite commonly-sought and interesting information in the later rounds, when everyone's eyes are on the same games, but in the earlier stages, few people really want to know this amount of info, and if they do, they are more likely to be the kind of diehard fans who would research that from their club's website anyway. Personally, I think the article is fine the way it is right now. Falastur2 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's worked for previous years, so I guess if it's not broke, why try to fix it? – PeeJay 20:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. I mean who wants to know the scorers for the extra preliminary rounds and their attendance and all that? No offence, but I think that will be a waste of space Crazywax (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FA.com match report
The Pompey-WBA semi-final match report by the FA says "Glen Johnson delivered a deep cross from the right towards Baros and his chested control inside the box was perfect,..." Are there any objections to me replacing it with a link to the BBC match report ("Baros, who looked to have handled in the build-up to the goal...") The latter would appear to be more balanced, but I'd prefer to hear from neutrals before changing it. --Jameboy (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I always prefer to use reports from the organisation that organised the tournament. Makes the most sense, IMO. – PeeJay 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi finals?
I know this might count as original research, but isn't the fact of completely new set of semi finalists wrong. 2005 and 2006 had different semi finalists, making the fact of this not happening since 1987 wrong. I know the fact came with a source, but is it possible that the source is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.143.68 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, that man. I guess we should remove that fact then. – PeeJay 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
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!


 * http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/NewsAndFeatures/FAC6P_BristolWestBromreport.htm
 * In 2007–08 FA Cup on 2011-05-27 02:13:52, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007–08 FA Cup on 2011-05-27 15:37:07, 404 Not Found
 * In 2007–08 FA Cup on 2011-06-15 23:17:40, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)