Talk:2017–18 Scottish Cup

Wigtown & Bladenoch
Anyone know why the SFA included Wigton and Bladnoch in the format for the preliminary round draw even though it doesn't look like they are competing this season? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve, The club were having problems finding players so withdrew from League competition for the season. This might also apply to the cup.

Draw numbers
Instead of a table showing the teams from each league, the draw numbers have been used instead. Draw numbers aren't something that people need to know in a wikipedia article after the draw has been completed, and the league abbreviation is in superscript so not easy to read. It should be changed to follow the tables from the previous two season: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017%E2%80%9318_Scottish_Cup&oldid=807679321 Boothy m (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Because they are well sourced, I see no problem in keeping them, we have also used them in the 2017–18 Scottish Challenge Cup for example. You make a good point about the league abbreviations, perhaps we should add them in brackets after each team rather than superscripting them. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but just because something is well sourced doesn't mean it should be in a wikipedia article! :) And using them for just this season in the Challenge Cup isn't really an argument in favour. As Crowsus says below the tables are useful for seeing how many teams have progressed from each league. No one really needs to know that Lothian Thistle Hutchison Vale were ball number 26 in the 1st round of the cup. But showing in a clear way that they were the only EoSFL club to get to the third round is something readers will find useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boothy m (talk • contribs) 22:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I liked the format used for the last two years, it was a good way to quickly see how the entrants from the different leagues were doing, and the strike thru effect for eliminated teams was also visually pleasing. Crowsus (talk)


 * I feel that they should be included, that's not a big deal. I had seen more examples in the past, but the same competitions don't seem to be doing it anymore so perhaps I've missed a discussion that's lead to a change against it.
 * Anyway, three people have commented on this point in a fortnight, I'm satisfied that consensus has been reached as a result because it's unlikely anyone else will comment on it so we should change it back to the previous style.
 * The only thing I would add though is that the strike thru effect can make it harder to read and I don't think there is any point in including information regarding the progress of clubs if it is more difficult to read. The bold effect as an alternative doesn't make it harder to read. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made the changes back to the tables of leagues. Agree that bold is better than strikethrough. Boothy m (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)