Talk:List of FA Cup finals

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of FA Cup finals article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	List of FA Cup finals is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on May 7, 2012.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 1, 2008 Peer review Reviewed November 15, 2008 Featured list candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured list

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football: England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

From p17 of The Essential History of West Bromwich Albion by Gavin McOwan: "With no extra-time being played, the replay [of the 1886 FA Cup Final] was arranged at Derby a week later." Currently the article shows that extra time was played. What was the source used to determine which matches went to extra time? Please can this be re-checked. --Jameboy (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the match report in the Guardian/Observer archive: 'Albion now made their final effort to score ,but they failed and "time" arrived without advantage to either side. The Albion wanted to play an extra half hour, but the Rovers declined. The Committee afterwards met, and ordered the game to be replayed on Saturday next, at Derby. If the latter place is not available it will be played at the Oval, London' Cattivi (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add this information (with citations) to the

1886 FA Cup Final article? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This also indicates that no extra time was played. BigDom 05:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duly amended. Keith Warsop's book on the early finals confirms that all the drawn matches prior to 1886 definitely went to extra time, and Andrew Thraves' book on the history of the Wembley cup final confirms that all the ones from 1938 onwards did too, so probably the only ones which need double-checking are 1901, 1902, 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1920. I've got a bunch of other books (not to hand right now) which I should be able to confirm this with - I'll look into it ASAP..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of those matches, only 1912 (but bizarrely, only the replay, not the first match) and 1920 went to extra time (source: Nationwide Football Annual, 2009–2010 edition), so I've amended the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result shown is incorrect - should be 1-0 and not 10-0!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.251.102 (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article had simply been vandalised, now corrected...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Arsenal in bold three times? They have only won the double once! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.22.5 (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this distinction noted in the table? Most stadia have now been rebuilt since their original construction and we even have the Millenium Stadium period separating the old and new "eras". Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This came up at the article's FLC. It's to assist the sorting - don't forget that people might sort the table all manner of ways, so the Millennium Stadium period won't always be in between, and without the distinction there would be no way to sort the new/old Wembley rows together. Hope that makes sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to a degree, but since the underlying piped links direct to the correct version of the stadium is it really necessary? It looks untidy and for how long is it correct to refer to the current stadium as the "new" one? Realistically, how many people are going to want to sort this by stadium? And if for some reason that genuinely evades me they do, is it unreasonable to assume that they could refer to the year or click on the link to ascertain which generation of the stadium it is? It's been three and a half years since the FLC so it's not a unreasonable time to reassess some of the decisions made then. danno 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One could also add a hidden sortkey to the new and old one. -Koppapa (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon no longer exist? They either exist as MK Dons or as AFC Wimbledon, depending on your point of view... 90.204.56.152 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon FC moved town and changed their name. This is not new as other clubs have done the same. The new name is MK Dons. They are the same club. The same registration. The same history. AFC Wimbledon are a total different and separate club with no connection to the old Wimbledon FC. There is no point of view only fact. I changed the Wimbledon entry to "also" give the new name of the club - MK Dons. It was improperly immediately reverted by some Chris fellow. I will reinsert MK Dons tomorrow. So please do not change. Wiki is about facts. 94.194.22.70 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make that change don't forget to source it very well. Britmax (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That MK Dons are originally Wimbledon FC needs sourcing? That is like saying source that the Queen of England is the Queen of England.94.194.22.70 (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fact? You should have no trouble sourcing it, then. And which

Queen of England do you mean? Britmax (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Refs given 94.194.23.28 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article locked to all editors until May 7th? Greenman (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo the same question. Was trying to add the 2011-12 result as it's just been played but can't get in Aion707 (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's going onto the main page on Monday. If you have specific edit requests, please add them here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the results by team table is right at the moment, I think there may be an issue with the rowscopes. The highlighting of all the columns normally occurs when rowscopes are used and the items are not on separate lines. NapHit (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's happening, the whole row seems to be bold text. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit the article, so can't fix what I think is the problem, but if you look at

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners

and compare the code in that table with this one what I'm assuming is that the champions league one looks like this:

!scope=row|

|9 |3 |1956, 1957 etc |1981 while this table looks like this !scope=row|Manchester United F.C.||11||5||2004 etc||2007 If that's the case then having all info on the same line is casing the problem and it needs to be on separate lines like in the Champions League list, if that makes any sense, as it rather hard to explain without sounding confusing.( The edit has put the real madrid info after each other not list it like I intended, but if you go to edit the champions league table you should understand what I'm trying to explain.) NapHit (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds confusing! Can you fixitup? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at the source as I can't edit it and yep the problem is what I thought it was so will have no problem sorting it out. NapHit (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected, any chance you could fixitupabubbles? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Sorted the problem, the main list could do with rowscopes as well, might add them tomorrow once I'm done with work. NapHit (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on

]

On 7 September 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to List of FA Cup finals. The result of the discussion was page moved..

(R) in the Season column

Hi editors. Visitor experience issue I noticed: when sorting the table by other parameters (in my case it was attendance), the (R) in the Season column becomes non-functional and confusing as it is not next to the season to which it is related. I propose that these are changed to display the season and the (R), for instance '1874–75 (R)'. Thoughts? Andre666 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good point - I'll get onto it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Normally I'd make the edit myself, but I didn't want to tread on anyone's toes knowing this was a featured list! Andre666 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many clubs have changed their names as times moved on. An example is Blackburn Olympic who are now Blackburn Rovers, another is Leicester Fosse who are now Leicester City. Should only the current name of a club be used or the name of the club when in the FA Cup final? Or have the old and the new names? This has to be resolved. 94.194.22.70 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn Olympic were a separate club, and Leicester Fosse didn't win the cup. In cases where it is the issue though, as long as it links to the correct article that is correct as the name was different then. Andre666 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rephrase that please.

The table only shows the current name of a club. If that is the case, which it clearly is, then Wimbledon should be omitted and only MK Dons used. It needs to be consistent

The Wednesday and Sheffield Wednesday are the same club. The Wednesday are omitted from Results by team. This needs sorting94.194.22.70 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one because, according to our article on MK Dons, the club makes no claim to the history of WFC and contends that it was founded in 2004. I have removed the italics from Wimbledon in the table and added a note at the bottom of the section explaining the situation, hope this suffices. The names shown in the actual table of finals should definitely only be the ones used at the time. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Andre is correct to note that there is no connection between Blackburn Olympic and Blackburn Rovers, in fact when Olympic existed the two clubs were bitter rivals.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are clear inconsistencies. The Wednesday is the same club as Sheffield Wednesday, but listed separately. This need needs either: 1. use only the current club name or 2. state the old name with new name after in column.

Wimbledon FC moved town and changed their name to MK Dons. This is not new as other clubs have done the same, notably Arsenal. The new name is MK Dons. On moving to Milton Keynes Wimbledon played under the name Wimbledon for the first season at the National Hockey stadium. The first team Wimbledon FC played in Milton Keynes was Burnly. The club's name was changed to MK Dons keeping the link to the old name in incorporating its nickname "the Dons", in the second season being located in Milton Keynes taking Wimbledon FC's fixtures and league position. They have the same history as Wimbledon FC. They are the same club. The same registration - otherwise they would not be allowed to take Wimbledon's fixtures and league position. Everton FC left the Anfield stadium, those who stayed behind attempted to take Everton FC's league position and fixtures. The FA ruled that the club holding the registration of Everton FC keep the fixtures. Liverpool FC had to start at the bottom. MK Dons hold the registration dating from 1889 when the club was formed as a Wimbledon Old Central Football Club. The club changed it name to Wimbledon FC and then later to MK Dons FC. Two name changes in its history. AFC Wimbledon are a totally different and separate club with no legal connection to the old Wimbledon FC/MK Dons. AFC Wimbledon had to start at the bottom of the leagues as Liverpool FC did. This is fact. The club that won the 1988 FA Cup final is now called MK Dons, irrespective of what the clubs states on its webs site to mould support in its new town.188.222.175.211 (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To ChrisTheDude. Wimbledon FC ARE MK Dons. Read what I wrote. Get over it. Do not write your POV. This is about FACT !!! 94.194.20.215 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that, as mentioned above, MK Dons do not claim any of the history of Wimbledon FC, and as a result Wimbledon FC is a club which has now ceased to operate, with AFC Wimbledon and MK Dons rising out of that club. These are things that are well settled and mentioned on individual club articles. Andre666 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, you write total nonsense. MK Dons and Wimbledon FC are the same club with the same heritage and the same 1889 FA registration (that is what matters). It is not difficult to figure out. Read what I wrote above. http://www.mkdsa.co.uk/index.php/dons-history/facts-of-the-move "The change of name from Wimbledon FC to Milton Keynes Dons FC was made to reflect the club's new conurbation of Milton Keynes whilst maintaining a direct link with the club's heritage." If you cannot figure out something so simple and obvious you should not be editing. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- just a name change. They are listed separately and The Wednesday is not even in the Results by team table. There are clear inconsistencies in this article. The Wednesday is the same club as Sheffield Wednesday, but listed separately. This need needs either:

* use only the current club name or 
* state the old name with new name after in column.

188.222.175.211 (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A note has been added to the "wins by team" section explaining about the two names. The name shown in the main table should definitely only be that in use at the time. If Aston Villa changed their name tomorrow to West Midlands United, it would be preposterous to show a team of that name as winning the cup in 1887 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will change The Wednesday to Sheffield Wednesday the current name of the club, as that is what people know it by. All current names should be used. That is convention in all mags, books, etc. 94.194.20.215 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here for example -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed all names to current club names for ease of understanding, with a ref to older names where applicable. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not appropriate, as explained in various places on this page. Names in use at the time should be used, as is the case in reliable sources such as RSSSF (linked above) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally appropriate so as to not confuse a reader. However a link to the older name is needed and was put in. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The full title of this football match is..The Football Association Challenge Cup Final Tie. It has been shortened to The FA Cup Final, adding an acronym and omitting the word Tie. 188.222.175.211 (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then propose a page move to "List of The Football Association Challenge Cup Final Ties" or else stop changing the text. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it just needs a title change? Easy to do?

188.222.175.211 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it would be a highly controversial move, you should check

WP:RM. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

That is clearly not the

WP:RM would get much support. Nonetheless I have added the technically official name to the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The Football Association Challenge Cup Final Tie is the CORRECT name for the final match. It has to be noted. Wiki has to be factual, not based on opinion or how some view matters. 13:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.23.28 (talk)

From

WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". This is Wikipedia policy. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I wrote it has to be noted - and at the top -. It does not need to be used all through. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted in the lead already, so presumably there is nothing more to discuss -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The official name for the match is in the lead. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This level of detail is not required in the lead, the lead is to summarise the key aspects of the article, not to list what's in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either we have detail or we do not. There was a level of detail mentioning "some" venues but omitting others - written very poorly. Those omitted were put in and all locations and times they staged a final, which took very little text. A quick read tells you all were in London and only two outside.188.222.175.211 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the "detail" is in the list, and doesn't need replication in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opening is to give an overview and to put across prime relevant bottom line points, without having to trawl trough a table. Otherwise why have an opening at all? Understand what an opening is for. Info below the opening is to thicken it out. 188.222.175.211 (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to tell the reader how many time a venue staged a final. A reader had to count them from a table. 188.222.175.211 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, well that information can easily be added to the table e.g. "Wembley Stadium (12)", "Wembley Stadium (13)" etc. Please see

WP:LEAD if you have trouble understanding the purpose of the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Then it can be added to the table. Are you going to do it and cooperate or just be awkward all the time? I prefer the info in the opening para on the venues as it makes it complete. All it is a few brackets and numbers. 188.222.175.211 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I don't think it's necessary at all. But it doesn't belong in the lead, please read

WP:LEAD to understand the purpose of the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It does belong in the lead as it gives and overview - the aim of the lead. 94.194.20.215 (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you did not act on the advice to read the

WP:LEAD

guidelines, which I highly advise you to do. I have quoted the important part below for you.

“

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

”

Andre666 (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Millenium stadium is not the home of an English League club ground. It is none league club ground. Rambing Man thinks it is. 188.222.175.211 (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just said it wasn't home to a non-league club. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding incorrect information as you have here. And stop adding trivial synthesised information regarding the "not league football grounds". It's simply irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All info I have added is correct and factual. The article has many problem, which need ironing out. In your OPINION you think vital info is not relevant. The fact that the FA think the final tie is so important they always staged it at a venue that is neutral and one that a league club does not have as its home. Very relevant info !!!! Please stop deleting factual information. You are not adding any value here. Try to cooperate. 188.222.175.211 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the information you have added in that edit is incorrect. It's not three times and it's not just two grounds. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way "The fact that the FA think the final tie is so important they always staged it at a venue that is neutral and one that a league club does not have as its home" is your own POV and entirely unsourced. And finally, you say "The article has many problem". Given your incorrect edits so far, could you list these so-called problems here so other editors can help you. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will take away the "important" word. TELL US WHAT YOU THINK SOMETHIMG IS INSTEAD OF DELETING. STOP THE ATTITUDE !! Cooperate !!!!

Of the "peacetime" finals, not replays All have been in London, except three, Millenium, GP & SB. One two have been league club grounds: GP & SB. Replays was covered after. The 1915 final at OT was a wartime final under wartime conditions - HMG ordered the final out of London. 188.222.175.211 (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said "three finals" had been held outside London. Now something different, how contrived, so you're listing just "peacetime finals" "before 1923" "not replays"...? Pointless. By the way, this is a summary of all the finals, if you wish to add details to specific finals, feel free to do so at their respective articles. Please list the remaining issues here so we can discuss them. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It stated all along, "Other league club's ground's have been used for Final replays and war time finals". You never read it. It is very clear. Replays were rare and now non-existent. The final tie is the first chosen venue - the prime venue. The replay venue hosts the final tie replay. 188.222.175.211 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you've stopped adding incorrect information. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No !! You have now read what was written and understand it. Drop the attitude and try to cooperate. 188.222.175.211 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that "three finals" had been held outside London. That was factually incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is totally factually correct. Only "three finals" had been held outside London. Replays and wartime finals are special events. 94.194.20.215 (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, considering six finals were held in Cardiff, you're wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three VENUES outside of London. It is easy to understand. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you kept inserting false information. Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at

]

FACT is FACT, not how some brainwashed footy fans see the world. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist the unnecessary attacks. WP works on consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP does not deny blatant fact. 94.194.23.28 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

um, see WP:Consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it in italics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.225.120 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italics are only used to indicate that a team no longer exists in the second table. In the first, as the key clearly shows, italics indicate a team from outside the top level of English football, which Cardiff were for their most recent final appearance. So nothing is incorrect..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With Arsenal successfully defending the FA Cup in 2015, it means that the cup has been won by the same team in two or more consecutive years on ten occasions, rather than the stated eight, with The Wanderers, Blackburn Rovers, Tottenham and Arsenal doing it twice, and Newcastle United (1951 and 1952) and Chelsea (2009 and 2010) doing it once.115.70.169.15 (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

]

In British English, sports teams are treated as plural, so "winners" would be correct. Nobody in the UK would ever say "Arsenal was the 2015 FA Cup winner", they would say ""Arsenal were the 2015 FA Cup winners" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for the clarification! Greenman (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced Cardiff should have the Welsh flag beside their entries, yes they're from Wales, but they play in the English football pyramid, why should the Welsh flag be there? I propose removing it, any thoughts? Zarcadia (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they're a Welsh club so, no, keep the flag. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results by city?

Alexandre M. B. Berwanger (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? They'd basically be exactly the same as the results by club. FA Cup wins aren't given to cities anyway, they're given to clubs, so the "success" of a city is totally irrelevant. –

Jay 18:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Manchester United and Manchester City are two different clubs, both from Manchester. Everton and Liverpool. London clubs. It's nonsense to say they'd "basically be exactly the same as the results by club". You're correct that FA Cup wins are not given to cities, but this hardly justifies it being 'totally irrelevant'.

If there's reasonable third-party coverage of FA Cup winners by city, we should include it. Is there any? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is there reasonable third-party coverage of the fact that Old Etonians have been in six finals, and were runners up in 4? I doubt it, but this is trivially taken from the records and is not original research. Same with counting wins by city.

Are you kidding? There's plenty of third-party coverage of all the previous winners, we just don't bend over backwards to give credit to the city they're from. And yes, of course the big cities will have won more titles due to them having more clubs, but for the most part, there is only one club in each city. As I said, and you agreed, titles are not given to cities so there's no point in us doing the aggregation of those titles ourselves just to add an extra table, especially when the articles covered by

Jay 19:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I'm not kidding, and I think you're just missing the point. You make statements like "totally irrelevant", "no point", which is just your opinion, when others have expressed interest, and similar tables exist elsewhere. I'm glad you concede that there are cities with more than one winning club. The statement of fact you make is that there is plenty of third party coverage the winners. I didn't talk about the winners, I stated the example on the page that Old Etonians have been runners up 4 times. Please point me to this "plenty of coverage" of that example. I didn't look very hard, and can see plenty of lists of winners, runners up, counts of the winners etc, bit nothing like that. It's an example of taking widely available data that's of interest to some and tabulating it in a new form, just as a list of cities would be. Greenman (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's widely available data that would tell you how many FA Cup final goals were scored by left-footed shots, right-footed shots or headers. But until we see reasonable third-party coverage in reliable sources, we won't be seeing List of FA Cup final goals scored with the right foot. This is true of the city argument. Who cares which city winning clubs came from? More importantly, where is it given suitable third-party coverage in reliable sources? So far I'm just hearing some personal preferences here, nothing whatsoever to do with the Wikipedia works. Show me a handful of reliable sources analysing the FA Cup winners by city (or town, please, don't forget 1978), and I don't just mean "passing mentions", then we can have a serious discussion. Until then, this is dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing up an example of where it was not done, and that no-one appears to have any interest in (goals scored with the right foot) has little to do with the example I supplied that has been done (Old Etonians runners up) and, along with the cities, which people do appear to have interest in. It seems your argument comes down to personal preference. By "who cares", you mean "I don't care, so will find arguments against it". But I have little interest in the matter, and was just pointing out the holes in your arguments. I'll leave it at that. Greenman (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand. It was an example of something that someone may find interesting. This is Wikipedia, not "somethingthatsomeonemightfindinteresting-pedia". You may find it interesting to look at a "per city" basis, (and as I've said, many "cities" were towns, or aren't even actually relevant, e.g. Old Etonians), but most importantly if you don't find any suitable third-party coverage of the finals by city, you are barking up the wrong tree. The argument is watertight and I'm glad you're leaving it since there's nothing profitable in pursuing a desire to implement your own interests contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. (P.S. Wayne Rooney's left foot, right foot and head are seen undergoing international goal analysis by Sky Sports, so it's not wildly imaginative to suppose that the manner in which FA Cup final goals are scored could be subject to such scrutiny. They're not, of course, nor is the city (or town) of the origin of the finalists, and that's why we're not covering it here). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interesting to add, other articles have them, such as List_of_European_Cup_and_UEFA_Champions_League_finals#By_city. Greenman (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a valid argument for adding that content here. The Champions League article has it, but only because there's a source to back it up, but from what I can see, someone had to go trawling through a BBC Sport article looking for a relevant table, rather than the info being the subject of standalone analysis. –

Jay 13:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note B re Wimbledon/MK Dons

I can understand why the removal of this note would be thought of as whitewashing but is this sort of detail really the concern of this article? Britmax (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

216.0.106.10 (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this name is seen for the likes of the Taiwan FA Cup and Senegal FA Cup, as there isn't just one FA Cup. Thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabulowa (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The competition isn't called the English FA Cup, it is just called "The FA Cup". -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In my opinion it would be better delete the "Final No." coulumn beacuse it don't need.

]

Requested move 14 March 2021

Wimbledon fc/Milton keynes dons/ AFC wimbledon yes again

I'm confused as to why the note is necessary. A club being moved renamed and rebranded makes it a new club. If a club joined with other clubs to make a new one I.e ospreys being formed as an amalgamation of neath rfc and Swansea rfc then every achievement neath or Swansea had wouldn't be replaced by the ospreys or a note that a new club didn't claim to be an old club or claim their achievements. The fact that Wimbledon FC moved to MK and were renamed is entirely irrelevant on an article documenting fa cup victories including the victory of an old club.

Equally if the note is necessary this AFC wimbledon does as the supporters continuation of Wimbledon FC and does lay claim to the titles won by them. MK are utterly irrelevant here so if any comment is necessary it should be about AFC wimbledon not MK RyouBakura13 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the above statement, AFC Wimbledon do not lay claim to the honours won by Wimbledon F.C. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean we do the trophies won by Wimbledon FC are displayed at Merton council or in AFC Wimbledon's trophy cases. Besides this my point is Wimbledon FC won this award and any addendum about a later switch is irrelevant. This is about which clubs won the FA cup not which ones lay claim to the honours. Wimbledon FC won the FA cup and that's all that needs to be mentioned here. RyouBakura13 (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TBF the note is mainly there (as far as I am aware) to clarify why Wimbledon are listed as defunct in the table, given that some people insist that MK Dons is the same club and therefore it isn't defunct....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Mistake in Tottenham Hotspur 1901 Win

The Article states that Tottenham Hotspur were the only non league club to win the FA Cup yet in 1901 the Southern League was one of the Top Divisions in Football and therefore shouldnt be described as non-league. The Article on Non League Football clearly states that its Football outside the top professional leagues e.g. Nowadays the National league and below. 80.215.140.78 (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-League = not part of the Football League (and since 1992 Premier League) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common opponents

Do we have anywhere that shows which pairs of opponents have met multiple times in the cup final (excluding replays)? (I believe three times is the record, held jointly) If not, would it be worth adding? --Jameboy (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]