Talk:FA Cup/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copyright problem 

message: 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)
thread_title: Page Length

message: 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)
thread_title: Teams - is vs are

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lose a tie? 

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by John wesley (talk • contribs) 
One did. (FA Cup 2005-06)Slumgum 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't one put up an article with the FA Cup results this year so far 

message: 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. [] 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yeading vs Newcastle not historic 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  fine, but why be nasty about it? --Stevefarrell 09:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Current final 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sunderland v Leeds '73

message: why is it relevant when the scottish cup started?
Musungu jim 06:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish cup 

message: 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)
replies: text: Welsh teams do enter. Swansea F.C. and Newport County F.C. for example. Jooler 22:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So he was. I misinterpreted his words. Jooler 22:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Welsh league teams???

message: The arguement should be in the article, but how to write it? kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 06:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even this it's worth a mention in passing. - fchd 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Argument made by the Arse, Wenger - Should replay be abolished 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  USA comparsion, there is the NCAA tourney

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page double with Fa_cup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other Finals 

message: There is a proposal to delete the image of the FA cup on Commons used by this article. See  William Avery 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion debate on Commons 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:FACUP.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Venues 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, it was Arsenal vs Sheffield United in 1999.. 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.Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsenal/Sheffield United 

message: As far as I know, the full name of the competition is Football Association Challenge Cup Trophy--Nitsansh 00:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the FA 'The Cup shall be called "The Football Association Challenge Cup".' Matthewmayer 01:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. The Football Association - whose cup it is - is not called the "English" Football Association. --Robdurbar 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name 

message: 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)
thread_title: Royal Marines

message: 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)
thread_title: Wimbledon

message: 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)
thread_title:  Notable achievements / history section 

message: "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)
replies: text: Current text seems to be NPOV now. Paulbrock (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Providing a little too much 

message: 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)
replies: text: Current text is now correct. Paulbrock (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect win totals 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: List was scrapped, so should no longer be a problem. Paulbrock (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous shock results revisited 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks fixed now. Paulbrock (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnow 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FA Cup "Champions" 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wembley rebuild

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replica FA cups 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What does it all mean? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Eligible teams 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  'Fixing' issues in the draw for the 5th Round 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Troll Attempt 17th May 2014  

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on FA Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100522093435/http://www.toye.com:80/products/sports/trophies-awards/ to http://www.toye.com/products/sports/trophies-awards/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100916072929/http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/FACompetitions/TheFACup/NewsAndFeatures/2010/eon-180610 to http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/FACompetitions/TheFACup/NewsAndFeatures/2010/eon-180610
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:  Rabono26 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Re-done. 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 , 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)
thread_title: Media coverage

message: 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:  Rabono26 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The article is named per WP:COMMONNAME but as said by  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Such an adversarial attitude is unlikely to win people over to your side of the argument. – PeeJay 23:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The Introduction

message: 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: 
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:  Rabono26 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, since nobody else could be bothered to comment, I've gone ahead and redone it , 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)
thread_title: Winners and finalists section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefa.com/TheFACup/TheFACup/History/Postings/2003/11/46982.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006123439/https://faclub16.com/Season2011.aspx to http://faclub16.com/Season2011.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421222213/http://www.premierleague.com:80/en-gb/fans/faqs/who-qualifies-to-play-in-europe/ to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/fans/faqs/who-qualifies-to-play-in-europe/
*Added  tag to http://www.onthisfootballday.com/2008_11_20/november-20-mac-o-nine-tales.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130301073342/http://www.btplc.com:80/News/Articles/Showarticle.cfm?ArticleID=022AEA86-B466-4C6E-9A3F-0BE241ED630B to http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/Showarticle.cfm?ArticleID=022AEA86-B466-4C6E-9A3F-0BE241ED630B
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/fans/faqs/who-qualifies-to-play-in-europe/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefa.com/Competitions/FACompetitions/TheFACup/History/facupheroes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402120832/http://blogs.loughboroughecho.net/goaltastic/2011/09/teenager-breaks-fa-cup-record.html to http://blogs.loughboroughecho.net/goaltastic/2011/09/teenager-breaks-fa-cup-record.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C7973-1430225%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btplc.com/News/Articles/Showarticle.cfm?ArticleID=022AEA86-B466-4C6E-9A3F-0BE241ED630B
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Suggestion: tables with number of titles by city and by region.
Att., Alexandre M. B. Berwanger (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles by city and by region 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Using the more accurate word of 'exemption(s)' instead of 'bye(s)'.