Talk:1872 FA Cup final

	Association football portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

1872 FA Cup final has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

1872 FA Cup final is part of the Wanderers F.C. series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 22, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
April 27, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted
April 21, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Kept
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 16, 2008, March 16, 2010, March 16, 2012, March 16, 2015, March 16, 2017, March 16, 2020, March 16, 2022, and March 16, 2023.
Current status: Good article

Queen's Park

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Scottish club Queen's Park were allowed a bye all the way to the semi-final stage, and were told that should they defeat their opposition, The Wanderers, they would be allowed to play the final the following day." - this isn't correct, QP did not receive a bye all the way to the semis. They were drawn against Harrow School in round 1, but as the two teams could not agree on match dates they were both (somewhat bizarrely) allowed to progress to round 2, where they were drawn together again. The school team then withdrew, sending QP into round 3 via a walk-over, and QP were then given a bye from round 3 into the semi. So while they did reach the semi without ever playing a match, it was not something that had been agreed from the start of the competition....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:1872 FA Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article is very well written and appears to met most of the criteria. I have a few minor comments:

Route to the final:

"crack Scottish club" - I'm not sure what is meant by "crack" - could a wikilink be used?
- It really means just "leading/top/best" in UK vsports vernacular, but I'll reword it so that people don't think they were on drugs

Summary:

"extremely attaacking strategy" - seems like awkward phrasing
- reworded
"coin toss" - could use a wikilink
- I think it's a pretty common term, but wl added nonetheless
"acute angle" - could use a wikilink
- As above
"handled" - could use a wikilink
- Done

Details

It has been a while since I reviewed a football match article. Can the details (attendance, lineups for the teams, referee, etc.) be sourced?
- Done

Post-match:

"Mr" - a very trivial detail, but is it standard in British English to not use a period/full-stop at the end of this abbreviation?
- Yes

I will place it on hold to allow for responses. Any questions or comments can be left here, as this page is on my watchlist. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your comments, all addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. I am promoting the article. Thanks for the quick replies. One thing: I forgot to check the article for disambiguation links when I was doing the review. In the discussion of Cresswell in the "Summary" section, there was a link to Winger, which I changed to Winger (sports). If this is incorrect, the link might need to be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Dead link

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.fchd.info/cups/facup1872-73.htm
- In 1872 FA Cup Final on 2011-05-25 02:08:33, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
- In 1872 FA Cup Final on 2011-06-01 23:17:01, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Referee or Umpire ?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Alfred Stair is listed as the "referee", but the position of "referee" was not introduced until 1881. Contemporary reports list Stair as "umpire". Should we make this change? Grover cleveland (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Replying to my own question -- it looks as if this is an issue with the template. I've raised the possibility over there. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 5 January 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago31 comments12 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Discounting the struck sock, there is a close but definite policy-based consensus in favor of the proposed move. BD2412 T 00:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

– Per recent RMs at Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup final, Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final and Talk:1993_UEFA_Champions_League_final, there has been a consensus in recent weeks to render final articles in sentence case rather than in title case, to comply with MOS:CAPS. I've moved some others as uncontoversial, given that they follow the same pattern of having a majority for "final" rather than "Final", but I thought I'd put this one to RM just to be sure, given that ngrams record a slight majority for "Final". However, this clearly is nowhere near the "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of sources" standard of MOS:CAPS, and between 2007 and 2015 "final" had the lead. So I do think it should be moved as well, also for WP:CONSISTENCY. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Strong oppose - This is the most ridiculous one yet. The FA unambiguously treats the FA Cup Final as a proper noun. It has been known as the FA Cup Final since 1872. Other sources may have style guides that don't recognise this, but the Football Association does not vary. – Pee Jay 23:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
The FA actually does occasionally vary, e.g. "Tielemans became the first Foxes player to score in an FA Cup final since Ken Keyworth in 1963". But in any case, that doesn't really matter WP:NCCAPS doesn't tell us to consider the WP:OFFICIALNAME when assessing proper name status, merely what the totality of reliable sources say. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
"An FA Cup final" is different to "the FA Cup Final". Cheers. – Pee Jay 00:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support - per WP:NCCAPS we don't care how the organisation treats something, we care how it is treated by third party sources. Whilst this is a bit more even than others of this ilk, it's certainly not universal, which would have been the barrier for it to be capitalized. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why would it have to be universal? As long as the predominant presentation swings one way or the other, that should be the deciding factor. Surely you're not saying that if all sources except for one capitalise it, we shouldn't capitalise it at all? – Pee Jay 01:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not one, but nearly all should follow this. We should only capitalise if the wording is a proper name, per WP:NCCAPS. Something being a proper noun is based on general usage, but we shouldnt capitalise unless overwhelmingly obvious that it is a proper noun. It's not good enough to say that some or around half of sources use capital letters, we need it to be at the point where you could argue that those refs are wrong, rather than it not being a proper noun. Organisations will try to make things that they own into titles, but that isn't really what matters to Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose WP:TITLE, hmm, I am not sure, but under title, if no word comes after final you're suppose to capitalise the F for FA Cup Final. If it's as oppose to when you add a word after like FA Cup final reply. There seems to be inconsistencies between prose sentence structure and an actual title. Govvy (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose. I was reading 2022 FA Cup Final earlier and I saw this proposal there. I think it is nonsense. I support Liverpool and was able to attend that match. I have looked at all the literature I have from the match including ticket, programme, souvenirs and so on. They all use FA Cup Final as the title. In the programme, you read sentences like someone scored in the 19xx final against whoever but that isn't using it as a title, just talking about it as a match. I agree with User:PeeJay and User:Govvy that the article titles should not change. Brian (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note: this editor has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 18:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - not withstanding the recent consensus on related RMs (which, you will note, I supported), as stated above this is clearly a proper noun per this and this amongst many other sources. Giant Snowman 18:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Nobody denies that there are some sources that capitalise, perhaps even a slim majority... but as has been stated repeatedly, that is not the standard we apply. Things are only deemed proper names on Wikipedia if almost all sources capitalise. See Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 48#Requested move 15 January 2020 for a similar example. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support. If you look at most articles, that last word isint capitalized. This makes a lot of more sense.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment @HelpingWorld: Are you sure about that?? Names of people, corporations and events are normally capitalised on the first letter. FA Cup is an annual tournament, which is the title, the final is the event alas, events usually have capitalisation. Which title rule do you want to go with?? There is a different between a title and prose use. Regards, Govvy (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes I am sure, if you look at Knicks–Nuggets brawl, it has no capitalization at the end.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@HelpingWorld: You're using an American English article as an example as opposed to a British English. British Oxford English Capitalise the first word of the title, and all words within the title except articles (a/ an/the), prepositions (to/on/for etc) and conjunctions (but/and/or etc). per [1] Govvy (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's Oxford's style guide, not ours. We use WP:NCCAPS which says we prefer sentence case in articles, outside of proper nouns. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lee Vilenski: I have a problem with the wikipedia style guide, it has numerous problems with it, one being that it is using American English style guide and doesn't conform to British English, let alone when we are working to FA Cup articles using British English. Govvy (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

That's something to bring up at the policy, not here. The site currently uses this policy, so we should stick to it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, and additionally this is not actually an WP:ENGVAR issue, numerous UK sources use the sentence case style and it is becoming increasingly popular over time worldwide. For example the BBC [2], the Guardian [3], the Telegraph [4] to name a few. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Amakuru: What you have provided in three sources, BBC are using an all caps title, "THE FA CUP - FINAL" the sub-heading is prose. Liverpool beat Chelsea on penalties to win FA Cup final - recap With recap after you would lowercase the F. With the Guardian, That’s it for our FA Cup final blog because there is a word after, being blog, another example of when to lowercase. The Telegraph is the odd one out, it is however a full sentence and not using a direct title. However the top of the match summary is all caps again for FA CUP FINAL. This is more about the direct title of FA Cup Final. On its own, not in a sentence. There is a difference. Govvy (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Govvy: right, it sounds like what you're describing here is whether titles of entities are represented in title-case or sentence-case at all. So capitalising all the major words is a style that can be used, for example at the book Stokoe, Sunderland and 73: The Story Of the Greatest FA Cup Final Shock of All Time. Final is capitalised here, but then so are all the other words. "Greatest", "Shock", "All Time" etc. That's a style that can be used in titles. But Wikipedia has a very well-established convention that we don't capitalise our titles that way. In fact, per WP:NCCAPS we prefer sentence case (where only the first word is capitalised) in all cases except for demonstrable proper names. And we only regard something as a proper name if almost all of the sources capitalise it, something which applies to FA Cup but not to FA Cup final. To give other examples, we have 2019 United Kingdom general election (not "General Election"), Bakerloo line (not "Line"), Syrian civil war (not "Civil War") etc. And following recent RMs, it's also now 2022 FIFA World Cup final (not "Final"). Hopefully this makes sense to you, if I've explained the situation properly! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

On the other side you have Captain America: Civil War, Glastonbury Festival, then you have Stanley Cup Finals, wikipedia has a certain amount of inconsistencies. It doesn't help to chop and change everything and to me you're treating the word final differently to English I know and was taught. As George Orwell said "Never use a long word where a short one will do." Govvy (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

But the first two ARE proper nouns. They are names. The FA Cup is a proper name, the final isnt. The Stanley Cup is likely wrong, also. Regardless of how you were taught English, titles on Wikipedia are based on if the subject is a proper name. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support. It's just the final match in the FA Cup competition. The word "final" doesn't get capitalised in that sentence, so is demonstrably not a proper noun. Rearranging the words to be more succinct - "the FA Cup final" instead of "the final of the FA Cup" doesn't mean the F should suddenly be capitalised. Those saying that the FA themselves use title case for the final should note that sometimes they do the same for ALL the rounds, and sometimes they use a small "f" for final too, as do independent sources. Waggers TALK 15:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support. Not consistently capitalised in sources. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support—So much more logical with the proper name (FA Cup) not blurring into a common noun (final). Next they'd have use cap "FA Cup Opening Match". Tony (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Bit of a slippery slope fallacy, that. The FA Cup Final has been treated as a proper noun in sources for as long as I can remember. That may be less prevalent nowadays, but it's certainly still the case in a significant number of sources. – Pee Jay 00:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add topic