Talk:2015 FFA Cup

Venues

I've removed venues for the Round of 32 as they don't appear on the FFA Cup fixture list. Please don't re-add unless they're officially announced. Hack (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I only added the venues that met the FFA Cup match venue requirements as previously announced. But better wait till all the dates are officially announced by FFA on Friday.--2nyte (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Those requirements vary depending on the calibre of the teams and whether it will be a televised game. Hack (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Bracket Table

The bracket shouldn't be used until the semi-final draw has been made. It implies a path for future rounds that does not exist, as there are draws each round.

Therefore hiding the bracket table, as was done with last year's article. Further discussion here. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey no problem, I figured as much, that's why I just added the template in at first but seeing as I had a bit of time on my hands I added all the teams and scores so far my thinking being that any that run the page would either remove it or hide it if it wasn't needed as of yet.Chewbacca25 (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The bracket probably shouldn't be used at all. To my knowledge, none of the major European cup pages utilise them. (I struggle to think of any cup comp pages that do, to be frank). - J man708 (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, Chewbacca25 - and you are one of many that 'run the page'. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

While it may not be present in other cup pages as you say, I feel its a neat, more convenient way of presenting a brief look of how a club has reached the round it did. It shows the road to the cup final that clubs have gone on. I don't think Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of constant conformity. If its useful to the page, if it can be done better, why not include it? Chewbacca25 (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit against the bracket, but my main issue with its existance is the lack of spaces shown between the clubs in the Round of 32. I would much rather see it with gaps between each match, so then it is easy to see who played who in the middle part of the bracket, rather than relying on looking at the central line, progressing to the Round of 16. Also, how are we currently showing a bracket without knowing who the host is of the final? Currently it shows the winner of the Melbourne City-Perth Glory game as the hosts, which going by last year's choice of finalist, the FFA would be probably again looking to shaft the most Western of A-League clubs. With both Hume and Victory on the other side of the ladder, it's probably a lot safer to assume that the final's host *Cough* Victory *Cough* will be coming from that half of the bracket. - J man708 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If the bracket needs to be shown at all, it is not until after the final matchup is known, but there's been a lot of desire on this page, and last year's Talk Page, and This talk Page - so removing the table until then is likely a futile exercise. But to change a Wikipedia article (for who will be the host) based on your personal opinion on who is more likely to be host - even with your impressive *Cough* inside knowledge *Cough* of the FFA's processes - is not on (even if it does turn out to be true). It is not so desperately misleading to leave it as is for another week until it is really known. In the interim, I have added some text in the Bracket Table for clarification, which should lower the degree of misinformation. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, Tildawg! You and I both know that the FFA doesn't care about anything west of NSW. Adelaide was definitely the lesser of two evils for last year's final! Hahaha.

In all seriousness though, I'm not advocating changing the bracket to place the other half of the draw up first at all, but I'd make a recommendation that the bracket should probably be hidden until the final host is sorted. With 8 days to go until the information is known, the footnote should suffice for this season's article, but I reckon for the 2016 comp, that we should probably leave it until after the second semi final. - J man708 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Should we change the listed goalscorers who don't currently have articles to red links? Granted, it will create a fair few red links, some of which may never become articles, but others red links will help us from needing to retroactively research who the scorer's first name was and then to link them to their relevant article after creation. I rarely ever build player articles personally (I think I've done maybe three?), so I'm unsure how you guys feel about the current set up, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the topic.

• Neutral - As the proposer, I feel obliged to stay neutral. This proposal does save us a bit of hassle in the future, although the current FFA Cup scorers of whom don't have an article are written in the standard black. - J man708 (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Don't Change - Nearly all are likely not to ever warrant their own pages under general notability guidelines (WP:NOTE). Sorry about the clumsy double negative. I have seen J man708 adding red links all over the place over the past year (mostly for Teams especially with this nascent competition) - sometimes with comments along the lines of save us a bit of hassle in the future - and I assume that if J man708 was not the Proposer he would be strongly for change (otherwise why go to the effort to create the section). There are searching methods to cope with the relatively infrequent process of adding links, rather than making everything red as a default. Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not overly for it, to be perfectly honest. The prerequisites for a club to have an article are a lot less than the ones needed for a player, which is why I'm happier seeing red links for clubs over players. Generally a player needs to have played in a top flight comp, creating a bit of a grey area for cup comps. Would making the final be enough for the rest of Hume City's first XI to have articles written about them? I proposed this to kinda find a balance between last year's cup page (which shows no red links), this year's page (which shows a few red links in the quarter finals) and the NPL finals series pages (which do show red links). When I created the 1995–96 NSL Cup page, it was a right pain in the ass to see if every single player who scored had a page, as is (I imagine) retroactively adding someone's links in various random articles around here, after creating the player's specific article. - J man708 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Don't Change unless Notable - To get their own article, they'd need to pass WP:GNG, I can't see how they do that by virtue of playing one game. Hack (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you even read what I wrote? Or did you just see the rhetorical question of "Would making the final be enough for the rest of Hume City's first XI to have articles written about them?" and decide to answer that? - J man708 (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:REDLINK, inclusion of a red link is assuming notability. Hack (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So, should we list the goalscorers that don't have articles with red links, or just show them as regular text and manually retroactively add links should a player get an article in the future? - J man708 (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

They should be in regular text unless they are notable. Hack (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - It makes the full name of the player accessible, while keeping it in regular text doesn't and only provides half the info. Admittedly now it is quite easy to look it up. Go into the report/match centre or the club's page and look at the squad. But in a couple of years the squads will have changed and the report links might be dead/moved, and it could be an extremely annoying, if not impossible, job to find the player's full name. --SuperJew (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: If its going to be a difficult or near impossible job to find the player's full name in a couple of years, they wont be notable players anyway, so wont have an article. So theres no problem for the vast majority of cases in any case. I do not Support this view that red links should be added now on the basis that it is going to be more difficult at a later point in time to generate red links. It is almost as though we need a fourth 'colour' for these relatively rare events where someone may become notable, to add to the current three 'colours' of blue (yes, existing article), red (likely yes, and relatively soon for an article) and black (no). Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My point is that as a user when reading the article I would like to know the full name of the goalscorer. The linking of the player (red or blue) gives me that info, while no link (black) doesn't and only offers me half the info. --SuperJew (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand that perspective.Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I know that including red links are for when it's relatively obvious that a player will have an article created and several players here won't ever have articles, but including them really does make it a lot easier rather than having to find each mention of a player throughout Wikipedia and linking their article after they've had an article created. Plus, SuperJew mentions a good point, that the red link includes a player's first name, whereas regular text only mentions a surname. Not a problem now, but should the FFA Cup start deleting old match links (like the A-League has done), then we're placed in a trickier position of finding player's names. - J man708 (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)