Talk:2022–23 FA Cup qualifying rounds

Promoted Clubs

I think Clubs get listed with the tier they're playing in *this* season, not last season, and I am listing them as such as I fill in the games. In case I am wrong about this, the 29 clubs promoted from Nonleague step 5 (tier 9) to Nonleague step 4 (tier 8) last year are listed on page 3 of the entry list PDF found here: https://www.thefa.com/-/media/thefacom-new/files/competitions/2022-23/emirates-fa-cup/the-emirates-fa-cup---list-of-exemptions.ashx?la=en PsyMar (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extra and Preliminary round draws published

Linked from this article: http://www.thefa.com/news/2022/jul/08/emirates-fa-cup-preliminary-round-draws-20220807 which my internet is refusing to load right now, but I saw it a few minutes ago. PsyMar (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixture 57 (Belper United v Lichfield City) has been listed twice. Once on the 6th of August and once on the 7th.

I noticed the error but I don't know the fix, sorry to give the job to someone else. Joskix (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cupsets?

I've never come across this word before - how long has this been around in football? I've heard of "giant-klling" in cup tie contexts, although this tends to refer to the later rounds of the competitions and bigger gaps in status, rather than just victories over teams from a higher level. Bcp67 (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a portmanteau of cup and upset, see upset (competition). I've seen it used in FA Cup contexts by British media commentators but we can change it to just "upsets" if not notable enough. Likewise, we could change "giantkillers" to just "winning team" or something. I would like to keep the review section though as I feel most readers are only going to scan the full list of results so a short section below it detailing the notable facts of the round will be useful. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, I've no opinion on which is the right term to use, it was just something I hadn't heard until now.--Bcp67 (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cupsets" is certainly a silly slang term and shoild be avoided. 94.118.89.158 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a "silly" term as I have seen it used in media environments nor are portmanteau words automatically slang. Multiple people have questioned it however and it clearly is not notable enough so I will change it to just "upsets". JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Cupset" is a thing but it has been a while since I heard it used (it was big in the 00s). On a side note I absolutely love the table of upsets below each round. Such a simple but fantastic addition. 148.64.30.127 (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources have to describe results as an "upset" before Wikipedia does. A wordpress blog doesn't cut it. Dougal18 (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to the section; to be or not to be?

Previous reverts and good revisions by @Dougal18 and @Nfitz were made to scrutinise this particular content for the overall improvement of the article, in particular about WP:OR concerns. I have since gone and added secondary sources (mostly cite web: match reports, and some thefa.com round-ups) that describe each match detailed under the upset subsections by using the words of either ‘upset’’, shock’, or even ‘giant-killing’ as used to describe AFC Sudbury beating St Albans or Romford beating Potters Bar. All refs have been fully formatted and archived. The only game that I could not find a reference to 'upset' (or even really a match report for that matter) was Bury AFC 5-3 Lancaster City, 2Q replay. The stature of the former perhaps mitigates the “upset” but I have instead added this account on their FA Cup run where they refer to beating two-step higher opposition in Lancaster.

Should the wiki linked upset still seem too much like an editorialising word then we can change the subsection name to something similar to what already exists in the tables – i.e. something like “Victories by a team against another x leagues above”. The latter (and the concept to collecting the entries within those sections) would be covered by what is not original research: – “Routine calculations do not count as original research” – though I am of the opinion the former title of “upset” is a better signal for the concept and one that is pretty central to the FA Cup (especially in qualifying where shocks happen as regularly if not more so than in the regular competition). Defeating a team in a higher division is synonymous with being an “upset” such is the relative ease at which sources can be found considering this is mostly local non-league football. Read any match report when a team beat one in a higher division and you are almost certainly guaranteed to see the words “upset” or “shock”. About as likely as seeing the word “and”.

Then there is 'do we need it'? As I touched upon in the previous section I think it adds to the readability to the article to have the standout results summarised below a table that includes over 100 results. It is a neat feature, imo, and it costs little. I don't buy the argument that because previous articles don't include something we can't try to change things in the future; The way the tables are formatted have changed for example; from 02-03 to 03-04, then the attendance column wasn't added until 05-06).

Size of this article

This article is now 181kb, the recommended size is 100kb which is barely exceed by previous seasons. This article bloat is largely due to a surfeit of individual citations for results for the the preliminary round. These are unnecessary when the FA Cup home page has a single page to access the results for each round. As it stands the citations are for only 16 fixtures out of a possible 500+. Completing the citations appears not only unlikely but unjustified, and it would be preferable that instead that the existing results citations should be removed/replaced. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corinthian F.C.

Corinthian Football Club (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_F.C._(Kent)) played against Metropolitan Police in the First Round, but the link suggests that Metropolitan Police played against the Corinthians team who are not Corinthian Casuals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corinthian_F.C.)

Can someone amend this please?

See here for evidence: https://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/match/2022-2023/fa-cup/metropolitan-police/corinthian/423367 82.0.17.147 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]