Talk:2021 FFA Cup

Placement of Playoff winning A-League clubs in zones

Maybe you know? How come the playoff winners are already placed in the zones (South and West)? If Western United and Glory win it makes sense, but Jets should be in East with Mariners and Sydney, while Victory should be in South with the rest of Melbourne. Matilda Maniac any idea? --SuperJew (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a graphic of this in the reference. How come anything from FA has to make sense? I think if the lower ranked teams win the playoff matches, then they have to move member federation clubs around to make it balance. Jets win so they have to move Cooma tigers to the south? Victory win and Devonport has to travel to WA or SA and participate in the west? Jets or Victory win and at least they have more money to travel further. So my opinion is that they have done it this way assuming that the home playoff teams win. Matilda Maniac (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I also suspect it is because the playoff winners wont be known until too late, and they have to give all clubs the chance to get organised, which is difficult at the moment with rolling lockdowns attempting to control minor COVID-19 outbreaks in the community. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: Yes I saw the reference and understood you updated per it (and of course the FA doesn't make sense ;) ) :) Didn't think of the balance as every zone is a different number of teams (though they are all an even number). Thanks for the thoughts :) --SuperJew (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, recieved confirmation from the FFA Cup that if the away teams win, they will stay in the home team's zone. (not sure if this should be incorporated into the article or not). --SuperJew (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Home and away format

What's sad is that after Wellington having to play just about the whole A-League season away, they still don't get the opportunity to play a single home game in this cup. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Please don't use the talk page as a forum. It is for discussion about the article, not a place to discuss the topic of the article itself. See the bottom bullet here. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Zones

Do you guys think this is unnecessary to keep, past the point of the matches being played for the Round of 32? Couldn't this be added in a simple footnote, showing that the teams were placed in "geographic" zones for this season. It's clearly just a kneejerk reaction from the FFA in order to not be screwed over by COVID lockdowns and whatnot. I can see this zone nonsense being lifted immediately after COVID has pissed off from our lives. - J man708 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Tigers FC vs. Cooma Tigers

Hoping to resolve a dispute over what to call the team from Cooma. According to the club's website, while the overarching club is called Cooma FC (or unofficially, Cooma Tigers), the official name of the NPL side is Tigers FC. This is also what is represented in the NPL side's crest, which differs from the crest used by overall club. They are also called Tigers FC by the FFA, NPL, and Capital Football.

While I disagree with @J man708 that WP:COMMONNAME is even relevant here (since it regards article titles, which isn't what we're talking about), WP:COMMONNAME nonetheless requires support from independent sources. The Canberra Times have generally switched from calling them Cooma Tigers to Tigers FC in recent years (3 times as many search hits for "Tigers FC" in 2021 vs. "Cooma Tigers"), which suggests that the common name is actually Tigers FC. J man708 provided sources like the club's Instagram (@coomatigersfc) and Twitter (@CoomaTigersNPL) handles to support WP:COMMONNAME, even though both accounts refer to the NPL side as Tigers FC in actual posts. And even if those non-independent sources were relevant for WP:COMMONNAME, there are also non-independent sources that suggest the name Tigers FC is correct, like the club's website (see link above) and the name used by the NPL side on Facebook (Tigers FC NPL1).

J man708 has also said that there is a need to disambiguate between this club and other clubs in the tournament that are nicknamed "Tigers". But we haven't done the same for Lions FC. Linking to the correct article is enough to disambiguate in that case, and should be here. We wouldn't call the Scottish club Glasgow Rangers to disambiguate that team from other "Rangers" clubs, because "Rangers" alone is enough in the context of the article in which it's used. Likewise, referring to the NPL side by their official name, linking to the correct article, and placing an ACT flag next to the first mention of its name in the article should be enough context that we don't have to add the incorrect qualifier "Cooma". The fact that the club's round of 32 opponent APIA Leichhardt FC (a club that until last year was nicknamed "Tigers") calls their opponents "Tigers FC" seems to refute the idea anyone is going to be confused by calling Tigers FC by its official, common name. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for other frequent editors of this article: @SuperJew, @Matilda Maniac, @HeyGuysItsMe, @Flix11. Bmf 051 (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In general, I think we should display the names as per FFA Cup's listing (which in this case is "Tigers FC") as was brought above. (small general sidenote regarding the comment about APIA's Facebook comment - they tagged the club's page on FB, so don't have a choice of what name is displayed) --SuperJew (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just adding on here, I wholeheartedly agree that Lions FC should be given the additional name of whatever they identify with. Shamrock Rovers Darwin were only referred to as SRD after qualifying, North Eastern MetroStars are just called MetroStars in media here in SA… We’ve done this before without it being a big issue. Also, what irks me out of this isn’t the name change, it’s the lack of changing it in every other article. - J man708 (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@J man708: Fair, I agree it should be consistent. Per FFA press released from 2019, they were named "Tigers FC" there too, so I would say change on 2019 FFA Cup and FFA Cup appearances also. --SuperJew (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because it hasn't been changed in other articles doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. If that were the measuring stick, we'd have a lot more WP:STONEWALLING. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@SuperJew: I was referring to the graphic, not the tag. The graphic was produced for their Facebook page, and says Tigers FC. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh fair go. Interesting though that they used the Cooma logo and not the Tigers logo. --SuperJew (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

At least we seem to agree on making it uniform, referring to them as one consistent name throughout all season articles (where possible). I doubt that there any compromises we can come up with. I’d throw up the idea of calling them “Cooma FC” and being done with it, but that seems to be a less accurate name for the club to be referred to as. - J man708 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

But how is "Cooma FC" better than "Cooma Tigers", let alone "Tigers FC"? While clearly the official name of the overarching club, "Cooma FC" (like "Cooma Tigers") is not used by the FFA, NPL, etc. to refer to the NPL side. And it's used even less than "Cooma Tigers" by third-party sources. "Tigers FC" is the official name for the NPL side, and it is used more by all the above sources. This seems pretty cut and dry. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not at all. I just said it to bring up that a compromise may not work. - J man708 (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Using Bmf 051's point about "Cooma Tigers" being used less in third-party sources, if we look at player Al Hassan Toure, pretty much all statistic websites (Transfermarkt, Goal and Soccerway to name a few) refer to the player's first name being "Alhassan" and even his own personal Facebook account says the same. Even with all of this, he is referred to as "Al Hassan" on his wiki page, AUFC website and third-party sources. If we apply this logic then they should be dubbed "Tigers FC" for consistency with how they are named by the competition's organisers. Thoughts? - HeyGuysItsMe (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't seen this till now. I don't see how his name supports calling them Tigers FC? It's like saying that England's 1986 World Cup squad has two Gary Stevens, even though we place people's surnames on the squad template, for these two, we have disambiguated them with their middle initial. This creates the logic that we must disambiguate wherever possible. - J man708 (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Does it though? Or does it mean we should disambiguate wherever necessary (not wherever possible)? The point I was making above with "Glasgow Rangers" vs. "Rangers" is that disambiguation isn't necessary when enough context is given. Bmf 051 (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@J man708: Do you still have an objection if we make the change to all the articles mentioned above? --SuperJew (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it bad that I'd like to just see if we can get any other input to it, first? - J man708 (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Not at all Jman! --SuperJew (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@J man708:@SuperJew: I think sufficient time has now passed for others to give input. It seems clear that "Tigers FC" is the consensus. I will make the changes shortly, unless I hear otherwise. Bmf 051 (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude, a 2-1 vote isn't a consensus. Chill. Give it a week. - J man708 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@J man708: It is 3–1 at this point, but consensus isn't a straight vote anyway. It's based on the quality of arguments. One side has provided arguments for calling them "Tigers FC", based on policy and sources. You (the only nay vote) have yet to dispute any of those arguments. Putting it plainly: do you have any thoughts on the third-party sources that use "Tigers FC" over "Cooma Tigers"? Why should we disregard those?

There certainly has been opportunity for more people to join the discussion. I've pinged every frequent editor of this article. I've also posted a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force. Feel free to do something similar. But if you're just waiting around for someone to come along and make an argument on your behalf, that's just stonewalling. Bmf 051 (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And you didn’t dispute mine? The issues I stated with ambiguity. Instead you just waited 3 days before changing it, rather than the week that you should wait. Of course I wouldn’t call others into this to support my claim - that’s called canvassing. I haven’t shown any signs of stonewalling, rather figuring that waiting until the weekend when more people are active. But you went ahead and decided yourself to be the final boss on this matter and decided when to cal it closed, by editing the article to how you see fit. I haven’t edited it back and you then respond on here in order to what? Gloat? Jesus, WP:DBAD - J man708 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@J man708: I disputed yours in my very first post, for one. If there's an argument you've made that I've missed, please let me know. And you still haven't addressed the third-party sources that other editors have brought up. Also posting neutral, informative messages to noticeboards and editors are permitted, even encouraged. Please explain how either this post or this one are anything but neutral.

"I haven’t edited it back and you then respond on here in order to what? Gloat? Jesus, WP:DBAD" I don't know what you're talking about here. You replied to my comment and I replied to yours. No one is gloating.

There is no mandatory minimum length for consensus discussions. In this case, the discussion has stabilized. The rate of other editors contributing has slowed, and at this point we are all just repeating ourselves. If you have something new to add to the discussion, by all means say it. Bmf 051 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Year/Season name change?

Since it is played in 2021 and 2022 shouldn't the name of the FFA Cup season be titled: “2021–22 FFA Cup”? Just a suggestion, however!

Nope, it's still stylised officially as the 2021 FFA Cup (see here for example). --SuperJew (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)