Talk:2016 FFA Cup preliminary rounds

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Soccer Low‑importance 2016 FFA Cup preliminary rounds is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Australian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

These numbers are now finalized, but are they entirely accurate ? Like last year, there seems to be a discrepancy in the number of fixtures in the 2016 Schedule, where is doesnt add up for Round 3. Trying to cross-check against the number of fixtures i can up with being 11 teams out. I just tallied the Queensland entries and came up with 115 not 113, but probably got confused with respect to the byes. Can someone with patience and time on their hands (? @J man708:) double check the maths? Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Also, the corresponding 2015 Schedule doesn't add up either for Round 5 : it's one out, but I'm guessing thats to do with the elimination of North Eastern MetroStars who still remained in the competition as NPL champions. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll get on it soon. Also Metrostars' elimination did make the numbers out by one, but you're exactly right. NEM were the other team who were eliminated in qualifying, but qualified anyway. - J man708 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The QLD NPL clubs weren't counted into Queensland's numbers. It's now only out by 1 somewhere. - J man708 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just going to be something really shitty that we've just overlooked. - J man708 (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more Qld team - now up to 124. (there's a list on J man708's talk page). Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cross checked it with this. Definitely 124 teams in QLD - J man708 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so all is  Done. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please have some thoughts as to whether to format this article . . .

• By Round (and then within each round listed by Federation), as per 2014 FFA Cup preliminary rounds ; or
• By Federation (and then within each federation listed by round), as per 2015 FFA Cup preliminary rounds ?

Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 2c worth : strongly in favour of 2014 format ; (surprise, surprise). Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background - The only other national cup I can think of which is regionally based is the Russian Cup. Their pages have the rounds listed together. Like the FFA Cup, the Russian Cup has staggered starting dates and like the FFA Cup, they come together at a specific stage of the competition.

The 2014 qualifying page setup is suitable (arguably) enough for the 2014 article ONLY, as the matches weren't organised to finish at the same round and rough timeframe. But, with EVERY state having staggered starts in order to choreograph their final matches to be played in Round 7, it's no doubt in my mind that the 2015 article is the way to go. - J man708 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who frequented the 2014 and 2015 pages quite regularly, allow me to give a bit of user feedback. Overall, the fact that the preliminary rounds are all organised to finish with round 7 means that, in my opinion, the 2015 format makes more sense. However, there were a few aspects of the format that were incredibly annoying from a user's perspective - Firstly, the way in which the results for a particular state federation can occasionally be split across two tables (the QLD results for most rounds in the 2015 article, for example) makes it much harder to find the results for specific teams, as the user is forced to look in two locations for it. Possible solutions could be to either have separate tables for each state federation within each round, or alternatively to keep the results for each federation in the same table, even if it means that the two tables in each round differ in length by a few rows. The other main issue that I had with the format is the fact that the rows that separate each state federation in the tables are formatted almost identically to the rows that note the results of penalty shoot-outs or walkovers. This issue in particular made it incredibly difficult to find information in the 2015 article. Possible solutions could be to, again, split the state federations into separate tables within each round, or alternatively to have the the first four fields (State, Zone, Sub-Zone, and Tie No) span two rows in the event of a shoot-out or walkover, so that the result of said shoot-out or walkover only occupies the width of the last three columns (Home Team, Score, and Away Team). - Ser Tahu (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S One other thing I thought I might add: given that the results within each table are already grouped by state federation, the 'State' column feels somewhat redundant. - Ser Tahu (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with the above user. I think the 2015 format is better, but also that the State Column is a bit redundant when it's already broken up with headings per State already. --TinTin (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful comments, thanks to all. (@J man708:@TinTin:@Ser Tahu:) I've collated some of these suggestions into different scenarios for how it would look using last years' Round 2 as an example.

I have collated them here: ffa cup table format. Any thoughts as to which of these (or combinations thereof) would make this less "incredibly annoying from a user's perspective" ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2+3, the one I prefer is a combination of options 2 and 3. Also requires little effort in reformatting. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3, with a link to each football member federation's page in the first match of each of the first matches for that federation. That seems best to me. It also requires little reformatting, while getting rid of the repeated information. - J man708 (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC) I've updated that scenario for you, although some links from last year are to the respective state cup articles (where they exist) rather than the federation page.Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Option2+4 - I prefer penalties to be de-emphasized, removing the state column but retaining the state headings.--TinTin (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - De-emphasising the penalties/walkovers notes would be problematic for clubs with longer names, potentially wrapping around onto a second line. When I initially created the 2015 tables, I used the 2013–14 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds as a template, from memory (of course, they don't have state columns there). - J man708 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we could dispense with that part of the format that requires a whole extra line in bold when penalties are taken - no rule that says we have to exactly follow any given template - and adding to the result with (5–4 pen.) or (5–4 p). This would reduce the size of these huge tables. We could similarly remove the extra lines for walkovers and disqualifications ('fielded an ineligible player') by putting that additional information into the Notes section at the bottom. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep in mind that the rows are already pushing at maximum width and inputting penalties onto the same line will cause it to wrap, which defeats the purpose of deleting the extra line. With issues like walkovers and disqualifications, I reckon that's a lot better having under the individual match, otherwise we'd be left with something like this "Kawana SC (3) 5–1 Noosa Lions (3)", with more results underneath it, and making the reader see this as a formatting error (with the team with less goals progressing). The current extra row for information is exactly that. I understand the want to get rid of the state federation rows, but I honestly think the information rows are necessary and probably shouldn't be changed. - J man708 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I like the method that was done earlier today for Second Round which just has w/o, and doesn't require an additional line on what is already a super-long table; where there is some additional information (such as X fielded an ineligible player) then that can be captured at the bottom in the existing notes section. Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

like this :

Comment - If the redundant 'state' column is removed, wouldn't that solve the aforementioned problem that including penalties in the same line could cause it to wrap?

So one of the following ways of handling penalties could be possible: Ser Tahu (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the 'state' column gives sufficient room when you put a 'no-wrap' on the score-with-penalties : a very small proportion of these could still end up on two lines because of the length of the team name, but that is happening anyway ! Sorry @Ser Tahu: for editing your table here (poor form on a talk page?). We could also put one extra blank row in (or a wider row) to emphasize the boundary between Federations, and try and not split Queensland between the two rows. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the 2014 format. The preliminary rounds are federation based on should be displayed as such. The alignment of the rounds across the federations are quite irrelevant. I found the 2015 format very difficult to follow. It is especially difficult if you just want to track the results of one club through their qualifying path. Additionally, the codes for the sub-zones are a bit useless without an explanatory key Umarghdunno (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should come to a verdict on the table format. Can you please comment whether you would prefer to keep the tables as they currently are, or if you would prefer the revised format in the above table? If more people prefer the revised format (or if no one replies to this), then I will go through the main article at some point either this week or next week and update it accordingly. For the record, I obviously prefer the revised format. Ser Tahu (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

change to the revised format in the above table. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why does the above table show a change which is likely to occur, (the revised format without the state column) and also shown is the lack of information rows? Feels like a rider, to me.

These rows are necessary when situations like what happened last year - "Kawana SC (3) 5–1 Noosa Lions (3)" - If we get rid of the row, then that match info just looks so incredibly stupid and incorrect, like it's an typographical error or something. I can't stress enough how much I think this would be a mistake to have taken out of this page, as we're likely to run into some strange events in the lesser rounds of the competition that require significant explanation. - J man708 (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion - Apart from the above comment, I think it's not a bad move to keep the state column and ditch the rows. The rows are better if you're quickly scrolling through or aren't too familiar with the topic - J man708 (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding the "Kawana SC (3) 5–1 Noosa Lions (3)" example, surely in those incredibly rare situations it's not unreasonable to have a note at the bottom of the table to explain it? Ser Tahu (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just leave that as it is, as it has already proven itself useful? - J man708 (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im thinking all sections should be shown as 'Qualifiers' rather than Winners of particular match fixtures at this point, as generally the match-ups are not known until a draw is conducted at the end of each round. Even NSW at this stage, as they might do a full 7 round pre-determined draw, but they havent done so as yet. Matilda Maniac (talk) 08:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just placed it there as a placeholder. Change it how you see fit. - J man708 (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

data from FFNT - about the 5 southern zone entrants - will be on their website today hopefully (it didn't work on Monday as planned for some reason). This information also includes discussion of Round 3 being a "full bye round", due to the inability for Palmerston FC to field a team (both in this competition, and in the NORzone Premier League generally (see NT News article here. However, I've has confirmation from their 'competition relations manager' that Palmerston "withdrew inside 7 days", so it is still a walkover, rather than to describe it as if they never entered the competition at all. Indeed, the Darwin Olympic club's website still had advertising of the match on their homepage the day before the match was scheduled. So it is still 14 teams for NT, and this article currently still shows the correct information. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:)

Currently in the format section it says 11 ACT clubs enter in round 3, where as only 6 teams/3 matches are contained in the results section for round 3 in the ACT. The results section number (6 teams) fits with the teams entered in the table above on the current talk page. I guess I should update the format section? The flow on of this affects the number of teams entering / from the previous round in ACT also in the format section. TinTin (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11 is correct. round 3 will be 5 state league teams plus 1 Capital League team playing the 3 matches, and 5 other Capital League teams getting a bye;

round 4 will be the 3 match winners plus the 5 that got a bye plus the 8 NPL teams = 16 teams = 8 matches. Some details at FFA Cup Website Draw is tomorrow. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No byes for ACT listed in the format section for round 3.....TinTin (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Summary of byes for each round made. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks for your help. TinTin (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]