Talk:1901 FA Cup final

Favourites

This article states that Tottenham Hotspur were considered overwhelming favourites to win the cup. This statement is not supported by any of the press of the time {in fact the opposite is the case, most regarding United as overwhelming favourites due to their league status} Could the writer source where this information was found?

Hi 1901 FA Cup fans.I started the article with information from a cigarette card.The writer was probably a Spurs supporter.Shall we delete that part of the article?Northmetpit 10:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

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.sportingchronicle.com/FACUP/1901.html
  • In 1900–01 FA Cup on 2011-05-25 02:32:18, 404 Not Found
  • In 1900–01 FA Cup on 2011-06-02 00:35:36, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1901 FA Cup Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227122223/http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1901.html to http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1901.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071227122223/http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1901.html to http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/1901.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent updates - feedback.

Hiya No Great Shaker, good job on updating the article, but the second two lead paragraphs seem to be repeated in the background section, I feel it's best to try not repeat the same information you just read. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead is intended to summarise the narrative, per MOS:LEAD, so it's inevitable that there will be some degree of lead content repetition throughout the narrative. The same structure has been used in the 1900, 1902 and 1903 articles. I'm hoping there'll be much more content to come so it will be a day or two before this one can go to GAN. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't get the ISBN change, that longer number is no where on my book. :/ Also, you're not suppose to using headings for single paragraphs. It's kinda bad form. Govvy (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As regards the headings, there is no rule on that, especially as these are tier four headings. As you can see, the article is being expanded (5x since yesterday) and I'm hoping that quite a lot more information will be added. When I have finished the expansion, I will consider the structure which, for now, is the same as in the 1900, 1902 and 1903 articles. It would be best to wait and see what the article looks like when construction is complete and then any polishing and fine-tuning can be done. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in a speech after the 1901 FA Cup Final, General Sir Redvers Buller compared football to the Army by saying that the winning side is usually the one best practised at shooting? Source: "The Football Association Cup – The Final Tie". The Times, 22 April 1901, page 11. London: Times Newspapers Limited.
  • ALT1:... that Sheffield United's equalising goal in the 1901 FA Cup Final has been called "one of the most controversial ever scored in a final"? Source: Collett, Mike (2003). The Complete Record of the FA Cup, page 28. Cheltenham: SportsBooks Ltd.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/O Captain! My Captain!
• Comment: article has been expanded more than 5x since 28 October

5x expanded by No Great Shaker (talk). Self-nominated at 15:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

• Article is well written with quality references, with no close paraphrasing. The length and date are sufficient. The illustrations are free of copyright and well used to illuminate the prose. A brilliant read. The hook is slightly long, I've had difficultly trimming it though. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1872 FA Cup Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)