Talk:2012 Scottish Cup final

Scottish Cup finals

The number of finals by both Hearts and Hibs doesn't add up in the pre-match section. It says they've both been in one more final than is listed. Also it's unsourced. Adam4267 (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The text is correct. It states that the 2012 final was Hearts' 14th and Hibs' 12th, it then lists the previous finals (13 and 11 respectively). James Morrison (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Scottish Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) 11:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Have made a minor change, hope you don't mind. No issues with reliability of sourcing, just some quibbles about prose:

• One dablink needs fixing
• Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT, specifically rowscopes need to be added. See 2012 Football League Cup Final for example.
• Is Twitter an appropriate source for the match programme rationale?
• sent-off and extra-time do not require a hyphen
• Under 'Route to the final' it is fine to remove the brackets in 'Hibernian (Hibs)' and likewise 'Heart of Midlothian (Hearts)' as you have introduced them in the lead.
• "Suso Santana had won the penalty but was accused of diving by the St. Johnstone players and manager." needs ref
• "Hasselbaink then scored a goal which was ruled out because the referee had not given St. Mirren an advantage." likewise needs ref
• "looked offisde" bold word misspelt
• There are several instances of WP:OVERLINK: Scottish Premier League being one, Hampden Park another
• Media coverage need citations to confirm the match was broadcast on BBC One Scotland/Sky Sports, as well as radio commentary provided by BBC Radio Scotland.

Otherwise happy to pass. On hold. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lemonade, thanks for the quick review. I will get to those things tomorrow - but I justed wanted to point out now that those two refs you asked for are already there. They are just at the end of the next sentence. I added those bits and I personally don't see the need for the same ref at the end of two consecutive sentences. But I will change it if you's prefer that. Cheers Adam4267 (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that changes have been made, I will be happy to pass. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Victory parade

Would it be good in the post match section to include details of the hearts parade and attendance for it. [1][2][3] and maybe the fact it was exposed to the legionella outbreak in edinburgh.[4] Just an idea.E W 23:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the legionella thing. But definitely add info about the victory parade. Adam4267 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not so bothered about that. There are loads of sources on the victory parade, including Hibs chosen route, and even trivial things like how the selected the driver to drive the bus[5][6] and even the fact they don't paint the bus until full time.[7]. Not suggesting that be included just its amazing the trivial things you can find out about a victory parade.E W 23:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lede/Repetition

Repetition of information in lede and third paragraph. Formerly removed, subsequently edited for clarity and style. One editor has overstepped 3RR, and now another at same game. Discuss here or go to arbitration. --82.41.20.198 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• re: Blethering Scot. Agree to disagree. Consensus again' me. Reads weird, though... --82.41.20.198 (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually he hasn't overstepped WP:3RR that would be 4 reverts i count three, I count 4 from you however. And actually a lead should summarise the contents of the article therefore info can and should be replicated. Also the other version makes more sense than yours. Im not getting involved in this discuss at will but don't edit war. Blethering Scot 21:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to stand alone from the rest of the article, hence the repetition. As an IP user, you can hardly be blamed for not knowing this (particularly as to a newcomer our rules can seem endless), but for reference we have a guideline explaining it at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. You've done the right thing by taking this to talk, which is more than I can say for some of our more regular editors who've got involved in this. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Summarise, yes. Repeat verbatim, no. The other IP made what looked to me to be a constructive edit. Will revert. --92.40.111.160 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Im not seeing the need for this at all. Two IP's possibly the same don't know but this is ridiculous article is barely edited. Talk before this gets out of hand all of you. Im not a style expert but it looks totally fine to me other than repetition which should happen. Oldelpaso do you think the wording is ok because the edit also changed the wording. Blethering Scot 21:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree the article is fine the way it is. It is consistant with other cup finals like the 2012 FA Cup Final and I feel we should keep that consistency up. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a particular problem with either wording overall. Prefer "winning goal" to the informal "winner", and favour the IP version of the first bit, but with the numbers written in words as they're below 20. I find the edit war over something so minor ludicrous. I might have been be tempted to full-protect the article if I wasn't about to go to bed, which is never a good time to do an admin action. For what its worth the IPs are about 200 miles apart, and different ISPs. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that also different countries if you think of it that way.Blethering Scot 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)