Talk:Association football/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Spelling Error

3rd sentence of 1st paragraph: "manoeuvring" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.118.196.201 (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

British English. – Elisson • T • C • 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• British English sometimes spells maneuver as "manoeuvre" (derived from the oe ligature).SteveSims 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sometimes. Always. For that is the official spelling of the word as dictated by the OED. - PeeJay 21:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Some traction on the naming debate

For the sake of being able to sensibly archive sections at a later date I'm splitting this.

While there may not be an overall consensus, at the point the argument for change appears to be in favour of moving to association football. The argument is as follows:

1. It is prudent to have this out again despite supposed discussion-to-death in the past, as a number of current contributors feel that the title "association football" was not given sufficient attention in the past.
2. WP:NAME 1.6 states that pages should go by their most common names where possible. A majority of anglophones with a vested interest in the sport accept "association football" as its official title, and "association football" is the sport's official title in all anglophone nations with a governing body.
3. WP:NAME 1.7 states that pages should be named precisely where this is prudent. The title "association football" is more precise than the title "football", which is the article's current significant identifier.
4. WP:NAME 1.11 states that pages should not suggest a hierarchy where none exists. The current title suggests either that football is a sub-category of soccer, or that soccer is a sub-category of football. While it could be argued that soccer is a "type of football", few would suggest that "football" is considered to be a generic term for sports involving balls and feet.

Position statements for counter-arguments would be nice. Chris Cunningham 11:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend to make any further comment on the grounds that debating a title doesn't do much to improve an encyclopedia, and this whole thing is pretty much the definition of no consensus, but the most prominent counterargument (by no means the only one, but the most prominent one) is that of common names, which could be summarised as:

• The "in a nutshell" description of WP:NAME opens with the statement Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. Association football does not meet this description.
• WP:NAME 1.6 states that pages should go by their most common names where possible. Association football is a less common name than football or soccer.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of the hierarchy argument, which judging by WP:NAME 1.11 refers to articles named X in Y rather than X (Y). Oldelpaso 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

With nearly 4000 articles on my watchlist I didn't intend to revisit this debate again, but since some seem to still be trying to rename this I wish to put on record my strong opposition to renaming. "Football (soccer)" is perfectly adequate, especially allowing for piped links; nobody habitually refers to the sport as "association football", regardless of the names of any organisations. I fully support Oldelpaso's arguments quoting WP:NAME. -- Arwel (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

nobody habitually refers to the sport as "association football", - not many rather than nobody - but what IS almost certain is that absolutely nobody habitually refers to it as football parenthesis soccer. Jooler 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Oldelpaso and Arwel Parry. To summarise it:

1. Ok.
2. Use common names of persons and things supports the current article title, not "association football". While the later may be the original term for the sport, it is not the most common term (and not common at all). And "official titles" does not matter, Sweden is not at Kingdom of Sweden.
3. Be precise when necessary supports both article titles, neither "football (soccer)" nor "association football" has any ambiguity. Thus this argument does not support a move to the later title as it supports both titles. This would be an argument if the article was at football, though.
4. Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles concerns only articles which combine two (or more) subjects. This would be a valid argument for moving Football (England) or England (football) to Football in England, but it has no meaning in this discussion.

This, IMHO totally meaningless, discussion has cost a lot of time for a lot of editors, time that could have been better spent on improving football related articles. – Elisson • T • C • 13:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Use common names of persons and things does not support the current title. "Football (soccer)" is not a term for the sport, common or otherwise; it is an invented term.
2. WP:D#Specific topic sets out the acceptable ways parentheses may be used to disambiguate a topic. "Football (soccer)" does not accord with any of these.
3. WP:NAME 1.6 ("the most common name") would support "Football" or "Soccer", but not "Football (soccer)".
4. WP:COMMONNAME says "use the most common name". It does not say "use the two most common names".
5. The "in a nutshell" description of WP:NAME might appear to support "football (soccer)"; however, using it as a justification to mash together two titles into a hybrid ignores the rest of WP:NAME.
6. WP:COMMONNAME#Exceptions indicates that less common names are to be used for enhanced precision, cleaner disambiguation and/or solution of naming conflicts, which might lead to article names that are rather "the most obvious" than strictly spoken "the most used"

Also, allow me to point out that the "piped links" argument is bogus; football (soccer) will continue to exist as a redirect once this page is moved. –EdC 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Was that arguments against "football (soccer)", or arguments for "association football"? You may find it surprising to discover that there are very few, if any, editors that are 100 % pleased with the current title (I am not), but arguing against something without presenting a good alternative gets us nowhere. – Elisson • T • C • 17:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see "association football" as an ideal title. Nevertheless, it has some currency, and it satisfies WP:COMMONNAME#Exceptions. In truth, article naming criteria often aren't about picking the best title, but selecting the least worst. In that regard, "association football", whose main minus — that it is not a common name — is shared by "football (soccer)", is the only reasonable option. –EdC 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is quite clear that a greater number of people on here who have expressed their opinion on the matter disagree with you. There is no consensus to change the title, therefore it will not happen. It is pointless continuing this debate. -- Arwel (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not clear at all Arwel and I'd wish you'd objectively look at the points EdC raises rather than continually refering to old and non-conclusive debates. "football (soccer)" has no currency. Jooler 23:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that original debate that led to this page being at football (soccer) did not present the argument for the name of "association football" with sufficient force. Imagine that we are back there and that the page is residing at football. Who now would argue that it should be moved to "football parenthesis soccer"? Of course the title of this article extens to various subpages. Do people really think that History of football (soccer) is better than History of association football? Jooler 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In full support of Edc, Jooler, Chris Cunningham, etc.. and the policy's they have referenced in regards to changing the name to association football. Football (soccer) is not, the name of this or any sport; association football is the official name and thus the article should be placed there.

As far back as 2003 users have complained about the awful, embarassing title of this article[1]...

Can't we put it under Association football? Please? It just sounds wrong at the moment. Bagpuss 00:40 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Darn it, I still want it under the right title and football (soccer) is a really awkward way of putting it. We have an article called rugby football after all.

And it will continue to pop up every month, with numerous different users trying to get it changed to the correct title. This is clearly a long running problem and it needs sorting now. Seriously, this debate has been running for four years, put it in its correct place and then the project can move forward in regards to the sport. - Deathrocker 14:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and you honestly believe that if we would move this article to association football, we would no longer have people complaining about the article title? I believe we would get a large amount of "why is this article at a name that no one uses" and "hey, the sport's name is soccer, not association football, let's move it". – Elisson • T • C • 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Its worth a try, it can't be any worse than it is now and atleast it would be under the official name of the sport. - Deathrocker 11:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since there is absolutely no consensus for a move, I see no reason whatsoever to "try" it. And as mentioned before, I doubt you could call "association football" the "official name". FIFA uses it very sparsely (and almost only when clarification is needed), and IOC doesn't use it at all (IIRC). – Elisson • T • C • 15:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Google - "official name" "association football". The usage of the IOC and FIFA are aguments for moving it to "fooball" but that option is precluded to us. The IOC and FIFA certainly do not use "football parenthesis soccer". Jooler 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

FIFA's Statutes (effectively their constitution; http://www.fifa.com/en/regulations/regulation/0,1584,1,00.html) clearly define the sport they run as Association Football. Where there is no ambiguity FIFA usually shorten that to Football, but only seem to use the colloquialism 'soccer' when refering to football in the US ReadingOldBoy 10:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to claim that there is "absolutely no consensus". It is evident from recent debate that "association football" has broad consensus amongst those who dislike the current title. Consensus need not be unanimous.

I also believe that in the spirit of being bold the article should be moved as an experiment. Chris Cunningham 14:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Errr? "It is evident from recent debate that 'association football' has broad consensus amongst those who dislike the current title." Sure. But you just can't disregard the opinion of those that don't agree with you, and then call out "we have a consensus". If we could do that, I'd say that we have a broad consensus to let this page stay here, amongst those who like the current title. And please re-read WP:BOLD, specifically Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages#…but don't be reckless, and also WP:POINT#State your point; don't prove it experimentally. Moving this page without first reaching a consensus would only lead to a move war, making any further discussion impossible. – Elisson • T • C • 17:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is actually arguing for the current title. They're just arguing against moving it. I seriously doubt anyone is attached enough to the current compromise to actively move it back at this point. Chris Cunningham 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you missed the whole above discussion? – Elisson • T • C • 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, this is the kind of talk page messages that would appear if we moved this article to association football... – Elisson • T • C • 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Every article gets anons yelling in the talk page from time to time, though. Chris Cunningham 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that this is another inconclusive debate. Jooler 18:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask why you're willing to torpedo this? There have been no new arguments against moving it. I'd advise finding someone with permissions and using this thread as a good reason to give moving it another shot. Chris Cunningham 19:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If you believe this discussion to be some sort of reason for a move, then I believe you should re-read it. What do you mean by "There have been no new arguments against moving it"? There are loads of arguments against moving it. – Elisson • T • C • 19:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Loads? Above, I can see two: that it is better under WP:NAME (which it is not), and that "association football" would invite move requests from less articulate contributors. Is that really all the argument there is for keeping the current mess? –EdC 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the untruthful tag from the top of this page which says "It has been decided that..." it is clear that keeping the title as it is, is heavily disputed. If you tallied up the users saying the title should be association football instead there are probably more than those who want to keep it as it is. The only thing is, the few who want it kept as it is happen to be admins. - Deathrocker 13:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While neither are perfect titles, association football is far more suited to being the title of this article as it is the official title of the sport. The term "soccer" is used much more sparingly and is not really appropriate as the title of this artice. If anyone wishes to link to "soccer", then they can do so because that would still lead to this article, so I see no reason not move this page back to association football. Dave101 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it far more suited? It is a name that no one actually uses, which goes against the most fundamental naming convention (use common names). How much I may dislike "soccer", it is a term that is used by a large number of people interrested in the sport, mainly in the United States (which has the largest number of players of all countries in the world), but also in Australia, South Africa and parts of Ireland. – Elisson • T • C • 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't called "soccer". It is called "football (soccer)". Do you have any objection to it being called "(association) football (soccer)"? That's no more of an egrecious compromise than the current. Chris Cunningham 19:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever say the title of this article was "soccer"? I just gave an argument to keep soccer in the title. – Elisson • T • C • 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you gave an argument to move the article to "soccer". However you parse it, "football (soccer)" is not the name of a sport, let alone a common name, any more than "grey (gray)" is the name of a colour. –EdC 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I gave an argument for keeping "soccer" in the title in some way. Do not try to put words in my mouth. And please note that (soccer) functions as a disambiguation more than actually adding anything to the name, just like neither you nor me actually believes that John Smith (BBC) was named "John Smith (BBC)" by his parents. – Elisson • T • C • 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved that article to the preferred title John Smith (BBC executive). "(soccer)" cannot function as disambiguation, because it does not constitute a class, context or adjective that can qualify the term "football". Your above argument – (paraphrased; correct me if I'm wrong) that "soccer" is a widely used term – can only support an argument for the article to be at that name, or to be at a name derived therefrom through disambiguation. I could have said "your argument is invalid", but that would be liable to misinterpretation; it is a valid premise, it just doesn't support your position. –EdC 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stupid questions

When writing Wikipedia articles, should it be AET or aet? PSO or pso? Thanks. --Howard the Duck 17:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer lowercase, which also makes a lot more sense, we aren't abbreviating "After Extra Time", we're abbreviating "after extra time". BTW, if you have further questions not directly related to this article but related to football articles in general, post them at the football project talk page. – Elisson • T • C • 18:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

For penalties, pens is probably a more common abbreviation. Oldelpaso 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks both, I use the lowercaps convention but Wikipedia is inconsistent with what to use. Thanks again. --Howard the Duck 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

3rd Sentence - Grammar Errors?

3rd sentence - grammar errors?: "A ball game, it is played on a rectangular grass field, or occasionally on artificial turf, with a goal at each end of the field.".

Should it be: "A ball game, played on a rectangular grass field, or occasionally on artificial turf, with a goal at each end of the field."

OR

"It is a ball game, played on a rectangular grass field, or occasionally on artificial turf, with a goal at each end of the field."?--Jon987 01:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first option no verb. The second is pretty much the same as the current sentence, so why bother changing it? The current text is perfectly grammatical. –EdC 18:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A god by any other name...

American football, Canadian football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football, Association football. 220.253.52.9 15:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving this

There doesn't appear to be anything preventing non-admins from moving the page. The only previous edit to the association football page was a move from a previous admin with, predictably, a note saying "this is contrary to policy". There's no clear discussion about it being contrary to policy aside from the "most common name" argument (where it's been shown that "football (soccer)" isn't the most common name anyway) and general stubbornness, so I'm ready to try moving this again. If it doesn't kill debate then fine, but that isn't in itself a reason to permanently block a move on the basis of a handful of disagreements. Chris Cunningham 09:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrible though the current name is I don't think there is much to gain by entering into a conflict by moving it. There seems to be a consensus amoungst a number of admins that it should stay here so here it will stay. Moving it gets us nowhere if those set against it being moved keep returning it. Atleast it seems fairly stable under Football(Soccer), shudder. ReadingOldBoy 09:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call eleven discrete talk page arguments over the space of four years "stable". It's currently "stable" because those in favour of the status quo are admins, according to the note above; not because there's a broad consensus. Chris Cunningham 10:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

By stable I meant that it wasn't being moved about, it has stayed here for some time: I suspect if it is moved without convincing those in favour of the status quo (and I'm not sure that is possible) it will just end up going back and forth (or round and round if other suggestions are used). I agree that 'it was decided ages ago so shut up' is a crude argument (particularly as there was little consensus at the time) and doesn't represent a real consensus, but I'm not sure moving it would improve matters. ReadingOldBoy 10:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As there is majority concensus to move (as per the debate above)... and the ones who want to keep it as it is are in the minority I adhered to Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages and moved it. - Deathrocker 10:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that those opposed to the move will assume good faith and ride this out for a while to see if it generates any negative commentary. Chris Cunningham 11:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the way to handle a move discussion. There is no majority consensus for a move. And if there were, there should be no reason to rush such a decision when it affects hundreds of articles and categories. Stop making a mess of this. – Elisson • T • C • 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This was not a "rush" decision. It was the result of an extended period of discussion and debate, including practically all bureaucracy normally associated with such moves. I cannot see this as anything other than a personal veto. Chris Cunningham 18:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You have disregarded all the voices that has expressed a dislike for such a move. That's what you've done. Nothing else. Claiming "majority consensus" when there is no such thing is a rush decision. – Elisson • T • C • 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The current name states clearly that it is soccer, for those of us in America. I oppose the proposed move. Xiner (talk, email) 18:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too. --Guinnog 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the parentheses tell me it's an alternate name, not a hierarchy. Xiner (talk, email) 18:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Including alternate names in titles is not supported by Wikipedia article naming policy, as I understand it. –EdC 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And neither is the usage of archaic terms. We have to, as a Swedish proverb says, chose between plague and cholera, and then I prefer to stay with the disease I've already gotten used to... – Elisson • T • C • 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly an archaism; it's a formal term used primarily for purposes of disambiguation. As I understand it, naming policy supports using formal terms ahead of invented terms, if the obvious common terms (in this case "football" or "soccer") are nonviable. –EdC 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why though? Why? Why? Why? More people call it football. 'Soccer' is mostly used by people who HATE the sport which is why so many Americans and Australians from Melbourne come here and attack this page and its name. There's no reason to change the name of this page unless you have a deep seeded hatred of football or resent its popularity.

How many people attack the American football page demanding it be called Gridiron or Gridder? --202.47.51.73 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Chill out, 202. Nobody is attacking anybody. Xiner, I agree with your logic. Experience suggests that trying to move a page like this that has been stable for a while will cause far more trouble than the proposed change would merit. Football (soccer) is as good as a name we will get, given the diversity of nationalities contributing here. --Guinnog 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's bold, and there's reckless. There was/is no consensus for a move. Oldelpaso 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

After only reading the first six or so comments in the above "debate" I'll quote one line back to you,

"this whole thing is pretty much the definition of no consensus." - Oldelpaso

Oldelpaso, Arwel and Elisson were against the move, and those for the move were Chris Cunningham, Jooler, EdC, Deathrocker and ReadingOldBoy. That's a 5:3 split — not a consensus. Do you understand what a consensus is? It means "general agreement" and hopes for unanimous agreement. You have 38% in disagreement, that isn't far off a 50/50 split, and it's certainly not a consensus. aLii 18:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention User:Angelo.romano and User:Gasheadsteve that also opposed the move. – Elisson • T • C • 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that in Wikipedia discussions "consensus" is usually taken as meaning at least 75-80% of the participants in the debate being agreed on something. This move was nowhere near consensus. -- Arwel (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And where was the consensus for Johan Elisson to move it back?... there wasn't, just administrative hypocrisy. - Deathrocker 07:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrr... If you didn't have consensus for a move in the first place (other than in your mind), why would I be wrong in moving it back? I think you'll have to explain that to me in more detail. – Elisson • T • C • 13:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter what title this article is at. Football is the location most supported by a strict reading of naming convention policy, but there are obvious reasons why that isn't viable. What does matter is that article can be linked to in a sensible manner. In most articles the link should appear as "football": [[football (soccer)|]] does that job nicely. When disambiguation is needed, you would use association football. Likewise with US articles use the redirect at soccer. There is a problem with the first sentence of Football Federation Australia: It should either call the sport either "association football" or "soccer" in the lead sentence (whichever is more appropriate), and revert to just "football" or "soccer" in the remainder of the article. I thought I'd make an observation of tangential importance: EB uses "Football (soccer)" as the title for its article on this sport. There is no consensus for the location of this article and there likely never will be.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose the move association football. It's an archaic expression anyway, and soccer means that those Australian/American readers will automatically identify the article as football. Even if assocciation football was the slightly better option, it's not worth doing it just for the shear amount of changes we'd have to do. HornetMike 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the move because I believe that "soccer" seems more common than "association football", at least from my perspective. CanbekEsen 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Australians refer to football as football. --202.47.52.134 00:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right, Australian rules football or rugby league football are both football. Soccer is soccer in Australian English. Grant | Talk 19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)