Talk:Association football/Archive 10

I've just removed a bit of duplication for the article, most notably a few misplaced, duplicate or redundant templates. I don't think this has removed anything which isn't already prominently linked.

I also tweaked our image use. if this adversely affects how the article reads on lower-resolution screen please give a shout. Chris Cunningham 12:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So parts of this were reverted without discussion. Quelle surprise.

• The main links and subheaders are superfluous in the extreme: this isn't a paper encyclopedia, seealso and main links are for things which can't be adequately wikilinked in the article body.
• MoS recommends not using headers for three-line paragraphs.
• MoS likewise recommends keeping markup simple. Piped links where the end result is the same with either wording should be de-piped.

Chris Cunningham 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay:

• I can understand the {{main}} thing although the only things I found in any MoS about that was the note "Whenever you break up a page, please note the split (including the page names between double square brackets) in the edit summary. Add {{Main}} to the top of the section that is being split out, to indicate where the main article for that section is." on Wikipedia:Summary style and "In each section, a summary of the related sub-article, and a link to the sub-article in italics. You can use this template for the link - {{Main}}." on Wikipedia:Article series. I reinserted the subheaders to maintain some sort of conformity, since this is a summary style article, most sections are summaries of other articles and that should clearly be indicated, even though the link may show up again in the text. (And you removed a link to the Laws of the Game that can't be found in the section now, one has to go back a few sections to find it.)
• On the other hand, placing offside (football) under the fouls and misconduct misleads the reader as offside is not a foul, and not misconduct. Was that a better choice? I doubt it.
• And when one has actually bothered to add a piped link to skip the redirect, what is the point in removing the piped link? That one I cannot really understand.

– Elisson • T • C • 12:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• main tags and the like are for navigation through articles where the exit points are non-trivial. In the case of these sections, there was almost always (laws of the game aside) a direct link to the relevant sub-article in the first sentence of the section itself. In the case of the laws of the game section, another normal wikilink to the term here would be preferable. (templates are nice and all, but given that they don't add anything to an article in themselves, normal links are preferable because they don't break up an article's flow. articles should try not to look like portals even when they contain lots and lots of subsections. We have real portal pages for that.)
• The offside section should be moved, then,rather than placed as a sub-heading of "fouls".
• It makes the markup clearer for future editors. Simple markup is, after all, one of the main advantages of wikis.

Chris Cunningham 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That this is of little import to people with real lives is true. However, this means that the best way to get it out of the way is to add a short note to the intro about it, rather than a long one buried at the bottom of the article. Three paragraphs is fine for an intro to an article this length. Chris Cunningham 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the current start to the intro says all that needs saying about the name at that point: 'Association football, commonly known as football or soccer,...'. I'm not sure that further detail of the origins belongs in the intro. ReadingOldBoy 12:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that level of detail belongs in the article at all in this case. It is nonsensical for the name to be the last point in the article; if this is to be kept it should be moved up. If it isn't to go into the article head, it probably belongs in the history article. Chris Cunningham 12:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ROB, and please discuss such an edit (removing a fairly long section) before actually making it. This is a featured article which means people actually agreed that the layout at that time was good for the article. – Elisson • T • C • 12:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC isn't a stamp of perfection. So we're discussing it now. Why does this item of history and general import in understanding the naming the article belong as the last item on the page? Chris Cunningham 12:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, try to discuss "controversial" (such as reformatting a whole article) things before making changes in the future as well. Since the name of the game is such a "controversial" point (see this talk page...), there certainly is a need to explain this in the main article of the game, with more than some sentences in the intro. I have nothing against moving the section up, perhaps below the history section. I think it is essential to keep it as a separate header so that people that find the article can quickly find the section just by looking through the TOC. – Elisson • T • C • 13:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Did they rescind WP:BB while I wasn't looking? Prior discussion is never a prerequisite for editing,not even for FAs. So let's move the naming section up, then. Chris Cunningham 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortable with the phrase 'Football is the term commonly used by FIFA, the sport's world governing body'. It seems vague ('commonly used' by an organisation doesn't seem particlarly noteworthy on its own) and seems to give 'football' more status than it has officially. It is also unverifiable, whereas the official definition in the statutes of Association Football, is citeable. ReadingOldBoy 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just fluffy reiteration of the previous text, which is why I got rid of it. The sport's official title according to all the governing bodies is association footbal but they commonly abbreviate it to football for the sake of brevity, much like most Commonwealth anglophones. Chris Cunningham 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see you point, buit I think refering to FIFA using 'Football' without making it clear that they officially call it 'Association Football' is likely to mislead people into considering 'football' to be the official name. Leaving that sentence out would remove htis confusion without taking anythingaway from hte article. ReadingOldBoy 13:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a source that says that FIFA uses "association football" as the official name. Citing one of their documents where they use the name is not enough, since we can cite a dozen other documents where they use "football" only. – Elisson • T • C • 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The FIFA statutes which I have referenced (http://www.fifa.com/documents/static/regulations/statutes_08_2006_en.pdf) constitute (with the regulations) FIFA's constitution and they define the sport governed by FIFA as Association Football, rather than merely refering to it as such, as you suggest. I'm not entirely certain what more you would need for it to constitute 'official'? ReadingOldBoy 13:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do understand what you mean, yes, they define the sport as "Association football", but is that for clarity, or because they want that to be the official name? Later in the statutes, they use "football" only more often than the "full name". That seems to be "official usage", while they define the sport as "Association football". I'm not sure exactly how to handle the question actually, but I don't believe we should give too much weight to the longer name, as it is almost never used except for when extreme clarity is needed. – Elisson • T • C • 13:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is that this is an international encyclopedia, so a fair amount of clarity is required. I don't quite see what we gain by mentioning FIFA and the IOC using 'football'. It looks more like a shot in the soccer/football war than useful encyclopedic information. ReadingOldBoy 13:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that piece of information is there to give readers that don't know much about the sport the knowledge that football isn't just "slang" or the name used in everyday speech, it is also the name commonly used by larger organisations such as FIFA and the IOC. In that context, I believe the sentence is encyclopedic. – Elisson • T • C • 13:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. ReadingOldBoy 14:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

However I'm not completely opposed to rewrite the sentence to something like "Even though FIFA, the sport's world governing body, defines the sport they govern as Association football in their statute, the most commonly used term by that organisation and the International Olympic Committee is football." That would include both viewpoints without mentioning the somewhat hard to define term "official". – Elisson • T • C • 14:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks good to me, although 'statute' should be plural ('statutes'). ReadingOldBoy 14:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, grammar isn't my thing. Nor is English. ;) Feel free to rewrite the sentence to something better flowing ("that organisation" is not very brilliant prose, IMO) and insert it into the section. – Elisson • T • C • 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, does the current name of the article represent a worldwide view? I think that outside the US, using the term "soccer" gets you some very odd looks from people. Could we perhaps either rename the article in a way that doesn't include the term soccer (although there's already a football article) or, my preferred choice would be to leave the title as it is, but say that both names are used and give examples of countries where each is used (e.g. soccer in America, football in the UK). I haven't read the archives on this page, so I hope I'm not retreading old ground. RobbieG 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Soccer is a common term (if not the most common) in the US (which, as said before, is the country in the world with the most active players), South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, amongst others. These countries are not a majority, but at least a significant part of the football community. I don't understand how any other article title could represent a better worldwide view. Trying to rename the article is, as seen above, a waste of time. The article already says that both names are used, and further info on that can be found in the article names for football (soccer). That link had dissapeared, I noticed, but I've readded it now. – Elisson • T • C • 20:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Americans almost exclusively use the term Soccer. Showers 02:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine now. I wan't aware that we had a whole page dedicated to the name of the sport (seems a tad excessive, actually!). I was just concerned that the article made the two terms sound synonyous, when in fact they have quite different connotations depending on where in the world they are spoken (hearing an American say "football" I would assume he meant American football, and hearing a Briton say "soccer" I would assume he was being facetious). Sorry to bother you, cheers! RobbieG 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Football is the colloquial name given to the most popular code of football for a given region. Association Football, Rugby Union Football, Rugby League Football, American Football/Gridiron, Australian Rules Football, Gaelic Football are ALL codes of football. I noticed that there is an article on football in general (encompassing all codes of football) and Soccer/Football is named Association Football there. Rightly so I think as it avoids all confusion. By the way, FIFA has Association Football in it's name! It's just that the French like putting things backarsewards. deutschegibbo 02:38, April 4 2007 (UTC)

When you score a goal, people usually mean you scored with a person, as in sex. Well...I do that a lot. But in this case they mean you scored a point for your team. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bpgirl14 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

You don't really "score a point for the team". In league games, "points" are awarded pending the outcome of the game. So, "goal" is more suitable to avoid confusion. 82.18.226.41 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea placing a cultural/lingual phrasing in front of an international one. I think "scoring a goal" is common to a lot of countries, in one form or the other ( "goal" or "gol" is the official word for a point in footbal in many countries ), and , personally, I've studied English for 13 years now, and it this is the first time that I find that meaning for the word. "Goal" is the official term. It should not be changed over a whim or an obscure implication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 (talk) 01:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand why the English Wikipedia uses the word cautioning instead of Booked or Booking when a football player gets an yellow card. In every FIFA game when a player gets an yellow card, the comments says that the "player getting booked", not that the "player get cautioning". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.84.45.196 (talk • contribs).

Because the official term as specified in the Laws of the Game is caution. A player gets cautioned, when he is shown the yellow card. The term booking is explained in the main article misconduct (football). I hope that answers your question. – Elisson • T • C • 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanx a lot! But I don't understand why the commentants in every football game or in TV says booking —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.84.45.196 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Commentators do say "he's been cautioned" rather than "he's been booked", but they tend to go with the less formal. Most commentators would say "penalty shootout" rather than kicks from the penalty mark, because again it's less formal. Illuminattile 01:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Never in my whole like have I heard a commentator say "he's been cautioned" it's allways "he's been booked" or "he's been given a yellow card" Chandlertalk 02:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's rename this page to football please.--Jet123 22:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that that move is not going to happen. Also please do not just slap a move template on a page without following the instructions. I've removed it for now because of that reason. – Elisson • T • C • 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The existing name makes sense. "Football" is the more common name, but that word is used by many people to refer to a different sport, so the disambiguation in the title is useful. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind your request? You need to state some reasons if you are going to get any consensus for a name change. As has been stated, the current title is seen by many as the best compromise. Removing 'football' from the name all together would be completely wrong, as this is the official name for the sport and arguably the most commonly used name. —Dave101→talk→contributions • 11:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone with the power to edit this article should probably add a line about the Major League Soccer league in North America. --24.235.229.208 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why? We have a section about domestic competitions, where the main article link takes you to an article with links to all domestic competitions. The five best European leagues (which in turn are the five best leagues in the world) are mentioned, I don't see a reason to go further. There are several leagues out there that are equally good or better than the MLS that aren't mentioned either. – Elisson • T • C • 15:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) :Why? Other than in the founding history, this article doesn't mention individual leagues and organisations below the continental confederation level. -- Arwel (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we definitely wouldn't mention such a low-level league in this top-level article. You can find it in two clicks from this article, which is as it should be. --Guinnog 15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A recent edit adds the ascertion "boasts twice the audience of the Summer Olympics[1] mainly due to the enthusiasm of latin american audiences." I've removed an odd link between 'enthusiasm' and hooliganism, but a unsure about the claim about Latin America being responsible for the large audience. If it is true does anyone have a link supporting it, otherwise it just looks like opinion? ReadingOldBoy 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just subtle vandalism, I guess. Removed. – Elisson • T • C • 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to revert it as it seems to have gone back and forth a bit, but I'm pretty certain that 'penalty box' is colloquially used to mean 'penalty area'. The OED says this 'penalty box, (a) chiefly Lacrosse and Ice Hockey, an area set aside for players temporarily withdrawn from a game as a penalty and for match officials; (b) Association Football, Hockey, etc. = penalty area' and has two examples (including one from the Sun in 2001) of usage in reference to football. And the BBC has used 'penalty box' in its explanation of the laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/rules_and_equipment/4201028.stm).

What if someone went onto wikipidia and changed the information so it would be false...for example I just read the soccer and it had jibberish in it and wierd measurements?64.203.146.157 14:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Coma

It was reverted and if you continue to vandalise you will be blocked from editing. Archibald99  15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please change the super cheesy pictures at the beginning and end of the article to something a little more representative of the sport. The pictures are horrible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.27.215 (talk • contribs)

yes, the pictures are cheesy and make the article look bad, there should be ones of maradona and pele in their place and for goalkeepers zoff and shilton. here is one of maradona for use [1]--SalvoCalcio 04:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

yes change these —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This page should address the derivation of the word "Soccer" (maybe it does but I came onto the page to find it and can't). As it happens, I believe it's an abbreviation of "Association (Football)". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.201.35.52 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes it is - from asSOCiation football - primarily used in America where just 'football' refers to American Football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.161.52 (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go -

soccer

1889, socca, later socker (1891), soccer (1895), originally university slang, from a shortened form of Assoc., abbreviation of association in Football Association (as opposed to Rugby football); cf. rugger, but they hardly could have taken the first three letters of Assoc.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"The sport also exacerbated tensions at the beginning of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, when a match between Red Star Belgrade and Dinamo Zagreb devolved into rioting in March 1990."

The correct statement would be: "... between Dinamo Zagreb and Red Star Belgrade devolved ..." because the game took place in Zagreb. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.80.60 (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

True, and fixed. Thanks for the input! – Elisson • T • C • 13:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just recently did a lengthy report anylyzing the true roots of football. Have included a short line about specifics of China's game. I'm new to Wiki, how do I list a source, can someone do it for me? It's http://www.footballnetwork.org/dev/historyoffootball/history1.asp

Thanks,

rlynagh-shannon

There is a very extensive article on football history at http://www.soccerpost.com/history.cfm

'Erik Ickes'

We had this argument a zillion times. USA and Japan are NOT "most parts of the world". Including soccer in the name is already a compromise. --Mariano(t/c) 12:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ewen 14:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Look through the archives (or scroll up a bit) and you'll see why we have the current name. The article name should really be football, seeing as this is the official name of the sport, however this would cause conflict because of the many different codes of football. The current title is seen as the best compromise. Dave101→talk  15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As has been said above, this has been discussed to death and the current title is the best we can get. The sport is not known mostly as soccer. In USA it is only known as soccer, but the vast majority of football playing countries call the sport football and sometimes call it soccer. It does not make more sense to use soccer first at all. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 16:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

oh man, FOOTBALL is the internationally official name of this sport, hence its FIFA. davidmj926 14:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whizmaster, In most parts of the world we call it "Football"... In Europe, In the whole American continent (except 2 countries who live in a box), in Asia, in Australia.. everywhere it's called Football. The only ones who call it (incorrectly) soccer, are the USA people. There is only one sport called Football, and that sport is the FIFA sport. All the other strange sports or "Rugby with protectors" are not football. Learn to lose. Ale2007 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually in Australia it is most commonly soccer, if you call it football in the media there is a sort of a giggle, oh yes that is what we should call soccer.... But I think the name of the article is the best compromise. --Michael Johnson 12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The map indicates that Koreans call Soccer "football", but actually most people call it soccer.--かがみ 10:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Err. The map has nothing to do with who calls it soccer and who calls it football (don't know why the map is here in the first place). The map shows the popularity of the sport. – Elisson • T • C • 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The map in no way "indicates that Koreans call Soccer "football" whatsoever. It is purely a map showing the number of players, and nothing more. Certainly nothing at all to do with what people call football. And regardless of what the sport is called by "most people" in Korea, the fact remains that the Korean governing body call it football and not soccer. Hence, the Korea Football Association and not Korea Soccer Association. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For "かがみ"... 90% + of people in this world call it Football... The term "Soccer" is an invent of some strange individuals who needed a difference between Their Rugby Variation and real Football. So, you are wrong, most people call it "Football".

You should not be allowed to call a sport "x football" if you use your hands more than your feet to transport the ball. And btw sorry Handball is allready taken (as football was in the first place) Chandlertalk 02:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to have to trawl through the archives, so can someone please tell me: have we yet had a straw poll as to what the name of this article should be? It would be useful to have the opinions of people laid out clearly, instead of new parties to the debate having to trawl through various comments. Has it been done? EuroSong ^talk 17:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous anyway, most of the world calls it football, Aussies, Paddies, Kiwis, Yanks, Japanese, and Koreans call it soccer, but a fair share of those mean something different when they say "football". Japanese and Koreans would mean proper football, Americans mean grid-iron, Paddies mean Celtic, Kiwis and some Aussies means rugby, and the rest of the Aussies mean Aussie football. Furthermore, American football rarely uses the FOOT, and I'm an American and I always say "football" to refer to this, the only real football. I cannot believe we even have to dignify the ignorant by putting "soccer" in the URL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsmccohen (talk • contribs) 08:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most people really do call it football, there's no question about it. What I really hate is that some people believe that the wiki in English is just for the U.S because they happen to have English as an official language. So do other countries. And it IS the largest one, so people all over the world consult it everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.155.218 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathnarg (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Language should be clear. The term "football" used in place of "soccer" in international circles (such as Wikipedia) causes confusion. The term "soccer" is a very specific term referring to one sport, soccer (yes, you know what sport I mean when I use that word regardless of where I'm from) All native speakers of English know what soccer is. However, native speakers of English use the term "football" to mean different sports, depending on nationality. Wikipedia is a truly INTERNATIONAL publication, where writers, editors, and readers come from all parts of the world. Let's make Wikipedia better and stop blaming everything on America. Soccer is an English word. It's the most precise word that can be used for Association football, regardless of what you call it in your country. Pushing the word "soccer" has nothing to do with America (the word is from England), and everything to do with compromise. The word soccer IS the compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathnarg (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This subject of this article is very clear. It is also written using the British English dialect see WP:ENGVAR. Football is the dominant term. You will also note that such dialectical usages follows for articles written using American English for example at American_football. The consensus of opinion is to use the word football in place of soccer in the text of this article. Edit warring is unlikely to change this. You can be blocked for breaching WP:3RR. Jooler 01:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jooler completely. --John 02:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above, this article is written in British English where the word in common use is football. Apart from which, soccer is a slang word for football, it is not the name of the sport, despite what some people think. So by Mathnargs reasoning perhaps American football should be renamed Gridiron. Of course not - but it is the same in that is also a slang word for the sport. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Soccer is definitely British English and is becoming used more and more in the UK. It's a great word. Anyway, I don't blame you guys too much because the manual of style needs some editing. It should encourage a more international voice, which it doesn't.Mathnarg 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the word soccer is not "becoming used more and more in the UK" one iota. It is used in the UK just as much as it always has been, no more and no less. You are though missing the point. Soccer is a slang term for the sport and not the name of the sport. Also there has already been a compromise in the use of the articles title which in itself covers any "international voice" as it contains both the name of the sport (football) and the slang word for the sport (soccer). ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Soccer" isn't slang at all. Just read the Oxford dictionary definition: Soccer: (noun) a form of football played with a round ball which may not be handled during play except by the goalkeepers, the object being to score goals by kicking or heading the ball into the opponents’ goal. >>>> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/soccer?view=uk Mathnarg 23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

But this is meaningless. Just because it's in the dictionary, that doesn't mean it's the correct term to use. Dictionaries are descriptive, not perscriptive: that means they describe the language used by people of the time. "Soccer" is indeed a real word, and it is used - no-one is disputing that - and therefore it appears in the dictionary. But this point has no relevance to the discussion here. The fact is that "soccer" is an informal nickname for "association football". And where there is a choice between informal nicknames and a more correct, formal term, then a serious encyclopædia should always use the correct name. This article's title is already compromised by the fact that "soccer" appears in brackets, as this distinguishes it from other articles about other sports also known as some form of football. In fact, I believe that "Association football" would be the better title. EuroSong ^talk 08:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the OED does flag soccer as a colloquialism. ReadingOldBoy 08:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)