Jump to content

Talk:Association football: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Reverting edit(s) by 2.108.152.104 (talk) to rev. 1073158130 by Walter Görlitz: Vandalism (RW 16.1)
Line 131: Line 131:
[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
:I think the point about the Japanese and Korean games is that they developed independently of association football. Too many people think that soccer is based on cuju, so we need to specify that it’s an unrelated but similar game. – [[User:PeeJay|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay|Jay]] 11:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
:I think the point about the Japanese and Korean games is that they developed independently of association football. Too many people think that soccer is based on cuju, so we need to specify that it’s an unrelated but similar game. – [[User:PeeJay|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay|Jay]] 11:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

== [[WP:URFA/2020]] review and FA concerns ==

Hi editors, I reviewed this article for [[WP:URFA/2020]], a working group dedicated to reviewing and fixing up older featured articles. I am concerned that this article might not meet the [[WP:FA?|featured article criteria]] in its current state and needs some updating. My concerns are outlined below:

*The history section does not have many events from the 2000s, and no 2000s events for women's football. Are there major events in association football that should be included?
*I found this statement: "At a professional level, most matches produce only a few goals. For example, the 2005–06 season of the English Premier League produced an average of 2.48 goals per match." Is this still the case in 2022?
*There are lots of sentences at the end of paragraphs and sometimes whole paragraphs that do not have citations. For example, the first and second-to-last paragraphs of the international section are uncited, and the last sentence in "Off-field" needs a citation.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns? [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:54, 29 March 2022

Template:Vital article

Featured articleAssociation football is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 20, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 15, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Problematic name

Folks, nobody calls this "association football" in reallife. I think the main article should be either football or soccer, whatever is more prevalent globally (I don't care), but to have Wikipedia default to the more cumbersome name "association football" ... sorry, I disagree with that. What was the history leading to this situation? It should not be up to whoever was the first to write the article and establish that redirect, but really to "common use" of words instead. As it is, with that default name given, it insinuates that this name would be more commonly used and thus be more important, and this is simply WRONG. So please, put it as football, or soccer first, or perhaps both; but not "association football", that just makes no sense at all. This is also why I in general agree with the move proposals out of principle, it makes no sense as it is right now. 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8388:1641:8380:f57d:59ae:a2ae:b491 (talkcontribs) 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may make no sense to you, but to most of the rest of us, it's perfectly logical. The name "football" is not appropriate, as that name is shared by a large number of different codes of the sport worldwide (American football in the US, Canadian football in Canada, Gaelic football in Ireland, rugby union in New Zealand, Australian rules football in Australia, etc.), and "soccer" is not appropriate as that name is in the minority when it comes to coverage of the sport worldwide. Only a handful of national associations use the word "soccer" in their titles, for example. Meanwhile, "association football" is used by FIFA in both their name ("Fédération Internationale de Football Association") and their descriptions of the sport. I'm sorry you find the title of this article problematic, but I'm sure you'll come to terms with it eventually. – PeeJay 12:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an editor from Austria, the term Fußball is not not ambiguous to you or your German-speaking neighbours, but that's not the case in the English-speaking world. In my country and the one next to mine, the sport that first comes to mind when you say "football" is gridiron football. In Australia and a few other English-speaking places, you have different sports that come to mind. The way that the articles are laid-out now makes sense in the English-speaking world. Football is a general article about the history of the various codes and sports that are related to the term. Other articles have carved out their own name space. However, in an article about a European or South American league, team or player, you will usually see the term "football" be used, while for American, Australian and Canadian subjects you will see soccer. Those should be linked back to this article for reasons of clarity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Görlitz and PeeJay have explained this well. If you want to go further into the naming complexities that can arise, even in just one country, have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). It mentions six different sporting codes called football at times by their fans in that country. (I think it should also mention a seventh, Gaelic football). HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia mate, if you want to edit in football then do it in the other sites/language of Wikipedia, where they use football for the sport associated with FIFA. PyroFloe (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance please

Hello! I am currently working on an article to be placed at Roland (Japanese host), and am in the process of translating the section about his involvement with this sport. Unfortunately, I don't know much about it and am not sure I'm using the right terminology. I was careful to put the right Wiki links, but there's a lot I don't know about the sport and also in line with Wikipedia standards. I have kept it as "soccer" because that's what it's called in Japan/the original article, but should I change it to football? I would appreciate any assistance, especially if anyone who is familiar with the sport here is also fluent in Japanese. The article draft is currently in my sandbox. Thank you! Londonbeat41692 (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Also, I am having difficulty finding a category that accurately reflects his involvement with the sport (as he isn't technically a member of any team, but is affiliated with some). Does anybody more familiar with it have any ideas that might be appropriate? Londonbeat41692 (talk) 07:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA did not 'officially' Recognize Cuju

If you're referring to the 2004 news article about Cuju on FIFA Magazine, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say FIFA recognized it as the earliest form of football. It was not an editorial or an official document, and was written by a professor of Oriental Studies (the German Helmut Brinker) as a piece of trivia and entertainment. The same can be said about the current article calling Britain the "home of football", which is certainly more accurate, but still, not an editorial by FIFA, just a piece of news trivia.

This English Wikipedia about Association Football also alleges that FIFA recognized it as the earliest form of football, but the given reference page is broken, and I couldn't find any screening on "Wayback Machine" of a previous version showing it.

That said, I think we should be aware that every sport is a potential object of geopolitical dispute, which includes the creation of those foundational myths. Neither the east-asian nor the mesoamerican sports were football, and calling them so is an anachronism.

Regardless, I think the "officially recognize" part should be deleted. Because it is not, and it is embarrassing to have this on the Wikipedia article of the most relevant sport on Earth.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

Goalkeeper - photo of Gianluca Paterniti Martello
Gianluca Paterniti Martello (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a typical photo of a keeper, and it's not clear where it should be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the uploader of the image is the individual requesting it be added to this article. It's still not clear where in this article we would place it. Perhaps placing it in the article on goalkeepers, but even then, this appears to be a free kick of some sort (offside? foul?), and does not give any perspective of the field so is of minimal value. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

Wasserkneipkur (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the date listed of soccer being first played the article shows mid 19 hundred's. The specific date it 19th December 1863. It was played between Barnes Football Club and Richmond Football Club.

You'll need to provide a source for this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to "contact"

I would like to add my take into the contact discussion. I have found these 2 sources from the IFAB (International Football Association Board) themselves. The body which determines the rules of association football itself and works extremely close and are in ties with the governing body of the sport, of course being the "International Federation of Association Football" (FIFA).

Here is the PDF document of the latest laws of the game (20/21): https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/ifab-laws-of-the-game-2020-21.pdf?cloudid=d6g1medsi8jrrd3e4imp

In page 103 of the "fouls and misconduct section" it states:

"using excessive force: • charges • jumps at ... • pushes ... • tackles or challenges"


It also states in the next page (104):

"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences: ... • impedes an opponent with contact"


Which I believe leans a lot more on the "limited contact" term/group than others.


I also found this in the IFAB website with regards to a new term they created in the latest 20/21 laws of the game which I believe sides with the "limited" contact group again. The term is called "Holding offence" and its defined by the IFAB as: https://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/39/section/121/ (it is among the "H" section of course)

Note, I am not at all demanding "limited" contact to be entered in the table of this Wikipedia page in any way. I'm just stating what I have found, and it face value and with what the IFAB has written in their rules/laws of the games. As well as their definitions in their glossary of the laws of the game document. It really does seem to lean more towards the "limited" contact side of the spectrum than others.

(Also it literally does say "however, physical contact between opponents is restricted." in the "Gameplay" section of this Wikipedia page lol. Restricted being a synonym of "limited" or "permitted")

Anyways, thanks for taking time out of your day to read this who ever chose to do so. It's greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.216.132 (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

I am an proffesional writer and I could correct some things in your articles and passages. Itzmetoottoot033 (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're "an proffesional writer", we could have both grammar and spelling problems if you started to edit this article. Walter Görlitz (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021

it is missing some details on her past life POlopgman (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arising independently across multiple cultures

Kicking ball games arose independently multiple times across multiple cultures. The Chinese competitive game cuju ... resembles modern association football. ... Other games included kemari in Japan and chuk-guk in Korea.

This seems a little problematic, as the implication is that the multiple examples are ball games that "arose independently multiple times across multiple cultures", especially given that the Korean and Japanese games are given separately from the Chinese one with no reference to the possibility of a single Chinese origin. I don't actually know a lot about this topic so I recognize the possibility that these games were all developed independently, but their names seem to be identical in writing, and given the lack of substantial written records in either Korea or Japan until well after the Han Dynasty (206 BCE – 220 CE), [when] cuju games were standardised and rules were established it seems difficult to prove one way or the other.

So wouldn't it be better to specify at the top that the section lists examples of football-like games in various cultures regardless of whether they developed independently, or at least name the Japanese and Korean ones in the same paragraph as the Chinese one?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point about the Japanese and Korean games is that they developed independently of association football. Too many people think that soccer is based on cuju, so we need to specify that it’s an unrelated but similar game. – PeeJay 11:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020 review and FA concerns

Hi editors, I reviewed this article for WP:URFA/2020, a working group dedicated to reviewing and fixing up older featured articles. I am concerned that this article might not meet the featured article criteria in its current state and needs some updating. My concerns are outlined below:

  • The history section does not have many events from the 2000s, and no 2000s events for women's football. Are there major events in association football that should be included?
  • I found this statement: "At a professional level, most matches produce only a few goals. For example, the 2005–06 season of the English Premier League produced an average of 2.48 goals per match." Is this still the case in 2022?
  • There are lots of sentences at the end of paragraphs and sometimes whole paragraphs that do not have citations. For example, the first and second-to-last paragraphs of the international section are uncited, and the last sentence in "Off-field" needs a citation.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]