Talk:Association football

|2=

|3=Template:FAOL |4=Template:WP1.0 }}

First edit of 2007

User:Gwernol's vandalism revert is the first edit of 2007 --Donald Goldberg 00:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Children

Hi, My question is why is it that children walking with the players —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.19.189 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Ummm... I take it you refer to the players walking out with a couple of children at the beginning of some matches. The children are mascots. Its a treat for kids to lead the players out. Sometimes they are disabled children, sometimes just supporters, sometimes their parents have paid ridiculous amounts of money to the football club. Its just a popular thing to do among established clubs. - aheyfromhome 14:29 7 January 2007

Maybe he saw Claude Makalele? 8-) Ewen 15:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested

Getting tired of this being contantly in my top five on my watchlist. Chris Cunningham 11:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Small comment boxes, sprotect revert

Small comment boxes are a workaround for huge TOCs. The correct solution should be to archive old talk in a timely manner. As-is, the small boxes push the archive boxes down the page and interfere with edit links. I'd like to change this back.

Also, the article was recently reverted to an edit before it was sprotected. Was this deliberate? It doesn't

Metric vs. Imperial

This article says that although the Laws are in metric, Imperial units are popularly used. This is firsthand knowledge, so don't consider it fact, but as an American soccer player I can tell you that we use the metric system almost exclusively, except for the 16.5 meter box, which we call "the eighteen" (as in 18 yards). According to my team's German exchange student, penalty kicks are called "11-meter kicks" in Germany, not "12-yard kicks." Therefore, my hypothesis is that traditional units are often used in Britain (especially by the older generations) but not in the United States because soccer took hold here long after soccer became defined in metric. Regardless, more research is required before we can make a conclusion. SteveSims 19:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Who calls a penalty kick anything other than a penalty kick? cuandach 04:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In Germany, only the TV reporter would use the official term "Strafstoß" (= penalty kick). People usually call a penalty an "11 meter" ("Elfmeter" in German). 84.133.22.61 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Team Sports Infobox

The infobox

was once on this page and I note that several editors have put it back only to have it continually removed. Can someone please explain to me why this is the case. Every single other code of football (and almost all other team sports) have this very useful nav box at the bottom of the page. Is is because soccer wikipedians so insecure of other football codes ? The other articles don't seem to share the sentiment. If someone can't give me a reason for its exclusion then I will keep adding it. --Spewmaster 00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason for exclusion has been given in the edit summary several times. There is no need for a team sport navbox on the page when we have a category to do the job for us. – Elisson • T • C • 17:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

(lack of) popularity of Soccer in the US

Should the article mention the unpopularity of the game in the US. I think it's necessary because with Bekham in the US, the media makes it look like the greatest sport in the country, even though it's probably the most unpopular sport in the US.

The most unpopular? Hardly. Soccer in the United States says "The English and Spanish-language telecasts of the 2006 FIFA World Cup Championship Final combined to attract an estimated 16.9 million American viewers, comparable to the average viewership of the 2005 World Series of Major League Baseball, according to The New York Times." Grant | Talk 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's not nearly as popular as football or even basketball and baseball, but it certainly is above curling and bowling.SteveSims 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But now David Beckham is playing in Major league soccer... so it will make it a bit more popular.But it will will never be as popular here as in other countries.

Not likely. It is considered too wimpy a sport. 70.53.110.234 20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Americans making fun of Europeans term "football" in their countries as the most popular sport in Europe and "American football" most popular sport in America....The term "the other football" in that it is a underdog and bad British influance on Americans. It's coined due to the Major League Soccer's bottom feeder statis in professional sports and rapid growth of soccer fields in US. In some aspects...it's getting even with BBC for putting American football under Other sports catagory and very bad reception from Londoners of the upcoming NFL game in London.... Renegadeviking

Beckham who? ;-) Grant | Talk 07:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

British hate NFL...they're just filling the seats because they're faking loyality. They want to compare it to rugby so they can say rugby is better. Seriously, British are suppose to hate NFL. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 02:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

It's completely irrelevent anything constructive, but how the flip do you fake loyalty?? And why?? I'm so confused I can't decide whether its an oxymoron, ironic or whatever else. Lol. Anyway, I reckon that most people who go to see it are either a) going because of the novelty which is a fair enough reason, or b) because they're American expats or Germans and they want to see an NFL game so close to them (i.e. in Europe). Now how did I end up talking about this on the football discussion page...hmmm - Aheyfromhome 18:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Im from the U.S of A and im going to have to agree that a mention should be thrown in and the fact that soocer is very unpopular is kinda mixed. people play it but really dont set out on a regular bassis to play it. it seems to me to be on the monet game to play or a game t schol to paly. i think in the us girls seem to paly it mores (Esskater11 01:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

The USA is only one country and I fail to see why it is even an issue over footballs popularity in that country. If we do it for one country, then we have to do it with every country. And it makes no difference the number of people who play football in America or David Beckham moving there. Why is it more important whether or not football is popular in America than say Russia or Bhutan or Brazil or Turkmenisatan? Most people know the four main sports in America, basketball, baseball, American football and ice hockey, and that football is a minority sport there. But again, it is one country and discussion of that should be on articles specific to sport in that country♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Aheyfromhome knows British hate pro gridiron, and he knows I am right. Everybody can see I'm right. Popularity of British Gridiron League shows this clearly.Renegadeviking

The British do not 'hate' Gridiron, we just have no interest in it, much like the Americans with Football (soccer). gazh 19:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, to state that the entire British nation hates American football is untrue. Most people in the UK will have absolutely no opinion at all on American Football simply because they never see it either live or on TV. And of those who do see the sport, there is definitely a market in the UK for the sport as it is featured every week on Channel Five. I don't know anyone who hates it, I know people who just don't particularly like it. But hate it? The only thing you might hear is in a similar way to some Americans who mock football, some Brits (and it is only a small minority) mock American football. But the vast majority of people in the UK simply know nothing about the sport.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

top of talk page banner

The banner is incorrect. To my knowledge there has never been a vote on moving this page to association football. Jooler 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See Voting is evil and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia works by discussion and consensus, not votes. The naming issue has been discussed to death many times over the last 4 years that I've been here, always with the same result. -- Arwel (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well almost - I've been here and contributed to this page since September 2001 (correction August 2002) (under another name) and what has been discussed to death is moving it to football or to soccer. The argument for "association football" is a valid one and has never been tested for its popularity, other than people saying "we have discussed the issue to death" and "let sleeping dogs lie", the compromise of the current name was chosen to quell a big argument and not on its own merit. It was a poor compromise. in my opinion. The banner is incorrect. Jooler 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have discussed a move to association football as well. That discussion should be found either in the archives here or in the football project talk page archives. – Elisson • T • C • 12:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only been watching this page since last year and it's already come up more than enough times, maybe you didn't notice it?--Tiresais 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There - you're just doing exactly what I said has been done again - people saying "we have discussed the issue to death" and "let sleeping dogs lie" - That is not proper debate - on merit, which is what I'm talking about. Jooler 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But you initially said that it was never voted (or discussed) on, which is incorrect because it has been, several times. If you want to discuss it again without getting the "discussed before" answer, then fine, but I believe you could use the time for something better as you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting people convinced to move a few thousand pages, categories and templates to correspond to a new naming convention which really doesn't have any advantages at all. – Elisson • T • C • 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It has not been voted on and it has not been dicussed on merit. The only discussion related to a move to association football is for people to come on here nand say "it's already been decided" and just like yourself "it would be a headache to move all the pags" etc Jooler 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you won't get anywhere by complaining that it hasn't been discussed. Provide arguments for a move to association football and people might actually respond with something else than "it's already been decided". (BTW, votes are, as noted above, evil.) – Elisson • T • C • 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What I'm complaining about is that the banner is incorrect. Jooler 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't. Going through the archives, there have been at least eight different discussions that in one way or another mentions a move to association football. A decision is not necessarily made by polling, you know. – Elisson • T • C • 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) I took a look through the archives and couldn't find a discussion that gave proper consideration to moving the article to association football. Football (soccer) is a terribly contrived compromise, and seeing as association football is (a) the official name of the sport, (b) an actual term usable in speech without hand parentheses, (c) understandable by speakers of all varieties of English as well as foreign-language speakers, (d) the name of which the regional names for the sport are abbreviations, and (e) supported by WP:ENGVAR and precedent (fixed-wing aircraft), I would be very much in favour of a move. The fact that other moves would then be available to be made is a good thing, seeing how clumsy many of the derived page, category and project names are. –EdC 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(a) No, association football is not the official name of the sport. FIFA calls it only football, and so does the Olympic organization. (b) The parentheses are actually helping, as one can type [[football (soccer)|]] to produce the following link: football, which is how it is often used. This can't be done with association football. (c) so is football (soccer), and to an even higher degree, I'd guess, since no-one actually uses "association football", while a lot more people use "football" and "soccer". (d) The current name uses the actual abbreviations. Much better. (e) WP:ENGVAR says that we should use words that are "common to all". "Association football" is common to none. – Elisson • T • C • 11:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Elisson, you've been hoisted by your own petard. FIFA stands for Fédération internationale de football association which in English is International Federation of Association Football -- also The FA's book on the LOTG is called The Laws of Association Football. The ability to use the pipe trick is a very poor reason for naming an article. Jooler 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You use a French name to prove something in English? Doesn't make much sense to me. Take a look at the FIFA website. Browse around. There are instances of "association football" being used, but in a large majority of the pages, only "football" can be found. Using the same argument with the FA, wouldn't they be named "The Association Football Association" if association football was the official name? On to the other points, you say (b) is a poor argument, and you have not even commented on my points (c), (d) and (e). I guess that means that you haven't got any good reason to move the article except that the french name of FIFA uses "association football", and that a book by the FA (which incidentally does not use "association football" in the name) that includes "association football" in the title? – Elisson • T • C • 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not respond to your other points because I was not intending to contend any of them. As I have said so many times now, I am simply saying that the banner is incorrect. However by directly invoking FIFA as an example of a body that does not use the term (despite it being what the letters actually stand for) I felt it an obligation to correct you. Now you suggest that the FA should be "The Association Football Association" - this is just too stupid for words. The reason it is called "assocation football" in the first place is because of the use of the word assocation in that very body itself. The name stems from the organizing body. Jooler 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Where "association football" is used on the FIFA site, it is used as a clarifier. This reflects the position that "association football" is the full name of the sport, and "football" an abbreviated form used where the meaning is clear from context. (b) is a poor argument; the redirect would still exist. (c) I agree with; (d) is not a factual argument; regarding (e), "Football (soccer)" is not a term in any language or regional variety. There are no words (outside organic chemistry) with embedded parentheses. –EdC 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Association football is named after the FA, as I'm sure you're aware. There was never any need to rename it. –EdC 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Tnanks EdC for proving that the banner is incorrect. Jooler 12:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What part is incorrect? Please Jooler. The question has been discussed, as said, at least eight times. – Elisson • T • C • 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but in not one of those eight times was the option of naming the page "association football" given proper consideration. This is the first discussion so far of "association football" as an option; only once it is concluded may the banner become correct. –EdC 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for input from outside users at the football project. – Elisson • T • C • 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Buon giorno. I am absolutely tired to always see and see the same annoying discussion about this name. I don't like "football (soccer)" too, I'd rather just "football" by far, but I think it's impossible because of the Yankees, so I think "football (soccer)" is the best solution for everyone. I know a bit of French, I've read this page, and in my opinion, FIFA stands for "International Federation of Football Associations". No occurrence of the words "association football" can be found on the History of FIFA page. No occurrence at all. This game is "soccer" in North America, "football" in the rest of world, and "association football" nowhere. The current title is the best we can have. --Angelo 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That page is in English, and uses "association football" at the beginning of the article as is proper when a subject has a full name and a common but ambiguous abbreviation. Evidently you don't know all that much French, or you'd note that in FIFA, "Association" is in the singular and is used as an adjective modifying "Football" (yes, in French adjectives go after the nouns they modify). There really cannot be any dispute that "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" translates into English as "International Federation of Association Football". –EdC 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In French, if you want to say "Association football" (literally), you use "Football associatif (or associé)". "Association" in French is a "Nom commun", that is a noun [2]. If you want to say "Football association(s)", you say "Association(s) de football". So, none of these are right. My idea was just a personal interpretation of the words "football association", originated by the content in the page I linked to. --Angelo 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be "associated football"? –EdC 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely not "association football", as "association" is a noun in French. Anyway, "association football" is even more restrictive than either "soccer" or "football", as it is used only in the UK and considered "formal". Even the Cambridge dictionary says that [3]. Donc, ce n'est pas de raison pour changer le statu quo. --Angelo 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the opening para in our article on FIFA is incorrect? Jooler 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that "football association" in French is not correct, as both words are nouns. To have the same meaning than English "association football", "association" should be an adjective, and it is not. --Angelo 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not 'Associative football'. 'Association' is a noun in English. 'Association football' is a compound noun formed of two nouns like 'post office' or 'dinner guest'. Jooler 08:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the French "football association" is a compound noun, translating directly to the English compound noun "association football". Please don't try to show off; by your own admission you're not a native French speaker, so attempting to demonstrate your command (or otherwise) of the language is simply a waste of space. –EdC 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not a French native speaker too, so you shouldn't make this claim by your own, dear sir. At least I am a native Italian, and I know how Romance languages work. And I also lived in Ottawa; a really English-French bilingual experience, you know. Anyway, I looked forward for some dictionnaire de langue française in the web, and I haven't really found a single occurrence of "football association" as a "compound noun". This is a google search I made of "football association" in French language pages: [4]. I see just UEFA, FIFA and Le Havre pages, all having "football association" in their official French name. Period. --Angelo 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What sort of argument is that? English is more influenced by French than Italian is. The reason your search failed is that you conducted it on google.it; try again on google.fr and you'll find examples such as the Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association, the Ligue du Nord de Football-association, etc. –EdC 11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Italian and French share a common way to build phrases and a common vocabulary, as both derives from Latin language. Anyway, "football association" in French is only 65 hits: [5]. Even from google.fr. --Angelo 15:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Really. This is not a popularity contest. It has been sufficiently established that "football association" is a formal French term directly equivalent to "association football", but is usually shortened to "football". –EdC 23:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I looked in my Petit Robert under football and it says "sport d'équipe (d'abord appelé football association) opposant deux équipages de onze joueurs ...". Which means it was originally called football association in French. FIFA was founded in 1904, leaving plenty of time for the longer name to become antiquated (Compare Automobile Association.) Since this is en.wikipedia and not fr.wikipedia, it hardly matters. jnestorius^(talk) 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a request to change the page name or just the banner? Assuming it's the former due to the latter being WP:LAME territory, I'm minded to favour keeping the page name as it is. Association football is a very uncommon term compared to the other two, just as few would refer to the pitch as "the field of play" or a penalty shootout as "kicks from the penalty mark". Whatever the title, there will be complaints ad infinitum, the current one is probably the least unfavourable. Oldelpaso 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If we assume that this is a request to change the page name, then (pending proper discussion) the banner issue will become moot, so yes, that's probably the right way to look at it. My primary objection to "Football (soccer)" is that it is not a term, common or uncommon; "football" is, and "soccer" is, but their conjunction is not something that anyone would use to refer to the sport. "Association football" is formal and technical, but it is also neutral, unambiguous and has at least some usage. –EdC 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that although moving this page to "soccer" or "football" have been discussed ad nauseam, there has been no serious discussion (despite Elisson's insistence to the contrary) about moving it to "association football" (which is after all the proper name). Although I firmly believe that the page should be at 'association football' I have not proposed an actual move because I expected the discussion to result in just the sort of argument that can be seen here right now. I am simply pointing out that there has not been such a discussion and that THE BANNER IS INCORRECT. Inevitably this means that if a sensible discussion to move the page to 'association football' is to be had then it should not be predjudiced by claims that "his has already been discusssed to death" and an appeal to it being WP:LAME etc. Jooler 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I struck out the words 'Association football' from the banner above, but Elisson revoked it. 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Elisson. So now the banner is even more incorrect. Jooler 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Elisson changed the banner under discussion to read "any other name": [6] and used the edit summary "how about that then. WP:LAME conflict solved?"). I agree with Jooler that this has not improved the situation. –EdC 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Since no one seems to know what they want to discuss, I'll stay away from this discussion until (1) it dies out and we can forget about this silly "the banner is wrong" thing, or (2) someone provides some proof that it has not been discussed enough, or (3) someone gives a outstandingly good argument as to why this page should be moved. – Elisson • T • C • 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. Prove it has been properly discussed and then you can have your banner. Jooler 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime - I think it only fair that the banner should be removed. Jooler 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

From the depth of the archives... The whole first half of archive 1, Yet more about the name, More about the name, Football / Soccer, Article name, Name again, Association Football, Renaming, Association football, Naming. Some discussions are quite long and some are quite short. Some only treat "association football" in short and some are completely dedicated to that name. What surprised me the most is that you, Jooler, have participated in some of them, but you don't seem to remember it? – Elisson • T • C • 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Tangential
2. Wrong
3. Wrong
4. Misses the point
5. Not concluded
6. Not discussed
7. Probably the first proper discussion. Shut down by reference to previous decisions; swiftly moves off topic
8. Shut down by reference to previous decisions
9. Offtopic
10. Shut down by reference to previous decisions

I believe that at no point in the past four years did a consensus for the current title exist that was not based on flawed premises. –EdC 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Elisson - of course I remember contributing to those discussions but you clearly haven't read them properly. As EdC clearly demonstrates none of them are in anyway conclusive, prolonged or relate to moving specifically to 'association football' on the merits of the name itself and not on prejudiced and faulty references previous "conclusive" discussions. Which is of course what I have been saying in this particular discussion all along. Jooler 23:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. I give you evidence that the question has been discussed over and over again (and that people in those discussions agree with that, as well). You guys dismiss it and then you don't do anything more. I've read the discussions properly. Combined together, a consensus has very much indeed been reached, that the article should stay at this name and not at any other name (including "association football"). As said above, I'll not discuss this further until you actually give us something to discuss. – Elisson • T • C • 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those archive links, Elisson, very constructive. A comment on the very first archive from Feb 2003 mentions "In the earlier discussion on this and the archived page, [Association football] was almost immediately dropped as too obsure for international readers." which if true means that Jooler was incorrect and the banner was correct; though since the earlier discussion alluded to must have been zapped back in the stone age, an understandable oversight. Strictly speaking, the new banner is misleading: there has been no discussion of renaming the page to, say, round ball game or unAmerican football.

Personally I fully believe that "association football" is the correct name for the sport, but not necessarily the right name for the Wikipedia article, due to WP:COMMONNAME. A similar issue comes up at Talk:Republic of Ireland, where people are afraid reades might think "Republic of Ireland" was the official name of the country, which it's not. But it's understandable that the average websurfer, who has never read or heard of WP:COMMONNAME, will incorrectly assume the article name is the "official" name. The bast way to avoid that misconception is to frame the intro para such that the "official" name is most prominent. In that light, I would propose, while keeping the article at football (soccer), to change the first sentence to:

Association football, usually known as football or soccer, is a team sport played between two teams of 11 players each.

I do think the ease of pipelinking can create problems. When editing articles about this sport in the Republic of Ireland, I refuse to use [[football (soccer)|]] since this is in principle ambiguous in an Irish context. I prefer to wikilink as [[football (soccer)|association football]] and then use "football" in the subsequent text given that context has established it is this game rather than gaelic football. If I wikilink as [[football (soccer)|soccer]] I can guarantee someone will change it and claim I am an American. Naturally, most edits to Irish association football articles are made by Irish fans of the game, most of whom call it football, rather than Irish non-fans, most of whom call it soccer. jnestorius^(talk) 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jnestorius - the "earlier discussion" referred to in that archive can be found Talk:List of footballers/Archive 1 here and Talk:Lists of football (soccer) players/Archive 2 and Talk:Lists of football (soccer) players. It was this discussion that resulted in the article as football was moved to football(soccer) [7]. I think you'll agree that the claim "In the earlier discussion on this and the archived page, [Association football] was almost immediately dropped as too obsure for international readers." is not substantiated. Jooler 09:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So then next Monday week is the fourth anniversary of the great football (soccer) compromise. I fully agree that it was incorrect to say "[Association football] was almost immediately dropped as too obsure for international readers." I would also say it was incorrect to suggest the banner was incorrect: the fact that there has never been a vote on the name "association football" does not mean there has never been a decision on it; see WP:CONSENSUS. Moving on, why is the lazy comment "For the discussions that led to this decision see various sections of the archives." still there? Is it to discourage people from from proposing a change by making them hunt for the relevant sections first? Elisson and Jooler have been kind enough to supply precise links, some of which don't even relate to this page! I suggest changing the message to something like:

"The discussions that led to this decision are within the archives of this Talk page: 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4, and of a related Talk page: 1, 2, 3" jnestorius^(talk) 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I said it was incorrect, because the posibility of discussing a move to 'assocation football' has never been given a fair crack of the whip. It has always been shouted down and roundly dismissed as a something that has been discussed to death (which of course it hasn't). - "It has been decided that Football (soccer) should remain at that name and not at Football, Soccer, or Association football." is incorrect becaue it was never 'decided NOT to move to 'association football' in just the same way that it was never decided NOT to move move the page to flubblewibbleitchyfanny5000. Jooler 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My feeling on the name of the article are that it should not be moved to Association Football. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." and since it is certainly not common for people to call it Assotiation football, the article, in an ideal world, should be at either Football or Soccer. However, since there is already an article at Football, the two alternatives become Soccer or Football (soccer), which is a standard way of disambiguating an ambiguous name (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic). Since it could be argued that Soccer and Football (soccer) have equal claim to where the article should be, I think it should stay where it is, since I feel that there is no improvement to be had by moving it. Gasheadsteve 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, there is perhaps a case for moving this article to Football, and moving the current football article to Football (disambiguation), or something similar, since virtually everyone who searches for football will be looking for soccer. Gasheadsteve 07:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gashead - this page will never be moved to football and I support that, please look at the archives. There is no point making that suggestion anymore. That particular issue HAS been talked to death. Jooler 12:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Football (soccer)"

"Football (soccer)" does not conform to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic; "soccer" is not the class into which association football falls (that would be "Football (sport)"), nor is it the subject or context to which the topic applies (in that case, "Football (soccer)" would denote the round bouncy thing that gets kicked across the grass). Nor is the term in parentheses being used here as an adjective; if it was then (under "rephrase the title to avoid parentheses") the article could be located at Soccer football, which is not a term, common or otherwise. The use of parentheses in "Football (soccer)" is just a disguised form of the equivalent "Football a.k.a Soccer" (or "Football/Soccer"), which are both clear violations of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. –EdC 13:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Elisson -- I removed the banner becasue it has been clearly demonstrated that it is incorrect. Jooler 12:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Where have you "clearly demonstrated" that? Reading the discussion again, I find User:Oldelpaso saying it is close to WP:LAME to want to change the banner, User:Tiresais saying he thinks it has been discussed enough, User:jnestorius saying it was incorrect to say that the banner was incorrect, and User:Gasheadsteve saying that we should just stop wasting our time. If you include me, that's five users that does not agree with you and EdC. I don't believe you have reached any consensus to remove the banner. – Elisson • T • C • 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're misrepreenting a lot of people there. I don't have time to elaborate- in the middle of making dinner, but jnestorius had a caveat "if" which I filled in. Jooler 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit perlexed by this thread to be honest with you, it seems to contain about three different conversations with a little bit of a slagging match thrown in! :) EdC, I'm not entirely sure about the distinction you seem to be making between Soccer and Association Football when they are the same thing, soccer is an abbreviation of association football, in the same way as rugger is sometimes used instead of rugby football. The disambiguation in brackets is standard form for articles i.e. soccer is the type of football that this article is about. Football is disambiguated by soccer.

Can I just ask though, as it's not entirely clear, is this a serious discussion about moving the article or is it a discussion about a banner that has just lost it's focus? If it's the latter, I suggest we all stop wasting our time and call it a day as far as this discussion is concerned. Gasheadsteve 16:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that everyone understands that "soccer" is an abbreviation of "association football"; I'm puzzled as to what I might have said that gave the opposite impression. Disambiguation using brackets is standard, but the way it is used in "Football (soccer)" is decidedly non-standard. Look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic and tell me whether "Football (soccer)" falls under any of the given options. –EdC 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this article has gone through an FA nomination, has appeared on the main page, and has been viewed by (probably) several hundred experienced Wikipedians, and not one, as far as I remember, has complained that the name goes against any disambiguation rules, I think we can agree that there is nothing wrong with how (soccer) is used as disambiguation in the current title. – Elisson • T • C • 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay.) Well, it is obvious what the current title is intended to convey. That doesn't stop it being wrong. I'm sure a number of those experienced Wikipedians noted that the title was unfortunate, but failed to mention it in the incorrect belief that there was no better option or that all other options had been discussed and rejected. –EdC 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of Gashead I'll repeat what I said earlier re: thie focus of this discussion - It is a verifiable fact that although moving this page to "soccer" or "football" have been discussed ad nauseam, there has been no serious discussion (despite Elisson's insistence to the contrary) about moving it to "association football" (which is after all the proper name). Although I firmly believe that the page should be at 'association football' I have not proposed an actual move because I expected the discussion to result in just the sort of argument that can be seen here right now. I am simply pointing out that there has not been such a discussion and that THE BANNER IS INCORRECT. Inevitably this means that if a sensible discussion to move the page to 'association football' is to be had then it should not be prejudiced by claims that "his has already been discusssed to death". - In a nutshell the banner gives a false impression that would prejudice a serious discussion of a move. The banner should be removed or reworded to reflect the truth of the matter. Elisson is in denial. Jooler 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Association football is the perfect compromise... its more neutral than this "soccer" nonsense and football (soccer) would still redirect here anyway (as does "soccer"). That word is derived from "association" anyway, so why abreviate in the title, when you can write the full thing out and stop this popping up all the time? Unless you'd like Because moving to "coz".

Like it or not, "soccer" is regarded as a derogative slur by a large percentage of the nation which spawned the sport. Even in the article it reads;

Football (also known as association football or soccer)

The "s word" is 3rd in the pecking order, so why is it in the title over ones which appear before it? And what does it say in the article of football?

Football is the name given to a number of different, but related, team sports. The most popular of these world-wide is association football (also known as soccer)

Again, the "s word" nonsense is lower down in the pecking order. The only way I'd support keeping the word in the title, would be moving American football to a similarly derogative Football (rugby with pads) to even things out. What is the alternative to changing the article name to "association football" a discussion about this been restarted every single month? - Deathrocker 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The alternative is the awful status quo, and unfortunately I don't see this changing while the sport goes by a nickname in Nort America. Chris Cunningham 11:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, unfortunately. Still, I'd like to see some assessment of the cognitive load on North Americans of "association football" (most of whom will continue to see and use the soccer redirect) against the incongruity of the current title. (Note that the regional body (CONCACAF) uses "association football" in its name, so the term has at least some currency in North America.) –EdC 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Some fallacies die hard. "Soccer" isn't a "nickname" in North America; it's the name of the game in North American English, just as it is in Australian English (in spite of what some tossers will try to tell you), New Zealand English, South African English and in rural southern Ireland.

"Soccer" is a corruption of a Latin word. Just about every English language word is a bastardisation of a perfectly good Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman or Latin word. Slang and other forms of vernacular enter official/proper usage all the time. Where is the problem? Grant | Talk 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What fallacy are you referring to here? I'd have thought it were fairly obvious that when the North American authorities use the word "soccer", they don't see it as a nickname. That doesn't change the fact that to a large proportion of the readership of this encyclopedia (and in particular this article), "soccer" is seen as a nickname, and one bordering on the derogatory. Evidently, that a slang or other vernacular term enters official or proper usage within one particular regional form doesn't entail that the same will occur in the language as a whole. Indeed, those "tossers" of whom you speak so fondly would appear to be of the opinion that such a term can subsequently depart official or proper usage (again, within a particular regional form.)

As for what name is used where, I gather the situation is a little more nuanced than you suggest; would you consider reading (and adding your knowledge of New Zealand English to) Names for football (soccer)?

I'll take your parting question at face value, as opposed to an expression of combativeness, and refer you to the above discussion and preceding archived discussions, in particular Talk:Football_(soccer)/(archive_3)#Name_again. –EdC 02:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Association Football is the official name for the sport and should be the title of this article. As has been stated previously soccer will still re-direct here and soccer will still be listed as a common name given to the sport in the first paragraph. The term "Soccer" is not used at all in Europe and is seen as degrading by the majority of fans in this region. Dave101 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

London, August 2006

Degrading? Derogatory? You blokes are too much. If the word is so unpopular, why would the sub-editors on the Evening Standard use it ? (See right.)

Dave, even if you think that Europe excludes Ireland -- where the word soccer is widely used -- it's easy to find many references to "soccer" on English-language websites in France, Germany, Italy (etc)

Ed, you say "to a large proportion of the readership of this encyclopedia (and in particular this article), "soccer" is seen as a nickname..." Very, very dubious, mate. Since there are more than 300 million native English speakers in North America. Also, a very large number of ESL speakers, even in soccer strongholds like South America, favour American usage when speaking/writing English. Grant | Talk 16:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote Aston Villa's American chairman Randy Lerner: "If I call it soccer they would drag me around by my nostrils".Dave101 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Newspaper headlines have different rules from the rest of English, admitting slang and other infelicities for the sake of saving space. "Soccer" is the shortest word available. Wikipedia article titles are nowhere near as pressed for space.
2. Yes... that doesn't change the fact that the English readership alone constitutes a large proportion of Wikipedia's readership. Unless to you "large proportion" means "overwhelming majority". –EdC 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Would they use "thugby" in a headline? Now that's derogatory/degrading.
2. Let's see: U.S.A = 300 Million, Canada = 32M, Australia = 20M, New Zealand = 4M. That is seven times the population of the UK. The native speakers elsewhere that favour British usage are insignificant in number. And as I said before, it's an open question whether more ESL/EFL speakers favour British or US usage. Grant | Talk 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "Thugby": 6 letters; "rugby": 5 letters. "Soccer": 6 letters; "football": 8 letters.
2. Even by your dubious arithmetic, that's well over 10%; a large proportion. –EdC 22:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a small number who want this page moved to suit their own agenda, so this debate arises time and time again with all the same people. This just undermines the credibility of wikipedia. Maybe all the football editors should stop editing and just check the football discussion pages only.--202.47.51.72 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this "own agenda"? - er.. this debate is about the contents of the above banner and a move to "association football" rather than another name and as has been proven above this possibility has never been explored properly. Jooler 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody else notice the ironic state of all this. You have The Beautiful Game which has an associated project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that is concerned only with this type of football. Then there is the portal but it's called Portal:Association football. And we all know where the article is. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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[8]...

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)

Edits for duplication

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)

Naming issue

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)

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)

Soccer Goals

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)

Cards

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)

Rename

Let's rename this page to soccer 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)

Major League Soccer

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)

Audience make up

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)

Penalty Box

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

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)

Horrible Pictures

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)

Derivation of the word "Soccer"

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).

History and development

"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)

Editing: Early History of Soccer

Hey, just recently did a lengthy report anylyzing the true roots of soccer. 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

Editing: History of Soccer

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

'Erik Ickes'

Proper Naming

The name of this article (Football (soccer)) is incorrect. In most parts of the world, this sport is called soccer, not Football. It makes more sense to write Soccer first. Whizmaster 06:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Most parts of the world call it football.

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)

Clarification of the rules

I think the following sentence could be clarified:

The object of the game is to score by manoeuvring the ball into the opposing goal; only the goalkeepers may use their hands or arms to propel the ball in general play.

Perhaps it could be enhanced to something like:

The object of the game is to score by manoeuvring the ball into the opposing goal. Only the goalkeepers may use their hands or arms to propel the ball in general play; the remaining players typically propel the ball using their feet to kick the ball into position, though occasionally they may use their torso or head to intercept or redirect a ball in the air.

Nebu Pookins 21:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Position?

I am trying to improve upon the Shaolin Soccer article. I ran across one character in the movie that is described as being the "FF" of the opposing team. What does that mean? Does it mean "Front Forward"? Is that even a real position? I would like to elaborate on it since other readers may come across it and be puzzled themselves. (Ghostexorcist 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Full-forward#In_popular_culture this could be what you're looking for. - The Daddy 20:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)