Talk:Association football

Maths 101

Okay this is my final final post in this thread.

Lets look at those stats again. Let's say for the sake of argument that the figures represent stats based on 100,000,000 people. 54% of people who visit Wikipedia (as a whole) go to en.wikipedia org. So that would be 54,000,000 people. The stats also say that of the people who visit Wikipedia (as a whole) 16.1% (according to the stats on this page) come from the United States. So that's 16,100,000 people. For the sake of argument lets say that everybody from the USA is visiting the English Wikipedia. That leaves 37,900,000 (54,000,000-16,100,000) who are not from the USA. 37,900,000/54,000,000 = ~70.18% of people visiting English Wikipedia are not from the USA and one can only guess how many of them are from countries which do not use English as the first language. Jooler (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems: (1) you are assuming that the same sample is used in both surveys; you don't know if you are comparing apples to apples, or apples to pears. (2) The number of visitors from the UK is only 3.3% (3) These figures for UK and US visitors both seem low seem low and the "Other countries" figure of ~31.0% seems high. While Alexa can accurately record the language in which people are reading Wikipedia, IP address prefixes — the only means of identifying location — can be used by people in a third country and/or are frequently spread across one or more national borders. Grant | Talk 11:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"you are assuming that the same sample is used in both surveys" - no I'm not. The sample might be 10,000 for the first survey and 50,000 for the second survey but it would make no difference because we're dealing with percentages. I included a hypothetical count here to help you understand. Even if they are actually using different samples it is presumably an accurate enough sample to generalise and scale up to the actual real count of visitors and I just used a hypothetical figure of 100,000,000 ro represent that as it's easy to plug in the percentages. I don't know what leads you to believe that they might perform two completely separate surveys firstly to do the count of people visiting Wikipedia tallied by their country of origin and then another one to query the count of people visiting Wikipedia tallied by the sub-site of Wikipedia that they visit? Normally a number of queries are posed of a single sample. Not that it matters as I say. Ok so now it looks like your now disputing the figures themselves rather than my maths. I did say you can prove anything but the truth with stats and it looks like you now agree with me. May I remind you that it was you that brought the Alexa stats to this discussion. Jooler (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and I stand by them. If you don't understand the problems with your assumptions about the figures, or basic facts that they illustrate, then that is your problem.

Inter alia, they illustrate that less than four per cent of the visitors to WP are from the UK, i.e. a proportion less than one quarter of the number of visitors from the USA.

It is, as I have said to you time and time again, a commonplace that speakers of British English are outnumbered on a massive scale.

If the interests of ESL/EFL speakers were even a consideration, then the whole of en.wikipedia would be written in Indian English. But they aint. Grant | Talk 01:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL you make me laugh. I've argued for ages (as David Levy will testify, and perhaps yourself if you look back at that Rio de la Plata debate) that the US usage of the Internet higher than its population percentage would suggest, because the US is a wealthy technologically advanced country with a much greater internet presence and usage. This is part of the systemic bias of Wikipedia and there is a Wiki project to counter it. Yes the interests of of ESL/EFL speakers ARE a consideration. As for UK usage the UK population is about 1/4 of the US's so that sounds about right. Jooler (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you opposed the name Rio de la Plata for River Plate because the latter is "English", and you consider that to be consistent with your opposition to mentioning "soccer" before "football" in a paragraph on the name of the game? Now you try to hide your opposition to the word soccer behind "systemic bias". Unbelievable.

The reason why ESL/EFL speakers should not be a consideration in this case is not what you think. It is this: no-one knows whether the preferred name is football/soccer in ESL/EFL, because no-one has studied it. I can tell you that when I did a search of English language pages on (for instance) .br and .mx sites, I discovered across more references to "soccer". Not surprising if you consider the geo-economic ties between Brazil and Mexico and the USA. Whereas .ar sites favoured "football". No-one even knows how many ESL/EFL speakers there are in China, let alone the proportion who say "soccer". So we are back to square one: we don't know what the preference is among ESL/EFL speakers, so we stick with first language usage.

The only systemic bias evident in this case is a peculiarly British prejudice against supposed "slang", especially if it has a "American" feel to it. (Never mind that soccer is neither slang, from where many of us are sitting, nor American.) Grant | Talk 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Let me get this straight: you opposed the name Rio de la Plata for River Plate because the latter is "English"" YES! - This is English Wikipedia! - "Rio De La Plata" is NOT English - neither is Munchen or Roma or Koln and I wouldn't expect those pages to be used when perfectly good English names for these places exist. Soccer and Football are both English and this article is written in a British English dialect so it predominately uses the word football, and that's been established for a long time and follows WP:ENGVAR, so it's perfectly justifiable. Its also obvious that with a mature and appropriate article at football, this page isn't going to move there. But we've been conflating two separate issues. You were not using first-language speakers to justify a different usage on this page, that's a spearate argument and you've already stated that you are not trying to get this page moved to soccer, but you brought together the whole issue of second language usage and Wikipedia usage when you said "but second language usage is not significant in this context. Our usage stats (pointing the Alexa data) show that people read Wikipedia articles in their native languages." - which really has nothing to do with the usage of the words football/soccer in a wider context. Of course as the point you were trying to prove with the Alexa stats is actually disproved by them (as far as English Wikipedia is concerned), I couldn't really resist picking you up on that point. Honestly, as pointed out above I'm making no 'assumptions' with those stats, other than that they both represent a true representative sample. If they don't their useless, but you can hardly blame me for bringing them to the table. Jooler (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And so, as with the River Plate/Rio de la Plata case, this article is yet another case where the linguistic tail wags the dog...to such an extent that one can't even mention "soccer" before "football" in a sentence near the end of the article.

I admire the strength of your ideological commitment to promoting the norms of British English — because it is not "English" per se — but not the poverty of your understanding of/adherence to Wikipedia policy. Grant | Talk 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated above repeatedly I didn't remove what you added because of the wording, as far as I'm concerned there's no issue there at all, but your citations left something to be desired in the reliability and authoritativeness stakes and an implied POV. Jooler (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Bollocks. Grant | Talk 09:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed at the bottom of this page: "Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (Malayalam)". A language spoken by 37 million people in South India. Highly resonant evidence that people use their first language to read encyclopedias. Grant | Talk 13:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Errr, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. It is only evidence that someone (need not be more than one person) decided to make football a featured article in Malayalam. Nothing more. Football was once a featured article (now delisted) on the Swedish Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that most Swedes would prefer sv.wiki before en.wiki when it comes to information about football. In my circle of friends, I'd say ~90 % primarily use en.wiki when they want to find information, even though their first language is Swedish. So your highly resonant evidence is... bollocks. ;) – Elisson • T • C • 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Swedish WP is so crap, why don't you go and fix it then? I find it quite ironic that ESL/EFL speakers are prepared to collude with anglocentrics like Jooler. Grant | Talk 15:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously folks, don't feed the trolls. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant I used to have a lot of respect for you as an editor. Not any more. Jooler (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say the same, but your English nationalist bias has long been clear to me. Grant | Talk 01:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's actually 100% Irish blood that run through my veins. Jooler (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that an individual's nationality, or nationalism, is closely related to that individual's genes. If that were the case, I would be stridently supporting you. Grant | Talk 11:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you would be supporting me in. All I did was remove some dodgy stats and come on the talk page to explain why. I think perhaps you should re-read what I wrote here viewing it in that context ignoring other people's interventions. You've variously accused me of raising a "smokescreen/obfuscation" you then said "Your attempts to raise smokescreens and muddy the waters are becoming more and more obvious, and less and less effective" then "...reveals the purely ideological basis of your position." and then called me "an anglocentric" and having "English nationalist bias" - I don't quite know what the smokescreen is meant to be hiding, as I said right from the start my issue was with the unscientific block voting of entire countries of English speakers backed up by dodgy stats and a polemic essay. I couldn't give a toss whether it said "Today the sport is known by a number of names throughout the English-speaking world, the most common being football and soccer." or "Today, the sport is known mostly by two names to people who speak English as a first language as soccer and football" except to add that the specific mention of first language speakers appears to only be in there just to make a point. Without the words "who speak English as a first language" or retaining the words "the English-speaking world" the information about the different names is still there and the whole WP:Point issue is gone. Jooler 04:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Jooler, Wikipedia policy does not decry articles "making a point". What it decries is the inclusion of "points" which are unverifiable. That does not apply here for reasons already stated. However, it does decry gaming the system, especially lawyering, which you have done here. The only charitable interpretation I can find for your approach is that you do not understand the spirit of these policies, considered as a whole. They are clearly not intended to prevent articles from expressing a point which you find unpalatable.

The sources clearly support my relatively minimal change to text and they are accepted sources in plenty of other Wikipedia articles. You are plainly wrong on this matter and are hiding behind the populist prejudices of other editors.

You said on my talk page:

The vast majority of USAians have no interest in Association football whatsoever so why should their opinion on the naming of the sport be given more weight than my Dutch friend who speaks excellent English, lives in Switzerland and loves the game? Why does living in the USA make all the difference? If he moved to the USA, would he be counted as a native speaker? Block voting entire countries is simply not scientific

Consider again what we are debating. Not the name of the article, but simply the order in which the most common names of the subject are mentioned, in a obscure part of the text. I believe this article should reflect the relative commonness of those names. Whereas you are now saying that the text should reflect the name favoured by the closest/elite followers of the subject, be they native or non-native speakers of English; which is a totally new argument, and is not supported by policy. We do not write articles for ourselves or "fans", we write them for a notional average reader, who in this case is likely to live in the United States and to speak American English. Your Dutch friend, if he/she moved to the USA, would have to refer to the game as "soccer" when conversing with locals, if he/she wished to be understood. That is simply the cold, hard logic of human culture. And no "block vote" is necessary, because we have sources.

Anyway, I find the collective approach to editing this article about as attractive as a team of professional divers . I'm not going to debate this any more at the moment, because I think we should probably drop the sticks and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Grant | Talk 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Consider again what we are debating. Not the name of the article, but simply the order in which the most common names of the subject are mentioned" - dunno what you're on about here, I've never once considered this an issue in this debate at all, and in fact see no mention of this in the above debate whatsoever. What you left out from my post of your talk page was the preamble "One thing that's just occurred to me regarding second language speakers. ...." - Yes it is a new argument I admitted that up front, and one that I thought might appeal to your sense of give and take not Wikipedia policy, which is why I posted it on your talk page and not here. As far as this article is concerned within the strictures of WP policy, the well established guidelines are already being adhered to. Because this sport has such a strong association with Britain and a relatively weak association with the USA it comes under the "British subject" category ruling of WP:ENGVAR, no other argument is required to support the use of British dialectical usage on this page. Jooler 16:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoken article

I've just listened to part of the spoken article. Good effort and all that, but really the amount of mispronunciation is really quite staggering.

• IFAB is not pronounced as "eyefab" but I. F. A. B.
• It's not "uston villa"
• Alcock is pronounced All cock not 'Al Cock'
• Blackheath is pronounced like "teeth" not "black herth"
• Sheffield , there's no strong emphasis on the first syllable and it's not fast-then-slow. It's not CHEF-field. The emphasis is even and it's more like "chef-yield" (this description still doesn't quite explain how wrongly it is pronounced in the spoken article).
• There's more but I got tired. Jooler 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It probably needs a new one, given that the FAR removed lots of content from the history section and gave the whole article a copyedit. Woodym555 10:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do

Lets make it clear where I come from. At school I played soccer from primary till my final year. I still follow soccer to a certain extent, and when I barrack for Australia in the World Cup, I support the Socceroos. When I look up results in the newspaper, I look up soccer results, and when commentators talk about the sport on the radio they normally talk about soccer. I never refer to it as football when talking about it to friends, because that would just be confusing, and I am a little annoyed when others refer to it as such to me.

It seems quite possible that the majority of native English speakers, like me, call the sport soccer, but frankly that is unprovable and anyway not important. It is clear that most of those who play and seriously follow the game do call it football, though. So it seems to me important that the article does refer to the different names the sport is called by those involved in the sport, and that is football. Likewise an article on Australian football should define its terms and then refer to that sport as football, as should an article on American football (which by the way I call Gridiron). That just seems the logical and fair thing to do. So let's drop this attempt to split hairs over census figures and move on. --Michael Johnson 04:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fully agreed. No matter what anyone calls the sport whether football or soccer, the official full name, whether anyone likes it or not, is Association football. Soccer is not the official name for the sport which is why the world governing body is FIFA and not FISA. I fully accept that some people call it soccer. There is already a compromise with the title of the article using both names even though the official name is Association football. Statistics are all well and good but the fact remains that the offical name is Association football and not soccer (and not just football for that matter). Your comments about the various articles about different forms of football perhaps is also reason for this article to be renamed Association football, not that I think it will happen as is evidenced by the above debate, and previous discussions such as the "its called soccer" section, there are some pretty strong views both ways and I suppose at least with the title as it is it is the best compromise to cover both views. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with Tangerines, here. Both "football" and "soccer" are bastardisations of the sports proper name, which is "association football". Regardless of whether you call it "football", "soccer" or anything else, the only constant is the game that you're talking about. The article should be called "Association football", full stop. - PeeJay 18:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, the official name of a sport should be used where possible. We do not name other codes of football as Football (American) [or Football (Gridiron)] and Football (Rugby), so why should this article be any different? Dave101→talk  18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You should always follow WP:COMMONNAME for article titles. And "association football" is quite formal and uncommon. The fact is the game is known as "football" in British English and "soccer" in US English. As the English Wikipedia does not have preferences between them, I think the statu quo is a fair solution. --Angelo 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more common to refer to the sport as "association football" than it is to refer to it as "football (soccer)." I find it odd that you would cite our naming guidelines, which clearly disallow such disambiguation. —David Levy 09:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Zzz... the naming issue: quick poll

I think this subject has just about been talked to death here. There will always be some people who call it "Football", and other people who call it "Soccer". It's time to put the issue to rest - and therefore, I call upon Wikipedians to participate in a straw poll regarding the naming issue. For the record, I personally call the sport simply "Football" - but for the purpose of this article I support a name change to "Association Football", which is after all its official name, and one that distinguishes the sport from others with similar names. No lengthy comments please: the issue has already been discussed inside out - just add your name to your preferred option. EuroSong ^talk 22:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, "football" shouldn't be capitalised in "association football", should it? Reginmund 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember when polling here that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Don't put too much value in the result of this poll. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am fully aware of that - I know that "votes" do not get conducted in such a manner, and this is why I did not label this as a vote to decide the title of the article. It is simply a poll to gauge opinion. Wikipedia is not a democracy: but issues do get decided according to general consensus among editors. Since the naming issue has been rambling on for so long that it's increasingly unclear what the consensus actually is, it is therefore at least useful to have such a poll to take a snapshot of current community opinions. See? EuroSong ^talk 23:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, calm down there. :) That was a general warning to everyone, not a reply to you, hence it not being indented from your message. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article should be called...

Association Football or Association football

Please add your name below

1. EuroSong ^talk 22:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
2. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Reginmund 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
4. --Michael Johnson 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
5. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 15:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
6. PeeJay 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Dave101→talk  18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Jooler 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
9. (with the caveat that the second word should not be capitalised) EdC 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
10. Joshua Issac (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
11. The title "Football (soccer)" is an illogical, MoS-defying "compromise" in which everyone loses (purely to prevent anyone from "winning"). Either "Association football" or "Soccer" would be a perfectly correct, unambiguous title, and I wholeheartedly support the former as the one more likely to enjoy consensus. —David Levy 05:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Erfa (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC) - this is definitely the best compromise
13. Having soccer as a disambig makes no sense - it should be Association Football - which is the porper name. StuartDD _{contributions} 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
14. There is Rugby football American football and this is Association Football. Soccer is a coloquial North Americnism and football is ambiguous. People who know of other types of football but have not used or heard the slang soccer used before may easily get confused.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

    In fairness, it should be noted that the term "soccer" originated in England and is commonly used in Australia and New Zealand. —David Levy 02:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    ....not to mention Ireland and South Africa. In all of these countries, soccer it is not a colloquialism, it is the common name of the game. Moreover, as I never tire of pointing out, it is the common name for a majority of people whose first language is English. Whereas almost no-one uses "Asssociation football" in everyday speech and many English speaking people have never even heard or read the term. Grant | Talk 04:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    People don't usually say "American football" or "Canadian football" in the course of ordinary conversation, but we (quite logically) use those designations as the titles of our articles. Using the title "Football (soccer)" is like using the title "Football (gridiron)" instead of "American football." To people for whom "soccer" is a slang term, using "Soccer" as the title would be like calling the article "Gridiron."
    Many people are unfamiliar with the term "association football," but it is the sport's official English-language name (according to its highest governing body). With "soccer" remaining in place as a redirect, I see absolutely no problem with using "Association football" as the article's title. —David Levy 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Well, is "football (gridiron)" objectionable? I'm not convinced of that, based on conversations with American friends. One problem is that could be considered to also cover Canadian football. And "American football", it seems to me, is far more common and easily understood by lay people than "Association football", which on face value conjures up nothing — I can hear a hypothetical person in Texas, Tasmania or Tamil Nadu asking: "which 'association'?" Whereas "football (soccer)' is unambiguous, which is one of the main criteria for a name. Grant | Talk 06:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    I can hear the hypothetical person in Arkansas, Vanatu, or Guyana inquiring about "bovisponginopoly"? However, there is a perfectly good colloquialism for that too. Reginmund (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    This may sink in one day: "soccer" is not a colloquialism, if you are from one of the above-mentioned countries. Grant | Talk 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Quite right. As an American, I've always known the sport as "soccer." Nonetheless, I still believe that "association football" is the most suitable title for the article. —David Levy 13:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    It's not a colloqialism if you're from certain countries. However, if you're from other countries, it is one. Since this is an international encyclopædia, we should aim to use professional, international English as far as possible: and that means not using colloquialisms. If the British name for American football was "Amfoot" - and it was regarded in the UK as a perfectly acceptable, formal English word - then to name the American football article as "Football (Amfoot)" would simply sound very very silly to readers from the USA. The fact that "soccer" is regarded as proper English in some countries but slang in others is not the point though, really. The current title goes against Wikipedia's naming conventions anyway. EuroSong ^talk 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    "Soccer" is a colloquialism wherever you're from, regardless if it is the primary usage, as is corn and mad-cow disease. Reginmund (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Are you suggesting that "soccer" is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English? —David Levy 19:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes. Reginmund (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    On what basis do you make such an assertion? Have you notified Major League Soccer and the United States men's and women's national soccer teams of your findings? —David Levy 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    No. I don't need to notify them on anything. I made the assertion based on the etymology of "soccer". Reginmund (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    The word's etymology is not disputed. What's disputed is your apparent belief that the English language is static and unchanging.
    Do you also regard "petrol" (which originated as a slang abbreviation of "petroleum spirit") as a colloquialism? —David Levy 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Did I ever say that the word's etymology is disputed? Did I ever say that the English language is static and unchanging? NO, so please don't make cruft up. As an answer to your question, petrol is not a colloquialism. Reginmund (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I was informing you of the dispute's nature (which relates not to the etymology, but to the relevance thereof). I referenced your "apparent belief that the English language is static and unchanging" because I don't know how else to interpret your stance that the word "soccer" must forever remain a colloquialism in all varieties of English.
    Why do you not regard "petrol" as a colloquialism? (I don't either, but I'm wondering what distinction you're drawing.) —David Levy 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    The correct distinction is that soccer is a colloquialism in British English, while it is not a colloquialism in most other varieties. Even though the spelling and style of this article is British English, that does not have any implications for acknowledgement of soccer, as a term, in the text, or the naming of the article. Grant | Talk 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    I agree, and I'm struggling to make sense of Reginmund's logic. —David Levy 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Me too. Although I'm British, and for me "soccer" is an informal colloquialism - I accept that in some other countries it has been recognised as formal usage. There is no international cast-iron definition of what's proper and what is not. In some countries they use pidgin English - which, to us, may sound like baby talk - but to them is proper and correct! EuroSong ^talk 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    No, you said that the "word's etymology is not disputed" which I don't see how is relevant. Nor did I say or make any insinuation that the English language is static and unchanging. In fact I think quite differently that statement could only be fabricated on your behalf. Before making such frivolous claims, it would be best to understand how "petrol" came to use in the English lexicon compared to how "soccer" came into the English lexicon. Reginmund (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    1. The fact that the word's etymology is not disputed is relevant because I wanted to make it clear that my disagreement was not based on such an argument.
    2. As I said, I'm merely attempting to make sense of your stance. Rather than leaving me to speculate, please explain why the fact that "soccer" originated as a slang term means that it must forever remain a colloquialism in all varieties of English. Please also enlighten me on the relevant historical difference(s) between "soccer" and "petrol." Simply claiming that they exist (without providing any details) is not particularly helpful. —David Levy 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

    Why would you bring up the fact that the word's etymology is not disputed if your disagreement is not based on such an argument? Rather than speculate a frivolous reason for my stance, ask me what about it you don't understand instead of confusing yourself by answering your own question that you have no capability of doing. "Soccer" is a slang term and the etymology basically speaks for itself. Yet, the etymology of "petrol" also speaks for itself as it is clearly not a slang term. If you would simply understand the etymologies and the definition of "slang", you would find an answer to your question. Or would you like me to tell you the etymologies and what "slang" means? Reginmund (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    You cited the word's etymology. I replied by indicating that while we are in agreement regarding said etymology, we are not in agreement regarding its modern relevance.
    As I said, I'm merely trying to make sense of your argument. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but despite my requests, you aren't explaining why you believe that a slang term can never evolve into a formal term (in this case, specifically in certain varieties of English). If you don't believe that the English language is static, how do you rationalize this position?
    I'm quite familiar with the definition of slang, and I already requested that you enlighten me on the pertinent historical difference(s) between the words "soccer" and "petrol." The latter originated as an informal abbreviation of "petroleum spirit," and it evolved into a formal term in some varieties of English (including yours) through common use as one. Likewise, "soccer" originated as an informal abbreviation of "association football," but it now is used as a formal term in some varieties of English (including mine). What is the relevant distinction? —David Levy 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Considering the origins of the word "soccer". Although many slang words become known throughout the English language, it still shouldn't suggest that they aren't slang. Since "slang" is a portmanteau of "secret language", it was not necessarily meant for everyone to understand. However, because "soccer" is understood by most all anglophones as many slang words are. This shouldn't suggest that it still isn't slang. And because slang is a "secret language", words such as "petrol" cannot be considered slang because "petrol" was meant for everyone to hear it to understand it. Reginmund (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

    Before I read the above for a fourth time, can someone else please verify that it makes sense to them? —David Levy 00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    It makes sense to me, I just don't see what relevance it has to this discussion. – PeeJay 10:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    None whatsoever, is how much. I do wish we could stop getting sidetracked by an irrelevant grammar debate. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    It's irrelevant to the proposed move, but not to the article itself (which could be edited to explain that "soccer" is a colloquialism in all varieties of English). —David Levy 12:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Could you please to explain it to me? It has nothing to with the proposed move to Association football (which I strongly support, of course), but I'd like to understand how it is that "soccer" is a colloquialism in the varieties of English in which it exists as a formal term (but "petrol" is not). As far as I can tell, the rationale is the former originated as a "secret" of some sort. Even if true, I don't see how this is remotely relevant to how it's used today. —David Levy 12:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    "Petrol" is not simply because it was created as a neologism and not a colloquialsim. "Soccer" was made as a slang term and its etymlogy clearly shows that. Reginmund (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

    Let's assume that the above is accurate. What bearing does this have on the word's use today? Am I correct in interpreting your statements to mean that a colloquialism cannot evolve into formal word? If so, on what do you base this assertion? You've confirmed that you believe that "soccer" is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English, but do you actually deny that it's used as such in some? No offense, but it really seems as though you're simply condemning English varieties that differ from your own. —David Levy 04:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

    Don't make assumptions that you simply know nothing about. It really seems as though you're simply condeming my statement because of a system bias. Some words, no matter how widespread they are in use, still remain colloquial. "Bendy bus" happens to be a more widespread term in the UK referring to an articulated bus. Somewhat along the level of "soccer" being more widespread in the US than "football". No matter how much it is used, it is still colloquial and everyone in the country (including me) knows it. And I try to avoid colloquialisms as much as possible so I prefer the more "American" term and I call it an "articulated bus". I really don't know what you are suggesting. Is this somehow supposed to mean that colloquialisms are only classified by limited use? Reginmund (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Claiming that the use of the word "soccer" to describe the sport in question is "more widespread in the US than 'football'" is a huge understatement. Soccer is the only English word commonly used for this purpose (in both formal and informal contexts) in the United States. To us, "soccer" isn't a nickname; it's the sport's correct name.
    No, the extent to which a term is used doesn't determine whether a word is a colloquialism. (As you noted, many colloquialisms are quite common.) What matters is how the word is used. If a word is commonly accepted in formal contexts, it isn't a colloquialism (wherever this occurs). Again, do you deny that "soccer" is used as a formal term in some countries? Why is this inappropriate?
    Once again, I ask you whether you believe that it's possible for a colloquialism to evolve into a formal term (and if not, why not). —David Levy 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Like I said, "soccer" is used more than "football" in the US as "bendy bus" is used more than "articulated bus" in the UK. Now such words as "bendy bus" are still accepted into formal context, yet they are still known as colloquialisms. As "bendy bus" is a colloquialism in the UK, "soccer" is a colloquialism in the US, no matter how widespread their usage is over the correct form. Reginmund (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

    Again, "soccer" is not a nickname for "football" in the United States. It is the only common English name here. ("Football" almost always refers to American football.) The etymology of the word "soccer" is completely unknown to most Americans (who use the word just as they use any formal word). As it's a term's current use (and not necessarily its origin) that determines its status, it's ludicrous to claim that "soccer" is a colloquialism (and not "correct") in countries in which it clearly has entered formal usage.
    Do you intend to answer my questions, are will you ignore them yet again? —David Levy 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, "articulated bus" is not a widespread alternative to the colloquial "bendy bus" in the United Kingdom. "Bendy bus" is the only common English name here. Just because the etymology of a word is unknown to a person, doesn't somehow change its classification. And terms that are the current and only used can still be considered colloquial. Examples include "soccer" in the US and "bendy bus" in the UK. It's ludicrous to claim that just because a word is the only one in use in a certain dialect, it automatically is not colloquial. Do you intend to actually read my post to find answers to your questions or are you going to ignore me again? Reginmund (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Apart from the issue regarding Canadian football, "Football (gridiron)" would be a terrible title because it flagrantly defies our naming conventions in a highly illogical manner (and is just plain ugly). "Football (soccer)" is a terrible title for the same reasons.
   "Football (soccer)" is less ambiguous, but the same could be said of countless potential article titles combining two different names in this manner. But we don't do that (because it's silly). With the correct redirects and disambiguation links in place, an article is perfectly easy for readers to find. From a practical standpoint, this would be just true of an Association football article as it is of our Zucchini article. (From the perspective of someone who knows the plant as "courgette," it makes no difference that the name "zucchini" is commonly used by others.) In both cases, the article explains the potentially unfamiliar term's meaning, so what's the problem?
   As others have said, there is no perfect title for this article, but "Association football" is the least bad. —David Levy 07:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   That is a matter of opinion. Grant | Talk 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   What do you think is the least bad then? "Football" isn't an option, as it is too ambiguous. "Soccer" isn't an option as there are too many people around the world who refer to the game as "football" instead. "Football (soccer)" isn't an option as it is against Wikipedia naming conventions, which leaves "Association football" as the only viable alternative! – PeeJay 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, it is. Needless to say, it's perfectly reasonable for you to disagree. —David Levy 13:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   Well thank you ;-) There are plenty of examples of article names which do not conform with naming policy, for perfectly good reasons. These are known a "exceptions" and policy allows for them. Grant | Talk 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

   Indeed, we can (and do) deviate from our usual naming conventions when specific situations call for exceptions. I don't, however, believe that the title "Football (soccer)" is good. I believe that "Association football" (itself not entirely consistent with said conventions) is the best option. —David Levy 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Football

Please add your name below

1. Chandlertalk 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (with Association Football as a second alternative)

Soccer

Please add your name below

Football (soccer)

Please add your name below

Something else entirely

Please add your name below

• m:Voting is evil.

1. Oldelpaso 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
2. CommentThe issue cannot be resolved by a vote. The world will still want it called "football", Americans will want it called "soccer", because they are under the mistaken impression that gridiron is called football. No one will want it called "football (soccer)" because it is stupid and unwieldy. Also no one will want it called "association football" since calling it that makes you sound like something out of Victorian England. King of the NorthEast 15:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

   King, the "world" doesn't call it "football", even if you count all the translations like Fussball. Speakers of Chinese languages, who outnumber us by a significant margin, call it names like Zuqiu (from the name of an old Chinese game). As I've said above, the majority of native English speakers call it by that fine English word "soccer" and we are not all American. That said, I agree with you and that's why I won't be voting. Grant | Talk 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

   The zh wikipedia (Chinese?) at least have football under a article called football (the two signs for foot and ball) So i guess that counts with "Fussball" "Fotboll" etc. etc. And thus, the world calls it Football. Though a Chinese will have to verify what its actually called (or maybe someone can find what its referred to in national newspapers, tv etc.) Chandlertalk 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

   This is the English Wikipedia, not the World one. And your claim is untrue: for instance, in Italy we call it calcio, not football. And Canadians call it soccer (I lived there, so I know that for good). --Angelo 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

   Well said Angelo. Zuqiu/cuju and all the other Chinese names literally = "kickball", not football and as I said it comes from an old Chinese games and not the FA game. The Korean name, chook gu, is from the same source. The Japanese call it Sakkā, from soccer. Grant | Talk 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

3. !Voting won't resolve the issue. m:Voting is evil. Woodym555 17:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
4. I agree that voting won't resolve the issue. Sebisthlm 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
5. However, many of us have explained our reasons. Reginmund 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Agree with all the friends above. In any case, I fully support the statu quo. --Angelo 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Leave as is. This is a featured article. Why try to change what several levels of review determined wasn't broken? -- Ssilvers 19:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

   Which is precisely why it should comply with naming conventions. EdC 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

8. This is not a vote. And my vote is not a vote either. – Elisson • T • C • 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Comment: I'm incredibly naughty so I can't vote, however I believe there is something valuable and indepth I can add to this, so these are the things I'd like to say about it to mull over between yourselves lads.

   (1). This game is called football, all the other forms of football are in some way derived from or branched off it in some way. Whether you say rugby and in turn American football branched off from that, or whatever. It all goes back to this one. The mother in this field.

   Comment: Not so, rugby football (in various forms) predates Assn. Football by many decades, Australian football rules were codified in 1858, Assn. football in 1863, etc. --Michael Johnson 03:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   That's a somewhat misleading claim. Regardless of when the first codification of rules which lead to modern rules occurred, the "picking up the ball and running with it" football born in the apocryphal story of William Webb-Ellis was clearly a modification of the "kicking the ball around" football being played at the time. --Stormie 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   I've seen it all now. You have expressly cited an "apocryphal" story as evidence. Also, it is historically incorrect to claim pre-1863 kicking games as being Association football, akin to claiming that a Sopwith Camel and a Spitfire are the same plane. On a lesser note, the innovation attributed to Webb-Ellis at Rugby was that he picked up the ball from the ground, not that he ran with it. Medieval football games and older ones allowed the ball to be handled and carried. Some actually banned kicking entirely (and yes, they were still called football). Most kinds of football, including Association football, allowed some handling of the ball by all players, until the late 19th century, although most did not allow the ball to picked up Grant | Talk 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

   (2). Most countries of the English speakers in the world call it "football". More than 45 counrties out of the 52 official English speaking. However, Australia, USA, Canada has a big population calling it "soccer", but even then so does India, Pakistan, Nigeria, who officially speak the English word and call it football.

   "Officially" there are many languages in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and the number of people who speak English as a first language is minuscule. What would Wikipedia look like if style and usage in every article was tailored to ESL/EFL speakers? Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   (3). While some may say association football is too formal, in this situation it is the ideal compromise. It actually belongs at Football, but we know that won't happen, because on Wikipedia there is systematic bias against British English naming conventions of articles, see "color, tire". Soccer on the other hand is too informal and looks cheesy/amateurish, it is after all only a nickname from "association"... we would never call an article Rugby football (rugger), American football (gridder) or Breakfast (brekkie), Walking (walkies), its wrong.

   You could not be more wrong. In this case there is "systemic bias" against people who speak almost every other variety of English other than British English. Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   (4). Even in countries who do not have the English as their language, like China and others, if football or soccer has to be used official to convey a message to the world, they officially use "football", on their websites[1], in their press releases and even the initial F for "football" on their logos.[2]

   So what? The British Embassy in Beijing probably has Chinese text on its wevbsite. Do you really think that soccer fans in China go around saying "football" or "soccer? No they do not. Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   (5). Obviously we have lots of loan words used around the world Fodbold, Fußball, Fútbol, Foutbòl, Futbol, Fotball, Futebol, Votebol, etc.. in France they just use the English language, and while in Italy it is true calcio means "kick", the majority of the clubs when not using "Calcio" instead have "Football" in their name; Juventus Football Club, Football Club Internazionale Milano, Torino Football Club, Parma Football Club, Genoa Cricket and Football Club, Empoli Football Club, etc.

   Showing the historical period in which they emerged, when the game was seen as essentially "Inglese". But in modern Italian it's Calcio. What's more the leading Italian news service, ANSA, refers to the game as "soccer" in English language articles. As do leading German and French media outlets. Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   The use of 'calcio' as opposed to football - is strongly associated with Mussolini's Fascist italianization of the sport - in this case harking back to Calcio Fiorentino. See History of A.C. Milan for example. Jooler 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   The use of calcio instead of football in Italy is unrelated to Mussolini and the fascist era. The Italian Football Federation is named Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio since 1909. On the other hand, the Italian word clearly derives from the old Calcio Fiorentino game, but not because of Mussolini. --Angelo 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   The revival of Calcio Fiorentino was initiated by the fascist politician Alessandro Pavolini. Our article on AC Milan says "In 1938 the fascist regime imposed a new italianized name, Associazione Calcio Milano, for the team.". Is it not correct that several other clubs Italianized their names during this period? Jooler 15:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   You stated the use of calcio rather than football was imposed by Mussolini during the fascist period, and this is wrong (the origin of the name dates back to 1909). Anything else is really unimportant here. --Angelo 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   Those were not the words I used. 'Stongly associated' is not a synonym of 'imposed'. Jooler 15:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   In fact it is not even strongly associated. Calcio was widely used well before Mussolini took the power in Italy, and s still used nowadays, differently than football club name italianizations such as AC Milano and Ambrosiana-Inter, which were all cancelled after the World War II. --Angelo 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   In closing, rightly or wrongly (statistics say this one)... this article will always stay at football (soccer) because of systematic bias. A move to "Football" will never be allowed and even a move to "Association football" won't either. Forever this article will have something holding it back to many who loves this sport and has learned English spoken the way the founders of this sport and what it is officially called by; there will be a sinking feeling in your gut when you see "soccer" as part of this title, flashbacks of Diana Ross missing that set up penalty at the 1994 FIFA World Cup ceremony, etc... the kind of things which sinks you to your knees and makes you wish this sport didn't spawn any other codes just to stop the inhumanity. A dramatisation sure, but I guarantee lots of you reading know exactly what I mean. ;) - Extra Time Goal 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   As noted above, the present name is actually an example of systemic bias against the majority of people who speak English as a first language, because the vast majority of us call it soccer. It is a myth that soccer is a minority name, "slang" or otherwise incorrect. If anything, the article should be at soccer or soccer (football), but I support the status quo because everyone thinks their own norms are "right" and therefore we will never have consensus for any change. Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   Just because you call something something, that doesnt make it it's name. Soccer IS a slang, and it comes from Association, So don't try to say Soccer is what its always been called and is a real word. And as the english wikipedia probably is the most visited one? most read? it would probably have a more global pov and not an american pov. And doesnt things like FIFA, CAF, AFC, UEFA, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, OFC gives you enough evidence that its not soccer but Football... Maybe that the US governing body was called Football and not soccer in the beginning, and that the Australian governing body is changing its name from Soccer to Football Chandlertalk 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   The etymology of the word is irrelevant, as is British usage/disdain, because neither reflect the significance of the word to the majority of English speakers. "Soccer" was slang when a great English soccer player, Charles Wreford-Brown, invented it. However, English is s dynamic language, ruled by popular usage and not institutions; soccer is now the accepted name of the game in American English, Australian English, Canadian English, Irish English, New Zealand English, South African English and other varieties. It is also the name of the game in those varieties of English. It is the official name of the game in the USA and Canada and by extension, the vast majority of people who speak English as a first language.Grant | Talk 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

   I agree that you can't go by what a majority of English speakers say (in that case the Sweden article would be called Switzerland). The Governing bodies call it football (see FIFA), and the sport originates, have a stronger cultural standing and more practicers in Europe, where the sport is called football in English (as well as in most other languages). Sebisthlm 18:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

   Of course we "go by" the majority of English speakers! That is the fundamental naming policy in the English language Wikipedia. If you can provide proof that a majority of English speakers refer to Sweden as "Switzerland" then I will support your proposal for a move of Sweden to Switzerland (North) :-) Geography is a good analogy for this situation, because there is no consistency, logic or regard to local names, niceties or political correctness in many geographical names; the current common name in English is used. The governing bodies in the USA and Canada call it "soccer", as do many European media in English language articles, including Spiegel, Deutsche Welle, France24 and ANSA prefer "soccer", clearly recognising their main market. Grant | Talk 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

   Of course we "go by" the majority of English speakers! That is the fundamental naming policy in the English language Wikipedia - No it isn't. WP:ENGVAR specifically says - English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others.. I don't know why you bring up various uses of soccer in the media. With regard to Der Speigel the use of soccer/football might be related to whether the source of the article is from AP or Reuters or other news agency. But in general to argue that the fact that some headline writers use 'soccer' should have any influence on its naming here would also suggest that we should move Bovine spongiform encephalopathy to mad cow disease and Michael Jackson to Wacko Jacko. Jooler 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore this article is written in the British English dialect in which 'football' is more natural than 'soccer'. -- Jooler (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Jooler, I brought up use of soccer in the European media because Sebisthlm stated that "in Europe...the sport is called football in English". I might also have mentioned that American usage is taught in some European school systems. WP:ENGVAR is about consistency within individual articles, not common names. May I remind you of the long, tedious and disappointing debate regarding the name of River Plate/Rio de la Plata...you and I argued for River Plate as the most common name in English. I cannot see that your present position here reflects the common name in English. Grant | Talk 04:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   User:Sebisthlm is a Swede so I think he may be able to speak with a little authority. Re River Plate: That was a debate between an a name that has been in use in the English speaking world since the time of Francis Drake and a foreign name. The debate was akin to moving the article on Munich to München. An entirely different situation. Jooler 09:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   What that tells me is that you don't understand the meaning of "common name" and/or do not support or obey Wikipedia policy in this regard. Grant | Talk 10:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   Firstly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is not policy but a convention so there is not strict requirement to "obey it". It "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". Secondly: In regards of that convention there are noted exceptions due to "national varieties of English" and fixed wing aircraft is given as an example. And thirdly - even if there is a majority for 'soccer' as opposed to 'football' among first language speakers (which I dispute) it is by no means an overwhelming majority and finally this all takes no account of second language speakers which as pointed out above is absolutely relevant. Jooler 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   Commonsense? That is in short supply on this page (unlike anglocentrism). A convention is not a policy? Maybe one of the Rio de Plata crowd should have said that to you and it would have ended the argument...not. Your concern for second language speakers is touching, albeit unusual. They can decide what to call the game in their own language. Their interests have no bearing on naming policy in the English language WP. Grant | Talk 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   That ('common sense' etc) is a direct quote from the standard guideline template as used Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). No a convention is not a policy - see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Official policy articles and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Official guideline articles. Policies are marked with This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It looks like in desperation you've resorted to ad hominem and are declaring me a hypocrite. But the phrase Rio de Plata is NOT English. The Rio de La Plata debate is more closely related to the debate about using Burma or Myanmar. It is irrelevant to this discussion. Jooler (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   It is not for you to say what is relevant and what isn't. The principle is exactly the same. Rio de Plata has been adopted by American English; River Plate is used in all varieties of English (including American English to an extent). "Desperation"? I am probably the least desperate person here; soccer is not my favourite sport and I don't really care if the article is moved to Association football. I just think the arguments for that name and against soccer are anglocentric mumbo jumbo. As for "hypocrisy", well if the cap fits... Grant | Talk 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

   Since it's not clear cut what a majority of English spaekers are calling the sport, I think you have to go by what the practicians of the sport themselves call it. FIFA officially call it football, as well as all continental FA's and a vast majority of all national FA's. As for the (professional) players themselves it's pretty obvious that a majority are calling the sport football, so on a personal note I would have prefered the article to be called "football" (but since there is that American form of rugby that for some reason is called football, i know that will never work). My point with what Europeans call the sport in English is that I'm convinced a majority would call the sport football and not soccer if they weren't speaking to a North American. Now, I don't see what we are debating here, or more exactly, what your point is Grant. Do you want this article to be moved to "Soccer"? That would be like writing the article on afternoon tea in American English, and I can assure you it won't happen. This will be my last contribution to this discussion. Sebisthlm 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   I have never asked for the article to be moved to soccer and I do not want it to be. My point is that moving the article to "Association football" violates the policy of using common names, whereas "football (soccer)" incorporates both of the common names. What a majority of Europeans call the game is irrelevant because this isn't the "European Wikipedia", it is the England language Wikipedia. Europeans A majority of people who speak English as a first language call the game soccer. This reminds me of a brief exchange in Rumpole of the Bailey in which a judge asks if the football being referred to was "association or rugby". The intention was to present him as hopelessly out-of-touch, old-fashioned and/or pedantic. And that was about 20 years ago... Grant | Talk 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   This current has lead to lots of awkwardly titles subpages. So we have History of football (soccer) instead of the much more elegant History of Association football. There are some really horrible examples like Lists of football (soccer) players and Football (soccer) tactics and skills Jooler 14:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   Oh, the humanity! Grant | Talk 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   • "Use common names" is a guideline, and it certainly doesn't justify the current construct. Perhaps you'd rather see gasoline at gas (petrol), or potato chip at chips (crisps)? EdC (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   Err, no. Everyone knows gasoline = petrol. "Potato chip" is the majority name for the things that Brits call crisps. Soccer is an unusual case because it has a different name (soccer) for most English speakers, than its original name (Association football) and its common name in its place of origin (football). If we were to follow the gasoline and potato chip examples then this article would be moved to soccer. But I think it should stay here. Grant | Talk 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   Everyone? Not in the UK - and try referring to the fuel as "gasoline" where its common name is "gas" - you'd look just as out-of-touch as your example above. Same goes for the fried tuberous snack - I'm sure people who work for food companies call them "potato chips", but the majority call them just "chips". EdC (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   Thinking about your "Rumpole of the Bailey" example - if the judge had instead asked "association or American" they'd have been forward-thinking and Atlanticist. EdC (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

   If I was to take your word for it, British people are so insular that they either don't know what Americans mean by "gasoline", "chips" or "football" or refuse to acknowledge these words. But I know that this is not true. And in my experience Americans refer to petrol as "gasoline" and "gas", although they use the latter more often. You missed my point, which is that there is no ambiguity about gasoline, obviating a need for gasoline (petrol). And there is nothing to stop the other being moved to potato chip (crisp). In any case, these examples do not support your case as the location of these articles, at gasoline and potato chips, suggest that this article should be moved to soccer.

   Clearly, your sample differs from mine. My point was that there is no ambiguity about "association football"; certainly "association football (soccer)" would be unnecessary. I chose those examples as instances where the most common names are not used. EdC (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

   Your take on the Rumpole example merely suggests one of the many incorrect myths and assumptions underlying your side of the debate: dualism, in this case that there are only two kinds of English and two kinds of football concerned. Grant | Talk 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

   Well, I'm sorry to have inadvertently wounded your linguistic pride. Can we suppose that I said "association, American, Australian rules, Canadian, Gaelic, Rugby league or Rugby union" (and with even more abject apologies to players, spectators or advocates of any other codes) and continue from there? EdC (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

   Furthermore, Ed & Jooler, the policy in question is more than a guideline. WP:NAME "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia...". "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." That name is "soccer". Grant | Talk 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

   Now, really. That's either a misreading of the text, or a flat lie. WP:NAME is an official policy, but WP:NC(CN) is a naming convention: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." EdC (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

   Which part of WP:NAME do you not understand? Grant | Talk 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

   Apparently, the part where "conventions, not rules carved in stone" loses the first two words. Perhaps I should try reading WP:DAB the same way? EdC (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   "Not carved in stone"? Well duh. I mean we already have a name which is an effective compromise rather than the common name, i.e. "football (soccer)". Now some people want to have a name (Association football) which is uncommon, indeed completely unknown, to the vast majority or English speakers. (As an aside, my personal experience of living in the UK for two years suggests that a significant minority of Brits have never heard the name Association football and/or find it no more desirable than "soccer".) Grant | Talk 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

   I'm not aiming for compromise. The objective here should be to give the article the best pragmatically usable title, consistent with guidelines to the fullest degree possible. EdC (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Grant65 seems to hate football and non of his comments to do with what is most common used in this English language have any source and/or vertification, or are in any form neutral to this sport here. It is fact that most official English speaking language countries of this earth call this game football, he hates that for some reason not known and 99% of his comments are just general bitter filled stabs at the world game. The world loves football, the world doesn't know about Aussie rules, why not just accept this and be happy that you have a unique obscure sport of your own to enjoy/celebrate? - Extra Time Goal (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cannot see how this comment is at all helpful, any more that counting up Caribbean micro-nations is helpful. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Struth, Extra. Don't come the raw prawn with me, mate. I like Soccer. I love the Socceroos and watched all of their 2006 World Cup games in the early hours of the morning here. Perth Glory is my soccer team. Wolverhampton Wanderers are my English soccer team. Beats me what English people have got against an innocuous word like "soccer". Must have 'roos loose in the top paddock, I reckon :-) Grant | Talk 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What do we have against the word "soccer"? Well, it sounds slang, informal, cheesy, and quaint. It's like calling Rugby "rugger". Yes yes, I know you're about to say that in other parts of the world the word has been accepted as a proper word and not slang, and therefore it does not have these connotations - but you did ask specifically what we English have against it. It just sounds crap, that's all - and feels totally wrong in a formal piece of writing. It also makes one think of socks. ;) EuroSong ^talk 01:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the reason English people hate the word "soccer" is because Americans stubbornly continue use that word instead of the word that English people wish Americans would use. If I had a 10P for every time I heard an English person say, "You stupid fat yanks it's football not soccer!" then I would have more money than the queen. A little more candor here would certainly be refreshing. Loundry (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Leave as is. There is no possible name for this article which will not make some people happy and some other people unhappy, so lets leave the status quo and not mess with the 10,000+ (I got bored after paging through that many) articles that link here. --Stormie 03:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

   Linking articles wouldn't have to change. Wikipedia supports redirects and piped links. EdC 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

   There would still be a considerable number of double-redirects, which would not work automatically and would all have to be manually edited. -- Arwel (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

   Its been done before with other articles and no doubt will be done again in the future. Jooler 09:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

2. This issue has been brought up so many times it was deleted from Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars for being too.. lame. Foxhill 00:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   As pointed out above unlike those lame edit wars were about football vs. soccer - and not a move to Association football. Jooler 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   We've had lame edit wars over football (soccer) vs. Association football as well... The most recent one, for example. – Elisson • T • C • 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   Well to be technically accurate that edit was was over the accuracy on a banner on the talk page. -- Jooler (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

   To be fair although the last edit war did result (mostly due to your own efforts [edited] if I recall) in the page staying where it is, it also resulted in a number of improvements to the text. ReadingOldBoy 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Personally, I couldn't care less what Wikipedia chooses to call the game. It's not going to affect anything apart from a bundle of redirects and a bit of text on a webpage. The press won't be changing their usage, the general public won't start calling it anything different, the players won't change, the game won't change. I know what I call it and there are redirects and dabpages already in place so I am led to this page when I'm needed. Whether the title is technically correct or incorrect or elegant or inelegant or has parentheses or not, I really couldn't give a monkeys as I've got better things to do - like actually working on articles instead of banging on for months about what to call something. Nanonic 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Redux

There are entrenched views here and the arguments pro and con get lost in the mire of mud slinging. Probably someone will come along and respond to this post with the same old mud slinging or counter-arguments. But I think a few facts are clear.

1. This page will never move to football. Too broad a subject and the article at football is very appropriate for that page.
2. This page will never move to soccer. Name disliked by a very large number of people.
3. A number of people are unhappy with the current name.
4. There is a clear alternative in Association football which a number of people support.
5. A number of people accept the status quo. Because don't care about the title and/or are sick of debate and wish everyone would shut up. Or think that the admin involved is too heavy or its a lame debate or whatever.

What I think is unclear is the people who genuinely think that the current name is the BEST name for this page irelevant of the inconveniences of moving it or any other issue not directly related to merits of the name itself. I.e. Would they choose it as the name for the article if it didn't already exist and the option of soccer or football had already been ruled out. I think rather than the endless going round in circles it would be clear to new visitors to this debate (if there are any left in the world) to see a simple tally of the pros and cons of the current name with as little associated debate as possible. I'll kick it off.

Pros and cons of football (soccer)

This should ONLY list pros and cons for the name on its own merit and not include administrative issues regarding moving the page from the current name. Such page move tasks have been carried out before for articles such as analog disc record to gramophone record Myanmar to Burma etc. Please no debate within the list. If you feel a that the bullet point is inaccurate, make it accurate, if you feel that the point is incorrect or a duplicate remove it and if you feel that your removal may be contentious then debate it.

PRO

1. Both names commonly used for the sport are included in the title

CON

1. The current name (in its complete form with parenthesis) is rarely used to refer to the sport.
2. The current name is against the disambiguation guideline at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific_topic and having both common names for a subject is unprecedented, few if any other articles follow this format e.g. we don't have petrol (gasoline).
3. Jooler is exactly right. Many things are known by multiple names, but we simply don't use more than one in the articles' titles. It doesn't make sense, and it was done here purely to prevent anyone from getting their way. I know this sport as "soccer," but it doesn't bother me in the slightest to see it referred to as "football" or "association football" (the latter of which is a perfectly suitable title for the article). What bothers me is this ridiculous "compromise" in which everyone loses. —David Levy 05:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate on Pro/Con

Keep it simple. Why a point should be removed/or kept.

Other

If you think this is another pointless exercise then speak here or forever hold your tongue. Jooler (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How come nodody thought to ask the Goverining Body of the sport

I did. I emailed FIFA and they say that globally the sport should be termed, in an official sense, as Association Football {note capitalisation of both words}. This is the term by which the sport was modernised in England in the 1860s and also the terminology used by FIFA during its formation in 1904. The word soccer is regarded as a slang term by FIFA who have insted in recent years that nations who use it in their official titles change it to Association Football, hence Australia's recent change. The USA have been told to do the same although FIFA take nothing to do with the naming of league so MLS will remain the title. The USSF have been told to rebrand themselves as the United States Association Football Federation before they will be considered to host a World Cup again. On the term Football, FIFA regard this term as the family from which their sport hails and state "that calling the sport football would be similar to entering the home of the Smith family of six people and insiting on refering to each person as Smith rather than using their christian names to distinguish them." Official FIFA administrators are told to use the terminology Association Football in all international communication. Surely FIFA's oppinion should be the one taken as defacto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.22.20 (talk • contribs)

No, if you tell the truth (are you really, for example "United States Association Football Federation" doesn't give a single hit on Google, would FIFA really tell you about that demand, before anyone else in the internet world?), that opinion should be taken as de jure. De facto, FIFA refers to the sport all over its website and other medias as only "football". Only in very official documents and when they want to be extremely clear, do they use "association football". – Elisson • T • C • 11:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

As it happens a very long time ago I emailed David Barber at the FA regarding this and he replied that there's no de jure "official name" as such in that there's no document that says "the name of the sport shall be ..." but that the official FA publication on the laws of the game is "The Laws of Association Football" (http://www.falearningshop.com/TheFASite/pages/product/product.asp?prod=FLOAF08) and so that that is the de facto official name. Jooler (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

They where called "united states football association" from the start and that will give you some google hits. Chandlertalk 15:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean the American Football Association. In Australia, in the early years, they prefixed football with British to distinguish it from the native sport. See List of defunct sports leagues#Soccer Jooler (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"What is now the United States Soccer Federation was originally the US Football Association." is the first line of the History about the USSF. Chandlertalk 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough!

There seems to be no consensus to change the name from Football(soccer) to Association Football. Perhaps it is time to drop the debate and move on. The debate should be over which name better defines the subject. Instead the debate seems to break down into petty arguments over who calls what where. And most people just seem bored by all this. So lets leave it as it is. --Michael Johnson (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It should not be dropped as Football (soccer) is wrong and Association Football (the official name of the sport in the english language) is obviously right. Chandlertalk 13:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How were you entitled to decide what is wrong and what is obviously right here on Wikipedia? As a side note, if "official names" are what decides an article title, why is Sweden at Sweden and not at (the official English name) Kingdom of Sweden? – Elisson • T • C • 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As the saying goes: "ah de Nile, it's more than a river." Grant | Talk 02:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) is wrong because while the sport is commonly known as "football" and "soccer," it isn't commonly known as "Football (soccer)" (nor is such disambiguation permitted under our style manual). We should be using the sport's official designation, not creating our own. —David Levy 09:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How then could "Association football" be obviously right, when the sport isn't commonly known by that name? You see, there are no wrongs or rights in this discussion, there are only opinions. – Elisson • T • C • 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Association football" is correct because that's the sport's official name. "Football (soccer)" is not.

"Association football" isn't the most common name for the sport, but it's far more common than "football (soccer)" is. It's also a less problematic article title than "football" (which also commonly refers to several other sports) and "soccer" (which is regarded by many as informal slang).

Where I'm from (the U.S.), the sport is known as "soccer," but that doesn't mean that I want to have that word sloppily thrown into the article's title as part of a crude "compromise." —David Levy 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll only say this one more time. Nobody decides what is right or wrong, correct or incorrect. This article has lived through a couple of years, including a featured article candidature, a main page display and a featured article review, despite this so called "incorrect", "wrong" and "unofficial" article title. So please, let's just move on and focus our energy on stuff that actually needs attention, as Michael Johnson suggests. – Elisson • T • C • 21:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we have a style manual that indicates which conventions are correct and incorrect for Wikipedia. According to said guide, this "compromise" is patently incorrect.

We also can consult the various authorities from around the world, none of which use the designation "football (soccer)."

In no way does the fact that the article has carried this title for a while render it sacrosanct. It's unfortunate that the problem has existed for so long, and I believe that finally correcting it is quite worthy of our attention. If you disagree, you're welcome to ignore the issue and focus on other pursuits. —David Levy 22:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, David. This has been my point all along: YES, there are differing opinions, and YEs, we're never going to please 100% of the people, 100% of the time. However, Wikipedia does have guidelines for things like this, and therefore in a sense there are "rights" and "wrongs". This article's current title goes against naming guidelines. Personally I would love for the title to be simply "Football" - since that's what I call the sport. However, even I must concede that I can not get my personal preference all the time - and therefore I support a change to "Association football". EuroSong ^talk 00:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I have seen many useless and unending debates on naming issues, however the current title of this article is ridiculous. It is a bizarre compromise between two names that makes no sense. Of course, either one of those two names by themselves could be used, and various descriptors could be added to make the definition more specific. However, soccer is not the type of football, it is simply another name for what many call "football." The fact that this issue has been vigorously debated in the past or that the debate often breaks down along national lines does not mean that an attempt should not be made to remedy this unfortunate situation. I think moving the article to Association football is the most logical solution. TSO1D (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This is quite simple.

We need to determine what article title would be the most appropriate. Due to its ambiguous nature, it isn't "football." Due to its etymology and negative perception in many circles, it isn't "soccer." Due to its nonstandard format (and general ugliness), it isn't "football (soccer)." That leaves "association football," the official English-language name according to the sport's highest governing body. As an American who knows the sport as "soccer," I don't understand how the title "association football" is remotely objectionable to anyone. —David Levy 23:29/23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually David, this discussion that you've posted on here is on a completely different subject. It is about some text introduced by Grant that got reverted. Bye. Jooler (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. The argument dragged on for so long that I actually forgot what started it. Accordingly, I've relocated and slightly edited my text. —David Levy 23:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right, David. Your points are quite simple. "Football" by itself is not appropriate for the reasons given; neither is "soccer". I am glad that you, as an American, have no objection to "Association football". I just wish there were more sensible people here who thought like you do. EuroSong ^talk 21:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I really think that it is time for a formal vote. It appears that there is an overwhelming consensus to move the page to association football. If nobody objects, may I or someone suggest a move within 24 hours? Reginmund (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to "bite the bullet" in my opinion and change it to Association football.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any overwhelming consensus anywhere. There was a vote above which had the outcome that voting is evil. There have been attempts to move the page before which were overturned. And on, and on, and on this nonsense discussion goes. You think there is consensus because the people that prefer the status quo are busy improving football articles rather than discussing the title of the article, while the people that would like a move of course discuss it. – Elisson • T • C • 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to move this article to a logical, MoS-compliant title isn't "nonsense."

The current title is not the product of consensus; it merely ensures that no one "wins" or "gets their way." That is nonsense. Instead of using a title designed to be equally bad for everyone, let's use a good title ("Association football"). Some soccer fans might not like it, but Wikipedia fans will. —David Levy 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately this is futile. Any attempt to move the page will be reverted by Johan Elisson on the basis of 'lack of consensus'. I don't see how the status quo will ever change (regardless of how poor it is), so htere genuinely is little point in trying to argue the point. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Johan, unless I am sorely mistaken, there has never, as far as I am aware, been a formal vote on moving this page to "Association football" as I pointed out earlier this year (Talk:Football (soccer)/(archive 5)#top_of_talk_page_banner) all votes to move have been for ""soccer" or "football". What we have above re:voting is evil was a straw poll, it was not posted to Wikipedia:Requested_moves. I also note that no one has managed to come up with a good reason for keeping the current name, beyond that it includes the words 'soccer' and 'football'. I can't see why people like yourself still defend it. Jooler (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fans

I think it would be good to have a section on fans with a bit on hooliganism associated with football ( but make sure it doesnt concentrate on hoolganism too much).

and stupid north americans trying to call it soccer, thinking that everyone in the world is only them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.251.128 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, do us a favour and stop trying to start flamewars.

Looking at the anonymous troll's IP address, he is using "BTCentralplus" which I assume is British Telecom. However, since there is no website of this "BTCentralPlus" and a quick search on Google lists its IP ranges as being involved in Proxies and Botnets, I suspect he is a ban evader. Sneakernets (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Most popular

Is there no better source for the statement that socer is the world's most popular sport than Encarta? -Michaël (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was to move the article to Association football. --kingboyk (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) → Association football — I am going to be bold and request a move. I'll explain my reasons below. —Reginmund (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you not just summarise them? You haven't actually explained your reasoning. Woody (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Woody. Do you expect us to weed out your reasons from the discussions above? Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support - As nominator. My reasons are throughout the talk page. I would also like to add that the current name is against naming conventions. Reginmund (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think it will be necessary to repeat my arguments here. I would also like to add that the proposed name is against naming conventions. And voting is evil. – Elisson • T • C • 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support per all previous discussion.
  1. We should be aiming for "least worst" if no title is perfect.
  2. The current title is egrecious, breaking uniquely awful in its noncompliance to WP:NAME. This is definitely not the "least worst" name.
  3. The proposed title matches the convention of other football articles (American football, Australian rules football, Canadian football and Gaelic football) which all get called "football" in the vernacular. In addition, it is the official name of the sport according to its highest governing body.
  4. "Association football" is thus the least worst name, and should be the title. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - "Football (soccer)" is against naming conventions as the item in parentheses is not a disambiguator, in that football is not a subset of soccer. "Association football" is the least worst term we have for the game, given the effectively even split between "football" and "soccer" in the English-speaking world. – PeeJay 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Association Football is the legal name, and more common names are inappropriate for one reason or another. Football (Soccer) is against naming conventions. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Association football should be the name for this article as it is the sports full name. Football (soocer) has only ever been a compromise, and other forms of football all seem to have similar titles.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The title "Football (soccer)" was invented not due to any consensus, but to ensure that neither the "football" advocates nor the "soccer" advocates prevailed in the dispute. ("If we can't use our preferred title, no one can!") It's a clear violation of our naming conventions for no good reason whatsoever.
  "Association football," conversely, is the sport's official English-language designation according to its highest governing body. It isn't the most common term, but it's far more common than "football (soccer)" is, and the fact that it's usually shortened to "football" (a title that cannot be used for this article, due to the fact that several other highly popular sports are commonly known by the same name) doesn't affect its logicality.
  It also is entirely consistent with the titles of our articles about American football, Australian rules football, Canadian football and Gaelic football (all of which are commonly referred to as "football"), as well as the article for Rugby football (commonly known as "rugby").
  As an American who knows the sport as "soccer," I hope that we can finally set aside nationalistic bias and use the title that's best for the encyclopedia — "Association football." —David Levy 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support - No name will ever be perfect for this article - but "Association football" is the best we'll ever get. Even though it may not be the most common name, it's the official name given to the sport by the governing body, and it is consistent with the naming of other types of football on Wikipedia. It's also formal English and not slang. EuroSong ^talk 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• V. Strong Support - I've been arguing this for about 4 years. Jooler (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Association Football as the name of the sport does fit for the name as it wont be moved to its common name (Football) the real name of the sport should do fine. Chandlertalk 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Proposed name conforms with naming conventions and mirrors other similarly named sports, like American football and Australian football. It's either this name, or simply Soccer, but the current name is not a good one. Snocrates 08:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Shame we can't have the article at Football, but Association Football is better than the current bastardisation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support — Never ever heard of "Association football", over here in the United States. I detest it. However it's in the dictionaries... American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Chiefly British soccer", which sounds... funny, let's not use that one. Merriam-Webster defines it as "soccer".--Endroit (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Please God Support, anything is better than "football (soccer)" one of the worst compromises I've seen and totally against our naming conventions. "association football" follows the style of other football articles and is by far the best choice. Recury (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support as the current isn't disambiguating football as a type of soccer. Lowercase as it doesn't seem to be a proper noun. –Pomte 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support A far more suitable title than the current one, which fits with the naming style used for the other codes of football. Dave101→talk  16:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support, in line with naming trends for other football codes – but I pity the poor person who has to retitle all of those "football (soccer)"-related articles (e.g., History of football (soccer)), categories and the like. – Liveste (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Fixing any double redirects would take the longest, I guess we'd need a bot to help with that. Dave101→talk  10:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. In my experience Association football is actually quite a common name for the game; It's what it was called for example in a one-act play The Golden Mean that we studied in English, written by someone famous but I forget who. This is a good way forward and hopefully a long-lasting solution. Andrewa (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is where I really do agree with a move request, because we are moving from a mixture of shortened 'common' names, which is really unacceptable, to not only the official name of the sport, but to one that is consistent with the names of the other football codes. – Axman (☏) 09:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. "Association football" follows the style used for other codes of football. WP:COMMONNAME says that In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. As the sport's governing body uses the term, I'd say that makes it well-accepted. And WP:COMMONNAME#Exceptions mentions that articles about plants are now placed at their scientific name to avoid disputes about which "common" name to use; a move to "association football" would in my view be taking an analogous approach. Struway2 (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support because "association football" is a more formal, encyclopedic name, and nobody actually calls it "football (soccer)." However, the use of "football (soccer) in categories should remain unaffected. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support; because while common names are important, they are not available in this instance, and an artificial construction that misuses parentheses for non-disambiguation purposes is not a substitute. "Association football" is a term with actual usage, and follows the names of articles on other codes. EdC (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support per discussion, looks like a good move. feydey (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This looks like a much better form that the hodgepodge that is the current combination of two common names in a disambiguation style. Also the proposal is to use the sport's official name. --203.220.171.83 (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposed title is not mutually intelligible and rejects WP:ENGVAR's suggestion that we search for opportunities for commonality. It is actually less intelligible to an American English speaker than "football" - while everyone is aware of what sport British English speakers are referring to when they say "football", "association football" sounds like a semi-pro incarnation of some poorly-defined sport. Dekimasuよ! 04:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If we excluded content on the basis that it's unfamiliar to some readers, we would have no encyclopedia. Anyone reading the article is going to learn that the sport is called "association football," and this is a good thing. Providing information is our goal. Catering to ignorance is not. —David Levy 04:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Article content and article naming are different issues. Article naming is based on what is familiar (Wikipedia:Use common names). Calling the sport "soccer" might not be great, but neither is it "ignorant". 69.211.29.67 (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't mean that calling the sport "soccer" is ignorant. (I'm from the United States, so I've always known it by that name.) I was referring to ignorance of the fact that the sport also is known as "association football." —David Levy 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've come across many articles in my time whose titles have been unfamiliar to me. That's what redirects are for. "Soccer" will redirect to "Association football" - thus anyone searching for the term will be directed here. Easy peasy. EuroSong ^talk 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - if the generic 'football' is not available (for very sound reasons), the current compromise title is the best. - fchd (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • But the current title is not a "compromise". It's against naming conventions, and was never voted on. We don't have titles like "Aeroplane (airplane)", "Candy floss (cotton candy)" and "Aubergine (eggplant)". If we did, then the naming conventions would be as such. But they're not. To put one usage first and then another in brackets afterwards is totally not what we do. We choose one or the other - or, if there are reasons not to choose one or the other, an alternative must be sought. EuroSong ^talk 13:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. Nanonic (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh boy, here we go again, Oh and m:Voting is evil (It's not a vote). Woody (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes people should read the essay Polls are evil, because reading it will show that the author was not talking about this situation, where there is a clear choice between two options, and only two options. By consensus we have reached the conclusion that other options are not suitable. It is NOT evil to make the final, yes/no, decision by a straw poll. There is no other way. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

By "you people", do you mean me? Polling is not a substitute for discussion, which has been had above many times without a consensus. The argument is circular and this is not a vote. Editors aren't giving reasons for it, they are just saying against conventions or looks funny. There is no discussion going on here and I really don't see how a consensus will form out of this. Woody (talk • contribs) 00:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not say "you people". I suggested all authors should read the essay before taking the oft-repeated slogan "voting is evil" at face value. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologise, I read what I wanted to read. Principle still remains though and the commentary in that essay, particularly near the bottom is appropriate for everyone namely, Who decides? Woody (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you read this talk page. There has, in fact, been a great deal of discussion (and many reasons have been provided). —David Levy 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read this talk page many times, it is on my watchlist. Did you read my comment? Editors still need to back up their !vote with some sort of reasoning. My point remains. Woody (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? Again, numerous reasons have been provided. If you disagree with them, that's fine, but please don't pretend that they don't exist. —David Levy 00:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And many reasons against a move has been provided as well, during a long time. That's why the page has been at football (soccer) for the last years. – Elisson • T • C • 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I didn't claim that no reasons to not rename the article had been provided.

2. The article has retained the title "Football (soccer)" because people were too busy debating whether to use "Football" or "Soccer" (and trying to ensure that the opposition didn't "win") to see that a logical alternative existed. —David Levy 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ehm. I don't think you've been following this never ending discussion long enough. Association football has been discussed as the name for the article since, to quote the archive box, "antiquity"... – Elisson • T • C • 01:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am quite familiar with the dispute's history. Sure, "Association football" has been mentioned, but it's never been given due consideration (because people instead focused on "Football" and "Soccer" and/or interpreted "Association football" as "not soccer"). —David Levy 01:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I might have misread this and I'm certainly not having a go at you. But Association football as "not soccer"? Where do people think the word soccer comes from? Peanut4 (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think David's meaning was that users who commented saying "this should be moved to association football" were interpreted as meaning "this should not be moved to soccer". Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically what I meant. This dispute always has been widely perceived as "football" vs. "soccer" (and some people even view this as a matter of national pride). The current title is a stalemate, and some people are content in knowing that neither side has prevailed. The name "Association football" is perceived by some as a victory for the "Football" camp and a loss for the "Soccer" camp (because it includes the word "football" and doesn't include the word "soccer"). —David Levy 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the term's etymology. I meant that people opposed using Association football as the article's title on the basis that it doesn't include the actual word "soccer" (and therefore constitutes a "victory" for proponents of the title Football). The article's current title is a so-called "compromise" designed to ensure that neither side in the dispute would "win." As a result, everyone loses. —David Levy 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The current title is nothing more than a compromise. The brackets don't really do much other than act as a substitute for the word or. Peanut4 (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Would people care to tell me why they use the argument "the current title is against naming conventions", when the proposed title is against naming conventions as well? – Elisson • T • C • 00:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why Association football would be against naming conventions? Peanut4 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

While said conventions call for us to use the most common name, that isn't always feasible. In such cases, our normal practice is to select a title based on other logical criteria. "Association football" is a title logically selected by applying the spirit of our rules and common sense. "Football (soccer)" is a blatant deviation that satisfies neither. —David Levy 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why "breaking" (we're talking guidelines here, not rules) one guideline, perhaps the most basic one, "use common names", would be less bad than "breaking" an in comparison very minor guideline like what to use in parantheses to disambiguate? – Elisson • T • C • 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There are degrees of badness. "Association football" fails on the "not the most common name" criteria, but is (a) consistent with the naming of every other football variant and (b) the sport's official title according to the highest governing body. By contrast, all "football (soccer)" has going for it is (a) the rather dubious assertion that common names with parentheses are globally superior to other solutions, and (b) the weight of incumbency. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And the easyness in writing [[football (soccer)|]] rather than [[Association football|football]]. And the fact that we'll only use two names for the sport for all possible article titles. Either it's football, or soccer, or a combination of the two already used words. A move would require that we use Association football, football, soccer, and perhaps even retain football (soccer) since some countries most commonly use soccer but also commonly use football (and it'd be strange to then use Association football and completely remove soccer which is a common name in that country, for example Australia). The two arguments "for" Association football are in turn very weak. There is no "official name" for the sport. And the disambiguation used for other articles doesn't really matter here as this is a different case. – Elisson • T • C • 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but your "easyness in writing" argument is quite silly. Your "two names" argument ignores the fact that we already refer to most other varieties of football simply as "football" in most contexts. —David Levy 01:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Chris Cunningham. I would also like to add that not all articles are named solely on how they are referred to simply in common parlance. Granted that association football is more official, when choosing against a name as unusual as "football (soccer)" as Chris Cunningham described, association football is certainly the lesser of two evils. Reginmund (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I asked why association football was against naming conventions. Football is its commonname in some countries, soccer in others. Combining the two is trying to curry favour with as many as possible. I'd say the article should be called football, soccer or Association football. And the first of those is out. To me Association football isn't perfect but is the best option. Peanut4 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Our guidelines are rules. (That's not to say that we must follow them 100% of the time, of course.)

2. Are you suggesting that the sport is referred to as "football (soccer)" more commonly than it's referred to as "association football"? Quite simply, the latter is the most common name that's a feasible title for the article. The former flies in the face of both the wording and the spirit of our naming guidelines. It's just plain bad. —David Levy 15:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:COMMONNAME: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." I think this applies to this particular article, as "association football" is used by the governing body; it also fits with the style used for other codes of football, this is the only article I'm aware of that uses an alternative meaning of the same name as disambiguation. Dave101→talk  16:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• My 2p worth regarding the "voting is evil" argument: I do believe that that essay was put forth just to make the point that Wikipedia is not a democracy - meaning, issues are not simply settled by a majority vote. Disagreements are settled by discussion and consensus - that is why it's said that "voting is evil". However, I do feel that the spirit of this essay asserts that the "evil" label only really applies to situations where people are trying to use voting to push through opinions which have not properly been discussed. The "evil" label should not apply across the board. In fact, there is nothing wrong with holding polls to tot up the weight of editors' opinions on one side or another - providing the issue has been properly discussed and all relevant viewpoints have been made clear. This is indeed the case with this naming issue: in fact, it's been discussed to death. Therefore the "voting is evil" argument is not really valid, because there is no reason for such a statement here other than that it sounds slightly cool to be able to wikilawyer in this way. EuroSong ^talk 01:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not applicable here anyway. That all the "for" votes just now have the same arguments doesn't indicate that they're just piling on: it means that the arguments presented are consistently solid and that the majority that supports them agrees to them. Furthermore, the "no consensus" argument which has been trotted out consistently to keep the article where it is over the years is at odds with the not-a-vote principle, because it implies that discussions can be sunk with dissenting comments but not won by agreeing ones. The arguments against moving have been rejected on their merits. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Johan - "I don't think you've been following this never ending discussion long enough. Association football has been discussed as the name for the article since, to quote the archive box, "antiquity"" - you seem to have a blind spot about this, I don't know why I have to keep repeating this. The specific use of "association football" as opposed to "soccer" or "football" or "football parenthesis soccer" has not been formally voted on and all discussion has been shut down by people using the argument that it has already been decided and a discussion on the merit only began when I brought it up almost a year ago. "I don't see why "breaking" (we're talking guidelines here, not rules) one guideline, perhaps the most basic one, "use common names"" - "football parenthesis soccer" is not a common name either. Jooler (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

<devil's advocate>Why are the first two words of the actual article Association football?</devil's advocate> Peanut4 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Title case or lower case

Given that people are using the "is official" line in their reasoning, should it be Association football or Association Football? Are we using it as a proper noun? Woody (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Association football" (which predates FIFA's usage) appears to be the predominant form, so that's what we should use. —David Levy 15:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lowercase. I don't think there's a compelling argument to suggest that the official names of sports must be given title case. Regardless, I'd rather not argue over the colour of that particular bikeshed at the moment, given the history of this discussion getting derailed by too many open questions. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Predominant by what standards. The much maligned google search comes up with A. F. more than it does A. f. . And Chris, it is a question that cannot be avoided, if we truly want this article to be changed. Woody (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A Google search will find many instances in which the phrase is used as part of a proper noun (such as the name of a specific organization or the title of an article), as well as many uses alongside clearly incorrect companions (such as "American Football"), so that isn't an accurate gauge.

I'm far from an expert in this area, so I can only convey my impression (based on the written conversations that I've read) that the lowercase form predominates in this context. —David Levy 15:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW - FIFA Statutes gives - "Association Football: the game controlled by FIFA and organised in accordance with the Laws of the Game."FIFA Statutes - Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes - Standing Orders of the Congress (PDF) (page 4, definitions) whilst the FA use both cases in the FA Handbook (big PDF) Nanonic (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My perception is that in general, "Association Football" is used in formal contexts applicable specifically to entities sanctioned by FIFA (and likely other organizations), while "association football" is more commonly used in the broader context of the sport itself (our article's subject). —David Levy 16:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since "association football" is a formal term, when searching in Google, mostly formal names of football clubs appear to turn up which by default makes them capitalised. However, I did find a page by the University of Westminster that gives the name in miniscule in a sentence[3]. Britannica also prefers the miniscule[4] (and by the looks of it, that must be where we got the current wacky name). Reginmund (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article name should follow the other articles (American football, Australian rules football, Canadian football and Gaelic football)... Though I'm not sure what should be used in other cases. Chandlertalk 18:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have asked a question on the Language Reference Desk relating to this very topic. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ready to move?

So it looks like we've got a pretty solid consensus to move to association football (lowercase). The current discussion will be a week old tomorrow, it's had plenty of input, and I think that we'd be okay moving it over on that date. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Association football it is! Huzzah! – PeeJay 12:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is good news. I suggest we coordinate the move with the deployment of a bot to correct the double redirects. —David Levy 13:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that's needed; there are only 38 redirects to the article - not too many to do by hand. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was under the impression that there were more redirects than that. Indeed, 38 is hardly an overwhelming number to update manually. —David Levy 04:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Only two oppositions and a veritable plethora of supports. Sounds very much like broad consensus to me. EuroSong ^talk 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What are we doing with other related articles? E.g. Timeline of soccer, History of football (soccer), Football (soccer) positions, [[Formation {football)]], kit (football), Football pitch, Football (soccer) around the world. Surely all should be changed appropriately. All show why such a move is necessary because they are different naming formats and I'm sure there are more than the above articles. Peanut4 (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew there would be some more. 2010 in football (soccer) right thru to 1870 in football (soccer) and then a couple more covering decades. So just another 140+ there. Peanut4 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

These should have been included in the original move request. 69.211.29.67 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do about it? Can we add them, or do we have to make separate requests for them? EuroSong ^talk 22:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Once the main article is moved, moving other pages to match the new title should be classed as uncontroversial, and shouldn't require a request. If there are any that need moves over redirects, list them here and an admin (like myself) will do them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just closed the debate and effected the page move. I'll tidy up incoming redirects. Any additional maintenance such as moving related pages you'll have to do yourself. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone does a load of unnecessary work changing links, I suggest reading WP:REDIRECT#Do_not_change_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken. Only double redirects need changing. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't just links - its the term used to identify the sport on Wikipedia. I came here because I noticed these edits at FIFA World Cup and thought I should check before reverting. This move affects much more than just article names. If our article is at association football instead of football (soccer), then the sport needs to be referred to as "association football" instead of "football (soccer)" in all articles. Note this would only be when the full name is referred to (intro and infobox), of course "football" (or "soccer" in USA focused articles) can still be used thereafter. -- Chuq (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started the rather tedious task of moving the articles listed at Template:Association football chronology to their new titles, if anyone wants to help. Dave101→talk  22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible linking solution?

Unfortunately I wasn't aware of the move before it happened. Football (soccer) was a convenient name for Australian articles, because both names are used here. Anyway.. a possibly solution to simplify linking - create templates:

• {{football}} -> [[Association football|football]]
• {{soccer}} -> [[Association football|soccer]]

(Note: At the moment, {{football}} is the WikiProject Football header - this could be moved to {{WP Football}}. {{soccer}} doesn't exist but {{SOCCER}} is an unused userbox which can be deleted.) If the templates were changed as above, it would mean that editors could simply replace the "[[ ]]" with "{{ }}" when linking - no extra keystrokes needed at all! -- Chuq (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that there is nothing to stop you continuing to use football (soccer) as it still exists as a redirect. 81.77.136.231 (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but in the past it has been used with the reasoning "it is the standard form used throughout Wikipedia where there is a conflict in the terminology to be used", so it would probably be incorrect style to use it now. -- Chuq (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a bit of a hack, to be honest. If it's going to require articles to be edited anyway, it doesn't really matter how many characters need to be changed; the most efficient way is still going to be through assisted search-and-replace. The "conflict is terminology" thing only really applies where there's a conflict at the level above markup: football and football are perfectly fine, it's just article titles like History of football (soccer) which need to be changed. And you can't do that with templates. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean - I won't hurry to change links, but for new links it could be easier. Not to mention, if the article ever moves back or to another name ... -- Chuq (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is no need to go round and fix all the redirects, it would be a waste of time and a waste in terms of the article history. If you are editing a page anyway, it is fine to fix them, just don't go round with the intention of fixing the redirects. See Do not change links to redirects that are not broken for some semblance of policy about this. Woodym555 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)