Talk:Association football/Article name

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Association Football[edit]

what s this? a minor scottish league?--Ntucu (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? – PeeJay 03:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I think they’re referring to the fact that, before this article no one knew wtf “association football” means (football and soccer speakers included). —Wiki Wikardo 22:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean no-one knows what Association Football is? If you're primary language is not English then I'll let you off but if you're from the UK and you've never heard of it you're either a three year old footie fan or you're not a fan. Cls14 (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think he means the prefix "Association" to Football, not the sport itself. And I agree. It has a certain ring over it, like wikipedia wants to push this jargon for the sake of a few other, less known football varieties. (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well if you have a better name yourself please lets hear it. After all it is easy to criticise. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that Association football is by far the best name for it as per all the discussions that we've had in the past. And I appreciate the fact its the Assocation bit he's never heard of but no English speaker who hasn't heard of the name is a real fan. Cls14 (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No i'm a huge british football fan and i have never heard of association football to everyone else it's simply football.

(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United States, which encompasses most of the English speaking world, Soccer is not commonly refered to as "football" or "association football". It's just called "soccer". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA call it "association football". End of story. Admittedly, it's a formal name that no one uses in actual conversation, but it's still the best name for the Wikipedia article. "Football" is ambiguous and "soccer" is a regionalism. (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is not exist the term "football association" . There is only "football" and it is ruled by FIFA. Many people is confused about the meaning of "FIFA". "FIFA" is the acronym of french "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" and it means in english "Intenational federation of football associations". So, do not confuse. Every country have a institution created to rule its football, and that institution is called "national association of football". FIFA is conformed by the association of all "national associations". Football was invented in england many years before that Americans created "American Football". So, I think its wrong to use the world "soccer" instead of its genuine name "football". by the way, only americanas use "soccer", because in England, in South Africa (where the last FIFA WORLD CUP took place), Europe, South America, and all over the world people say football, fútbol, futebol, etc. Americans are wrong, they should adapt to the world, and not the world to them.-- (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not French, are you? I only say that because I'm sure that if we translated "International federation of football associations" into French, it would be "Federation Internationale des Associations de Football". Therefore, your assessment of the translation of "Federation Internationale de Football Association" is incorrect; it translates as "International Federation of Association Football". – PeeJay 22:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe at the beginning that was the name, but today FIFA only say Football. If you read web page of FIFA, yo ll see that thye only say Football, and the national associations all over the world say only football. -- (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Several associations (notably the United States and Canada) refer to Soccer in their names, and the FIFA Statutes clearly refer to the sport governed by FIFA as "Association Football". – PeeJay 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that "association football" is probably the least common and least recognizable of all the names used for this sport. The current article title seems to me to be a direct violation of WP:NAME which states "Recognizable – Using names and terms commonly used in reliable sources, and so likely to be recognized, for the topic of the article" and then "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article." I think it is safe to say that the great majority of fans watching the recent World Cup matches on TV would be greatly surprised if they found out that they were watching the World Cup in "association football". Nsk92 (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the archived discussions. —David Levy 06:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have read through a bunch of the archived discussions on this topic - certainly not all of them (there are too many), but enough to get the gist. I see that there was a formal move request and discussion in Dec 2007, when the title was moved from "Football (soccer)" to "Association football", the current title. As far as I could tell, most threads regarding the name since involved a relatively small number of users per thread and those users were often IPs or new users. I think that the previous title "Football (soccer)" was pretty bad, but the current one does not strike me as much better. I understand the the regulars here are sick and tired of the name question being brought up again and again. But the fact that it does, and that the issue has not gone away, tells me that perhaps a formal RfC, that would attract a substantial number of experienced users, may not be a bad idea. The arguments for the current title that I have seen in the archived discussions are basically of three types: (1) The name "football", which is a common term for soccer, is already taken by the football article covering a more general collection of games. (2) The name "association football" is the official name, used by FIFA. (3) The name "soccer" is regionalistic and too American-centric. I find (1) fairly persuasive but not (2) and (3). If an official name is too obscure and non-recognizable, it should not be used as the article's title. The main thrust of WP:NAME is to use common and recognizable names. Regarding (3), the regionalistic/American-centric complaint is basically similar to a non-neutrality argument. However, WP:NAME says that neutrality considerations are generally overridden by commonality of usage considerations: " In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors." Moreover, the fact that most of the non-English speaking world uses the term "football" is basically irrelevant here, per WP:USEENGLISH, which says to use the most common name used by English language sources covering the topic. I myself am from Russia, where the sport is called "football" and, although I now live in the U.S., I personally still prefer "football" as the term. However, in terms of the proportion of the English-speaking countries, the term "soccer" is certainly more frequent than "football", just based on the sheer weight of the population numbers. It seems to me that the Dec 2007 compromise resulting in the current name is ripe for re-examination and that a formal RfC would be useful. Nsk92 (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If we re-opened discussions about the title of this article every time someone complained, the title would just end up going round in circles! (P.S. changing the title of this article to "soccer" would be akin to changing Australian rules football to "footy"!) – PeeJay 07:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not saying that there needs to be an RfC every time someone complains, but 2.5 years without an RfC on a topic that is still contentious seems kind of long. Consensus does have a way of changing over time and, given that 2.5 years have passed, it may be useful to have an RfC even if results in reaffirming consensus for the current title. Regading footy, soccer is not as colloquial as footy, plus, as a term, Australian rules football is a whole lot more recognizable than Association football. Nsk92 (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd completely disagree that association football is either obscure or unrecognisable. I regularly go and watch Barrow AFC play football! It's not just the 'official name' because it is used by FIFA; FIFA use 'association football' because that is what the sport is called. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read the archived discussions Cls14 (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Article Title should be or contain "Soccer"[edit]

I am an Australia and have visited New Zealand, America, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Ireland, and India amongst others. In all these countries the term soccer is commonly used to refer to this sport. These countries also have very high player numbers and possibly the highest popularity per capita.

By these, and other examples such as Canada, South Korea, and South Africa it is quite clear that it isn't just the U.S. where the term is.

Although some media organizations attempt to propagandize the citizens in these countries, the majority of the citizens prefer to use the term "soccer".

It appears that the primary origin of the complaint against the words use is some countries of Europe and that the word is far more widely used than some would have us believe.

I am surprised at how offended I am that the title does not contain the word "soccer". Perhaps this is because I am a soccer player.

The most compelling argument is that whilst other languages may well use phrases that sound similar to "football" in reference to the sport, the majority of the English speaking world uses "soccer": Country whose citizens use the phrase "soccer" : English speakers

  • United States : 251,388,301
  • India : 232,000,000
  • Canada : 25,246,220
  • Australia : 17,357,833
  • Japan : 15,000,000
  • South Africa : 13,700,000
  • Ireland : 4,350,000
  • New Zealand : 3,673,623
  • Papua New Guinea : 3,150,000

Country which may use the phrase "soccer" : English speakers

  • Nigeria : 79,000,000
  • Philippines : 49,800,000 (very certain that this country uses "soccer")

Country which uses the phrase "football" : English speakers

  • United Kingdom : 59,600,000
  • Germany : 46,000,000
  • France : 23,000,000
  • Spain : 12,500,000

Perhaps we could turn the above information into a map? Please feel free to add to it. (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The countries you listed have roughly 600 million English speakers combined. About 1,5 billion people in the world speak English, so that is not a majority. (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The salient point is that this version of Wikipedia is intended primarily for Americans and there are 320,000,000 Americans--more than the population of all the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic countries combined.
Football, logically, MUST refer to the American game and not soccer.'s just that simple!
PainMan (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Please consult this talk page's archives for the massive amounts of past discussion on this matter.
Whether you agree or disagree with the resultant decision to name the article "Association football," it certainly shouldn't "offend" you. I'm an American who knows the sport as "soccer," and I honestly regard the current title as the best solution. —David Levy 04:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm an American and I don't find the term "offensive." It is simply incorrect to call soccer "football." Football properly refers ONLY to the American game (i.e. the game played by Pop-Warner, High Schools, Colleges and the NFL). (When the game was first created, the only way to score was to the kick the ball thru the endzone or the uprights--goal posts; thus the place kicker & punter positions are a vestige from the game's beginnings.)
PainMan (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it should use the word my country uses for it, because we are totally bigger than you are. Better change the article name or I'll pummel you! Signed, an idiot who completely misses the point. (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Reply: Well Latin America has a population of 569,000,000 and you have excluded them. Everyone in Latin America says "football", or "futbol" (pronounced futibol in Brazil). Considering these countries, your argument can be used against your purpose. The game is called football by most people, despite the fact that some countries have derived some other sports from the game and decided to call these sports football. However, the right name for what you would call soccer is football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 23:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Your argument is flawed, because this is English Wikipedia, and you are citing non-English speaking sources for the name. Also, "football" does not necessarily refer to soccer. "Football" also refers to American football, rugby union, rugby league, and Austrlian rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Bingo and the knock-out punch is landed. Excellent rejoinder. Football is football and soccer is soccer, rugby is rugby, Australian Rules Football is almost as hardcore as real football and the only game even remotely tough enough to bear the name football. The defensive line of any NFL team would stomp a rugby team into stains on the grass. And soccer player would flee, shrieking in terror like little girls.
PainMan (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Some people on here seem to have no ability to simply read the debates before. There is a very good reason its called Association Football, because that's it's official name. No biased towards nationality of language, that's what it's called. Anyone who thinks it should be called otherwise, that's fine but you're wrong. Stop talking about it, it's boring and you're wasting your time. Cls14 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact that something is an "official name" is not a particularly good reason to use it as an article title, if the name is obscure and non-recognizable, which is certainly the case here. Either "football" or "soccer" would be much better. Since "football" is already taken by another article, I would think that "soccer" is a fairly reasonable solution. It is common and recognizable. Nsk92 (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read the archived discussions. —David Levy 06:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Only European countries call it fooball, the rest of the world calls it soccer..Latin American countries is mixed, just as many people call it soccer as to football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why neither "football" nor "soccer" are appropriate names for the article. (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
It is called 'football' in India. That moves 232 million people from the 'soccer' club to the 'football' club in's list above. The title of this article was changed from football (soccer) to association football after intensive discussions which you can find in the archive. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The game is called Socccer by the majority of native English speakers, this is the English wikipedia and it should follow the majority convention. Only the UK in the anglosphere calls soccer "football". Original footballs were pigs bladders, not spherical, therefore soccer is the outlier among football variants and should be referred to as "soccer" exclusively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I had forgotten the part about pig bladders; in fact there's a scene in one of the Little House on the Prairie books that describes the father as inflating a pig bladder, after slaughtering it, and giving it to the kids to play with. It should also be noted that when my grandfather played high school football in the early 1940s, they wore no pads only leather head covers (which can hardly be called "helmets").
But the main point is that the majority usage is the one that should carry the day and in the Anglo-Celtic world, far more people refer to kicking a ball around in your shorts as soccer.
PainMan (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an Australian and I refer to this sport as Soccer. I also refer to American Football as Gridiron. Calling this article "Soccer" makes as much sense as calling the article on American Football "Gridiron". Association Football is it's formal name and the most appropriate title for the article. As for " this version of Wikipedia is intended primarily for Americans ", funnily I have never seen that in any Wikipedia document. Wikipedia has been from the start refreshingly international, and long may that continue. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm an Australian and I refer to this sport as Football. Even in Australia no-one calls it 'association football', it is called Football throughout the majority of the country, with only a small enclave of Australian Football League supporters in Victoria calling it "Soccer" nowdays. For those who aren't AFL supporters the names are called American Football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and AFL. Wikipedia has a global outlook, and as such we should be calling the sport Football on every page, with a globally set guideline for using names such as American Football, Australian Rules Football, Gaelic Football, Rugby League, Rugby Union which would cover 99.99% of the naming issues for sports on wikipedia. The assertion made at the top of the page that 17 million people use 'soccer' is blatantly untrue. At best you can count the population of Melbourne. The name "Football" is increasingly used in the media to refer exclusively to Football (as opposed to League, AFL or Union), and the name of the association who run the sport in Australia is Football Federation Australia, not Association Football Australia or Soccer Australia any longer. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
it is called Football throughout the majority of the country, with only a small enclave of Australian Football League supporters in Victoria calling it "Soccer" To any non-Australians reading, this is patent nonsense. On par with soccer being an Americanism.

Let's be educated here. All footballs stem from the medieval English version, which was coded in the mid-19th century in two main sectors - at Rugby school and then by clubs in a Soho hotel who formed an association. Both games - and therefore also the other variants of football in the anglosphere - are called football by those who want to call it that. Otherwise, they actually are association/rugby/american/gaelic football. Soccer is a a diminutive nickname which was widespread in England when both football and rugby were niche compared to cricket, but since football's boom it is the one mainly referred to as football. To request any change to the name of this article so it can contain soccer would be like for me to change the page on american football to 'hand egg'. This is not a page which deserves to be written in American English because it is about a subject invented in England and a billion times more popular in England. Full bloody stop (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

How do I rename it back to Football?[edit]

Nobody knows this sport under this name. We shoudn't bow down to Americans, this sport is NOT the Association football. Ho do I rename this article? Ogomemnon (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We shoudn't bow down to Americans,
How have we done that?
Ho do I rename this article?
Establish consensus for such a change. —David Levy 07:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

association football... really??[edit]

no one calls it association football thats stupid call it soccer or football idc which but its just stupid really that things have to be called this just because people insist upon it being called their countries version

and if it has to be one I suggest football as in america no one cares about soccer

        1. (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Please read the archived discussions. —David Levy 16:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

New alternatives?[edit]

There is no good name for this sport. "Soccer", "Football", "Association football" all have problems. ("Soccer" is a regionalism, "Football" is ambiguous, "Association Football" is not a common name, violating WP:COMMON.) We need other suggestions for the title. Maybe "Football (Association)", or "Football (European)", or "Football (International)"? Or maybe we can invent a term like "Soccer football". (It's not a common term, but it's more understandable than "Association Football".) (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename this article[edit]

<--Moved from main talkWoody (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I don't see any proposals at main discussion page though IT IS THE MAIN PART OF THE DISCUSSION. I want to see at least one such proposal at the main page. So, let's see. 1. Nobody knows this sport under this name. 2. This is "Football of Associations", not "Association Football" at the FIRST PLACE. We shoudn't bow down to Americans, this sport is NOT the Association football. How do I rename this article? Ogomemnon (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I agree (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Go to here if you want to continue the naming discussion. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
There's already an unambiguous page notice where it says "Any discussion here will be deleted." Perhaps you should add a thick red border, make the headline text bigger, and replace it with "READ THIS FIRST! YES, I MEAN YOU!" Then add a picture of a football/soccer ball to be extra sure it gets people's attention. And add an edit filter to prevent new sections with "rename" or "move" in the title from being created. Oh hell, just use the revert button next time. Recognizance (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
How is using 'Association Football', a name originating in England which is also the official name of the sport, 'bowing down to Americans'? ReadingOldBoy (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


I will change the name to SOCCER without your consent if someone doesn't responds to our suggestions. I don't care if I am banned on the WHOLE INTERNET, because I am doing the right thing. Ranel (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You haven't made a suggestion, you have made a demand, a demand that will not be yielded to. This has been discussed at great length and the current setup is a healthy compromise that doesn't yield to nationalistic demands. Woody (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Football (Soccer)[edit]

Is there a reason this article could not be renamed as "Football (Soccer)"? Seems that it would make everyone happy.Hne123 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with this name. it includes the two names that the sport is known by. Nobody calls it "Association Football" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not even its governing body, FIFA, or in English 'The Federation of International Association Football?' (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never EVER heard of the term "Association Football" other than in the wikipedia article. The fact that it has been discussed extensively is probably an indication that it is somewhat offensive that a sport that is overwhelmingly more popular than any of the other "football" variations has to be distinguished using a name that almost nobody knows about unless you look up wikipedia itself.
Bottom line: Almost nobody in the world, english speakers or otherwise, knows or uses the term, not even heard of it really, unless they looked it up in wikipedia. Frankman (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I assume that you are not a fan of the game then Frankman? If you've never heard it's official title and you claim to be then I suggest you've never really looked into the sport much. Regardless of your lack of knowledge of the game the point remains is that it is called Association Football, and probably always will be. Wikipedia is not there to make life easier for people, it's there to educate people. Cls14 (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I am a fan, but maybe not a true fan. Frankman (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Though Association football is a pretty bad name it helps to keep the Americans happy, though I've never understood why American Football is called football as most the time they are holding the ball. Leave it association football and never change it to soccer this term is not used by FIFA Fédération Internationale de Football.Joeb20122012 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess you missed the "A" in "FIFA" lol –HTD 18:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

FOOTBALL, not "Association football" !!![edit]

This discussion has ended the way every single one on this topic does. I suggest an RfC if anyone seriously thinks a new argument has emerged. Please check the talk page archives first as it's likely your idea has already been discussed. Thanks. --John (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The game is not called "Association Football" but simply FOOTBALL. The word "association" tells you that the football clubs in a certain country are associated in an association that runs that country`s championship. In other countries it is called Football Federation or Football LIGUE— Preceding unsigned comment added by Derzis (talkcontribs) 00:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No, the game is called "association football". It's even referred to as such in FIFA's name (Federation Internationale de Football Association/International Federation of Association Football) and regulations. – PeeJay 00:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Or in the name of the body that sets the rules of the game International Football Association Board.Dja1979 (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
No, that's slightly different (it is a board of football associations). – PeeJay 12:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I note two things. Firstly, I cannot see how "Association football" fits any definition of common name on Wikipedia. Secondly, the pink backgrounded notice I see above when I am editing this tells me we shouldn't even be discussing the name here. That seems kinda weird. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC) (My second point has now been negated by the movement of the discussion to this page.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
What's really odd is that it is the common name. Transport yourself to the most populace English speaking nation on the planet and tell someone that you want to watch some good football and you'll be asked if you want to see a college game or an NFL team play. So football is not the common name either. WP:COMMONALITY and WP:DISAMBIGUATION take a higher priority when it comes to this article while football is rightly an article that discusses how all of the sports that are called football in some sense originated from the same term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm well aware of the American situation. We have an equivalent situation in half of Australia. Australian rules football has been commonly known as simply "football" since around 1860. But I don't know where I'd find people referring to the round ball game as "Association football". Surely it has to be regularly used by somebody to become the common name here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
You did look at COMMONALITY and DISAMBIGUATION, right? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep. It tells me why we can't use "football" for the round ball game, but as far as I know, "soccer" is pretty universally understood, and "Association football" isn't. Many don't like "soccer", but that cannot rule it out. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Logically, you would want to impose the use of soccer on many populous countries where English is either the native language or the main second language, but it is not the common name nor the official name of the sport in those countries. The present condition is correct - soccer is used for those minority of countries where it is the prevalent term, but otherwise it is not. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia. I don't see the relevance of non-English speaking places. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
This being the English Wikipedia only means the articles are written in English; non-English sources are just as valuable and relevant as English ones. – PeeJay 12:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
But words and their meanings from other languages cannot influence what we do on English Wikipedia. I wouldn't dare to suggest the reverse. That English usage should define how we describe the usage of other languages. Would you? HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Association football is the most popular sport in the clear majority of countries in Europe and South America. I cannot think of a country in either of those continents where soccer (or the translation thereof) is the common term. Even a country like Ireland, where there is plenty of ambiguity as to what is meant by football, has its football / soccer governed by the Football Association of Ireland. There are a few countries in other continents, including one top ten country in population, where soccer is the common name (and there it is a minority sport). What you are suggesting is the tail wagging the dog, imposing the preference of a minority on the majority. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You've misunderstood what I'm saying. Not trying to impose the preference of a minority on the majority. We can't use "football". It means distinctly different things in different places. So the "majority" (if we ignore the huge number of English speakers in the US) don't get their first preference anyway. "Association football" is almost unknown, almost everywhere, and doesn't seem to fit any common name definition I can think of. "Soccer", while not the common name in most countries, will at least be known to a lot more people than "association football". So to me, "soccer" seems the better choice. It's either that, or a name that hardly anybody has heard of. HiLo48 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Soccer is not a common name for (association) football in the vast majority of countries or for the clear majority of people. The common name is ambiguous, so we use the official name instead. I don't see the problem. What you're suggesting would be the equivalent of moving American football to gridiron (which is a common name for it in other parts of the world). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It's always an interesting exercise discussing this with hard core fans. In my post I said "Soccer, while not the common name in most countries...". In replying immediately after my post, you felt it necessary to say in your very first sentence, "Soccer is not a common name for (association) football in the vast majority of countries..." Why? It's as if you want a fight over something upon which we are in rabid agreement. The only question is whether we use a name that everyone recognises, or one that almost nobody recognises but which happens to be the official name. I only discovered the name "Association football" once I started looking at Wikipedia. I'm sure I'm not alone. Is it wise to use an almost unknown name for such a well known game? HiLo48 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Your argument is that we should use soccer because it is a common name, but you accept that it is not the common name. That is nonsense. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that the above was my "safe" response from frustration yesterday, I shall now try to return this discussion to logic. Jmorrison230582 is misrepresenting my position. Almost nobody knows what "Association football" is. It seems weird to use a name that's almost unknown. Everyone knows what "soccer" is. It's not the common name everywhere (it is in some places), but is well understood everywhere. Why not use it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
How do you know that "almost nobody knows what association football is"? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)want to
I give up. You argue against a statement I make by making an identical statement. Yon misrepresent my position on common name. You respond to a question I ask by asking a question. This is not a constructive conversation. Goodbye. HiLo48 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
No, you're just crying off because you can't back up your point of view with any fair or substantial reasoning. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I've moved this discussion here. --John (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oh dear[edit]

When will the ideological editors here that want to wipe football off the map get the point that football or a variation of spelling/translation is the dominant term for the game around the globe and where we can't have that we're happy with Association Football --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a nice summing up of the issue, thank you, yours belongs right at the top as an introduction to the topic for everybody. The only thing I would add to make it clearer is re-mention that "football" is curiously the minority term in the English-speaking world, but that the international football phenomenon is global and much bigger than the English speaking world whereupon "soccer" becomes the minority term. I say that because "we" don't want to wipe football off the map, we just never call the sport football; your side seems also to want to wipe the word soccer off the map and you don't seem to realize that lacking the word soccer, we wouldn't have anything to call the sport at all as the term "association football" means even less to us than it does to you, and we do actually have and play the sport of soccer. Not trying to take anything away from your point, it's a good point, I think it's a good introduction to the issue so people don't keep going around and around. Leads me to my suggestion in the next section... (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Has there previously been a proposal of "Both"?[edit]

I think a good solution to this issue would be for wikipedia to change its underlying software and schema to support the concept of multiple and differing names for things, especially for English where we not only have regional variation but a new form called "International English" that is widely spoken by people who are not native speakers. No, that would not solve every problem, and no, that would not end debate, but it would lead to more satisfying compromises. There could be many ways to implement it, and that too would be a long debate, but in my mind something fairly KISS simple, where at the top of the article there would be several titles. It could say (ignore the colons or fix my formatting)

:Association Football

and at the top the Gridiron Football page could say

:Gridiron Football
:American Football, Canadian Football, Australian Football

and the Rugby Football page could say

:Rugby Football

and in terms of the implementation of that, just use the lightest amount of software support to tie it together with the already existing disambiguation system and use as URLs the same compromises that have been arrived at today for the articles without this system (in the future, the same compromise URL names would be reached more quickly).

There are many many many more articles and terms that would benefit from this, and imagine how nice it would be to type in a name, go to the page, and not wonder whereTF they had redirected you to, as for instance Richard the Lionhearted vs Richard Nth, or Lorry vs Truck, Persian Gulf Arabian Gulf. Some additional notes could be allowed to encompass smaller font notations like "British English" but keep it simple and flexible for a variety of cases. (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the article "Soccer (football)"[edit]

I have combed the entire archive and found only one instance where this article name was mentioned and it was done in passing only to disagree with the other name "Football (soccer)". A summary of the problem follows:

  • It is overwhelmingly clear that the name "Association football" is unpopular and widely regarded as incorrect for varying (and sometimes contradicting) reasons.
  • The conflict appears to stem from fans of the game (from many different countries) rightfully wanting to call it "football" because it's the most common name worldwide and Americans and Aussies rightfully wanting to call it "soccer" because that is the most common name used by the vast majority of English speaking people (and this is the English Wikipedia).
  • Well-intentioned neutral Wiki editors tried to strike a balance and converged on a very awkward although technically correct name: "Association football". However, the reasons behind this choice are mostly technicalities of Wikipedia's manual of style and editors simply trying to force a two-word name similar to "American football" or "Rugby football" for consistency. Unfortunately, the push for consistency has led to many readers and editors to rightfully complain about the name as it is not used commonly by any country in the world and is, in fact, confusing.

The reasons behind this proposal to change the article to "Soccer (football) are as follow:

  • As per WP:TITLE, "Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." I think the emphasis for this particular case should be on the word "natural". The current title is far from natural and reflects the inner workings of Wikipedia more than the topic. Sometimes the real world does not conform nicely to an arbitrary predefined naming consistency. I don't think we should sacrifice clarity by forcing such consistency.
  • Although "football" is by far the most widely used name for the sport worldwide, this article title is off limits in order to respect other articles that can make the same claim.
  • The name "soccer" is the second most widely used name worldwide and is the most widely used name by population in English-speaking countries.
  • The title "Football (soccer)" unfortunately violates a Wikipedia standard that states that the word in the parentheses must be a disambiguator. For this to work, "football" would have to be a subset of "soccer".
  • So the proposal is "Soccer (football)" as it is a much more recognizable, natural, and precise title while following the standards for the words in parentheses.
  • Finally, the issue with the name should be FULLY addressed in the first sentence of the article. I would like to also propose the following as the lead sentence:

Soccer, more commonly known as football, and officially known as association football is a sport played between two teams of eleven players with a spherical ball.

I would suggest that you read the archived discussions about renaming this article before commenting here. I will allow a few weeks before I formally propose the move. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Soccer (football) is even worse than football (soccer). Soccer is not the official name of the sport and is not commonly used in most of the world. I also do not accept your premise that it is "overwhelmingly clear" (evidence???) that the present title is unacceptable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

See the 42 (42!) different archived discussions, linked at the top of this page. What makes you think rerunning it a 43rd time will make any difference? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. In Wikipedia article titles, parenthesis are used for WP:parenthetical disambiguation (like Jane Seymour (actress)). But, there is nothing to disambiguate here, so the "(football)" part makes no sense. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)