Talk:Football/Archive 5

(elliptical)

Does anybody know what this Football (elliptical) business is about? I was thinking that if it is not used it could be deleted, but when I checked the what links here, a whole bunch of articles were linked to it, but I could not find where. If there are no objections, I'd like to {{vdf}} it. Let me know. -Moogle 07:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do. It is the worst kind of "wiki-ism" possible. Who the hell talks about "elliptical football"? Grant65 (Talk) 16:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear Football

Hi, I noticed the revert by Daveb to my addition of the Nuclear Football disambiguation [1], with the explanation "Last disambig edit not appropriate here (is itself a specific long-form term)." However, I don't agree with this explanation because the "nuclear" football is actually more commonly referred to as just "the Football" without any qualification. The "nuclear" qualifier was added ex post facto in order to differentiate it from the normal sense of the word. I thought it would be useful to have the disambiguation at the top because people may run into this usage of the word but not know what it referred to. Specifically looking for the term "Nuclear Football" is not readily apparent for someone who is not familiar with this usage. What do people think? --Umofomia 07:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Umofomia,

When users look up football, one can safely assume they are looking for information on a some form of football game. It is extremely unlikely that someone from Wikipedia's international audience would look up the specific entity "nuclear football" (the colloquial term for a briefcase carried by an aide of president of one country) using the generic term "football". I put it to you that a person looking for information on the "nuclear football" that they would search it using that term. If we were to place a link to every colloquial term containing the word "football" we would have more disambig than introduction!

Cheers, --Daveb 12:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with DaveB. Jooler 14:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree. It is the norm on Wikipedia to contain disambiguation notes at the top of articles for cases just like this. Another option, however, would be to have Football (disambiguation) contain the link to Nuclear football as well as this article. Then we could link to Football (disambiguation) at the top of this article.

Note: the Football (disambiguation) article was shouted down at VfD about a month ago, but that was by VfD regulars and not the people who edit this page. I would have no problem with resurrecting it. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 14:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

But this is not a disambig for another meaning of the simple word "football", as "nuclear football" is its own complete term. Just because a term contains the word "football" as part of it does not qualify it as being an alternative use of that single word. There are probably dozens of colloquial terms containing "football", and I don't see the point in listing every single one as a disambig. --Daveb 14:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

See Brown, for example, which has a note at the top linking to Brown (disambiguation), which contains links to all sorts of things with the word "brown" in their names. This is the norm on Wikipedia. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 15:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

See also the example specifically given by the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, which I think pertains exactly to this situation:

For example, the poker article covers the card game; it's likely that most people visiting that article are interested in the game rather than in fireplace pokers. For this reason, we link to fireplace poker from the existing poker article instead of moving that article to "Poker (game)". In many cases, there doesn't even yet exist an article on the less popular subject.

...which is why I would like to see my original disambiguation note restored. The alternative is to restore the Football (disambiguation) page, though I don't think this alternative is as desirable since it would have few entries (essentially just Football and Nuclear Football). The Wikipedia:Disambiguation page notes:

if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains at "Mercury", the general title. The top of the article provides a link to the other meanings, or if there are a large number, to a page named "Mercury (disambiguation)".

The original reason why I made the disambiguation edit in the first place was because I didn't even know the term "Nuclear Football" and only heard it being called "the Football." Only after using Google to find out that it was also called the Nuclear Football was I able to find the Wikipedia entry about it. This is why I added the disambiguation notice so that other users wouldn't have to go through the trouble of finding it otherwise. --Umofomia 18:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of any further response, I have restored the Nuclear Football notice. I opted to do this rather than use a football (disambiguation) page because the only other thing on that page would be Nuclear Football. If someone still insists on removing it, I will list it on RfC. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

No response doesn't mean we suddenly agree, it means there is no point in further discussion because the page did not have that disambig. Jooler 03:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Now that I re-added the disambig, then you should see a point in further discussion. Or would you rather just revert war? Why don't you respond to the arguments Umofomia and I have made? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 05:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point of having a major argument over this. I stand by my points above, and state that I do not think the disambig is really in keeping with the spirit of the MOS. However, TacoDeposit and Umofomia clearly feel strongly about the matter, and at the end of the day it is not a big issue. The article Football has bigger issues - it is in need of some serious cleaning up and streamlining. --Daveb 07:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No point in arguing, you hve your point of view. Take it to Rfc. Jooler 09:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have added it to RfC. I am a little disappointed that the only discussion Jooler has done here is to say "Agree with DaveB" but that he is so keen to revert; and have mentioned that on RfC. But I won't revert any more for now; if enough other people want the disambig in they can add it. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 12:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I saw this on RfC. I don't believe anyone will search for Nuclear Football by typing "Football" into the search box. The football already redirects to Nuclear Football. There's nothing to disambiguate here. Kind regards, jguk 12:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

(Just coming in from RfC) Agreeing with Daveb and jguk, I think that few people will search "football" if they want "nuclear football". If there comes a need for a Football (disambiguation) page, it should go there. — Asbestos | Talk 21:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• include the link to Nuclear Football... how can adding an additional disambig item hurt? Feco 22:38, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • do not include.Grant65 (Talk) 00:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't the Greeks invent football

On the run up of the euro 2004, the BBC Radio 1 claimed that the origins of football was in Greece, since there was a statue found. This statue is replicated on most medals... it resembles the position a footballer has moments before shooting the ball.

Everyone "claims" to have invented football, but kicking a ball is so natural that to claim its invention (before rules were codified) is like claim to have invented running. The article mentions possible Greek origin. Jooler

Different Cultures, Different Style of Football

AS you may know, different countries play different style of football. For example, in Brazil, the emphasis is put on the attack, whereas in Italy, the defence is key to success. You may wonder why? Well, I do not think anybody knows the true reason why. I will talk more about the different cultures different styles. In South America, there is a variation of emphasis of the two main football nations; Brazil is attack, Argentina is defence. However, Argentina still puts a massive amount of emphasis on attack. Other countries like Peru, Uruguay and Colombia also like to concentrate on the attack, even though there ability may not be as good as Brazil and Argentina. Another trait of South American football is the word 'showboating'. This is when players show off with what that can do with the ball, even though it may not be effective, however the fans love to see this. However in countries such as England, Italy and the countries of Scandanavia, showboating is not that favoured. These European countries prefer to see effectivness, i.e. a goal, even if it is not a good goal to look at. In western Europe, i.e. Portugal and Spain, the style is very similiar to that of South America. These western European countries also love to see the showboating, it is an integral part of their football culture. It is quite strange how the two languages of these countries (Portuguese and Spanish), are also spoken in South America, whereas English, Italian and Scandanavian are not primarily spoken in South America. Which brings me back to the earlier question....Why do different cultures play with different styles? It is possibly the hardest question you could get asked about in football.

There are two main possibilities which I will talk about:

1. Idols - it is possible that older generation players, played a certain way, and all the young kids on the streets of their country tried to copy them. For example, there could have been a player for Brazil who did lots of tricks. The kids on the streets would see this, and everybody would copy, so it is a like a constant circle. 2. Weather - the countries who play with the showboating style, i.e. Brazil, Portugal, Spain etc. all have good weather, so subsequently they will play football on the pitch. As you know, it is not always possible to have a football match on the beach, as it is too crowded. So people tend to stand in a circle, kick the ball to each other but keep the ball off the ground. This generates technical ability which allows players to showboat.

===It does make you wonder.....=== Personally, I feel the best way is to 'showboat'. It shows you are having fun, and not just going out to win, which is what people are doing more and more nowadays, which is almost taking away the pleasure of playing football. I will leave you with that question again; why do different cultures play different styles of football? I would love to know the true answer.

You should be posting all this on Talk:Football (soccer), if anywhere. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 03:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Ireland

"In the Republic of Ireland, "football" is somewhat ambiguous. Whilst it often refers to Gaelic football, the word "football" is also used when referring to Association football, particularly at the international level (as in the Football Association of Ireland the official national body) and also with a large number of Association football clubs using the initials "FC" (Football Club) in their name. The word "soccer" is often used to avoid confusion. "

There are a few issues here i'd like to discuss. Firstly, the official name of this country is 'Ireland'. The country 'Ireland' consists of 75% of the Island of Ireland. The north eastern quarter is 'northern ireland'. However, there is no need to differentiate the country and the island in this context because gaelic football is played in all counties of the Island of Ireland. There is no such place as 'Republic of Ireland'. That's just a term the brits use.

Secondly, the divided use of the word 'football' in Ireland is much the same as the divided use of the word in Australia. Whereas in certain areas of Australia rugby league is football and in other areas Australian Rules is football, in Dublin, the word football is ALWAYS taken to mean soccer. In rural areas (particularly western counties), the same word is used to denote gaelic football. In dublin, i've only ever heard people use the term GAA (Gaelic Athletic Association) to refer to gaelic football. GAA is the governing body for both Gaelic Football and Hurling... so it is ambiguous. If specifics are required, the term "GAA football" is used. Also, i've only ever heard the term 'Gaelic Football' used outside of ireland.

I'm not sure how the cities of Galway, Cork, Limerick, Kilkenny and Belfast use the word football though. Perhaps someone else can help?

"There is no such place as 'Republic of Ireland'. That's just a term the brits use." Sigh. Please see Names_of_the_Irish_state and Republic_of_Ireland_Act. Jooler 22:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I know there are sensitivies about such issues. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on this but, as the Ireland article is about the whole island rather than a particular political entity, and since both codes are popular in both of the actual states within the island, I guess "Ireland" can be used without confusion :-) Grant65 (Talk) 10:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Grant. Did you read the article on Names_of_the_Irish_State? Can I direct you to this part... "state's official title under the Irish constitution is simply Ireland". 'Republic of Ireland' is a legal term. Necessary to disambig when referring to the nation in legal documents.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. We don't always respect official titles, when we need to avoid ambiguity. That's why we have articles named (e.g.) Roman Senate or Football (soccer) even though the proper names have no qualifiers (i.e. "The Senate" and "Football"). But I don't think there's any problem in using the word "Ireland" in this case. The Ireland article is an article on the whole island and both soccer and Gaelic football are popular in parts of both states within the island. Therefore the word "Ireland" will do in this case. Even if we were saying (e.g.) "Gaelic football is more popular in Ireland than in Northern Ireland", I think it would be clear what was meant. Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

"There is no such place as 'Republic of Ireland'. That's just a term the brits use."

You my friend are wrong for saying this, The Republic of Ireland is a title that a war with England was fought for and then a Civil war was bitterly fought exactly over the difference between the Republic status and Dominion status. Many Irish people lost their lives during the years of these wars, these lives were lost so that they could help Ireland acheive independance from Britain and the right to be called a Republic, Do not throw it away with daft comments like that. Ireland is a Republic, its official name is the Republic of Ireland, Yes quite often now the name 'Ireland' is used as the name for the country, but this does confuse people in other countries and has led to a massive increase of the term 'Southern Ireland' which is a horrible name, the word Republic should be used with pride, this is what makes us, this is what made Ireland, It is the only difference between having a president or the english queen as head of state.