Talk:Football (soccer)/Archive 1

From Citizendium
< Talk:Football (soccer)
Revision as of 09:47, 19 November 2020 by imported>John Stephenson (John Stephenson moved page Talk:Association football (soccer)/Archive 1 to Talk:Football (soccer)/Archive 1: Looking at archived 2008 discussion, it seems that 'Association football (soccer)' was an error that couldn't be corrected without a sy...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why move

Why did you just move this without discussion? No one associates Soccer with "Association Football" --Robert W King 15:06, 26 January 2008 (CST)

I agree. This needs to be discussed. Review Naming Conventions: articles should live at the most common (correct) names for topics, not necessarily at their most "official" or "legal" names.

I'd suggest someone move it back, then discuss. Consult Wikipedia on this one; they probably have a sensible solution. --Larry Sanger 15:09, 26 January 2008 (CST)

May I be allowed to respond to the question before it is summarily "moved back"?
I'll try again. This is what I wrote before I discovered the "instant redirect".
In England and everywhere except North America, the sport is known as football. It is only known as soccer in North America where it is a minority sport; whereas elsewhere it is the major sport on the planet. Given that Citizendium is US-orientated, it seems sensible to split the divide between football and soccer by reference to the official name of the sport. To say that no one associates soccer with Association Football is I'm afraid very wide of the mark in world terms: it is called football worldwide and it is generally understood to be Association Football, which distinguishes it from the Australian, Canadian, Gaelic, Rugby and American variants. --John Leach 15:21, 26 January 2008 (CST)
John, the article was moved back because I asked that it be moved back; that's all. I then asked that the issue be fully and politely discussed, which we're now doing, I'm happy to see. (Although I'm not so happy about the apparent acrimony here. Please review CZ:Professionalism, all.) --Larry Sanger 12:17, 27 January 2008 (CST)
Accoring to the naming conventions, however, if there are other instances of "Football" that are not the same as "Soccer" or "American Football" then it should probably named as such: "Football (derivation)". Example, Football (American), Football (soccer), Football (Gaelic). However, please note that there already is a Gaelic football which describes the differences already. Despite the fact that we are largely US-oriented, we still take into account considerations from worldly perspectives. For example, if you noticed on /Metadata pages, we have a "Variant" field which suggests articles can be written in American English, British, Australian etc... --Robert W King 15:24, 26 January 2008 (CST)
Robert, surely you know that we do not intend to be "largely U.S.-oriented," as you claim we are. I simply want to make clear that we are not "U.S.-oriented" in any sense whatsoever, at least not intentionally. We are English language-oriented. --Larry Sanger 12:11, 27 January 2008 (CST)
Wait, I did say that. I think I was thinking "English oriented" and said "US oriented" by mistake. --Robert W King 12:14, 27 January 2008 (CST)

Just to follow up on Larry's suggestion to check WP, the article is named Association Football, with Soccer redirecting to it. Also, Gaelic football doesn't explain the differences of anything, it just points out what rules it took from soccer and rugby. --Todd Coles 15:29, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Additionally I'd like to mention that we have Football as a disambig page. --Robert W King 15:42, 26 January 2008 (CST)
Football is a disambig page because there are at least the six main variants I've listed above. But this variant is called Association Football in British English. The sport originated in England and remains the national sport of both England and Scotland, from where it has become the national sport of most countries in the world. Americans may choose to call it soccer but that is not what the rest of the world calls it. By suggesting football (soccer) as the name of the article, you are taking the American view and football in the US is a minority sport. In GB it is called football and nothing else: the German word is Fußball, the Spanish word is Futbol and nearly all other countries where it is the national sport follow suit. An exception is Italy, which had an early form of the sport called "calcio" (to kick), and this name has stuck. --John Leach 16:03, 26 January 2008 (CST)
And Todd is absolutely right on both counts. --John Leach 16:06, 26 January 2008 (CST)
My reasoning for keeping it at Football (soccer) is this: we have a redirect at Soccer to this article; additionally, at Football it is listed as "Association Soccer" that redirects to here anyway. Since this title covers both known terms (football and soccer), it sufficies for both American and other wordly english-speaking audiences. Additionally, if one were to use the "Search" function for football, you'd get the disambig page *anyway*. Even though the "technical term" may be Association Football, I'd be hard pressed to find many people around the world that actually call it that as opposed to just plain-jane "football". This is the "two-birds, one-stone" solution which I think justifies it's place. --Robert W King 23:59, 26 January 2008 (CST)

I would rather have all them examples redirect to association football. Take it from a man who has played it from as young as he can remember, we never call it 'soccer'. That is entirely an American phenonoman. Denis Cavanagh 07:10, 27 January 2008 (CST)

At the Football disambig page it is listed as Association Football not "Association Soccer"; and just because there is a redirect from Soccer to this article does not mean the redirect is correct. It is because there are other games known colloquially as football that disambiguation is required. An American searching for football is almost certainly looking for gridiron; an Australian might be looking for either Rules or RL; while a British person is almost certainly looking for football as in short for Association football. Without the other forms of football, the title of the article would be simply Football. But because a measure of disambiguation is necessary, the title has to be the full name Association Football. "Soccer" is like a nickname and (in the case of a person) unless a nickname is universally used instead of his real name (e.g., Pele), the title of the article must be his real name. Soccer is not universally used. About the only places where it is widely used are Australia and the USA, in both of which it is a minority sport. Like Denis, I played football from being a small child and we never called it soccer. --John Leach 07:50, 27 January 2008 (CST)

Even though your first sentence is bogus logic, I have considered bringing up the point for Americans that American Football should probably live at the page Football (NFL) or NFL Football. In any case having Football as a disambiguation page is the solution that seeks to be the common denominator (that there are many uses for the word "Football") and satisfies all those cases. --Robert W King 11:48, 27 January 2008 (CST)
I agree with nearly everything John says, but still agree with Robert that 'Football {what we call it} (soccer) {what those for whom it is a minority sport call it}' is the simplest & most elegant solution. Ro Thorpe 11:09, 27 January 2008 (CST)
Dennis, there is no "Broad agreement" on the move. --Robert W King 11:51, 27 January 2008 (CST)
For what it's worth, I have just created a "catalogs" page under the Olympic Games article which contains a list of catalogs of Olympic medalists in _______ (insert name of sport). In the listing, I used the name Football for what is called soccer here in America. Football is the official IOC name for the sport. That may or may not be a reason to consider in naming this page, though. I certainly think that is the name (perhaps with soccer in parentheses) which should be used in reference to the Olympics, since it is official there. James F. Perry 11:11, 27 January 2008 (CST)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Association Football is what it is called. There is across the board agreement here, with the exception of yourself. Never mind the fact that association football is the official name. Denis Cavanagh 11:56, 27 January 2008 (CST)
Dennis, please read the Talk page carefully. You and John are the only two that support moving to Association Football. Ro agrees that this solution is the best, and there hasn't been any other input. Regardless of "What it is technically called", sometimes simplest is best. --Robert W King 12:00, 27 January 2008 (CST)
I have personally never heard the "association" part of it, but that's not surprising. If we want to stick with the Football (type) naming convention, what about Football (Association) with a soccer redirect? That way the article is named in a way a majority of the English speaking world would understand it, but it will still get soccer's traffic. --Todd Coles 11:59, 27 January 2008 (CST)
In retrospect, I should have supported Todd's position, which incidently, I do now. --Robert W King 12:18, 27 January 2008 (CST)
Please don't ask me to read the page again when you clearly haven't read James' post. Denis Cavanagh 12:02, 27 January 2008 (CST)
Just because the IOC calls it that, doesn't necessarily mean it's the best solution for all parties considered and for "regular usage", whatever that happens to be in different countries. --Robert W King 12:04, 27 January 2008 (CST)

I have no interest whatsoever in joining in here (and I will not), but I would like to point out two obvious points. First, we don't all agree about what the name should be; that's why we're having the discussion. No legitimate argument can start from the premise "we all agree what the name should be." Second, "football" is the name given to what is arguably the most important sport in the United States, a country with some 300 million English speakers. Also, I don't see the relevance whatsoever (and never have) that other languages have cognate words (like German's fussball): the relevant question is what the word used among native English speakers, when speaking English. Since different words are used for the same thing, a compromise must be reached. I am stipulating that as Editor-in-Chief. Your task, which I encourage you to do as pleasantly and politely as possible, is to settle upon what the fairest compromise is.

If it becomes very clear that no compromise can be reached, I hope the contributors here will let me know, and I will decide what the next step will be. --Larry Sanger 12:04, 27 January 2008 (CST)

I reinserted Roberts comment. Don't see anything questionable in it. For my part, I will bow out. I support it being moved to Association Football, but I'll leave that particular good fight to others to resolve. Denis Cavanagh 12:08, 27 January 2008 (CST)

Denis, that was an edit conflict. However, a constable should be by to clean some of the above up soon.
Also, I'm disappointed that you don't wish to hammer out a compromise, Denis, or that you aren't interested in arguing that your position (Association Football) is an appropriate compromise (perhaps it could be supported as a compromise position). I'd like to impress upon you, and upon everyone reading this, how important reasonable compromise is as a policy for the health of a global, intellectually diverse project. --Larry Sanger 12:24, 27 January 2008 (CST)

For compromise purposes, the sensible solution is the one suggested by Todd to call the article Football (Association) with a soccer redirect. It follows that other articles should be Football (Australian Rules), Football (Rugby), Football (Gaelic), Football (American), etc.

By the way, "soccer" is believed to be derived from Association via its abbreviation Assoc. (which in England is pronounced "a sock"). --John Leach 01:42, 28 January 2008 (CST)

Positions and techiques

The whole article as it stands obviously needs expansion with several supporting articles to be started too (e.g., history, World Cup, European Cup). But this article itself needs some serious work on the techniques and positions sections in particular. It simply won't do, especially the bit about midfielders, and the reference to juggling is ridiculous. Do players juggle the ball in the MSL? They don't in the Premier League or Serie A or La Liga or the Bundesliga, where the game is very serious indeed. I'll try and work on this when time allows and get some good European and South American sources too. --John Leach 16:33, 26 January 2008 (CST)

I've edited the juggling bit - Ro Thorpe 17:16, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Association Football

Its only really called soccer in the US, and very sparsely elsewhere. It is one of (If not the most) widely played sports on the planet, and is usually referred to as simply 'football'. Since we cannot call it 'European' football like the Yanks would with their football game, we must call it 'Association Football', with which the majority of the world identifies it. Think in the broader, international context. Denis Cavanagh 18:08, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Please see the discussion above - Ro Thorpe 18:13, 26 January 2008 (CST)


Proposal - move "Soccer"-style Football to Football (Association), with Soccer redirecting to it to maintain the naming convention style. Also updating the disambiguation page at Football to read accordingly. Because the Football disambiguation page serves as a way to distinguish different contexts of the word (for English-speaking audiences), anyone that searches for Football will be directed there regardless of what style of Football they are intending to find (all inclusive to the redirect instead of only some-inclusive).

Proposal Amendment - also in lieu of the fact that "Football" in the US means something specific, and because American-style Football is practically associated with the National Football League or NFL, recommend that American football get changed to NFL Football, given that worldly varients are also titled at CZ as: Gaelic football, Austrailian Rules football, and Canadian football as they are listed at the disambiguation page.

I disagree with "NFL Football". For the most part, the NFL and the CFL are the same thing, and Arena football is a variation of that. I feel like the three of those are similar enough to lump under either "American" or "gridiron". I am unaware what a majority of the English speaking world outside the US refer to our football is, but "American football" turns up more than "Gridiron football" does on a Google search, for what it's worth.

I do, however, agree with Robert that "football" will be the most commonly searched phrase for these sports, and that the disambiguation page is an acceptable method of pointing people in the right direction. --Todd Coles 12:48, 27 January 2008 (CST)

I agree entirely with Todd. Isn't the only problem what to call the page currently at Football (soccer)? If people want Association football instead, fine. Ro Thorpe 12:58, 27 January 2008 (CST)
I think it would also be a good time to standardize our naming convention for this. In other words, do we want all the articles to be called "Football (type)" or "Type football"? I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if I were to pick one it would probably be "Football (type)" for organizational purposes. --Todd Coles 15:07, 27 January 2008 (CST)

I officially don't have any position here, by the way; I'll be happy with any solution. I am mainly interested in seeing everyone as happy as mere compromise (if necessary) can elicit. --Larry Sanger 13:03, 27 January 2008 (CST)

I don't see anything wrong with American Football just as I don't see anything wrong with Association Football. Nevertheless that has been mentioned previously and it isn't a massive issue. And Regarding Larrys comment to me in the top section, my interests were to move it to Association Football and felt exhausted with (in my opinion) were weak reasons to keep it as Football (soccer) I genuinely don't care what its called as long as the reason for naming it whatever is sound. I also disliked the heavy handed tactics in moving the page back within seconds, and also in having it moved to football (soccer) in the first place. Denis Cavanagh 14:42, 27 January 2008 (CST)
Denis, I strongly take issue with the description "heavy handed tactics." That is simply incorrect. What happened was that someone changed the name of the page, without discussing it properly first. This struck me as improper, and hence I required discussion before the renaming. This strikes me as merely reasonable, not "heavy handed," of course. --Larry Sanger 19:26, 27 January 2008 (CST)

The next step is for someone with a cool, analytical mind to give us a more complete analysis and proposal, taking into account all of the discussion above (and below--Aleta had a few choice points). Simply saying "We should do A and B," when everyone has been discussing A-Z, does not really resolve the argument. We must lay out the various points of contention, explain how they are most rationally and fairly to be resolved, and out of that should come "the perfect compromise." I note also that the perfect naming scheme may not yet have been proposed. --Larry Sanger 19:29, 27 January 2008 (CST)

Ha, ha, ha....oh, dear!

The sound of the perhaps the oldest if not wisest football lover among you reading the comments. (For the record, anyone who asks *how* old will have a football kicked into his head.)

1. It is called football. Just football. Common people do not call it "Association Football", even though yes, that's what it is. Educated people call it Association Football when they're arguing about it.

2. Not only North Americans call it Soccer. Australians have the same insupportable habit.

3. Whatever you do, boys, you'll have to do something. The current state of redirects is shocking.

4. I don't see the problem with Football (soccer). That's what it is, after all: football, which some people call "soccer". Football (Association), with Soccer a redirect to it, is fine too.

5. [Association Football] makes little sense to me. Everyone follows the Association rules; no one calls it that. People in IFAB and FIFA just call it football. You could, as has been suggested, call it Football (Association) and call it Association Football in the text. Pretentious (?), but correct.

6. I strongly suggest that football be not merely a disambiguation page, but an article explaining the hows & whys of calling everything from gridiron to Aussie Rules "football".

Aleta Curry 16:11, 27 January 2008 (CST)

Hear, hear to Aleta's #6. --Larry Sanger 19:30, 27 January 2008 (CST)

I think the main problem is that no one place can lay claim to Association Football. American Football is NFL, Aussie Rules is Aussie Football... What else can you call Football? European Football? The first two winners of the World Cup was a South American team! Association Football, with all the relevant redirects seems like the single most logical response to all of this. Though it doesn't really matter what it is called as long as we know we are talking about football. I really don't see whats wrong with Association Football. Denis Cavanagh 16:41, 27 January 2008 (CST)

I don't understand your first sentence, Den, can you say that another way? Why is it a problem that no one place can lay claim to Association Football?
The only thing I see "wrong" with "Association Football" is that I don't see any evidence for this being an official title, rather, it seems to me that that is a convention educated people use when making a point about football played according to Football Association rules, which is not quite the same thing. (Or, even more often, when complaining [understandably] about Americans usurping a title used quite differently by most of the rest of the world.)
I do agree that what the article is called is much less important than everyone being on the same page with understanding what is being discussed in which article.
Aleta Curry 17:50, 27 January 2008 (CST)
Yes, Aleta, good point about Association, so we'll keep the title as it is, no?... - Also liked your point nº 6 earlier: that's a job for...well, not me. Ro Thorpe 18:05, 27 January 2008 (CST)

Just some food for thought here. I've been Googling like mad trying to find some sort of information on what the sport is called in different English speaking countries, with minimal luck. WP has some articles, but they are of course, lacking sources. I did, however, find the Football Association website and after doing a site search for the term "soccer" I was surprised to see 10+ pages of returns, including this one for "mini-soccer"[1]. I think the original objection to the current title of this article was because the word "soccer" is a colloquialism and only used in North America. I could be misinterpreting this, but it seems like the organization that sanctions the rules for football is quite alright with the word soccer describing the sport. --Todd Coles 21:23, 27 January 2008 (CST)

Hi Aleta,
Just to clarify, when I say one place cannot lay claim to Association Football, I mean it is not like the easily identifiable 'Aussie Football' 'American Football' or 'Gaelic Football'. The fact is that it is a truly international game, and the name should reflect that. Personally in an ideal world I would call it simply football, but since there are many other brands of football in an international encyclopedia, the 'official' name would probably be the easiest solution. Regards. Denis Cavanagh 05:01, 28 January 2008 (CST)

American football -- NFL vs. the rest

I suggest that those people proposing that an article be called Football (NFL) because most of American football is of the National Football League variety do some research first. There are probably 60 gazillion times more Americans who physically attend non-NFL games than those who go to NFL games. There are college games (among thousands of colleges), there are high school games (among ten of thousands of schools), and there are also various other games and leagues for youngsters. The college games in particular are sometimes watched, in person, by more than 105,000 people at a time, far more than any single attendance at an NFL game. The television ratings for some college games are nearly as high as those for NFL games, and, in some instances, higher. And I believe that more money is wagered (illegally, mostly) on college games than NFL games.

I myself would suggest, since we're all doing this:

I think the breakdown between professional and amatuer is not needed. I think we could easily explain all we needed to about both in one article, unless you are envisioning something way more in depth. --Todd Coles 13:20, 28 January 2008 (CST)
It was only a suggestion. I was (and am) concerned that some well-meaning people would call the article NFL Football or some such, on the mistaken assumption that it was the only important kind of American football. Personally, I think there should be an article called Football (American). Period. Full stop. Then that article can take care of both amateur and professional football as it is played in the good ol' U. S. of A. -- and sometimes in London.... Hayford Peirce 13:30, 28 January 2008 (CST)

New proposal

Here is my proposal for how we should move forward. I've read all the arguments and tried to come up with a compromise that everyone would find fair and logical.

In regards to the naming convention of all pages involving a sport named 'football, there seem to be two prevailing options.

  • 1) All articles should be titled Football, with a more specific description following it in parentheses. ie Football (American)
  • 2) The specific description, followed by football. ie American football

While both of these options would work, I think our best choice is option 1, because all of the sports are called "football" by their respective fan base. This also seems like a better organizational method, as all the articles will fall alphabetically together.

The hottest point of contention has centered around this particular article around the use of either the word "association" or "soccer" to best describe it. The official name of the sport is Association Football, although Soccer appears to be an acceptable term in several English speaking countries and can even be found on the Football Association website. As far as finding the most commonly used phrase in English speaking countries, I know of no way to accurately do that - and everyone here is most likely to use the term most familiar to them. The consensus seems to be on our other football articles, that they are named after their basic rule set - American, Aussie rules, Gaelic. Therefore, I propose we continue that trend here and name the article Football (Association), making sure that it is clear on the football disambiguation/general information page that this sport is also known as soccer, thus not confusing people who are unfamiliar with the term "association."

Also, it has been suggested that the football disambiguation page be expanded to include a brief summary of the different sports. This makes sense, as a reader can get a quick glance and the differences and the similarities of the different types of football before going to a specific article for more specific information.

--Todd Coles 13:15, 28 January 2008 (CST)

I, myself, have no objections. Although we'll need to clean up the excess redirects caused by this friendly scuffle. --Robert W King 13:19, 28 January 2008 (CST)
I agree with the proposal of Football (Association) as the title, with soccer as a redirect, plus an explanation in the disambig (WP have done that). Although it means renaming Gaelic football, American football, etc., I agree with Todd about general use of the "football (type)" format.
As an aside, I entirely agree with Hayford’s proposal for American Football titles.
By the way, to give a British answer to the question somewhere above about how the American brand of football is known worldwide, it is known here as American Football, never as gridiron or anything else; British sports fans generally know that college football is as important as the NFL. American Football is popular on British TV with two live NFL matches every Sunday night.
One thing WP does is have an article called Football that is not merely disambig but provides an explanation of the different brands and their sources. I agree with Aleta that we need a similar article here.
There seems to be confusion about the source of Association Football as a name. It comes from the English Football Association (the FA) which was founded in 1863 and the game was called Association Football to emphasise that its rules are different to those of Rugby Football. When the FA came into being there was great controversy about whether handling the ball should be allowed. There were two basic schools of thought between a "dribbling game" or a "handling game". The FA chose dribbling and this caused a split in its ranks. The clubs that preferred handling left the FA and, a few years later, formed the Rugby Football Union, an organisation that also ultimately gave its name to its sport. It is not correct to use a term like English football or European football because the differentiating factor is the rules. You could say that the sport is played under Association rules just as another type of football is played under (and called) Australian rules. --John Leach 14:50, 28 January 2008 (CST)
Quick follow up to Todd's comments of the 27th. You're absolutely right, Todd, that every football fan, his sisters and his cousins and his aunts, recognises the word "soccer". However, many deeply resent it, feeling that it's an example of "creeping Americanism", if I may, because the game should rightly be called "football". (The fact that "soccer" is actually a Britishism, from Soccer Football from Assoc. Football from Association Football makes absolutely no difference.)
I have no problem with Football (Association) as a compromise, and it's a simple matter to move the other pages.
Hayford is quite right about American Football. Football (American) seems a no-brainer to me.
Just for fun, I did a quick and informal survey yesterday. Just asked everyone I could, out of hearing of anyone else, "what do you think of when I say "football"? The no. 1 answer from non-Australian born folks was either "soccer!" or "proper!" and if you could have heard the tones! (people even managed to convey "tone" via e-mail, if you can believe it!) Australian-borns, interestingly, instead of a one-word answer, gave a brief explanation, like "Footy is all footy, like Aussie Rules or league or union". My point is that all the answers showed clearly that people had strong feelings and the point has come up before.
Aleta Curry 15:37, 28 January 2008 (CST)
Yes, 'soccer' was used in Britain when I was a kid in the 50s, a mere synonym. So Football (soccer), Football (Rugby League), Football (American: NBA), Football (American: MGM), Football (Martian) seems to be the way to go - Ro Thorpe 17:20, 28 January 2008 (CST)
Just to clarify Ro, are you in favor of (Soccer) instead of (Association)? If so, why? --Todd Coles 17:47, 28 January 2008 (CST)
I slightly favour 'soccer': see Aleta's point I agreed with above - Ro Thorpe 18:06, 28 January 2008 (CST)

Leaving football (as in soccer) aside for a moment - why should other (variety of) football articles lose their commonly used name as a result of what's decided for this article? We should be thinking of CZ's readers rather than having an agreed system of names that suits authors. Australian rules football, for example, will not be found by someone searching for "Australian rules football" if we move it to Football (Australian), and likewise Gaelic football should live at its natural home rather than Football (Gaelic) - in my opinion, anyway :-) I would therefore suggest:

They're my thoughts, anyway. Anton Sweeney 18:20, 28 January 2008 (CST)

At last someone has it all worked out. Go & edit that disambiguation page, Anton - Ro Thorpe 18:53, 28 January 2008 (CST)
The problem of not finding "Australian rules football" is easily cured with a redirect. However, I do understand your point about forming all the other article titles around this one. But since all of these sports can be accurately called "football", I don't really think we're creating any kind of injustice with the Football (type) naming method.
What is becoming clear is that everyone is we are lacking a definitive decision making tool to name this article. We have some that want Association in the title and others who want Soccer. Both are valid names, but how do we determine which is the most common/correct usage?
And Anton, mercifully the XFL only lasted 1 season. :) --Todd Coles 19:00, 28 January 2008 (CST)
I'd also like to add I don't think anyone should be editing anything until we come to a community agreement on this. --Todd Coles 19:01, 28 January 2008 (CST)
Yes, I've come back to retract that bit. Ro Thorpe 19:31, 28 January 2008 (CST)
I think we need: Football (disambiguation & ancient history), and the rest as Anton suggests; Soccer being the demotic word, Association football could redirect to it. Ro Thorpe 19:44, 28 January 2008 (CST)
Given that "soccer" cannot live at "football", I'd agree that the substantive article should live at its next most common name - Soccer - with a redirect from Association football. Assuming there are no objections in the meantime, I'll have time on Friday 1st Feb (evening, GMT) to expand the current Football page per Aleta above and Hayford below... Now - what do we want to do with Table soccer, Table football and Foozeball? <wicked evil grin> Anton Sweeney 04:28, 29 January 2008 (CST)

a modest proposal -- check Squash

This is the way it ought to be handled, I think.

By the way, will anyone except me be watching The Stoopid Bowl this coming Sunday? And I'll only be watching it with one eye, with the sound off, while I lie on the bed and read the New York Times.... Hayford Peirce 19:46, 28 January 2008 (CST)

I hear the adverts and half-time entertainment can be good... Anton Sweeney 05:23, 29 January 2008 (CST)

Football (Association) already! Done and dusted! The problem is...?


Only men can do this.

We come to some semblance of agreement, and all of a sudden we're discussing it all over again.

For Pity's Sake, let's wrap this one up and move on.

Aleta Curry 04:53, 29 January 2008 (CST)

My excuse is I'm in touch with my feminine side... *whistles innocently and walks away* :-) Anton Sweeney 05:22, 29 January 2008 (CST)

Guilty. I changed my mind, typical (wo)man.

  • LOL - I note that I deserved both of those comments! Aleta Curry 21:21, 29 January 2008 (CST)

Based on Anton's proposals above:

I am fine with this too, but if I recall, the biggest two detractors to Soccer were John Leach and Denis Cavanaugh, both of which we haven't heard from in awhile. --Todd Coles 17:23, 29 January 2008 (CST)
Got sidetracked there! Ro Thorpe 18:30, 29 January 2008 (CST)
The only problem with it is that Association Football redirects to football (soccer) and not the other way round. If Wikipedia can call their article 'Association Football' (And I'm prepared to go out on a limb and declare they are more an authority on this than we are) Then we should also. Denis Cavanagh 07:10, 31 January 2008 (CST)
Fine by me. Anyone object? Ro Thorpe 09:27, 31 January 2008 (CST)
I object on Aleta's basis above, that the common usage is "Soccer" in other places besides the US, and frankly we shouldn't be relying on Wikipedia for any usage as they are very "mob rule". --Robert W King 09:31, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Association Football is its proper name. If its called soccer as a result of this discussion, then this would be a perfect example of 'mob rule'. Denis Cavanagh 09:42, 31 January 2008 (CST)

This is going nowhere. It's time to invite the Editor-in-Chief back, I think. Ro Thorpe 09:50, 31 January 2008 (CST)
You don't need my permission to make these changes. All I'm saying is that I disagree. We're never going to get 100% consensus on any matter on this project, but the important thing is that there is a fair talk about it (Which has been of the highest standard so far). If people still think it should be called Football (soccer) then thats fine, there is nothing I can do. I doubt myself or John Leach will change our opinion on this matter. Denis Cavanagh 10:10, 31 January 2008 (CST)
I'm a fan of Todd's proposal, but there wasn't much agreement/commentary on it. --Robert W King 10:13, 31 January 2008 (CST)
Can't we put an end to this discussion and actually make the disambig. pages and redirects, etc.? I think that *both* sides of the issue have put forth compelling arguments that are hard to refute and that can be argued about for the next six years. How about *another* point of view: CZ is, legally, an *American* entity as I understand it. Certain aspects of it fall under the laws of some state or other. Larry and people are worried about possible libel suits if we don't have certain disclaimers here and there, right? They're not worried about libel suits in Albania or Tonga -- they're worried about *American* lawsuits. So let's postulate that in certain *very* important ways, CZ is more American than anything else. In which case, and purely to settle this matter so that we can get on to something else, let's take the American usage, "Soccer" as the primary article name, and have "Association Football" redirect to "Soccer." I hereby propose a motion in favor of this suggestion: Does anyone second it? Hayford Peirce 11:05, 31 January 2008 (CST)
I'm all for compromise but I don't think I can go along with just "Soccer". I think since the sport is most commonly called Football, we need to keep a reference to that in the title. So I would say just keep this article where it's at. --Todd Coles 11:53, 31 January 2008 (CST)
Wait a minute! "Soccer" alone is simply not acceptable as a name for an article on Association rules Football, I think most people recognise that, and I am less than thrilled at the categoris(z)ation of CZ as an "American entity". Larry has spoken about the American nature of CZ, yes, but he has not said, that I recall, that it is a uniquely American encyclopaedia. I would be really unhappy, disappointed and angry if a football article were to reside at Soccer. Aleta Curry 16:26, 31 January 2008 (CST)
Larry's comment at 12:11 on 27 January should reassure you. And elsewhere he suggests looking at WP's solution... Ro Thorpe 17:48, 31 January 2008 (CST)
Knowledge isn't an American entity. I hope there isn't even a subconscious attitude that this is somehow an 'American' project. I can think of a few non yanks here on this site who wouldn't be too pleased with attitudes like that! Denis Cavanagh 07:20, 1 February 2008 (CST)
Come on, people! Why don't you reread what I actually wrote? I was merely saying that in certain important aspects, ie, legal standing in the world, CZ is an American entity. And that for resolving this seemingly intractable problem, why not just take the American point of view for this SINGLE situation? I could just as easily as suggested that we appoint Matt, say, or Stephen, or Ro, or Aleta to officially flip a coin to settle the issue. Except in that case, we would now we arguing about whether we should use a nickel, a tuppenny, a Euro, an Australian shilling, an Austrian thaler, or a, well, you name it. Sure, knowledge is universal. But it ain't gonna get very far in this particular project if we're gonna spend weeks and weeks arguing about the name of an article about a game played with either a sphere or a obloid ball. Hayford Peirce 10:31, 1 February 2008 (CST)
I reread you, Hayford, and you make sense - I just don't agree. In normal conversation I would no more call football 'soccer' than you would call football 'American football'. And Oklahoman Todd responded to you very well last time: 'I think since the sport is most commonly called Football, we need to keep a reference to that in the title. So I would say just keep this article where it's at.' - Ro Thorpe 12:20, 1 February 2008 (CST)
I personally don't care one way or another what it's called -- I'd just like to see a decision made and the appropriate disambig. page made. Why don't one of us ask Larry to make a decision in his capacity as Edition-in-Chief? Hayford Peirce 12:39, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Let me know if a decision needs my help. In the meantime, I just thought of this: association football (soccer). Bwa-ha-ha-ha! --Larry Sanger 12:47, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Want another opinion? (ducks) I don't think soccer is appropriate, its slang for one, Football (Association) or Association Football are both acceptable. Soccer as a redirect solves the problem for readers who have no idea that its slang for association football. Chris Day (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2008 (CST)

I tried to decapitalise 'soccer' - just noticed, a new hobbyhorse of mine - but it's not recognised as different. Anyway, I agree with Larry's suggestion, but it seems some are implacably opposed to 'soccer' (it ain't slang, though). Divided by a common language... Ro Thorpe 15:01, 1 February 2008 (CST)
Are you sure it's not slang? Its derived from asSOCiation. Chris Day (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (CST)
Hairsplitting a bit, I'd say colloquial, a degree or two above slang, & of course normal usage in America and Australia (and further afield?) - Ro Thorpe 16:33, 1 February 2008 (CST)
Colloquial works. Chris Day (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (CST)
Well, it may be colloquial in the rest of the world, but in the United States it is, dare I say, a *formal* word. The professional league is called "Major League Soccer", in the same way that the NFL is called the "National Football League" or big league baseball is legally known as an entity called "Major League Baseball". So whatever the derivation of the word, it is, for us benighted 'Merkins, a non-slang, formal word -- here's the official website for MLS: (My interest in it, by the way, is about equal to my interest in eating Brussel sprouts; I am, however, interested in the correct usage of words in these CZ articles....) Hayford Peirce 18:01, 1 February 2008 (CST)
Seems I can't move it back to Football (soccer) so I'll have to adopt Larry's suggestion prematurely. Apologies to all who don't like it, but the discussion can go on. Ro Thorpe 18:28, 1 February 2008 (CST)
It may look like a fait accompli, but it was ignorance on my part. Honest, guv. Ro Thorpe 18:36, 1 February 2008 (CST)
It seems like a good compromise to me. --Todd Coles 19:00, 1 February 2008 (CST)
Agreed! Anton Sweeney 06:47, 2 February 2008 (CST)
Psst! Hayford? When I was a kid child, we were not allowed to use "American words" in school because they were--ready for this?--"slang". And, when visiting in the US for long enough to have to be placed in school (yes, Little Aleta had American grandparents on one side--oh the shame of it!) we were not allowed to use the same flippin' words because they were...slang. And, I note in passing, 'merkins had some very interesting notions of what constituted "English slang". But I digress--where were we, again? OMG--do we actually have a solution, here??? Aleta Curry 16:02, 2 February 2008 (CST)
Thanks, folks - Ro Thorpe 08:31, 3 February 2008 (CST)

Article name (revisited)

I haven't read all of this discussion page yet, so bear with me - I am only addressing the status quo.

Can I ask why the word 'soccer' has been put in brackets after the name? It is extraneous, as the word 'soccer' is derived from the word 'association'? The proper name of the article should be, simply, Association football.

I'd also like to point out that the USA is not the only place in which it is called 'soccer', though most places outside the USA who use the word 'soccer', use the words 'football' and 'soccer' interchangeably. --Mal McKee 08:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional: I would also like to object to Hayford'a suggestion that CZ is an "American entity". It may (as far as I know) be hosted on servers in the USA and have been dreamed up and instated by a US citizen, but it is on an international platform. On top of that, said 'dreamer', Larry Sanger, has stated himself that it was never his intention to make CZ US-oriented. So the spirit and intent is international and only real stipulation, currently, is that the communication medium is English specifically. --Mal McKee 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The checklist above says the article is in British English, so shouldn't the article title be the normal word football, presumably with a disambiguation in brackets? Peter Jackson 11:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
So Football (soccer) then? I'd accept that. Though I would also be accepting of the more formal (though more seldom used) full name of Association Football. Either way, I think the extra "soccer" in brackets is both unwieldy and extraneous and should be changed. Would there be any objections to "Football (soccer)"? --Mal McKee 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
More consistent would be Football (association), as against Football (American). Peter Jackson 12:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Association Football is close to a title though, isn't it? FIFA is the Fédération Internationale de Football Association or, rendered in English, the International Federation of Association Football. Perhaps the word association should be capitalised. I think the formal full name of the sport would be better, but I'd also be happy with your suggestion. Much, much better than the title the article currently has, which is just a mess! --Mal McKee 12:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, have we got a policy about formal versus popular names? Let's see how many examples we can think of for the EC to get their teeth into. I'll start it after my signature so anyone can add to it. Peter Jackson 11:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. First Lord of the Treasury vs First of the Lords Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Treasurer of England
  2. Britain vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  3. United Kingdom vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  4. Hull vs Kingston-upon-Hull
Firstly, I would suggest that using "Britain" for the name of the UK is inadvisable, as it is highly ambiguous. "UK" is far less so. Secondly, I take your point, though it still leaves us the option of using either the full formal name, or the one you suggested. Like I said, I'm happy to go with either. --Mal McKee 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Mal, would you kindly read the earlier parts of the Discussion page before making some of your comments? That would be useful, so that we don't have to reinvent the wheel for the second or third time. As I said at least twice in my earlier comments, Citizendium was, at least at that time, and still is, as far as I know, a legal American entity. It is not an Albanian entity, or a Tongan one, or a British one, or a Canadian one. I wasn't saying that it was an American project, or an American encyclopedia. I was saying that it was an American legal entity. Geez, how many times do I have to repeat this before everyone understands what I'm saying? I myself don't give a hoot about this so-called sport in which a bunch of people kick a ball around for two hours in order to have a final score of 0–0, and I care even less what it's called—I wouldn't walk across the street with a free front-row ticket in hand to watch Pele do whatever it was he used to do. At the time of my earlier comments, I was simply trying to get an apparently intractable discussion to a conclusion of sorts. Which it reached. And now apparently people want to start it all over again. That's Progress, I guess, with a capital P. Hayford Peirce 17:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Presumably Hayford, you don't give a hoot about a sport called 'football' in which a bunch of people rarely actually kick the ball with their foot for twenty minutes (while the broadcast itself is some three or more hours long due to the stoppage times and constant advert breaks) in order to have some meaningless score of 28 - 36, and which should probably be better served being called American Rugby? Or do you? In other words, to put it another way, was there any need to get quite so hostile?
You may have tried to help bring the discussion to a conclusion, and for that you are surely to be commended. However, you merely offered your point of view - as am I, of course. I wasn't a member when this discussion began - I only came across it recently. I have now read all your comments with regard to the idea of CZ being a US entity. And I agree with you that, legally, it certainly is. However, this specific discussion doesn't concern legality and I think, as a result, your argument falls short of relevancy. The target 'audience' for CZ is clear: English speaking peoples world-wide. US customs, culture, practice and tradition doesn't enter into it, unless there is some legal aspect. In this case, there isn't.
The current name of the article is unwieldly and, if I may say so, slightly bizarre. I'm not advocating a complete removal of the word soccer - it should be clear in the text, and I'm sure it already is, that the sport is also known in some places by that name. All I've been suggesting is that we tidy the name of the article up a bit. --Mal McKee 17:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Mal, you're missing at least part of the point.
As you yourself are the first to admit, you weren't party to this three years ago. It was a huge and often acrimonious debate, and some very intelligent people were involved in it.
I'm sure if you think about it for a minute, you will realise that this debate might well have been done to death before you got here. It is this, I believe, that Hayford is reacting to. Honestly, you are not the first person in the history of CZ to raise these issues. You are not the first person to think that this article should live at football.
The fact that you now want to resurrect what to us are old arguments is not a compelling one for those of us who have heard it all. All of it. Trust me.
Aleta Curry 04:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Quite honestly Aleta, and without trying to offend you, I think it is you that has missed the point. You say that I'm not the first person to think this article should be at Football. But that's simply not the case. I have made the suggestion Association football and Peter has also made a suggestion, which I thought was a decent one. Neither of us made the suggestion Football.
You certainly haven't convinced me that there is no reason to change it, just because you've "heard it all before". There is no 'sell by date' on these articles, that I'm aware of. Although I ressurected this discussion, it's quite possible, especially once CZ starts to grow faster, that I won't be the last. My aim was actually to prevent that to a degree by making a proposal that I'm sure most people east of the USA would probably be happy enough with. And what's the objection anyway? Surely it's not because you've argued it all out before.
Just to clarify, here are the current proposals by myself and Peter:
* Association football
* Football (association)
* Football (soccer)
Here is one proposal that has NOT been made by either myself nor by Peter:
* Football
Oddly, it looks like both the first and last options have already been made into redirect pages. I'm quite happy to hear any argument which states reasons why any of the three proposals are in any way undesireable. --Mal McKee 05:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. Hayford, remember that Americans are in a minority on the current EC, so it's unlikely to pass a policy of using American English as default.
  2. Also, to Mal's point I'd add that the object used in American football doesn't satisfy the normal definition of a "ball".
  3. I personally don't care about the game either. Peter Jackson 11:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Peter, please cite the place where I said that I, or anyone else, would try to get the EC to pass a policy of using American English as default. It simply doesn't exist. As you ought to be aware by now, having been here for some time, CZ has a policy of letting the originator of an article choose which variant English will be used for writing that article. The two primary ones are American English (AE) and British English (BE), and it is a simple matter to assign one or the other to the article's metadata table. Generally speaking, with an exception here and there, this is the policy that has been successfully carried out since the very inception of the project and it is highly unlikely to change. Hayford Peirce 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Major revision required

This article has been left in a really bad way and needs a complete revision with reference to good sources. Stuff about "juggling" and "faking" is frankly absurd in the context of competitive matches. I've made a start by revamping the introduction somewhat, although it is nowhere near complete. The history section is only a few brief notes which need expansion or verification or both. The "techniques" section has been removed because it was awful and the rest was stuff that can be merged into the intro or set aside as unnecessary. The list of prominent clubs had some noticeable omissions so I've removed that and simply named the four most successful European Cup clubs in the intro.

There were arguments in the past about the title but I think this one is fair enough because "association football" is the correct, formal name of the sport while "soccer", originally an abbreviation, serves as a good moderator to counter ambiguity. Outside of North America and Australia, the sport is known worldwide as "football" (translated), except in Italy where it is called calcio (to kick). While there might be justification for titling the article as simply "football", because of consensus common usage, I think it would be wrong to omit the words "association" and "soccer".

I'll work on this article bit by bit. I have sources that provide considerable coverage of the sport's origins and early development. The FIFA site is very good for modern football and there is plenty more in club histories and suchlike. John (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)