Talk:Association football/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Association football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

This article should be called...

Association Football or Association football

Please add your name below

EuroSong ^talk 22:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
♦Tangerines♦·Talk 01:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Reginmund 01:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
--Michael Johnson 01:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
— Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 15:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
PeeJay 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Dave101→talk 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Jooler 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
(with the caveat that the second word should not be capitalised) EdC 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Joshua Issac (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The title "Football (soccer)" is an illogical, MoS-defying "compromise" in which everyone loses (purely to prevent anyone from "winning"). Either "Association football" or "Soccer" would be a perfectly correct, unambiguous title, and I wholeheartedly support the former as the one more likely to enjoy consensus. —David Levy 05:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Erfa (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC) - this is definitely the best compromise
Having soccer as a disambig makes no sense - it should be Association Football - which is the porper name. Stuart DD _{contributions} 16:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There is Rugby football American football and this is Association Football. Soccer is a coloquial North Americnism and football is ambiguous. People who know of other types of football but have not used or heard the slang soccer used before may easily get confused.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
In fairness, it should be noted that the term "soccer" originated in England and is commonly used in Australia and New Zealand. —David Levy 02:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
....not to mention Ireland and South Africa. In all of these countries, soccer it is not a colloquialism, it is the common name of the game. Moreover, as I never tire of pointing out, it is the common name for a majority of people whose first language is English. Whereas almost no-one uses "Asssociation football" in everyday speech and many English speaking people have never even heard or read the term. Grant | Talk 04:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
People don't usually say "American football" or "Canadian football" in the course of ordinary conversation, but we (quite logically) use those designations as the titles of our articles. Using the title "Football (soccer)" is like using the title "Football (gridiron)" instead of "American football." To people for whom "soccer" is a slang term, using "Soccer" as the title would be like calling the article "Gridiron."
Many people are unfamiliar with the term "association football," but it is the sport's official English-language name (according to its highest governing body). With "soccer" remaining in place as a redirect, I see absolutely no problem with using "Association football" as the article's title. —David Levy 05:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, is "football (gridiron)" objectionable? I'm not convinced of that, based on conversations with American friends. One problem is that could be considered to also cover Canadian football. And "American football", it seems to me, is far more common and easily understood by lay people than "Association football", which on face value conjures up nothing — I can hear a hypothetical person in Texas, Tasmania or Tamil Nadu asking: "which 'association'?" Whereas "football (soccer)' is unambiguous, which is one of the main criteria for a name. Grant | Talk 06:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I can hear the hypothetical person in Arkansas, Vanuatu, or Guyana inquiring about "bovisponginopoly"? However, there is a perfectly good colloquialism for that too. Reginmund (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This may sink in one day: "soccer" is not a colloquialism, if you are from one of the above-mentioned countries. Grant | Talk 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. As an American, I've always known the sport as "soccer." Nonetheless, I still believe that "association football" is the most suitable title for the article. —David Levy 13:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

"Soccer" is a colloquialism wherever you're from, regardless if it is the primary usage, as is corn and mad-cow disease. Reginmund (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[subsequent discussion relocated to Talk:Association football#"Soccer" is a colloquialism wherever you're from...]

Apart from the issue regarding Canadian football, "Football (gridiron)" would be a terrible title because it flagrantly defies our naming conventions in a highly illogical manner (and is just plain ugly). "Football (soccer)" is a terrible title for the same reasons.
"Football (soccer)" is less ambiguous, but the same could be said of countless potential article titles combining two different names in this manner. But we don't do that (because it's silly). With the correct redirects and disambiguation links in place, an article is perfectly easy for readers to find. From a practical standpoint, this would be just true of an Association football article as it is of our Zucchini article. (From the perspective of someone who knows the plant as "courgette," it makes no difference that the name "zucchini" is commonly used by others.) In both cases, the article explains the potentially unfamiliar term's meaning, so what's the problem?
As others have said, there is no perfect title for this article, but "Association football" is the least bad. —David Levy 07:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a matter of opinion. Grant | Talk 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you think is the least bad then? "Football" isn't an option, as it is too ambiguous. "Soccer" isn't an option as there are too many people around the world who refer to the game as "football" instead. "Football (soccer)" isn't an option as it is against Wikipedia naming conventions, which leaves "Association football" as the only viable alternative! – Pee Jay 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is. Needless to say, it's perfectly reasonable for you to disagree. —David Levy 13:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Well thank you ;-) There are plenty of examples of article names which do not conform with naming policy, for perfectly good reasons. These are known a "exceptions" and policy allows for them. Grant | Talk 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we can (and do) deviate from our usual naming conventions when specific situations call for exceptions. I don't, however, believe that the title "Football (soccer)" is good. I believe that "Association football" (itself not entirely consistent with said conventions) is the best option. —David Levy 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Football

Please add your name below

Chandler talk 22:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (with Association Football as a second alternative)

Soccer

Please add your name below

Football (soccer)

Please add your name below

Something else entirely

Please add your name below

m:Voting is evil.

Oldelpaso 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
CommentThe issue cannot be resolved by a vote. The world will still want it called "football", Americans will want it called "soccer", because they are under the mistaken impression that gridiron is called football. No one will want it called "football (soccer)" because it is stupid and unwieldy. Also no one will want it called "association football" since calling it that makes you sound like something out of Victorian England. King of the North East 15:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
King, the "world" doesn't call it "football", even if you count all the translations like Fussball. Speakers of Chinese languages, who outnumber us by a significant margin, call it names like Zuqiu (from the name of an old Chinese game). As I've said above, the majority of native English speakers call it by that fine English word "soccer" and we are not all American. That said, I agree with you and that's why I won't be voting. Grant | Talk 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The zh wikipedia (Chinese?) at least have football under a article called football (the two signs for foot and ball) So i guess that counts with "Fussball" "Fotboll" etc. etc. And thus, the world calls it Football. Though a Chinese will have to verify what its actually called (or maybe someone can find what its referred to in national newspapers, tv etc.) Chandler talk 22:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the English Wikipedia, not the World one. And your claim is untrue: for instance, in Italy we call it calcio, not football. And Canadians call it soccer (I lived there, so I know that for good). --Angelo 22:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Well said Angelo. Zuqiu/cuju and all the other Chinese names literally = "kickball", not football and as I said it comes from an old Chinese games and not the FA game. The Korean name, chook gu, is from the same source. The Japanese call it Sakkā, from soccer. Grant | Talk 22:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
!Voting won't resolve the issue. m:Voting is evil. Woodym555 17:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that voting won't resolve the issue. Sebisthlm 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
However, many of us have explained our reasons. Reginmund 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all the friends above. In any case, I fully support the statu quo. --Angelo 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Leave as is. This is a featured article. Why try to change what several levels of review determined wasn't broken? -- Ssilvers 19:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Which is precisely why it should comply with naming conventions. EdC 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not a vote. And my vote is not a vote either. – Elisson • T • C • 21:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I'm incredibly naughty so I can't vote, however I believe there is something valuable and indepth I can add to this, so these are the things I'd like to say about it to mull over between yourselves lads.
(1). This game is called football, all the other forms of football are in some way derived from or branched off it in some way. Whether you say rugby and in turn American football branched off from that, or whatever. It all goes back to this one. The mother in this field.
Comment: Not so, rugby football (in various forms) predates Assn. Football by many decades, Australian football rules were codified in 1858, Assn. football in 1863, etc. --Michael Johnson 03:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a somewhat misleading claim. Regardless of when the first codification of rules which lead to modern rules occurred, the "picking up the ball and running with it" football born in the apocryphal story of William Webb-Ellis was clearly a modification of the "kicking the ball around" football being played at the time. --Stormie 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've seen it all now. You have expressly cited an "apocryphal" story as evidence. Also, it is historically incorrect to claim pre-1863 kicking games as being Association football, akin to claiming that a Sopwith Camel and a Spitfire are the same plane. On a lesser note, the innovation attributed to Webb-Ellis at Rugby was that he picked up the ball from the ground, not that he ran with it. Medieval football games and older ones allowed the ball to be handled and carried. Some actually banned kicking entirely (and yes, they were still called football). Most kinds of football, including Association football, allowed some handling of the ball by all players, until the late 19th century, although most did not allow the ball to picked up Grant | Talk 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(2). Most countries of the English speakers in the world call it "football". More than 45 counrties out of the 52 official English speaking. However, Australia, USA, Canada has a big population calling it "soccer", but even then so does India, Pakistan, Nigeria, who officially speak the English word and call it football.
"Officially" there are many languages in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and the number of people who speak English as a first language is minuscule. What would Wikipedia look like if style and usage in every article was tailored to ESL/EFL speakers? Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(3). While some may say association football is too formal, in this situation it is the ideal compromise. It actually belongs at Football, but we know that won't happen, because on Wikipedia there is systematic bias against British English naming conventions of articles, see "color, tire". Soccer on the other hand is too informal and looks cheesy/amateurish, it is after all only a nickname from "association"... we would never call an article Rugby football (rugger), American football (gridder) or Breakfast (brekkie), Walking (walkies), its wrong.
You could not be more wrong. In this case there is "systemic bias" against people who speak almost every other variety of English other than British English. Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(4). Even in countries who do not have the English as their language, like China and others, if football or soccer has to be used official to convey a message to the world, they officially use "football", on their websites[1], in their press releases and even the initial F for "football" on their logos.[2]
So what? The British Embassy in Beijing probably has Chinese text on its wevbsite. Do you really think that soccer fans in China go around saying "football" or "soccer? No they do not. Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(5). Obviously we have lots of loan words used around the world Fodbold, Fußball, Fútbol, Foutbòl, Futbol, Fotball, Futebol, Votebol, etc.. in France they just use the English language, and while in Italy it is true calcio means "kick", the majority of the clubs when not using "Calcio" instead have "Football" in their name; Juventus Football Club, Football Club Internazionale Milano, Torino Football Club, Parma Football Club, Genoa Cricket and Football Club, Empoli Football Club, etc.
Showing the historical period in which they emerged, when the game was seen as essentially "Inglese". But in modern Italian it's Calcio. What's more the leading Italian news service, ANSA, refers to the game as "soccer" in English language articles. As do leading German and French media outlets. Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The use of 'calcio' as opposed to football - is strongly associated with Mussolini's Fascist italianization of the sport - in this case harking back to Calcio Fiorentino. See History of A.C. Milan for example. Jooler 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The use of calcio instead of football in Italy is unrelated to Mussolini and the fascist era. The Italian Football Federation is named Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio since 1909. On the other hand, the Italian word clearly derives from the old Calcio Fiorentino game, but not because of Mussolini. --Angelo 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The revival of Calcio Fiorentino was initiated by the fascist politician Alessandro Pavolini. Our article on AC Milan says "In 1938 the fascist regime imposed a new italianized name, Associazione Calcio Milano, for the team.". Is it not correct that several other clubs Italianized their names during this period? Jooler 15:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You stated the use of calcio rather than football was imposed by Mussolini during the fascist period, and this is wrong (the origin of the name dates back to 1909). Anything else is really unimportant here. --Angelo 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Those were not the words I used. 'Stongly associated' is not a synonym of 'imposed'. Jooler 15:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact it is not even strongly associated. Calcio was widely used well before Mussolini took the power in Italy, and s still used nowadays, differently than football club name italianizations such as AC Milano and Ambrosiana-Inter, which were all cancelled after the World War II. --Angelo 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In closing, rightly or wrongly (statistics say this one)... this article will always stay at football (soccer) because of systematic bias. A move to "Football" will never be allowed and even a move to "Association football" won't either. Forever this article will have something holding it back to many who loves this sport and has learned English spoken the way the founders of this sport and what it is officially called by; there will be a sinking feeling in your gut when you see "soccer" as part of this title, flashbacks of Diana Ross missing that set up penalty at the 1994 FIFA World Cup ceremony, etc... the kind of things which sinks you to your knees and makes you wish this sport didn't spawn any other codes just to stop the inhumanity. A dramatisation sure, but I guarantee lots of you reading know exactly what I mean. ;) - Extra Time Goal 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As noted above, the present name is actually an example of systemic bias against the majority of people who speak English as a first language, because the vast majority of us call it soccer. It is a myth that soccer is a minority name, "slang" or otherwise incorrect. If anything, the article should be at soccer or soccer (football), but I support the status quo because everyone thinks their own norms are "right" and therefore we will never have consensus for any change. Grant | Talk 05:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because you call something something, that doesnt make it it's name. Soccer IS a slang, and it comes from Association, So don't try to say Soccer is what its always been called and is a real word. And as the english wikipedia probably is the most visited one? most read? it would probably have a more global pov and not an american pov. And doesnt things like FIFA, CAF, AFC, UEFA, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, OFC gives you enough evidence that its not soccer but Football... Maybe that the US governing body was called Football and not soccer in the beginning, and that the Australian governing body is changing its name from Soccer to Football Chandler talk 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The etymology of the word is irrelevant, as is British usage/disdain, because neither reflect the significance of the word to the majority of English speakers. "Soccer" was slang when a great English soccer player, Charles Wreford-Brown, invented it. However, English is s dynamic language, ruled by popular usage and not institutions; soccer is now the accepted name of the game in American English, Australian English, Canadian English, Irish English, New Zealand English, South African English and other varieties. It is also the name of the game in those varieties of English. It is the official name of the game in the USA and Canada and by extension, the vast majority of people who speak English as a first language.Grant | Talk 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you can't go by what a majority of English speakers say (in that case the Sweden article would be called Switzerland). The Governing bodies call it football (see FIFA), and the sport originates, have a stronger cultural standing and more practicers in Europe, where the sport is called football in English (as well as in most other languages). Sebisthlm 18:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course we "go by" the majority of English speakers! That is the fundamental naming policy in the English language Wikipedia. If you can provide proof that a majority of English speakers refer to Sweden as "Switzerland" then I will support your proposal for a move of Sweden to Switzerland (North) :-) Geography is a good analogy for this situation, because there is no consistency, logic or regard to local names, niceties or political correctness in many geographical names; the current common name in English is used. The governing bodies in the USA and Canada call it "soccer", as do many European media in English language articles, including Spiegel, Deutsche Welle, France24 and ANSA prefer "soccer", clearly recognising their main market. Grant | Talk 11:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course we "go by" the majority of English speakers! That is the fundamental naming policy in the English language Wikipedia - No it isn't. WP:ENGVAR specifically says - English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others.. I don't know why you bring up various uses of soccer in the media. With regard to Der Speigel the use of soccer/football might be related to whether the source of the article is from AP or Reuters or other news agency. But in general to argue that the fact that some headline writers use 'soccer' should have any influence on its naming here would also suggest that we should move Bovine spongiform encephalopathy to mad cow disease and Michael Jackson to Wacko Jacko. Jooler 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Jooler, I brought up use of soccer in the European media because Sebisthlm stated that "in Europe...the sport is called football in English". I might also have mentioned that American usage is taught in some European school systems. WP:ENGVAR is about consistency within individual articles, not common names. May I remind you of the long, tedious and disappointing debate regarding the name of River Plate/Rio de la Plata...you and I argued for River Plate as the most common name in English. I cannot see that your present position here reflects the common name in English. Grant | Talk 04:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Sebisthlm is a Swede so I think he may be able to speak with a little authority. Re River Plate: That was a debate between an a name that has been in use in the English speaking world since the time of Francis Drake and a foreign name. The debate was akin to moving the article on Munich to München. An entirely different situation. Jooler 09:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
What that tells me is that you don't understand the meaning of "common name" and/or do not support or obey Wikipedia policy in this regard. Grant | Talk 10:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is not policy but a convention so there is not strict requirement to "obey it". It "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". Secondly: In regards of that convention there are noted exceptions due to "national varieties of English" and fixed wing aircraft is given as an example. And thirdly - even if there is a majority for 'soccer' as opposed to 'football' among first language speakers (which I dispute) it is by no means an overwhelming majority and finally this all takes no account of second language speakers which as pointed out above is absolutely relevant. Jooler 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Commonsense? That is in short supply on this page (unlike anglocentrism). A convention is not a policy? Maybe one of the Rio de Plata crowd should have said that to you and it would have ended the argument...not. Your concern for second language speakers is touching, albeit unusual. They can decide what to call the game in their own language. Their interests have no bearing on naming policy in the English language WP. Grant | Talk 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That ('common sense' etc) is a direct quote from the standard guideline template as used Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). No a convention is not a policy - see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Official policy articles and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Official guideline articles. Policies are marked with This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It looks like in desperation you've resorted to ad hominem and are declaring me a hypocrite. But the phrase Rio de Plata is NOT English. The Rio de La Plata debate is more closely related to the debate about using Burma or Myanmar. It is irrelevant to this discussion. Jooler (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not for you to say what is relevant and what isn't. The principle is exactly the same. Rio de Plata has been adopted by American English; River Plate is used in all varieties of English (including American English to an extent). "Desperation"? I am probably the least desperate person here; soccer is not my favourite sport and I don't really care if the article is moved to Association football. I just think the arguments for that name and against soccer are anglocentric mumbo jumbo. As for "hypocrisy", well if the cap fits... Grant | Talk 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Since it's not clear cut what a majority of English spaekers are calling the sport, I think you have to go by what the practicians of the sport themselves call it. FIFA officially call it football, as well as all continental FA's and a vast majority of all national FA's. As for the (professional) players themselves it's pretty obvious that a majority are calling the sport football, so on a personal note I would have prefered the article to be called "football" (but since there is that American form of rugby that for some reason is called football, i know that will never work). My point with what Europeans call the sport in English is that I'm convinced a majority would call the sport football and not soccer if they weren't speaking to a North American. Now, I don't see what we are debating here, or more exactly, what your point is Grant. Do you want this article to be moved to "Soccer"? That would be like writing the article on afternoon tea in American English, and I can assure you it won't happen. This will be my last contribution to this discussion. Sebisthlm 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never asked for the article to be moved to soccer and I do not want it to be. My point is that moving the article to "Association football" violates the policy of using common names, whereas "football (soccer)" incorporates both of the common names. What a majority of Europeans call the game is irrelevant because this isn't the "European Wikipedia", it is the England language Wikipedia. Europeans A majority of people who speak English as a first language call the game soccer. This reminds me of a brief exchange in Rumpole of the Bailey in which a judge asks if the football being referred to was "association or rugby". The intention was to present him as hopelessly out-of-touch, old-fashioned and/or pedantic. And that was about 20 years ago... Grant | Talk 11:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This current has lead to lots of awkwardly titles subpages. So we have History of football (soccer) instead of the much more elegant History of Association football. There are some really horrible examples like Lists of football (soccer) players and Football (soccer) tactics and skills Jooler 14:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the humanity! Grant | Talk 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Err, no. Everyone knows gasoline = petrol. "Potato chip" is the majority name for the things that Brits call crisps. Soccer is an unusual case because it has a different name (soccer) for most English speakers, than its original name (Association football) and its common name in its place of origin (football). If we were to follow the gasoline and potato chip examples then this article would be moved to soccer. But I think it should stay here. Grant | Talk 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Everyone? Not in the UK - and try referring to the fuel as "gasoline" where its common name is "gas" - you'd look just as out-of-touch as your example above. Same goes for the fried tuberous snack - I'm sure people who work for food companies call them "potato chips", but the majority call them just "chips". EdC (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about your "Rumpole of the Bailey" example - if the judge had instead asked "association or American" they'd have been forward-thinking and Atlanticist. EdC (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If I was to take your word for it, British people are so insular that they either don't know what Americans mean by "gasoline", "chips" or "football" or refuse to acknowledge these words. But I know that this is not true. And in my experience Americans refer to petrol as "gasoline" and "gas", although they use the latter more often. You missed my point, which is that there is no ambiguity about gasoline, obviating a need for gasoline (petrol). And there is nothing to stop the other being moved to potato chip (crisp). In any case, these examples do not support your case as the location of these articles, at gasoline and potato chips, suggest that this article should be moved to soccer.
Clearly, your sample differs from mine. My point was that there is no ambiguity about "association football"; certainly "association football (soccer)" would be unnecessary. I chose those examples as instances where the most common names are not used. EdC (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your take on the Rumpole example merely suggests one of the many incorrect myths and assumptions underlying your side of the debate: dualism, in this case that there are only two kinds of English and two kinds of football concerned. Grant | Talk 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry to have inadvertently wounded your linguistic pride. Can we suppose that I said "association, American, Australian rules, Canadian, Gaelic, Rugby league or Rugby union" (and with even more abject apologies to players, spectators or advocates of any other codes) and continue from there? EdC (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Ed & Jooler, the policy in question is more than a guideline. WP:NAME "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia...". "Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." That name is "soccer". Grant | Talk 04:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Now, really. That's either a misreading of the text, or a flat lie. WP:NAME is an official policy, but WP:NC(CN) is a naming convention: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." EdC (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Which part of WP:NAME do you not understand? Grant | Talk 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, the part where "conventions, not rules carved in stone" loses the first two words. Perhaps I should try reading WP:DAB the same way? EdC (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"Not carved in stone"? Well duh. I mean we already have a name which is an effective compromise rather than the common name, i.e. "football (soccer)". Now some people want to have a name (Association football) which is uncommon, indeed completely unknown, to the vast majority or English speakers. (As an aside, my personal experience of living in the UK for two years suggests that a significant minority of Brits have never heard the name Association football and/or find it no more desirable than "soccer".) Grant | Talk 02:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave as is. There is no possible name for this article which will not make some people happy and some other people unhappy, so lets leave the status quo and not mess with the 10,000+ (I got bored after paging through that many) articles that link here. --Stormie 03:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Linking articles wouldn't have to change. Wikipedia supports redirects and piped links. EdC 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
There would still be a considerable number of double-redirects, which would not work automatically and would all have to be manually edited. -- Arwel (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Its been done before with other articles and no doubt will be done again in the future. Jooler 09:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This issue has been brought up so many times it was deleted from Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars for being too.. lame. Foxhill 00:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As pointed out above unlike those lame edit wars were about football vs. soccer - and not a move to Association football. Jooler 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
We've had lame edit wars over football (soccer) vs. Association football as well... The most recent one, for example. – Elisson • T • C • 15:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well to be technically accurate that edit was was over the accuracy on a banner on the talk page. -- Jooler (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To be fair although the last edit war did result (mostly due to your own efforts [edited] if I recall) in the page staying where it is, it also resulted in a number of improvements to the text. ReadingOldBoy 16:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I couldn't care less what Wikipedia chooses to call the game. It's not going to affect anything apart from a bundle of redirects and a bit of text on a webpage. The press won't be changing their usage, the general public won't start calling it anything different, the players won't change, the game won't change. I know what I call it and there are redirects and dabpages already in place so I am led to this page when I'm needed. Whether the title is technically correct or incorrect or elegant or inelegant or has parentheses or not, I really couldn't give a monkeys as I've got better things to do - like actually working on articles instead of banging on for months about what to call something. Nanonic 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)