Talk:Association football/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 13

→

Redux

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

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

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

Pros and cons of football (soccer)

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

PRO

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

CON

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

Debate on Pro/Con

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

Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just a quick question. To me "The Laws of Association Football" would be similar to saying "The Laws of Organized Football." So when people say "Association Football" is that the name of the sport or is it "Football" played under organized rules? Hopefully the question makes sense (just wondering if "Association" describes the sport or is actually part of the sport's name). EZC195 January 2008

It is the name of the sport, as in Rugby Football or American Football. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is quite simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fans

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

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

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

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

Most popular

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

Baloncesto or basketball is most popularly played sport and association football is most watched.00:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radio Guy (talk • contribs)

Utter bollocks. You don't get kids in slums playing basketball, as that requires an elevated hoop, and a ball of similar size to the hoop. Football just requires something to demarcate the goal, and something to kick into the goal, which is why so many more people play it in the streets of Brazil, India, China and many other countries. I have to say, I've never heard of street kids in those countries playing basketball. – Pee Jay 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

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

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

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

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

Survey

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

Support - As nominator. My reasons are throughout the talk page. I would also like to add that the current name is against naming conventions. Reginmund (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think it will be necessary to repeat my arguments here. I would also like to add that the proposed name is against naming conventions. And voting is evil. – Elisson • T • C • 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Support per all previous discussion.
1. We should be aiming for "least worst" if no title is perfect.
2. The current title is egrecious, breaking uniquely awful in its noncompliance to WP:NAME. This is definitely not the "least worst" name.
3. The proposed title matches the convention of other football articles (American football, Australian rules football, Canadian football and Gaelic football) which all get called "football" in the vernacular. In addition, it is the official name of the sport according to its highest governing body.
4. "Association football" is thus the least worst name, and should be the title. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - "Football (soccer)" is against naming conventions as the item in parentheses is not a disambiguator, in that football is not a subset of soccer. "Association football" is the least worst term we have for the game, given the effectively even split between "football" and "soccer" in the English-speaking world. – Pee Jay 23:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Association Football is the legal name, and more common names are inappropriate for one reason or another. Football (Soccer) is against naming conventions. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Association football should be the name for this article as it is the sports full name. Football (soocer) has only ever been a compromise, and other forms of football all seem to have similar titles.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. The title "Football (soccer)" was invented not due to any consensus, but to ensure that neither the "football" advocates nor the "soccer" advocates prevailed in the dispute. ("If we can't use our preferred title, no one can!") It's a clear violation of our naming conventions for no good reason whatsoever.
"Association football," conversely, is the sport's official English-language designation according to its highest governing body. It isn't the most common term, but it's far more common than "football (soccer)" is, and the fact that it's usually shortened to "football" (a title that cannot be used for this article, due to the fact that several other highly popular sports are commonly known by the same name) doesn't affect its logicality.
It also is entirely consistent with the titles of our articles about American football, Australian rules football, Canadian football and Gaelic football (all of which are commonly referred to as "football"), as well as the article for Rugby football (commonly known as "rugby").
As an American who knows the sport as "soccer," I hope that we can finally set aside nationalistic bias and use the title that's best for the encyclopedia — "Association football." —David Levy 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong Support - No name will ever be perfect for this article - but "Association football" is the best we'll ever get. Even though it may not be the most common name, it's the official name given to the sport by the governing body, and it is consistent with the naming of other types of football on Wikipedia. It's also formal English and not slang. EuroSong ^talk 00:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
V. Strong Support - I've been arguing this for about 4 years. Jooler (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Association Football as the name of the sport does fit for the name as it wont be moved to its common name (Football) the real name of the sport should do fine. Chandler talk 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Proposed name conforms with naming conventions and mirrors other similarly named sports, like American football and Australian football. It's either this name, or simply Soccer, but the current name is not a good one. Snocrates 08:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Shame we can't have the article at Football, but Association Football is better than the current bastardisation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Support — Never ever heard of "Association football", over here in the United States. I detest it. However it's in the dictionaries... American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "Chiefly British soccer", which sounds... funny, let's not use that one. Merriam-Webster defines it as "soccer".--Endroit (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please God Support, anything is better than "football (soccer)" one of the worst compromises I've seen and totally against our naming conventions. "association football" follows the style of other football articles and is by far the best choice. Recury (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Support as the current isn't disambiguating football as a type of soccer. Lowercase as it doesn't seem to be a proper noun. –Pomte 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Support A far more suitable title than the current one, which fits with the naming style used for the other codes of football. Dave101→talk 16:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Support, in line with naming trends for other football codes – but I pity the poor person who has to retitle all of those "football (soccer)"-related articles (e.g., History of football (soccer)), categories and the like. – Liveste (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title case or lower case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since "association football" is a formal term, when searching in Google, mostly formal names of football clubs appear to turn up which by default makes them capitalised. However, I did find a page by the University of Westminster that gives the name in miniscule in a sentence[1]. Britannica also prefers the miniscule[2] (and by the looks of it, that must be where we got the current wacky name). Reginmund (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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