Talk:Association football/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

top of talk page banner

The banner is incorrect. To my knowledge there has never been a vote on moving this page to association football. Jooler 03:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See Voting is evil and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia works by discussion and consensus, not votes. The naming issue has been discussed to death many times over the last 4 years that I've been here, always with the same result. -- Arwel (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well almost - I've been here and contributed to this page since September 2001 (correction August 2002) (under another name) and what has been discussed to death is moving it to football or to soccer. The argument for "association football" is a valid one and has never been tested for its popularity, other than people saying "we have discussed the issue to death" and "let sleeping dogs lie", the compromise of the current name was chosen to quell a big argument and not on its own merit. It was a poor compromise. in my opinion. The banner is incorrect. Jooler 10:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have discussed a move to association football as well. That discussion should be found either in the archives here or in the football project talk page archives. – Elisson • T • C • 12:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I've only been watching this page since last year and it's already come up more than enough times, maybe you didn't notice it?--Tiresais 14:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There - you're just doing exactly what I said has been done again - people saying "we have discussed the issue to death" and "let sleeping dogs lie" - That is not proper debate - on merit, which is what I'm talking about. Jooler 15:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But you initially said that it was never voted (or discussed) on, which is incorrect because it has been, several times. If you want to discuss it again without getting the "discussed before" answer, then fine, but I believe you could use the time for something better as you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting people convinced to move a few thousand pages, categories and templates to correspond to a new naming convention which really doesn't have any advantages at all. – Elisson • T • C • 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It has not been voted on and it has not been dicussed on merit. The only discussion related to a move to association football is for people to come on here nand say "it's already been decided" and just like yourself "it would be a headache to move all the pags" etc Jooler 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well you won't get anywhere by complaining that it hasn't been discussed. Provide arguments for a move to association football and people might actually respond with something else than "it's already been decided". (BTW, votes are, as noted above, evil.) – Elisson • T • C • 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

What I'm complaining about is that the banner is incorrect. Jooler 22:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't. Going through the archives, there have been at least eight different discussions that in one way or another mentions a move to association football. A decision is not necessarily made by polling, you know. – Elisson • T • C • 22:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(deindenting) I took a look through the archives and couldn't find a discussion that gave proper consideration to moving the article to association football. Football (soccer) is a terribly contrived compromise, and seeing as association football is (a) the official name of the sport, (b) an actual term usable in speech without hand parentheses, (c) understandable by speakers of all varieties of English as well as foreign-language speakers, (d) the name of which the regional names for the sport are abbreviations, and (e) supported by WP:ENGVAR and precedent (fixed-wing aircraft), I would be very much in favour of a move. The fact that other moves would then be available to be made is a good thing, seeing how clumsy many of the derived page, category and project names are. –EdC 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(a) No, association football is not the official name of the sport. FIFA calls it only football, and so does the Olympic organization. (b) The parentheses are actually helping, as one can type [[football (soccer)|]] to produce the following link: football, which is how it is often used. This can't be done with association football. (c) so is football (soccer), and to an even higher degree, I'd guess, since no-one actually uses "association football", while a lot more people use "football" and "soccer". (d) The current name uses the actual abbreviations. Much better. (e) WP:ENGVAR says that we should use words that are "common to all". "Association football" is common to none. – Elisson • T • C • 11:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Elisson, you've been hoisted by your own petard. FIFA stands for Fédération internationale de football association which in English is International Federation of Association Football -- also The FA's book on the LOTG is called The Laws of Association Football. The ability to use the pipe trick is a very poor reason for naming an article. Jooler 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You use a French name to prove something in English? Doesn't make much sense to me. Take a look at the FIFA website. Browse around. There are instances of "association football" being used, but in a large majority of the pages, only "football" can be found. Using the same argument with the FA, wouldn't they be named "The Association Football Association" if association football was the official name? On to the other points, you say (b) is a poor argument, and you have not even commented on my points (c), (d) and (e). I guess that means that you haven't got any good reason to move the article except that the french name of FIFA uses "association football", and that a book by the FA (which incidentally does not use "association football" in the name) that includes "association football" in the title? – Elisson • T • C • 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not respond to your other points because I was not intending to contend any of them. As I have said so many times now, I am simply saying that the banner is incorrect. However by directly invoking FIFA as an example of a body that does not use the term (despite it being what the letters actually stand for) I felt it an obligation to correct you. Now you suggest that the FA should be "The Association Football Association" - this is just too stupid for words. The reason it is called "assocation football" in the first place is because of the use of the word assocation in that very body itself. The name stems from the organizing body. Jooler 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Where "association football" is used on the FIFA site, it is used as a clarifier. This reflects the position that "association football" is the full name of the sport, and "football" an abbreviated form used where the meaning is clear from context. (b) is a poor argument; the redirect would still exist. (c) I agree with; (d) is not a factual argument; regarding (e), "Football (soccer)" is not a term in any language or regional variety. There are no words (outside organic chemistry) with embedded parentheses. –EdC 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Association football is named after the FA, as I'm sure you're aware. There was never any need to rename it. –EdC 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Tnanks EdC for proving that the banner is incorrect. Jooler 12:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What part is incorrect? Please Jooler. The question has been discussed, as said, at least eight times. – Elisson • T • C • 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but in not one of those eight times was the option of naming the page "association football" given proper consideration. This is the first discussion so far of "association football" as an option; only once it is concluded may the banner become correct. –EdC 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for input from outside users at the football project. – Elisson • T • C • 16:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Buon giorno. I am absolutely tired to always see and see the same annoying discussion about this name. I don't like "football (soccer)" too, I'd rather just "football" by far, but I think it's impossible because of the Yankees, so I think "football (soccer)" is the best solution for everyone. I know a bit of French, I've read this page, and in my opinion, FIFA stands for "International Federation of Football Associations". No occurrence of the words "association football" can be found on the History of FIFA page. No occurrence at all. This game is "soccer" in North America, "football" in the rest of world, and "association football" nowhere. The current title is the best we can have. --Angelo 17:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That page is in English, and uses "association football" at the beginning of the article as is proper when a subject has a full name and a common but ambiguous abbreviation. Evidently you don't know all that much French, or you'd note that in FIFA, "Association" is in the singular and is used as an adjective modifying "Football" (yes, in French adjectives go after the nouns they modify). There really cannot be any dispute that "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" translates into English as "International Federation of Association Football". –EdC 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In French, if you want to say "Association football" (literally), you use "Football associatif (or associé)". "Association" in French is a "Nom commun", that is a noun [1]. If you want to say "Football association(s)", you say "Association(s) de football". So, none of these are right. My idea was just a personal interpretation of the words "football association", originated by the content in the page I linked to. --Angelo 18:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be "associated football"? –EdC 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely not "association football", as "association" is a noun in French. Anyway, "association football" is even more restrictive than either "soccer" or "football", as it is used only in the UK and considered "formal". Even the Cambridge dictionary says that [2]. Donc, ce n'est pas de raison pour changer le statu quo. --Angelo 23:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the opening para in our article on FIFA is incorrect? Jooler 23:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that "football association" in French is not correct, as both words are nouns. To have the same meaning than English "association football", "association" should be an adjective, and it is not. --Angelo 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not 'Associative football'. 'Association' is a noun in English. 'Association football' is a compound noun formed of two nouns like 'post office' or 'dinner guest'. Jooler 08:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes: the French "football association" is a compound noun, translating directly to the English compound noun "association football". Please don't try to show off; by your own admission you're not a native French speaker, so attempting to demonstrate your command (or otherwise) of the language is simply a waste of space. –EdC 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not a French native speaker too, so you shouldn't make this claim by your own, dear sir. At least I am a native Italian, and I know how Romance languages work. And I also lived in Ottawa; a really English-French bilingual experience, you know. Anyway, I looked forward for some dictionnaire de langue française in the web, and I haven't really found a single occurrence of "football association" as a "compound noun". This is a google search I made of "football association" in French language pages: [3]. I see just UEFA, FIFA and Le Havre pages, all having "football association" in their official French name. Period. --Angelo 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What sort of argument is that? English is more influenced by French than Italian is. The reason your search failed is that you conducted it on google.it; try again on google.fr and you'll find examples such as the Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association, the Ligue du Nord de Football-association, etc. –EdC 11:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but Italian and French share a common way to build phrases and a common vocabulary, as both derives from Latin language. Anyway, "football association" in French is only 65 hits: [4]. Even from google.fr. --Angelo 15:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Really. This is not a popularity contest. It has been sufficiently established that "football association" is a formal French term directly equivalent to "association football", but is usually shortened to "football". –EdC 23:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I looked in my Petit Robert under football and it says "sport d'équipe (d'abord appelé football association) opposant deux équipages de onze joueurs ...". Which means it was originally called football association in French. FIFA was founded in 1904, leaving plenty of time for the longer name to become antiquated (Compare Automobile Association.) Since this is en.wikipedia and not fr.wikipedia, it hardly matters. jnestorius^(talk) 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a request to change the page name or just the banner? Assuming it's the former due to the latter being WP:LAME territory, I'm minded to favour keeping the page name as it is. Association football is a very uncommon term compared to the other two, just as few would refer to the pitch as "the field of play" or a penalty shootout as "kicks from the penalty mark". Whatever the title, there will be complaints ad infinitum, the current one is probably the least unfavourable. Oldelpaso 18:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If we assume that this is a request to change the page name, then (pending proper discussion) the banner issue will become moot, so yes, that's probably the right way to look at it. My primary objection to "Football (soccer)" is that it is not a term, common or uncommon; "football" is, and "soccer" is, but their conjunction is not something that anyone would use to refer to the sport. "Association football" is formal and technical, but it is also neutral, unambiguous and has at least some usage. –EdC 19:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that although moving this page to "soccer" or "football" have been discussed ad nauseam, there has been no serious discussion (despite Elisson's insistence to the contrary) about moving it to "association football" (which is after all the proper name). Although I firmly believe that the page should be at 'association football' I have not proposed an actual move because I expected the discussion to result in just the sort of argument that can be seen here right now. I am simply pointing out that there has not been such a discussion and that THE BANNER IS INCORRECT. Inevitably this means that if a sensible discussion to move the page to 'association football' is to be had then it should not be predjudiced by claims that "his has already been discusssed to death" and an appeal to it being WP:LAME etc. Jooler 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I struck out the words 'Association football' from the banner above, but Elisson revoked it. 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Elisson. So now the banner is even more incorrect. Jooler 23:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(Note: Elisson changed the banner under discussion to read "any other name": [5] and used the edit summary "how about that then. WP:LAME conflict solved?"). I agree with Jooler that this has not improved the situation. –EdC 00:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Since no one seems to know what they want to discuss, I'll stay away from this discussion until (1) it dies out and we can forget about this silly "the banner is wrong" thing, or (2) someone provides some proof that it has not been discussed enough, or (3) someone gives a outstandingly good argument as to why this page should be moved. – Elisson • T • C • 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. Prove it has been properly discussed and then you can have your banner. Jooler 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime - I think it only fair that the banner should be removed. Jooler 22:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

From the depth of the archives... The whole first half of archive 1, Yet more about the name, More about the name, Football / Soccer, Article name, Name again, Association Football, Renaming, Association football, Naming. Some discussions are quite long and some are quite short. Some only treat "association football" in short and some are completely dedicated to that name. What surprised me the most is that you, Jooler, have participated in some of them, but you don't seem to remember it? – Elisson • T • C • 23:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Tangential
2. Wrong
3. Wrong
4. Misses the point
5. Not concluded
6. Not discussed
7. Probably the first proper discussion. Shut down by reference to previous decisions; swiftly moves off topic
8. Shut down by reference to previous decisions
9. Offtopic
10. Shut down by reference to previous decisions

I believe that at no point in the past four years did a consensus for the current title exist that was not based on flawed premises. –EdC 23:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Elisson - of course I remember contributing to those discussions but you clearly haven't read them properly. As EdC clearly demonstrates none of them are in anyway conclusive, prolonged or relate to moving specifically to 'association football' on the merits of the name itself and not on prejudiced and faulty references previous "conclusive" discussions. Which is of course what I have been saying in this particular discussion all along. Jooler 23:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. I give you evidence that the question has been discussed over and over again (and that people in those discussions agree with that, as well). You guys dismiss it and then you don't do anything more. I've read the discussions properly. Combined together, a consensus has very much indeed been reached, that the article should stay at this name and not at any other name (including "association football"). As said above, I'll not discuss this further until you actually give us something to discuss. – Elisson • T • C • 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those archive links, Elisson, very constructive. A comment on the very first archive from Feb 2003 mentions "In the earlier discussion on this and the archived page, [Association football] was almost immediately dropped as too obsure for international readers." which if true means that Jooler was incorrect and the banner was correct; though since the earlier discussion alluded to must have been zapped back in the stone age, an understandable oversight. Strictly speaking, the new banner is misleading: there has been no discussion of renaming the page to, say, round ball game or unAmerican football.

Personally I fully believe that "association football" is the correct name for the sport, but not necessarily the right name for the Wikipedia article, due to WP:COMMONNAME. A similar issue comes up at Talk:Republic of Ireland, where people are afraid reades might think "Republic of Ireland" was the official name of the country, which it's not. But it's understandable that the average websurfer, who has never read or heard of WP:COMMONNAME, will incorrectly assume the article name is the "official" name. The bast way to avoid that misconception is to frame the intro para such that the "official" name is most prominent. In that light, I would propose, while keeping the article at football (soccer), to change the first sentence to:

Association football, usually known as football or soccer, is a team sport played between two teams of 11 players each.

I do think the ease of pipelinking can create problems. When editing articles about this sport in the Republic of Ireland, I refuse to use [[football (soccer)|]] since this is in principle ambiguous in an Irish context. I prefer to wikilink as [[football (soccer)|association football]] and then use "football" in the subsequent text given that context has established it is this game rather than gaelic football. If I wikilink as [[football (soccer)|soccer]] I can guarantee someone will change it and claim I am an American. Naturally, most edits to Irish association football articles are made by Irish fans of the game, most of whom call it football, rather than Irish non-fans, most of whom call it soccer. jnestorius^(talk) 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jnestorius - the "earlier discussion" referred to in that archive can be found Talk:List of footballers/Archive 1 here and Talk:Lists of football (soccer) players/Archive 2 and Talk:Lists of football (soccer) players. It was this discussion that resulted in the article as football was moved to football(soccer) [6]. I think you'll agree that the claim "In the earlier discussion on this and the archived page, [Association football] was almost immediately dropped as too obsure for international readers." is not substantiated. Jooler 09:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So then next Monday week is the fourth anniversary of the great football (soccer) compromise. I fully agree that it was incorrect to say "[Association football] was almost immediately dropped as too obsure for international readers." I would also say it was incorrect to suggest the banner was incorrect: the fact that there has never been a vote on the name "association football" does not mean there has never been a decision on it; see WP:CONSENSUS. Moving on, why is the lazy comment "For the discussions that led to this decision see various sections of the archives." still there? Is it to discourage people from from proposing a change by making them hunt for the relevant sections first? Elisson and Jooler have been kind enough to supply precise links, some of which don't even relate to this page! I suggest changing the message to something like:

"The discussions that led to this decision are within the archives of this Talk page: 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4, and of a related Talk page: 1, 2, 3" jnestorius^(talk) 21:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I said it was incorrect, because the posibility of discussing a move to 'assocation football' has never been given a fair crack of the whip. It has always been shouted down and roundly dismissed as a something that has been discussed to death (which of course it hasn't). - "It has been decided that Football (soccer) should remain at that name and not at Football, Soccer, or Association football." is incorrect becaue it was never 'decided NOT to move to 'association football' in just the same way that it was never decided NOT to move move the page to flubblewibbleitchyfanny5000. Jooler 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My feeling on the name of the article are that it should not be moved to Association Football. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." and since it is certainly not common for people to call it Assotiation football, the article, in an ideal world, should be at either Football or Soccer. However, since there is already an article at Football, the two alternatives become Soccer or Football (soccer), which is a standard way of disambiguating an ambiguous name (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic). Since it could be argued that Soccer and Football (soccer) have equal claim to where the article should be, I think it should stay where it is, since I feel that there is no improvement to be had by moving it. Gasheadsteve 07:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, there is perhaps a case for moving this article to Football, and moving the current football article to Football (disambiguation), or something similar, since virtually everyone who searches for football will be looking for soccer. Gasheadsteve 07:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Gashead - this page will never be moved to football and I support that, please look at the archives. There is no point making that suggestion anymore. That particular issue HAS been talked to death. Jooler 12:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Football (soccer)"

"Football (soccer)" does not conform to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic; "soccer" is not the class into which association football falls (that would be "Football (sport)"), nor is it the subject or context to which the topic applies (in that case, "Football (soccer)" would denote the round bouncy thing that gets kicked across the grass). Nor is the term in parentheses being used here as an adjective; if it was then (under "rephrase the title to avoid parentheses") the article could be located at Soccer football, which is not a term, common or otherwise. The use of parentheses in "Football (soccer)" is just a disguised form of the equivalent "Football a.k.a Soccer" (or "Football/Soccer"), which are both clear violations of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. –EdC 13:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Elisson -- I removed the banner becasue it has been clearly demonstrated that it is incorrect. Jooler 12:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Where have you "clearly demonstrated" that? Reading the discussion again, I find User:Oldelpaso saying it is close to WP:LAME to want to change the banner, User:Tiresais saying he thinks it has been discussed enough, User:jnestorius saying it was incorrect to say that the banner was incorrect, and User:Gasheadsteve saying that we should just stop wasting our time. If you include me, that's five users that does not agree with you and EdC. I don't believe you have reached any consensus to remove the banner. – Elisson • T • C • 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're misrepreenting a lot of people there. I don't have time to elaborate- in the middle of making dinner, but jnestorius had a caveat "if" which I filled in. Jooler 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit perlexed by this thread to be honest with you, it seems to contain about three different conversations with a little bit of a slagging match thrown in! :) EdC, I'm not entirely sure about the distinction you seem to be making between Soccer and Association Football when they are the same thing, soccer is an abbreviation of association football, in the same way as rugger is sometimes used instead of rugby football. The disambiguation in brackets is standard form for articles i.e. soccer is the type of football that this article is about. Football is disambiguated by soccer.

Can I just ask though, as it's not entirely clear, is this a serious discussion about moving the article or is it a discussion about a banner that has just lost it's focus? If it's the latter, I suggest we all stop wasting our time and call it a day as far as this discussion is concerned. Gasheadsteve 16:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that everyone understands that "soccer" is an abbreviation of "association football"; I'm puzzled as to what I might have said that gave the opposite impression. Disambiguation using brackets is standard, but the way it is used in "Football (soccer)" is decidedly non-standard. Look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific topic and tell me whether "Football (soccer)" falls under any of the given options. –EdC 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Since this article has gone through an FA nomination, has appeared on the main page, and has been viewed by (probably) several hundred experienced Wikipedians, and not one, as far as I remember, has complained that the name goes against any disambiguation rules, I think we can agree that there is nothing wrong with how (soccer) is used as disambiguation in the current title. – Elisson • T • C • 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay.) Well, it is obvious what the current title is intended to convey. That doesn't stop it being wrong. I'm sure a number of those experienced Wikipedians noted that the title was unfortunate, but failed to mention it in the incorrect belief that there was no better option or that all other options had been discussed and rejected. –EdC 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of Gashead I'll repeat what I said earlier re: thie focus of this discussion - It is a verifiable fact that although moving this page to "soccer" or "football" have been discussed ad nauseam, there has been no serious discussion (despite Elisson's insistence to the contrary) about moving it to "association football" (which is after all the proper name). Although I firmly believe that the page should be at 'association football' I have not proposed an actual move because I expected the discussion to result in just the sort of argument that can be seen here right now. I am simply pointing out that there has not been such a discussion and that THE BANNER IS INCORRECT. Inevitably this means that if a sensible discussion to move the page to 'association football' is to be had then it should not be prejudiced by claims that "his has already been discusssed to death". - In a nutshell the banner gives a false impression that would prejudice a serious discussion of a move. The banner should be removed or reworded to reflect the truth of the matter. Elisson is in denial. Jooler 19:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Association football is the perfect compromise... its more neutral than this "soccer" nonsense and football (soccer) would still redirect here anyway (as does "soccer"). That word is derived from "association" anyway, so why abreviate in the title, when you can write the full thing out and stop this popping up all the time? Unless you'd like Because moving to "coz".

Like it or not, "soccer" is regarded as a derogative slur by a large percentage of the nation which spawned the sport. Even in the article it reads;

Football (also known as association football or soccer)

The "s word" is 3rd in the pecking order, so why is it in the title over ones which appear before it? And what does it say in the article of football?

Football is the name given to a number of different, but related, team sports. The most popular of these world-wide is association football (also known as soccer)

Again, the "s word" nonsense is lower down in the pecking order. The only way I'd support keeping the word in the title, would be moving American football to a similarly derogative Football (rugby with pads) to even things out. What is the alternative to changing the article name to "association football" a discussion about this been restarted every single month? - Deathrocker 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The alternative is the awful status quo, and unfortunately I don't see this changing while the sport goes by a nickname in Nort America. Chris Cunningham 11:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, unfortunately. Still, I'd like to see some assessment of the cognitive load on North Americans of "association football" (most of whom will continue to see and use the soccer redirect) against the incongruity of the current title. (Note that the regional body (CONCACAF) uses "association football" in its name, so the term has at least some currency in North America.) –EdC 16:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Some fallacies die hard. "Soccer" isn't a "nickname" in North America; it's the name of the game in North American English, just as it is in Australian English (in spite of what some tossers will try to tell you), New Zealand English, South African English and in rural southern Ireland.

"Soccer" is a corruption of a Latin word. Just about every English language word is a bastardisation of a perfectly good Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman or Latin word. Slang and other forms of vernacular enter official/proper usage all the time. Where is the problem? Grant | Talk 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What fallacy are you referring to here? I'd have thought it were fairly obvious that when the North American authorities use the word "soccer", they don't see it as a nickname. That doesn't change the fact that to a large proportion of the readership of this encyclopedia (and in particular this article), "soccer" is seen as a nickname, and one bordering on the derogatory. Evidently, that a slang or other vernacular term enters official or proper usage within one particular regional form doesn't entail that the same will occur in the language as a whole. Indeed, those "tossers" of whom you speak so fondly would appear to be of the opinion that such a term can subsequently depart official or proper usage (again, within a particular regional form.)

As for what name is used where, I gather the situation is a little more nuanced than you suggest; would you consider reading (and adding your knowledge of New Zealand English to) Names for football (soccer)?

I'll take your parting question at face value, as opposed to an expression of combativeness, and refer you to the above discussion and preceding archived discussions, in particular Talk:Football_(soccer)/(archive_3)#Name_again. –EdC 02:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Association Football is the official name for the sport and should be the title of this article. As has been stated previously soccer will still re-direct here and soccer will still be listed as a common name given to the sport in the first paragraph. The term "Soccer" is not used at all in Europe and is seen as degrading by the majority of fans in this region. Dave101 17:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

London, August 2006

Degrading? Derogatory? You blokes are too much. If the word is so unpopular, why would the sub-editors on the Evening Standard use it ? (See right.)

Dave, even if you think that Europe excludes Ireland -- where the word soccer is widely used -- it's easy to find many references to "soccer" on English-language websites in France, Germany, Italy (etc)

Ed, you say "to a large proportion of the readership of this encyclopedia (and in particular this article), "soccer" is seen as a nickname..." Very, very dubious, mate. Since there are more than 300 million native English speakers in North America. Also, a very large number of ESL speakers, even in soccer strongholds like South America, favour American usage when speaking/writing English. Grant | Talk 16:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To quote Aston Villa's American chairman Randy Lerner: "If I call it soccer they would drag me around by my nostrils".Dave101 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Newspaper headlines have different rules from the rest of English, admitting slang and other infelicities for the sake of saving space. "Soccer" is the shortest word available. Wikipedia article titles are nowhere near as pressed for space.
2. Yes... that doesn't change the fact that the English readership alone constitutes a large proportion of Wikipedia's readership. Unless to you "large proportion" means "overwhelming majority". –EdC 21:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Would they use "thugby" in a headline? Now that's derogatory/degrading.
2. Let's see: U.S.A = 300 Million, Canada = 32M, Australia = 20M, New Zealand = 4M. That is seven times the population of the UK. The native speakers elsewhere that favour British usage are insignificant in number. And as I said before, it's an open question whether more ESL/EFL speakers favour British or US usage. Grant | Talk 03:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "Thugby": 6 letters; "rugby": 5 letters. "Soccer": 6 letters; "football": 8 letters.
2. Even by your dubious arithmetic, that's well over 10%; a large proportion. –EdC 22:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a small number who want this page moved to suit their own agenda, so this debate arises time and time again with all the same people. This just undermines the credibility of wikipedia. Maybe all the football editors should stop editing and just check the football discussion pages only.--202.47.51.72 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this "own agenda"? - er.. this debate is about the contents of the above banner and a move to "association football" rather than another name and as has been proven above this possibility has never been explored properly. Jooler 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Did anybody else notice the ironic state of all this. You have The Beautiful Game which has an associated project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that is concerned only with this type of football. Then there is the portal but it's called Portal:Association football. And we all know where the article is. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole conversation is ridiculous! In the United States, the game is called SOCCER. I don't know or care what other countrys call it (and from some statements above, we're not the only land to call the sport soccer), here it's soccer, and though Wikipedia in English caters to all english speaking peoples, this is still an American enterprise. For those of you who find the term "soccer" degrading, you've either too much time to mull things over, or just don't like American English (or more probably, the country's attitude towards such things), either way I personally don't care. It's called SOCCER when being discussed in The United States, and as stated this is an American originated encyclopedia. By the way, although it might not be the best possible reference source, my handy Webster's New World Dictionary Of The American Language-revised 1983 lists the alternative to soccer as association football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.101.156 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The USA is one country and one country only. Wikipedia is a worldwide project, and the English wikipedia is also a worldwide project. Whether or not you agree the sport is called football in most countries of the world. that is why the qworld governing body is called FIFA (International Federation of Football Association) - football not soccer. This is not an American preserve it is worldwide project and there is already a compromise by calling this article Football (soccer). Will you also please sign your comments and add them at the end of each section. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The name of the sport is association football. That's what the people who laid down the modern rules of the game called it. That's the end of it. Whether or not people do not want it moved for other reasons that fact stands. This appears to be a very obvious case of Americanisation of Wikipedia. Americanisation is generally discouraged on Wikipedia which is great. But it hasn't happened on this page. There is no real reason (unless someone would like to tell me) that it should be kept with the clumsy and incorrect title of "Football (soccer)". Using this moronic logic there would be an article with "Football (American)" as it's title, which of course there isn't. So unless anyone wants to give me a good reason (which incidently does include "I will ban you if you do it again") I will move the page. Cls14 11:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But this does not allow you to move the article yourself. Controversial moves must be discussed first, and this is very controversial (look at all the comments above!). --Angelo 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cls14, I call it football, most people call it football. But the fact remains, like it or not, that in the United States and Canada the sport is known as soccer, and the governing bodies for the sport in those two countries use the word soccer and not football, United States Soccer Federation and Canadian Soccer Association. I don't know of any other governing bodies in other countries that use soccer in their name (I don't think there are any. Even in other countries where the general name for the sport is soccer, the governing body has football in their name). And the compromise is to have both football and soccer in the title. Besides which, the term Association football is not a term used in daily life to talk about the game. Whereas both football and soccer are commonly used. And please bear in mind (and again whether we like it or not) the word soccer is used in the UK. The Soccer AM and Soccer Saturday televison shows being prime examples. They didn't use Football A.M. or Football Saturday. I can understand your concerns about Americanisation of some parts of wikipedia, but the compromise in this instance is in my opinion the best way forward. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)