" 

 ==Spelling Error== 
 3rd sentence of 1st paragraph: ""manoeuvring"" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by   . 

 : British English. –  •  •  •  

 * British English sometimes spells maneuver as ""manoeuvre"" (derived from the oe ligature).  
 ::Not sometimes. Always. For that is the official spelling of the word as dictated by the OED. -   

 == Some traction on the naming debate == 

 For the sake of being able to sensibly archive sections at a later date I'm splitting this. 

 While there may not be an overall consensus, at the point the argument for change appears to be in favour of moving to association football. The argument is as follows: 

 # It is prudent to have this out again despite supposed discussion-to-death in the past, as a number of current contributors feel that the title ""association football"" was not given sufficient attention in the past. 
 # WP:NAME 1.6 states that pages should go by their most common names where possible. A majority of anglophones with a vested interest in the sport accept ""association football"" as its official title, and ""association football"" is the sport's official title in all anglophone nations with a governing body. 
 # WP:NAME 1.7 states that pages should be named precisely where this is prudent. The title ""association football"" is more precise than the title ""football"", which is the article's current significant identifier. 
 # WP:NAME 1.11 states that pages should not suggest a hierarchy where none exists. The current title suggests either that football is a sub-category of soccer, or that soccer is a sub-category of football. While it could be argued that soccer is a ""type of football"", few would suggest that ""football"" is considered to be a generic term for sports involving balls and feet. 

 Position statements for counter-arguments would be nice.   
 :I didn't intend to make any further comment on the grounds that debating a title doesn't do much to improve an encyclopedia, and this whole thing is pretty much the definition of no consensus, but the most prominent counterargument (by no means the only one, but the most prominent one) is that of common names, which could be summarised as: 
 :*The ""in a nutshell"" description of WP:NAME opens with the statement Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. Association football does not meet this description. 
 :* WP:NAME 1.6 states that pages  should go by their most common names where possible. Association football is a less common name than football or soccer. 
 :I'm not sure I follow the logic of the hierarchy argument, which judging by WP:NAME 1.11 refers to articles named X in Y rather than X (Y).   

 :With nearly 4000 articles on my watchlist I didn't intend to revisit this debate again, but since some seem to still be trying to rename this I wish to put on record my strong opposition to renaming. ""Football (soccer)"" is perfectly adequate, especially allowing for piped links; nobody habitually refers to the sport as ""association football"", regardless of the names of any organisations. I fully support  arguments quoting WP:NAME.     
 ::nobody habitually refers to the sport as ""association football"", - not many rather than nobody - but what IS almost certain is that absolutely nobody habitually refers to it as football parenthesis soccer.   

 :I fully agree with Oldelpaso and Arwel Parry. To summarise it: 
 :#Ok. 
 :#Use common names of persons and things supports the current article title, not ""association football"". While the later may be the original term for the sport, it is not the most common term (and not common at all). And ""official titles"" does not matter, Sweden is not at Kingdom of Sweden. 
 :#Be precise when necessary supports both article titles, neither ""football (soccer)"" nor ""association football"" has any ambiguity. Thus this argument does not support a move to the l