Talk:Association football/Archive 3

message: This section needs to be expanded or deleted. At the moment it is very england-centric. Deus Ex 14:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous incidents

message: I missed a lot of things about football in this article.  As it is, there's a huge chunk on what are the rules of the game (which I seriously think should be cut down), then little else.  The naming conventions part is very interesting, but other than that I think there's much room for improvement.  Any suggestions? Mandel 10:42, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
: Others may be more likely to suggest something if you were less vague... what else are you missing, exactly? Note that we have separate pages for skills and tactics and for formations. --Shallot 12:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been planning to a separate page on football culture, but never actually got round to it.  I would take the violence and accidents bit, and add bits on fans, and their culture (links to football chants), as well as derby games.  There would be other things in there but I would need to think them up.  There's still a lot to write up.  Just to point out as well that the accidents bit is very UK orientated so we'd probably need to convince people to contribute some more to it.  It would also help cut out the links at the end of the article as there are well too many of them.  Anybody up for helping out with it? Master Of Ninja 13:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now added a page on Football culture.  Feel free to add or correct. -- Master Of Ninja 12:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've had the same idea. Fans/football culture is a big subject. I've been thinking about starting an article on Tifo (see http://www.tifonet.it, for instance). — Pladask 15:04, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Brainstorm?

message: I saw in this section that the summer olympic tournament comes right after the world cup.  As a matter of precedence shouldn't it even be after the continental competitions, as the European and South American championships are actually more watched, and more prestigious than the olympic one? -- Master Of Ninja 08:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major international competitions - olympics 

message: Hi
I've basically started and written a lot of the Football culture article.  It's linked from the main football page.  However I'm not sure how many people have seen it yet.
What I'm asking for is help in adding things to it and proof-reading it as well.  The article is very UK-centric, and slightly less Euro-centric.  A bit of additional perspective would help.
Any volunteers to help me would be greatly appreciated.
With Thanks
-- Master Of Ninja 11:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football culture - request for help 

message: The metric approximations for the size of the field of play can be found here:
Laws of the game
As is clearly described: The ten yard required distance to a "dead" ball is approximated to 9.15 meters. The size of the goal is in fact defined to be 7.32 x 2.44 meters. 
Furthermore the laws of the game now officially defines the dimesions of the field of play and other distances in meters, keeping yards in parenthesis for historic reference. This article should probably do the same.
And I will keep correcting this as long as I have to. :)
:There is no need to take an aggressive attitude. The 9.5/9.15 equivalant for 10 yards was incorrectly transcribed some time ago, and it appears on the Wikipedia's image here (:Image:Football_pitch_metric.png). This image also has the dimensions of the goal transcribed incorrectly. When someone changed 9.5 to 9.144m with this edit () I used this image as a basis for "correcting" the metric equivalants. Of course your first edit of 9.14 for the 10 yards was itself wrong, but thank you for taking the trouble to check it before recorrecting it. The image with the metric equivalents needs to be modified. Mintguy (T) 23:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric approximations 

message: I have created a new stub template  for football related items, I figured that there are a large number of fans in the Wiki population who might be interested in filling out articles but are not willing or able to wade through the mountain of general/bio/sports stubs. The category is :Category:Football (soccer) stubs. There are already almost 250 articles there, what has surprised me during this effort is how many major players still don't have articles at all.
Bob Palin 14:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football stubs 

message: I've been looking for a page that describes the role of the football manager, or head coach. I've only found articles about economics and baseball so far. I was surprised that such an important role hasn't  been commented on so far. Vanky 01:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Management 

message: Hi everyone,
Almost all the information in the football culture subsection was already covered (often word-for-word) in the dedicated article football culture.  Therefore I think it is worthwhile moving the remaining information to that article, in much the same way that the large football around the world subsection was successfully moved to its own article last year.
There is a wealth of information to be presented about the sport, but football (soccer) is already a long article. We should probably try to keep the focus on it as the "core" article regarding football, and as such primarily focus on the core details; further worthwhile information can be covered in dedicated articles. Obviously this will require a bit of a balancing act!
Please throw around any ideas!
Cheers, --Daveb 16:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football culture subsection 

message: Hi everyone,
I have begun expanding the information on the Laws to make the game more understandable to those who don't know much about the game (this is an encyclopaedia after all): prior to this there was very little about how the game is actually played. I have tried to cover things broadly rather than a technical regurgitation of the Laws.
I think we should add brief info on fouls and misconduct. Tehre is already an article on offside that we can easily link to.
This will all add to the article length so we may have to spin off some of the more detailed info to other articles, eg the nitty-gritty of the FOP could go to a devoted article.
A section on general gameplay would probably be beneficial too.
Cheers, --Daveb 18:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded laws info / gameplay 

message: Has it ever been conclusively proven that football/soccer is the most played and most watched sport in the World? It says so in the beginning of 
the article, but has it really been proven? There are indeed figures about volleyball and basketball that point to a possibility that these two 
sports challenge football/soccer in this area. (Number of national associations (both) is one, number of players (volleyball) is another). 
Personally, I think football/soccer is the most played/watched, but I am serious enough about it to acknowledge that I have never seen conclusive 
evidence about it. //AT 2005-04-12
:See  for a page that shows just how ludicrous most published figures are. According to FIVB, 1 in 6 of the world's population play volleyball. Even taking into account that there is a difference between "plays" and "has played, once, in the back yard", that figure still seems stupidly high. I'm not aware of any reliable figures on these things, but then I've never heard anybody seriously refute the claim of football to be #1. (Except by anglers, but then that's a pastime, not a sport :) sjorford →•← 12:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice bold fix there Hig!!  The whole naming issue simply takes up too much space for what is not a major matter, e.g. the Names of the game section has somehow grown into an ugly mess of English and non-English names and derivatives. People simply need to accept that the sport does go by different names in different places, whether it suits our preference or not (e.g. I for one am happy that Soccer Australia has eventually morphed into Football Federation Australia, but can cope with the fact that the media refers to the sport by both names!). I think we need to continue to focus on improving information on the game itself (refer to above topics).  Cheers, --Daveb 05:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: And a foot --Clawed 04:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is football number one? 

message: I have moved the bulk of the names of the game section to its own article (Football (soccer) names). 
This section was bulky and unwieldy, with bits and pieced tacked-on clumsily over time; much of the section referred to non-English terminology, while other parts agonised over the preferred term in English-speaking countries. It was not in keeping with an overview article, which this is.
As such, I have streamlined the section to a brief overview of the development of the main terms for the game, with a brief note on why different terms are used. By design there are no lists of what terms are used where: these are dealt with in the new article, and placing them in the football (soccer) article will simply lead to more pedantic debate.
While I know lots of people like to debate what is the "best" or "correct" term, these debates will go on forever and we simply need to accept that different terms are used in different parts of the world. Let's get football (soccer) up to featured status quality!
Cheers, --Daveb 10:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The memorable moments section simply lists some names and events; it doesn't give any useful information about what happened, why the events are memorable or why they were important to the sport... all-in-all hardly encyclopaedic information. I suggest it be removed. If the information is somehow deemed important it could be placed in football culture or in its own article, eg "List of football memorable moments". --Daveb 05:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Dave, maybe you SHOULD have done either BEFORE you deleted the section. I would say it should be a section in Football Culture. --Marianocecowski 07:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is wikipedia; anyone can revert the change so my suggestion is still that- a suggestion that the section not be in football (soccer). It doesn't really matter whether I publish my ideas seven minutes before or seven minutes after I made a change. I agree football culture could be a good article in which to put the list, however the usefulness of the "information" in its current form is debatable. Cheers, --Daveb 08:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  I would suggest not to put it into the football culture article as the article is way too big at the moment, and will probably get streamlined shortly. Maybe put the memorable moments in its own page, listed by decade or by year, with explanations why it was memorable? -- Master Of Ninja 14:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. Also, we don't want Football culture to just become a dumping ground for all miscellaneous football-related issues. Expansion of the information to something more meaningful is certainly required. --Daveb 07:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further streamlining of article 

message: To everyone on this talk page, I am sorry for my behavior.  Look at my user page user:taylorr.
please respond to this message!
sorry,
taylorr
I have nominated this article for check of it's POV due to the word being used more than football, offending some, and offenses on the talk page.
Taylorr 21:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an invalid dispute, the author has failed to declare the nature of his dispute in the above entry. Bob Palin 21:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have removed the NPOV templates. In any case, three templates was wildly excessive and damned ugly - one would be sufficient if the nominator had deigned to properly state his grounds for a dispute. -- Arwel  23:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I would hardly call it a raging dispute. The issue has been discussed ad nauseum previously, and the compromise of using the "soccer" in the title Football (soccer),  explaining where the terms come from, but using the formal name in the text, decided upon. --Daveb 10:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: One person disputing something that was settled years ago on Wikipedia after very long debate does not indicate a valid POV dispute - it indicates the presence of a kook. --83.104.44.241 13:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for POV