Talk:Association football/Archive 15

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: They where called "united states football association" from the start and that will give you some google hits. Chandlertalk 15:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "What is now the United States Soccer Federation was originally the US Football Association." is the first line of the History about the USSF. Chandlertalk 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Pros and cons of ''[[football (soccer)]]''

message: #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)
thread_title: CON

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: They where called "united states football association" from the start and that will give you some google hits. Chandlertalk 15:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "What is now the United States Soccer Federation was originally the US Football Association." is the first line of the History about the USSF. Chandlertalk 13:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is the name of the sport, as in Rugby Football or American Football. --Michael Johnson (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How come nodody thought to ask the Goverining Body of the sport

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fans 

message: 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)
replies: text: Baloncesto or basketball is most popularly played sport and association football is most watched.00:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. – PeeJay 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular 

message: :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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Survey