Association football is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 20, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 10, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted October 15, 2007 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

So it looks like we've got a pretty solid consensus to move to association football (lowercase). The current discussion will be a week old tomorrow, it's had plenty of input, and I think that we'd be okay moving it over on that date. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Association football it is! Huzzah! – PeeJay 12:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is good news. I suggest we coordinate the move with the deployment of a bot to correct the double redirects. —David Levy 13:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that's needed; there are only 38 redirects to the article - not too many to do by hand. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I was under the impression that there were more redirects than that. Indeed, 38 is hardly an overwhelming number to update manually. —David Levy 04:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Only two oppositions and a veritable plethora of supports. Sounds very much like broad consensus to me. EuroSong ^talk 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are we doing with other related articles? E.g. Timeline of soccer, History of football (soccer), Football (soccer) positions, [[Formation {football)]], kit (football), Football pitch, Football (soccer) around the world. Surely all should be changed appropriately. All show why such a move is necessary because they are different naming formats and I'm sure there are more than the above articles. Peanut4 (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there would be some more. 2010 in football (soccer) right thru to 1870 in football (soccer) and then a couple more covering decades. So just another 140+ there. Peanut4 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These should have been included in the original move request. 69.211.29.67 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do about it? Can we add them, or do we have to make separate requests for them? EuroSong ^talk 22:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the main article is moved, moving other pages to match the new title should be classed as uncontroversial, and shouldn't require a request. If there are any that need moves over redirects, list them here and an admin (like myself) will do them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just closed the debate and effected the page move. I'll tidy up incoming redirects. Any additional maintenance such as moving related pages you'll have to do yourself. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone does a load of unnecessary work changing links, I suggest reading WP:REDIRECT#Do_not_change_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken. Only double redirects need changing. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't just links - its the term used to identify the sport on Wikipedia. I came here because I noticed these edits at FIFA World Cup and thought I should check before reverting. This move affects much more than just article names. If our article is at association football instead of football (soccer), then the sport needs to be referred to as "association football" instead of "football (soccer)" in all articles. Note this would only be when the full name is referred to (intro and infobox), of course "football" (or "soccer" in USA focused articles) can still be used thereafter. -- Chuq (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the rather tedious task of moving the articles listed at Template:Association football chronology to their new titles, if anyone wants to help. Dave101→talk  22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I wasn't aware of the move before it happened. Football (soccer) was a convenient name for Australian articles, because both names are used here. Anyway.. a possibly solution to simplify linking - create templates:

• {{football}} -> [[Association football|football]]
• {{soccer}} -> [[Association football|soccer]]

(Note: At the moment, {{football}} is the WikiProject Football header - this could be moved to {{WP Football}}. {{soccer}} doesn't exist but {{SOCCER}} is an unused userbox which can be deleted.) If the templates were changed as above, it would mean that editors could simply replace the "[[ ]]" with "{{ }}" when linking - no extra keystrokes needed at all! -- Chuq (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that there is nothing to stop you continuing to use football (soccer) as it still exists as a redirect. 81.77.136.231 (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but in the past it has been used with the reasoning "it is the standard form used throughout Wikipedia where there is a conflict in the terminology to be used", so it would probably be incorrect style to use it now. -- Chuq (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a bit of a hack, to be honest. If it's going to require articles to be edited anyway, it doesn't really matter how many characters need to be changed; the most efficient way is still going to be through assisted search-and-replace. The "conflict is terminology" thing only really applies where there's a conflict at the level above markup: football and football are perfectly fine, it's just article titles like History of football (soccer) which need to be changed. And you can't do that with templates. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean - I won't hurry to change links, but for new links it could be easier. Not to mention, if the article ever moves back or to another name ... -- Chuq (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there is no need to go round and fix all the redirects, it would be a waste of time and a waste in terms of the article history. If you are editing a page anyway, it is fine to fix them, just don't go round with the intention of fixing the redirects. See Do not change links to redirects that are not broken for some semblance of policy about this. Woodym555 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[relocated from #This article should be called...]

"Soccer" is a colloquialism wherever you're from, regardless if it is the primary usage, as is corn and mad-cow disease. Reginmund (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that "soccer" is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English? —David Levy 19:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Reginmund (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you make such an assertion? Have you notified Major League Soccer and the United States men's and women's national soccer teams of your findings? —David Levy 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't need to notify them on anything. I made the assertion based on the etymology of "soccer". Reginmund (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word's etymology is not disputed. What's disputed is your apparent belief that the English language is static and unchanging.
Do you also regard "petrol" (which originated as a slang abbreviation of "petroleum spirit") as a colloquialism? —David Levy 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I ever say that the word's etymology is disputed? Did I ever say that the English language is static and unchanging? NO, so please don't make cruft up. As an answer to your question, petrol is not a colloquialism. Reginmund (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was informing you of the dispute's nature (which relates not to the etymology, but to the relevance thereof). I referenced your "apparent belief that the English language is static and unchanging" because I don't know how else to interpret your stance that the word "soccer" must forever remain a colloquialism in all varieties of English.
Why do you not regard "petrol" as a colloquialism? (I don't either, but I'm wondering what distinction you're drawing.) —David Levy 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct distinction is that soccer is a colloquialism in British English, while it is not a colloquialism in most other varieties. Even though the spelling and style of this article is British English, that does not have any implications for acknowledgement of soccer, as a term, in the text, or the naming of the article. Grant | Talk 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'm struggling to make sense of Reginmund's logic. —David Levy 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Although I'm British, and for me "soccer" is an informal colloquialism - I accept that in some other countries it has been recognised as formal usage. There is no international cast-iron definition of what's proper and what is not. In some countries they use pidgin English - which, to us, may sound like baby talk - but to them is proper and correct! EuroSong ^talk 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said that the "word's etymology is not disputed" which I don't see how is relevant. Nor did I say or make any insinuation that the English language is static and unchanging. In fact I think quite differently that statement could only be fabricated on your behalf. Before making such frivolous claims, it would be best to understand how "petrol" came to use in the English lexicon compared to how "soccer" came into the English lexicon. Reginmund (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The fact that the word's etymology is not disputed is relevant because I wanted to make it clear that my disagreement was not based on such an argument.
2. As I said, I'm merely attempting to make sense of your stance. Rather than leaving me to speculate, please explain why the fact that "soccer" originated as a slang term means that it must forever remain a colloquialism in all varieties of English. Please also enlighten me on the relevant historical difference(s) between "soccer" and "petrol." Simply claiming that they exist (without providing any details) is not particularly helpful. —David Levy 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you bring up the fact that the word's etymology is not disputed if your disagreement is not based on such an argument? Rather than speculate a frivolous reason for my stance, ask me what about it you don't understand instead of confusing yourself by answering your own question that you have no capability of doing. "Soccer" is a slang term and the etymology basically speaks for itself. Yet, the etymology of "petrol" also speaks for itself as it is clearly not a slang term. If you would simply understand the etymologies and the definition of "slang", you would find an answer to your question. Or would you like me to tell you the etymologies and what "slang" means? Reginmund (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cited the word's etymology. I replied by indicating that while we are in agreement regarding said etymology, we are not in agreement regarding its modern relevance.
As I said, I'm merely trying to make sense of your argument. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but despite my requests, you aren't explaining why you believe that a slang term can never evolve into a formal term (in this case, specifically in certain varieties of English). If you don't believe that the English language is static, how do you rationalize this position?
I'm quite familiar with the definition of slang, and I already requested that you enlighten me on the pertinent historical difference(s) between the words "soccer" and "petrol." The latter originated as an informal abbreviation of "petroleum spirit," and it evolved into a formal term in some varieties of English (including yours) through common use as one. Likewise, "soccer" originated as an informal abbreviation of "association football," but it now is used as a formal term in some varieties of English (including mine). What is the relevant distinction? —David Levy 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the origins of the word "soccer". Although many slang words become known throughout the English language, it still shouldn't suggest that they aren't slang. Since "slang" is a portmanteau of "secret language", it was not necessarily meant for everyone to understand. However, because "soccer" is understood by most all anglophones as many slang words are. This shouldn't suggest that it still isn't slang. And because slang is a "secret language", words such as "petrol" cannot be considered slang because "petrol" was meant for everyone to hear it to understand it. Reginmund (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I read the above for a fourth time, can someone else please verify that it makes sense to them? —David Levy 00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me, I just don't see what relevance it has to this discussion. – PeeJay 10:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever, is how much. I do wish we could stop getting sidetracked by an irrelevant grammar debate. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant to the proposed move, but not to the article itself (which could be edited to explain that "soccer" is a colloquialism in all varieties of English). —David Levy 12:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please to explain it to me? It has nothing to with the proposed move to Association football (which I strongly support, of course), but I'd like to understand how it is that "soccer" is a colloquialism in the varieties of English in which it exists as a formal term (but "petrol" is not). As far as I can tell, the rationale is the former originated as a "secret" of some sort. Even if true, I don't see how this is remotely relevant to how it's used today. —David Levy 12:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Petrol" is not simply because it was created as a neologism and not a colloquialsim. "Soccer" was made as a slang term and its etymlogy clearly shows that. Reginmund (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume that the above is accurate. What bearing does this have on the word's use today? Am I correct in interpreting your statements to mean that a colloquialism cannot evolve into formal word? If so, on what do you base this assertion? You've confirmed that you believe that "soccer" is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English, but do you actually deny that it's used as such in some? No offense, but it really seems as though you're simply condemning English varieties that differ from your own. —David Levy 04:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make assumptions that you simply know nothing about. It really seems as though you're simply condeming my statement because of a system bias. Some words, no matter how widespread they are in use, still remain colloquial. "Bendy bus" happens to be a more widespread term in the UK referring to an articulated bus. Somewhat along the level of "soccer" being more widespread in the US than "football". No matter how much it is used, it is still colloquial and everyone in the country (including me) knows it. And I try to avoid colloquialisms as much as possible so I prefer the more "American" term and I call it an "articulated bus". I really don't know what you are suggesting. Is this somehow supposed to mean that colloquialisms are only classified by limited use? Reginmund (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that the use of the word "soccer" to describe the sport in question is "more widespread in the US than 'football'" is a huge understatement. Soccer is the only English word commonly used for this purpose (in both formal and informal contexts) in the United States. To us, "soccer" isn't a nickname; it's the sport's correct name.
No, the extent to which a term is used doesn't determine whether a word is a colloquialism. (As you noted, many colloquialisms are quite common.) What matters is how the word is used. If a word is commonly accepted in formal contexts, it isn't a colloquialism (wherever this occurs). Again, do you deny that "soccer" is used as a formal term in some countries? Why is this inappropriate?
Once again, I ask you whether you believe that it's possible for a colloquialism to evolve into a formal term (and if not, why not). —David Levy 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, "soccer" is used more than "football" in the US as "bendy bus" is used more than "articulated bus" in the UK. Now such words as "bendy bus" are still accepted into formal context, yet they are still known as colloquialisms. As "bendy bus" is a colloquialism in the UK, "soccer" is a colloquialism in the US, no matter how widespread their usage is over the correct form. Reginmund (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "soccer" is not a nickname for "football" in the United States. It is the only common English name here. ("Football" almost always refers to American football.) The etymology of the word "soccer" is completely unknown to most Americans (who use the word just as they use any formal word). As it's a term's current use (and not necessarily its origin) that determines its status, it's ludicrous to claim that "soccer" is a colloquialism (and not "correct") in countries in which it clearly has entered formal usage.
Do you intend to answer my questions, are will you ignore them yet again? —David Levy 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "articulated bus" is not a widespread alternative to the colloquial "bendy bus" in the United Kingdom. "Bendy bus" is the only common English name here. Just because the etymology of a word is unknown to a person, doesn't somehow change its classification. And terms that are the current and only used can still be considered colloquial. Examples include "soccer" in the US and "bendy bus" in the UK. It's ludicrous to claim that just because a word is the only one in use in a certain dialect, it automatically is not colloquial. Do you intend to actually read my post to find answers to your questions or are you going to ignore me again? Reginmund (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you. I'm reading your messages and replying with questions that you refuse to answer. (I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether a colloquialism can ever evolve into a formal term.)
You've explicitly indicated that the word "soccer" is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English (which is consistent with the claim that it's a colloquialism in all of them). You've yet to explain why this is so (why the word's origin overrides its modern use), nor have you explained what we should be calling the sport in formal contexts (instead of "soccer," which, based purely upon its etymology, you've deemed inappropriate). —David Levy 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are ignoring me because I have already answered your question. Wherever you go, both "soccer" and "bendy bus" are deemed as colloquialisms, no matter how widespread their usage is in a certain dialect. Yet, these two terms are the only terms referring to two particular subjects in two different dialects. Any term, including a slang term can evolve over time to be formal but only with the language's periodic change. (That includes, of course, the word that the slang term originated from.) If this word of origin is deemed as archaic, there is no reason why this new term that used to be considered slang can be accepted into the English lexicon as a formal term. However, the word that "soccer" originated from is "association" which is by no means an archaic term so "soccer" remains colloquial as "bendy bus" does too, no matter how widespread the term is in a particular dialect. Reginmund (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wherever you go, both 'soccer' and 'bendy bus' are deemed as colloquialisms, no matter how widespread their usage is in a certain dialect." By whom (other than you)? I certainly agree that "soccer" is a colloquialism in British English (among other varieties), but which American English authorities have deemed "soccer" a colloquialism here?
Also, what is the source for your assertion that a word of origin must become archaic before its informal descendants can be considered formal? "Petroleum" certainly isn't archaic, and your only rebuttal is that "soccer" originally (many decades ago) wasn't intended to be as widely understood as "petrol" was (which is utterly irrelevant).
And again, you explicitly indicated that the word "soccer" "is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English." (I asked you whether you meant those exact words, and you responded in the affirmative.) You've literally claimed that what we're doing is inappropriate, and that's preposterous. —David Levy 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, who the hell cares any more? I'm getting quite sick of this argument, and I think it should stop now. The word "soccer" began as a colloquialism in both British English and American English, but it has become accepted as the predominant word for association football in North America. It is not the only word for the sport in North America (I know some people who call it football, and refer to American football as "gridiron"), but it is the most commonly used one. There, are we happy now? – PeeJay 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, no one is forcing you to read this discussion. I appreciate your sensible viewpoint, but I remain disheartened by Reginmund's condemnation. —David Levy 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I agree with PeeJay. I do fully agree with one of your two arguments but this isn't the place to go into it. The article has been moved and your discussion isn't particularly relevant to this talk page. Peanut4 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the move (which I wholeheartedly supported), but it is potentially relevant to the article (which someone might want to edit to indicate that "soccer" is a colloquialism worldwide). —David Levy 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While nobody is forcing us to read the discussion, we are all being forced to scroll past it despite it being of almost no relevance to the (hopefully now permanently settled) survey at hand. The sooner this can be archived, the sooner we can all stop caring about it for good. As a two-person conversation, it might better be conducted on user talk. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in stating that this discussion is irrelevant to the survey, so I've relocated it to the bottom of the page. It is, however, relevant to the article. —David Levy 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it's relevant to the article. Nowhere does the article mention whether soccer is a coloquialism and neither is Wikipedia a dictionary. Maybe the etymology of soccer and whether it's a colloqualism is relevant to the article, if so ignore me, but I'm struggling to see how it is. Peanut4 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a section about the sport's name. As I've noted above, someone with Reginmund's attitude might decide to edit it (or the related article) accordingly. —David Levy 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By everyone other than me, "bendy bus" is a colloquialism to all British English speakers, yet it is also the dominating term. For you to assume that "soccer" hasn't been deemed as a colloquialism without verification, it certainly is hypocritical to suggest that you cannot explain how words lexically evolve before assuming the definitions of a word that you can't have bothered to look up for reasons that are irrelevant to the topic that has already seen a thorough explanation. Nor did I say that "petroleum" is archaic, yet petrol is not a colloquialism, something I have already addressed but you still appear to have ignored. And please explain to me why it is irrelevant that because "soccer" fits perfectly into the definitions of a slang term, the definition of "slang" itself has no association with "petrol" simply because the etymology of petrol as a neologism completely revokes any reasons as to why the word is considered a colloquialism. This I find utterly ironic since you being the one who brought up the case of "petrol" being a colloquialism has deemed the answer to your question "irrelevant" for reasons I can only understand are ulterior to the assumed point you are trying to make. Nor have I "explicitly indicated that "soccer" is innapropriate and I certainly haven't claimed that what "we" (whoever you are referring to) are doing anything inappropriate. Taking this fabrication of words into account, I can only assume that your motives are indeed ulterior to those prescribed to your arguments. Now that is utterly preposterous. Reginmund (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm not assuming anything. By definition, the simple fact that "soccer" is widely accepted as a formal term in some countries means that it isn't colloquial there. The etymology doesn't change that.
2. Again, I ask you to specify which American English authorities have deemed "soccer" a colloquialism in the United States.
3. Yes, you've addressed the "petrol" issue. I just acknowledged that fact. I'm not ignoring your explanation; I'm rejecting it. I fully agree that "petrol" isn't a colloquialism, and my point is that the distinction that you've drawn between it and "soccer" is invalid. Both originated as informal abbreviations of other terms, and whether they were intended to be kept "secret" has absolutely no bearing on how they're used today.
4. Soccer perfectly fits the definition of a slang term in the English varieties in which it's used as one. In other English varieties (such as mine), it has evolved into a formal term. Formal terms aren't slang. This is quite simple.
5. No, I did not "bring up the case of 'petrol' being a colloquialism." My point was based on the fact that it isn't one.
6. There is no fabrication of words. I asked you the following: "Are you suggesting that 'soccer' is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English?" Your response was "Yes." How can this be interpreted as anything other than an assertion that using "soccer" as a formal term (as we do in the United States, among other countries) is inappropriate?
7. I assure you that I have no ulterior motives. As you know, I wholeheartedly supported the move to Association football. I simply dispute your claims (and resent those of a condemnatory nature). —David Levy 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a widely accepted term and the only term in a certain dialect for a primary topic does not mean that the term is not colloquial. Many terms in near every dialect of English have colloquialisms that are the predominant uses. What does change that is how the term is known within the language, let alone that the etymology certainly does contribute to its classification as a colloquialism. The etymology henceforth is the way of determining whether or not the term is colloquial, regardless of whether or not the term is classified in such a way or not by a language governing body (especially because the English language does not have an academy). I don't understand how you can reject an answer to your question just because you don't like it. If I showed you a cougar and you thought it was a dog, I could easily disprove this assertion with DNA evidence. You may reject it as you please but this doesn't make you right. "Petrol" never originated informally; you would know if you understood the etymology. "Petrol" originated as corporate term used to refer to the refined fuel for motor cars. Seeing as slang and colloquialisms are either meant to be informal or just secretive, a neologism coined by a corporation for referring to a relatively new substance in use is certainly not colloquial or slang. However, a term originating from a contraction of a formal term used to describe a subject within a particular group (i.e. students at the University of Oxford) is slang. Thus making "petrol" formal and "soccer" slang. Slang terms are best evaded in formal language. However, in an encyclopaedia such as this, it would be necessary to mention their usage. I suggested that "soccer" is not an appropriate term for formal English. However, I never suggested that what we are doing is inappropriate (I assume you mean by using the term in the encyclopaedia, correct me if I'm wrong). So I can only assume that this part of what is alledged to be my text is fabricated because I certainly did not condem the term. These are such allegations which are unusual to my original text. Reginmund (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Again, if something is widely accepted as a formal term, it is not colloquial. By definition, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. "Soccer" is a colloquialism in British English and other English varieties in which it is not widely recognized as a formal term. In the remaining English varieties, however, it is widely recognized as a formal term. (Note that I'm not merely referring to predominant use, but to predominant formal use.) A formal term is not a colloquialism.
2. "Petrol" is an abbreviation of "petroleum spirit" (a pre-existing term). It was not coined to describe a new invention with no common designation (unlike "modem," as a random contrary example). That the term was popularized as a trade name only bolsters my argument; the generic use of a trade name is colloquial until it evolves into a formal term (as "petrol" and "soccer" did in their respective English varieties). Just as it's colloquial to use the word "Kleenex" to generically describe facial tissues, it was colloquial to describe refined petroleum as "petrol" until the word lost its status as a trade name (and became a formal generic term instead).
3. No, I'm not referring to this encyclopedia; I'm referring to the use of the word "soccer" as a formal term (in English varieties in which this is common). Indeed, you "suggested that 'soccer' is not an appropriate term for formal English." That would make it an inappropriate term for formal English. Why did you deny claiming that? —David Levy 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you refuse to acknowledge that their are colloquialisms that are quite prevelant in common parlance? Because I can name you a dozen more. Just because a term is widespread, doesn't make it formal. "Petrol" was coined to describe a refined form of petroleum (petroleum spirit). The term was then used outside of the company's lexicon. By all means, not making it informal or colloquial. The word was not meant as a genericised trade mark, only the common noun term used to describe a relatively new substance to fuel motor cars. Just because it was coined by a company, doesn't inadvertently make it a company name. Yet, I never denied claiming that I said that "soccer" was inappropriate for formal English. However, the suggestion that I was to mean that using the term is inappropriate for a person to actually use, regardless of in what form of speech they are using it is absolutely ludicrous and that, I have to assume is fabricated. Reginmund (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you refuse to acknowledge that their are colloquialisms that are quite prevelant in common parlance?" No, of course colloquialisms can be prevalent in common parlance. What part of "Note that I'm not merely referring to predominant use, but to predominant formal use." was unclear to you?
"Because I can name you a dozen more. Just because a term is widespread, doesn't make it formal." Agreed. But "soccer" is formally used in North America and elsewhere. (Prominent examples include Major League Soccer, United States men's national soccer team and United States women's national soccer team.) If you deny that "soccer" is the usual formal term in the United States, please tell me what is.
"'Petrol' was coined to describe a refined form of petroleum (petroleum spirit)." And "gas" (short for "gasoline") describes the same thing. But that's a colloquialism (not to imply that "petrol" is).
"The term was then used outside of the company's lexicon." Indeed, just as the word "soccer" spread beyond its original use, "petrol" evolved into a generic term. Thanks again for helping to make my argument.
"By all means, not making it informal or colloquial." And yet, you argue that the nature of the word "soccer" is determined strictly by the intentions of the people who originally coined the term (and not by its subsequent use). How curious.
"The word was not meant as a genericised trade mark, only the common noun term used to describe a relatively new substance to fuel motor cars." I didn't say that "petrol" was a trademark (though the information contained within our genericized trademark article is relevant). Quoth our article, "the word 'petrol' was first used in reference to the refined substance as early as 1892 (it was previously used to refer to unrefined petroleum), and was registered as a trade name by British wholesaler Carless, Capel & Leonard at the suggestion of Frederick Richard Simms." By that point, the substance had been available under other names for decades (and "although it was never officially registered as a trademark, Carless's competitors used the term 'Motor Spirit' until the 1930s").
"Just because it was coined by a company, doesn't inadvertently make it a company name." You just acknowledged that it "originated as corporate term" (your exact words), and now you deny that it was "a company name." Clearly, the former statement is correct.
"Yet, I never denied claiming that I said that 'soccer' was inappropriate for formal English." Again, your exact words: "Nor have I explicitly indicated that 'soccer' is innapropriate and I certainly haven't claimed that what 'we' (whoever you are referring to) are doing anything inappropriate." But that's moot. What matters is that the word "soccer" is used as a formal term in some varieties of English (including mine), and you've deemed this "inappropriate."
"However, the suggestion that I was to mean that using the term is inappropriate for a person to actually use, regardless of in what form of speech they are using it is absolutely ludicrous and that, I have to assume is fabricated." Yes, you just fabricated that (given the fact that I've explicitly and continually referred to "formal" use). —David Levy 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument was based on the fact that because "soccer" is most common term for association football in the United States, that it somehow inadvertently becomes formal. Do you not realise that you cannot assimilate this based on the given etymlogy? Do you also realise that "soccer" has no credibility over any of these other terms that remian dominant within a certain dialect, yet are still considered to be colloquialisms? Merely because the name is incorporated into names of organisations does not make the name inadvertenty formal either. Mind you, shortenings are not colloquialism either, especially when many words in the English language are purposely contracted by lexicographers for convenience in speaking or writing. They are not meant to be jargon or informal. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no understanding of the etymology of "soccer" as of now. "Soccer" was coined as jargon. Petrol was coined formally, making them two very different terms of use. Thank you for railroading your argument even further away from making sense simply because you didn't bother to read the text. Indeed I must encounter your frivolous sense of logic yet again. A corporate term is not a genericised trade mark. It is a term used within a company to refer to a particluar subject, not a company name which in turn is just a corporate term for a trade mark, generic or not. For the record, the term was not a company name but a corporate term. Please read this text for the sixth time before you start another infallible argument. And I would like to point out that the fact that you fabricated a statement that I believed that using an inappropriate term for formal English is inappropriate to do is not moot just because you don't want to admit a fault in your text. I stated that "soccer" is an inappropriate term in formal English. You interpreted this as me saying that it is inappropriate to say "soccer". You have altered my words to change their meaning and in turn, based your points off this fabricated argument. Throughout you being the one who is using the straw man in several aspects of my argument, you have finished your argument again with another fallacy to your point which was disproven already. Check the beginning of the page for that reference after you have read this another dozen times, but don't bother to distort anything else. Reginmund (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your argument was based on the fact that because 'soccer' is most common term for association football in the United States, that it somehow inadvertently becomes formal." No, that is not my argument. "Soccer" is a formal term in the varieties of English in which it is widely accepted and used as such. It really is that simple.
There are plenty of informal terms that are used more commonly than their formal counterparts are. They generally are not, however, used in formal contexts. For example, Americans typically refer to adhesive bandages as "band-aids." In actuality, Band-Aid is a brand of adhesive bandage (among other products). Another example is flavored gelatin, which Americans usually refer to as "jello" (taken from the brand Jell-O). Neither of these generic terms appears on any product packaging or in any major advertising. As common as they are, they remain colloquial. The word "soccer," conversely, is used in any formal context (within our control) that you can name. According to you, this is "inappropriate."
"Do you not realise that you cannot assimilate this based on the given etymlogy?" Do you not realize that a word can evolve beyond its original use? Oh, that's right. You've instituted the arbitrary prerequisite that the word from which it descended be archaic.
"Do you also realise that "soccer" has no credibility over any of these other terms that remian dominant within a certain dialect, yet are still considered to be colloquialisms?" To which terms are you referring?
"Merely because the name is incorporated into names of organisations does not make the name inadvertenty formal either." Indeed, there is nothing inadvertent about our formal use of the word "soccer." It's quite deliberate, in fact. But if you disagree that "soccer" is used formally in the United States, I once again ask that you tell me what term is. Also explain what would constitute formal use.
"Mind you, shortenings are not colloquialism either, especially when many words in the English language are purposely contracted by lexicographers for convenience in speaking or writing. They are not meant to be jargon or informal. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no understanding of the etymology of "soccer" as of now." I understand it perfectly. I merely reject your assertion that said etymology is the sacrosanct determinant of the word's modern status.
"'Soccer' was coined as jargon." Indeed, and it subsequently evolved into a formal, mainstream term in some English varieties (including mine).
"Petrol was coined formally, making them two very different terms of use." Yes, "Petrol" was a formal trade name (rendering its generic use informal until it evolved to become formal generic term).
"Thank you for railroading your argument even further away from making sense simply because you didn't bother to read the text." What didn't I bother to read?
"Indeed I must encounter your frivolous sense of logic yet again." It's frivolous of me to think that a word's modern status is determined by its actual use in a given nation (and not, as you claim, by the intentions of the individual[s] who coined the term in another country more than 120 years ago)?
"A corporate term is not a genericised trade mark. It is a term used within a company to refer to a particluar subject, not a company name which in turn is just a corporate term for a trade mark, generic or not." Huh?
"For the record, the term was not a company name but a corporate term." Okay, so by "company name," you mean "name of a company," I take it. If so, what is the relevance? As I said, the company was Carless, Capel & Leonard, which marketed a product as "Petrol," a trade name distinct from that of its competitors. What is your point?
"Please read this text for the sixth time before you start another infallible argument." Somehow, I doubt that this is what you meant to write.
"And I would like to point out that the fact that you fabricated a statement that I believed that using an inappropriate term for formal English is inappropriate to do is not moot just because you don't want to admit a fault in your text." Once again, I'm unable to make sense of that sentence.
"I stated that 'soccer' is an inappropriate term in formal English." Indeed, you did. If accurate, this means that those of us who use "soccer" as a formal term are behaving inappropriately. I dispute this assertion.
"You interpreted this as me saying that it is inappropriate to say 'soccer'." Rubbish. I interpreted it as a claim that it's inappropriate to use the word "soccer" as a formal term (as we do in North America and elsewhere). I've consistently included the word "formal," so your response is quite perplexing.
"You have altered my words to change their meaning and in turn, based your points off this fabricated argument." No, that would be you. —David Levy 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, so what makes you think that just because it is "widely accepted as such", it inadvertently becomes a formal term. "Bendy bus" is "widely accepted as such", yet it isn't a formal term. Well, you're right about that. It is really simple. Genericised trade marks such as Band-Aid or Jell-O or Dumpster cannot be used in advertising not because they are informal but because any other company would have a law suit on their hands. The word "soccer" is not a genericised trade mark so it may be used by anyone to market anything without being served with a subpoena. Anyone may use the term "soccer" as they please, although it is still a colloquialism and is inappropriate in formal English. Do you not realise that a word does not simply evolve into formal use just because it is overwhelmingly more common than the correct term? Oh, that's right. You don't realise that since sixty per cent of the English language comes from Latin, there is no doubt in your mind that half of those words are [not] from vulgar or colloquial Latin. Since they have evolved out of their original usage, I would assume that you have a better way of determining what makes a colloquialism, no matter how formal or superior it is within a certain dialect. If you say that formal use is determined by the deliberate use by organisations that incorporate that term, I don't see how that proves the term not to be colloquial. There are colloquialisms incorporated into use by organisations, whether it be deliberate or not. Since, you merely "reject" my assertion that the words etymology is the determinant of the word's status, I might as well reject your entire argument. In fact, I reject taxes! I reject laws! See, wasn't that easy? Or would you rather do it the right way and explain why you "reject"? Indeed "soccer" evolved into a mainstream term but that certainly doesn't mean that evolved into a formal term. "Petrol" on the other hand was never meant as a colloquialism and has no characteristics of one whatsoever. It's frivolous of you to think that a word's modern status as being common in a certain dialect is synonymous with formal. "Company name", for a lack of better words suggest that this term was not registered or bargained. It was merely coined by the company. It could have been coined by the Spanish Inquisition. Then it would be a "Spanish Inquisition" name. Regardless of whether or not a company coined it, that doesn't mean it is a trade mark term. That just means they coined another common noun for this substance which is by no means colloquial. And yet again, a fabulous fabrication of words again! I stated that "soccer" is an inappropriate term in formal English. That doesn't mean that by using an informal term, you are behaving inappropriately, or that you're a naughty bad boy and need to be sent to your room for a spanking. It just means that it is informal. Do I really need to explain to you how formal terms are used and that using colloquialisms doesn't deserve chastisement? Now here's something to chew on!

You've literally claimed that what we're doing is inappropriate, and that's preposterous. - David Levy

You explicitly indicated that the word "soccer" "is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English. - David Levy

I interpreted it as a claim that it's inappropriate to use the word "soccer" as a formal term. - David Levy

No actually I haven't claimed that what we are doing is inappropriate and yes you have interpreted me as saying that it is inappropriate to say "soccer" while later denying this claim. I must say that your interpretations are rubbish and your denying of it is quite perplexing. Now this is the part that really intrigues me. After you have altered my words to change their meaning and in turn, based your points off this fabricated argument, You say "No, that was you." You know, that looks really easy to just contradict someone without verification. But since it's so easy, I'll try it to... No that was you that shot Kennedy on the grassy knoll. No, that was you that attempted to surrender the fort at West Point. No, that was you that deployed a legion of remote-controlled glow-in-the-dark helicopters in Rendlesham Forest. That was easy. I see why you enjoy it. But I'll get back to reality. No, that was you that altered my words to change their meaning and in turn, based your points off this fabricated argument. And this point I have already verified with the aforementioned quotes. Reginmund (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're wasting your time, David. What we see on this talk page is an alliance of Anglocentrics + FIFA chauvinists, who are unable to recognise/respect the norms of English-speaking cultures other than their own.

They even ignore diversity within English English. For instance, I have even heard BBC radio announcers using the word "soccer". Grant | Talk 08:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for that. We had a rather exhaustive discussion of the topic for years, so please don't make out that any argument was "ignored". Chris Cunningham (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do refrain from the use of "Anglocentrics" as you appear to have no idea what you are talking about. Read the entire discussion. If I was actually Anglocentric, why would I prefer the more "American" term "articulated bus" than the more "British" term "bendy bus". I'd say I'm more formal-centric. From the cruft that you previously tried to insert into the article, that would make you more centric to your own dialect of English. Reginmund (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At issue is your unilateral determination that the word "soccer" is not a formal term (and that its use as such is "inappropriate"). —David Levy 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At issue in this particular statement is that somehow, I don't recognise other forms of English which has just been disproven. If you would bother with why the term is inappropriate, read the discussion again. Reginmund (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Reginmund the Omniscient, the only thing that is "inappropriate", not to mention fatuous, is your failure to understand the differences between the various national Englishes, and the difference between common names and colloquialisms. Nor do you understand the meaning of cruft...oh I say, that's not a colloquialism is it? Grant | Talk 02:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain WP:CIVIL, Grant. No need for the sarcasm. – PeeJay 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Grant the Oblivious, the only thing that is "inappropriate", not to mention inane, is your failure to understand that I have pointed out that I already understand the differences between the various national Englishes and the differences between common names and colloquialisms. Nor do you understand that I do understand the meaning of cruft... oh, I say, if you're wondering whether or not it is a colloquialism, why don't you look it up? Reginmund (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that formal use of the term is inappropriate purely because it originated as slang more than 120 years ago. That's absurd. —David Levy 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that common use is synonymous with formal use. That's absurd. Reginmund (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, give it a rest, Reginmund. I don't see what your aim here is. The article has been moved, so this is a moot point. Now to see you arguing with David just looks silly. I'm English: I supported the move, and to me the word "soccer" is a colloquialism. However, I fully accept that in some other countries it is the primary term for "association football" - and has been for a long time. Just because something started out as a colloquialism, that doesn't mean it can never ever be regarded as anything else. Do you use the word "fridge" at all? This is a contraction of "refrigerator". However, it is in such common usage - and has been for so long - that it is now accepted as part of the regular English language, and is not regarded as slang. Well, this is the case in England anyway: there may be other countries where it is still thought of as slang! But my point is, that you can't just take the linguistic feelings that you have, and apply them all over the world. People grow up with different standards of English, and your standard will be quite different to that of someone in another country. And you see - regarding this specific point, I'm on your side - agreeing that "soccer" feels like slang. But to see you trying to push this point that everyone else should feel the same way is just silly. Please now, give it a rest. EuroSong ^talk 11:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David wanted an answer to his question. I don't feel I should leave him without it. I do accept that some words can start out colloquially and end up formal. Sixty per cent of our language comes from Latin. No doubt that some of that came from vulgar Latin. However, there are some words that no matter how prominent they are in a dialect, they remain colloquial. I'll give you another example. Ladybug is the preferred term for what is called a ladybird in British English. The creature is not a bug due to its taxon and it certainly is not a bird. Yet, both of these terms are the dominating uses despite being informal. Yet, there is a perfectly good Wnglish word preferred by scientists (and me): lady beetle. Another case would be the "guinea pig". The animal is neither from Guinea or a pig. Yet, on both sides of the pond, "guinea pig" is the preferred term while the more correct "cavy" is somewhat obscure. "Fridge" is also a colloquialism. It is another example of how common terms may not necessarily be formal. See, this isn't based on my linguistic sentiments but based on how the English lexicon evolves. As words gain usage, they don't gain formality simultaneously. And whether or not it is a matter of two or more dialects makes no difference. Reginmund (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your ladybird and guinea pig examples are not relevant here. And.. do I understand you correctly that you are saying that "fridge" is a colloquialism? That's just laughable. It started off as one - but nowadays it is perfectly correct formal English. You can use the word "fridge" in a serious piece of writing, and no-one - I repeat no-one will raise an eyebrow as if to think it's sloppy writing. The same goes with "pram". Did you ever use the word "perambulator"? If you ever did, then you must be the only teenager in the entire UK (yes, I looked at your user page) who did, because to everyone under the age of 80 it's archaic. EuroSong ^talk 23:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are they not relevant? They serve to show that some words, no matter how common they are, still remain informal. And as far as I know, "fridge" is a colloquialism. The same goes for "pram". It's not to suggest that anyone will raise an eyebrow or even think its "chavy". It only suggests that it is a word that one would prefer to use in a formal enviornment such as a business. Colloquialisms are best avoided in formal English and within one's vocabulary but using them in common parlance is not "bad". In fact, its perfectly normal. Seeing as we are both Londoners (yes, I checked your user page too), I can't imagine that you've never heard a person under eighty use the term "perambulator". I learned it through the vernacular. Reginmund (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pram is a shortened form of perambulator, bus of omnibus, and soccer of association football. It doesn't mean any of them are also colloquial. Anyway I digress, is this conversation actually going anywhere, or have any relevance to this article? Peanut4 (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I wonder when Reginmund last took a trip on London Omnibuses? ;) Anyway.. yes. This conversation does not belong here. This shall be my last contribution. EuroSong ^talk 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Perambulator" is still in usage. "Omnibus" is archaic. "Association football" is in usage. That makes "pram" and "soccer" colloquial. Reginmund (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is really entertaining - two nations divided by the same language ;). But please let me interrupt you as a a) non-native speaker of English, who b) used to learn British English at school, but c) mostly reads American English now, thus d) constantly mixing up both:

The main problem of your discussion (Reginmund, David Levy) seems to be that you didn't make your definitions clear beforehand. As long as you do not use the same definition of colloquialism vs. formal English, you will fail to come to any result. --d2dMiles (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are either of you going to ask at the Language Reference Desk on the status of the word or are you just enjoying bickering with each other? 81.77.136.231 (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe anybody would spend so much time and effort arguing like this over something like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.100.94 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason transclusion won't work? Instead of redirecting Soccer, can't the text of that article just be this article, transcluded? --Elliskev 17:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point of that? – Elisson • T • C • 18:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly just curious. When there was constant bickering over the proper home for this article, I began to wonder about having any of the possible names be non-redirected articles. That way, everyone's happy. Leave the text at Association football and transclude it in Soccer, Football, etc. This isn't a suggestion, by the way. Just an inquiry. --Elliskev 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but just leave it go, already. Whether this is technically possible or not, it's not how Wikipedia solves naming conflicts, and now that we've finally put this one to rest I'd rather it stayed buried. Please. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just couldn't keep myself from commenting on this line of yours: "and now that we've finally put this one to rest I'd rather it stayed buried", considering that's what I have been thinking all along during last year's endless move discussion. I guess I was being a bit naïve, believing that football (soccer) would be the title that had put this one to rest (four years ago)... I think you'll find yourself in my position soon enough, wether you want it or not. Now move on, nothing to see... – Elisson • T • C • 23:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elliskev, you may be interested in reading an old discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose, basically objections there mainly dealt with -

• Transclusion is a complex concept for newbies.
• Edits to the prose cannot be made except by manually entering the page name in the URL line. Even if the prose is sectioned, not everyone sees, uses, or enables the "edit section" links.
• Once an edit to the text is done, you're left on the transcluded page, not the main article -- a navigational annoyance.

Nanonic (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thank you. --Elliskev 19:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a single location somewhere in Wiki which summarises the debate and arrives at the conclusion? Every new editor adds a new level to the edit war, a single referencable summary to assist in ending new edit wars as they begin would be most useful. --Falcadore (talk) 06:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy says to use the common name in whichever national variety of English is applicable. These can be piped to this article, as follows: [[Association football|football]] or [[Association football|soccer]]. Regarding your recent edits to Australian soccer articles, and my reversion of them, please note that soccer remains the common name in Australian English. Grant | Talk 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than one common name and that is the entire source of debate. You want to add another level of edit war to the debate, then fine. When a policy can be decided upon please let me know, this is more than a little frustrating to find the goalposts are moved every other month. Since I've been editing much the same articles I've had on three different occasions other editors tell me not to make that edit because Football (soccer) is the correct term, then Association Football, then Soccer are the correct terms, and now Association Football (soccer) I'm told is the correct terminology for Australian articles despite this appearing to be the worst compromise in language of the lot. At the top of this page there appeared to be at last consensus. But in practice it appears that special interests will do what they please anyway. --Falcadore (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have misunderstood Grant's reply. No one is suggesting that we use the term "Association Football (soccer)." Grant correctly advised you to use piped links. In the case of the Australian articles, such a link is created by typing [[Association football|soccer]]. This results in a link displayed as "soccer" but leading to the title "Association football." It looks like this: soccer —David Levy 02:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not misunderstand. Grant's original beef with me concerned my undoing of another unregistered editors work which did say 'Association Football (soccer)' and restoring it to the previous version of 'Association football' as placed by bulk edit by InsteadOf. Grant's response has been to restore 'Association Football (soccer)' as the piping label, refer by way of example Template:Queensland Sports Teams. --Falcadore (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. I wasn't aware of that. Looking at the edits, I'm not entirely clear on what happened.

I don't know why you labeled your reversion "vandal undo," nor do I know why Grant reverted back via the administrative rollback function. I'm wondering whether a misunderstanding of some sort occurred. —David Levy 04:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I labelled it thus because after requesting the unregistered editor stop what they were doing he/she refused, somewhat petulantly claiming to label it whatever they wanted to. Under those circumstances vandal seemed appropriate. Grant on my talk page reverted stating that under Australian english, Soccer was the correct term, re-instating this terrible mish-mash label 'Association Football (soccer)'. --Falcadore (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Association football (soccer)" is a poor compromise; what else do we have when "football (soccer)" is not acceptable(?) and soccer is the common name in Australian English? Grant | Talk 05:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply use "soccer" in such contexts? —David Levy 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or even ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia to come up with a consensus on this? It only took us 5 years to decide on Association football after all... 86.21.74.40 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can keep on arguing with the only thing achieved is that we all get older. --Falcadore (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for Australian articles their needs to be a very complicated usage. On the soccer in australia page, i believe it should be started with Association football, also known as... As this is what all the other football codes are like. In all articles their should be at least a reference at the start stating association football (soccer), or association football, or soccer,....

In Australian articles the sport should be known as soccer (except for sports specifically about soccer, where association football (soccer) should be used. 'Football' is the most common name for Australian football by the majority of people who talk about the game. But the sport is not simply called football is it? Yes, 'football' may a commone name for most english countries (but not english speakers), but as other codes are also called football, we should revert to the next common name for those countries which is soccer. I believe that it should be called soccer all the way throughout Wikipedia, as most english speakers call it by that. And people for other langauages have their own wikipedia.InsteadOf (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe people are expending any time on this. If the link's piped, it doesn't make one iota of difference to anyone which redirect is actually linked. football, football and football are absolutely identical as far as the reader is concerned, as are soccer, soccer and soccer on Oz / American articles. If the term which appears in the processed article is contextually appropriate, then who cares what the page source links to. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the reasons why I liked football (soccer). This is one of the discussions that would never have occured if the article would still have been there. But why not keep using football (soccer)? – Elisson • T • C • 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]