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. Sports This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics 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.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles (Sports) Requested articles (Association football) Requested articles (Association football women) Requested articles (Motor sports) Requested articles (Estonian sportspeople) Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status. Cleanup : Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required. Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show." Expand : Professional sports (crucial article explaining the salaried undertaking of sports) * Sport industry (currently a sub-stub) Photo : for pages listed in Category:Wikipedia requested images of sports and games and sub-categories. Stubs : work on articles in Category:Sports stubs Update : List of world sports championships Other : Add reliable sources. Experienced editors have free access to books on sports from McFarland. Translate the page of sport in each country from corresponding article in other language Wikipedia to English Wikipedia which was marked in red. Categorize: Gather all (major/olympic) sports to be part of this project RfCs: answer requests for comment Template:WP1.0 Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

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

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 31 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Spanish ( espanoal )word for soccer!!!!

Soccer - foot ball

now you know spanish yay you!!--Selenagomez12 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Names for association football#Non-English speaking countries states that Spaniards use either fútbol or balompié... Nanonic (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that football and fútbol are pronounced the same way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werner ghost (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.198.168 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Why not "Soccer" then? A: In the United Kingdom, the usage of the term "soccer" is sometimes viewed as being derogatory, or an example of American culture being forced onto the rest of the world. Therefore, although the word "soccer" would be an unambiguous title for this article, there would be discontent from a large number of people who object to their word for the sport being ignored.

Soccer is the least ambiguous and most commonly used term for the game. Quick google test? Soccer = 256,000,000 results Association football = 66,300,000 results "association fooball" = 859,000 results

This is a bad name. You can't even say its the least objectionable option, because PEOPLE STILL OBJECT TO IT! If you look at the above mentioned wikipedia policies, something being objectionable, or offensive is not a valid reason for a decision. "sometimes viewed as being derogatory" is not a good reason. Most of all,

The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles.

There is no valid reason for this article to be named Association Football. This encyclopedia is for everyone, not just 'football' fans or nationalist Brits. By all means, feel free to find policy basis to argue however. WookMuff (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been discussed to death, and it has been determined that "Association football" is the best title for this article. Please go away. – PeeJay 11:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good of you to say please though you could have just asked him to read the previous discussions. The "go away" bit wasn't really called for. Jack forbes (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jack, but its ok. After all, I have never edited this page before... in fact I have never even visited THIS page before. The fact remains that, as I said, my arguments are based solely on Wikipedia Policy. To be honest, the only reason I care is because it is not the best title for this article, politics and nationalism having taken over common sense. WookMuff (talk) 11:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the FAQ Section at the top of this very page may be of some use? - fchd (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ I quoted? WookMuff (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Association Football? Because that's the name of the sport. Soccer is just a nickname (derived from the soc in Association), and is only used in some parts of the world. This encyclopedia is for everyone, not just 'soccer' fans or nationalist Americans. BEVE (talk)  11:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not american, but nice try. I am not a soccer fan, couldn't give a tinker's cuss about the game. But I AM a fan of correctly applying Wikipedia policies to wikipedia articles. That is why I asked for people to respond re: Wikipedia policy, not their own bias WookMuff (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're a Wikilawyer. How about:

"Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed. However, debating controversial names is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia."

Italicised for her pleasure. BEVE (talk)  11:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you are saying that the name of this article should be the name the creator gave it? :) WookMuff (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, as it was created, this article was called Football. But anyhoo, Soccer is obviously not that controversial, or it wouldn't be used approximately 250x as often on the internet as "association football". You are correct, however, about editing the title... which is why I didn't in fact DO that. I made coherent factual statements that show that the current title of the page is wrong, by any measure that ISN'T inherent bias. WookMuff (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that WP:Common and WP:Consensus are both best applied here. A change to soccer or football would be kicking over a hornets nest. And this goes beyond British v American nationalism - different usages are applied in many other different countries. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Soccer" is only used more than "Association football" because 99.9% of the people who don't call it "soccer" simply call it "football". My own Google search just now shows 148,000,000 results for "soccer" - but 320,000,000 for "football". More than double the amount. So if you're creating a naming argument through frequency of usage, then it's sunk. "Football" is far and away the most common term internationally - and the only reason this article is not called "football" is to disambiguate from the other (less popular) sports which are called "football". Besides, "Association football" is the official name: "soccer" is a slang abbreviation. This is an encyclopædia, not a sports newsletter written by primary school children. EuroSong ^talk 15:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word "soccer" is not slang. Also it's no more an abbreviation than the word "fan" is an abbreviation. Inkerman 30 August 2009

Sorry if this is condescending but I am getting a bit of deja vu: As a start, read

and then I would come to the realisation that profane and censoring did not come into the original move decision and so they are truly irrelevant to this discussion

Then I would go and read the template at the top of each guideline (note, not a policy) ( This guideline documents an English Wikipedia naming conventions. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.) After reading that personally I would come to the conclusion that this might have been discussed before, in depth, and that this is actually a reasonable compromise to avoid the nationalistic intentions of bothall groups of editors. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC) (amended Woody (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I am still not british OR american, so I guess I am not in either group. As I maintain, this is NOT the best name for the article, as my quick google poll (a time honoured Wikipedia tool) proved, with soccer being 25,000% more popular than association football. I included profanity and censorship in the title because the given reason in the FAQ was that soccer is "sometimes" seen as derogatory, and that a "large number of people" would find the title discontenting and objectionable, so those apply. The FAQ even ADMITS that soccer is a better title, but that the current title, while not the best, is due to appeasing whiners. WookMuff (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't, but perhaps it could be better worded. BEVE (talk)  12:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then rewrite the FAQ referencing the discussions above. I believe that the FAQ was written ad-hoc in an attempt at summarising everything, perhaps it doesn't summarise everything, that is why all of the above sections are linked. If you have read the Requested Moves then you will realise that the google test was mentioned and refuted. Woody (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WookMuff: I'm an American who knows the sport as "soccer," and I do wish that people would not dismiss that term as a childish nickname. (This is true in some countries, but "soccer" is the sport's formal designation in others.)
However, I assure you that during the course of the very lengthy discussions, we arrived at overwhelming consensus that Association football was the best title for the article. You're quite correct that it's far from the most common name for the sport, but there are several reasons why it's the most practical option (e.g. its official status, inclusion of the word "football" and conformity with the titles of our other football code articles). I urge you to read at least some of the aforementioned discussions instead of jumping to conclusions and attempting to rekindle a long-settled debate. —David Levy 17:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, you are correct in some senses (though I feel you didn't assume good faith when you assume I didn't read any of the archived discussions, I did... I just didn't notice the dates on them. Also, when you said "jumping to conclusions"). What I honestly did not think of was piping links, so of course anyone typing soccer into the seach engine will find this article. I still believe this is the wrong name for the article, as that the "overwhelming consensus" is similar to the overwhelming consensus on Foxnews that Obama is destroying america... people with preconcieved notions and biases yelling loud enough will seem like a consensus. However, the fact that the title has not really been complained about for many months, and almost a years gap before that, plus the piping links, means that there is no problem with wikipedia policies. WookMuff (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I assure you that I've assumed good faith. I have not alleged any dishonesty or malice on your part.

2. I didn't assume that you hadn't read the archives; that's how I interpreted your reply to Jack. And you certainly do appear to have jumped to some conclusions (as indicated by your claim that the article's title was determined via "politics and nationalism"). As I noted, many entirely non-political, non-nationalistic rationales contributed to the consensus, including from users to whom the sport is known as "soccer." I find it difficult to understand your assessment that the outcome actually was determined by "people with preconceived notions and biases yelling loud enough."

3. I don't know what you mean when you refer to "piping links" in connection with the search engine. Soccer, of course, redirects to the article. —David Levy 01:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assocation football is american term - Wikipedia is international, not american. The articel title should be changed to Football! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raelpl (talk • contribs) 09:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, association football is a British term. – PeeJay 09:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(sphere is a common word and is not that related to the topic so it doesn't need to be linked, "ball" was already linked but the first instance is usually better)

I dunno, honestly, as one of the only forms of football where the ball is actually spherical, I think there is a place for linking the word sphere. WookMuff (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people know what the word sphere means, and it is not directly related to the content of the article, so the link is not that necessary. Artificial turf and torso, which are also linked in the lead, probably don't need to be linked either for the same reasons, one could argue they are less common terms than sphere though. Another reason I removed the link is because I like to avoid linking two words in a row to different articles if possible, as was the case with sphere and ball. It doesn't really matter that much though, it's just a judgement call. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool cool, just puttin' my two cents in WookMuff (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some opinions on this. It is on record that Celtic were first constituted on November 1887 yet it is generally said they were founded in 1888, as shown on the club badge. They played their first game in 1888 and the centenary year was in 1988. An editor has changed the founding year in the infobox to 1887 and I would rather have some advice on this before changing anything. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to WT:FOOTY. See WT:FOOTY#Celtic_F.C._founded_1887_or_1888. --hippo43 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]