Talk:Association football: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →

Cls14 (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
12,466 edits
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 128: Line 128:
One of the phrases reads: "''The teams finishing at the top of a country's league may be eligible also to play in [[List of association football competitions|international club competitions]] in the following season.''" This reads that you need to finish top of the league to qualify for the international club competitions. However this is not the case in many leagues as teams finishing anything up to 7th in some league can qualify. I amended it so it read "''The teams finishing at, or near the top, of a country's league''" as this is more accurate but it was reverted and I was told I was being pedantic. Thoughts? [[User:Cls14|Cls14]] ([[User talk:Cls14|talk]]) 08:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
One of the phrases reads: "''The teams finishing at the top of a country's league may be eligible also to play in [[List of association football competitions|international club competitions]] in the following season.''" This reads that you need to finish top of the league to qualify for the international club competitions. However this is not the case in many leagues as teams finishing anything up to 7th in some league can qualify. I amended it so it read "''The teams finishing at, or near the top, of a country's league''" as this is more accurate but it was reverted and I was told I was being pedantic. Thoughts? [[User:Cls14|Cls14]] ([[User talk:Cls14|talk]]) 08:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
:I didn't say you were being pedantic; that carries certain negative connotations that I didn't intend to be inferred. I said you were splitting hairs. The sentence says "The '''teams''' finishing at the top of a country's league..." Obviously you can't have multiple teams all finishing at the top, so it is implied that teams "near the top" are also included. You don't have to be at the very top to be included in a group that is at the top. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 09:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
:I didn't say you were being pedantic; that carries certain negative connotations that I didn't intend to be inferred. I said you were splitting hairs. The sentence says "The '''teams''' finishing at the top of a country's league..." Obviously you can't have multiple teams all finishing at the top, so it is implied that teams "near the top" are also included. You don't have to be at the very top to be included in a group that is at the top. – [[User:PeeJay2K3|Pee]][[User talk:PeeJay2K3|Jay]] 09:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
::I can't read. I am so sorry! Comment retracted! [[User:Cls14|Cls14]] ([[User talk:Cls14|talk]]) 10:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:04, 17 October 2018

Template:Vital article

Featured articleAssociation 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 20, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 10, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
October 15, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Association football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018

Raymondrocks (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)adfgj[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK Discuss 00:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

write more about the team matches in association football 39.37.156.255 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be moved to football

In my opinion this article should be moved to its WP:COMMONNAME, which is football. It's rarely called anything else than football, and virtually noone calls it association football; more than 99% of reliable sources probably just call it football. It's clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as far as the term football is concerned. --Tataral (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. When you wrote the above, did you happen to notice the big pink box, just above where you would have typed, saying....
Attention editors
Several move proposals have been made concerning the name of this article.
All discussion related to the naming of this article should take place at Talk:Association football/Article name. Any discussion here will be deleted.
HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, HiLo. The OP's opinion far outweighs a mere edit notice! - BilCat (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Silly me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you understand now. :) - BilCat (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And @Tataral: you're not from where I live, where it's not the commonname for the sport at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nor here. Where I live THIS is a football....
An Australian Rules football
HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not as far as the vast majority of reliable sources are concerned. The use of the term "football" to describe the oddly named "American football" (which is really handball and not football) is a minority opinion of only one single country, the one led by Donald Trump. It doesn't change the fact that football as the rest of the world understands it is the primary topic. We can still have a hatnote mentioning "American football". US-centric views don't take precedence on Wikipedia. The key issue here is that noone calls football "association football". Most people in Europe and many other places probably wouldn't even understand what "association football" is, as opposed to plain football. From the perspective of the clear majority of reliable sources, there is football and there is American football, and that should be the titles of the two articles in question. --Tataral (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what who is president of a country has to do with anything under discussion.here other than to reveal the OP's own biases. As to common name, Wikipedia's guidelines applies to usage in English-speaking countries, and in those countries, football can mean association football/soccer, American football, Canadian football, Australian rules football, or Gaelic football. I actually prefer this article's old title of football (soccer) to the current one, but it's not likely to ever get a consensus again. - BilCat (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tataral, do pay attention. The ball in the pic above is not American. It is Australian. Here in Australia there are four different sports played professionally that are call football by at least some (in one case all) of their fans. There's maybe four other sports I can think of played non-professionally in Australia also called football. Other countries where "football" does not mean what you think it means include Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Japan, and New Zealand. The name is ambiguous. Insisting on it meaning only the version you like would obviously confuse readers from those other countries. We need a non-ambiguous name. I too prefer soccer. Everyone knows what it means, and it's non-ambiguous, but some soccer fans don't seem to like it. I have never understood why. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, "soccer" is a term only used in the US, so that term is itself an example of US centrism. I don't think the majority in Europe would even know what the term means, until you explain to them that you mean "football". Personally I don't prefer and am not interested in any form of ball game. I'm interested in reliable sources, primary topics, and the avoidance of US centrism in Wikipedia articles, whether they are related to sports or something else entirely. --Tataral (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Soccer" is also used in Australia and, I believe, in the other countries I listed above. Have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) to see how Wikipedia has embraced the term "soccer" for Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that this article references the locales where it is used. I am not American and the term is used in my country as well yet we do refer to team colours. We're so messed up, linguistically speaking. I trust that you'll spend some time reading to learn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this were US centric, this would be football and this would be soccer. --Khajidha (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as "primary topic" goes, the number of English sources about association football and about American football are probably closer than you realize. Non-English sources are good for facts, but they have no bearing on questions of English usage (such as primary topic and common name). --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not going to move because we've discussed this to death and the outcome was the current name. If you want it called "football" you clearly don't understand enough about the topic to discuss it Cls14 (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer this article to be called Soccer. Mind you, I'm a North American, so no surprise :) GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Australian feels the same way. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? – PeeJay 10:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll begin my repsonse by saying I don't expect it to happen, and I won't be fighting over the matter at a global level, but it's a simple fact that "soccer" is the common name of the game around where I live. There's another sport comonly known as football. It's the language I have used all my longish life. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but you understand why the article exists at the current name, right? – PeeJay 12:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

contradictions by Inclusion of history of antique games

Multiple times in the article it states that Association Football traces its roots to China, eg. “first played” in the info box, a paragraph in the opener and in the history section. However, as is also stated in the article, these games are unrelated to modern Association football, and as much a part of Rugby, American and Australian football as they are to AF. This information belongs on the Football page, not the Association Football page.

118.211.59.209 (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an absolute nonsense to say that cuju is an ancestor of association football. If anyone could prove that association football started because the game was brought back from China by Marco Polo or something, that would be different, but all we have are records that a ball-kicking game was played in China a very long time ago. Kicking a ball is not exactly rocket science, so to suggest that the Chinese game influenced Medieval football or the Italian game of calcio and ultimately the development of association football is ridiculous. – PeeJay 09:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeves

"First, this contradicts the earlier sentence. If defenders and keepers wear long sleeves, how does that differentiate the keeper. Second, keepers wear a different colour"

If anyone ever watched or played football match, one can clearly see 4 different lengths of sleeves: attacker - very short, centre - short, defense - medium, goalkeeper - full length. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everywhere? In all climates? HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Generally. The color is also used.Erkinalp9035 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t true in all scenarios. Ronaldo wears long sleeves and he’s a forward. Fabien Barthez used to wear short sleeves and he was a goalkeeper. User:Erkinalp9035 is making things up and we should just ignore them. – PeeJay 08:27, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems unlikely, but in the absence of reliable sourcing, this conversation is irrelevant anyway. Nzd (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are central defenders in MLS who wear short sleeves all year long, and yes, without a RS, it's irrelevant. The point is that the earlier sentence states that keeper must wear a distinct colour jersey to distinguish them from other players. Colour has nothing to do with length of sleeve, and he sleeve-length content was entire WP:OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request, 21 July 2018

In the last section: "Variants of football have been codified for reduced-sized teams (i.e. five-a-side football) play in non-field environments (i.e. beach soccer, indoor soccer, and futsal) and for teams with disabilities (i.e. paralympic association football)."

All three occurrences of "i.e." are incorrect and should be "e.g." (exempli gratia, "for example"). They specify examples of what is previously said, rather than elucidating the meaning of the previous terms. 195.157.65.228 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woggabaliri

User:Giants2008 has just added a mention of this "game" to the article. This is not a good move. It's a game many of us think probably never existed. Most Australians know that soccer, as it was universally known then in that country, became derogatorily known as "wogball" during the 1950s and 60s, because it was largely played by recent immigrants from Europe, also derogatorily known as "wogs". See our articles on the play Wogs Out of Work and the film The Wog Boy for examples of this usage. The final section on that article's Talk page shows the unresolved concerns about this issue. Woggabaliri is a poor, very thinly and dangerously sourced article, on something that probably never existed. It's addition here will just make many people laugh because of the big joke happening here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have any problems with removing the addition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message for User:Giants2008 to let him know about this discussion. He's an established user so it would be sensible to wait to see if he comment, I reckon Cls14 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was an addition of a book cite to something that had already been there since June 2012, from what I can tell. Can't say that I know much about this controversy myself, but if you want to take it out, please feel free. I'm just surprised that something that might not be real would have been in the article that long to begin with. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us have tried to get rid of the Woggabaliri article before, but some hard core owners got in the way. It wasn't worth the fight. What bothers me is that those who want to keep the article tend to be soccer fans, and cannot see that the name Woggabaliri is actually poking fun at and being a bit rude about their favourite game. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having come back after 10 days to see the content still in the article, I decided to go ahead and remove it in the spirit of being bold given the concerns here. Sorry if the source addition caused any problems, but hopefully this edit took care of the underlying issue, at least as it pertains to this page. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women's football

I would consider a little more research over Woman playing soccer. More importantly on what year they got started and what year did woman soccer become popular to play. Judypen (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Judith PenaJudypen (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think women started playing football in a particular year and I imagine it became popular at different times around the world. Plus "popular" is very subjective. Also it appears this is covered in the article. Cls14 (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wording issue

One of the phrases reads: "The teams finishing at the top of a country's league may be eligible also to play in international club competitions in the following season." This reads that you need to finish top of the league to qualify for the international club competitions. However this is not the case in many leagues as teams finishing anything up to 7th in some league can qualify. I amended it so it read "The teams finishing at, or near the top, of a country's league" as this is more accurate but it was reverted and I was told I was being pedantic. Thoughts? Cls14 (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you were being pedantic; that carries certain negative connotations that I didn't intend to be inferred. I said you were splitting hairs. The sentence says "The teams finishing at the top of a country's league..." Obviously you can't have multiple teams all finishing at the top, so it is implied that teams "near the top" are also included. You don't have to be at the very top to be included in a group that is at the top. – PeeJay 09:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read. I am so sorry! Comment retracted! Cls14 (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F864457872