Talk:Association football/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

boys soccer and girls soccer

there are two different kind of teams relly three but theres girl, boys, and boys and girls mixed on the same team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.4.139 (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that in some countries there are mixed teams, predominantly with players of school age. This is discussed in the articles about association football in those countries (if the article exists) along with other 'grassroots' subjects. However, at a professional level, there are no officially (FIFA) sanctioned teams or games involving players of both sexes. Nanonic (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

it is also called coed soccer (girls and guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.125 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a boy's soccer??? 89.100.101.40 (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

For those who wonder why is this article so oddly named (myself included), and for the regular editors of this page who are tired of hearing the same question again and again, I've added an {{FAQ}} at the top of the page, and some sample questions, for these regular editors to fill them out. This would at least make things clear for newcomers. Eklipse (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you PeeJay. Eklipse (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you all should quit your bickering immediately. Thanks for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanewehrheim (talk • contribs) 21:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Even since I was a child, I knew that "Association football" was the official title, and always has been. Anyone who didnt know this, or who disagrees, clearly hates freedom. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's technically freedom to call it whatever you want. =O 68.196.60.117 (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely the "why not 'soccer' then?" question in the FAQ should contain some mention of it being the official name from its inception as an organised sport and recognised by the world governing body, rather than being about some alleged American cultural imperialism. As a Brit I have no problem with the term "soccer". It was after all an 19th Century English invention, but it was meant as a quaint, twee, affectionate nickname for the sport. I think these are more important and more accurate reasons and the current answer is a little antagonistic towards both sides of the Atlantic. Speedy McG (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear enough, just another version of the perennial "I call it football, so so should everyone else" idea. As it points out, soccer would be the best term, but boo whoo, whaaamabulance etc. etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.234.155 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The element of technical correctness seals the deal for me. I could suggest that the "I call it soccer..." argument could classify in the same vein, but it's this kind negative antagonism that has haunted this very debate. The main article in particular fails to address the naming issue. I feel it should do that as a matter of priority in the first two or three sentences as a matter of defining the topic. This may be a matter of further debate but I feel both the FAQ and the main article should be edited as they are provoking more polarised antagonism unessecarily. Thoughts people? Speedy McG (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How many English speaking countries call the sport football? The UK and...? How many call the sport soccer? Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, USA, etc. The near universal name in the English speaking world seems to be soccer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.33.50 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

First it is not true, that this sport i called soccer in South Africa. It is called football in all African English speaking countries, also in India,largest English speaking country, plus for largest part of non-native English speakers it is also football. I think that Association Football makes all equally happy or unhappy.

Not a question about the title of the article but about popularity

The article states, and is well sourced (http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=5019143, source 3 is dead), that the game is "...widely considered to be the most popular sport in the world." but it's not clear if that is in terms of players or viewers. The impression I get after looking at the source is players but if that's correct then the sentence needs clarifing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely the most popular sport, especially by fans.--Pr1nce0fDarkn3ss (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the most popular sport by players and viewers so I don't think the ambiguity matters Werner ghost (talk)

there an error with the MAP

im venezuelan so the sport ITH MRE FANATICS is the FOOTBALL (or futbol), so should changa the map. the problem is that we are bads in football and amazing in baseball but the sport still most popular is this amazing sport! all spanish countries is know at football like "the king sport" in all SPANISH COUNTRIES so please fix that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.15.173.210 (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That is so true i am american —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.190.250 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What!? Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Absurdity

Just to confuse people, somebody should, perhaps on April 1, move this article to Association soccer.

Though temporary, it could have lasting beneficial effects like making everybody put their holy wars into perspective. Maybe have the effect that a nice cup of tea and a sit down is supposed to have. Mbarbier (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We're coming up on the first birthday of the conclusion of the naming issue. It's no longer a "holy war", and will remain that way if people don't poke the embers for the sake of it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm French, I have been to football games since I was a kid. I had to visit this page to learn what "Association football" is, thank you !!! - Wikigi | talk to me | 10:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So on April 1, if Association football → Association soccer, i also suggest American football → Handegg — CHANDLER^#10 — 02:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, let's not vandalise the encyclopedia, okay? —David Levy 02:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think if we move the page, even for one second, there will be riots everywhere! DeMoN2009 10:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone really call American football "handegg"? Seems like this pointless section just caused the creation of two pointless redirects, nice job. LonelyMarble (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No at least handegg as here before I brought it into the discussion. While its probably a internet-only term used on various internet forums to troll American football fans, usually with this picture accompanying, with or without the motivator frame. I don't see any harm with having redirects from some derogatory nicknames, sadly Throwball has a article it sometimes refer to Am. football — CHANDLER#10 — 07:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And I created Association soccer as a redirect on the million-to-one chance that someone got confused and typed that in by mistake. Fairly pointless redirects, but fairly harmless as well. Lord C (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

True, these redirects are pretty harmless, so it's not a big deal. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The frame's caption would be more effective with an uppercase "F" in the word "finally" and without the word "its" misspelled.  :-) —David Levy 14:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

See also Talk:Aluminium/Spelling. Polymonia (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Some helpful person linked this on Talk:Main_Page#.22In association football.2C FC Barcelona defeat Manchester United....22 in a very funny way. So thx for the laugh and for reminding me once more that m:Polling is evil is wrong, by showcasing this awesome wiki absurdity of using a clearly inferior name because the obvious way to chose between the two superior names can not be used. --Xeeron (talk) 22:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Royal Engineers paragraph

A paragraph predominantly about the early Royal Engineers side has just been added. For a brief summary of the history of the game (the whole section is just a few paragraphs) I think this is undue weight, not least because differing sources on the history of the game have different explanations for the development of the passing game. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the paragraph doesn't seem to be necessary in the article. DeMoN2009 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Football was made in England

football was made in England. I created a new Category:Sports originating in England so it should be put under there so since i cant do it, can some one else do it?Youndbuckerz (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Added it, though doesnt like every sport have its origin in the British empire? ;) chandler · 12:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but England isn't Britain. DeMoN2009 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the article, Association Football i.e. a set of rules, originates in england. Football has been played all over the World for thousands of years, with the earliest known form of the game being the Chinese version, Cuju. Hate to be the one to break it to you though. 86.45.66.68 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that people were hitting balls with sticks in China for centuries also, but that doesn't mean we should say golf or hockey originated there. 87.194.131.188 (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Weasle Words

Introduction. "Widely considered" is widely considered to be a usage of weasel words. Widely considered by who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.214.42 (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How about the sources specified... chandler · 17:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The truth is we could probably just remove the words "widely considered". It appears to be more definitive than that. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Football (soccer) terminology

I'm sorry, but this is just plain stupid. Why are we using a dialect/slang/whatever American term as the title of this page? Can someone re-name it to Category:Association football terminology? It is not just 'football', 'soccer' or a combination of the two. It is association football. Thank you. Ayrton Prost^sign 16:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a CfR a few months ago to get all categories that use the term "Football (soccer)" to change to "Association football", but it was roundly rejected by the categorisation police. Feel free to start another CfR though. – PeeJay 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, why was it rejected? Do you still have a link to that particular discussion anywhere? Ayrton Prost^sign 16:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

this might be the one. chandler ··· 17:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Eugh, that sucks. I'll ponder over whether re-surfacing the topic now/in the near future will swing any heads to the 'support' camp. Ayrton Prost^sign 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It didn't look like football (soccer) would ever be renamed at one point, but we got there. There's not much that can be said to the argument "football (soccer) is clearer than association football" other than "no, it isn't". Were the rename being discussed from the opposite direction there's no way it would go ahead these days, which is always a good way to look at renaming debates. Leave it another couple of months, though; making the same proposal more than once every six months is generally frowned upon. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In no way is association football more clear than the previous topic title. Lets just rename the page football!!!!!Pr1nce0fDarkn3ss (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh, and how do you think the Americans will like that, considering that they have a completely unrelated sport that they refer to as "football"? We have to appeal to the entire English-speaking world here, not just the people to whom a topic relates most. – PeeJay 00:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And also us Aussies. It is confusing enough now the soccer people have renamed themselves "Football Federation". You have to do a double take when they start talking on the TV. Fortunately the commentators still talk about soccer. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I am American (see two comments ago). We all know the rest of the world calls it football. The only reason I call it soccer is because the rest of my country does that too!--Pr1nce0fDarkn3ss (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Except the rest of the world doesn't call it "football". A very large number of people call it "football", but a similarly large number of people call it "soccer", including those in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa and Canada (funny how they're all Commonwealth countries, except Ireland). – PeeJay 09:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am American, It's called 'football', simply football. There are no records or archives to backup this unsustained claim that soccer was a word used to call the game years ago. Also, is it 'football association' or 'football associated' to fit the translation...? What is true, is that 'soccer' is a term that has been forced and it's being promoted by media and organization in the USA to the world. The claim above of commonwealth countries using the term 'soccer' it does not have facts nor grounds. Football has been the only widely spread name for the game and documents and media prove that. The terms calcio and balonpie in Italian and Spanish simply refer to the same that football refers too... the translation Foot+ball or ball+foot. Calling the sport Soccer is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst, it's an unfounded claim and I think it's time to stop this. USA and it seems Canada following suit are the only countries were soccer wants to be used as a term to define a sport that is well know as football in the rest of the world. - EF

Why don't you read the etymology section in this Wikipedia article: Association football#Etymology? There are two references in that section to back it up so take a look at those as well. You also may want to see the Online Etymology Dictionary's entry for soccer: [1]. A quick read and search finds plenty of "records and archives". I don't get why people hate the word soccer so much, it's just a word, chill out. LonelyMarble (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Metric Football

I dunno if this has place in the article, but Metric Football is a slang-word I have heard as a way to make distinctions between American football and British football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.127.205 (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Never heard it used, and more importantly it is unsourced. Malpass93 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems there is American bullying in wikipedia to call this article association football when it's clear the majority of the world population know it as plain football.. the American sport should be called "American football" instead. -GY

It is, American football... Nanonic (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Word for football/soccer temper tantrums

Is there a word for the football/soccer temper tantrums of professional athletes? Ikip (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

what was the first soccer ball made of

what was the first soccer ball made of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.205.57 (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pig stomach --Spongefrog (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

More word about casual play?

As football's exceptional worldwide popularity is mentioned in the article, I think it would make sense to note that many, if not most, casual players don't regularly play 11 vs 11 on a field complying with FIFA regulations. (For example, I usually play 3v3 or 4v4 on a small field with my friends and we still consider it to be essentially football.) This "vernacular" side of the game may not be obvious to readers who look at this article because they may know little about the world's footballing culture (-> might be the reason why they read this general article in the first place). Although I concede it's hard to write about this in an encyclopedic way. What do you think? 81.182.13.232 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Find a source and it can go in. I'm sure people have written about this type of activity, in journals concerning recreational activities, for instance. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Olympic sports and Category:Team sports vs. Category:Football (soccer)

Category:Football (soccer) is itself as category within Category:Olympic sports and Category:Team sports. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Garrison Game

When I was growing up soccer was widely known as the "garrison game" because it had been played by the British soldiers in the local army barracks but when I wrote "garrison game" in wikipedia's search function there wasn't a redirect to this page. Here are plenty of references (including a couple of books with the name in their respective titles) for the history section of this article:

• http://anfearrua.com/story.asp?id=1567;
• http://www.amazon.com/Garrison-Game-Hannigan/dp/1851589805;
• http://www.rhs.ac.uk/bibl/wwwopac.exe?database=dcatalo&rf=200209559;
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2004/nov/16/newsstory.sport3;
• http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/11/23/story37609.asp;
• http://books.google.ie/books?id=JKbb02bg6zYC&pg=PA189&dq=%22garrison+game%22&as_brr=3;
• http://books.google.ie/books?id=bB5SrdeaXv4C&pg=PA18&dq=%22garrison+game%22&as_brr=3;
• http://books.google.ie/books?id=EONtBVG6mpAC&pg=PA344&dq=%22garrison+game%22&as_brr=3;
• http://spailpin.blogspot.com/2005/02/croke-park-and-garrison-games.html. 86.44.18.83 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible I suppose, but why would someone type in garrison game - rather than one of the more conventional names of the game? I think there could be a potential problem in that Garrison Game is sometimes used to mean rugby and cricket as well. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rules of the Game (Soccer)

I want to know which are the origin of the size of the goal and the dimensions of the field ? Where, why, when and who decided the marks and designs inside the field of the game ? Why 90 minutes in two halfs ? Why 11 players ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.199.187 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The various rules of football - length of matches, numbers of players on each team and size of the goal - were all developed slowly during the nineteenth century at British public schools. Different schools played different rules on different pitches. From the mid nineteenth century - 1848 saw the first attempt - schools came together to create a code of rules so that they could play against each other. The most successful of these were the Cambridge Rules, later superseded by the Sheffield Rules and the Football Association rules, which ultimately won out. In other parts of the world, other rules developed - hence Australian Rules football; some people preferred different rules - hence rugby union. As for the why of each rule - most are simply compromises that worked to make an enjoyable game! The length of the match, for example, is simply long enough for there to be time to score goals and create a result, and short enough so that people can play without being super-fit. History of association football has a more detailed description of how they developed. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Caption of opening photograph

The caption reads "An attacking player (No 10) attempts to kick the ball past the goalkeeper to score a goal." I apologize for being a pedant, however should the caption not read "An attacking player (No 10) attempts to kick the ball between the posts to score a goal? Geoff (talk) 02:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're not being enough of a pedant. It should read "An attacking player (No. 10) attempts to kick the ball between the posts to score a goal." But I think it would be good to retain the keeper bit so I've changed it to " "An attacking player (No. 10) attempts to kick the ball past the goalkeeper and between the goalposts to score a goal." Ericoides (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Renaming The Page To Football

Refer to the FAQ above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Everyone in the world except for Americans call this sport football. Lets name it its real title! Not "association football". the sport is called football in both FIFA and the Olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr1nce0fDarkn3ss (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Totally agree.- I think this page should be named footall, because is the original football, however this may cause confusion among users, although the term football is the correct terminology for this sport, other sports are called football too, but does not meke it correct Rename this page to just football is the correct, but americans users will want rename it association football, though they are not right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.57.102 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:PROFANE, WP:NAMECON

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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))

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)