Talk:Association football/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Colloquialisms, continued

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia. ALTON .ıl 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

The naming convention

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Beats me. Grant | Talk 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No sport should be simply called football if it is not an article or section about that sport. This is because it is really confusing, for someone from America or Australia to read an article and have to constantly remind themselves what sport they are talking about. 'Soccer' is a term known by at least 95% of the world. It is just a few one-eyed soccer fanatics that are trying to prevent the use of this term to describe their sport. Why isnt Australian football, referred to as football (Australian) because it is confusing to people from England! There have been a lot less edit wars after this change as well. I comfortable compromise for now is association football (soccer).InsteadOf (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Use the local word" is fine. The problem is, mainly in Australia, that the local word is different depending on all sorts of factors, where you are, which code you prefer, and so on. This recent edit of mine sums it up, I'll copy most of it here: "Soccer" fans are not "trying to change the word usage" in Australia. They have always called it that. It is just that now, there are more fans of the sport, it is talked about more, and people pay more attention to it. Media: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Supporter/fan sites: Melb Syd SA Tas General Even BigFooty, an AFL-focused site, has forums called Football board and Football Australia which are about association football.

I'm not claiming everyone calls it "football"; I'm not claiming only association football can call it that; I'm not claiming no-one can call it soccer. I'm just claiming that "everyone calls it soccer here" and "no-one calls it football here" are totally false. -- Chuq (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Chuq that is something completely different. That discussion was what it should be called in Australia. What i am talking about here is that it should be called soccer in all the different articles. Because we cannot use 'football' as it refers to many other sports as well. But soccer is a name recognised by a vast majority of people around the world. As i said before, ill chat about the word usage for it in Australia specifically, after the soccer world cup.InsteadOf (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard for other terms which have different words in different countries is to use the "local" usage (eg. use "colour" in Flag of Australia but color in Flag of the United States). I don't see why that example can't be used where there is a clear local preference - to use "football" in British articles and "soccer" in American articles for example. The problem is that in Australia there are differences depending on what code you follow, where you live, and so on. That is what my comment above is about. -- Chuq (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that these debates are ridiculous, I call it football (despite living in Canada) and have pushed people to do the same, but I would not object for this article to be called Football (soccer) since it would probably satisfy just about everyone. I think the term soccer is stupid in the first place, tbh, but now that it's here I think it can be used to distinguish it from other sports such as American Football. I also disagree with the statement that only a few fans call it "soccer", the word doesn't even exist and the word football (or some variation of it) is used in most languages in the world, of course this is the English Wikipedia. Note that the origins of this sport are British and therefore the British term is more suitable. What is dumb though, to have it called something else in different articles. I think what it's called in Australia is irrelevant to what it should be called in the article, either it should be referred to as "Football" or as "soccer" not one here and the other there. The term "football" was around and used to describe this sport before the US was even colonized let alone inventing American Football. So far I have only heard people with no understanding of the sport call it "soccer" and everybody who watches and/or plays calls it football, even here in Canada. I suggest calling this article "Football (soccer)" as the term is used is a country of 200 million English-speaking people, but in the article, and all others for that matter, it should be called "Football" and the other sport "American Football".--The Dominator (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but in Australia, it's not "stupid", it's the name of the game. Up until a few years ago, soccer referred to itself as soccer, there was a National Soccer League, and there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of soccer clubs, and the national side is still soccer. So if we're to avoid the use of the ambiguous football in Australian articles, a specific term should be used to describe each code, and soccer to describe soccer is the overwhelmingly most obvious choice.

Indeed - our team are the "Socceroos" after all. And in AFL-mad Melbourne, they're still calling it soccer. Orderinchaos 10:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to competition between codes. For most of the world this is not a problem as such competition simply doesn't exist. If you were to say "football" in Italy, or Serbia, or Argentina, or France, or China, you could only be talking about one game, as few would know or care about any other variety. Can anyone think of any other countries besides Australia and the US though where another code of football has something of a hegemony and soccer is a minority sport? It's an unusual situation and hence not really suited to a one-for-one comparison.

In Australia, we have two, depending on which part of the country you're in - AFL, or rugby league. Soccer is however more popular than rugby league in AFL states, I couldn't comment on rugby states re AFL. Living in Western Australia, all the local media (print, radio, TV) is completely obsessed with AFL and cricket. To call soccer "football" without further clarification amongst anything other than its own supporters just confuses people beyond belief - people would assume you were talking about the locally prevalent code. Its abbrevation, "footy" or "going to the footy" or "the footy match" can only ever mean the locally prevalent code.

As a curiosity, most of my friends who are football (soccer) fans have adopted the annoying Australian habit of using league names - and I notice even ABC does the same - eg "In the A-League..." or "At the A-League game..." or "the FA match" or "the Premier League" without even specifying the code. This I think is probably how Aussies will end up resolving it, although it does no favours to the English language. Orderinchaos 10:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I hate to bring this up again, but there is an anonymous user edit-waring and I need a policy to point him to - where the long version of the name is used, is it:

• Association football
• Football (soccer)
• Association football (soccer)

I believe since "Association football" is the name of the article, it would be the preferred option? Check my recent contribution history for the context. -- Chuq (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)