Jump to content

Talk:Football/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17

Chelsea Doubles

I think Chelsea Doubles should be put into the "Football Today ==> Association Football and Descendants" section.

I don't know what it might be called in other areas, but it seems that most areas know what I'm on about when I say "Lets play Chelsea Doubles". When there's, say, 11 of you and you split into 5 teams of 2, one ball and one goal (with goalie). You all fight for the ball and pass it to your partner til you score or you get knocked unconscious :-P Anyone know this by a different name? Kk_107 (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Never heard it ever being referenced as Chelsea Doubles, I've played similar types of games (more like basketball against only one basket, where if you win the ball from the other team, you have to get it up to a certain position of the field to be able to attack again, or the goal still counts as yours), but never had a name for it. And I doubt Chelsea doubles would be a universally used name, perhaps not even outside of London. — CHANDLER#10 — 06:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Played it hundreds of times, never heard it called "Chelsea doubles" or any proper name.GordyB (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

london? i'm from stoke...Kk_107 (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.177.190 (talk)


I call it 'Wembley Pairs'. Happypoems (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Eton rules of 1815

this article does not refer to the eton rules of 1815 and aldenham school rules of 1825 (see encyclopedia of british football). Given how early these are I think they should be included and probably the line that states that the rugby rules were the first written rules should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinigi (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "football" in English-speaking countries

Sorry for being naive, but I would have thought an online encyclopedia, like this would write factual articles and not one using somebody's personal opinions. I refer to the statement below:-

"However, in some countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, use of the word "football" by soccer bodies is a recent change and has been controversial."

Did the person who wrote this piece actually do any research? The New Zealand Football Association was formed in 1891 and continued to use this name until 1995, when they first changed to Soccer New Zealand, then to New Zealand Soccer. After eleven years they went back to football, and are now known as New Zealand Football. There was no controversy, the national league competition was already called the New Zealand Football Championship and as NZF's chief executive, Graham Seatter said:-

“It’s interesting that when the New Zealand Football Association went to Soccer New Zealand and then New Zealand Soccer that most clubs stayed as ‘football clubs’…… many people in New Zealand call it football so we need to acknowledge that.”

As someone who comes from New Zealand and have lived all my life 'down under', I ask where was the controversy? There was none.

For many years, the governing body in Australia was known as the Australian Football Association, they too have simply gone back to using football.

The two weekly Australian publications, 'Australian Football Weekly' and 'British Football Week' are publications that both deal with Association Football. Go to Australian website 'Fox Sports' (the official website of the tv channel of the same name), click on Football and you will get Association Football, not Rugby Union, not Rugby League, not Australian Rules or any other game, but Association Football. 'SBS', another Australian television network, also use the name 'Football' for Association Football.

Back here in New Zealand, go to the (New Zealand) 'Sky Sport' website (the official website of the tv channel), click on Football and again you will get Association Football, not Rugby Union, not Rugby League or any other game, but Association Football. Go to 'TVNZ Sport' website and click on Football and surprise surprise you again get Association Football. Still not convinced? Pick up New Zealand Newspapers, 'Sunday News', 'Sunday Star Times', 'The Dominion Post' etc turn to the Football and what do you get? You guessed it, Association Football.

Most fans in both Australia and New Zealand prefer to call Association Football by the name of Football. In both countries it is the fans of the other codes that prefer to call Association Football by the name of Soccer.

Another statement used in the article:-

"The name "soccer" (or "soccer football") was originally a slang abbreviation of the word "association" from "association football" and is now the prevailing term in the United States, Canada, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand where other codes of football are dominant."

Actually, Association Football is the most played sport in New Zealand. 198,757 people play Association Football in New Zealand (source: FIFA), while only 136,059 people play Rugby Union (source: NZRU).

There are plenty in Ireland that call the game football. Organisations: 'Football Association of Ireland', 'Football League of Ireland' (now known as 'FAI League of Ireland'), 'Football Association of Irish Schools', 'Leinster Football Association', 'Munster Football Association' and clubs are called 'Football Clubs'. Media: there has been 'The Irish Football Handbook', 'Irish Football Online', Irish writer, Roddy Doyle refers to the game as Football, as does other Irish writers / journalists, Declan Lynch, Dermot Bolger, Roisin Ingle, Marie Jones etc etc. Also the comedy 'Father Ted' also called the game Football.

Also in the United States, many ESPN commentators call the game Football. So to all those who think the UK is alone in being the only English speaking country that uses Football and not Soccer, think again. Also the former British West Indies countries and English speaking African countries also call Association Football, by the name of Football. Footballworldworldfootball (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The only ESPN anchors that ever call soccer "football" are the guys who cover English football when they play it. Other than, "football" is used for American football by everyone else on the channel. I watch ESPN almost all day and I never once hear any anchors refer to it as such. --71.36.137.79 (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this website, the numbers for soccer in NZ is less than netball. But to a certain degree the numbers need to include what is played at most schools in NZ (with a measure for the differentiation between primary and secondary schools), and not just the numbers who play in clubs. --PBS (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that I have had a couple of replies to my comments. First in reply to 71.36.137.79, thank you for your comments, but you will see that I was referring to ESPN match commentators and NOT anchors. As I do not live in the States I have no idea what your anchormen call the game. However, I have watched British, European and South American matches from ESPN and the commentators refer to the game as football. Also many Amateur clubs in the States prefer FC (Football Club) rather than SC (Soccer Club).

In reply to PBS, thanks for the link, however these figures are rather misleading. I will explain. The Football figure that is used on their website (105,000) is the one used by SPARC NZ back in 2002/03 and is for male footballers only (it also appears that it is only an estimate rather than an exact figure). However the rugby union figure (136,059) is the one used by the NZRU in 2007 and is for both sexes. According to FIFA, even back in 2000 New Zealand had 136,048 Association footballers (total for both sexes). The figure for Rugby Union players according to the NZRU in 2000-01 was 129,869. The latest figures from FIFA say that New Zealand now has 198,757 Association footballers while the IRB say that New Zealand now has 139,968 Rugby Union players. You will note that the gap between football and rugby has grown wider over the last nine years.Footballworldworldfootball2 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballworldworldfootball2 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football - http://www.rfu.com/microsites/museum/page.aspx?section=89&sectionTitle=World+Rugby+Chronology replaces url=http://www.rfu.com/microsites/museum/index.cfm?fuseaction=faqs.chronology

{{editsemiprotected}}

Main article: Oldest football clubs

During this period, the Rugby school rules appear to have spread at least as far, perhaps further, than the other schools' codes. For example, two clubs which claim to be the world's first and/or oldest football club, in the sense of a club which is not part of a school or university, are strongholds of rugby football: the Barnes Club, said to have been founded in 1839, and Guy's Hospital Football Club, in 1843. Neither date nor the variety of football played is well-documented, but such claims nevertheless allude to the popularity of rugby before other modern codes emerged.

In 1845, three boys at Rugby school were tasked with codifying the rules then being used at the school. These were the first set of written rules (or code) for any form of football.[1] Done —Ms2ger (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"kicking a ball with the foot"

And what else does one kick with, exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.124.26 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I removed the foot from that sentence. —JAO • T • C 21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Disambig

I know this has been discussed before...

...but I really think there needs to be a proper disambiguation page for "football". The main opposition arguments from previous discussion (apart from "this has been discussed before") seem to be the following:

  • any disambiguation would eventually swell up to be as large as the current article.
  • the current introduction already points anyone who's strayed here by mistake towards whichever article they intended to get to.

Now, it seems to me that you can't have it both ways. Either what need to be disambiguated is the small list of sports given in the opening paragraph; or else it's the huge list in the "Present day codes and families" section and subsections; but not both. For my money, the small list is the necessary one. I've mocked up a disambiguation page at User:Jnestorius/Football.

With such a disambiguation page available, this current Football article could be moved and split into:

There is an additional problem that can't be addressed with the current setup: mistargeted wikilinks. Special:WhatLinksHere/Football, excluding redirects and transclusions, has over 3000 inlinks. My guess is that many of those really ought to point to association football/American football/etc rather than this page; but it would be quite tedious to check them all. OTOH, if "football" was a simple disambiguation page, then practically all WhatLinksHere would be misdirections, so it would be a minor housekeeping task to fix them as they arise. Currently, if an editor erroneously types [[football]] instead of [[association football|football]], then unless it's picked up quickly it will be lost among the 3000 inlinks.

There's some really good information on this page, and in a sense it would be a pity if readers bypassed it by being routed through a vanilla disambiguation page. However, it's not the place of editors to force readers to read something they're not looking for; instead, we must minimise the delay between searching for an article and finding it; I think the current structure is flawed. I don't know the details of querying Wikipedia's HTTP traffic, but it would be interesting to see how many readers get to football and immediately click out to American football, say; and how long the delay is. jnestorius(talk) 09:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. While this article is a good one, it does not belong at Football. From our readers' viewpoint: people typing "football" will, with very few exceptions, either be expecting an article on American football, an article on Association football or a disambiguation page. The latter group will probably not care that this is not a standard disambiguation page; they find the links anyway. But the other groups will be confused for a short moment, and only then they will find the link to the article they're looking for (or even not find it, as this talk page shows is a real outcome for some people). And from an editor viewpoint, the incoming links thing really sold me. —JAO • T • C 18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the current approach is fine. The reality is that these sports have similar roots, thus the historical approach. An extra page for football (disambiguation) might help readers. No reader is going to read this thinking it refers to a specific code (be it American or association football), the scope is obvious from the start. The fact that all official names of the sports carry the moniker of "X" football show that the current topic is the correct one. Think of guitar as a similar article: the types have varying styles and roots but the fact is they are all guitars (or guitar types), just as the listed sports are all types of football. Just as the history of the guitar discusses obsolete or ancient instruments, so does this article.
However, I think your current draft would make a great dab page, meeting a demand which football (word) simply does not. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with SFB: this article deserves to be at [[Football]], but it might be good if there were a simpler, shorter [[Football (disambiguation)]], which could be referred to in the header. Kevin McE (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Sillyfolkboy or Kevin McE address the points I've raised.
  • Neither of you address the point about misdirected inlinks.
  • The fact that this article has "a historical approach" suggests history of football is an appropriate name.
  • If you agree a separate football (disambiguation) page is needed, then the question is merely which of the two pages should be at the default name and which elsewhere.
  • Saying the article "deserves" to be at football reeks of the danger I mentioned of wanting to show off a nice article to people who are not looking for it.
  • Saying "No reader is going to read this thinking it refers to a specific code" is beside the point. If the article Paris, Texas was at Paris, it would be obvious from the start that it was an article about an American city and not about a French one; but it would still be incorrect. The issue is not what people understand once they have read the article; it's what the expect to find before they start reading it, which is certainly not a historical overview. If the article was moved to history of football, then it would be just as obvious from the start what it was about: so what's the problem with moving it?
  • The analogy with the guitar article is spurious, for two reasons.
  • The connect between different types of guitar is not merely historical origin, it is ongoing similarity. If you can play one type of guitar, you can play most types, and it's not unusual for people to play many different types. Have a look through the articles in Category:Guitarists and see how many begin "N N is a guitarist ..." versus something like "N N is an electric twelve-string bass guitarist ..." Getting into what guitar(s) a person favours will be mentioned further on. Compare that with Category:Footballers where the link will always be to the specific code the person plays, and if they play more than one each will be mentioned explicitly rather than using the umbrella term "football".
  • Relatedly, there is a huge current commonality between all guitars. The guitar article has "history" and "types" sections analogous to those of the football article; but it also has further sections on construction and components, tuning, and accessories; i.e. the things all guitars have in common. The football article has no such common features section, because the only common features are those mentioned in the first sentence. Also, the guitar#History section is just a summary of a separate History of the classical guitar article.
jnestorius(talk)
This article could be the basis of any disambiguation page List of types of football.GordyB (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that right now the naming of this article is a disservice to our readers. While it is true that the subject of this article is "football", it is also true that a general overview of sports involving kicked balls is not what the majority of the incoming links to this article are meant to point at, nor is it what most people who type "football" into the search bar are looking for. Our naming guidelines are meant to optimise article titles for findability and common use rather than accuracy; in this case, although this is true for a great many subjects, a generalist article is not the best fit for the root name. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are no further objections in the next few days, I'll make the changes outlined above. jnestorius(talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ahem; I meant, I will list this at Requested Moves. jnestorius(talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'football' searches should be taken to a normal disambiguation page, rather than this ~"History of Football" page. Chances are quite good that someone searching 'football' is looking for a specific sport, not to see how every sport derived from football originated. Troodon311 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

So poor section, linked on foreign articles. Please, add link to Русский. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.125.4.170 (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, ru:Футбол is, as one would expect, about Association football, which is not the topic of this article. It is interlinked from the Association football article (and vice versa). —JAO • T • C 16:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is such a great article

There is so much stuff here! Lots of things I never knew. 20:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for this move. -- PBS (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Football → History of football — Reasoning: See Talk:Football#Disambig. The automagical listing of this move request on WP:REQMOVE didn't work before, so I'm trying again to trigger it. jnestorius(talk) 06:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Commenters below show that my comment above was too brief. Let me quote a fuller extract of the previous discussion in Talk:Football#Disambig:
I've mocked up a disambiguation page at User:Jnestorius/Football.
With such a disambiguation page available, this current Football article could be moved and split into:
Some other objections made below have also been addressed in the Talk:Football#Disambig section. jnestorius(talk) 02:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose This suggested move really only makes sense from an editor's perspective. The only logic for this move seems to be based on the editing history of the article itself. As a reader, I'd expect to wind up at a dabpage. This will only complicate the issue further when the simplest solution is to set up a normal dabpage, as we would do with any other term with multiple meanings (even those that happend to share a common geneaology). There's also the rather obvious lack of consistency in implying that "XXX" is the same as "history of XXX". Let the readers choose for themselves on this one. Peter Isotalo 07:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. Having a normal disambiguation page at Football is exactly what this proposal is all about. If you support that, you need to move the current content somewhere to free up the name, and what would be better than History of football? (I'm assuming you don't want to throw away the current content completely to not have a treatise on the history of football at all.) —JAO • T • C 10:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah. That made a bit more sense. The previous discussion was so voluminous that I misunderstood the jist of it (and the intention to create a dabpage here wasn't explicit in the request). I thought this was just another attempt to have the issue moved to yet another venue. If this is intended to simply create a proper football history article and make this a normal disambiguation, then I most definitely support it. Peter Isotalo 19:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support per my reply at #Disambig. I understand that creating a normal disambiguation page for "football" is more difficult than the average dab page, but the only really important thing is that it has prominent links to Association football and American football—certainly not the only sports called football, but certainly the only ones which people will think Football should be about (nobody who uses "football" to mean anything else thinks that his use is the only one or forgets that there are other kinds of football). —JAO • T • C 10:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the article was purely about the History of Football, then the proposed move would make sense. But it isn't; it's also about the various games today. The real question is, as the page links to articles on every possible variety of football you can imagine, why would you need a disambiguation page? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You're supposed to be able to choose which topic you want to read without having to get through large amounts of prose. That's the whole point of having dabpages. This shouldn't be an exception just because sports happen to be over-represented among our editors. This isn't the only topic which has a lot of potential dablinks. Compare with Victoria. Peter Isotalo 05:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That doesn't answer the point that the article isn't about the History of Football; it's about Football. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
        • The point is not to vote on what content goes where, but to provide easier navigation among the many articles on football. Terms with multiple meanings, even if they share a common origin, are always handled with disambiguation and this should be no exception. Besides, just about all of relevant prose content of this article really does belongs in history of football no matter what the consensus turns out to be concerning the move. There's more than enough content to merit a separate history article. The heading "Football today" is basically just a summary of the dicdef article football (word) (which is already summarized properly under "Etymology") and a long list of the many football variants that exist today (disambiguation links). Peter Isotalo 07:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I hope my recent elaboration answers your objection. jnestorius(talk) 02:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Move this page to a history page and split the detailed list of all modern games off to a new page. Create a simple dabpage per Jnestorius' mockup. The only problem will be to keep the disambig page simple. Each code has a page with their own history and they can refer to the general history page for an overall view. Yimby (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose Boy, you can tell (America) Football season is about to start... Anyway, moving this to "History of Football" just doesn't seem like a good idea. I like the general idea of making the page at "Football" a DAB page, but the "History of Football" name is never going to fly. "Football (Soccer)" would be better then "History of Football".
    — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If people here think its acceptable to have a "History of Football" article which covers the whole history of the different games known as football i dont quite understand why there can not be an article on Football for the same reason. The introduction of this article provides a link to each of the different types of "football", i think its nicer with an introduction / explanation than just a simple dab page. Also there are over 3000 links to this page, i hope those supporting this proposal will take the time to direct those links to the right articles and not leave it for someone else to do. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of the History section relates to the common early history, before the different codes split; each of those codes' histories is merely briefly summarised with a link to the relevant history articles. There is no summary of any other aspect of the codes, apart from the two paras in the lead relating to "common features". As to whether it's "nicer", that's obviously a matter of opinion; I don't think it is. Finally, most of the 3000 inlinks are already mislinks that should point to one of the specific codes. (A random browse will prove this; look at all the biography and placename articles for starters.) So they need to be fixed either way. jnestorius(talk) 02:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As all of these sports are related, it makes sense to summarize them all in one place as a parent article. That doesn't mean there can't be a disambiguation page, but it's unnecessary to put it at the plain title when the applicable summary information is already guaranteed to be here. It's really not harder to navigate to a certain code here than on a disambiguation page; that's what the links in the table of contents are for. Dekimasuよ! 08:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The fact that this takes an historical approach as it is written does not mean that this article is only about history, nor that there is no use for a central football article. I like the disambig page in itself though - I support 76.66.200.21's idea of creating that at Football (disambiguation), and perhaps deleting Football (word). --Pretty Green (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I really don't get the reasoning of those opposing here. WP:DAB and common practice is always to create disambiguation for separate topics, even those with common origins. Take, for example, Joker or Victoria. And this is very clearly about separate topics, even if they all happen to be sports. That they happen to have a common origin is only an argument for keeping a joint article for the common history of the various sports. It's not, however, a tenable argument for keeping the modern, separate sports called "football" under a pseudo-summary rather than a normal dabpage. That would basically be the equivalent of making Springfield a common-history-but-also-a-kinda-dabpage-article just because they share the same name (and by extension the same origins). All of you opposing this move seem to be saying that this article should cover not one clearly defined topic, but multiple ones, including all the variants of football and their joint histories. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how any of this is compatible with some very basic policies and guidelines (unless you're actually invoking WP:IGNORE). Peter Isotalo 08:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the objections are because a dab page would be better off existing on *this* page, and not at "History of football"? --HighKing (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has ever suggested the dab page to be at "History of football" though. —JAO • T • C 10:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ "Rugby chronology". Museum of Rugby. Retrieved April 24 2006. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Football/Archive_15&oldid=1057099896"