Talk:Football/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Edit request from Jarzac, 27 September 2011

The word "Football" is also commonly used outside of the English-speaking world.

In Spanish-speaking countries the word has morphed into the Spanish phonetically-correct word "Fútbol" to refer to Soccer Football. In some instances the word "Fútbol" may be replaced by the word "Balonpié" from the words "Balón" (ball) and "Pie" (foot). Jarzac (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This text is to be added to the section 'The use of the word "football" '.

Wikipedia is not a valid source for Wikipedia articles. Please provide more reliable sources for the statements you wish added. Powers ^T 13:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is rugby ever called "football"?

Re the sentence "The word football applies to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, including ... rugby league, rugby union and other related games", certainly as a British person I'm not aware that rugby is ever called "football". Where is rugby called football? This seems incorrect to me.Gymnophoria (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally "rugby" is referred to as "rugby football" which is why you get so many "RFC"s, particularly in the north/midlands of England, like Morley R.F.C., Coventry R.F.C. etc.. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Although you also get teams such as Leicester Football Club, the town's rugby team 128.243.253.107 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Rugby is additionally called "football" in some places where it's popular. It's not called that in exclusion to "rugby", "rugby league", "rugby union", etc., but it is used. Take for example, this discussion of "Finals football" (ie "finals rugby league") from Sydney. this and this from Australia and New Zealand, respectively, contain multiple references to rugby union as "football".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I can state for a fact that the famous Garryowen rugby club (note title of Wikipedia article, also!) in Ireland has a big sign on the front entitled "Garryowen Football Club", Established 1884. There was a radio programme, presented by Charlie Bird, about the club and its history on RTÉ Radio 1 yesterday morning. Here's the club's website where you can see "Garryowen Football Club" very clearly: http://garryowenrugby.com/. Soccer monopolising the word "football" is a very recent phenomenon so I'm glad this article has a much more inclusive and accurate understanding of the word 'football'. Where I'm from in Ireland "football" always means Gaelic Football and soccer is just soccer and rugby is just rugby. 109.76.212.114 (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

See also Hull FC and Rugby Football League.--Jeff79 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

All Rugby Union clubs are called RFC now - Rugby Football Club. Older clubs called themselves FC as they predated either the F.A. or the RFU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_football_clubs has some info on this. Many of these clubs actually played multiple codes. 87.194.162.141 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Untrue and misleading. Older clubs called themselves "FC" because they were the leading football club in that town / city whichever code they played. Nothing to do with preceding the FA or RFU. Clubs were still naming themselves FC after the FA was formed. And it is nonsense that all rugby union clubs are RFC, most are RFC or RUFC but there are some that are FC. Barbarians Football Club is just one example.GordyB (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Codes of football" misleading

The article needs a generic term for what (1) soccer or "football", (2) American football or "football", (3) Canadian football or "football", (4) rugby "football", (5) Australian... -- okay, that's enough, you get the idea -- are all examples of. For this generic term the article uses "codes of football".

To me this term seems completely wrong, because "code" means a set of rules and the phrase carries a strong implication that these are alternative rules for different forms of the same sport. And they aren't. Four of the five I listed are distinct sports that, for historical reasons, happen to confusingly share the same name. American and Canadian football I would agree are forms of the same sport. So to me, "codes of football" to me suggests NFL rules, NCAA rules, CFL rules, and so on -- it would not include the rules of Gaelic football or Australian football, even though I have no problem with the idea that "football" occurs in the names of those sports. Similarly, if I was one of those people to whom "football" exclusively means what I call soccer, then I would take "codes of football" to mean the FA rules, the FIFA rules, the MLS rules, and so on -- but not including anything to do with American football.

I've gone into why I think the phrase used is wrong and should be changed, but I don't have a very good replacement to suggest. "Games called football" or "sports called football" is the best I have.

And that's all I'm going to say about this -- I don't even plan to read replies to this message, at least not any time soon. Please reply here and not on the talk page for my IP address. If other people agree that this phrase should be changed in the article, then someone else can change it. If most people think my view is wrong, that's that.

--142.205.241.254 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

the phrase carries a strong implication that these are alternative rules for different forms of the same sport. Only if you are mired in the idea that the word football means a particular variety (admittedly, a common trait here at WP). Otherwise, it's easily understandable.

You raise a good point that is worth thinking about and I initially agreed with your argument. However, 'codes' is a relatively standard term used beyond this article eg List of players who have converted from one football code to another. Wikipedia is an ecnyclopedia so its not up to us to come up with words to describe things, but to use and explain the commonly used terms in reliable sources. To that, end, I think inserting a reference or explanation for the word code (see [1][2][3][4]) is the best bet. Pretty Green (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

A "code" is somewhat broader than a "ruleset"; though that fact is probably not widespread knowledge, I think it's readily deducible from the context. Powers ^T 22:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguating sentence at the top of the page

The disambiguating sentence at the top of this page is really unclear. Most people going to the Football article will be interested to read about either American football or Association football. However, this page does not bring you there, which is confusing enough, but I think we should at least point users to those articles by showing these sports at the top of the page. What about the following:

This article is about all sports known as football. For the most well-known varieties, see American football and Association football. For other uses, see Football (disambiguation).

It's confusing enough that we have the separate pages we have now, but this at least points readers to the articles they are looking for. --Globe-trotter (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Most people going to the Football article will be interested to read about either American football or Association football" Do you have proof of that or are you making an assumption? That said, I do sympathise with what you are saying; and I also agree that the ball, in and of itself, should not be so prominent. I think this is a case for being bold and waiting to see if anyone disagrees! Pretty Green (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that most people who type in 'football' on Wikipedia are expecting to get American football or Association football, although it is an assumption and I cannot prove it. I still feel that would be very convenient to have the statement that Globe-trotter suggested at the top of the page. So you have my vote. DaffyBridge (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of putting Association football and American football in the hatnote, as the purpose of a hatnote is to allow readers to find the page they are most likely looking for quickly and easily. The problem with what we have now is that it does not allow a reader to know if they have reached the article they are looking for or if they should click on the football disambiguation link. How about this:

"This article is about all sports commonly known as football. For the most popular versions, see Association football or American football. For other uses, see Football (disambiguation)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreagan007 (talk • contribs)

File:RoyalShrovetideFootballMob.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:RoyalShrovetideFootballMob.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Intro

This article needs a longer intro. It's comfortably over 30,000 characters long and so according to Wikipedia's WP:LEAD guidelines should have three or four paragraphs. However, this page clearly serves some sort of disambiguating function; a shorter lead than the guidelines suggest is therefore acceptable, but certainly I think it would benefit from a second paragraph.

In particular, these guidelines tell us that the lead should establish significance of a topic, which the current lead completely fails to do. Merging a bit more history in with the establishment of the significance of the topic was aim in the paragraph that I created earlier today, which was reverted. I have reverted back, once, on the grounds that I think the editor's given objections are mistaken. Firstly, the added paragraph does not extend the lead too much; rather, it brings the lead closer to expected lengths (of which it still falls short; however, I can see a justification for a short lead on this article). Secondly, the added paragraph fulfils some of the tasks of the lead that were not previously being fulfilled. Thirdly, as per WP:LEADCITE, citations are not required in the lead in the same way they are elsewhere in the text; in particular, the lead adds little new information which is not already cited in the text (I note that the previously existing paragraph has no citations) and so doesn't require citations: they could be added by being pulled up from the body text, but this interrupts the numbering of footnotes somewhat and isn't necessarily desirable. The one new bit of information added to the lead is cited.

Now of course, I'd expect this addition to be edited and improved, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. But I really don't think it should be removed wholesale - its existence corrects flaws in the current article, bringing it closer to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD states that introductions should be carefully sourced as appropriate. Your version's got a few problems:

• The lone citation does not contain a page reference.
• "Contemporary codes of football can all be traced back to the English public school football games of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, although other regional forms of football (for example, Caid in Ireland) influenced the development of the local code." This probably makes almost no sense to somebody not already familiar with the topic and would not become clearer even if they chose to follow the link provided. The section that mentions Caid does not make any claim regarding influence on "local code"; the only thing close to this that I was able to find were the final two sentences in the Gaelic football section: "Davin's rules showed the influence of games such as hurling and a desire to formalise a distinctly Irish code of football. The prime example of this differentiation was the lack of an offside rule (an attribute which, for many years, was shared only by other Irish games like hurling, and by Australian rules football).". All of which is WP:SYNTH and (yep) unsourced; so I'd advise against using it as the basis for specific introductory statements. There also seems to be some contradiction: if all contemporary football codes developed from those of 18th/19th century English public schools, how does Caid, as "[an]other regional form of football" fit in in terms of influencing local Irish codes? What were these local codes, how did they develop, and what happened to them, if all contemporary forms of football, including Gaelic football, developed from the 18th/19th public school game?
• "The influence and power of the British Empire allowed these rules of football to spread". I could have missed it, but I can't find this claim in the article. Either that statement is found somewhere in the article and is well sourced, or it's just more WP:SYNTH based on the history of football games played in the colonies. Use of the phrase "influence and power" in explaining the spread of the early rules of the game looks dangerously POVish too, but that's less worrying than everything else...

I'm not bothered enough to re-revert, but those are major issues in an article that is already overflowing with unsourced statements and synthesis. The lead could do without it. Bryccan (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - I appreciate the constructive comments rather than the revert. Frankly, I wrote it quickly for others to improve because the article needs a longer introduction. I've taken on your comments. Although I strongly disagree the claim that the Caid example is contradictory - something can develop from one thing, but in doing so be influenced by something else - it does come from a part of the article which is itself not sourced. Accordingly, I've toned down that claim.

I think that the other two claims - that English public schools and the British Empire were the sources of the spread of these early rules - are in the article, though again I'll accept that they are implied via the overall article and not state clearly in one place. Accordingly, I'm quite happy to mark those two statements as {{cn}} for now and then go and get some sources over the next day or two - I've read this in books which I don't have to hand and need to go get a bus in ten minutes! Pretty Green (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

McGill? Really?

Wikipedia provides an endless source of entertainment to those who view it as a lens into the way that Canadians view themselves and their relationship to the rest of the world. Continuously underestimated and underappreciated, Wikipedia is the place to set the record straight!

Which brings me to a particular turd which appears in a few of these articles about football. It is claimed in a few articles that, "[m]odern American football grew out of a match between McGill University of Montreal, and Harvard University in 1874." Its source is this claim on the McGill website. I was unable to find a similar claim on behalf of Harvard, but not surprisingly, I was able to find a claim on behalf of the University of Toronto.

I won't deny that an innovation occurred at that game: the McGill players introduced carrying the ball to the Harvard players. But would anyone claim that the McGill players were the first to carry the ball in any type of football game? If McGill were the first to do this, then why don't they get exclusive credit? Some innovations occurred prior to this and many innovations, some much more significant, occurred after this. To take a frame out of the football-history "movie" and to claim that this frame represents the innovation that made the game "modern" is simplistic, and it doesn't take into account the fact that the rules of the game evolved over time, as opposed to being invented whole cloth. (See this page for a more realistic approach).

Distorting facts, or placing facts out of context, or only including those facts which flatter your prejudices, or in this case your country, makes for poor articles but entertaining reading. I can't even read an article about M.I.A. without being fed an excruciatingly large amount of information about her success in a small and not very significant market. (And look! There's even a link to Canada, unlike even Japan! ...woooooo, impressive). Wikipedia has become a Canadian cargo cult. Fashioning sentences, paragraphs, sections, and complete articles to summon the Plane of Significance and the Plane of Respectability seems to be an ongoing project of a large number of Canadian editors, and I sincerely thank them for never ceasing to bring a smile to my face. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 21:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's like being at a bar with God and listening to him brag about inventing lizards, and when you call him on it he shows you a picture of a coelacanth. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 06:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a completely unreferenced section of the article and marked as such. I don't know anything about 'North American' Football, having only edited the soccer bit of this article. But you can always change the page rather than harp on about an imaginary Canadian cabal on the talk page. Pretty Green (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it's a cabal, that would imply a conspiracy. I'm suggesting that there are too many editors who seem to edit on behalf of Canada, rather than on behalf of clarity and accuracy. I realize that this problem isn't limited to Canada, but promotional silliness on behalf of Canada is an endemic problem on Wikipedia.

At this time I have neither the time or inclination to remove this claim from this and the other articles where it appears. It's a depressing example of how Wikipedia has progressed: instead of evolving to be an increasingly accurate reflection of the world, it is becoming a platform for those wish to chip away at accuracy, perspective, and truth, nugget by nugget, in order to flatter their own prejudices. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 23:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not Canadian, but the notion that McGill introduced rugby style football to the U.S. is fairly well represented in reliable literature. See this article pages 3-4, which describes the Harvard-McGill game in some detail. I'm pretty sure David M. Nelson discusses the importance of the Harvard-McGill in The Anatomy of a Game, I don't have a copy handy right now, but it's a fairly comprehensive work on the history of American Football. While the source in this article is a bit shaky, reliable sources do exist, and the notion is fairly uncontroversial and commonly accepted among historians of American football. --Jayron32 04:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please reread my third paragraph above. I'm not sure that we're disagreeing on anything. As stated, my objection is to taking a single innovation and claiming that it demarcates the boundary between primitive or early football and "modern" football. (Scare quotes used because I would bet there is disagreement among experts as to which innovations and rule changes constitute the origins of the modern game). Games played by Harvard years after the game played against McGill would be unrecognizable to even modern Canadian football fans, much less American ones. Nineteenth century games with makeshift rules that differed from location to location were, as you mentioned, similar to Rugby. It wouldn't be at all similar to what you see people in the NFL playing today. This claim gives undue weight to a single innovation and is the equivalent of citing a randomly selected eighteenth century game of rounders as being the first game of "modern" baseball. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 23:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the statement, insofar as it is factually correct. Modern football did grow out of those contests in a very direct fashion. Modern humans grew out of Australopithecines, though modern humans look distinctly different. If "grew out of" is a problem, perhaps a term like "evolved" may imply more changes between the McGill-Harvard contest and the modern forms of American football. But there is a direct and undisputed line between the McGill-Harvard games --> "Concessionary Rules" games between Yale & Harvard --> Walter Camp from Yale. Check the sources I provided above. That the game changed from the first McGill-Harvard games over the next few decades doesn't diminish the fact that the game was crucial in later devlopments. Before its influence, the predominant form of football played in America was association football, or something darn close to it. That was the game that all of the schools except Harvard preferred. It left Harvard without anyone to play, which is why the scheduled the rugby match with McGill. Most of the other schools playing football at the time were playing some variation of "kick a round ball in the goal" type games; the introduction of the "run the oblong ball across the line" game to the United States came directly from the McGill-Harvard contest. It is quite correct to state that modern American football evolved in a direct line from the McGill-Harvard game. McGill did not invent that style of game, but they certainly introduced it to the United States. --Jayron32 23:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against the following proposition: Nothing of significance "grew out of" the Harvard/ McGill game of 1874. That's an easy windmill to tilt, but it's not what I wrote. Again, please reread my third paragraph above. You differ from both your source and mine by seeming to argue that a single event or a single game somehow demarcates the line between early and modern football. (Although I'm not quite sure that that's what you're arguing, you don't directly address my concerns and don't seem to be arguing against what I wrote). I just reread the article that you cite, and I would argue that it supports my position more than it does your's. It states that, "Some historians have gone so far as to call the Oneidas' victories the first games of American football, maintaining the hybrid Boston Game was neither soccer nor rugby and, therefore, was what Americans recognize as their favorite autumn sport." The Oneidas were youngsters in Boston who played this game prior to Harvard/ McGill game. It goes on to mention that Harvard's game, prior to McGill's "invention" of modern American football, was as follows: "The emphasis seems to have been on kicking, but the ball could be caught and run if the catcher was pursued." Obviously my earlier statement that "the McGill players introduced carrying the ball to the Harvard players" is incorrect. It seems that the McGill's rugby game simply introduced rule and scoring innovations to the Harvard game. It was a step along the evolutionary ladder, but so was kicking a ball with your foot, and so was the line of scrimmage and the forward pass. It seems pretty arbitrary to claim that this event was what modern American football "grew out of."

And SPEAKING of the evolutionary ladder, your example of Australopithecines relates to exactly the point I'm trying to make. Australopithecus is one of our ancestors, but they didn't magically appear whole cloth, and there were species between them and us. Australopithecus was an innovation on the way to modern humans, but it is both a descendant and an ancestor of other equally important species. It doesn't hold a privileged position in the evolutionary trajectory of our species. Humans no more "grew out of" or "evolved" from them than we did from earlier or more recent examples of humans. No one would mistake a bunch of Australopithecines for modern humans, even if they were running around with a ball and were playing something that vaguely resembled modern rugby. (Also, and I just have to add this, if the Australopithecines were playing by the rules played in the Harvard/ McGill game, there wouldn't be a line of scrimmage or a forward pass). Case Western Reserve University doesn't take credit for discovering fossils of "modern" humans, but McGill is making an analogous claim. Modern American football is the result of many innovations in many different times and places, and by oversimplifying that, we loose a lot of the richness of its history. --AntigrandiosË^Talk 17:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential image

Here's an image I found in the Library of Congress, showing American soldiers playing "foot-ball" in 1865. This predates American football, so I'm not really sure where it might be useful, but I just love the absolute chaos depicted here.

• 

Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 03:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The establishment date for league in the oddly named "Football codes board" should be 1895, not 1875. And the league non-contact variant, touch football, should be a link to this page: Touch football (rugby_league). In addition, Australian soccer's attempt at trolling by rebranding itself as football occurred in 2005, not 2007.

OZ soccer date still wrong, still links to wrong version of touch footy.

Australian rules

I think that Australian rules football should be stated by it's full name in the article. It's currently stated as just Australian rules, as all the football codes have the name football in their name so should Australian rules football.--SSBreak (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ball

Please see wikt:ball, a ball isn't just a prolate spheroid, it's a ball, (or in US-English) a sphere. --129.125.102.126 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends on which type of football. A rugby ball isn't a sphere.GordyB (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Word Usage

"Unqualified, the word football applies to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears, including association football, as well as American football, Australian rules football, Canadian football, Gaelic football, rugby league, rugby union"

I'm not sure there is any region in which either code of rugby is colloquially referred to as football. This seems unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.163.66 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are.GordyB (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 February 2013

BlazedGuy123 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Foot Ball is OVAL Patrick Star

Not done. What edit are you requesting? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Modern ball passing tactics

The section "Modern ball passing tactics" is confusing starting with the title of the section. For which code of football are the activities described "modern ball passing tactics"? -- PBS (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

originally a sport for women in russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luserface1 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

American football

american football is a sport from america — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakecerrito (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And? GordyB (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ancient games

These games appear to have resembled rugby football.

notes

The sources given include some links an they do not support the the unequivocal statement made in the sentence. Indeed if as one source suggests that only hand were used then what is that game doing in this article?

Whoever added this sentence (or retained it) though it necessary to qualify it with four citations. This shows that it is contentious. How do the authors know that these ancient games resembles rugby more than say Ausi-rules? If the were closer to rugby that American football do the sources have details of the ball having to be passed backwards?

I think that the sentence should be removed as is a a synthesis of the sources. Indeed would probably be a good idea to remove most of the section they games mention have no links with the modern codes of football. -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Football

Federation Football is the most widely played game around the world, not to be confused with Association Football which only a few limited countries still play(eg. America, Canada). Federation Football is not Soccer, only Association Football is also named Soccer as the term Soccer comes from the word Assoc short for Association.

101.172.255.223 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia

Certain countries have football federations, see Category:UEFA member associations for some examples but they are the governing bodies for association football. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Origins of football

"On July 15, 2004, Mr. Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, declared to the world on the Third China International Football Exposition that football was originated from China; thus Linzi in Zibo of Shandong Province was officially recognized as the birthplace of football."

On 13 June 2008 FIFA are on record as declaring "...It was recently argued that a form of football, or "cuju", as it was named originated in the Shandong Province of Linzi during the West Han Dynasty. A primitive version of football existed in China centuries before it was modified and given rules by English scholars to become association football, as it is known today, in the mid-18th century." .

This claim has since been discredited. No evidence has ever been found to support an historical connection with the Association football the code of football administrated internationally by FIFA, any other modern code of football or any of the medieval football games played in Western Europe from which all modern codes evolved. FIFA have more recently played down their assertion now mealy claiming "scientific evidence" for Cuju being the oldest form of the game on their website. This is despite the Ancient Greek game of Episkyros referred to on this page recognised as an early form if football by FIFA being verifiably older! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Roebuck (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of lede

Football refers to a number of sports that involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot to score a goal. Unqualified, the word football applies to whichever form of football is locally most popular. The most popular of form of football worldwide is association football, also commonly known as "soccer". Other popular football codes are Australian rules football, Gaelic football, the two codes of gridiron football (American and Canadian) and the two codes of rugby (league and union).

What do established users say? 216.8.169.45 (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Touch footy is the descendent of league, not touch rugby (whatever that is)

Spelling mistake

"there are confilicting explanations" Please change it to "there are conflicting explanations" to fix this spelling error. 2001:18E8:2:28C9:F000:0:0:A11E (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Y Done. Wel spoted. --Stfg (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Codes development tree

Does anyone know why the codes development tree has suddenly started having ugly black bars behind the names of the sports? Can we remove them as they make it very difficult to read the tree. --Khajidha (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, very annoying. It's a table rendering bug in the latest version of Chrome. It looks OK in other browsers. See discussion at Template talk:Chart#Lone boxes collapsing. Indefatigable (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

holiguns

Is there a page for name and shame — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.152.167.81 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in Football hooliganism, but be aware that all our usual policies, such as those on reliable sourcing and biographies of living people apply. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014

77.202.76.129 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 13:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Missed spelled word

wekl dne Tevon Hampton (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Que? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "football"

under the above heading I would suggest the following edit (or variation of such to emphasise that Canada is moving towards using Football instead of Soccer to refer to Association Football)

the FIFA affiliates in Canada and the United States use Soccer in their names although almost all the Canadian teams in the top tears of the Canadian Football Pyramid (MLS, NASL) use "Football Club" in their names and none use "Soccer"

70.68.40.90 (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to this. On many Association football articles, you'll find Association football or football or soccer. There should be one standard, the same with other football codes. Busy Moose (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No chance. Each code has it's own unique name on WP, except soccer people refuse to have it and want to claim "football". See the eight million pages arguing about this. So as a middle ground, association football, a term few use, was adopted. Thus, each side, whether it be soccer or football, try and slip their preferred version in wherever possible.

That's fine as long as it's uniform across all codes. If it's football on association football, it should be football on American football, Canadian football, Gaelic football and Australian rules football. It's not even uniform on association football, though. Some have association football, some have football, some have soccer. Hell, even that would be fine if there was a reason other than bias or randomness. Busy Moose (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That make no sense. In Australia we have three popular football codes aside from soccer all commonly called football. If we're going to drop "association" from "association football" we should do the same with all codes. "In Australia there are four popular codes called football, football, football and football" doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it doesn't make sense to have a uniform standard (either saying the entire code at the beginning of all articles related to the code or just saying "football" on all articles relating to all codes. Busy Moose (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a major misunderstanding here. AussieLegend, Busy Moose is saying that all articles should use the full code names at first mention and at any point where there is a possibility of confusion (such as a mention of a player from another code or a comparison between codes). Articles about each code would, of course, be titled the full name and would use an unmodified "football" for all later references to that game on that page.--Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Busy can test the waters - the Manchester United F.C. has no mention in the prose about what type of football the club plays, it must be inferred from other elements of the page. If introducing in a soccer or association football in the lead sticks, the world beckons.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2015

football was made by the illuminati thats why its very popular also the ball is the eye{ 186.4.8.254 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please don't make disruptive requests, it wastes the time of all of the reviewers. If you have a real request you can re-add it.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2015

Nacazo (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Copypaste of entire article removed

As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. If you copy the entire article into the request, you'll break navigation on the talk page, and another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition". If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

loser 202.62.91.98 (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done:. Were you looking for John Carver? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2015

The various codes of football share certain common elements. Players in American football, Canadian football, rugby union and rugby league take-up positions in a limited area of the field at the start of the game. They tend to use throwing and running as the main ways of moving the ball, and only kick on certain limited occasions. Body tackling is a major skill, and games typically involve short passages of play of 5–90 seconds. Association football, Australian rules football and Gaelic football tend to use kicking to move the ball around the pitch, with handling more limited. Body tackles are less central to the game, and players are freer to move around the field (offside laws are typically less strict). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.2.95.182 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Kicking a ball with the foot

I really don't see why the phrase "with the foot" needs to be in the intro. Exactly how else are you supposed to kick it? --Khajidha (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A fair point, it is tautologous. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2016

Hello Showed that no official page This page and affiliates the page : https://www.facebook.com/Footballofficiell

Please Tak necessary measures Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.157.116.30 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request - Common Elements - 28 April 2016

This phrase:

and players scoring a goal must put the ball either under or over a crossbar between the goalposts.

Should read something like this.

and players scoring a goal must put the ball either under or over a crossbar between the goalposts, with the exception of Australian football where there is no crossbar, and the ball must be kicked between the goalposts without being touched by a defending or attacking player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.73.64 (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

mutd id the best thats what abdulrahim said — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.155.249 (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016

185.113.82.74 (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080303044805/http://clubs.rfu.com:80/Clubs/portals/cornwallreferees/CRRSHistory6515.aspx to http://clubs.rfu.com/Clubs/portals/cornwallreferees/CRRSHistory6515.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012191427/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hakluyt/northwest/chapter8.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/h/hakluyt/northwest/chapter8.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120729154246/http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/392/itemId/2418/Irish-inventions-fact-and-fiction.aspx to http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/392/itemId/2418/Irish-inventions-fact-and-fiction.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105043230/http://www.uab.edu:80/english/hone/etexts/edb/day-pages/046-february15.html to http://www.uab.edu/english/hone/etexts/edb/day-pages/046-february15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140611173624/https://www.profootballresearchers.org/Articles/No_Christian_End.pdf to http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Articles/No_Christian_End.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070120202924/http://ruweb.rutgers.edu/timeline/1800.htm to http://ruweb.rutgers.edu/timeline/1800.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140611173624/https://www.profootballresearchers.org/Articles/No_Christian_End.pdf to http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Articles/No_Christian_End.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5qRx5vacY?url=http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Articles/Camp_And_Followers.pdf to http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Articles/Camp_And_Followers.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/NASSH_Proceedings/NP2001/NP2001zn.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625032212/http://www.cfl.ca/page/his_timeline_1920 to http://www.cfl.ca/page/his_timeline_1920
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081028204341/http://www.esri.ie/pdf/BKMNINT180_Main%20Text_Social%20and%20Economic%20Value%20of%20Sport.pdf to http://www.esri.ie/pdf/BKMNINT180_Main%20Text_Social%20and%20Economic%20Value%20of%20Sport.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rfu.com/microsites/museum/page.aspx?section=89&sectionTitle=World%20Rugby%20Chronology
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.soccerballworld.com/History.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403122555/http://clubs.rfu.com/Clubs/portals/cornwallreferees/ThoughtsforRefs6667.aspx to http://clubs.rfu.com/Clubs/portals/cornwallreferees/ThoughtsforRefs6667.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017

If possible, I would hope that a few more facts can be added on the history of football in China, and a possible correction. The sources such as Zhanguoce (战国策）clearly indicate that already during the period of Warring States playing Cuju or Taju, a leather ball filled with feathers, was a common pass-time for people of Qi, one of the seven major kingdoms striving for supremacy at that time. A later source, "别录" (Other Records) makes a reference to a lost text where the invention of Cuju is attributed to Huangdi, the forefather of Chinese civilization. Naturally, it could be as well a legend, nevertheless, it must be noted that a common use of football in China definitely predates the Han Dynasty (contrary to what the article states) as the period of Warring States predates Han. Han Dynasty comes after the collapse of Qin Shi Huang, and the emergence of Qin as a supreme political and military power which unifies all conflicted kingdoms practically ends the era of the Warring States. Krakauer22 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of football?

What about a section on the subject of down-sides of football? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:3D10:401D:6C8B:B280 (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That would probably be better on the pages of the individual codes, due to the dissimilarities of the several games. --Khajidha (talk) 12:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

6.7 billion know what football means

it's stupid not to make this article about the sport known as "soccer". 6.7 billion know that football is football. for the record i'm American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:5D0:E13F:1906:5A23:626F (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Half the world's population, with English as first language, are in the US. It makes perfect sense to disambiguate "football". For the record, I am Swedish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.230.35.228 (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I like the way you think, we need fresh, new and exciting ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.196.183 (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering that most of that 6.7 billion do not speak English as their native language, no, they don't know what "football" is. They know what "Fußball" or "fútbol" or "足球" or "كرة القدم" or..... (you get the picture) .... is. An English word can have a different meaning from words in other languages that it is cognate to or even words in other languages that are originally derived from it. All that matters is what the word means to native English speakers (just like any other word in English is defined primarily by native speakers). And native speakers are decidedly divided on what "football" means. --Khajidha (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.richardlindon.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304192131/http://www.federation-soccer.qc.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149&Itemid=34 to http://www.federation-soccer.qc.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149&Itemid=34

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2017

please 96.231.0.138 (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

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. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2017

Dipen patel 2952000 (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

football is an interesting game

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.--MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 04:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

BraydenBollman (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
can i talk about jewish football player history

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. You can propose such changes here and, if sourced correctly, they may be incorporated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Unhelpful hatnote

The hatnote currently says "For the game most commonly referred to as football, see Association football". The game most commonly referred to in the U.S. as "football" is American football, which is what I was looking for information on. I found it helpful to have it clarified before I clicked through that the article on association football is actually about soccer, which is not what I was looking for. @BilCat: Not sure why you reverted adding "(or soccer)" in there; does the above rationale make sense, or would you care to explain your concerns? -- Beland (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The hatnote is completely unnecessary, as the lead of article itself makes plain. However soccer fans refuse to accept the various meanings of the word, and will try and sneak anything past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.213.30 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The debate with the soccer people has been ongoing since the inception of wikipedia. It might be more useful if we could create a new article called: Foopball. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 10:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a fan of any sports, so I'm not sure what the debate is about. I do think if there's a hatnote, it should be clear; not hearing any objection yet, I'll restore the clarification. -- Beland (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Beland: You're missing the point of the note: The sport most commonly referred to as "football" is "association football". It's not about what names "association football" is commonly referred to as. - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@BilCat: The only problem is that "the sport most commonly referred to as football" in the U.S. is not association football. An American looking for American football but searching on "football" after reading that hatnote would end up on association football, which is not what they wanted. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So propose some better wording, and wait for a clear consensus to change it. As it is, adding "(soccer)" is more confusing. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Since, in English, soccer is actually the most well-known name of soccer, if a hatnote is necessary (it's not), I suggest for "For the article on soccer, see Association football" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.213.30 (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'm buying the argument that the specific callout to soccer is not needed because that's both on the disambiguation page that's linked and in the first paragraph of the article. We still need the hatnote to link to the disambiguation page for non-sport articles, so I trimmed it. How do folks like the way that looks? -- Beland (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine, but rest assured, some soccer person will come along and change it. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 06:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2018

wginperninwrtnbwbqerbieroirqebqeroinbino[qerbinoerbnorbnoqerbqe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.210.208.1 (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2018

37.111.13.215 (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No identifiable request. Iffy★Chat -- 09:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

HoldenJMartin (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

Bob603488 (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 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. Jiten ^talk _contribs 08:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I read through this article while looking for articles that should be good articles, and I think it meets all of the requirements. Puddleglum2.0👌

@Puddleglum2.0: As I said in the quick fail, no it doesn't meet all of the requirements with the biggest offenders not having any references which would be a case for WP:OR. Plus their are also sections that you need citations for earlier in the article. This is why I had quick failed the article. HawkAussie (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: I count 141 references. OK, I didn't count every reference, I simply looked at the references section and saw that there were 141 there. While I agree that some sections have no references, you can't state that the article has none. Care to change your reason? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Puddleglum2.0: Short answer no, long answer if I/or someone else did the exact same review but trying to put in the search, most of them would probably see the fail under section 2 of the good article section which is Verifiable with no original research especially 2c which states no original research. This also includes the [citation needed] which if we are going to be honest can also be another case for the WP:OR. As an experience Wikipedian, it's good to target a specific article and work on it, then just straight up nominate it and see where it goes as I looked at the article history and you have zero edits to the article which doesn't really feel confidence in a GA article rating. HawkAussie (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: Your lack of detail is disturbing. Not only did you ping the original GA nominator rather than the person who posed the question to you, you still have added a false statement to your reason for rejecting the GA request. While I still agree that sections of the article are unsourced, the article, en masse, is very well sourced and so your claim that it is unsourced is spurious at best. I don't think the article meets GA standards, but could be improved to meet GA guidelines. I would not have nominated it, but I wouldn't speedily remove its nomination and I certainly would not provide an incorrect reason when doing so. You can resolve only one of those issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Sorry. Maybe it was just a spur of the thought moment there. Yes I agree that the page is well sourced but I think what I need is just a break especially when I have other things on my mind also you can delete the nomination and reopen it for another person to do it. HawkAussie (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@HawkAussie: (and @Walter Görlitz: if you want, but don't feel obliged), OK, thank you both for your insight. Can you just tell me the real reasons that you think this article is not eligible and then I can try to fix them? Thanks much. Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 00:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with HawkAussie that there are sourcing issues.

Six {{citation needed}} templates

Sections without references

• Rugby football
• Gaelic football
• Schism in Rugby football
• Globalisation of association football
• Further divergence of the two rugby codes

Paragraphs in multiple sections go unsourced (for instance, only one in four contained in the Football Association section).

Present day codes and families is essentially a collection of lists with only one bullet point containing a reference.

None of the issues are insurmountable, particularly the unsourced sections as they usually have linked main articles, which I trust do have references to support the claims. There may be additional issues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Thank you for your help! Puddleglum2.0👌(talk) 19:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Football/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 03:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick fail. This article clearly does not meet the Good article criteria in its current state. There are dozens of unsourced paragraphs (including a handful with citation needed tags), the formatting of quotes and styles are inconsistent, and the list of codes/families at the end needs some serious cleanup. This nomination was done by a non-major contributor with only a sprinkling of work, so it's far from what is needed for a real attempt. SounderBruce 03:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Football's" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Football's. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Women's codes

Under the Present day codes and families header, why do only Australian and Gaelic football list women's variants? I can see arguments for either inclusion or exclusion, but surely it should be the same for all codes. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Are there gender-based variants for other codes? I know of none for association football—everyone follows the same laws—and suspect that gridiron has no variants. I suspect that tabletop has no variants as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

As each gridiron league sets its own rules, the rules used in women's leagues may vary from those of the NFL. But so do those used by colleges, high schools, rec leagues, semipro leagues, and other pro leagues.--Khajidha (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Association football has a women's world cup. Rugby League has a national women's competition in Australia. I'm sure there are more. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

But that does not mean they play to different laws. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Fooball" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fooball. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 9#Fooball until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Development tree

Why does the development tree diagram show American football as deriving/branching off from Association football and not Rugby rules? --Khajidha (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe the very first games were soccer-style, with rugby elements incorporated later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Were those early games part of the development of the distinct sport of American football or were they instances of the sport of association football being played on American soil with no real connection to the development of American football? --Khajidha (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The page on the 1874 Harvard vs. McGill football game has more details about the game that went on to define the specific ruleset. I think a branch should come out of "Rugby Rules" and go to Gridiron football, and out of that one, two lines should come out: One for Canadian football, and one that merges with a line that comes out of Association football, to give American football. Ericvilas (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Infobox images

Why is Canadian football not shown? Both forms of rugby are shown, but not both forms of gridiron?--Khajidha (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I only see one section on rugby football, so I may be looking at the completely wrong section, but to clarify, I don't see a section for American Football either. I see that both gridiron codes are included in the North American football section. Are you thinking that we should tease that section apart so that the two can have their own sections? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that I read the heading, you were concerned with the image in the infobox. Gridiron is represented. I'd rather not try to represent all forms in the infobox. It looks like it fits six nicely. If you were to remove one to add an almost identical form of gridiron to the NFL's, which would you remove? What sort of image would you suggest including to make the difference between American and Canadian obvious to a viewer: the 55-yard line, the longer end-zone, the use of only three downs, the smaller crowds in the stands? I understand your indignation, but a suggestion so the proposal can move forward would work better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Why the six forms that are there? Why have two virtually indistinguishable rugby variants then? What were the criteria for including both of them but not both gridiron forms? --Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I can only answer why six: because we either have one—which would likely be unacceptable—two, four, six or possibly nine. It's just the way the space works. So again, how would you populate the collection of images? I assume you think one of association football, one of gridiron, one of rugby, but which others? The lede also lists Australian rules and Gaelic, but then you only have five and that cannot be laid-out well. Which codes would you include and which would you remove, and can we gain consensus to modify the selection? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

League and union are distinct and separate sports. If you are unaware of this, perhaps reserve your comments for other subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 05:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

At no point have I stated that league and union are not distinct and separate sports. American and Canadian football are also two distinct and separate sports. In both cases, it is difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish the two forms in pictures. Particularly if one is not familiar with the two codes involved. --Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the difference between league and union, but American and Canadian football are sufficiently similar that those who are taught the former can play the latter and vice-versa. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2020

79.160.81.30 (talk) 11:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Football is 1 of the famous sports.

 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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Fastest growing college sport in America

So apparently according to a scholarship for US colleges, which is already full of self-interest, the sport is "the fastest growing college sport in America". However, there are no empirical statistics. How many college teams were there a decade ago? Every US college had a gridiron, association football, baseball, ice hockey, field hockey, track, cross-country and golf team. So if none had rugby a decade ago and there are two now and no other sports are growing, of course it's the fastest growing. The entire section on "college rugby" should be expunged of WP:SPSs and WP:PEACOCK terms. It should be clarified that its is an American-only category as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Not sure if you've seen this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Hadn't seen it. And of course I agree with you. "Fastest growing" is meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

So a new reference from July 2018 that states, "high school athletes playing rugby ten times more than the decade prior. Today, there are over 800 college teams in America." So now we have some empirical numbers. It's ten times larger than in 2007, but still no idea how large it was then or as of 2017, but Lacrosse is still listed before it. And with 800+ colleges playing it still leaves at least 4500 more in which it is not played (as Google pointed me to https://www.educationunlimited.com/blog/how-many-universities-colleges-are-in-the-us/ ) and we still have the saturation of other sports at the undergraduate level. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Football codes development tree its kind of wrong.

first gridiron football: canadian and american comes from the rugby rules. as well the gaelic football comes from associacion football directly ith gaelic footbaaustralian football doesnt have anything to be gaelic footbal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.32.148.110 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you need to edit that comment a little for clarity. What makes you so certain that Australian rules football has nothing to do with Gaelic football? Our article on the former is not so equivocal. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

FIFA did not 'officially' Recognize Cuju

If you're referring to the 2004 news article about Cuju on FIFA Magazine, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say FIFA recognized it as the earliest form of football. It was not an editorial or an official document, and was written by a professor of Oriental Studies (the German Helmut Brinker) as a piece of trivia and entertainment. The same can be said about the current article calling Britain the "home of football", which is certainly more accurate, but still, not an editorial by FIFA, just a piece of news trivia.

This English Wikipedia about Association Football also alleges that FIFA recognized it as the earliest form of football, but the given reference page is broken, and I couldn't find any screening on "Wayback Machine" of a previous version showing it.

That said, I think we should be aware that every sport is a potential object of geopolitical dispute, which includes the creation of those foundational myths. Neither the east-asian nor the mesoamerican sports were football, and calling them so is an anachronism.

Regardless, I think the "officially recognize" part should be deleted. Because it is not, and it is embarrassing to have this on the Wikipedia article of the most relevant sport on Earth.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:12D0:D700:D95C:8BEB:A16A:5D55 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Have removed the claim. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

Recent edit here should be reverted. 50.239.222.190 (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 04:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There are formalisms for dealing with pages with similar titles, like the {{about}} template that is already used here. There is a reference later on in the first paragraph to American football. An informal bold and italic "Not to be confused with..." is not consistent with anything else enwp does. 50.239.222.190 (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The whole purpose is to aid readers. SHB2000 (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:SHB2000: That is quite frustrating since the previous placement was obviously not consistent with WP:HATNOTEPLACE, and by that same "helpful to readers" token could have had other pointless lines about five other types of football. Thankfully someone else has reverted it. Please consider these types of interactions more carefully. 50.239.222.190 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done In this edit. I would have reverted it as it's not a correctly placed hatnote and it's just not necessary. All of the forms of football (not just the common term in the US and Canada) are elaborated in the lede. Readers will only he aided by understanding the term in context and a hatnote is not the right way to do that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove racist term...

Under the early history section, a derogatory term for Inuit people is used in an unnecessary parentheses...probably should be removed. Eljeremino (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. If people are unsure what "Inuit" means, they can click through and find the following the lead: "Many individuals who would have historically been referred..." Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Giannellapasquariello.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Football versus Association football versus American football pages

If a page already exists, as I just discovered, for association football, why not merge football into that page and give American football the football page? American football is one of the world's most popular sports and its followers and participants know no other name for it. Keystone18 (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

By what measure do you define American football as one of the world's most popular sports? It is almost incomprehensible to and hardly played at all by the 95% of people who don't live in the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Finally, someone has the bravery to stand up and say "What I call football should be the only definition". For far too long, the Wikipedia community has been silent on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I grew up where "football" meant ONLY Australian rules football. After several years of agonising discussions, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) was developed. No code in Australia has a monopoly on the name "Football" HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Erm, you can't merge a page about every type of football into a page about one type of football, that's just silly. If a single sport were to take over the "football" page, it would of course be association football as the most popular sport in the world, but the current system works OK as well. Black Kite (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

http://pjboysontheroad.home.blog/2022/07/08/liverpool-willing-to-spend-significant-amounts-to-sign-jude-bellingham-would-easily-break-transfer-record/ 41.191.249.91 (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 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. --Bears (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

In the image at the top of the article, could you delete the current caption and replace it with this?

Several codes of football. Clockwise from top left: association, gridiron, rugby union, Gaelic, rugby league, and Australian rules

The current wording means "left to right on each level from top to bottom", but it can easily be misread as "left side top-bottom, then right side top-bottom". 49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contribution. Happy editing! --Bears (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"Football (elliptical)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Football (elliptical) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3#Football (elliptical) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Demande d'édition semi-protégée le 14 octobre 2022

Je voudrais pouvoir écrire pour apronfondir les connaissances de Wikipedia et des gens 109.13.139.10 (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 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. Wikipedia edit requests are intended to ask for a specific change to be made, not to request access to the article itself. This is the english-language edition of Wikipedia, all contributions to articles must be in english, and comminicating in english makes it easier for everyone. Alternatively, you could see if you can contribute to the french Wikipedia Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

Football, also called association football or soccer, is a game involving two teams of 11 players who try to maneuver the ball into the other team's goal without using their hands or arms. The team that scores more goals wins. Football is the world's most popular ball game in numbers of participants and spectators. Mody4323 (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

 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. 3mi1y (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Cuju

Cuju is an ancient game that came from china. Football was originated from cuju. It has slowly faded away. Cuju is an amazing game, we all should try playing it once. It was also played in differrent part of Asia except China were Korea, Japan and Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:5011:4914:3CD7:A0D4:66D5:EA3D (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources tell us. Can you provide such a source to support what you have written there? HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

[5] Buddhi421 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 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. Cannolis (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Distinction between The Football League and the Football Association

The Football Association (The Fa) and the Football League are separate organisation—the former predates the latter. The introduction section of this page needs to be corrected. SteadyJames (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The claim seems to be the League was the first professional organisation, which presumably the FA wasn't. Local Potentate (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)