Talk:Football/Archive 8

Revisions

Some idiot has edited this thing again, can we get this article protected? --Stang281 21:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegations

For those who have been following the debate, the findings of the investigation at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser are as follows:

* Licinius (talk • contribs), The man from OZ (talk • contribs), and J is Me (talk • contribs)
appear likely to be the same person.

* There is inconclusive evidence that Jimididit (talk • contribs)
and NSWelshman (talk • contribs) may be related.

* There is no evidence to suggest that these two groups of users are the same person.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I will let that speak for itself. Grant65 | Talk 15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for presenting the facts as they are as opposed to interpreting that information for everyone as someone else already has today. I've asked The Uninvited what inconclusive evidence he has to suggest I have any relationship to jimididit. If he comes back with anything I will also present that, as is and without interpretation. NSWelshman 16:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I am jimididit NSWelshman 14:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

oh oh

I think we have some fresh sockpuppetry to contend with... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just put the suspected sockpuppet tag on User:Lcns. Grant65 | Talk 10:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The number of english language Fifa affiliates using football

Ok, I don't really want to get into this too much, but basically when I was reading that section it hit me that the Marshall Islands is not a FIFA affiliate (a quick check confirmed this). Anyway another user alerted me to the original discussion where this info came from (here), and so another quick check (against here) showed that Kiribati and Micronesia also aren't, so that's why I've changed it to 45. Also mentioned that the Samoan Federation has a stupid official name which uses both (Samoa Football (Soccer) Federation) - though I didn't actually use the word stupid for WP:NPOV purposes. Hope this isn't contentious. Cursive 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, New Zealand has changed its name from New Zealand Soccer to New Zealand Football, I live in New Zealand and have seen the results. The All Whites have been given new shirts. Made a tiny little change here changing it from four countries that use Soccer to three. On a side note however most New Zealanders still use Soccer as the name. Sorry forgot to fill in edit summary. RandomGuy7 10:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Touch rugby

To avert an edit war, the recent edits are incorrect. See the long and messy discussion at Talk:Touch football (rugby league). Basically the code that people in Europe usually mean when they refer to "touch rugby" is the code that Australians call "Touch" or "touch football". Unlike Australians, Europeans generally refer to both union and league simply as "rugby". There are different versions of touch rugby and the Australian-invented Touch is the most popular form worldwide. Grant65 | Talk 13:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition of "Universal Rules"

I add this in process of Wikipedia. I have added the code that was an attempt to unite Australia's two forms of football, Rugby League and Australian Rules. It seems incredible but there is a link to respected Rugby historian Sean Fagan's homepage who researched it. I who have sinned 13:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oldest football club

Under "Other developments in the 1850s", we have the claim that Dublin University Football Club is the oldest club, being founded in 1854. However, under "The establishment of modern codes of football", we see the claim that Guy's Hospital Football Club was founded in London in 1843. It would appear that the latter can claim to be the oldest club - unless some knows different? Markb 13:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

According to most rugby books Guy's is the oldest. However the rugby union article states that Dublin University is the oldest documented club i.e. Guy's say they were founded in 1843 but there aren't very many documents that prove this, nor is it clear that Guy's were always in existance. They might have started up, folded and got going again.GordyB 14:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See Oldest football club: it would be correct to say that Guy's was the first documented and Dublin Uni is the oldest documented club. Grant65 | Talk 03:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Master rules

Added Masters Australian Football rules to Irish and Australian varieties of football as it has sufficient points of difference, and is widely enough spread to qualify as its own variety. Differences include, but are not limited to; no shirtfronts, no slinging in tackles, no `riding` from behind in marking contests, marked jumpers for older players designating `no tackling`, etc. --Jars 16:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Derivation of the word football

"...there is a rival explanation, which has it that football originally referred to a variety of games in medieval Europe, which were played on foot.[1]"

Can someone please provide a valid reference for this? The one provided doesn't work. To me that explanation sounds like a rugby or American football fan trying to justify their use of the term football, not a valid history of the word. Otherwise why don't lacrosse, hockey and numerous other ball games played on foot include the word football?Bombot 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

They use hands in soccer don't they. The first rules of soccer had marks and all forms of football have had different degrees of handling. As for Rugby, every play starts with a foot to the ball. 11:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the reference. Accepting that explanation, the sport which became the various versions of football would have been called football before lacrosse, hockey, etc existed as distinct sports, by which time the name was used in a more specific manner. JPD (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Australian Rules

Most of the teams are Victorians and the players are either Victorian, South Australian or Western Australian. 10 of the 16 teams in the competition are Victorian. There are only two teams in NSW and QLD whose players re all Victorians(to such an extent that the remnant is negligible). QLD and NSW is half the nation. The GF is always played in Victoria. Everything about the game almost is Victorian. In fact often more people go to the games in Sydney(which have an entertaining circus atmosphere) than watch it on t.v. in Sydney. Everything about the code is Victorian as opposed to being Australian. Mr nice guy 12:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Noooo, it's baaaaack! And still making basic factual errors too tedious to mention. Grant65 | Talk 13:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. This sounds to me like mindless Sydneycentrism. Xtra 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The article is talking about the game Aussie Rules (as well as various derivatives and Marn Grook). You seem to be talking about it's top level competition, the AFL.
• Being Victorian has not ever been opposed to being Australian, whatever we might think of our southern neighbours.
• Saying that it is an Australian variety of football does not imply that it is played/watched by the whole nation.
• It is the dominant code of football in many places that are not Victoria.
• Calling it a "Victorian variety" is confusing to an international audience.
• Overall, I have some sympathy for the idea that "Irish and Australian varieties" is (too) vague, but replacing Australian with Victorian makes the heading worse, not better.
• (Also, your comments about carnival atmosphere and Victorian players seem stuck in the 80s. Only 16 of the 38 players on the Swans' list are Victorian!) JPD (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone wake me up, this can't be happening... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The game was no different to how football was played in Britain at the time, it is not really Australian in that sense, so Victorian is also apt for that reason too. The game is derived from Victorian rules. Marn Grook really does not deserve a mention as a code or variety of football because there is no evidence it was anything more than a bit of a kick and catch with colours. We will have to disagree about being Victorian and being Australian are different. A Victorian is an Australian but an Australian is not a Victorian. No it does not imply that but when the game is distictly Victorian it should be called as such. Calling it Australian is confusing to a Sydney and QLD audience. Those states are under the Victorian shadow. How many are from Sydney than?And there is definitely a circus atmosphere. Mr nice guy 03:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• It is probably true that the original football played in Melbourne, Victoria was not more different from British versions of the time than they were from each other. The reason it came to be described as Victorian or Australian is that it evolved separately in Australia to become a very distinct game.
• I agree that Marn Grook should not be listed in the "Football Today" section.
• We don't have to disagree about Victorian and Australian being different. I never said they were they same. I am Australian, and I am definitely not Victorian. However, as you say, being Victorian is not opposed to being Australian, because Victorians are Australians.
• The game has not been distinctly Victorian for well over 100 years. The only ways in which it is Victorian is that a New South Welshman helped invent it in Melbourne, and the Victorian Football League became strong enough to take over the top-level running of the game nationally.
• Calling it Australian is not confusing at all. I am part of the Sydney audience, and it doesn't confuse me! I understand it to mean it is an Australian game. It doesn't say that it is the only variety of football played in Australia!
• "Victorian shadow"??? I personally feel that the Victorians do have too much influence in the AFL, but that is irrelevant to the fact that Australian rules is the dominant code of football in many places outside Victoria, including places that could hardly be described as under the Victorian shadow by any other criteria.
• I'm not going to keep discussing the Swans, because even if the game were not played at all in Sydney/Qld, it would still not be fair to call it Victorian, so it is not relevant to this discussion. If you wish to talk about Swans players or the "circus atmosphere" (when did you last go to a game?), please use my talk page. JPD (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• First point granted. But it should also be remembered to perhaps a lesser extent this is also the same in Rugby League.
• My point about Marn Grook is that to the best of my understanding, it was not really any more than a game played to a certain extent ad lib.
• We do not refer to codes that originated from the Rugby school English varities but we call them Rugby varieties. Same with association.
• Calling it an Australian variety is factually incorrect because it is distinctly regional. When I go to a Swan's game(which I do occasionslly as a sport's lover do), I am going to watch the Victorian team in Sydney play their variety of football.
• Victorian shadow?? perhaps that was a bit over the top, but I have no doubt that I have more in commen culturally with someone from NZ or the Islands beacuse they play Rugby than I do with people from Melbourne and the other two because their main idea of football is the Victorian code.
• The last time I went to game was last year :). I was actually told in my youth to support Collingwood because they were Victoria's Western Suburbs Magpies. I do not really mind the code despite the bile being thrown at me.

Mr nice guy 11:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr nice guy, I suspect you know this already, but I will point out to once and once only that what you are doing with this article has been discussed at length (see Talk:Football/Archive 7 (Australian rules debates), voted on and rejected. Please desist from attempting to change the name of the section "Irish and Australian varieties of football". Grant65 | Talk 06:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you actually read my post but I pointed out that I disputed that consensus. It was vastly flawed. I will continue to change it because I think it adds to the clarity of the encyclopedia. Mr nice guy 07:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarity? Have you edited this article and talk page under another identity? Let's have some clarity and openness about that.

You don't have a consensus, that's what we're trying to get into your head. The consensus is against you. You're pushing shit uphill. Grant65 | Talk 11:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you seek to demand personal information from me? No I have not edited the article and yes I followed the previous "debate", if it could be dignified as such and disagree that any consensus was reached. I have been editing anonymously until recently when I came to the conclusion that I could contribute more by using an identity. I will let this sit for a while so that you can cool down and come back and rationally argue against it. Mr nice guy 12:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I "seek to demand" it because I suspect that you are someone who has been blocked from editing this article, under another identity. Two polls have been held and were lost by a person or person arguing the same weird, irrational position that you are and with a similar style of writing. If you insist in editing the page in a way that is clearly against the wishes of the majority, that will amount to vandalism and I will ask that you be blocked. Grant65 | Talk 12:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

In between your reverting of each other could you please take the time to check what other edits were made. This edit resulted in the history section being removed for 11 1/2 hours until I put it back. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair call, I too was distracted and missed it - but that's what happens when one is continually sidetracked by idiotic, illogical, mischievous arguments! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not like your language. Mr nice guy 12:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The initial problem here is unthinking reverting using some sort of automated process by Rory096. For the rest of us, it's worth being a bit suspicious of reverts like "Reverted edits by 130.88.172.223 (talk) to last version by 216.83.202.131" where the last version is by an anon! JPD (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Protected again

Make up your minds. I thought that it was sorted last month. So it's protected again. Fix the problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You have fixed the problem - it is the only thing that works against idiocy and a strong will to wreak havoc. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some people who's heads are stuck so far in the sand that they can't see that their favourite code of football is not the only one and is not even the most popular one in their country. Xtra 09:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk about the tail wagging the dog! Mr nice guy is refusing (see above) to accept article content which stood long before he was on the scene. His bizarre suggestions have been defeated in exhaustive and repetitive debates and polls. There are good grounds for believing that he is the person of flawed character who started the previous debate and then attempted to rig the subsequent votes. I suggest that the page should be unprotected and that we get his arse kicked off Wikipedia if he fails to behave. Grant65 | Talk 15:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected again. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Afterprotection remove

When this becomes unprotected can someone add Headers and volleys to the Games descended from the FA rules of 1863 section. Jooler 09:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

An admin should be able to add it now. JPD (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't this page just be a disambiguation?

I'd have thought most people who type "football" into wikipedia are looking for either the Football (soccer) article or one of the other forms (American Football, Rugby football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football and Canadian football). This article on the origins of the split in codes of football is interesting, and has its place, but IMHO should be at a separate page, which could also be linked from the main simple dab page at Football. — SteveRwanda 14:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The first time I punched in 'football' that's exactly what I was expecting to see. 194.46.186.125 01:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can provide an explanation for the present state of affairs, the earliest versions of this page were about soccer, followed by a redirect to football (soccer), and then it was a kind of disambiguation page. The main author of the present material, Mintguy, merged history of football into this article, for a number of reasons: e.g. that name ("history of football") was beset with the same disambiguation problems as "football" and there was a tendency for the various football codes to each claim the ancient/medieval football games as their own, when those games are the common ancestors, the gene pool for more than one modern game. I'm not sure where we would move the present content if this was a disambiguation page(?) Grant65 | Talk 04:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Most English dictionaries (be that British, Australian or American) will define "football" as describing a group of related games which share certain features (even if some will also include an entry equating Football with Association Football, since the latter is simply one variation of football). People are incorrect in assuming that Football = Association Football at all times in all the English speaking countries of the world. It simply is not true, and in any event, it was the British that first coined the term soccer as an abbreviation of Association Football. Finally, one can find all the varieties of football from this page anyway, so it in effect serves both purposes, i.e. a discussion on football generally (which is clearly required as an article in its own right) and means of finding a particular code of football. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a disambiguation at the top whilst retaining all this information below it would be appropriate? Mr nice guy 12:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That is worth considering, although there is an intro already that describes the intent of the article and provides some direction to those wanting to look up a specific code of football. Rereading the whole article again (something I haven't done for a while) I was struck at the links to not only the main articles on the specific codes, but all the related football articles, different history articles, etc. It seems clear to me that we have a pretty decent structure and set up right now (and this is coming from someone who has contributed nothing to the article itself). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This might be a possible solution, but it still doesn't sit easy with me. Whatever the dictionary definition of the word may be, different people understand different things by this word, therefore by WP:DAB#Page naming conventions, the primary page should be a disambiguation pointing them at the different spots. I dislike this habit of putting lots of verbiage on pages that are basically disambiguation - it slows down users who may only be interested in one meaning of the word. If you're not sure where to put this page, why not Football (general) or somesuch? SteveRwanda 09:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy does go on to say: When the primary meaning for a term or phrase is well known (indicated by a majority of links in existing articles, and by consensus of the editors of those articles), then use that topic for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. So that does not necessarily help you, because for a long period there has been a consensus to maintain a main article on Football (being a term used around the world to describe a group of related games). Now you might say that most of the world understands "Football" to mean Association Football (which is its correct title), but this is the English language wikipedia, and it is untrue to say that most of the English speaking world understands "Football" to be Association Football. On the contrary, most of the English speaking world understands "Football" to mean their local variety of football - this is especially true when one throws in the USA, but it applies equally to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa. Indeed even in Wales, you might get an argument about whether "Football" means specifically Association Football. This argument has been had over and over in a number of places around wikipedia, invariably the "Football" equals Association Football brigade are shown to be pushing a POV interpretation, rather than an interpretation valid for the English language wikipedia. I repeat, this is the English language encyclopedia. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in any way trying to push the notion that Football = Association Football, and I don't dispute the fact that Football as a general term is widely understood to mean a category of games. However, you pretty much made my point yourself - most of the English speaking world understands "Football" to mean their local variety of football - which surely means a disambig page is the best way of delivering each and every individual to their required article. I'd say the fact that this issue keeps raising its head means that the 'consensus' you speak of doesn't necessarily exist. It would be an interesting exercise to carry out a vote on this issue to see where opinions truly lie... — SteveRwanda 13:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means, formally ask for a vote on the subject - at least you make a valid point and it will not have the nuisance value of some recent votes which have been nothing short of mischievous. However, I would not be surprised if the Football-only-equals-Association Football brigade come out in force again. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 14:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sick of votes, but my opinion is that I like having this article at football, but have no objection to replacing it with a disambiguation page. JPD (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to see this as a disambiguation page instead of its current state. it fits in better with wikipedia's style. Scott w 23:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that at the top of the page there should be a bit saying "this article is about the games known as football" (or something similar, I'm sure there's a much better wording) and then a mini disambiguation section listing the codes, with association, then american etc etc. That way there's no need to move the page or to create dangerous cultural confilcts. I came here expecting a particular code, and expect that almost all casual users would have the same expectations. Lets allow them to find the article they want as easily as possible without having to read into the body text and work out which one they want. There could even be little images beside the codes representing the sports. Just some ideas... Mostlyharmless 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the combined histories fascinating. The devolution of all the seperate games is astory unto itself and deserves to be preserved in one location IMhO. - Plasticbadge 02:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have been banned

It seems I have been banned for asserting that AFL is a Victorian variety of football and for being an alleged sockpuppet of Licinius. Absurd. I will not continue to post therefore unless an administrator unbans me or bothers to read my defence at my talk page. Mr nice guy2 01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

For everyone's information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban for Licinius. Snottygobble 01:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

History of football (soccer)

The History of football (soccer) article seems to be duplicating a lot of the information from here. It also has some nice pictures that would better fit in to this article. Jooler 02:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)