Wikipedia

Talk:Association football in the Republic of Ireland/Archive 1

< Talk:Association football in the Republic of Ireland
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Wknight94 in topic Proposal: "Football (soccer)" offers cross-Wikipedia uniformity
Archive 1Archive 2

Suggested move

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This page should be moved to Soccer in the Republic of Ireland (Gnevin 01:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Not done - no consensus for the suggested move. Neıl ☎ 12:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Requested move (rejected)

Latest comment: 16 years ago34 comments14 people in discussion

Football in the Republic of Ireland → Soccer in the Republic of Ireland — Gnevin says that the use of "football" is ambigious and it should be moved. —hbdragon88 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Eh, where did the FAI and the IFA say that they don't agree with the move? Scolaire (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
But no one in Ireland - north or south - uses the term 'Association football' to refer to the game. They say soccer or football. MurphiaMan (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes but consensus on Wikipedia has been to call it association football and indeed most soccer-related articles are being renamed as association football such as here [1]. To me a move towards soccer, or indeed if the were to stay at 'football' to be breaking the general consensus that this move achieved [2]. Therefore I am remaining neutral. EJF (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Gnevin moved the article from Football in the Republic of Ireland (its orginal location) a while ago without concensus, as the article history shows. As we can see it is not in following with the other Irish football articles on Wikipedia and the term "soccer" is only used in Ireland by people who aren't interested in the sport. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussed below Gnevin (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose: If "football" is ambiguous, does that mean all non-"soccer" football pages will be renamed with "rugger" for "football"? I don't think so ... ("Association football", I could get behind.) the Sidhekin (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: No as the Rugby articles are called Rugby Union and so aren't ambiguous Gnevin (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Well, speaking as a native when I hear "football" I certainly don't think rugby. But it could be either Gaelic football or soccer, depending on the context and the company. So, yes, it is ambiguous. I might add that only Dublin and Wicklow manage to turn Gaelic football into a Beautiful Game. Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A rather partisan comment! Fans of Colm Cooper might dispute that (and I'm a Dub!) :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scolaire (talk • contribs) 08:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The rugby being called football is fair less common than Soccer or Gaelic but it still is the Irish Rugby Football Union,players are still called footballers and matchs are called good games of football Gnevin (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
"Unless they're playing Kerry", he mournfully cried into his beer ..... MurphiaMan (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
How about Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland, which matches the naming conventions used with reference to football.Regan123 (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The title soccer in the Republic of Ireland was fine for a year until some random user moved it Gnevin (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Gnevin, the article history shows that some random user aka you, moved the article from Football in the Republic of Ireland in the first place, without concensus.[3], that is why all the other Irish football articles like Republic of Ireland national football team have a different title to the one you moved this article to. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Football (Soccer) is a redirect now. Soccer is now 'officially' Association Football on WP. PMSL. MurphiaMan (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Move by User:Gnevin as per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice#Keep the layout clear: and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice#Centralized discussion

Gnevin moved the article from Football in the Republic of Ireland (its orginal location) a while ago without concensus, as the article history shows. As we can see it is not in following with the other Irish football articles on Wikipedia and the term "soccer" is only used in Ireland by people who aren't interested in the sport. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment A while ago was a year and no one objected Talk:Football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Suggested_move, the term is ambigious in Ireland nothing to do with interest or lack of Gnevin (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment, nobody supported either, so its really a mute point. Would you care to address the points I brought up above? - Talk of the Toon (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a moot point: a move that is unopposed is a good move - there is an implied consensus and so there is no need for anybody to voice their support. As for your points above: every single Gaelic football club has "football" in its name and, as Gnevin points out below, in IRFU the "F" stands for football, therefore by your criteria an article entitled "Football in the Republic of Ireland" should cover all three codes! an article that only covers soccer should be called "Soccer in the Republic of Ireland". Simple! Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: thanks for the spelling correct, however, you or your fellow pro-Gaelic games, anti-football editor have yet to address any of the issues brought up. Such as the fact that A) The federation has football, not soccer anywhere in its name. B) Not a single Irish club out of the 21 in the top two divisions of Irish football have "soccer" in their name, ALL have either Football Club or Association Football Club. C) All of the other articles on Wikipedia in regards to this sport in Ireland have football in its page name such as the national team, etc.
What reasons, outside of "hardline nationalists say so" would there be to have "soccer" in the articles name, when even the Irish people who play it, all play in clubs with "Football Club" in their name, for an Irish federation called the Football Association of Ireland, hoping to make it to the Republic of Ireland national football team, which has a badge referencing the word "football"? Wikipedia is not a political podium, we work by what can be vertified, and clearly as has been shown, all of the things in regards to this sport in that country are explicitly named football not soccer. Until all the Irish football entities change the word "football" to "soccer" in their name (note - not a single one of them has), the article should remain where it was before Gnevin's move. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: When assessing the votes in this survey, I would ask you to take into account Talk of the Toon's characterisation of 'support' voters as "pro-Gaelic games", "anti-football" and "hardline nationalists", along with his/her perfectly correct assertion that "Wikipedia is not a political podium". Scolaire (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Wiki doesn't care about the offical name is , it cares about WP:COMMON and Wikipedia:Disambiguation .As Scolaire repeated. The IRFU has the word football in their name ,why cant this article be about Rugby. If you have an issue with the naming of this article I'd suggest you read Talk:Association_football#The_naming_convention which has rules all soccer pages should be called Association_football Gnevin (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Errrr well since that federation is called the Irish Rugby Football Union, there is nothing stopping you from starting a Rugby Football in the Republic of Ireland article if you really want to. As for WP:COMMON, the fact that ALL of the teams are either called "Football Club" or "Association Football" in Rep of Ireland, means football lives up to WP:COMMON above and beyond for this sport. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move February 2008

Latest comment: 16 years ago80 comments21 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. Do not revert this move without another WP:RM request --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Football in the Republic of Ireland → Association football in the Republic of Ireland — I am proposing this move, as during the previous requested move, some other users supported the idea of moving this page to Association football in the Republic of Ireland. This move would remove the ambiguity of the term 'football' which is also commonly used in Ireland to refer to Gaelic football and sometimes rugby football. As it appears the term 'soccer' is quite unpopular, perhaps this move would be more appropriate. I feel that association football would be the least worst title. As shown here and at many articles concerning soccer in different countries, an ongoing consensus has been to move to 'Association football in...', even in countries where there are no other forms of football popular on a large scale; this is more important in RoI, where there are competing sports which style themselves as 'football'. This move would also help bring continuity throughout the encyclopedia. —EJF (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey 2

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Nobody here really is arguing that Association Football is more common that 'soccer'; the issue is whether "football" is unambiguous. In the context of Ireland, like it or not, it isn't. Sarah777 (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, firstly, you're wanting it move there; and, secondly, like it or not, "football" is clearly understood as primary usage in regards to soccer. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
We are specifically talking about "football in Ireland". And I doubt many Americans would agree with you on the general point (though I might). Type "football" into Wiki-search; you get This article is about various sports known as "football". End of debate really. Sarah777 (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Americans don't call it Association Football anymore than we do. They'll call it soccer, and you'll find more Americans calling it football than "association football" ... though that'd be the Europhile type. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment As the above discussion ,you may say football for soccer , while I say football for Gaelic. This is not a nationalist issue its an issue of ambiguous naming. You say more popular participation sport and i say most watched sport for Gaelic, Irish people disambiguate these codes in the context. Their is no hard and fast soccer= football, gaelic is never football rule . Gnevin (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Its not ambiguous at all. When Irish born and bred players who are world famous like Roy Keane, Niall Quinn, Damien Duff, Shay Given or Robbie Keane say in interviews that they play "football" you know exactly which sport they mean. When you stop pretending that you're not pushing a nationalistic stance is when you can be taken seriously on this topic.
You fully understand that when somebody says gaelic, they mean gaelic football and you fully understand people in Ireland calling this sport, the most popular participation sport in Ireland, as simply "football". Gaelic football in Ireland is organised by the organisation Gaelic Athletic Association, thus it is "gaelic football".[4] Not a single one of the gaelic teams have simply "Football Club" as their name, they all have names which reference the Gaelic Athletic Association, Carrick Swans GAA, Golden-Kilfeacle GAA, Mullinahone GAA, Nenagh Éire Óg GAA, J.K. Brackens GAA, etc. This is their official names and the organisations official name, thus there is no confusion or real ambiguity at all... trying to pull the wool over people's eyes who are unfamiliar with Sport in Ireland, to push your agenda doesn't make it true and you know it.
As previously shown above, the Irish clubs and organisation for this sport unlike gaelic games clubs, simply refer to themselves as "football" within Ireland. The asssociation for the sport in this country is the Football Association of Ireland, unlike the gaelic games clubs, the top Irish sides are known as and officially named by Irish people in Ireland as simply "Football Club". Bohemian F.C., Cork City F.C., Derry City F.C., Drogheda United F.C., Galway United F.C., Longford Town F.C., Shamrock Rovers F.C., Sligo Rovers F.C., St. Patrick's Athletic F.C., Waterford United F.C., etc. Also its the most participation sport in Ireland, thus it has the majority of the Irish people for the current way.[5] Your personal tastes in sport are irrelevent and ufortunetly you're using preferences to try and decive the truth of Irish sports to push an agenda, its not on. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Talk of the Toon , have you ever been to Ireland ? And started conversation about the football ?Gnevin (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Many times, my father is from County Clare. However, I don't think that Ireland's contribution to this sport (they are former World Cup quarter-finalists) should be dragged through the dirt just because of some dillusional gaelic games fans, who seem to be agitated that Ireland's efforts in this sport have more world attention than gaelic. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Explain how disambiguating is dragging football through the dirt or which Gaelic games fans are agitated that a Irish game doesn't get much world attention Gnevin (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I notice you had too disambiguate what code you where referring to while voting no. Gnevin (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment look at the link all about football not Gaelic football,[6] notice just football here ,what about the Irish Rugby Football Union and Lansdowne_Football_Club , So say their is not ambiguity surrounding football the word in Ireland is clearly misguided Gnevin (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)?
The text only mentions Gaelic Football. Rugby is Rugby. --Albert.white (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Rugby is Rugby football the usage of football to refer to Rubgy Union is lower than the other two but still commonGnevin (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Albert.white is correct and Gnevin now pretending rugby union is commonly known as just "football", as a means to claim the term os ambigious is laughable and really clutching at straws. The Irish association for that sport is called Irish Rugby Football Union note its not just called the Irish Football Union, the word Rugby is specifically used in the national organisers name in relation to the sport so there is zero confusion. Also Lansdowne have their website at LansdowneRugby.com and even refer to themselves as rugby or rugby football, they never say the sport they play is simply football "one of the oldest rugby clubs in Ireland as well as one of the best-known wherever the game of rugby football is played. "[7] Using England as a comparison, the rugby league side is known as Hull F.C. however in the modern context, that sport is known entirely as "rugby" or "rugby league", not just football and so Football in England is where it is. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about England , i can assure you Rugby is called football ,also players are called footballers. This is about common usage in Ireland where football and often does refer to 3 different codes 01:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you don't believe football isn't ambiguous can you tell me what code i am referring to in this sentence. Horgan played football in his youth Gnevin (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The sentence above, is that of a man clutching at straws, pretending that Shane Horgan is refered to as a mere footballer rather than a rugby union player. Does that answer your question? - Talk of the Toon (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Opps you picked the wrong code ,i was referring to Gaelic football , perhaps I should of disambiguated that for you ? Gnevin (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's try these two Moran was a great footballer in his day and this one He's a great footballer Gnevin (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support My experience is that in Ireland, the term football is ambiguous. "Did you see the football?" as a question could refer to either Gaelic or Association football. I think the user above is misguided to suggest that this is just an issue that would be flagged by nationalists. In England, I'd never even think to call the game anything other than football. But in Ireland football does have more than one meaning, and wikipedia should reflect that. Robotforaday (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Interesting what you say about England. Football in the United Kingdom does not have a suggestion like this one; though the argument could equally be made there. Rugby is very popular in the UK. In Gaelic Football there are plenty of CLG clubs in the UK and 3 of the last 6 all Ireland finals have had teams from Northern Ireland taking part. --Albert.white (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Interesting that you immediately jump from "England" to "The United Kingdom"! In England, "football" nearly always refers to the game regulated by the FA; that's a fact and nobody's arguing it. In Ireland, including Northern Ireland, a substantial number of people use "football" to refer to Gaelic football, but they have too much sense to argue that Football in the United Kingdom should refer to anything other than the 22-man game. What bothers me a lot about this discussion is the fact that a lot of people from outside Ireland are trying to dictate to the Irish what we should mean by "football". That "soccer" was opposed I can understand, although I disagree; that the same people now oppose "Association Football", the official name of the sport, suggests to me that they are less interested in accurate description than in forcing their narrow viewpoint on the community. Once again we have the assertion that those who say that "football" in Ireland is ambiguous are "a subsection of nationalists" (for that read: members or supporters of the IRA). Although in theory the move is not decided on numbers, in practice a sufficient number of "opposes", however ill-informed, will result in a "no consensus" and a whole nation of people will be told that we don't know what we're talking about. Scolaire (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again we have the assertion that those who say that "football" in Ireland is ambiguous are "a subsection of nationalists" (for that read: members or supporters of the IRA). I asserted nothing of the kind. --Albert.white (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, not you. But it has been asserted several times in both move discussions, most recently here. Scolaire (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that you may be reading a bit much in to that comment. There is certainly no mention of the IRA, and I for one did not get the impression that anyone was being accused of being an IRA sympathiser... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the opposition already stated above. I don't think there is any problem with the name as it is. The vast majority of people in Ireland refer to football as football, not association football or soccer. If people really think that there is a problem with the name then the best solution would be to place an other uses link to a dab page along the lines of Codes of football in the Republic of Ireland at the top of the article. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 23:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Commment Dan i notice from your user page your english so can i ask what your basing The vast majority of people in Ireland refer to football as football on ?Gnevin (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Various forms of media – television, internet etc. I don't see how the fact that I am English has any bearing on the validity of my opinion... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
See in the media below, your being English just means you might have less exposure to common everyday usage on the ground in Ireland is the point I'm making Gnevin (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Not one of the sources you mention call football association football. Although I personally despise the term, I accept that soccer is widely used in Ireland, however association football is not. Just because the proposal to move the page to Soccer in the Republic of Ireland was rejected, it does not mean that we should move to Association football in the Republic of Ireland. Association football is an archaic term, and is used much less frequently than simply football. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 14:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
So we should leave the page at an ambiguous name? Association football is the official wiki name so it cant be all that archaic Gnevin (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As I've already stated, I don't feel that the name is ambiguous, and a simple dab link at the top would fix that problem anyway. As for Association football, yes, it is an archaic term and I don't think that the page should have been moved in the first place, but that is another story... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
How can a page not be ambiguous and require a disambiguated like to fix the problem at the same time . Its archaic and the offical wiki name at the time time also? Gnevin (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the title is ambiguous, however, some people obviously do think that it is, so a link would fix the problem as they perceive it. As stated above Association football is an archaic term and I don't think that the page should have been moved (to Association football) in the first place, but that is another story. I feel like I'm going round in circles here as you don't seem to be taking my points on board, so I'm going to stop debating the point with you. The bottom line is, I would have weak supported a move to Soccer in the Republic of Ireland (since the term is used in tandem with football in Ireland) if I had been aware of the debate at the time, just as I would have rejected the move of Football (soccer) to Association football if I had been aware of that debate at the time. However, as things stand I strongly oppose a move to Association football in the Republic of Ireland as it is an archaic and infrequently used term. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion 2

Any additional comments:
This is a simple disambiguation issue and there should be no debate. "Soccer" is the other common term - regardless which alternative is used a title implying that Association Football is the main or only "football" in the RoI and/or that soccer is what most people think of when hearing the word football in an Irish context is complete nonsense. Also I note that the obviously correct title "Soccer in the RoI" was failed due to the minority opposed. I thought these things were decided on wiki-policy and the points made; not a "vote" that allows a minority to block plain and simple common sense. Sarah777 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
If this fails I think I'll create a dab page like this:
Football is used equally in Ireland to refer to soccer or Gaelic football; it is also sometimes used in reference to Rugby Union.
Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a look on the Irish Times, and it seemed to me that just-football usually, perhaps overwhelmingly, meant the and-in-the-end-the-Germans-win variety. Now it could be that that's unusually, or that the Irish Times is atypical of normal usage, but there you are. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure Angus that it wasn't your copy of the IT that was atypical?! Sarah777 (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I searched for 'football' on the 'Irish Times' website, and the references that came up seemed be about half-anf-half using 'football' on its own for Gaelic football and socccer (actually slightly more referring to Gaelic football). Furthermore, neither of the relevant sections was called 'football'. "Soccer" and 'Gaelic football' were the terms used in the section titles. These conclusions would be pretty much consistent with my experience of reading the paper. I think it's fairly clear that, like most of the national media, the 'Times' uses disambiguation. Your copy must have been quite atypical, Angus Tameamseo (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Where on the times [8] says ,Rugby ,GAA and Soccer
If this fails the page should be what about it says on the tin football, Gaelic, Union and Association Gnevin (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That counts for something, but it doesn't alter the fact that football is used with alarming regularity on the pages of said paper to mean 22 men chasing after a round ball. I only found one unqualified use of football to mean anything in else in the dozen and more pages I picked at random containing the f-word. And table football was mentioned as often as rugby union, so Sarah had better add that to her dab page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite my current South Dublin abode I clearly don't mix in those circles that think "rugger" or "table football" on hearing the f-word! Sarah777 (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you like me to some of these pages Gnevin (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)?
I just stuck football in the search box. Disappointing or what? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I did the same thing, and my findings agree wtih Tameamseo. 'Football' wasn't usually used on its own unless the context made it clear which sport was being referred to. You might have 'Roy Keane played football for Manchester United' meaning soccer, or 'Peter Canavan played football for Tyrone', meaning Gaelic football. However, I didn't see much of 'Joe Bloggs played football in his youth' when it wouldn't be clear which sport was in question - it seemed to be 'Joe Bloggs played Gaelic football in his youth' or 'Joe Bloggs played soccer in his youth'.Vpag (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a dab page is much more encyclopaedic as it gives the uninformed reader a greater insight into the use of the word in Ireland. Soccer in RoI or AF in RoI are both equally inaccurate and misleading to the uninformed reader. The naming conventions here are not for our benefit, so we can stuff things into neat pigeon holes. They are for the readers benefit, to explain and enhance their user experience. So dab it, and redirect from both Soccer in and AF in. That would work for the reader. MurphiaMan (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well Murph that was a bit preachy (are you running for Admin?) but I actually agree with you that this is the way forward. As the only "no" voter here we should give you the honour of writing the dab page. I hereby nominate you. Sarah777 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
MurphiaMan, can you clarify what you're saying here? "Soccer" has failed, you are opposed to AF and you want "Football" to be a dab page? That would leave us with no article at all about the John Delaney sport. If you're running with the dab idea, maybe you ought to change your vote above. Scolaire (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Preachy or no, I honestly believe I am right on this. Football in the Republic of Ireland should be a dab page, either with a series of short links, or with a full article sectioned up to individual sports, perhaps even including minority things rugby league and american football. Add in a {{main}} at the top of each section pointing to the full articles and we are nearly there. We then come back to the location of the article on the subject of soccer/AF. The main reason the original move lost was that there was no consensus. We as a community were not sure if the proposed move was a good idea or not. IMHO it was. But I have no great grá for that location. It was the best option available although not a very good one.
AF in RoI is just about the worst possible option. No one, I repeat, no one would think to type that in as an article name if they were searching for the article about the subject. MurphiaMan (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No need to worry about what people search for , redirects can handle that Gnevin (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So where will Football in the Republic of Ireland redirect to? MurphiaMan (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Football in the Republic of Ireland will be the dab page see example Talk:Football in the Republic of Ireland/test Gnevin (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Very good. Two problems though. You spelt soccer wrong. It's not spelled 'Association football'. Secondly, it needs a paragraph or two explaining the need for the dab. MurphiaMan (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about lack of intro is very much a 2 minute example thrown together to show what i was talking about . As for soccer well that page move failed so it has to point to Association football in the Republic of Ireland but we could do Football (soccer) in the Republic of IrelandGnevin (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
My old mum used to say If you fail at first, then try again. Good advice that. AFinRoI is a nonsense title. MurphiaMan (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. Since Football (soccer) now redirects to Association football it makes sense that if this move is successful the same logic should apply here. --Albert.white (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

If this proposed move is successful, then football in the Republic of Ireland could become a dab page like the football in Australia article, which mentions all the forms of football played in Australia. So a dab page called "football in the Republic of Ireland" would also mention all the codes of football played in Ireland. --203.94.135.134 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If successful rather than creating a simple dab page like the Australian example could a page with more information be created. Something along the lines of Football describing briefly, in a paragraph each, the various codes played here with wikilinks back to the various Main Articles. That would be more helpful to users than a basic dab. Thanks. --Albert.white (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Concern

As outlined above, though I sympathize with the feelings behind this move, I think it is misguided, I don't think "football" in this context really is ambiguous in practice and I don't think the title Football in the Republic of Ireland will actually confuse anyone. That aside, moving this article to the proposed title will create many spin-off anomalies which I see haven't been discussed or given due consideration. The Republic of Ireland national football team for instance? Is this to be moved to Republic of Ireland national association football team? Should football in Norn Iron have to be out of line with the mother Republic, or brought into line as any good periphery should? Articles aside, shouldn't Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Football be moved too? Surely that's ambiguous too ... from what is stated above, that wikiproject must be confusing lots of Irish people with its ambiguity. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The WP:FOOTBALL guideline should be used for the national team article and Assocation football should be used for articles like Leinster Senior League (football) which is clearly ambiguous Gnevin (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Gnev; I would hazard a guess that the answer is "overbearing arrogance" except such a guess might get me in trouble with, oddly, other English editors and Admins. So I will say that Pandiazapams statement is almost certainly based on a statistically validated survey. Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In the media

  1. http://www.independent.ie/sport/ Soccer , Gaelic football
  2. http://www.ireland.com/sports/ Soccer , GAA
  3. http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer Soccer , Gaelic football
  4. http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/ Soccer , Gaelic football
  5. http://www.rte.ie/sport/index.html Soccer , GAA
  6. http://www.munster-express.ie/sports/ Soccer GAA football
  7. http://www.eecho.ie/ Soccer , GAA

7 Irish media outlets , including the 3 largest papers and the national broadcaster and not one use football, they all disambiguate Gnevin (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous move - no consensus to move

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Philip Baird Shearer was wrong to move the page, plain and simple. There was not a unanimous consensus to move it at all as shown above it was a highly contested and controversial proposal, please see WP:CON for what a consensus is and move the page back to where it was before you uprooted it because there is no clear unanimous consensus to move it at all. A consensus is not a strawman.

In fact in the latter part of the vote, when people were actually putting forward sources and references to back up their claims, the majority of people were "opposing" the move. That carries more weight when coming to a WP:CON than flyby Americans and other people unfamiliar with Sport in Ireland simply voting "oppose" based on nothing early in the poll and moving on. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy , and WP:CON don't work on majorities or unanimous consensus it works or should do on the better argument .Also your someone to talk , how much consensus did you have when you moved the page from soccer in the roi ? Thats right none  ! Gnevin (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
How much consensus did you have when you decided to troll the article by moving it from its original location of Football in the Republic of Ireland to "soccer" in the first place? Check the logs, you had none.
Wikipedia:Consensus is official policy if you don't like the policy don't come to Wikipedia. As there is no consensus and it is needed via the official policy then Philip Baird Shearer should undo his move, because he is not within the policy to do what he has done or to claim the above discussion is a "consensus" when its clearly not. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I will ask you to remain WP:Civil , I had consensus, I followed guidelines, no one objected so i moved the page . It was at it's new location for a year . A consensus doesnt have to be a unanimous consensus to be a consensus Gnevin (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You didn't have consensus at all, prove your claim. There isn't a guidline which says "you must put strenuous efforts into making Ireland look ridiculous in the world game"... lets face it, that was your only motivation. Wow the GAA must be so thrilling if all you focus on doing here is spitting on Ireland's efforts in this sports. Obsurd. - Talk of the Toon (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I followed WP:RM there is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. ,I posted on the talk page here. No one objected so i moved the page . That's how it works .Please don't question me or my motivations and I am not nor have i ever spat on Ireland's ever on this sport and once again i feel you are in break of WP:Civil and WP:NPA as you are questioning me not my arguments Gnevin (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I too was surprised that the page was moved as there clearly was not a consensus. Either of the old page names (ie. Soccer... or Football...) are preferable to what we've got now. Who actually refers to this sport as "Association football" in general conversation?
"Did you see the association football yesterday?" I don't think so. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 09:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
From WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
That is, the criteria are based on recognition, ambiguity, and utility. "General conversation" does not figure into the equation. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
"Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize"
Are you seriously suggesting that more English speakers would most easily recognize "association football" compared to "soccer" in the Republic of Ireland? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm suggesting that the greatest (not necessarily greater) number of English speakers would most easily recognize "association football". I don't think I've ever encountered an English speaker who did not recognize it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines also state "while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I would argue that linking to association football, a term which is not in common use, is not second nature to most editors. Anyway, going back to the original point, I seriously doubt that consensus was reached as the guidelines state that consensus is reached if it can be built on after the change. I would be very surprised if another page move back to soccer or football is not proposed shortly... Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The admin who moved it was brave. It takes some bravery to close close discussions in favour of the change. He is a good admin, but I think he was wrong to cite consensus as a reason, as even according to wikipedia's own definition, that didn't exist. What's done is done though. I'm certainly not in favour of the flag-planting approach to a frozen status quo. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree entirely with Sidhekin here. To come back to Talk of the Toon's point the supporters of this move were not mostly flyby Americans and other people unfamiliar with Sport in Ireland - myself, Sarah777, Gnevin, Scolaire etc. are Irish, and I'm sure that the other supporters (and the opposers) are familiar with sport in Ireland as well as the ambiguity of football in an Irish context. Though I am from (the North/Ulster/Northern Ireland/Norn Iron/Ulaidh/Tuaisceart Éireann/Norlin Airlann) and not RoI (the article in question) I find that the word 'football' is very ambiguous, as in my own experience/WP:OR/WP:SYN, the word football is often used to mean rugby union, especially those with a state/private grammar school background and that it often mean Gaelic football with those who are GAA fans.
    The fact is now that the soccer move failed and the association football move passed, as the majority of commenters here supported. Strictly speaking, consensus may not have been reached, however it was vital to disambiguate this page, or else I imagine there would have been a Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland or Football (association football) in the Republic of Ireland requested move now. We now have more continuity with the rest of the encyclopedia and of course the parent page association football itself. If you do not agree with the move, I would suggest that you perhaps wait 3 months and file a new request as is standard. EJF (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I too was gobsmacked by the "flyby Americans" comment. In case I missed it, on what does Talk of the Toon base his claim to be an authority on "football" in the Republic of Ireland other than (a) his/her father was from Clare (admittedly a hurling, not a footballing county) and (b) the Toon Army's rivals are managed by a Corkman? Scolaire (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: "Football (soccer)" offers cross-Wikipedia uniformity

Latest comment: 16 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion

I've just been reading through some of the arguments above. I cannot understand why Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland wasn't used. Clearly "soccer" is used more frequently in places where there are more variants of football (as in Ireland). 'Association Football' is simply never used by anyone in the UK and it makes a 'mockery' of our working class game: the oppressive irony of such a stuffy and awkward bureaucratic title! It's like the 1950's all over again. In my opinion, some people will go to any lengths to maintain a 'wood-carved' Ireland, where the indigenous anything must shape the popular everything. But let’s not forget the working classes, no? Or the most popular game in the world.

In the moving edit-note I read "moved Football in the Republic of Ireland to Association football in the Republic of Ireland over redirect: Neither name breaches policy of guidelines, so moved as there is a consensus to do so (more than 60% in favour)". I find that gross abuse of Wikipedia: "more than 60%" equals consensus? Some people are surely having a laugh here, and the cannot be football fans. Footy where I come from is a passionate game.

In terms of uniformity across Wikipedia: "Football in England" makes sense for England (etc), whereas "Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland" makes sense for ROI, as they use 'soccer' so much - due to having the other popular forms of 'football'. Makes sense?

Who's for moving to "Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland"? --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is now a proper Requested Move in the section below --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The main parent article is at Association football , so I see no reason why this shouldn't be at it's current title Gnevin (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
None at all? Really? Can I ask you if you are a football (soccer) fan? I am here because I noticed this. Who is being fair here? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a soccer fan but don't know what's that got to do with anything , I don't understand what your link indicates . The current title is disambigious at that is all I care about Gnevin (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The link is an indication that an excellent contributor has been bullied off Wikipedia due to the goings on here. You need to start caring about it because I'm taking it very seriously. If people here don't play fair I'll take it to arbitration. I find the "60% consensus = move" here utterly gross. In a global "vote" you would be lucky to get 1% - with all the factors considered, too. Yes it matters that you are not a football (soccer) supporter - it matters a lot. (yes, yes I know there are no laws that you have to be into a subject - but it shows clear bias to me that you are not.)--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) To Matt Lewis: I'm sorry but those of us who supported the move to "association football in the Republic of Ireland" cannot be blamed for the unfortunate retirement of an editor - and changing the title won't bring him back I'm sure. The reason "association football" gained acceptance was because of the name of the parent article, the precedent for other "Association football in ..." country articles and because "soccer in the Republic of Ireland" failed to reach consensus in the previous discussion. The title of this proposal is erroneous - "football (soccer)" will not offer cross-Wikipedia uniformity and actually diverges from the current norms. I wouldn't oppose a move to your suggested title, but I wouldn't support it either, because I see very little benefit to the move. And I say this as a "soccer" fan. EJF (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A more reasonable response, but I'm very unhappy. I just find the move so disrespectful - and why should Ireland be different? Removing "Association" and adding "(soccer)" would keep it more uniform with the rest of Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean my answer wasn't reasonable.I find it difficult to understand how someone can consider a page title disrespectful. More uniform with Association_football ? Gnevin (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't comment on your "page title" comment. As for uniformity - it is across Wikipedia that matters. What country other than ROI uses "Association" like this? In Ireland you use the word "soccer" to disambiguate - why can we not reflect this in the article? The solution is already there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think the move would make it uniform with the rest of Wikipedia; as far as I can see there are more "Association football in ..." titles (eg. Australia, American Samoa) than "Football (soccer) in ..." titles (I'm not sure if there are any?) As I say, I wouldn't oppose, but I don't think that consensus will be attainable for such a move. To generate more discussion, you may wish to inform the others who participated in the last discussion or start a request for comment; I don't think a requested move should be set up yet before there is more discussion. EJF (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about the serious football (soccer) playing countries - not places like Australia and Somoa. To compare ROI to them will be disrespectful to some people, no question about it. Nearby countries like Wales, Scotland, England and France all use "Football in...". ROI simply needs the "(soccer)" qualifier. You would not get "Association" into England in a million years - nobody can deny that. You wouldn't get it into Wales in a million years either. etc. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Because i don't see what moving will achieve. If we move to Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland then someone will want Football in the Republic of Ireland then Soccer in the Republic of Ireland which will then be Association football in the Republic of Ireland which will finally lead to Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland. Association football is the official title of the sport and as WP:Common doesn't apply in this case its the best option Gnevin (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You need to AFG over the future - you have no proof that will happen at all. I cannot see why it would. Why does WP:COMMONNAME not apply here, anyway? --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Association_football#move and WP:AAGF or in the extreme WP:AAGFAAGF Gnevin (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That linked example is someone trying to compromise with the word "Association"!!! (why I wonder?) We don't need to use Association at all. You can can say I should ADCDEFGHIJK 'AGF' if you want - but this is clear stonewalling to me. Some people use football politically and I don't like it - we need to be fair on Wikipedia. This is as clear-cut a case for "Football (soccer)" as there ever possibly could be.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
'Don't accuse me of WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system and Don't use Easter egg links to do so. List at WP:RM if you wish Gnevin (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
"Stonewalling" is clear English - how could it be an 'easter egg'. You will get from me what I see. I've started a new Requested Move as you suggest. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem stems from the silly decision to move Football (Soccer) to Association football. Following from that its not that surprising that some people want to change articles like this one to Association Football also. Using Common Names seems to be ignored in these cases; Soccer in the ROI or Football (soccer) in the ROI are better titles. The point of the previous move was apparently to avoid disambiguation since the GAA folk think that Gaelic is called football ;-) A Soccer name keeps the disambiguation and uses the common name. --Albert.white (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you put "support" in bold to that Albert? I agree - why can we not go by "common names"? Everything simply fits into place.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Do not move. Yes, the earlier discussion went long but there are four times as many people who agree with that consensus (which was arrived at just a few months ago). Sure, WP is not a democracy but let's be sensible. When the ratio is four-to-one and the signal-to-noise ratio is almost nil, the best thing to do is close it before a war breaks out. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (26th May)

Latest comment: 16 years ago89 comments20 people in discussion

I have requested a move to "Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland"

It is the perfect title for the ROI, and the reasoning is surely watertight:

  1. "Association Football" does not have any common colloquial use whatsoever.
  2. England, Scotland, Wales, France, Germany etc all use the "Football in England" format.
  3. As ROI has another popular version of "football", the Irish media commonly disambiguates using "soccer". We should reflect that.
  4. Under WP:COMMONNAMES the "(Soccer)" qualifier can be used, while keeping the cross-Wikipedia consistency of the "Football in.." format.
  5. The other English-speaking countries where football is a major sport would simply not accept "Association Football" in the title. Just try it! Many are unhappy with the recent change of the ROI article.
  6. The move from Football in the Republic of Ireland to Association football in the Republic of Ireland was made after a "over 60% consensus"! - that is not a true or fair consensus, and is foundationally insecure. One editor called it "the least worst compromise". But was it? And is that a sensible reason for change? Not all the voters were football fans: was it fairly put through? A public vote in the UK could be less than 1% for a move to "Association".
  7. Who is to say the Association football article will be called that forever? It could always be contested.
  8. Who would continue to complain about "Football (soccer)"? It would not be unhappily controversial, as the current title certainly is.

Please sign below and help resolve this once and for all. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have canvassed the community non-selectively, with a strong relevance-based argument. What are you afraid of? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Gnevin, there is no biased canvasing here - it is all relevant. I am just widening the participation - all parties now know. Why is it you don't want people to know about this vote? I have not gone anywhere selectively at all, have I? Given the "conformity" reasoning for keeping Association that keeps appearing below - it is essential that the other, UK nations know what is going on here. You are reverting my edits - why is it you don't want a fair vote with a decent attendance? Is it because no-one but a closed group will vote your way?--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This issues raised here do not affect Scotland,wales or England , the football in and national team pages both don't need a link here . Your also in breech of WP:Point by suggesting moves you your self don't support . Ni the only one where a case could be made that he arguements that apply here apply their but your text is not WP:NPOV Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, unsigned (User:Number 57) - you have already changed my supposedly "canvasing" text. I ONLY informed the two relevant Wikiprojects (ROI Football, and Football). Clearly we need input here - so I tried to gently encourage it a little bit, for my terrible sins. Shall I canvas Talk:Football in England too?? I'm tempted to do it as you have been so bloody unreasonable to me! It would bring about a sea of "Supports", and you know it! You just happen to be against my proposal too - you are a biased admin seriously getting too-involved here. It is you who is trying to unfairly influence things, hardly me through alleged canvasing! Boy, am I tempted to genuinely canvas England now you have done this to me! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Given these "closed door" tactics I think its only fair that someone informs the other, UK nations, at very least - who knows, maybe some "Association" sticklers have their eyes on 'unifying' them? Perhaps it is wholly relevant to those article's futures? Being a rule-abiding Wikipedian I haven’t done it myself, but I wouldn't complain if somebody else conversationally spread the word. Some might feel this issue has been a closed-shop for too long: so many people (like myself) only become aware of these important little "votes" when they have come and gone.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: per above.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support It seems the right thing to do with regard to WP:COMMONNAMES and is still unambiguous. --Albert.white (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the numerous discussions at Association_football and Talk:Association_football#move. Current title is fine. Constantly moving this article is pointless ,all the issues surrounding parent article also apply here their is no one name everyone will be happy with or even reluctantly acceptant of Gnevin (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral – either phrase has a whooping two google hits when excluding the string "wikipedia". I think that means neither is more common. Both include the important parts ("football" and "the Republic of Ireland"). I've wasted five minutes trying to make up my mind which I prefer, and I failed miserably: Either's good. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oppose – after watching the last few days' exchanges, I've changed my mind, and so I change my vote. Interested parties may note that I've been moved to this not by the campaigning opposing the move, but by the one supporting it: I doubt there's anything the opposers could have said that would so clearly demonstrate the good reasons not to make this move. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - emotional isn't it? You change not for the argument, but as a protest. Fortunately WP is "not a democracy"! --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral Per my points above, I can't support this as I don't see much benefit to the move, but I'm not opposing because it is an acceptable title. I am slightly worried per Gnevin that this could lead to even more RMs but I trust that won't be the case. EJF (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Association Football" is the correct name of the sport, and it would be better to move all the others to "Association Football", and remove the ugly, awkward, non-compliant "Football (soccer)", which is never, ever used outside Wikipedia. - fchd (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nobody appropriates a bracket (or parentheses) in the way you suggest! They are used for relevance when they are needed. People in the ROI disambiguate using "soccer" - so its use in brackets is relevant per WP:COMMONNAMES. Who commonly uses "Association Football"? Nobody. Why is a bracket ugly anyway? It just part of the English language - we shouldn't censor grammar like that, it is too needed.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just as the term "association football" was used as a compromise when people couldn't agree on the title of the Association football article, the same should be done here. Putting "soccer" in parentheses in the article title suggests that soccer is a type of football, which of course it is, but it was intended as an alternative name for the sport in this case. The other argument is one of consistency. I am unaware of any remaining articles that still use the "football (soccer)" term, all of them having been renamed to use "association football", and this one should be no different. – PeeJay 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That argument is just folly. Being bank holiday I can hear "The Sound of Music" in the background (!). The road to Nazism was carefully paved with consistency, block by block. Should we all have walked it? Obviously not. ROI has two popular forms of football and simply needs disambiguation. The Association 'solution' for the Worlds Most Popular Game is as rigid, surreal and unweildy as Nazism itself. It has come from nowhere, and currently occupies articles it is totally unsuitable for. This is Wikipedia, and things can change.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am indeed. I do not find it an affront to have the title as "association football in...". I don't feel it is offensive in any way. But as I say, if this move discussion ends in consensus to move to "football (soccer) in..." I will have no complaints. EJF (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no new argument is being put forward. Check previous discussions, but in summary, the official name of the sport is Association Football, and it's the most widely known term worldwide. --Bardcom (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank Bardcom for your honest opinion. That word "official" again. Boy I love Wikipedia. Is any article related to Ireland actually about the subject itself? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your comment above someone informs the other UK nations implies that Ireland is one of the UK nations, but I'm sure that was just a slip-up on your part. Nice to see someone from the UK take such an interest in all manner of Ireland related articles though...Keep up the good work! --Bardcom (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's just the way the sentence flowed (ie "other, UK nations") - but thanks for pointing it out - I've added the comma. As usual, your desire to paint the perfect emerald green will adversly effect articles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Surely the article is about both the Republic of Ireland and football? Therefore we use the correct terminology for the Republic of Ireland (not Éire or the Free State) and association football (not soccer or footy) ? EJF (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) only use the term "Republic of Ireland" to disambiguate from "Northern Ireland", as we do here. The name of the state in the English language is Ireland, and in the Irish language is Eire (Article 4 of the constitution).
  • Oppose Association football is the full and official name of the sport. By immediately comparing the non-move of the page to Nazism, the nominating editor has shown that he has no sense of perspective whatsoever. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • No sense of perspective whatsoever? Thanks for reading the points I made. There is no law against using Nazism as an example for anything. It's a case of taste not perspective. It is a useful extreme - and the comparisons of conformity, surreality, power and control remain. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - whilst I sympathise with what you are trying to do, I really do think that Association football should be used for the reasons already stated. And I agree with Number 57 - some perspective is needed here. Comparing those who vote to oppose the move to Nazism, and using terminology such as the "Association solution" is neither appropriate nor correct.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As I've just written on my Talk page: But why would I go to that extreme? The way Wikipedia gets controlled by the minority with such serious effect, combined with the undeniable power of Wikipedia in the world, makes it clearly analogous in my opinion. You may personally find it an ugly comparison, but it's still analogous. I've seen someone leave Wikipedia over the appalling treatment of the subject and the article he has put so much of his time into - it is just appalling to treat the biggest working class game in the world and its supporters in this way, just appalling. It is always the good people who choose to leave Wikipedia, never the bad ones. Why is that? It is rarely, if ever, the people who actually contribute to the articles who make these dominating judgements. "Association"-pushers have a fight on your hands with me: the term is just too absurd to last forever. For the ROI it is totally pointless, and has only offended the real footy fans. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Try adding "Association" to Football in England why don't you, guys? England next... (I'd love to see the response you get). You wouldn't get it through Wales - nowhere else in fact. It is totally UN-conforming to do it to ROI. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The trouble is that the terms "soccer" and "football" are apparently used to refer to association football in equal measure in the Republic of Ireland, and "football" is equally commonly used to refer to Gaelic football. In England and Wales, however, anyone who referred to any sport other than association football as "football" would be in such an overwhelming minority that their contribution to the English lexicon would be negligible. Therefore, the names are quite appropriate as they are. – PeeJay 21:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • But haven't you just outlined the entire premise for this "Football (soccer)" proposal? I don't understand what "the trouble" is, and cannot understand your "therefore.." at all. Nobody is suggesting we use "Football (soccer)" for England etc, any more that people are suggesting we use "Association Football" for those countries. How can it be appropriate as it is? Soccer is merely a WP:COMMONNAME qualifier, that has the added advantage of not belittling or offending anyone the way "Association" does. Is that appropriate? Is a 60% consensus appropriate for enforcing it? In countries where "soccer" is used (which is generally because they have two 'footballs') why shouldn't it be in the title? I could understand it if "Association" was a neat solution - but it isn't, it's an uncomfortable one. ROI simply needs football and soccer in the title.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - "Soccer" is a disparaging and offensive term for the game of football used by followers of Gaelic sports in Ireland. If the page can't be rendered correctly ("Football in Ireland") it should emphatically stay where it is. DublinDilettante (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment DublinDilettante i think you'll find the name of the sports are spelt Gaelic games not Atavism Gnevin (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Gaelic games it is then. DublinDilettante (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment What are you hoping to archive with posts and WP:EGG links like yours? Gnevin (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I oppose anything bthat isn't Soccer in the Republic of Ireland, which is simple, definitive, unambiguous, and has no brackets, and has the added advantage of pointing here in the first place. Crispness (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as per WP:COMMONNAME, we should "use the most common name of a person or thing". Nobody, anywhere, ever uses the phrase "Association football": we use the most common name by which a thing is known, not an obsolete term, the official usage of which is minimal. The FAI describes itself thus "The Football Association of Ireland (FAI) is the governing body of football in the Republic of Ireland", while FIFA's first objective in its statutes is "to improve the game of football constantly and promote it globally in the light of its unifying, educational, cultural and humanitarian values, particularly through youth and development programmes": the statutes use the word football 51 times, and the phrase association football (or football association in its French sense) 8 times. "Soccer" is not disparaging in its usage, it is used to specify one code of football in Ireland when the context allows for ambiguity, but once the context is clear, the word "football" is generally used. "Association football" has absolute no place in common usage, even by the authorities. Kevin McE (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The term Association Football is often used in an official capacity by the FAI. For example, in the FAI's own rule book, Rule 68: "As the Governing Body of Association Football in Ireland, the Association is responsible for setting standards and values to apply through­out the game at every level.". (My emphasis.) --Bardcom (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Excluding the phrase "Football Association of Ireland"(or other football associations), the document that you refer to has the word "football" 53 times, of which 6 occurrences are preceded by the word "association": maybe 11.3% is more than minimal, but the FAI consider the qualifying term un-necessary 88.7% of the time, even in their most formal documents. But this is irrelevant, Wikipedia policy is driven by common usage: the phrase "association football" returns 3 results on the FAI's site search function (all names adopted by clubs and/or leagues, some from the 1880s), and 265 instances of "soccer". There are 2 ways of referring to this sport in common modern usage in Ireland: "football" is one, "soccer" is the other: "association football" is not one of them. Kevin McE (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The above edit took place over two years ago, on a shared IP address from a school. There's no evidence it is the same user, and their point of view should stand. - fchd (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice it was May 2006 - the Last Warning was in April 2008. If it does get blocked then I'll strike it afterwards. I think that's only fair, either side of the argument.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a fair compromise. - fchd (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why is Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland better than Soccer in the Republic of Ireland .Surly the later reads better ? Gnevin (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a most excellent question. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the supporters of football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland are British mainland editors who have no idea that over here, we have Gaelic football, and that the term football is often used to refer to it. In Dublin, it's different as it's referred to as GAA (and pronounced as it's spelled). Different in Great Britain of course where footie is footie. I grew up referring to footie as soccer, and GAA as football, and I wasn't reared by hermits.... --Bardcom (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Come on Bardcom - are you seriously suggesting that the British nations haven't heard of Gaelic football? The answer to Gnevin's question is this: "Football" is used first by football (soccer) fans, "Soccer" is used first by Gaelic football fans. All three of us know that 'soccer' can in certain circumstances be used to cause offense in Ireland. As can demoting and belittling football (soccer) by pre-fixing of the unused "Association". How about being non-political just for once and catering for everybody? It's what we are supposed to do for heaven's sake. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard soccer being used to demote or belittle Soccer. Its like saying Rugger is belittling and even it it has been used by a minority in that way its clearly not the main usage .This isn't about being political its about WP:DISAMBIG and if this page moves will it resolve the issues with this page or even if their are any issues . I doubt it .If soccer is demoting and belittling football then why are you supporting a title with it in the name rather that the official name of the game? Gnevin (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've heard both soccer and Association football used in court by barristers representing the GAA, as well as from senior GAA figures, in a derogatory sense when referring to the 'alien sport' of soccer. Though that's thankfully not typical of most GAA fans. Most people imo refer to soccer as soccer rather than association football when ambiguity rises, hence my support for this under common name criteria. The official name of Bill Clinton is William Jefferson Clinton but we don't use that as the page for him. Similarly, imho, we should use soccer rather than AF. Best Wishes --Albert.white (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do you know what gets me? Everytime I write "football" I HAVE to add "(soccer)" because I JUST KNOW that some wise-guy Irish editor will say "by football I take it you mean Gaelic football, ho ho ho". I do it because Ireland is involved. What is wrong with me doing it? Has anyone said "sorry, but I'm afraid you should be writing Association football instead"? No, of course not. If you take away the politics and the non-football fans, there would be a tiny minority supporting "Association" - almost everyone would go for "Football" or the more sensible (and WP:COMMONNAME) "Football (soccer)". --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I love how the certain aspects of the support camp have in this discussion and the previous discussions, declared people voting oppose as political when no politics is involved in this discussion apart from the references to Nazism of course .In the context of a article/talk page about Association football , using football on it own clearly means soccer just as when we are discussing something at American football, football would mean the us brand of sport Gnevin (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Association Football is the correct term. I would support a change to reflect this in the English article as well. The Soccer in the United States article could be changed as well, to reflect the official name. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: What it may or may not be commonly referred to in ROI is largely immaterial. This is not a page for ROI users, it is a page for all persons wishing to access a reliable reference source for information on a subject. Take off your particular patriotic hat for a minute, and ask yourself if the current name works for the majority of English language speakers worldwide. If so, could a redirect page cover those for whom the current title would be an issue. The same arguments could, and possibly should, be used for Football in England as users accessing this information from other backgrounds may relate the term football to their own local popular code. And Matt, not all people accessing this information are football fans - association or otherwise.--ClubOranjeTalk 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think I'm a "patriot"? Who to? If you want an "Association Football in England" article why don't you go there and ask for one, and see what they say? This article is totally at odds with all the other national team articles - you cannot excuse it on the "never never" of other articles moving in line with it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Association Football is an appropriately correct name. Whilst not necessarily the most common term (Football would non-verifiably claim that honour) it is commonly disambiguated with the association prefix English speaking place I've been except North America. Appropriate disambiguations in place, appropriate redirects for other common titles one may assume. Pro consistency for an encyclopaedia.--ClubOranjeTalk 12:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This is just so much rubbish. Where have you been that "commonly disambiguates" with it?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You've obviously never been to Ireland then, where nobody ever uses it. Crispness (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
No-one ever says "football (soccer)" here either! EJF (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Brackets are grammatical divices that are often used for disambiguating - why the hell are we not allowed to do it? Why all this stubborness when "Association" clearly offends people? I can't see any sense in it. I still haven't heard any good reason why the current "60% consensus" bullied-in title is better than the proposal. Does anyone give a shit about fairness round here?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It "offends people"? Surely that's a bit strong. And to accuse this community of being unfair is sheer cheek. The title was decided by a consensus that the majority of contributors agreed on, which seems to be the fairest method of them all! So man up, and take your hurt feelings elsewhere. – PeeJay 10:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You are simply abusing the word concensus. It is NOT Wikipedia Policy to change the title of an article on a 60% majority, esp when a group of committed anti-British hyper-nationalists turn up for the vote. People shouldn't be naive about that - even small cabals can heavily influence votes on Wikipedia. Myself, I didn't hear of the vote to move to "Association" - there is no cabal against it, that's why. How fair is that? I'm sorry pal - it's not about me "needing to be a real man" -- it's about standing up to things you don't belive in. It stinks in here as far as I'm concerned. And I will wager that people have simply been scared, worn and bullied away from the argument. I've seen a decent highly-contributing editor leave Wikipedia over the above corrupt "Association" vote above - don't tell me people are not offended. I agree I am being "strong" - but I'm not being too-strong about that fact at all. The question is - do you care?--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
So what would You call consensus? And what on earth has anything in this discussion got to do with "anti-British hyper-nationalists"? And for your infomation, "soccer" offends me far more than "Association football". - fchd (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? "Soccer" offends in a certain demeaning context. When used as a 'disambiguator' next to "Football" it is only disliked by those few who can't abide the word (like yourself it seems). Nobody denies that the Irish press disambiguate with it, and it is widely used in Ireland. Let's put this into perspective. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But "football (soccer)" is not a thing. "Association football", however, is a thing. I recommend that you have a read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). The gist of the page is that articles should be titled as precisely as necessary. Since "football" is not available as an article title, "association football" is the most precise alternative. – PeeJay 13:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), or its related articles, says you cannot use brackets to disambiguate (quite the oposite, in fact). WP:COMMONNAMES comes before following the 'top' article (which is disliked anyway, AND NOT COMMON). Consistitancy must first be with other similar articles - not the 'top' article if those other articles do not follow it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It is nonsense to suggest that the term "Football (soccer)" is only disliked by those who can't abide the word. Its a nonsense term. Crispness (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody said that! Fore Pete's sake. It is a question of causing offense (not mere 'dislike') - which is something you clearly do not care about. You might personally 'dislike' "Football (soccer)" (I suspect for the same reasons you play around with the term British Isles on Wikipedia), but are you offended by it? Association football was pushed through and is causing offense - but that doesn't exactly bother you, does it?
How can it be a "nonsense term" anyway? Appending Soccer in brackets hardly makes it a 'term'! Wikipedia would be full of "nonsense terms" using that logic!--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Most disambiguators are used to identify a subject as a member of a subset. In this case, "football (soccer)" implies that "football" is a form of "soccer", which makes no sense whatsoever. By the way, I highly doubt that the use of the term "association football" actually offends you, but if it does then you need to sort yourself out. – PeeJay 16:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Nobody said that!"? Oh really? Actually, you did! Let me quote you. "... it is only disliked by those few who can't abide the word (like yourself it seems)." Actually, I dislike the phrase, whilst quite liking the word. My preferred option is Soccer in the Republic of Ireland as I've already said. It has nothing to do with my views on BI. The use of the term "Association football" bothers me like hell. I hate it. But I will not support a move to something that is, in my opinion, at least as bad. So that is 2 accusations that you've got wrong. Assume good faith. Other people have valid opinions. You are not always right. And learn a little bit of political glad handing. Reread the original proposal. Part of the reason it will fail is the pomposity and self-righteousness of it.Crispness (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
"Part of the reason it will fail is the pomposity and self-righteousness of it." Have you ever heard of irony? Don't count your chickens yet! And the "over 60% consensus" for "Association" can't go unchallenged either. My comment on "dislike" was a followed-on response to fchd (talk) (who said "soccer" offends him far more than "Association football") - it wasn't a comment to you at all. I am well aware that a contingent of editors want the word "football" in the ROI to be exclusive to Gaelic football. Your dislike of "Association football" and your dislike of "Football (soccer)" to me are one and the same - you don't want footy to be given a single form of "football" at all. You will never get your preferred "Soccer in the Republic of Ireland" - so you suffer "Association football" as at least the word "football" is not quite in its single form. And if I do ever 'slip up', btw - well hopefully soon I won't be having to do so much on my own - now some new blood is getting to know about this - and they are more than entitled to know about this, given the conformity issues around the "Association" nightmare you have put your name against. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I find it ironic that what you view as irony, others view as pomposity. Your comment may have been directed at one user, but it ascribes motives and opinions to wider group, which includes me. My dislike of 2 different terms - both of whom are included in this move proposal - are for different reasons. The fact that you are unwilling to accept my having 2 valid and different reasons for opposing says more about you than it does about me. I don't suffer "Association football". I oppose it whole heartedly. And I haven't put my name against it. What I have done is to oppose your preffered move. That you can't accept that this is done in good faith, again, says much more about you. Crispness (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we move this page and others too Game where you kick the ball but using your hand isnt really allow ,Game where you use your hands and feet with no off side , Game where you mainly use you hands, off sides really important and throwing the ball forward isnt allow .... in the Repiblic of Ireland . I'm kidding of course but this discussion isn't that far from its as every name seems to offend 12:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you are stonewalling this solution by claiming that "everything will cause offense" - including this proposal. It is not true or fair. - and you cannot pretend that there are degrees. The only people who will be offended with the "Football (soccer)" solution is the tiny minority (of one on WP?) who simply can't abide the word "soccer". With the hyper-nationalists it's not really about football at all - but putting what is purely Irish - ie "football" in this case - above what is British. With those who are solely Association fans, "soccer" would not actually cause true offense either - for them it's mainly a misguided attempt to inforce their uncomfortable idea of 'conformity'. But it will only really work for them if they then have a go at Football in England and the other national team articles. They wouldn't stand a chance. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Association football in the Republic of Ireland causes offence to some people . Soccer in the Republic of Ireland is offensive to others, Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland offends the same people and Football in the Republic of Ireland is a non runner . So what's left, Your are ignoring everyone else's concerns but your own . What do you insist on dragging politics into this discussion where no one else has even raised the issue of it let alone hyper-nationalists Gnevin (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)"
You say " Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland offends the same people as the other suggestions" but you have no proof of this - just you saying it does not make it so. I'm afraid the politics I refer to relates to my experience of some particular users who have just "popped up" (in this and the Association vote) - I've alluded to the issues but I don't want to get too much into it. We need the football community involved - why are you reverting my attempts do so? These past votes have been a 'closed shop' and it is highly relevant to the future of all the articles I've approached - you cannot justify your reverts that are stopping me doing it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Wiki project football was informed as well as Wiki project Irish football, you Canvassed their , your notice was fixed and made too comply with WP:Canvass, Wiki project Ireland is informed . This discussion has no effect on English ,Scottish or Welsh football and so linking to this discussion their is an attempt to canvass you also said http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAssociation_football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&diff=215297950&oldid=215222952]. We will see what the RFC says Gnevin (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
When I said "I'm tempted to genuinely canvas England they way I am being treated" it was before I realised that all the above "We must conform to Association football!" comments made it essential that the wider footballing community (for once) was actually involved in these votes. I did it uniformly across the UK nations, without selecting/unselecting countries for biased reasons (?!). In theory it will mean a well participated vote (for once). I cannot help if it ends up suiting me more than you: it just so happens that a 'closed' debate will probably suite you more. I can't help that. It is the major teams that are clearly the most watched - Manchester United etc. In ALL fairness they would get to know what is going on with the name of their game! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: neither "football" nor "soccer" advocates are ever going to change their stance. "Football (soccer)" clearly doesn't have the support of either side. "Association football" has the (albeit grudging) acceptance of most people. Therefore I vote for the status quo. Scolaire (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate to add this given your comment below but - status quo? On an "over 60% (so-called) consensus"? - Followed by an editor leaving WP, and an immediate Section made in disbelief? (that includes comments by editors who have not yet voted on this). Where is the consensus? I honestly think "Football (soccer)" will be far less a "grudging" acceptance, however much a relative few have opposed it above. I'm sure it won't genuinely offend anyone the way "Association" has done.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: if Matt Lewis is convinced of the validity of his argument, could he not just allow the vote to take place instead of responding to every single post with his increasingly hysterical outbursts? Gnevin's equally frequent interventions are not any more dignified. Let's just see what everybody else thinks, lads. Scolaire (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Now I wouldn't want to repond to any of that now would I? I am writing a lot, I know - but I did propose this, and I can't see my arguments ignored without comment. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You can, you know. And it would make the picture a lot clearer if you do. For instance, your response to my "oppose" above hasn't changed my opinion one iota, and it won't have changed the opinion, for or against, of anybody else reading it. Again, why not assume that editors have a mental age of over five and trust them to think for themselves? Scolaire (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not that at all - it is because the misguided "consistency" issue is a tempting one to passers-by (ie "Association" must lead to "Association", whether the other countries use it or not) and I just want people to see all the points before they join the 'Watchlist bandwagon', and see an unchallenged list of "opposes". I did expect some more help I must admit, but you never know what is going to happen on Wikipedia do you? And if people are having a dig - like you are - whether they have a point or not, I'll certainly respond. It's my character and you have to 'deal with things' yourself, remember. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Association_football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland/Archive_1&oldid=1136534893"