Talk:Forms of football

Disambiguation page?

• Shouldn't this just be a disambiguation page, rather than an article? Shawn Goldwater 16:39, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, this is primarily going to be a disambiguation page, but there has been some discussion about including information about the differences/similarities of all the sports that are classified as "football". --Todd Coles 16:42, 2 February 2008 (CST)

I have an issue with "history of football" being in this article, unless American Football and "Soccer" (you know what I mean) have exactly the same roots, which I am sure that they probably do not--unless you mean "History of the term" in which case this will be a very very specialized research topic. --Robert W King 17:18, 2 February 2008 (CST)

That was my first thought too. I don't think a brief history of the origin of "football" and how it came to branch off into different rule sets would be out of place, though. --Todd Coles 17:42, 2 February 2008 (CST)

All forms of modern football which involve handling the ball have the same root. See the history article quoted. --John Leach 07:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed content

This is a disambiguation page and not an article, so the following content does not remain here. I am archiving it here for future use:

*History of football

• "Played on foot" or "played with the feet"?
• The word "soccer"
• The word "soccer" began as a colloquialism in Britain, derived from "Association football", from the name of the Football Association, to distinguish it from rugby football, but it has become the formal name of the game in the United States and Australia. (A similar term, "rugger" for "rugby" was once also quite common.)

I have also shortened my text for Canadian football accordingly. Shawn Goldwater 17:34, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Shawn, as I explained above, there has been discussion about the material you have removed from the page. Please see here[1] before editing this article further. --Todd Coles 17:42, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, in particular from Aleta at 16:11, 27th. Ro Thorpe 17:52, 2 February 2008 (CST)

I see. Well, please revert if you like, especially if this is not to be a disamb page, after all. It is still tagged as such. Shawn Goldwater 18:09, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Oh, and to Derek, I had removed my brief text on the rules of Canadian football, because I was under the impression that this is a disambiguation page only. I see you have reverted that. If we are to start creating an article, as Larry and others seem to prefer, then the content I pasted above should perhaps be included, too.Shawn Goldwater 18:12, 2 February 2008 (CST)

I believe the intent is for it to serve as a disambig page, with a some extra information on it. However, you are correct that under CZ:Naming Conventions it states "The function of a disambiguation page is strictly to list the various articles (including planned articles) that go under a title." and "Presumably, people will arrive at the disambiguation page looking specifically for a pointer to an article that goes under the title in question; anything else is a distraction." This does not comply with that. --Todd Coles 18:16, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Yes and I see all the text was put back. So this is something between a disambig page and an article stub. I'll stay out of it from here on. Shawn Goldwater 18:22, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Don't go away! I've removed the tag. It's a page about the word. Ro Thorpe 18:27, 2 February 2008 (CST)

You know, this brings up an interesting concept. What if in this instance, we want a "Hybrid disambiguation-article stub", based on our discussion over the naming principle? In this case, it seems applicable and it might even carry over to other disciplines. --Robert W King 18:57, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, Robert, good point. You remind me of situations I've found elsewhere in my travels and never got around to asking about--or, I asked and people never got around to answering--who remembers? I think what you might be saying is that in some instances we'll need annotated disambiguation pages (is disamgiguation actually a word?) or even disambiguation pages that actually discuss a problem, controversy and word use. Cases that come to my mind are thoroughbred and mansion, which I have to get back to...my CZ list just keeps getting longer. Aleta Curry 01:03, 3 February 2008 (CST)

how about Moving the article...

...To Football (the word). Then we (you) could put in all this other info. AND we would ALSO have a disambig. page with just the present listings of words (with the brief definitions) PLUS an added item: Football (the word). Don't laugh too hard before dumping on this proposal -- it would satisfy all the opposing camps here, I think. Hayford Peirce 19:10, 2 February 2008 (CST)

By the word I think you mean... etymology? --Robert W King 19:45, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Well, yes, in a sense. What I really mean is that the present article should be Moved to a new name and that there should then be *two* articles. One is called Football (the word) and has all the info that is in the present article (or was a few moments ago, I've lost track) about how the word can mean different things in different cultures, etc., with separate Sections and Headers, etc. etc. This could be expanded infinitely, with, say, a section about how Aztecs (or whoever) used to kick a human head around, plus many other goodies. BUT there would also be a very severely regulated disambig page, Football, pretty much as it exists at the moment, but with nothing but *very* brief descriptions of each of the different meanings of "Football" -- many of which would need NO description -- ie, American Football ought to be able to stand on its own....Hayford Peirce 20:24, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Golly, there's *another* section. Well, Hayford, the problem I would have with that is that it neatly ignores the fact that most people in most nations where football is played have a problem with anything else being called "football". Not your intention, I know (the neatly ignoring bit), but if you have an explanation of the history, fundamentals, and social and cultural significance of football that is called anything other than "Football", you are going to have endless rounds of discussion such as we have here.

You might assume, rationally, that eventually this will all settle down (ha!) and we'll come to some sort of agreement, (ha, ha!) and all articles will be appropriately named and we'll move on to arguing about discussing something else. Even if, by the intervention of Almighty God, this actually happens, it will not last: six days or six weeks or six months from now some innocent will come along, reflect on one of the names and double take What th--?!! and start the whole sh'bang over again. Talk about maybe not today maybe not tomorrow but soon and for the rest of your life.

No, m'dear, "Football (the word)" cannot adequately capture this sport cum way of life cum your one ticket out cum national obsession.

Aleta Curry 01:20, 3 February 2008 (CST)

Football was once a single sport

Although this page has an element of disambiguation in that it states what the variants of football are and then points the reader off in several directions, it must not be forgotten that football was once a single sport. This is why I've created the article about its history to 1900, though it is by no means complete, and encapsulated that article in a new section on this page. I've also made what I think is better use of the related pages section by listing all the variants as sub-topics, the idea being that readers will look at football as a whole subject before going off to study each of the different genres. A similar case would be cinema, which is a whole subject in itself but has different genres such as the western or the film noir.

I would hope that this football article will remain short. Anything else that needs to be said about, say, American football should be under that article, not this one. We should use this article for football as it was until the foundations of the FA and the RFU: therefore as a piece about an aspect of sporting history, but even then we should be pointing towards the more detailed historical article. --John Leach 07:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)