Talk:Glossary of association football terms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 13, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 29, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a football team's travelling army of supporters is often referred to as its 12th man?

Legs[edit]

See the entry I just made for Neutral ground. Under what entries do we explain two legged matches and aggregate scores? --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legs makes as much sense as anything, perhaps with a link from two legged match? Either that or the other way round? Some sort of link to away goals needs to come in as well perhaps? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK?[edit]

It's just hit me, this article is probably eligible for DYK. It remains eligible for a few days yet, so we're probably better off working on it for now and waiting until just before the five day deadline before nominating. Any early ideas on potential hooks? —WFC— 12:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be eligible but if the DYK folks see it as a list, then it'll need 1,500 chars of prose in the lead, which, right now, is a bit ropey!! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Off the top of my head, a vague stab at etymology, a historical angle (inside forwards, centre halves and 2-3-5 --> support strikers, holding midfielders and 4-4-2 4-5-1), and something on individual players giving phrases worldwide recognition (Cruyff, Maradona etc) should do the trick. —WFC— 13:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'm still up for trying to expand individual sections at the moment, why not give the lead a stab yourself if you get some time? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. The text might be crap (such as the back end of the sentence I've added so far), but if I get the ideas down there'll at least be something to work with. —WFC— 14:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Not perfect, not sourced, and several of the terms I refer to haven't been added to this list yet, but I think I've touched on the right concepts. —WFC— 15:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. So next move is to source, add terms, in-linky (or out-linky) them, then decide on a hook. The first few are easy, but what's the hook? We have to link to this page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you use a term and pipe the link to the glossary? You could have some fun with park the bus or dummy. Hack (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a DYK regular, and you do have enough information in the prose section (assuming the text in the prose section is original to this article and was not copied from another article). You do need to make sure you source all the information.

That incomplete tag from {{Dynamic list}} at the top of the article concerns me, as D7 of the Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules states, "There is a reasonable expectation that an article which is to appear on the front page, even a short one, should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress. Therefore, articles which include unexpanded headers are likely to be rejected..." I would advise getting a second opinion on this, as I've not encountered a DYK nominee who had that incomplete tag from {{Dynamic list}}.

Hack's suggestion for a hook is fine and is probably the best idea for a hook for this kind of article. For your reference, here are hooks for lists that were on DYK in the past 30 days:

20 May: List of accolades received by Winter's Bone

14 May: List of bordering countries with greatest relative differences in GDP (PPP) per capita

30 April: List of international cricket centuries by Andrew Strauss

25 April: List of number-one dance hits of 2005 (UK)

22 April: List of Scotland national football team hat-tricks

Hope this helps! OCNative (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely perfect OCNative. Much obliged. Will follow up the D7 point at WT:DYK once a few of our other English editors wake up. This article is relatively complete, but by its very nature will never truly be complete, and therefore should have {{Dynamic list}}. Can't recall it off the top of my head, but I remember an WP:FLC where a list was required to add that tag, on the basis that it would be wrong for such a list to ever purport to be complete. —WFC— 06:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that D7 should be applied here. Great many articles which routinely pass DYK are start-class articles. The "completeness" which D7 refers to concerns covering all aspects of the article topic, rather than being fully developed or "complete". The topic of this article is football jargon and football-related vocabulary and although much could still be added to the list it is already adequate to be used by lay people as it covers all aspects of the game. As for referencing, apart from the hook (which must be referenced of course) DYK reviewers I encountered were usually happy with one reference per paragraph. Timbouctou (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hook ideas and suggestions[edit]

Touch wood we'll be okay for DYK; it's all procedural really, and I'm sure it'll be figured out. As an opening gambit I'd suggest we go for a hook with an image, so that we get a prominent spot on the main page. The best idea I've had so far is bicycle kick, using a cropped version of File:La camiseta de Pelé.jpg. I like Hack's ideas (the quirkier the better IMO), but I'm not so sure how we would illustrate a dummy. —WFC— 06:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add volante, Portuguese term for midfielder which translates as steering wheel. A hook could be - did you know that in football a steering wheel can help park the bus? The whole idea is to catch the attention of the reader to the point that they want to click the blue link... Hack (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad, but I am worried that it won't be taken seriously by DYK regulars if it's a bit "jokey"? But that's just my opinion.... Any other possible hooks? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jokey is exactly what we want. But the volante things sounds a bit stretched. We must keep it short and weird. How about something like "Did you know that thinking outside the box can result in chips, crosses, dummies, nutmegs or handbags and may lead to balls of the hospital or square variety?" (that's 145 characters out of 200 allowed) Possibly accompanied by an intentionally ambiguous diagram of a penalty area which on rollover says "a box". Or maybe something like "...?" Timbouctou (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like both of those ideas Timbouctou. 03md 21:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First one I'm not keen on. DYK like quirky hooks, but take the lead image more seriously. That, and a joke that people who can't view images might miss out on would be a no-no. I love the second one. Do you have a suggestion for a free image we can use (presumably a set of fans)? —WFC— 02:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second one too. Commons has several fans images, pick one from here... Should also think about actively nominating it soon as I think we've only got a day or so left. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? —WFC— 13:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are still open to suggestions and maybe the hook could be expanded with more number-like expressions, I dn't know. Choosing a picture might be trickier though. The objective here is to lure as many people as possible to click on our article. On the one hand we need a picture so that the entry will take a prominent place in the DYK box but on the other hand if it's too obvious that we are talking about football non-football readers will skip it. I don't have time now but I'll go through the commons category tonight. Maybe a closeup shot of a fan with a painted face would be appropriate, with the caption "12th man"? Colourful plus ambiguous minus overdetailed (it will be used as a thumbnail) should be a winning combination. I don't know. Timbouctou (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 12th man theme is pretty much settled. We can always propose a couple of alts at the DYK nomination if the wording isn't final. Still about 32 hours before there is a pressing need to nominate, so in my view it's just a case of deciding on the image (or video?) over the next 12 hours, by which time the history tools should have updated (they're one day behind at the moment). We will then be able to nominate this with a good hook and strong image/video with almost a day to spare, and also ensure that we give the right people DYK credits. —WFC— 14:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking we could incorporate a couple more of the jokey terms such as park the bus and mickey mouse cup e.g. that the 12th man in the 39th game is likely to be a travelling army, parking the bus in front of Mickey Mouse or something to that effect. 03md 15:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no substantive discussion since my last post. Since this had to be done before 12:00 UTC (on the off-chance that we had a pedantic Kiwi or Pacific Islander who refused to accept that 5 days = 120 hours), I went ahead and nominated. Everyone who had made at least 10 edits according to this has been listed, technical gremlins with the template notwithstanding. —WFC— 05:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you so desire, you can still suggest alternative hooks even though you've already made the nomination. Please try to do so before someone reviews the article, though alts can be suggested after a review (it's just a lot easier if you make the alt before the review). By the way, UTC reigns supreme, so you weren't required to nominate for another 13 hours, but what's done is done. OCNative (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

picture[edit]

The upper most picture of the pitch shouldn't round the goals dimensions to 1 deciomal but 2. Goal could be added to the list too. -Koppapa (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Tiny comment the artcile was created in "17:15, 18 May 2011" by The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) (580 bytes) (start stub based on discussion at WT:FOOTY) this was a great work comunity--Feroang (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

worldly or local terms?[edit]

I guess we should try to add and explain term that are in use outside of our own town, this is not a space to invent words--Feroang (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example of which ones wou think are local terms? JonBroxton (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole I'm pleasantly surprised by the current entries. There are very few that I would query, and even those are probably down to my ignorance of how common/uncommon some phrases are in the Americas. I would suggest that if you are adding a phrase that might be specific to one continent, make sure you source it. No-one is going to remove tackle because it's unsourced (although obviously it needs sourcing eventually), but the likes of "hospital ball" or "rabona" could conceivably be challenged by someone who has never heard of it. —WFC— 05:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Names in a glossary?[edit]

Should we really have actual players, such as Pelé and Maradona, in the glossary. I thought the whole point was just to explain the terminology rather than list some decent footballers. I thought I'd see what others say before I removed them though. And while I'm here - hospital ball? What? BigDom 06:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you've never heard of "hospital ball", being English, BigDom. I've heard it used regularly since I started watching Sheffield Wednesday in 1982. JonBroxton (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said that maybe it's a Yorkshire term, but I live in Sheffield and I've never heard anyone use it. Then again I just Googled it and it does seem to be a real phrase. You'd never hear it on the Turf though. BigDom 07:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Names are a slippery slope, although if those two are exceptions it's not a real issue for me. If there were some sort of reference to Pelé elsewhere (for example at bicycle kick), it might be easier to remove the names. —WFC— 07:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think Pele is alright (as it's a famous "nickname"), but not too fussed about having Maradona there. And yes, hospital pass, I've heard it used many times, and received a few of them myself... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought a hospital pass was one where the passing player deliberately underhit the ball in an under-handed attempt to get a teammate with whom he had a "beef" clattered....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopsital ball or pass is fine - isn't it really common usage? I'd say names go unless they're associated with something like the Cruijff Turn. Harsh on Pele, but where do you stop otherwise? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I thought it was used to describe a woeful pass, deliberate or not... I don't think pro's would do this to each other, would they? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old football paper[edit]

My dad has mentioned to me about a football publication which I remember reading had closed a couple of years ago. It was produced on a Saturday evening in the days before the internet, multi-sport-channels etc. to give fans results at the end of Saturday's matches (when all games kicked off at 3pm). Does anyone know what this was called - I thought it was the Pink Pages but the wikipage for this goes to an Indian LGBT newspaper lol. 03md 19:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was called the Sporting Pink or something like that. BigDom 19:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm old enough to remember Saturday evening football papers. There wasn't one national publication, rather the main local paper in each city/region published a Saturday evening paper of their own. Here in Birmingham, the publishers of the Evening Mail put out the Sporting Argus, other cities had equivalent publications of their own. The common feature, though, was that they were printed on pink paper, hence why they were known colloquially as Sporting Pinks or Pink'uns. Hope that helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've just remembered that in at least one area (I forget which, maybe Sheffield) they had a Green'un. Pink was by far the most common, though......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Sheffield - Green Un--Egghead06 (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't local publications be a bit specific for here? In context, there was a discussion above about whether we should be including Pele. —WFC— 07:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought if it was a single publication it could have been included, but not to worry. 03md 11:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

euro-centric[edit]

Some ideas are in only europe or northern hemisphere POV, when south americans, south africans and australians read it... they get crazy. For the Game For the Whole World. --Feroang (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not deliberate, but purely because the people editing are predominantly European or North American. I would suggest doing something about it (but if you do, PLEASE add sources; I'm going through the sourcing now, and will be inclined to remove things if I genuinely can't find a reliable source). —WFC— 02:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statistics[edit]

Glossary of ice hockey terms have a See also that come to Ice hockey statistics, maybe we can do some simil, on it article or in somewhere else. --Feroang (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea. The energy going into this article is still incredible at the moment. I say we keep going here for a couple more days, and when this is near-finished (it will never be truly finished obviously), we should try to take a similar level of enthusiasm to association football statistics. —WFC— 03:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Along similar lines, perhaps Association football media would be a viable future article? Not necessarily a list, but in the course of exploring the topic it would inevitably namecheck most of the main ones. It would also be a more appropriate starting point from which to discuss publications and TV shows than a glossary is. —WFC— 15:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association football variants[edit]

Should or not we add here every "weird things" that are in the "Category:Association football variants" ? --Feroang (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think so, although I'm just one person. My view is that variants of association football should be developed to cover all of those in depth. I'll add that article to the see also section. —WFC— 06:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

If we all start taking letters, reference those letters, and take it upon ourselves to reference any new entries, we should be able to achieve 100% sourcing in next to no time. Sign your name by the letter(s) you're interested in keeping an eye on. I'd suggest signing one at a time, taking another letter once the letters you've taken so far are fully referenced and you're comfortable with keeping track of any new ones. —WFC— 03:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some pretty easy ones up for grabs. Any takers? —WFC— 08:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone wonders (I did :), here are the glossary statistics by letters as of right now. The first number is the total number of items in that heading. The number in brackets indicates how many of them are simple redirects pointing to another item in the glossary and the third number shows how many items are without a single source.
  • A: 5 items (1), all done
  • B: 12 items (3), all done
  • C: 30 items (3), all done
  • D: 14 items (1), all done
  • E: 5 items (2), all done
  • F: 27 items (4), 4 missing
  • G: 18 items (1), all done
  • H: 13 items (0), 7 missing
  • I: 7 items (1), 4 missing
  • J: 2 items (0), all done
  • K: 7 items (1), 1 missing
  • L: 8 items (3), 3 missing
  • M: 10 items (1), all done
  • N: 3 items (0), all done
  • O: 16 items (2), 7 missing
  • P: 25 item (3), 6 missing
  • Q: 1 (0), all done
  • R: 11 (0), 7 missing
  • S: 43 (8), 18 missing
  • T: 24 (1), all done
  • U: 5 (0), all done
  • V: 4 (0), all done
  • W: 10 (1), all done
  • X: 1 (0), all done
  • Y: 3 (0), all done
  • Z: 1 (0), all done
TOTAL: 319 items (36 of which are redirects), 85 items unsourced. Not counting redirects there are 283 items, 198 (or 70%) of which are sourced. Timbouctou (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Timbouctou! Hopefully that'll persuade one or two people to take one or two more. Perhaps we need to start a list of the ones that people have tried and failed to source? So far I'm stumped on "club" and "half back" (I know what both mean, just have no idea how to source them). —WFC— 10:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice list. That'll be a great help. G is now done. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Q is done, and you can tick C off once Argyle puts his Times ref in. —WFC— 14:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C and T are done. The tifo source is well worth a look - the Sounders have been at it again. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
M is done, courtesy of Egghead06. Timbouctou (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club[edit]

I know this sounds a bit dim, but I'm having trouble referencing "club." It's always the unlikely ones! —WFC— 14:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to old newspapers that refer to my team as "the new Plymouth Argyle club" back when we were elected to the Southern League. It was clearly referring to the team and the club as a whole so would that be good enough? Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it works, go for it. If you feel that the source could work, but only if you were to trim or alter the definition of club, I'd encourage you to go for that. —WFC— 05:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article that I have is from The Times and reads; "The annual general meeting was held in London on Saturday, Mr. Lawson (Swindon) presiding. Dr. Russell Bencraft (Southampton) was re-elected president and Mr. Colin Gordon (Millwall) treasurer. It was decided to increase the number of clubs in the first division to 18, and the vote to fill two vacancies resulted in Plymouth Argyle, a newly-formed professional club, and Fulham, last season's second division champions being elected." If everyone is happy with that then I'll put it in. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little subtle, but more direct than anything I've come across. I suppose it works, even though we were relegated at your expense that year! —WFC— 14:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Watford's relegation was mentioned further down the paragraph but I thought it was best that I left it out. ;) Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it in when the archive will let me back on - apparently its user limit has been reached... Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox[edit]

I've created the above navbox, in the hope that it will make it easier for us to streamline this glossary in future. It's very much a working draft made by an amateur template-maker, so if someone in the know feels that they can jazz it up, please do. —WFC— 07:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Query[edit]

Hi there,

I've reviewed the article against the DYK criteria, and found a minor issue. Basically the image in the hook needs to be in the article, so either the image supplied at DYK needs to be inserted into the article, or one that is already in the article needs to replace the image supplied there. Miyagawa (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These two are very good candidates. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think File:Lechia Gdansk & Wisla Krakow.jpg sums up the idea of a travelling army rather well, have suggested it at DYK (it's already in the article). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did I miss that! An awesome sight. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. —WFC— 02:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed a bit earlier that the article has been added to the prep area at DYK, in the least visible spot. The efforts of eleven significant contributors, probably the most fundamental sports DYK there has been in 5-6 years, and well-worded hook completely designed around the picture, were relegated to a shite spot in the DYK queue in favour of an old church in an obscure country. Just when you think there is a modicum of hope for the project yet, you can count on some ignorant Yank to bring you back down to earth. —WFC— 20:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, it happens. DYK has instruction to make sure 50% of hooks are US-centric. Disappointing to the max. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I've asked User:Allen3 (who moved the article) to move it back to the waiting area until it can be accompanied by the image. Ditto at the DYK talk page. Fingers crossed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my 2p worth. Very disheartening if the hook remains where it is. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the verdict. I've calmed down very slightly, but it's all relative. Suffice to say, even taking the picture argument at face value, here is yet another example of why people become so picky about electing admins. The decision was ignorant and one-dimensional. The reason was spurious, ignoring consensus to the contrary among several very experienced editors, involved and uninvolved. The editor in question did not take into account any other circumstances, such as the fact that many alternative hooks and images were available, or even attempt to communicate his opinion on image suitability. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from the response that the editor in question did not so much as look at the article, as DYK prep workers are supposed to do, as if he did he would have been able to ascertain most or all of the above. Frankly, I don't take what he is saying at face value either, because no clueful editor would take such a blasé attitude to over a dozen editors, at a time when DYK is on its knees trying to maintain participation. —WFC— 07:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And for anyone who thinks the above was in any way over the top, here is this individual's attitude to the DYK rules being applied literally when it comes to his own work: [1]. —WFC— 08:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not looking good. Regardless, gentlemen (apologies if any of you are ladies), it has been a pleasure collaborating with you all on this article and hopefully we can get it featured in the not too distant future. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is excellent[edit]

A good model for other sports, too. Please check this edit I made: "but are nonetheless distinct from them". And the "Canadian" bit. PS the origin of the word "soccer" ... I never knew that. Tony (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you were one of the catalysts for the page's existence... glad you like it! --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The pleasure is mine. Edit conflict, I added this: Come to think of it, MilHist and aviation and lots of other technical areas of WP could do with this kind of resource.

One suggestion is that the formatting be more compressed vertically, so that visitors don't have to scroll down so far, and the definitions appear to flow more smoothly from the terms. It could be changed by two global steps with the search and replace function, but it's just a thought.

  • Academy: an element of a club where young players are contracted under the youth system and trained to an acceptable standard, with the option for them to progress within the game.[1]
  • Added time: see Stoppage time.
  • Advantage: applied when a team has a possible foul in their favour however play has "played-on" to allow them to gain advantage if the referee does not give the foul.

current:

Academy
an element of a club where young players are contracted under the youth system and trained to an acceptable standard, with the option for them to progress within the game.[2]
Added time
see Stoppage time.
Advantage
applied when a team has a possible foul in their favour however play has "played-on" to allow them to gain advantage if the referee does not give the foul. Tony (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll probably take that on board (it would require the removing of some random bits of bolding further down, but I guess that's on the informal to-do list anyway).
(Wish I were the catalyst for something useful. The closest thing I know of is being the first person to suggest the creation of Portal:Bacon. [2]) —WFC— 16:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking: What's the procedure for same-page linking? I'm not sure. I'd have thought for a glossary in which the reader is likely to read a separate entry as a stand-alone, it would be worth going the full way and linking to the first occurrence in each entry of every word that has another entry. (I guess you'd get a lot of linked "formation", then, if you were reading through each entry in "0–9".) In explicit cross-referencing, such as "see Stoppage time", yes, as already done, a initial capital; in the run of the prose, probably just lower case. Your thoughts? It could be done using the find and replace; quite a big job, easily divided among several editors (I could do some ...). Tony (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be willing to do some, once I'm sure of what to do. So far I've left inconsistency be, rather than risk spending a lot of time making entries consistently "wrong". —WFC— 12:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fletcher, Paul (9 December 2010). "Watford break the mould in youth development". BBC. Retrieved 22 May 2011.
  2. ^ Fletcher, Paul (9 December 2010). "Watford break the mould in youth development". BBC. Retrieved 22 May 2011.

Do women play association football?[edit]

Think the answer is yes? Anyway, I was changing a definition to clarify an ambigous "he" which could have meant FW or GK, then it struck me that we probably shouldn't be using "he" at all. A Ctrl+F "[space]he[space]" reveals a lot of instances of this. I can assist with cleaning this up but, seeing as the editing of this page is very active recently, I thought I'd also drop a note here too. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that it would be addressed when activity on adding terms/references had cooled down but it wouldn't hurt to get rid of them beforehand. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through it and removed most uses of "he" and "his". The ones I left in refer to an individual player such as Maradona and Blanco. I removed a few uses of "him" as well along the way but there are probably more. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronglish[edit]

If anyone's got any spare time it would be great to include a few of Big Ron's superlative coinages, sourced from a WP:RS (not this excellent link, which is a blog). eg, Spotters' Badge, Lollipop, Second Post, Early Doors, Full Gun, Little Eyebrows, Amusement Arcade, Crowd Scene, Tell You What, Installments, Buddy Holly, Wide Awake Club, Watching Cartoons, Sound of the Trumpets, Reducers, For fun, Curly finger, Playing from amnesia, Double Tandem, Arrive, Change Ball, Cheating Position, Easy Oasy, Gone Empty, In Captivity, Not So Sure. I'm (not so) sure that he didn't come up with all of these – and there are many more; some are a bit obscure. But many have entered everyday football-speak and therefore would be appropriate to list in this article. Tell you what Clive, I've done an arrive early doors with "Hollywood ball" under H. Ericoides (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work[edit]

Have to say this a fantastic article, well done to everyone involved! doomgaze (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Experimented with formatting[edit]

Just fiddling about, I tried SMALL CAPS as a format for the referents and internal page-links. I'm not sure I like it any better: just a tiny bit squashy vertically. I do like the fact that the internal page-links are distinguishable from other wikilinks. See what you think, side by side: here's the normal (at letter "B") and here's the small-caps version (at "B").

In any case, I copy-edited letter "B". Please check every move I make, since I know nothing about football. Tony (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also like to see internal links distinguished from others and SMALL CAPS look good for that purpose. But I wouldn't change headliners though. The idea should be that a reader can determine whether clicking on a word will take him to another wiki article or just to another glossary definition on the same page, and all wikilinked headliners point to standalone articles. So for example:
  • Professional foul : a FOUL committed by a player who is aware that they are about to intentionally commit the foul, and who does so having calculated the risk and determined that committing the foul and taking a YELLOW CARD or even a RED CARD would be more beneficial to their team than if the player allowed their opponent to continue unimpeded.

Timbouctou (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the internal vs external idea very much. We would need to state the distinction somewhere though, if we plan to make this a Featured List and hopefully take it onto the main page. —WFC— 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I agree entirely that it's good for the within-page links, but not for the headliners. Can editors provide their opinions, please? Tony (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just copy-edited the lead and "0–9", in which I took the plunge and used the small caps for within-page links, but not headliners. I'm still unsure about it. The small caps can be removed very simply with the global search and replace. Feedback? Tony (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that it's worth distinguishing between internal and external links, but small caps do look weird. To my knowledge, the MoS prevents us from using bolding or colour, so it's probably small caps or nothing. —WFC— 15:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish the small caps were not so spaced out horizontally. They look better in every other publication I've seen. Tony (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm not happy leaving the small caps there (in the lead and "0–9") unless people think it's an improvement. I'm not in love with the way small caps are displayed in the default font. I'm ready to undo them, but I need feedback. The only other method of distinguishing within-page links to other headliners is by italics with an initial cap, like this: ::"A common 19th- and early 20th-century Formation consisting of two defensive players (previously known as Full backs), ...".

That would mean the current italicised items (which don't have headlines in the glossary), would need to be marked with double quotes instead of italics. Hmmm ... Tony (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'll remove the small-caps font from the lead and first section in a day or two, unless there's objection. I see no consensus for its use throughout. Tony (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for more headliners?[edit]

These arise from definitions I've copy-edited.

  • Backline (back line?)
  • Knockout (or knock-out, unsure).
  • Tie-break
  • Two-legged match (this is in the definition for "Away goals rule").

PS is this written in BrEng? Tony (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, forgive me, I'm not sure what you mean by the above four bullets? But in answer to your question, yes, I think this should be BritEng. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, I added those bullets for items I saw in definitions but which are not yet defined in the list. Tony (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Two-legged match" should probably be defined under "leg": one in a series of games between the same teams where the ultimate result is determined by aggregating the scores of all games in the series (typically two, home and away: see also "away goals rule"). "Backline" refers to the furthest back players in a contemporary football formation (where between three and five defenders are used). "Tie-break" and "knockout" are general sporting terms with no specific footballing definition: I see we include "cap", which is similar, but do we really want to include every generic sporting term which has an application in football? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, I'm a sports dummy. I'm sure you're welcome to make any changes you see fit, in line with your recent post. And if you're inclined, scrutinising my copy-editing (I have a go once every day or two) would be much appreciated. Tony (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm planning on adding the two I've defined in that format unless anyone has any suggestions for improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hang up boots[edit]

Should this term be included? link.--EchetusXe 13:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page load time + citation[edit]

This is a very large page. In my opinion that's a good thing, and testament to the work a large number of people have done on this, but being big does have its down sides. The biggest contributory factor to page load times are citation templates, such as {{cite web}}, {{cite news}} etc. In a bid to improve the browsing experience for everyone, but in particular those with slow connections, I'm going to start converting these into manual citations. See Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Request for advice for a more technical discussion and explanation of the benefits.

If anyone spots me making a systemic formatting error, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Regards, —WFC— 20:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me back. Being the noob that I was, I used to do all citations manually. The article takes a fair amount of time to load for me so God knows what it's like for people with slower connections. I'll work my way up with the time that I have left on here tonight. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're all done, and the increased speed is noticeable. Unfortunately I had to add somewhere in the region of 50 templates for unsourced or questionably sourced statements along the way. Once the [citation needed]'s and [reliable source?]'s are all dealt with we should see the full effect of the work. —WFC— 13:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've now been through and, over the last couple of weeks, removed about 30(ish) uses of cite templates - clearly no one reads WP:CITEVAR... I caught two examples of North American date formatting. I've had a quick look and there are some refs that could use some work but nothing obvious that I can see straight away. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If/how to distinguish between internal and external wikilinks[edit]

Due to this list's fairly extensive use of links to other sections of the page, I think we need to come to an agreement on if/how to distinguish between these and wikilinks to other pages. The options from the previous discussion on this matter were:

  • Using small caps to denote internal wikilinks:
  • Using an italicised wikilink with a capital letter to denote internal wikilinks (this method would require existing italicised links to instead be denoted by double quotes):
  • Not to distinguish between the two:

Which one should we go for, or is there another option that hasn't been considered? —WFC— 23:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berth[edit]

Should the term berth included on Glossary of association football terms? --Diwas (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA date?[edit]

sorry for maybe this stupid question, but how we call when many nationals team are playing at same time in diferent competitions in some exactly date of the year? official name of it? wiki article?--Feroang (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean competitions / tournaments overlapping in time? How about: parallel events? I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
what is the name of a day like yesterday, when clubs free his players and it play for Ecuador national football team and Italy national football team and many games around the world, many of it qualificatory to 2014.--Feroang (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA International Dates? It's part of the International Match Calendar.[3] Hack (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that, we must paste it in Glossary of association football terms, and maybe make his on article with the list of dates in 2008-2014 periode--Feroang (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the term you are looking for is FIFA release period. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME would probably suggest International break - maybe something along the lines of:
  • "International break : period of time set aside by FIFA for scheduled international matches per their International Match Calendar" --ClubOranjeT 08:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We oughta add an official term, if there is any. Madcynic (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most common term I've seen used is FIFA International Day/Date(s)/Break. TonyStarks (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The FIFA Match Calendar which is sometimes referred to as the Coordinated International Match Calendar in their official documentation simply lists "fixed dates for national matches". Their events calendar notes "International match days". They frequently refer to "international break" in their articles, and less often "international dates". FIFA Release period" refers only to the amount of time prior to a match that a club is required to release a player (which varies depending on whether it is a friendly, qualifier, competition and even whether the opposition is in a different confederation) and only appears on 46 copies of their calendar. I don't quite see why we need an "official" term, half the other glossary entries are simply commonly used terms --ClubOranjeT 11:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ClubOrange has got it all figured out, listen to this guy :)
Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the mixer[edit]

Acceptable term? Have noticed 'hairdryer treatment', 'FFP' and financial doping too continuing to crop up in football discussions. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The financial ones definitely, provided that you can find reliable sources. In the mixer is a phrase I have never, ever heard on a football pitch, but you've got a reliable source there and it does have a meaning specific to football, so that seems good to me. Hairdryer treatment I'd prefer to avoid: this list would go on ad infinitum if we listed every phrase coined by the likes of Ron Atkinson, Brian Clough or Alex Ferguson. —WFC— 18:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'by the likes of' itself should be here, as in 'by the likes of your Lampards, your Gerrards, your Scholses'. Ericoides (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard 'in the mixer' in a while, but the term is quite popular in Sunday League—probably where it originated. The mixer refers to the penalty area, where scrambling takes place in the final minutes of a match; a player lumps the ball in order to salvage a result for his team. Agree with the Fergie bit, it's probably best to avoid the managerial locutions. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion at Glossary of association football terms[edit]

Mazy run is used in several articles here, cf: George Best and is jargon that must be explained. Huw Powell (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so then with a reliable and verifiable source. The Afd for Mazy run which you closed advised as much.--Egghead06 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are, to put it gently, being a dick, and useless to the encyclopedia. Huw Powell (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first two references are Youtube videos of TV broadcasts. The Tv companies will hold the copyright. The third does nothing to define this "term". Nice to see you start with insults though. Are you sure you will have anything left for later?--Egghead06 (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see someone's already said what I was going to. If the term needs to be defined here, the definition must be verifiable using reliable sources. The first two videos are, as said above, clear copyvio, and there's no clear indication that the third was uploaded with permission from its copyright holder. As such, we may not link to them. The explanatory text at WP:VIDEOREF says:

Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission. Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, music videos, advertisements, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not obviously uploaded by the copyright holder. Editors must not link to copyright violations. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors, and the decision to provide such a link may constitute contributory copyright infringement.

I'm not convinced the term needs much more than the dictionary definition of "mazy": see Collins, which has some real example sentences using the term at the bottom of the page. The only thing I'd consider adding to the dicdef would be the notion of avoiding tackles by taking a twisting-and-turning course when running with the ball. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed "mazy" needs simply a dictionary definition. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To throw something else in quickly - mazy run or mazy dribble? I'd immediately associate mazy with dribbling - certainly the term would usually be used of someone with possession of the ball wouldn't it? I'm not, however, in a position to look for sources just now... Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is "Mazy run" (which sounds like journalise) different from "Dribble" which is defined above and says the same thing?--Egghead06 (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that a "mazy run" could occur in any similar sport - I believe one of the first ghits refers to rugby, for example, and you could probably argue that it may apply to other sports. A dribble must occur with the ball at feet (or on the stick, perhaps, if it occurred in hurling, shinty or hockey). It just strikes me as a more likely appropriate to use to be honest (and at least there's a book with it in the title to point to wrt usage) - if we decide to keep it here at all. More on that question below... Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, mazy run then. OK, just now we have:
Mazy run: a football play wherein the player out tackles several defenders in order to take a shot on goal or set up a goal scoring chance
I'll admit to thinking some elements of the wording here is odd (I would change it but someone'd only shout at me):
  • I certainly wouldn't call a run a "play" and I'd struggle to think of that term in common usage to refer to any kind of football situation. I'm struggling to find any similar usage of the word on the page;
  • what does "out tackles" mean in this context? I've only been watching football for 40-odd years - this has clearly passed me by;
  • does a "mazy run" *have* to end with a shot on goal or setting up a goalscoring chance?
Personally I'd suggest "mazy run/dribble" is marginal at best. It might have a place. If it does then the definition needs to be written properly. I'm minded towards including it (if we have to) within dribble perhaps - "...Dribbling can be said to be 'mazy' if..." (but I can't think how to end that...). Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite comments of "take it to the talk" page, this has again been reverted without any reason being given on the talk page. Seems the edit war might be underway? I ask again how does this vague, poorly referenced journalise offer any more than the entry for "Dribble" given under D?--Egghead06 (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents. The term is valid. At worst, it is certainly no less valid than a number of other entries in the glossary. A few points:

  • The Rambling Man - A glossary is a subject specific dictionary. Reverting edits because a "glossary is not a dictionary" is not only incorrect but is also not very civil.
  • Egghead06 - I think a 'mazy run' differs from a dribble. Dribbling is the action of moving at any pace with the ball in your control. I do agree that they are similar and that a 'mazy run' is a type of dribble.
  • Blue Square Thing - I agree that the definition is not as refined as it could be, however that has been Huw Powell's argument all along. That the community contribute to the refinement of the definition.

Huw Powell has done nothing wrong here. He has been bold with his edit, however it is unfortunate to see some users have failed to assume good faith and have just started/participated/continued in Edit Warring instead of being civil and discussing. Ck786 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huw Powell has been uncivil from the start here. Apart from calling me a dick and a jerk (which I can ignore), he has lobbed in this entry for others to sort out. Firstly unreferenced, then with 3 copyright vio videos, then unreferenced. Surely on his part WP:Burden applies?--Egghead06 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to his submission of the term. To be honest, I share Huw Powell's frustration at editors who revert edits without discussing/for no valid reason - I'm not saying you did this in this instance or that what he said was justified; but I think that's how he felt, hence the reaction. Anyway, none of that is really relevant/constructive to this discussion or the points I raised in my post about the term in question... Ck786 (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't relevant to the term, which at the moment does not carry a reliable reference which DEFINES it specifically and as an association football term. The originator should have provided this. He didn't and neither has anyone since.--Egghead06 (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the burden/onus is on Huw Powell to supply a valid source when submitting a word. I have since supplied a source which uses the term in the context that it is defined within this article. Yes it is not a literal definition ie. "mazy run is defined as ____", however I do not think that alone precludes a word from being included in this glossary. The definition of the term as described within the glossary is implied/supported by the example in the source. Furthermore, it isn't exactly an obscure term. it is one that is used by media and commentators alike on a semi-regular basis.
As a final comment, burden/onus aside, it is our responsibility as a community of editors to improve wiki and if there is something that another user has done that isn't up to scratch, we should be looking to verify/validate in preference to just purging what may prove to be a valid contribution to an article because it is too hard. /rant Ck786 (talk) 02:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you I always look for a reference before removing unreferenced info. The fact is I couldn't find one which defines the phrase. To date neither you or anyone else has done. You may feel it is sufficient to find a ref which mentions the phrase in passing or is implied (!!). That makes its use in a glossary as good as useless. Maybe you missed the line at the very top of the article? --Egghead06 (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope you don't consider removal of links to copyvio video, which we are expressly forbidden to use on Wikipedia, to be edit warring. Though I would agree that repeated insertion of an inaccurate and effectively unsourced definition of a disputed term into the article, rather than discussing improvements here, certainly was. But I hope that's done with now, by all parties.
Agree that a glossary is a sort of specialised dictionary, and many of the terms defined here are little or no more than dictionary definitions. If any editor in good faith has seen the term used and didn't know what it meant, then it probably does belong here. I wonder if it's an WP:ENGVAR thing, because it's common usage in rugby and hockey as well as football. Also agree with Blue Square Thing that the term might be better included as a subset of "dribble". How about rewriting the entry for dribble along the lines of, but please feel free to copyedit:
Dribbling: when a player runs with the ball at their feet under close control. Dribbling on a winding course past several opponents in close proximity without losing possession is often described as making a mazy run or mazy dribble.
and the entry for Mazy run can then just read See Dribbling. Retain existing dribbling reference, which I have no access to. This BBC report initially mentions Bale's first goal scored "after a mazy dribble" and later details how "The Welshman weaved through the remnants of the Schalke defence, deftly shifting the ball from left foot to right...". Better sources may well exist. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You did some really good work, there, Struway2. Excellent wording, perfect placement of the phrase, and a description of what it means that anyone can understand. Huw Powell (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me - perhaps using "sometimes" rather than "often"? The source may be the best we're going to get easily unless someone with a football dictionary has anything they can throw in to the, urm, mixer? I could still be convinced it has no place btw - I've been moving towards that position over the last day anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Sometimes/often" lol there is no such thing in football. Either word would be fine. Unless it's about G. Best. Then it's "always" :) Huw Powell (talk) 02:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

top flight explanation[edit]

Would it be wrong to include the direct reference to the definition of top flight to include the base that eventually the links lead to, i.e. sports league that says to the effect that it is a group of teams or persons in a sport?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Goals from Open Play"?[edit]

What are Goals from Open play? Can we have this defined on the page? 76.167.143.247 (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Done. Ericoides (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

Football rattle. Once commonly seen at games in the UK between the 1930s and 1950s. I think hey were banned in the 1970s due to their use as weapons by hooligans. - https://pipedreamsfromtheshire.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/rattles-and-rosettes.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.244.252 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humdinger[edit]

I'm totally unconvinced that this is a term that has a specific meaning in football terms - it's a general term that seems, from dictionary references and the like, to have no specific footballing meaning. Does anyone have any objection if I remove it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFC[edit]

the term AFC actually and more traditionally means Association Football Club rather than Athletic Football Club (a term that is more widely used in Spain eg Atletico Madrid)

it has also more recently come to mean A Fans Club after the recent spate of fans setting up their own teams either in protest to a clubs owners, (AFC Liverpool) or because the club was moved to a new place or "franchised" to use the american term (AFC Wimbledon)

Tony Spike (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Glossary of association football terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glossary of association football terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Glossary of association football terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of what is a century/centuries in scoring?[edit]

Could someone provide a brief explanation as to what is a century/centuries in what I guess is scoring in football?2605:E000:9143:7000:C5F1:4D46:5736:7016 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Fletcher stuff has nothing to do with my question.2605:E000:9143:7000:C5F1:4D46:5736:7016 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference list in the relevant section. Regarding your original question, I've never heard of a century regarding soccer; are you sure you don't mean the cricket term? Huon (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Farmers League" clarification[edit]

It is ridiculous to single out France. Calling a league a "farmer's league" is a common way for, predominantly English fans, to denigrate leagues they consider lesser. They do this for far more than France. Some examples for Germany alone:

The unifying feature here is not France, but how the English describe leagues other than their own. To put so much emphasis on France is a violation of WP:UNDUE, specifically "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well." 155.188.183.89 (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that the English league is increasingly referred to as a "farmer's league" in its own right, especially regarding large wins and Manchester City's dominance. Examples:
A general description of the term is appropriate. Singling out France is not. 155.188.183.89 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not add the references and prose related to other countries and it obviously exists???--Egghead06 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. This is a glossary, not an article about the term. There is no reason to go into greater detail than the base definition, and ABSOLUTELY no reason for the focus on France. You have no reason to start an edit war over this. 155.188.183.89 (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jew Goal[edit]

I have attempted to edit out the term “Jew goal” for the second time. I am not very familiar with the editing process on here but would appreciate anyone’s support in maintaining this change.

Here was my reasoning listed on the edit:

I deleted the anti-semitic term “Jew goal.” Although the definition notes that the term is anti-semitic, I believe the term’s inclusion is still inappropriate in this context—that of a glossary of association football terms. This term would be offensive in present-day spoken or written communication, and therefore does not belong on this page. I did not spot any other racist or offensive terms on this page, although any additional such terms should also be deleted, if they exist. Inclusion of this term would be suitable, for example, in an article discussing anti-semitism, or the history of racism in football. However, in this article, its very inclusion is anti-semitic. 2601:58B:E80:1790:79D1:3E3B:C0E0:556 (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, please support the removal of this term which is far from necessary and is definitely offensive. 2600:6C50:437F:5514:55AF:ED65:412C:5764 (talk) 04:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Club and player nicknames[edit]

This is more a question of if there is another glossary article, or the potential for a separate glossary article, that lists national team nicknames - and maybe club and player ones, too. The use of accepted shortenings of long names is prolific on Wikipedia, with team nicknames appearing frequently both here and in media. I am fully of the mind that subject-specific terminology and a list of common nicknames are different things, and agree with not having nicknames at this article. But I do think it could be beneficial to have such a glossary somewhere. As it is, I haven't found one. Do maintainers of this article (ping @Egghead06 and Jay eyem: who seem to be those maintainers) know of one? And if it doesn't exist, do other users think it would be a good idea? Kingsif (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_association_football_terms&oldid=1207443845"