Talk:Association football culture

Revisions to local derby
Hi

I've decided to start this talk page about the revisions to local derby list - this was supposed to be a famous derby list, with the matches being from a general consensus of web pages of the most notable ones. Any new changes were supposed to be handled into the linked Local derby page.

On the last revision by 62.214.230.57 the Al-Ahly - Zamalek game has been taken out. Can anyone explain why this has been done?

Master Of Ninja 20:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And what about FC Schalke 04 vs. Borussia Dortmund? Thats definitely one of the most important european derbies. I would suggest adding it to the list. Thanks a lot. 80.130.90.193 (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't there any brazilian derbies? They are very important and famous. I would prefer to see Grêmio vs. Inter in the article, but at least Flamengo vs. Fluminense should be in it.

Reorganisation of the article
Hi again

This article has come a long way from where it started. Unfortunately Wikipedia is now complaining the article may be too long for comfortable viewing. So where once this article had to be split off from the main football (soccer) topic, it may be time to move sections to articles of their own. At the same time it may be good to re-organise sections, as well as re-edit them just to make them flow. Comments or suggestions? - Master Of Ninja 17:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea. A lot of bits-and-pieces have been added to this article over a fairly short time (obviously a popular topic!), making it long and somewhat clunky. It could do with a good clean-up, removal of questionable/POV material, and heirachy re-order. Cheers, --Daveb 07:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Diving
There should probably be an article, about gamesmanship in football, or perhaps that should be ungentlemanly conduct. Also some stuff about goal celebrations. Jooler 17:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC).


 * I created an article on goal celebration. Mark272 03:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Cutting down article
The wiki edit page lists this page is over 35k and should be cut down. From an organisational point of view it does need to be a bit streamlined. Does anybody have ideas of how to go about this? We already have a subpage for a lot of sections, but other sections might need it. Plus I think a lot of the info is unneeded - we need criteria of what can be included and what not. A lot of information is just unnecessary miscellaenous overhead at the moment, and I don't think the article should be a list of everything on a particular topic. Comments? - Master Of Ninja 20:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no need to limit articles to 32k anymore. The original reason for such limits was because on some older browsers couldn't keep more than 32k of text in the edit buffer. For those very few who are still using these older browsers the problem is no longer of any major concern as articles can now be edited in sections. So I wouldn't worry. We have many articles larger than 32k. Football is 52k. WWII is 91k. Jooler 02:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD and merge
If anyone is interested, the previous versions of Players and politic and Clubs and politic (currently are both redirects to here) contain some material that might be interesting according to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Links between politics and football, and that could possibly be merged here. - Liberatore(T) 18:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Misbehaviour
There seems to be far too much about misbehaviour on here. Mostly centred on Premier League players and including stuff that was later found to be untrue. Jooler 03:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think like all articles it eventually degenerates into a list of 'news items' where everyone adds what they think is their own (personal) most important bit of information. When the article was first written I think there was some scandal about Premiership players, and a bit about the more famous misbehaviour cases as examples. One problem is that there are obviously more English contributors, so English news gets more priority. We need others to rebalance this. However we actually need criteria for inclusion into the article.  Any thoughts on this, or any ideas on what parts of the section to cull? - Master Of Ninja 08:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Play
"An example of this was the Italian player Paolo Di Canio who, while not given an award, was congratulated in many sections of the football world for a very generous display of "Fair Play"" Di Canio ? Fair play ? I guess it's a joke. Kekel 11:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever he did before or after, the example was quite an unexpected display of fair play for him. AFAIK (or remember) I actually thought UEFA made a special fair play award just for him. - Master Of Ninja 20:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He got a letter from Sepp Blatter, see this BBC article: . But Radebe already had that year's award --iamajpeg 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly have a feature on football culture without a section on fanzines? Good grief! Anyone going to fix it?

88.111.31.83 12:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Trading jerseys at end of match
Seems to me this article should include some history of this particular ritual. Janko 06:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Janko

Fair use rationale for Image:Ycfc match programme.jpg
Image:Ycfc match programme.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ycfc match programme.jpg
Image:Ycfc match programme.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Stress on negative aspects
In my opinion, the article stresses disproportionately the negative or questionable aspects of football culture. It seems to be highly reflecting and confirming typical American prejudices about the sport.Rudefuss (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Association football culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110525195706/http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=337094&cc=5901 to http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=337094&cc=5901

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Association football culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828025945/http://www.manchestercsc.com/John%20Thomson.htm to http://www.manchestercsc.com/John%20Thomson.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Association football culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/magazine/news/kind%3D128/newsId%3D248342.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040806225814/http://www.worldcupweb.com/WCfootball/item.asp?NewsID=234 to http://www.worldcupweb.com/WCfootball/item.asp?NewsID=234
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005124448/http://www.footballersareidiots.co.uk/ to http://www.footballersareidiots.co.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070729025036/http://www.nf-board.com/en1.htm to http://www.nf-board.com/en1.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

New Section?
Should there be some detailed inclusion of the use of promotion and relegation in football, or is this something that is already better served in another article? Cheers. Jay eyem (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Religion
I want to delete this entire section. Almost every reference to any religious topic is in scare quotes ("immortal", "legendary", "god", generally linkified to point to a real thing rather than what it is: a hyperbolic term once favoured by radio announcers.


 * There's nothing especially religious about chanting, singing, dancing. These are just things that people do when they gather in groups.


 * The fact that there are no holy texts should simply go; there's no need to list all of the things that are present in some religion, but not present in football culture.


 * Travelling a long distance is not a pilgramage; long journeys are sometimes referred to metaphorically as pilgramages, but it's a figure of speech. You could argue that not all pilgrims are religious pilgrims. But then you should qualify the word pilgramage (i.e. "football pilgrimage"); but then the paragraph would make no sense.


 * The use of symbols is not something that links football and religion, any more than it links religion to corporations, political parties, bands of musicians, bands of thieves, teams of bridge players, or any other group that wants to distinguish itself; they all deploy symbols. And let's just avoid the fact that most symbols are not just pictures or labels; they are also supposed to somehow invoke their spirit or meaning.


 * Some players and some fans can sometimes be observed performing religious acts such as praying or crossing themselves; but also some people who are not involved with football can also be seen doing that. For example, some people who climb scaffolding for a job can be seen doing that. Like, I can't stick a [citation required] on this, because it's trivially true. It's a waste of time reading it.


 * The entire section is basically a citation-free zone. The citations that are present are useless. That in itself is grounds for deletion.

I'll come back no sooner than one month from now. If things are no better, and if nobody is talking to me here, then I'll go ahead and delete the section (but if you want me to hold off, just say so; I don't mean to sound heavy).

I've never really been interested in football. I came here to find some discussion of how British football afficionados 'hear' the term "soccer". I am British, and I mostly use the word "soccer". Is it simply an americanism? I use many americanisms.

If you want to comment but it doesn't belong here, feel free to use my talk page. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I should add that I think there's a lot more that should be removed. A lot of the article reads like then kind of vacuous verbiage that sports journalists are paid to produce (or for that matter, that pop journos are paid to produce). The number of citable facts, as a proportion of the total words, is way too low. Come on, this isn't The Daily Express, it's supposed to be an encyclopaedia.

MrDemeanour (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Accessories and commemoration section
Wearing-kit and scarf is common association fan culture. Is this original research? What is the difference between accessories section and food and beverages section?

The commemoration section adequately supported by reliable sources. What is the problem in detail?
 * , please remember to sign your posts using four tildes: . Please read the reliable sources policy. Getty Images is a primary source; using pictures with no backup is original research.
 * In addition, the quality of your writing is poor. Sentences such as "Kit and scarf are staple accessories for football fans and wearing-kit and scarf is a significant parto f football fan culture", "Since this Admiral replica kit, replica kit market in the United Kingdom was developed.and, In the late 1990s, Kit-wearing is became a common football fan culture globally", are, not to be insulting, pretty terrible. Competence is required on Wikipedia. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Accessories section
 * Firstly, I really apologize for terrible prose by my poor English writing.
 * But Here is wikipedia. Don't you know collaboration?
 * Anyway I'll will polish prose and other English native speaker users will improve prose soon.
 * Please don't worry about terrible prose.
 * Commemoration section
 * Please understand getty image soures in the context.
 * For example.
 * Taking a starting XI photograph also occured in 1930 FIFA World Cup.(I attached url of starting XI photograph in 1930 FIFA World Cup from getty image website)
 * Do you really think that this sentence is original reserch?

In Starting XI photo paragraph, getty image soures are not main sources. Main source is below source that you attached.

Footwiks (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Seeing as your poor prose has been up for two months, and you have reverted every attempt by other English speakers to correct you, I have serious doubts about your ability or willingness to collaborate,.
 * I also have serious doubts about your ability to read, given, after reading WP:PRIMARY, you think a newspaper is a primary source, and that Getty Images, a platform where anyone can upload and say anything (see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269) is a reliable source.
 * You were blocked in 2013 on WP:CIR issues, and it has been brought up repeatedly since. If this escalates further, I will have to ask for administrator input. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (1)
 * Please check out the history of association football culture article throughly.
 * I didn't revert polishing or improvement of prose by other users.
 * Rather, I asked for other user's polishing or improvement of my contributions on association football culture article.
 * Therefore, User Robby.is.on polished and improved my contributions two times by my request.
 * But You ruined the section structure and deleted my detailed discriptions. So I revert and paraphrased your contributions.
 * I have also serious doubts about your ability or willingness to collaborate.


 * (2)
 * Sorry for make you misunderstood.
 * I mean. In starting XI photo paragraph, getty image soures are not main and important source.
 * In starting XI photo paragraph, main soure which support the point of paragraph is the newspaper article - "How the starting XI photo began". The Seattle Times.
 * I understand primary source and secondary source. Therefore, I complied with the below conditions.
 * A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
 * Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

I have a question about getty image sourses. Photo is a primary source and a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts.
 * (3)
 * Please check out the clauses of CIR
 * What is meant by "Competence is required"?
 * Basically, we presume that people who contribute to the English-language Wikipedia have the following competencies:
 * the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively.
 * the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles.
 * the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus.
 * the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up.
 * What "Competence is required" does not mean
 * It does not mean "come down hard like a ton of bricks on someone as soon as they make a mistake". We should cut editors (particularly new ones) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process.
 * It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one fell swoop. Small improvements are our bread and butter.
 * It does not mean one must be a native English speaker. There is no expectation that editors have high English skills. Minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others.
 * Responding to suspected lack of competence
 * Language issues: The English-language Wikipedia is the largest Wikimedia project, and for that reason, people will tend to come here first to contribute. Poor use of the English language can lead to perceived competence problems. Often, people may not be aware that there may be a Wikipedia in their native language, where they could contribute more effectively and where their contributions are needed. If problems seem to arise from a language barrier, consider directing the user to the Wikipedia in their native language.
 * Repeated mistakes: If a user is making repeated mistakes, verify whether the user has been given any advice or instruction in to do things correctly. Most users want to contribute productively but simply may not know how to do so. If it appears no-one has explained a problem with their edits, doing so should  be the first step. There are two ways to explain mistakes, (a) direct explanation and (b) showing the better way. In either case, use their talk page to introduce yourself, provide diffs while explaining the problems, and direct them to further readings or to forums such as Teahouse or Help desk. In the vast majority of cases, this will be sufficient and no further action will be needed.
 * Alleging incompetence: It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While being direct with problems is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence often does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction.
 * When all else fails: Sanctions such as blocks and bans are always considered a last resort where all other avenues of correcting problems have been tried and have failed. Before bringing an issue to the incidents noticeboard or another similar venue, you should have exhausted all reasonable attempts to communicate with the user and correct their behavior. Use their talk page, explain things to them, and demonstrate how to do things correctly. On rare occasions, however, after a pattern of behavior has been well established and a user shows they are unlikely to do things correctly, a block, topic ban, or full ban may be the only solutions that minimize disruption to the encyclopedia.
 * After check out the clauses of CIR thoroughly.
 * In my humble opinion, I am not an incompetent user. Of course, You can think that I am an incompetent user and want to ask for administrator input. It's OK. I don't care.
 * Anywany, Thanks for your advice.

Do you think that photos from gettyimage website are not reliable? In other words, Gettyimage website may have fake photos.

For example, you think that this photo may not Brazil national football team full squad photo in 2002 FIFA World Cup final

If I use same photos from FIFA website or football magazin website, Is it OK? Footwiks (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the logic. Photos from Fifa website are better, but the website must say that the photo is a starting XI photo. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi and . I'm here in response to a third opinion request. It's not quite clear what you would like me to weigh in on. I reviewed the disputed content and the above discussion. Is there a question of overall inclusion/exclusion, or is the dispute now mainly about sourcing/copy editing? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, the dispute was over the changes made to the commemoration section between and , which were reverted against WP:ONUS. The user seems to believe that they can insert as much poor-quality material as they want, because other editors will improve it: "But Here is wikipedia. Don't you know collaboration?"  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarification. I think the issues with the proposed content are serious enough that we should remove it until it's fixed up. Footwiks can try and fix it up themselves, or ask for help from other editors. It would be reasonable to park it here in a new subsection or put it in a userspace subpage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely don't think that I can insert as much poor-quality material as I want in Wikipedia.
 * I say it again,
 * I don't keep my version. I polished and improved prose in person and I asked for other user's help in order to insert good quality material.
 * Also I don't think that my version was really very poor quality to remove or revert and you reverted commemoration section after other user's improvement and polishing.
 * I have edited so many articles and created many articles including Name (sports) and so on since 2010. Through collaboration with other users, These became good articles in Wikipedia. There were not any users who point out my contributions due to poor quality.
 * In my humble opinion, Most important thing in Wikipedia is Collaborations and respect of other user's contributions.Footwiks (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Commemoration Section (second discussion)
I think that commemoration section don't have problem.

Dispute occured in January 2023. You didn't any actions since January 2023. Why did you delete section on 20 July 2023 again?

I saw your comment about me in ANI. What's the relationship between this senction and ANI? If I am blocked soon, I can't participate in this discussion. You can be win this discussion. But it's unfair. Footwiks (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just so you don't forget, the administrator Firefangledfeathers said above: "I think the issues with the proposed content are serious enough that we should remove it until it's fixed up. Footwiks can try and fix it up themselves, or ask for help from other editors. It would be reasonable to park it here in a new subsection or put it in a userspace subpage." Can you point out which other users fixed these issues, and where they they did so? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss again with new participants. What do you think of opening this discussion in WikiProject Football?
 * In January, Participants are you and me and just administrator. I opened discussion in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Let's discuss here.Footwiks (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Firefangledfeathers said as belows in the ANI.


 * Since third opinions are informal and non-binding, there's nothing wrong per se with Footwiks ignoring mine at Talk:Association football culture. Considered as a small part of the pattern of conduct described and evidenced above, I do think their actions there since the opinion have demonstrated misunderstanding of editing and collaboration norms. Among the issues is their accusation above that AirshipJungleman29 is supporting a sanction in order to game the system and win a content dispute. I'm not sure how the project can hope for improvement in conduct when criticism is met with such bad faith assumption.


 * Dispute occured in the association football culture in January 2023, As I said before, We didn't have consensus in January.


 * then commemoration section was stayed until 19 July 2023 and You deleted commemoration section on 20 July 2023.


 * Because you want to delete comemoration section again, We opened the new discussion on 22 July 2023.


 * According to the guidlline of discussion rule, I think that we have to roll back to the 16 June 2023 version (pre second discussion - latest version )


 * I'm asking you politely, Please roll back to the 16 June 2023 version and Let's wait for opinions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Footwiks (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What guideline of discussion rule?? You're simply pulling nonsense out of thin air now. WP:ONUS clearly states "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
 * Do you understand what that means? Let me spell it out. You want to include content. I am disputing including the content. Now it is YOUR responsibility to find editors to support you. You have yet to find ONE. Do you understand simple facts, or will you continue to stick your fingers in your ears yelling nonsensically? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Commemoration section was stayed until 19 July 2023, There was no consensus, But You deleted the section. In order to delete, You have to open the discussion agin. According to discussion result, you can delete the section.Footwiks (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ONUS. Go to the help desk if you have trouble understanding the last sentence. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. I left a question in the help desk. Footwiks (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, Firefangledfeathers has said "I think the issues with the proposed content are serious enough that we should remove it until it's fixed up. Footwiks can try and fix it up themselves, or ask for help from other editors. It would be reasonable to park it here in a new subsection or put it in a userspace subpage." Soccc has said "I support the suggestion that it be removed from the article and drafted elsewhere". I have removed the content from the article. How many more people are needed to overrule Footwiks' consensus? Five? Ten? A hundred? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)