Talk:CR Flamengo/Archive 2

Langvar
has suggested that the language variant for the article should be changed so that "association football" should be reflected as "football", which is common in international English, rather than "soccer", which is common in American English. I did not set the language variant, but if there is agreement we can change it, and we should probably change the date format at the same time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * i know is writting in American english but CR Flamengo is from Brazil and they don't use word soccer in Brazil. You're not understand this. I will ask you for change this article from soccer to Football like it was befofe here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozamba (talk • contribs) 20:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the location of the team is important to you as . Please recognize several things:
 * Wikipedia respects all national variants of English ( WP:LANGVAR))
 * Some articles have ties to a specific language variant (a FIFA match played in the United States or Canada would use American English, while a FIFA match played in England or Australia)
 * If no national ties exist, we maintain the language variant that was consistently used in the article's creation (MOS:RETAIN)
 * Native languages for the subject are immaterial. For instance, we always call the nation "Germany" even though the Germans call it Deutschland, which would be correctly translated to English as "German Land". See exonym and endonym for additional details.
 * If consensus is to change the language variant just to support "football" over soccer", I'm OK with it. This could include changing "recognized" to "recognised", "professionalized" to "professionalised", "organize(d)" to "organise(d)", "canceled" to "cancelled", "characterized" to "characterised", "honor" to "honour", "color(s)" to "colour(s)", "symbolized" to "symbolised", "neighborhood" to "neighbourhood", "materialized" to "materialised", "revolutionized" to "revolutionised" and "practiced" to "practised". Of course, we could use Oxford English, which uses the "z" variants, but any change is as simple as the push of a button.
 * However, if you know it's in American English, then this is a non-discussion because the sport is called "soccer" in American English. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , who applied some recent American spellings.
 * , who in December 2012.
 * Both editors made no change of "football" to "soccer" in those cases. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * One additional point of clarification, I fully understand that the sport's name in Portuguese is futebol and a literal translation of that is "foot ball". However I see no effort being made to translate voleibol literally to "I flew ball" as there is an English term for the sport: "volleyball" (and it was probably initially a loan word back to Portuguese). Since the langvar is currently American English, we need to translate futebol to the American English variant: "soccer" even if it's not literal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The LANGVAR doesn't make a difference to me. I checked other Brazilian club pages such as CR Vasco da Gama which use American English and month-day date format but still use "football" as opposed to "soccer." Can we define Flamengo as an "association football" club, and use simply "football" throughout the article? Or do we need to change to British English to permit this? Personally I am American, but have no issue with coming to a consensus on British English. Zac ary (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that in your changes, you avoided touching "football". It would be unusual to have one international English word in with the rest of the article that's American English, but I may be the only one who is objecting. We could potentially use "football (soccer)"—which is where the article on the game used to sit—for the first instance and "football" for subsequent mentions. Walter Görlitz (talk)
 * Let's do that. Large portions of the article were formerly rough translations from Portuguese. Therefore it used "football" throughout even though the LANGVAR was American English. Defining the most popular department of Flamengo as "association football (soccer)" and retaining football throughout seems reasonable and matches the (completely unofficial) style of most articles on soccer clubs in the Americas.Zac ary (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Let's wait to see what others think, particularly Jozamba, who is sitting on the sidelines for the next day for using some unsavoury wording to describe a different editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:RETAIN. The article has used "football" since its inception, so whatever assessment you did to determine that American English is the "correct" variation seems dubious, as does the argument to change it from "football" to "soccer" after 16 years. If a mixture of ENGVARs has developed, it should revert back to the original variation, which is clearly not American English. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not make the assessment that it used American English. Please see above as to who made it and when. Also, your interpretation of MOS:RETAIN is far off. It states that the selection should rely on consistent usage, and at the time that the LANGVAR was "selected", there were clear uses of American English and International English in the article. Feel free to look at the diff. It's clearly more than the use of the word "football". Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:RETAIN is straightforward and requires no "interpretation". This isn't rocket science. All RETAIN says is that once a consistent ENGVAR is established, it should not be changed, and if a consistent ENGVAR was not established, it should follow the earliest identifiable ENGVAR. The former is not applicable in this situation, the latter is. The word "football" is literally the earliest identifiable example of an ENGVAR, and it has been consistently maintained since 2003. While American English has been used as well, consistent American English never developed in the article, and at the time that a user added a "use American English" tag, the article was not actually using American English consistently. As you yourself say, you can't consider something "consistent American English" when it's using "football" instead of "soccer". Therefore, when making the ENGVAR consistent, the most "correct" course of action should presumably follow the original ENGVAR, which would presumably be Commonwealth English due to the use of "football". And, for the record, no, "futebol" is not a literal translation of "foot ball", it's a phonetic adaption of the English word "football" without the literal meaning. Do with that information what you will, but don't lecture people about how "football" is an incorrect literal translation. No translation is more correct, it simply boils down to MOS guidance on ENGVAR. All that aside, I'm open to Zac's suggestion as a pragmatic compromise. ~Swarm~  {sting} 02:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet you're applying an interpretation. It is clear that it must be consistent, and that was not the case at the time the LANGVAR was selected. Perhaps you could actually open the blasted diff provided instead of lecturing.
 * As for translation, my point, which you've also missed, was translation to English is based on the variant of English used. So, yes, one translation is correct based on location.
 * And the suggestion was mine, not Zac's. And "Zac" states the article was obviously American English except for the use of the word football. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Doing the investigation to make this more obvious, the first edit: 2003-02-23T11:37:41 shows the article as a stub class. The only LANGVAR term is "football", but RETAIN does not apply to stubs, only established articles.
 * User Redux took it to start class on 2004-05-20, but aside from the term "football", there is the American English "debuted" and two obvious misspellings: admitance and simpathy. Considering the editor added "colors" rather than "colours" on 2004-06-26T02:23:54, it's not clear what direction was being applied.
 * So by the time we get to Carioca's selection of American English in December 2012, the article was using American English for almost everything save the word "football". No clear choice, so we need to hear what Carioca's logic was before we can make a clear decision. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that your block is over, do you have any comments about the suggestion? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just do not put the word "soccer" in it and we'll be fine, otherwise have a good night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozamba (talk • contribs) 23:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So we're already at another impasse. Did you read any of the discussion? Did you see the actual proposal? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't expect a response from Jozamba or Carioca. Let's improve the article now and move forward with the proposal here. Walter Görlitz, can you implement it? Zac ary (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Jozamba decided to revert, claiming that "Association football is enough" yet no explanation is provided here and it's clearly problematic as far as LANGVAR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Association football was mentioned right here in American English by user Carioca and there was no problem until you came. This discussion is getting boring. Please put football in this article as it was here before. That's all I'm asking for, nothing else. Jozamba (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not blame me for the source of the problems. The current discussion was what I added. If you think it's boring, I'm sorry, but your edit warring is no more acceptable than using the term "association football" which is unfamiliar to most readers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)