Talk:Forms of football

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

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

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

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

Removed content

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

*History of football

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how about Moving the article...

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