Talk:Association football/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Association football. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Ready to move?

So it looks like we've got a pretty solid consensus to move to association football (lowercase). The current discussion will be a week old tomorrow, it's had plenty of input, and I think that we'd be okay moving it over on that date. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Association football it is! Huzzah! – Pee Jay 12:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is good news. I suggest we coordinate the move with the deployment of a bot to correct the double redirects. —David Levy 13:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that's needed; there are only 38 redirects to the article - not too many to do by hand. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I was under the impression that there were more redirects than that. Indeed, 38 is hardly an overwhelming number to update manually. —David Levy 04:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Only two oppositions and a veritable plethora of supports. Sounds very much like broad consensus to me. EuroSong ^talk 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

What are we doing with other related articles? E.g. Timeline of soccer, History of football (soccer), Football (soccer) positions, [[Formation {football)]], kit (football), Football pitch, Football (soccer) around the world. Surely all should be changed appropriately. All show why such a move is necessary because they are different naming formats and I'm sure there are more than the above articles. Peanut4 (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew there would be some more. 2010 in football (soccer) right thru to 1870 in football (soccer) and then a couple more covering decades. So just another 140+ there. Peanut4 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

These should have been included in the original move request. 69.211.29.67 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

So what do we do about it? Can we add them, or do we have to make separate requests for them? EuroSong ^talk 22:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Once the main article is moved, moving other pages to match the new title should be classed as uncontroversial, and shouldn't require a request. If there are any that need moves over redirects, list them here and an admin (like myself) will do them. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just closed the debate and effected the page move. I'll tidy up incoming redirects. Any additional maintenance such as moving related pages you'll have to do yourself. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone does a load of unnecessary work changing links, I suggest reading WP:REDIRECT#Do_not_change_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken. Only double redirects need changing. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't just links - its the term used to identify the sport on Wikipedia. I came here because I noticed these edits at FIFA World Cup and thought I should check before reverting. This move affects much more than just article names. If our article is at association football instead of football (soccer), then the sport needs to be referred to as "association football" instead of "football (soccer)" in all articles. Note this would only be when the full name is referred to (intro and infobox), of course "football" (or "soccer" in USA focused articles) can still be used thereafter. -- Chuq (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started the rather tedious task of moving the articles listed at Template:Association football chronology to their new titles, if anyone wants to help. Dave101→talk 22:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible linking solution?

Unfortunately I wasn't aware of the move before it happened. Football (soccer) was a convenient name for Australian articles, because both names are used here. Anyway.. a possibly solution to simplify linking - create templates:

{{football}} -> [[Association football|football]]
{{soccer}} -> [[Association football|soccer]]

(Note: At the moment, {{football}} is the WikiProject Football header - this could be moved to {{WP Football}}. {{soccer}} doesn't exist but {{SOCCER}} is an unused userbox which can be deleted.) If the templates were changed as above, it would mean that editors could simply replace the "[[ ]]" with "{{ }}" when linking - no extra keystrokes needed at all! -- Chuq (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that there is nothing to stop you continuing to use football (soccer) as it still exists as a redirect. 81.77.136.231 (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but in the past it has been used with the reasoning "it is the standard form used throughout Wikipedia where there is a conflict in the terminology to be used", so it would probably be incorrect style to use it now. -- Chuq (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a bit of a hack, to be honest. If it's going to require articles to be edited anyway, it doesn't really matter how many characters need to be changed; the most efficient way is still going to be through assisted search-and-replace. The "conflict is terminology" thing only really applies where there's a conflict at the level above markup: football and football are perfectly fine, it's just article titles like History of football (soccer) which need to be changed. And you can't do that with templates. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean - I won't hurry to change links, but for new links it could be easier. Not to mention, if the article ever moves back or to another name ... -- Chuq (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is no need to go round and fix all the redirects, it would be a waste of time and a waste in terms of the article history. If you are editing a page anyway, it is fine to fix them, just don't go round with the intention of fixing the redirects. See Do not change links to redirects that are not broken for some semblance of policy about this. Woodym555 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Soccer" is a colloquialism wherever you're from...

[relocated from #This article should be called...]

"Soccer" is a colloquialism wherever you're from, regardless if it is the primary usage, as is corn and mad-cow disease. Reginmund (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "soccer" is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English? —David Levy 19:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Reginmund (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you make such an assertion? Have you notified Major League Soccer and the United States men's and women's national soccer teams of your findings? —David Levy 22:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't need to notify them on anything. I made the assertion based on the etymology of "soccer". Reginmund (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The word's etymology is not disputed. What's disputed is your apparent belief that the English language is static and unchanging.
Do you also regard "petrol" (which originated as a slang abbreviation of "petroleum spirit") as a colloquialism? —David Levy 00:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Did I ever say that the word's etymology is disputed? Did I ever say that the English language is static and unchanging? NO, so please don't make cruft up. As an answer to your question, petrol is not a colloquialism. Reginmund (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was informing you of the dispute's nature (which relates not to the etymology, but to the relevance thereof). I referenced your "apparent belief that the English language is static and unchanging" because I don't know how else to interpret your stance that the word "soccer" must forever remain a colloquialism in all varieties of English.
Why do you not regard "petrol" as a colloquialism? (I don't either, but I'm wondering what distinction you're drawing.) —David Levy 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The correct distinction is that soccer is a colloquialism in British English, while it is not a colloquialism in most other varieties. Even though the spelling and style of this article is British English, that does not have any implications for acknowledgement of soccer, as a term, in the text, or the naming of the article. Grant | Talk 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm struggling to make sense of Reginmund's logic. —David Levy 03:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Although I'm British, and for me "soccer" is an informal colloquialism - I accept that in some other countries it has been recognised as formal usage. There is no international cast-iron definition of what's proper and what is not. In some countries they use pidgin English - which, to us, may sound like baby talk - but to them is proper and correct! EuroSong ^talk 09:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you said that the "word's etymology is not disputed" which I don't see how is relevant. Nor did I say or make any insinuation that the English language is static and unchanging. In fact I think quite differently that statement could only be fabricated on your behalf. Before making such frivolous claims, it would be best to understand how "petrol" came to use in the English lexicon compared to how "soccer" came into the English lexicon. Reginmund (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

1. The fact that the word's etymology is not disputed is relevant because I wanted to make it clear that my disagreement was not based on such an argument.
2. As I said, I'm merely attempting to make sense of your stance. Rather than leaving me to speculate, please explain why the fact that "soccer" originated as a slang term means that it must forever remain a colloquialism in all varieties of English. Please also enlighten me on the relevant historical difference(s) between "soccer" and "petrol." Simply claiming that they exist (without providing any details) is not particularly helpful. —David Levy 20:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would you bring up the fact that the word's etymology is not disputed if your disagreement is not based on such an argument? Rather than speculate a frivolous reason for my stance, ask me what about it you don't understand instead of confusing yourself by answering your own question that you have no capability of doing. "Soccer" is a slang term and the etymology basically speaks for itself. Yet, the etymology of "petrol" also speaks for itself as it is clearly not a slang term. If you would simply understand the etymologies and the definition of "slang", you would find an answer to your question. Or would you like me to tell you the etymologies and what "slang" means? Reginmund (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You cited the word's etymology. I replied by indicating that while we are in agreement regarding said etymology, we are not in agreement regarding its modern relevance.
As I said, I'm merely trying to make sense of your argument. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but despite my requests, you aren't explaining why you believe that a slang term can never evolve into a formal term (in this case, specifically in certain varieties of English). If you don't believe that the English language is static, how do you rationalize this position?
I'm quite familiar with the definition of slang, and I already requested that you enlighten me on the pertinent historical difference(s) between the words "soccer" and "petrol." The latter originated as an informal abbreviation of "petroleum spirit," and it evolved into a formal term in some varieties of English (including yours) through common use as one. Likewise, "soccer" originated as an informal abbreviation of "association football," but it now is used as a formal term in some varieties of English (including mine). What is the relevant distinction? —David Levy 07:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering the origins of the word "soccer". Although many slang words become known throughout the English language, it still shouldn't suggest that they aren't slang. Since "slang" is a portmanteau of "secret language", it was not necessarily meant for everyone to understand. However, because "soccer" is understood by most all anglophones as many slang words are. This shouldn't suggest that it still isn't slang. And because slang is a "secret language", words such as "petrol" cannot be considered slang because "petrol" was meant for everyone to hear it to understand it. Reginmund (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Before I read the above for a fourth time, can someone else please verify that it makes sense to them? —David Levy 00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, I just don't see what relevance it has to this discussion. – Pee Jay 10:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever, is how much. I do wish we could stop getting sidetracked by an irrelevant grammar debate. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the proposed move, but not to the article itself (which could be edited to explain that "soccer" is a colloquialism in all varieties of English). —David Levy 12:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please to explain it to me? It has nothing to with the proposed move to Association football (which I strongly support, of course), but I'd like to understand how it is that "soccer" is a colloquialism in the varieties of English in which it exists as a formal term (but "petrol" is not). As far as I can tell, the rationale is the former originated as a "secret" of some sort. Even if true, I don't see how this is remotely relevant to how it's used today. —David Levy 12:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Petrol" is not simply because it was created as a neologism and not a colloquialsim. "Soccer" was made as a slang term and its etymlogy clearly shows that. Reginmund (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume that the above is accurate. What bearing does this have on the word's use today? Am I correct in interpreting your statements to mean that a colloquialism cannot evolve into formal word? If so, on what do you base this assertion? You've confirmed that you believe that "soccer" is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English, but do you actually deny that it's used as such in some? No offense, but it really seems as though you're simply condemning English varieties that differ from your own. —David Levy 04:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions that you simply know nothing about. It really seems as though you're simply condeming my statement because of a system bias. Some words, no matter how widespread they are in use, still remain colloquial. "Bendy bus" happens to be a more widespread term in the UK referring to an articulated bus. Somewhat along the level of "soccer" being more widespread in the US than "football". No matter how much it is used, it is still colloquial and everyone in the country (including me) knows it. And I try to avoid colloquialisms as much as possible so I prefer the more "American" term and I call it an "articulated bus". I really don't know what you are suggesting. Is this somehow supposed to mean that colloquialisms are only classified by limited use? Reginmund (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that the use of the word "soccer" to describe the sport in question is "more widespread in the US than 'football'" is a huge understatement. Soccer is the only English word commonly used for this purpose (in both formal and informal contexts) in the United States. To us, "soccer" isn't a nickname; it's the sport's correct name.
No, the extent to which a term is used doesn't determine whether a word is a colloquialism. (As you noted, many colloquialisms are quite common.) What matters is how the word is used. If a word is commonly accepted in formal contexts, it isn't a colloquialism (wherever this occurs). Again, do you deny that "soccer" is used as a formal term in some countries? Why is this inappropriate?
Once again, I ask you whether you believe that it's possible for a colloquialism to evolve into a formal term (and if not, why not). —David Levy 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, "soccer" is used more than "football" in the US as "bendy bus" is used more than "articulated bus" in the UK. Now such words as "bendy bus" are still accepted into formal context, yet they are still known as colloquialisms. As "bendy bus" is a colloquialism in the UK, "soccer" is a colloquialism in the US, no matter how widespread their usage is over the correct form. Reginmund (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, "soccer" is not a nickname for "football" in the United States. It is the only common English name here. ("Football" almost always refers to American football.) The etymology of the word "soccer" is completely unknown to most Americans (who use the word just as they use any formal word). As it's a term's current use (and not necessarily its origin) that determines its status, it's ludicrous to claim that "soccer" is a colloquialism (and not "correct") in countries in which it clearly has entered formal usage.
Do you intend to answer my questions, or will you ignore them yet again? —David Levy 11:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, "articulated bus" is not a widespread alternative to the colloquial "bendy bus" in the United Kingdom. "Bendy bus" is the only common English name here. Just because the etymology of a word is unknown to a person, doesn't somehow change its classification. And terms that are the current and only used can still be considered colloquial. Examples include "soccer" in the US and "bendy bus" in the UK. It's ludicrous to claim that just because a word is the only one in use in a certain dialect, it automatically is not colloquial. Do you intend to actually read my post to find answers to your questions or are you going to ignore me again? Reginmund (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring you. I'm reading your messages and replying with questions that you refuse to answer. (I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether a colloquialism can ever evolve into a formal term.)
You've explicitly indicated that the word "soccer" is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English (which is consistent with the claim that it's a colloquialism in all of them). You've yet to explain why this is so (why the word's origin overrides its modern use), nor have you explained what we should be calling the sport in formal contexts (instead of "soccer," which, based purely upon its etymology, you've deemed inappropriate). —David Levy 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you are ignoring me because I have already answered your question. Wherever you go, both "soccer" and "bendy bus" are deemed as colloquialisms, no matter how widespread their usage is in a certain dialect. Yet, these two terms are the only terms referring to two particular subjects in two different dialects. Any term, including a slang term can evolve over time to be formal but only with the language's periodic change. (That includes, of course, the word that the slang term originated from.) If this word of origin is deemed as archaic, there is no reason why this new term that used to be considered slang can be accepted into the English lexicon as a formal term. However, the word that "soccer" originated from is "association" which is by no means an archaic term so "soccer" remains colloquial as "bendy bus" does too, no matter how widespread the term is in a particular dialect. Reginmund (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wherever you go, both 'soccer' and 'bendy bus' are deemed as colloquialisms, no matter how widespread their usage is in a certain dialect." By whom (other than you)? I certainly agree that "soccer" is a colloquialism in British English (among other varieties), but which American English authorities have deemed "soccer" a colloquialism here?
Also, what is the source for your assertion that a word of origin must become archaic before its informal descendants can be considered formal? "Petroleum" certainly isn't archaic, and your only rebuttal is that "soccer" originally (many decades ago) wasn't intended to be as widely understood as "petrol" was (which is utterly irrelevant).
And again, you explicitly indicated that the word "soccer" "is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English." (I asked you whether you meant those exact words, and you responded in the affirmative.) You've literally claimed that what we're doing is inappropriate, and that's preposterous. —David Levy 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, who the hell cares any more? I'm getting quite sick of this argument, and I think it should stop now. The word "soccer" began as a colloquialism in both British English and American English, but it has become accepted as the predominant word for association football in North America. It is not the only word for the sport in North America (I know some people who call it football, and refer to American football as "gridiron"), but it is the most commonly used one. There, are we happy now? – Pee Jay 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, no one is forcing you to read this discussion. I appreciate your sensible viewpoint, but I remain disheartened by Reginmund's condemnation. —David Levy 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I agree with PeeJay. I do fully agree with one of your two arguments but this isn't the place to go into it. The article has been moved and your discussion isn't particularly relevant to this talk page. Peanut4 (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the move (which I wholeheartedly supported), but it is potentially relevant to the article (which someone might want to edit to indicate that "soccer" is a colloquialism worldwide). —David Levy 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

While nobody is forcing us to read the discussion, we are all being forced to scroll past it despite it being of almost no relevance to the (hopefully now permanently settled) survey at hand. The sooner this can be archived, the sooner we can all stop caring about it for good. As a two-person conversation, it might better be conducted on user talk. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct in stating that this discussion is irrelevant to the survey, so I've relocated it to the bottom of the page. It is, however, relevant to the article. —David Levy 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why it's relevant to the article. Nowhere does the article mention whether soccer is a coloquialism and neither is Wikipedia a dictionary. Maybe the etymology of soccer and whether it's a colloqualism is relevant to the article, if so ignore me, but I'm struggling to see how it is. Peanut4 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article contains a section about the sport's name. As I've noted above, someone with Reginmund's attitude might decide to edit it (or the related article) accordingly. —David Levy 22:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

By everyone other than me, "bendy bus" is a colloquialism to all British English speakers, yet it is also the dominating term. For you to assume that "soccer" hasn't been deemed as a colloquialism without verification, it certainly is hypocritical to suggest that you cannot explain how words lexically evolve before assuming the definitions of a word that you can't have bothered to look up for reasons that are irrelevant to the topic that has already seen a thorough explanation. Nor did I say that "petroleum" is archaic, yet petrol is not a colloquialism, something I have already addressed but you still appear to have ignored. And please explain to me why it is irrelevant that because "soccer" fits perfectly into the definitions of a slang term, the definition of "slang" itself has no association with "petrol" simply because the etymology of petrol as a neologism completely revokes any reasons as to why the word is considered a colloquialism. This I find utterly ironic since you being the one who brought up the case of "petrol" being a colloquialism has deemed the answer to your question "irrelevant" for reasons I can only understand are ulterior to the assumed point you are trying to make. Nor have I "explicitly indicated that "soccer" is innapropriate and I certainly haven't claimed that what "we" (whoever you are referring to) are doing anything inappropriate. Taking this fabrication of words into account, I can only assume that your motives are indeed ulterior to those prescribed to your arguments. Now that is utterly preposterous. Reginmund (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not assuming anything. By definition, the simple fact that "soccer" is widely accepted as a formal term in some countries means that it isn't colloquial there. The etymology doesn't change that.
2. Again, I ask you to specify which American English authorities have deemed "soccer" a colloquialism in the United States.
3. Yes, you've addressed the "petrol" issue. I just acknowledged that fact. I'm not ignoring your explanation; I'm rejecting it. I fully agree that "petrol" isn't a colloquialism, and my point is that the distinction that you've drawn between it and "soccer" is invalid. Both originated as informal abbreviations of other terms, and whether they were intended to be kept "secret" has absolutely no bearing on how they're used today.
4. Soccer perfectly fits the definition of a slang term in the English varieties in which it's used as one. In other English varieties (such as mine), it has evolved into a formal term. Formal terms aren't slang. This is quite simple.
5. No, I did not "bring up the case of 'petrol' being a colloquialism." My point was based on the fact that it isn't one.
6. There is no fabrication of words. I asked you the following: "Are you suggesting that 'soccer' is not an appropriate formal term in any variety of English?" Your response was "Yes." How can this be interpreted as anything other than an assertion that using "soccer" as a formal term (as we do in the United States, among other countries) is inappropriate?
7. I assure you that I have no ulterior motives. As you know, I wholeheartedly supported the move to Association football. I simply dispute your claims (and resent those of a condemnatory nature). —David Levy 04:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Being a widely accepted term and the only term in a certain dialect for a primary topic does not mean that the term is not colloquial. Many terms in near every dialect of English have colloquialisms that are the predominant uses. What does change that is how the term is known within the language, let alone that the etymology certainly does contribute to its classification as a colloquialism. The etymology henceforth is the way of determining whether or not the term is colloquial, regardless of whether or not the term is classified in such a way or not by a language governing body (especially because the English language does not have an academy). I don't understand how you can reject an answer to your question just because you don't like it. If I showed you a cougar and you thought it was a dog, I could easily disprove this assertion with DNA evidence. You may reject it as you please but this doesn't make you right. "Petrol" never originated informally; you would know if you understood the etymology. "Petrol" originated as corporate term used to refer to the refined fuel for motor cars. Seeing as slang and colloquialisms are either meant to be informal or just secretive, a neologism coined by a corporation for referring to a relatively new substance in use is certainly not colloquial or slang. However, a term originating from a contraction of a formal term used to describe a subject within a particular group (i.e. students at the University of Oxford) is slang. Thus making "petrol" formal and "soccer" slang. Slang terms are best evaded in formal language. However, in an encyclopaedia such as this, it would be necessary to mention their usage. I suggested that "soccer" is not an appropriate term for formal English. However, I never suggested that what we are doing is inappropriate (I assume you mean by using the term in the encyclopaedia, correct me if I'm wrong). So I can only assume that this part of what is alledged to be my text is fabricated because I certainly did not condem the term. These are such allegations which are unusual to my original text. Reginmund (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Again, if something is widely accepted as a formal term, it is not colloquial. By definition, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. "Soccer" is a colloquialism in British English and other English varieties in which it is not widely recognized as a formal term. In the remaining English varieties, however, it is widely recognized as a formal term. (Note that I'm not merely referring to predominant use, but to predominant formal use.) A formal term is not a colloquialism.
2. "Petrol" is an abbreviation of "petroleum spirit" (a pre-existing term). It was not coined to describe a new invention with no common designation (unlike "modem," as a random contrary example). That the term was popularized as a trade name only bolsters my argument; the generic use of a trade name is colloquial until it evolves into a formal term (as "petrol" and "soccer" did in their respective English varieties). Just as it's colloquial to use the word "Kleenex" to generically describe facial tissues, it was colloquial to describe refined petroleum as "petrol" until the word lost its status as a trade name (and became a formal generic term instead).
3. No, I'm not referring to this encyclopedia; I'm referring to the use of the word "soccer" as a formal term (in English varieties in which this is common). Indeed, you "suggested that 'soccer' is not an appropriate term for formal English." That would make it an inappropriate term for formal English. Why did you deny claiming that? —David Levy 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you refuse to acknowledge that their are colloquialisms that are quite prevelant in common parlance? Because I can name you a dozen more. Just because a term is widespread, doesn't make it formal. "Petrol" was coined to describe a refined form of petroleum (petroleum spirit). The term was then used outside of the company's lexicon. By all means, not making it informal or colloquial. The word was not meant as a genericised trade mark, only the common noun term used to describe a relatively new substance to fuel motor cars. Just because it was coined by a company, doesn't inadvertently make it a company name. Yet, I never denied claiming that I said that "soccer" was inappropriate for formal English. However, the suggestion that I was to mean that using the term is inappropriate for a person to actually use, regardless of in what form of speech they are using it is absolutely ludicrous and that, I have to assume is fabricated. Reginmund (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Do you refuse to acknowledge that their are colloquialisms that are quite prevelant in common parlance?" No, of course colloquialisms can be prevalent in common parlance. What part of "Note that I'm not merely referring to predominant use, but to predominant formal use." was unclear to you?
"Because I can name you a dozen more. Just because a term is widespread, doesn't make it formal." Agreed. But "soccer" is formally used in North America and elsewhere. (Prominent examples include Major League Soccer, United States men's national soccer team and United States women's national soccer team.) If you deny that "soccer" is the usual formal term in the United States, please tell me what is.
"'Petrol' was coined to describe a refined form of petroleum (petroleum spirit)." And "gas" (short for "gasoline") describes the same thing. But that's a colloquialism (not to imply that "petrol" is).
"The term was then used outside of the company's lexicon." Indeed, just as the word "soccer" spread beyond its original use, "petrol" evolved into a generic term. Thanks again for helping to make my argument.
"By all means, not making it informal or colloquial." And yet, you argue that the nature of the word "soccer" is determined strictly by the intentions of the people who originally coined the term (and not by its subsequent use). How curious.
"The word was not meant as a genericised trade mark, only the common noun term used to describe a relatively new substance to fuel motor cars." I didn't say that "petrol" was a trademark (though the information contained within our genericized trademark article is relevant). Quoth our article, "the word 'petrol' was first used in reference to the refined substance as early as 1892 (it was previously used to refer to unrefined petroleum), and was registered as a trade name by British wholesaler Carless, Capel & Leonard at the suggestion of Frederick Richard Simms." By that point, the substance had been available under other names for decades (and "although it was never officially registered as a trademark, Carless's competitors used the term 'Motor Spirit' until the 1930s").
"Just because it was coined by a company, doesn't inadvertently make it a company name." You just acknowledged that it "originated as corporate term" (your exact words), and now you deny that it was "a company name." Clearly, the former statement is correct.
"Yet, I never denied claiming that I said that 'soccer' was inappropriate for formal English." Again, your exact words: "Nor have I explicitly indicated that 'soccer' is innapropriate and I certainly haven't claimed that what 'we' (whoever you are referring to) are doing anything inappropriate." But that's moot. What matters is that the word "soccer" is used as a formal term in some varieties of English (including mine), and you've deemed this "inappropriate."
"However, the suggestion that I was to mean that using the term is inappropriate for a person to actually use, regardless of in what form of speech they are using it is absolutely ludicrous and that, I have to assume is fabricated." Yes, you just fabricated that (given the fact that I've explicitly and continually referred to "formal" use). —David Levy 19:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your argument was based on the fact that because "soccer" is most common term for association football in the United States, that it somehow inadvertently becomes formal. Do you not realise that you cannot assimilate this based on the given etymlogy? Do you also realise that "soccer" has no credibility over any of these other terms that remian dominant within a certain dialect, yet are still considered to be colloquialisms? Merely because the name is incorporated into names of organisations does not make the name inadvertenty formal either. Mind you, shortenings are not colloquialism either, especially when many words in the English language are purposely contracted by lexicographers for convenience in speaking or writing. They are not meant to be jargon or informal. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no understanding of the etymology of "soccer" as of now. "Soccer" was coined as jargon. Petrol was coined formally, making them two very different terms of use. Thank you for railroading your argument even further away from making sense simply because you didn't bother to read the text. Indeed I must encounter your frivolous sense of logic yet again. A corporate term is not a genericised trade mark. It is a term used within a company to refer to a particluar subject, not a company name which in turn is just a corporate term for a trade mark, generic or not. For the record, the term was not a company name but a corporate term. Please read this text for the sixth time before you start another infallible argument. And I would like to point out that the fact that you fabricated a statement that I believed that using an inappropriate term for formal English is inappropriate to do is not moot just because you don't want to admit a fault in your text. I stated that "soccer" is an inappropriate term in formal English. You interpreted this as me saying that it is inappropriate to say "soccer". You have altered my words to change their meaning and in turn, based your points off this fabricated argument. Throughout you being the one who is using the straw man in several aspects of my argument, you have finished your argument again with another fallacy to your point which was disproven already. Check the beginning of the page for that reference after you have read this another dozen times, but don't bother to distort anything else. Reginmund (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Your argument was based on the fact that because 'soccer' is most common term for association football in the United States, that it somehow inadvertently becomes formal." No, that is not my argument. "Soccer" is a formal term in the varieties of English in which it is widely accepted and used as such. It really is that simple.
There are plenty of informal terms that are used more commonly than their formal counterparts are. They generally are not, however, used in formal contexts. For example, Americans typically refer to adhesive bandages as "band-aids." In actuality, Band-Aid is a brand of adhesive bandage (among other products). Another example is flavored gelatin, which Americans usually refer to as "jello" (taken from the brand Jell-O). Neither of these generic terms appears on any product packaging or in any major advertising. As common as they are, they remain colloquial. The word "soccer," conversely, is used in any formal context (within our control) that you can name. According to you, this is "inappropriate."
"Do you not realise that you cannot assimilate this based on the given etymlogy?" Do you not realize that a word can evolve beyond its original use? Oh, that's right. You've instituted the arbitrary prerequisite that the word from which it descended be archaic.
"Do you also realise that "soccer" has no credibility over any of these other terms that remian dominant within a certain dialect, yet are still considered to be colloquialisms?" To which terms are you referring?
"Merely because the name is incorporated into names of organisations does not make the name inadvertenty formal either." Indeed, there is nothing inadvertent about our formal use of the word "soccer." It's quite deliberate, in fact. But if you disagree that "soccer" is used formally in the United States, I once again ask that you tell me what term is. Also explain what would constitute formal use.
"Mind you, shortenings are not colloquialism either, especially when many words in the English language are purposely contracted by lexicographers for convenience in speaking or writing. They are not meant to be jargon or informal. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no understanding of the etymology of "soccer" as of now." I understand it perfectly. I merely reject your assertion that said etymology is the sacrosanct determinant of the word's modern status.
"'Soccer' was coined as jargon." Indeed, and it subsequently evolved into a formal, mainstream term in some English varieties (including mine).
"Petrol was coined formally, making them two very different terms of use." Yes, "Petrol" was a formal trade name (rendering its generic use informal until it evolved to become a formal generic term).
"Thank you for railroading your argument even further away from making sense simply because you didn't bother to read the text." What didn't I bother to read?
"Indeed I must encounter your frivolous sense of logic yet again." It's frivolous of me to think that a word's modern status is determined by its actual use in a given nation (and not, as you claim, by the intentions of the individual[s] who coined the term in another country more than 120 years ago)?
"A corporate term is not a genericised trade mark. It is a term used within a company to refer to a particluar subject, not a company name which in turn is just a corporate term for a trade mark, generic or not." Huh?
"For the record, the term was not a company name but a corporate term." Okay, so by "company name," you mean "name of a company," I take it. If so, what is the relevance? As I said, the company was Carless, Capel & Leonard, which marketed a product as "Petrol," a trade name distinct from that of its competitors. What is your point?
"Please read this text for the sixth time before you start another infallible argument." Somehow, I doubt that this is what you meant to write.
"And I would like to point out that the fact that you fabricated a statement that I believed that using an inappropriate term for formal English is inappropriate to do is not moot just because you don't want to admit a fault in your text." Once again, I'm unable to make sense of that sentence.
"I stated that 'soccer' is an inappropriate term in formal English." Indeed, you did. If accurate, this means that those of us who use "soccer" as a formal term are behaving inappropriately. I dispute this assertion.
"You interpreted this as me saying that it is inappropriate to say 'soccer'." Rubbish. I interpreted it as a claim that it's inappropriate to use the word "soccer" as a formal term (as we do in North America and elsewhere). I've consistently included the word "formal," so your response is quite perplexing.
"You have altered my words to change their meaning and in turn, based your points off this fabricated argument." No, that would be you. —David Levy 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)