Talk:Cheering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

This is of course totally dated, but some of the bits are just too good to pass up, and a quite a bit of it is actually still true today. It should be updated to reflect 20th-century changes, and the etymological stuff could mostly go to wiktionary. Stan 18:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger from Football chant?

opinions? Tedernst 23:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  • NO, DO NOT MERGE FOOTBALL CHANTS WITH CHEERING. please (Vote by User:66.203.167.169)
  • Merge. Reasoning: The original Football chants dealt with British soccer chants. It has been broadened to include other football codes, and non-football sports chants, such that the name is no longer correct. By all means have a British football chants subarticle: there's enough material and it is a distinct subtype; but the balance should be integrated with Cheering; there is already a good deal of overlap. Joestynes 18:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • if they were merged the Cheering article would contain a huge amount on football chants, and some confusing unencyclopaedic information on American universities (which is what the cheering article consists of now. i vote split, though this article might need to be renamed to reflect expansion into other sports. Jdcooper 14:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know that i'm just an anon and not really allowed to vote, but i'd say don't merge as what would happen is that football chant would be a section of Cheering equal to about 60% of the total article. then someone would try and split the pages. plus, the two subjects are very different
  • I think they should be separate, but also that the Football chants article should be edited so that it is reflective of its title -- this requires deleting anything in the North America section that does not relate to American football. Otherwise, the two article start to step all over themselves. So, my vote is keep separate but EDIT. Kgwo1972 22:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge The football chant is a unique sporting phenomenon, with much (often political) history. It would be better to link this page from Cheering, with a See the main article: Football chant link. - N (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Most people are saying "keep them separate" when in fact they are currently not separate; maybe you should be saying "make them separate". The problem with football (word) is it means different games in different places. If we have football chant for all the chants in all forms of football, it seems a bit arbitrary to exclude baseball, cricket, etc. On the other hand, there is certainly enough variety of forms and cultures to justify multiple articles. My motivation for suggesting a merger was that the existing barrier has broken down: effectively Cheering is an out-of-date dead article, with "Football chant" covering, not just what its title says, but also much of what should be at "Cheering". The non-existent current division should be formally eliminated, prior to some more logical (and enforceable) subdivision of various types of sports cheers/chants being decided upon. Joestynes 17:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually what you will find is that in most of the free world, football refers to one game and one game only. The beautiful game. Sadly our former colony likes to think differently. But wtf do they know? They have been about for five minutes and, having turned up late for the last two World Wars, contrive to make up by inviting in Dubya to try and be really punctual for the next one... Sjc 20:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment I do agree on that point, and I would be in favour of moving the sections not related to football (soccer) into the cheering article (or even into some new article). These sections (Chants in North American sports, Rugby union and Other sports) clearly don't belong in this article, which should only contain information relating to football (soccer). I do think it's important to keep this article though, because chanting in the context of football culture is unique, and well worth expanding beyond what we have already. I wouldn't oppose renaming it to something less ambiguous like Football (soccer) chanting though. - N (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I was agreeing with Joestynes, about the current ambiguity and the need to seperate certain information, rather than the comments by Sjc. While I have sympathy for the sentiment expressed, it probably isn't that relevant or helpful to this discussion to start mentioning wars and things. Also, the suggestion of moving to British football chants is, I feel, not the right way to go. This page is linked from Football culture as an extension of that page, and limiting this to British chants would mean that we would have no page talking about the concept (and history) of chanting at football in general. It would also limit the scope to add information about other countries in the future (a topic that is actually more interesting IMO, given the thin line between politics and football in some countries). Saying that, practically all of the football (soccer) information is related to British teams atm, so a worldwide view is perhaps needed. - N (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Under no circumstance merge. Sjc 20:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC) PS Most football chanting is the direct antithesis of cheering.
  • Do not merge - football chants is a topic unique to association football and has the capicity to contain a breadth of information much greater and more specific than can be illustrated within the broader topic of "cheering". Therefore, do not merge. Image:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano 15:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of other sports

As this has been dragging on a while now, would anyone have any objections if I just moved the sections not related to football (soccer) into Cheering? - N (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody objected, I have performed the merge. - N (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

errr, there is a fair amount of bias in this article someone should probably sort out... "look like a bunch of drunken fools"? I'm sure thats POV... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.124.28 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)