Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Leave it alone the both of you 2nyte and HiLo

Hilo We have a long standing convention going on here that it is Association Football on Wikipedia globally and you continue to ignore this fact. I have maintained convention here, not to change this article one way or the other to football or soccer despite my ongoing opposition to the term Soccer... You are continuing to attempt to introduce the words soccer into articles here despite convention otherwise you are not a force here to ignore this convention, I foresee further disruptive editing will lead to a block. Just leave this article alone until the issue is resolved or you will be introducing more tension into this debate yet again. Bold editing simply will not resolve this conflict!

For the time being 2nyte, all references to the word soccer should be reverted as they were. I have added a neutral perspective description, should this be reverted I will see this as nothing short of disruptive editing. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this change -- it should go back to "Soccer" per the prior consensus at Talk:Soccer_in_Australia/Archive_3. NE Ent 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have replaced all references of football to soccer where appropriate--Orestes1984 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Except for the lead paragraph. I've restored it. NE Ent 14:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've restored everything. Why were the changes made and then why were they reverted again?--2nyte (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted to an incorrect version in the first place... However the change in the lead represents an ongoing problem with this article... Why was that change even made in the first place? --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is this all about? It has my name in the title, but I have no idea why. No links have been provided. No articles have been named. It looks like just a typical clumsy attack on me from Orestes. I hope it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I would refrain from calling things clumsy or otherwise inciting more animosity into this debate than what you already cause the issue was with inserting the word "soccer" into the lead here.... Any unnecessary changes in terminology to this article at this stage should be discussed on this talk page until we have consensus about where to go next. It really is quite simple here, your attitude towards other editors categorically sucks... On the other hand my siesta between actually creating my account and the time I had away from here has led to certain issues with how I use this place, that doesn't impair my ability to actually communicate... You should really think about the type of garbage that comes out of your mouth sometimes. Admittedly I didn't read the full article and messed up the revert, that's not clumsy that's just being short sighted here, but that kind of language above is completely unnecessary... On the other hand, regarding your consistent behaviour and as noted by others, you make your own bed, and now you lie in it HiLo, there's not actually a lot of people here that like the way you act at the best of times. --Orestes1984 (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that there may be some confusion. Checking the history for the last month or so, the only changes HiLo48 made were minor copyedits or reverting back to the status quo, and while 2nyte made some bigger changes, there was nothing problematic in them. The nature of the reverts might have been a bit misleading if viewed on their own, so perhaps that is where the confusion came in. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clarifying that Bilby. And Orestes, thank you for clarifying your concerns. Consensus is that the sport is to be called soccer in Wikipedia's Australian articles. I make no apology for reverting changes that move the article away from that usage. In addition, the title of this article is Soccer in Australia, and the content must reflect the title. I will continue to make such changes every time they are required. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss edits to this article, not cast aspersions on other editors. NE Ent 04:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes as Bilby stated their was some confusion, is there ever not? About what is going on with this article... I didn't take the time to fully investigate exactly what was going on with all the recent nonsense --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In theory

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wanted to know in theory, what would be considered appropriate reason to move Soccer in Australia to Association football in Australia, and to replace the usage of "soccer" in the article with "football". Again, this is only theoretical. I think it is the best place to go in the discussion.--2nyte (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I think there's two main issues: Firstly, I don't understand the usage of "Association football" at all, anywhere on Wikipedia. It's not a common name anywhere I know of, and obviously not in Australia. Maybe if you can point us to the formal rationale behind using it elsewhere you will have a more solid basis for your goal. The other problem, of course, is that "soccer" is the only unambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. In normal circumstances that would guarantee its usage. Your problem is that you don't like it. Nor do some other editors. But we have a policy that says "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for any decision here. So you would have to come up with a really good reason to not use "soccer", the otherwise obvious choice. And it would have to be a reason that didn't sound like "I don't like it." HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC) The term "association football" may not be widely used, though it does appear in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary and most notably FIFA's name (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). There is sufficient amount of evidence on this talk page to suggest that both "football" and "soccer" are the common names for association football in Australia. That can be guaranteed. Though when you say that "soccer" should be used because "football" is ambiguous, that creates debate, especially when the usage of "football" has risen to it's current state in the game. These are special circumstances, and as with the title of Association football, the title of this article should use "association football" for the sake of neutrality.--2nyte (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC) But where is the formal policy that justifies using a non-common name? HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC) As I said, these are special circumstances, as with the Association football article, and many others. If we can agree to the move then I am sure other users will accept the decision and find it to be justified in the circumstance.--2nyte (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC) You're avoiding the issue. Where or what is the policy that says "don't use the common name in some (special?) circumstances"? An example isn't a policy. And you still haven't provided a reason other than "I don't like it" for not using the common name. You asked for responses. I have given them in good faith. Please don't just dismiss or ignore them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I don't know wikipedia well enough to quote policy, but as I said I think change is justified in the circumstance. I also mentioned that there is a sufficient amount of evidence on this talk page to suggest that both "football" and "soccer" are the common names for association football in Australia. And that the usage of "football" has risen to an extent that this should be considered a circumstances where we take action against wiki policy (if that is what we are in fact doing).--2nyte (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC) You headed this thread "In theory", which I thought was a good idea. And you concentrated on "Association football". But now you've moved on to claiming "facts" that I don't think are true, and are on another tangent, such as "football" being a valid choice for the name. You have taken your own thread off topic. I tried to work with you on this, but I cannot do it any more now you have gone down that path. I still think you are suffering from the problems of being an insider to soccer in Sydney, and not being able to take an Australia-wide, non-soccer fan perspective. To do that you MUST accept what those from places where you don't live tell you, whether it suits your argument or not. It doesn't seem to be happening. (Any chance we could get back to your original topic? It was a good one.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I think you misunderstood my post. I was trying to get across that in Australia "soccer" and "football" are common names for association football (the evidence is on this talk page through sources), so if this article title uses "association football" it would be for the sake of neutrality. It may not be wikipedia policy, but I think it is well justified to do so.--2nyte (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC) No. Again you are ignoring what you have been told many times already. That's bad manners, and that's what inflames discussions here. "Football", in Aussie Rules territory, means "Aussie Rules", and nothing else, apart from when a minority of soccer fans (certainly not all of them) are talking to other members of that same minority of soccer fans. "Football" is NOT a common name for the game in that (almost) half of the country. You are again claiming faulty "facts", rather than talking theory, which was a good idea. And without a policy that tells us to ignore the only unambiguous, common name for the game, this ain't going anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, not everything needs to be backed up with wiki policy. If we, the editors think that this is the best decision for the article then the change is justified. The "only unambiguous, common name for the game" will be redirected to this article, as Soccer is to Association football. The original question was how do we come to that conclusion where Soccer in Australia is moved to Association football in Australia, what is necessary for that move to take place? And before you ask why the move is necessary? Because "football" and "soccer" are both the common names for association football in Australia, so Association football in Australia is used for neutrality, as with other articles on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) A local consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy, please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If "Soccer" is the common name of the sport in Australia , that's what the name of the article should be. NE Ent 04:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) And "football" simply isn't a common name for the round ball game in a big chunk of the country. It's THE common name for another sport. See NE Ent, "football" and "soccer" are both the common names. Both terms are used throughout Australia to refer to association football, and both terms have greater popularity in specific regions. If we agree that association football be used on all Australian articles for the sake of neutrality, then that is not LOCALCONSENSUS. We are making the decision for the community so we could override Wikipedia policy if need be.--2nyte (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Until you can present a better reason than "I don't like it" to reject the single, unambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia, you have no case to present to use "Association football". I told you that right back at the beginning of this thread. This IS based on policy. You are again ignoring an inconvenient REAL fact. Please stop wasting everyone's time on this again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC) The views on association football are here I suggest you both read them as they apply directly to what is going on here. The views that Association Football is the official name in Australia and also in terms of global context, and that Association Football is the least worst compromise, where Soccer IS problematic should be taken here, I have repeated this ad nauseum. The issue that if we can't use football no one else can is also valid here... this is clearly the case of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Exceptions --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Why do we need a compromise at all? Remember, "I don't like soccer" doesn't count, and "soccer" fits all the criteria. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) You continue to ignore the facts that soccer IS problematic in large parts of Australia... As I've told you previously, I'd rather not discuss this as I'm sick of going round and round in circles. Perhaps you should just listen to the more than a few here who find the word soccer problematic for once? --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, but "it's problematic" is never going to be enough reason. It has to be explained better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I have provided the reasoning, the rules on this matter and the facts, your wikilawyering at this point does not amuse me which is why I am avoiding discussing this matter any further with you unless I have to. I'm simply sick of someone who wont listen and continues to simply put their hands over their ears to ignore what IS going on in reality... --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I'm all ears. Try me now. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I have nothing more to say on the matter and I'm not going to bother to be drawn into this circular argument again, I've provided the reasoning for the move to association football, I've provided the case that this is the least worst compromise to both parties, and I have stated this as a good reason for an exception to common names. It doesn't matter if you're all ears, I can't help if you wont engage what's between them --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Well, you're right about one thing. This is going nowhere. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC) And it's going nowhere simply because you wont engage... You pretend to and then it comes to... round peg... round hole, this is all I know. Then everyone gets annoyed with you and it resolves nothing. I hear what you're saying, I always have soccer is an unambiguous commonly used name, however football is also a common name, there are now many reasons why soccer is not acceptable however.... The problem going on here is that you seem to think that just because because soccer is acceptable to you, it is and should be acceptable to everyone else. This is not the case and that's not how the world works, much less the rest of Australia... I have offered a reasonable compromise under the weight of an agreed global compromise which you conveniently ignore. I have attempted to discuss this with you on many fronts why the term is not acceptable, both in terms of history and the current position, you ignore that as well, there is simply no room for reason or logic in your head. The problem isn't me... I have attempted to position every reasonable solution in front of you and you simply ignore it... At this point, on two fronts, you're simply filibustering and wikilawyering your way to a situation that you find convenient, this is why I simply have given up engaging with you. I can't honestly be bothered taking up this cause anymore because we have a problem here and that problem is you. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I see things differently. You will do anything to avoid using the name "soccer", but cannot rationally and lucidly explain why. That makes it entirely your problem. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Association football is not recognisable to most Australians. The point of an article title is to make it recognisable to readers. The word football is blatantly ambiguous in an Australian context. This leaves a combination of football and soccer in some form or soccer by itself. I've not heard a cogent argument how soccer or football (soccer) can't work. Hack (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I am swayed by previous comments by @2nyte: that COMMONNAME should rule the day. 2nyte has repeatedly and successfully made the case that the name is not association football, provided multiple sources including a number of Australian newspapers and television shows that demonstrate the common name is soccer. I am swayed by @2nyte:'s argument regarding the need for COMMONNAME to rule here and that popularity should rule here. The article should stay at soccer until people other than 2nyte, who supports COMMONNAME and POPULARITY as the reason for this article to stay at soccer, can make a compelling argument that invalidates these arguments. --LauraHale (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC) You continue to ignore the issue altogether HiLo, no matter how it's presented. On the issue of football (soccer) SEE the debate on Association football here that I linked to above, I'm not going through this again as it's been done to death... "Football (soccer)" is against naming conventions as the item in parentheses is not a disambiguation, in that football is not a subset of soccer, neither is Soccer a subset of football they are the same game in this sense therefore, this IS NOT an option... The only neutral name to all parties involved is association football, it is the official name internationally and also in Australia, it has football in it and people know what it is, it's quite a lot more common then what you think, and the disambiguation is obvious that it is football "association" rules football... Everyone with more than a passing interest in Soccer knows that the game is governed by Football Association rules... I have explained lucidly both the history of the game in Australia and also many of the reasons why the association that governs the sport in Australia decided to name itself the FFA, I'm not going to repeat that one again either... I don't care how many cheerleaders you bring here HiLo --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC) The Football Association haven't determined the rules for almost 130 years. Hack (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC) That isn't what I was saying... the root of this is clear... Football Association rules comes from that, association football is not ambiguous to anyone with more than a passing interest in soccer... the name association football has more than 130 years of history. It comes directly from the name and history of the game, it is embedded in Fédération Internationale de Football Association.... There is nothing much ambiguous about it, what's more is that it's completely neutral. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC) The audience for this sort of article is not people with an interest in soccer, it is for everyone. This includes people who have no idea about the history of the various forms of football. Hack (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, I'd be interested to hear what supporters of the other football codes in NSW and QLD call the round ball game. And people who regularly support no football code, or are interested in several, like me. I truly doubt if most call it "football". As for "Association football", almost nobody calls it that, or even know what it means. "Soccer" is fine. The FFA has newly re-embraced the name "Socceroos". One only has to look at its website to see that. The name "soccer" may have been a problem at some time in the past when ethnic divides damaged the game's image, though I'm yet to be convinced that the name was actually ever the problem. I've seen absolutely no evidence that the name "soccer" has any negative connotations anywhere in Australia today, except in the minds of a small number of hard core fans. And that simply equates to "I don't like it" from a tiny minority, which, of course, counts for nothing. So, "football" is ambiguous, and only a common name to a minority of people. "Association football" is virtually unknown, and obviously not a common name to anybody. "Soccer" is a common name to everybody in Australia, and unambiguous. Some really strong evidence that the name "soccer" is truly a problem today would be needed for us not to use it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC Your conscious stream of thought does not amuse me, nor does the amount of times I've had to correct you on the history of the sport in Australia in terms of edits, or those little agenda setting words you like to put into articles. The FFA has not changed its position, it's always been the Socceroos which has nothing to do with soccer... It's a nickname much like the Soca Warriors which has not got anything to do with soccer either. The thing with the broader Australian population is that they often get caught up with nicknames that are rarely used in general conversation and to some degree SBS promotes this. I really wish they wouldn't... It simply is what it is... If you are going to make statements like this as I've told you previously you must substantiate your beliefs, all I hear constantly from you is "this is the way it is in my head", which often differs wildly from reality or any actual inside perspective of what is going on. If you cannot switch your own TV on to see what is going on with media coverage and Soccer even in today's environment, I really am at a loss to even begin to help you understand the problem that is going on here. On top of this you have returned to positioning yourself with an heir of authority when you have none. In terms of what it IS called, there is not one person that I know where if I say football they won't at least know eventually what I am refering to, whether it is football, football, football, or football... See what I did there? It just takes a little context. You seem to maintain the opinion that people can't think in context... I'm sorry you share this simple minded Australianism that people like Tony Abbott also share when they speak in three word sentences and understand very little else. In terms of what the game IS called, football may be rugby league, soccer, or rugby union, usually in that order in Queensland, the thing is, I never have a problem extrapolating my thoughts to the point where people understand when I say football, I mean "soccer." You should really take the time to listen people in the context of what they are saying occasionally, it may help your level of comprehension. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC) This page is for discussion of the article, not comments on other editors. NE Ent 03:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ...nor Prime Ministers. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC) In 2005 the FFA made a bit of a show out of claiming that the Socceroos name would be allowed to die. Their website still primarily refers to the men's team as the Socceroos. Hack (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC) It's not a matter of "still". It's "more so". The use of Socceroos by the FFA is now bigger than ever. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC) That does not support ANY of the claims made above and furthermore... My response simply cannot be helped I am dealing with someone whose unreasonableness is unabated and moreover, when you are dealing with someone who consistently jumps to their own conclusions which are based on their own open stream of consciousness.... It simply makes it impossible to discuss anything in a civil manner. If you don't get the point I was making and actually think I was discussing Prime Ministers... LOL... --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Orestes1984, what point about Soccer in Australia are you trying to make? NE Ent 03:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "'Football' is ambiguous, and only a common name to a minority of people" - that goes against its usage in the media and by the organising bodies. "'Association football' is virtually unknown, and obviously not a common name to anybody" - that argument only works if the default name for the sport on wikipedia is not Association football, which it is. Also, it doesn't matter what supporters of the other football codes think, or even supporters of this football code. The only thing that matters is the fact - represented through the change by the media, the organising bodies, the clubs themselves. Anyone, football fan or not can see this change in name, despite the usage of "football" by other codes. Honestly, the usage of "football" by other codes should not be in this debate. Forget what Victorians call AFL, forget what Tasmanians call AFL, forget what Queenslanders call rugby league. The only question that should be asked is what do Australian's call association football, what do media call the sport, what do the organising bodies call the sport? If you compare the current state of the game with 10 years ago, there would be a tremendous change from "soccer" to "football" - and as both terms are common, we should use the wikipedia default term (association football), for the sake of neutrality, for the sake of expressing this very real change.--2nyte (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 2nyte, you're from Sydney. What you see the media doing is completely different from what someone in Melbourne sees. You MUST believe me when I say that, or you're showing bad faith. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC) I have no idea what it's called in Australia, but there is no "wikipedia default term" for content -- titles are determined by real world usage. NE Ent 03:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Obviously, Association football didn't get its title by real world usage. It was agreed upon as the best term for the game for sake of neutrality. And in every circumstance on wikipedia if "football" is ambiguous, "association football" is used in its stead. This is the exact time where that should come into action.--2nyte (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Look at Soccer in the United States. No Association football there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC) In United States 100% of the populations calls the game "soccer", 100% of the media calls the game "soccer" and 100% of the organising bodies call the game "soccer". That can not be said for Australia where in the past 10 years a tremendous change from "soccer" to "football" has occurred. Now both terms are common so we should use association football for the sake of neutrality.--2nyte (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC) If you used the word "tremendous" in an article, it would be removed as a weaselish adjective. You are an insider to the sport, in the city where the decision to change the name was made. You are not seeing the true, Australia-wide situation. The game is only rarely called "football" in the Aussie Rules part of the country, becasue it would be confusing, and I doubt if all the fans of the rugby codes call it football, even in Sydney. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, you're from somewhere in Victoria(?). Have you noticed hundreds of clubs changing their name for Soccer Club to Football Club (South Melbourne FC did so), and did you noticed the organising body for the sport changed its named to Football Federation Victoria? Also have you noticed the national media? Surprisingly a lot of them refer to the game as "football" - Sydney based or not, they represent the whole of Australia. "What you see the media doing is completely different from what someone in Melbourne sees", yes, I agree, so let's use the neutral term "association football", which is the term for the sport on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC) The term "national media" is a furphy. There is really no such thing. And we don't need a neutral term, because nobody has provided any evidence at all that there is anything wrong with "soccer", apart from "I don't like it". And "Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Assocation football did get its name from real world usage; specifically the lack of a common, worldwide name for the sport. Both Association football in the United States and Soccer in Italy are redirects to the common country names -- note it's Football in Italy, not Association Football. The question here is what is the common name of the sport in Australia as a whole country. NE Ent 11:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC) That's simple. It's "soccer". It's the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. But some people don't like it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, "soccer" may be the "only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia", but the question was "what is the common name of the sport in Australia as a whole country" - that answer is both "football" and "soccer" - that is why the opening sentence says "Soccer (association football), also known as football". This is the same for other sports; for instance other common names for Australian rules football are Australian football, football, footy, AFL and Aussie rules. The question should be what is the most appropriate title, and that answer is "Association football".--2nyte (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) That's a poor response, probably entirely motivated by the fact that, as I said in my previous post, you don't like the name "soccer". "Football" is simply NOT a "common name of the sport in Australia as a whole country". In around half the country, "football" means something completely different. And it probably means something different again to lots of people in your half of the country. Nobody in Australia calls the game "Association football". Until someone can demonstrate that there is actually something wrong with "soccer", apart from "I don't like it", it's the perfect name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, people in Victoria read/watch national media which calls association football "football", association football in Victoria is governed by Football Federation Victoria and many clubs are named Football Club, so that must mean at least some people in Victoria call association football "football" - the same applies to every other state in Australia, most to a larger extent. The argument that "Nobody in Australia calls the game 'Association football'" has no legitimacy, because "Association football" is not a common name in any part of the world, yet is it used on wikipedia for neutrality. Now even if I don't like the usage of "soccer" (which I'm not saying), it don't change the fact that many national media and local media outlets use "football", it doesn't the fact that the organising bodies and clubs use "football". HiLo48, you want a simple answer - why is "soccer" bad? - but there is no simple answer. We know the usage of "soccer" has lessened, we know the usage of "football" has increased. We know on wikipedia "association football" is a neutral compromise. We don't live in the United States where everyone calls the game "soccer", even if they have commercial interests in the sport. Whether you think it's right or wrong, whether you believe they should or shouldn't, the fact is they do. So we should use the neutral name that is available to us, the name that is used by the majority of wikipedia titles relating to the sport, because we need a neutral compromise that supports the statement "soccer has lessened, football has increased, but Australia still uses both".--2nyte (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC) But why use a name that doesn't match anybody's usage, when we have a perfectly good name now? In Australia, "soccer" works perfectly according to all normal Wikipedia naming rules. Give us a really good, current reason to not use "soccer". That another name has grown in popularity is not a reason. That name, "football", obviously cannot be the name we use here because of ambiguity. Its increased popularity doesn't negate the value of "soccer" as the only unambiguous, universally understood name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, as I said in my above comment, you want a simple answer but there is none. You say we have a "perfectly good name now" - but many people think it's not perfectly good, similarly, people though the same for the Association football article and it was changed to its current name. For both circumstances there is fact, there is reason to support the change. And as I mentioned in my above comment. The increase usage of "football" may not negate the value of "soccer", but the decline usage of soccer does - especially in the national media, organising bodies and clubs. Let's say the usage of "Soccer"/"Football" was split 50/50 in Australia. If that was the case we should use the wikipedia neutral term "Association football". I don't know if it is 50/50, but there is fact saying both terms are used nationally. So if we have a neutral term available to us, that is certified by wikipedia, then why not use it?--2nyte (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC) You say about the name "Soccer", "...many people think it's not perfectly good". Can't you see that it sounds very much like "They don't like it"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC) It is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is not personal preference. This is based on fact, the fact that soccer has lessened, football has increased, but Australia still uses both. So, from that fact we have 3 options: use "football", use "soccer", or use "association football". The best option is to use the wikipedia neutral term "association football" - as I said above, we have a neutral term available to us, that is certified by wikipedia, so why not use it?--2nyte (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC) We don't have three options. It cannot be "football". I would never argue for that to be the name for articles on Aussie Rules, even though it's by far the most common name among its fans, and for the leagues and the clubs. That leaves two options. One is universally understood. The other is understood by almost nobody. Unless you can show that there is something explicitly wrong with "soccer", it's the perfect choice. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, I have answered that question so so so so so many times. One quarter of this whole talk page is me answering that question. The last eight comments I have made answers that question. I understand if you disagree with me, but it makes no sense for me to repeat the same thing over and over again to you. So, can you please tell me (your thoughts) if you think there is anything wrong with "soccer", anything at all; is it used 100% by everyone in Australia, or is it 99%. Does the usage of "football" by national and local media, by governing bodies, by clubs, the decline usage of "soccer" and subsequent increase of "football" have any impact? Do you even think what any of that is true, or am I making all this up? I really want to know if you think there is anything wrong, anything at all wrong with "soccer" - and please be as extensive as you can, as much as you can write, not just a simple yes/no.--2nyte (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with "soccer" apart from the fact that some people would prefer another name, just as with Aussie Rules, which I call "football". That's just a variation on I don't like it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, so you are saying the usage of "football" by national and local media, by governing bodies, by clubs and the decline usage of "soccer" and subsequent increase of "football" is untrue? No. What I am saying is the words I have written. Don't try to suggest that I am saying something different. But I should probably repeat one clear point. There is really no such thing as "national media". What Melburnians see is very different from what Sydneyites see, on TV, on radio, and in print. Otherwise, to summarise my position, "soccer" is universally understood. "Football" is preferred by some, but unacceptable. The only thing wrong with "soccer" is that some don't like it. Policy says that's not enough reason to change. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, ok then, though do you agree that the usage of "soccer" has declined and the subsequent usage of "football" has increased (represented through media, by governing bodies, and by clubs nationwide)?--2nyte (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Yes. But only by some media. Certainly not much of the media in the Aussie Rules part of the country, because "football" there, free of any further narrow context, means only one thing, "Aussie Rules", and it has meant that for over 150 years. "Football" is the most common name of "Aussie Rules" there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC) There's no reason to tip-toe around it, the answer is yes. Both "football" and "soccer" are used by the media, both are considered common names for the sport in Australia. Why not use "football" - because it is ambiguous when out of context. Why not use "soccer" - because it specific usage has lessened, it's specific usage has been replaced by media and by the sport itself. So use "association football", the neutral term available to us, that is used everywhere on wikipedia - "association football" may not be common in Australia, but it is the perfect name we need - a neutral name, a name with the most usage on wikipedia relating to the sport; that is the reason we move the Australia national association football team article. "Association football" is the best fit name in the current circumstances.--2nyte (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I don't believe there is a Wikipedia policy that says we won't use a term "because its specific usage has lessened", especially when that term is still extremely common in the country (almost certainly more common than the name "football"), is universally understood, and is unambiguous. There is no need for an unknown neutral name. "Soccer" IS neutral, and known by everybody. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC) There is no Wikipedia policy to justify the usage of "association football", yet it is used in the title of almost every article relating to the sport in general. If the users think it is the right thing to do, then it is justified.--2nyte (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "Soccer" is not common enough on a global scale to use on articles with an international focus. "Football" is too broad, so a compromise has to be made for international articles. On the other hand "Soccer" plenty common enough in Australia to use in articles with an Australian focus. Spinrad (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Spinrad, on Talk:Association football it says "association football" is used for neutrality, not because "soccer" is not common enough.--2nyte (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC) What's non-neutral about that photo above? HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Everything... It's staged and framed to prove a point which is what's wrong with this... You don't want to resolve this conflict you just want to prove a point... There is clear conflict that can be resolved simply by using Association Football... This is a direct mirror of the debate that was held on Talk:Association football way back in 2007, but I don't suspect you've taken the time to read the evidence in front of your face. This is nothing more than a shallow minded religious debate about why Australian Rules should be the only sport refereed to as football in Australia rather than listening to the reasons why Soccer may be inappropriate... It's simple you don't want to listen, you don't want to resolve anything, you just want to wikilawyer and filibuster until you piss everyone off enough that they no longer care... like myself... and I quite frankly don't care what actions are taken with regards to anything I say right now as it's simply a matter of facts. I simply don't give a shit anymore... And furthermore I've resolved not to edit on this page because of this --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I wholeheartedly agree.--2nyte (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC) If HiLo wants the technical answer he should read Wikipedia:No original research, I doubt he will... And I'm simply not going to colour in between the lines about what I think anymore either. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "Staged and framed" is crossing into conspiracy theory territory. No one is saying that only Australian Rules should be referred to as football. Not agreeing with your opinion doesn't mean that editors don't want things resolved. Spinrad (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Sure why not we already have other fringe cultural theories about Ron Barassi that almost no one who would read this article would give a fuck about being pushed here, not to mention anyone with any interest in soccer would give a shit about... Why not just add some more regional specific original content to this thread to go with it? The fact that some AFL wank theory is even being pushed here is blatantly ridiculous. This article is about soccer no one gives a shit about AFL theory here, or AFL balls... Or photos OF AFL balls for that matter... For fuck sake just drop the AFL bullshit... It has nothing to do with this article... And tell HiLo to get on his bike and go off some place to edit AFL pages... No one here gives a shit about the AFL bullshit being propagated here. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Right about now at this point I've been dragged that far off topic by my own annoyance in dealing with someone who deals in stream of consciousness rather than facts, that I'm not making any point at all other than stating the case of what IS going on here... I've just been dragged back into this circular argument again with a complete and utter lack of cogent thought from the other party based on any form of evidence that "the popularity of soccer is coming back"... Right about now I'm going to just step away from the keyboard because you'll never get anywhere putting logic in front of people who deal purely in the realms of emotional connection to another sport in this country. I have put forward many rational points and the above statement is again nothing more than stream of consciousness, the funny thing is, no matter which way you ask HiLo to substantiate any of his thoughts, he never seems to be able to put evidence behind his statements.... --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Last August there was fairly clear consensus Soccer is the best name for the article. Of course, consensus can change, but the keyword is consensus. It's up to those who wish to change the name to provide convincing evidence to other editors than nationwide Australia usage has changed to the point where Association Football is now the common term. While English terminology varies across the wikiworld, I'm reasonably confident human nature doesn't change very much. I suspect its true that argument by assertion and ad hominem are universally not a good way to get folks to change their minds. NE Ent 11:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Actually how we ended up with association football was with a common name exception... That also happens on Wikipedia and is particularly applicable in this case where for various reasons, including recent historical precedent in the change of the official name and also the long standing history of the game have led to a position where soccer is not the most appropriate name for the sport. Claiming ignorance of the facts as HiLo48 continues to do, is a completely inappropriate way of resolving this conflict, in fact, it only serves to perpetuate it. I've played chase the dogs tail with HiLo48 more than enough... I simply wont do it any more, at this point... my summation of thoughts about this particular editor are more than appropriate. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC) No, in fact, thoughts about editors are in direct contravention of talk page guidelines. NE Ent 12:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Right now I honestly do not care, how do you like them apples? --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Making some sense of the indenting and structure of this thread: The photo was taken through a wire fence (see the one at the back), with a locked gate, in a dark area under the school gymnasium. Hence the poor quality. If I had staged it I would have had a much better photo. This is the whole truth. I am an honest person. This scene is typical of all schools in the Aussie Rules part of the country. To these people, "football" means Aussie Rules, and is the name of the ball used for that sport. Perhaps some here would like the label on the left to say "Association footballs". HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC) You miss the point, even if this is the case it IS original research which is irrelevant... How's about you actually go back and read why we all came up with the consensus on Association Football back in 2007 and drop the AFL bullshit. This is the third time you've posted a picture that is completely irrelevant to any form of content that could be included on the actual article page here, and once again you fail to understand the concept of not including original research in your edits. --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I'm not playing that game. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I'm not playing a game :) Clearly you fail to understand how we even got to this place with association football in the first place through proven ignorance on this page as with ignorance of just about everything that doesn't fit in a round peg and hole view of the world... Your sheer ignorance of the wherefores, whys and hows of what is a reasonable compromise here are astounding to the point where most peoples heads would explode. There is a common sense consensus based compromise here however as with everything that doesn't agree with your ignorance and obliviousness to what is going on, you simply chose to ignore it --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, you are completely oblivious to the whole situation. This isn't about what sport is called "football" or what sport uses "football" the most - that is completely irrelevant and that is what is dragging this discussion back. EVERYONE KNOWS Aussie rules and rugby are called "football", I wrote a whole article about the subject on my sandbox. No one is suggesting we name this article Football in Australia, so Aussie rules and rugby should not even be brought up. The fact is that both "soccer" and "football" are used in Australia to refer to association football (this was not the case 10 years ago). In a usual case on wikipedia we would chose "soccer" because "football" is ambiguous when out of context. Though in this case we have a third option, "association football". The thing that makes "association football" a better choice is that it was chose for the article Association football (and other articles relating to the sport) in similar circumstances to what we have; that is, it was a third option and neutral one. So the only question that needs to be asked is do you think it is necessary in the current circumstance of the sport (in comparison to 10 years ago) to change the article name to a neutral one (as was done with the Association football article)?--2nyte (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC) No, the question is, why do we need your unknown "neutral" term at all? There is nothing wrong with "soccer". All Australians understand it. The existence of another name does not make it unacceptable. You understood that image above. You know precisely what kind of balls you will find in the left hand container. I simply cannot see a problem. The word "neutral" really doesn't seem to fit this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC) The fact that you can say that there is nothing wrong with soccer after being here for this long is ignorant at best and at worst it's simply a FILIBUSTER, like your FILIBUSTER of my good faith edits with errors on names for association football --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC) See the photo above. A similar scene could be found at every school in the Aussie Rules part of the country. All Australians know what the left hand container is for. The kids call the game "soccer" here. So there is obviously no problem with the name "soccer" in this half of the country. It really is hard to believe that a name that works fine in half the country can be unacceptable in the other half. In fact, I know that it's not. I know that rugby league fans in NSW and QLD often still call the game "soccer", because they save "football" for their league team. "Soccer" works. I know that for some it's not the preferred name for the game, but that not a reason for Wikipedia to avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Your lack of factual and cultural understanding clearly makes you incompetent to edit here, go away please until you understand the factual and cultural perspectives involved in this dispute... this is not simply a matter of I don't like it and your ignorance of the factual and cultural perspectives involved in this issue and immaturity only serve to piss everyone off. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC) If "this is not simply a matter of I don't like it", you need to be able to explain why soccer players and fans in the Aussie Rules part of Australia happily use the name "soccer". (See photo above.) Have they not had the same cultural experiences as you? HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a soccer fan

Well, not really. I prefer the use of "soccer" to describe the football game played with a round ball. However, my personal preference, like those of any other editor, doesn't weigh highly here. Looking at the sports pages of online Australian newspapers, such as The Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald, I'm finding that most have a list like this: Rugby League, AFL, Rugby Union, Football. The exception being The Age, where it is called "Soccer" (as opposed to "Real Footy").

I think if the newspapers are calling the game football rather than soccer, we're going to run out of reliable sources for the title of this article pretty soon. In fact, I'd say that the weight has shifted already.

If I can ask those supporters of the current title to list their reliable source, that would be helpful. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the universal applicability of the term in Australia. I think we can be agreed that many media sources are calling it football. Similarly, many media sources are still referring to soccer, in particular in states where "football" is the common name for "Australian rules football". So we have an ugly situation were:

• "Football" has been the official name of the sport since 2003, but is not universally the common name, and creates ambiguity in some states.
• "Soccer" is the common term in some areas, but has not been the official name since 2003.
• "Association football" is neither a common term nor an official term in Australia, but is generally recognised to refer to the sport.

So what do we do? Do we use an official term that isn't (and is unlikely to become in the foreseeable future) the common term in all states, a common name which is universally recognised but which the code is deliberately trying to move away from, or a term that isn't in common or official usage at all? - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The pertinent issue is deliberately moved away from, it is not really a matter of tried, but did, officially as I added myself in referenced edits here. The proponents of the other side of the debate largely rely upon an issue of linguistics of which there are few works out there attributed to the research of the word football itself purely from a linguistics research perspective in Australia. I have raised issue that I would like to see someone contribute some sort of meaningful editing to the matter under WP:V rather than replying that they don't need to bother. The terse response in reply is generally "why should I bother, I can say whatever I like so long as there is consensus with my fellow meat puppets." which my general response is... well then why should I bother editing Wikipedia? This type of response is what leads to the general frustration of many of the soccer supporting editors on this talk page. If someone wants to actually put some more effort in here there might be less animosity rather than simply claiming something is the case under WP:BLUE perhaps they should refer to WP:NOTBLUE especially on what is a contentious issue such as this. The synchronic view of linguistics that exists on this page, particularly in terms of certain users vocabulary really does amaze me. Of course as history reminds us, those things that become so synchronically defined usually end up dead. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a worthwhile question to explore right now, is not "do we use soccer, football or association football", but simply "how do we proceed?" We have two issues - what to do about the articles recently changed by User:Portillo, and what to do about this article. In regard to the articles about Australian soccer/football players and teams, that's probably best left for AN/I at the moment. In regards to this article, Wikipedia doesn't offer much once we've been through an RfC. We could try mediation, but in all honesty I don't see that coming to a satisfactory conclusion, as there hasn't been any sign that compromise is possible between the more polarised editors, and the role of mediation is generally to find a compromise solution. But we could try and give it a shot - nominate some editors to approach the mediation committee, and agree to abide by what eventuates if it is accepted and works. Alternatively, we could try another RfC, as ArbCom doesn't solve content disputes, and there is no higher recourse than an RfC or mediation open to us. The problem is that the last RfC closed in August, so it seems a bit early to start another one. Constant RfCs don't help, but perhaps we can agree on a decent interval before starting one again? I think six months is not unreasonable, so that would suggest March. - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think an RfC isn't really going to go anywhere in the short term at least, probably not in the long term either. The contentious issue that remains with consensus is also the fact that football (soccer) supporters in their truest sense are also likely going to be in a minority anyway, so consensus decisions aren't really ever going to be resolved favourably on grounds that are likely seen controversial, for whatever reason, by the two other dominant football codes Rugby League and AFL. For whatever reason however, there has appeared ever since this became an issue to be a mostly dominant contribution in RfCs by users who support AFL. At this stage there really is two options:

1) We wait until this inevitably boils over into another RfC either now or in 6 months time, where football (soccer) supporters are still not happy.

2) We go from this point into some sort of mediated solution where no one is happy with what will likely be a poor compromise due to the polarised views opposing any use of the word football in these and other football (soccer) related articles on Wikipedia that are Australian related.

--Orestes1984 (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We're in a situation where there are going to be unhappy people, no matter what. But personal feelings shouldn't determine our actions. We have wikipolicy developed over years as a guide, and I ask where is the reliable source that says that the Australia-wide name of the roundball game is soccer? We need a source. The official sources, such as they are, don't support soccer, and very few mainstream media outlets use the term. I've spent fifty years using the term "soccer", but if we go by wikipolicy - and we must - my personal feelings count for little. We have to have reliable sources for our content. If we have an RfC, then my vote will be different to the last time around, when I supported "soccer".

What i really detest is the level of personal animosity displayed here. It has gone on for a long time. We don't make an encyclopaedia by calling each other names. We work together. If there is some way to end this disruption sooner rather than later, I'm all for it. If that means a fresh RfC, then bring it on. Let us devote our time and energy to positive work. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

On this one I'm not quite sure what you are asking for as a source. If you want to know if there are media sources that still use soccer, then yes - the Advertiser and The Herald Sun, or example. In regard to statistics, a quick search of Newsbank for "soccer" in Australian press during 2013 gets 18,000 articles. There's a good discussion of the issues in Rosenberg, Buck Clifford (2009) "The Australian football wars: fan narratives of inter-code and intra-code conflict", Soccer & Society. 2:10. There isn't any real question as to whether or not "football" has different meanings for different people and in different states, and that soccer is used where football isn't. The question is really on how we reconcile this. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be looking for a statement in a very good high-level source saying that soccer is the name of the sport in Australia. Not just a few regional papers or counting google hits. Not something that is synthesis. If soccer really is the name of the sport, do we have a government report saying so? Something like that. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an overly high bar. The claim is not that soccer is the official name of the sport in Australia. The claim is that football is now the official name of the sport in Australia, but soccer remains a common name of the sport, especially in states where "football" is predominantly used to refer to Australian rules. I don't see that this point is in doubt. - Bilby (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be a high bar, but if we just write our articles by gut feel and who has the loudest voice, we aren't doing our job. We have good sources for "football" as a name, but where is the source for "soccer"? Inside ourselves? I personally prefer soccer as the name in general conversation, but for Wikipedia we need - as you put it - a higher bar. I'm seeing a lot of doubt and dispute on this very point, just reading through the talk page. --Pete (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading the discussion then. I'd be really, really surprised to see someone say that the sport is not referred to as soccer in Australia. I'm very happy to agree that the sport is also referred to as football, and that football is the official title (as of 2005), but you'd be hard pressed to make a viable case that soccer isn't a common name of the sport as well. That has never been the issue. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue never really was whether or not soccer is a commonly used name for the sport in Australia , for me at least, yes it is A commonly used name, however, no longer is it THE commonly used name by the administration body that gives it, its official name, the government, or by a large percentage of its fan base. The issue is reconciling the fact that football is now the official name of the sport in Australia. The ongoing issue here is the fact that I cannot see how using the official name is the least bit problematic SO LONG AS we disambiguate via a link that is not ambiguous, edit the lead paragraph to also known as soccer, and edit in such a way where ambiguous terms are linked to non-ambiguous redirects, or pages.

The reality is that is now eight to nine years down the road. The majority of people who have taken the time to take a glance at news/media their newspaper of choice or any other medium whereby they get information on current terminology will understand that soccer is also known as football and vice versa. There is a myriad of platitudes here that would keep most parties for the majority happy. Association Football in Australia as per the common global term for the sport, with a redirect to soccer in Australia, Association Football (soccer) in Australia, with a with a redirect to soccer in Australia and many others.

It amuses me that after 8 years we really cannot come up with an adequate solution here. The AFL and rugby code fans could simply click the soccer in Australia redirect, and we can click the association football in Australia link as per the common global name for the sport on Wikipedia. I do not see how this is unreasonable. We have one sport that is association football in Australia and it just seems a little silly that out of all the football codes in Australia, it would appear that it is the only code that is not allowed to have references to the word football in articles pertaining to it... --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is standing in the way of using association football in the first instance and subsequently using football, nor moving this article to association football in australia except those that want it to be referred to solely as football.... Gnangarra 07:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

On that other debate about football in Australia, on a matter purely of personal opinion, I don't think we can have any one sport in this country with an article on football in Australia. To do otherwise ignores the current global consensus that football is not a term specifically owned by one sport. The current page as it is, for football in Australia is fine. It really is more so about how we go about making less of a bun fight about it and actually coming with a better page over there. Every football code in Australia should be able to use the term football and as per the global consensus this page really should be association football in Australia --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

…you'd be hard pressed to make a viable case that soccer isn't a common name of the sport as well. That has never been the issue. That's not in dispute. I highlight the difference between making a statement of general opinion - sourced from where, precisely? - and complying with the requirements of Wikipedia. We require sources for our material. That's pretty basic. Where is our source for the implicit thrust of the title? Where is the reliable source that authoritatively states that the name of the sport in Australia is soccer? Is there such a source, or is it something we just go along with because we as editors feel that we don't need a source? --Pete (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing spate of users who edit this page who need to be reminded of verifiability. Rather than referring to essays which are not rules, or guidelines. There is also a few editors here that need to be consistently reminded of WP:CIRCULAR especially in regard to referencing that article on the barassi line. There are certain users who are using these and simmiliar justifications for their editing to justify why this articles main term should remain soccer. The way that they are going about it is consistently breaching WP:CIRCULAR, WP:NOR and WP:ORIGINALSYN and this really needs to stop. IF you cannot verify your argument you must desist, IF you cannot verify WHY concepts such as the Barassi line are relevant to the main term in this article you must desist and allow the use of the word football in this article. I have gone to the lengths of verifying why "soccer" in Australia is called football (soccer) and has been since 2004-2005. It is about time those opposing either put up an argument why soccer should remain relevant as the main term for this article or desist from their POV arguments. I suggest they start by reading WP:RELIABLE and then I also would suggest that they come up with some reliable sources to justify their position as to why soccer should be the main term that is used in this article. If you believe that soccer should be the main and relevant point to this article then score a point against me by justifying your point of view with a few good reliable sources. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pete, I'm loathe to buy into this "we need a source to say that soccer can be called soccer in Australia" argument. But although I don't have a copy of the Macquarie on hand, how about "On Friday 26 August 2005, a new national football league kicked off in Australia – again. Football, or soccer as it is generally called in Australia, has tried and failed numerous times to establish itself in not just a saturated and small sporting market, but a saturated football market". Rosenberg, Buck Clifford (2009) "The Australian football wars: fan narratives of inter-code and intra-code conflict", Soccer & Society, 2:10, p245.

What I'm mostly concerned about is process. Is it worth having an RfC again, given that the last one was less than six months ago, is mediation viable, or should we just call this an unsolvable problem for a few months and tackle it again at some point in the future? - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of whether soccer can be called soccer in Australia by all means call it soccer, or call it that game played by "sheilas, wogs and poofters" [sic]. It's not a matter of personal opinion, or what you call it, vs. what I call it and that's not what this article is about. What we should focus on is consistency, the term association football is in common usage cited in the Macquarie dictionary, as is this in the definition of "football."

Football in particular references any of the sports that involve kicking a ball with your feet. This list may include, Australian Rules, Rugby Union, Rugby League, Soccer and its dialectical variants of soccer including "British Soccer." Furthermore it also includes American football in that list. According to the Macquarie dictionary all of these sports are football. The Macquarie dictionary also defines football as soccer interchangeably and as a "form of football", but we can't use that as its ambiguous as is the Macquarie dictionary definition "to soccer a ball along the ground" in terms of Australian rules football. Association football would appear to be the current global consensus on the matter and so I think we should be sticking with consensus --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a reasonably old source. I'll bet that at that time, sports supplements still had sections headed "soccer". And that the sport had not attained the prominence of recent years, where the World Cup proceedings are of national interest, and the sport as a whole is one of the top participation sports in Australia. Look, I've always called the game soccer, but I just didn't think about recent changes. Seemed to be not worth discussing, really. Until I looked at all the disruption and acrimony here and thought, well editors aren't listening to each other, just getting upset and going around and around and around and achieving nothing but making each other unhappy. This is Wikipedia, we have ways of dealing with disharmony, let's get back to basic wikipolicy and go for the sources. So I went looking, and I found that "soccer" isn't quite as widespread as I thought. In particular, media outlets have pretty much stopped calling it that, at least in their section headings. Now, I don't think that "football" is going to unarguably mean the roundball sport any time soon, but we really should quit arguing and look to external sources for illumination. There seems to be a compromise position available in related articles at Australia national association football team, Football Federation Australia, List of association football stadiums in Australia, Association football in South Australia and many others. For the sake of consistency, we should get our act together.

I've mentioned Gorgias before as a way forward. Put simply, Plato tells us that when we listen to two debaters, neither of whom is prepared to concede defeat, we go nowhere, because it is personal. But when ego is set aside and the facts are sought, we progress. Wikipedia is about facts, not personal preference,

Do we need another RfC? Well, I've changed my !vote, so that's a little bit of difference. If the wrangling here goes on and on, then we are going to need some formal mechanism to end the disruption, and if an RfC isn't the answer, then what is? Every week there's more argument, more personal attacks, more mentions in ANI. This cannot go on. --Pete (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see another RfC in due time but I think we might need to sit on it for a while because the last one we had wasn't all that long ago and it didn't really get us anywhere. As far as the Macquarie dictionary definition. It is a reasonably old source, however Macquarie Dictionary is considered an authoritative source for dictionary specific definitions of words in Australian English. The trouble is that unlike other languages such as German, French and etc, we don't have an official orginisation that defines the language we use. We can do better here though as you suggest and as I have suggested by looking at context specific external sources.

I think there are only a select group of editors here that actually want the article on football in Australia to be moved to this article, I'm not one of them. We have to be realistic here that there are many games in Australia that are called football and the current compromise with the article on football in Australia is a good one. We could in fact look at the global page on football in order to get a better idea on how to handle the issue. I think you're also correct that there are a number of platitudes here that are available and that we need some consistency here, as you say we've got the Australia national association football team on the one hand and we've got Soccer in Australia here which is causing ambiguity in and of itself.

The major Kerfuffle here seems to stem from the actions taken by the federation which regulates the sport in this country circa 2004-05 when they adopted the name football, but we're not alone. New Zealand also adopted football, as has Samoa, and a few other current/former OFC member nations including Australia. The current wiki page for New Zealand is Association football in New Zealand but they seem to be having as many issues as we are about all of this.

I would like to hope that there aren't editors here who would like to go down the ultimate pathway of using the Fasces to resolve this matter and I would hope that we could come up with some sort of reasonable solution here. This is where as above I have stated that if some editors would like to pursue the linguistics pathway as their means of keeping this article title as soccer that I think a few credible sources could come in handy --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the Australian Bureau of Statistics credible enough for what the "official" government name is? They use soccer. The-Pope (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The figures refer to five years back. The contention here is that circumstances have changed over the past few years. What the mass media calls the game now is a better indication of current thinking than a Stats report from some time ago, to my mind. However, it adds a data point. --Pete (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• What I'm reading is that we have advanced this discussion to point where a proposal with simple voting would be a good indicator of future direction for an RFC. To this end I have started a section to garner a clearer idea of direction, please keep discussion to this section and leave the proposal section to just a simple response. Gnangarra 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should aim for a resolution like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Though change Football (soccer) to Association football.--2nyte (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gauge future direction

For the purpose of clarity please just choose either support or oppose, this is not a vote nor is it a discussion its purpose is solely to enable a clear gauge of where the on going discussion is at. After Jan 26 I'll commence an rfc on the matter based on this survey, even if there is an unambiguous indication. The RFC will include both this articles usage as well as usage in other articles related to this sport in Australia

article renamed to Association Football in Australia.

Support

1. . Gnangarra 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
2. .Orestes1984 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
3. . 2nyte (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support with a rider. The three major sporting codes in Australia already use their official names (Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules). Association Football is not the official name, Football is. However, Association Football is a far better alternative to ridiculous status quo of one state's nickname for the sport being kept because a wiki project for a sport unrelated to the actual topic would rather die than allow the real name for the sport to be used instead of the nickname used in states that don't even make up a majority of the population of Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Pete (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support SFCTID (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Support The term football has become far to common for soccer to really work anymore. The "official" term is not really that important. I think "Association football" works, and any ambiguity should be dealt with in the opening sentence. -- Shudde ^talk 09:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
8. Support --TinTin (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neljack (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

lead to start something like Association Football in Australia also known as Soccer or Football.... with football sufficient for all further usage within the article except where quoting or referring to a specific usage where soccer or some other term maybe appropriate.

Support

1. . Gnangarra 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
2. .Orestes1984 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
3. . 2nyte (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
4. . SFCTID (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --TinTin (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neljack (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Use the correct official names. If we have to add a 'disclaimer' for Football, will we have to start adding them to Rugby League, Rugby Union and AFL articles?

Barassi Line

Why is there no mention of this in the article? If the controversy about naming is anywhere near as spirited in the real world as it is on Wikipedia, could there be a larger section on nomenclature on this article? Could it be sourced? --John (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I did attempt to address this on the article Football in Australia by rewriting the article on User:2nyte/sandbox, but it was rejected on Talk:Football in Australia#Reworked article. I would still like my version of the article to be applied, I think it sums up the various football codes quite well, addressing the current situation in terminology and the regional and cultural differences in the Australian sporting landscape.--2nyte (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, I will have a look tomorrow. It strikes me this could be a way forward. --John (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we really say there is an actual controversy in the real world when the only people making any noise about it in the real world are a very small minority? It seems not unlike the so-called controversy about evolution in the scientific community that is claimed by creationists when in fact there is no such controversy. There is similarly none in Australia about calling the round ball game soccer. Some enthusiastic soccer fans have posted here here try to make out that there is some up-swelling of support for using "football" to mean soccer whereas there is nothing of the sort. They try to marginalise to common usage by claiming it is only a Melbourne thing. Soccer is the usual term used throughout the country. Sure, when the context is obvious, some people sometimes call it football, but that is entirely beside the point - when context is not obvious the game is almost universally called soccer. There is no doubt that these people believe what they are saying, they are not acting in bad faith, except for the fact that they refuse to accept the consensus which was expressed in no uncertain terms in the August RFC which involved a great many more editors than this little contretemps. It is time for the "I don't like the word soccer" people to drop the stick and if they won't it should be taken off them. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, by the "I don't like the word soccer" people, I assume you are referring to all the organising bodies of the sport, the hundreds of clubs, national media (SBS, ABC, Fox Sports, Sky News, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review) and many local media. This is not a Sydney thing or a Melbourne thing, this is an Australian thing. This is a major issue for the sport in Australia and it's a real world change that is legitimate and completely factual.--2nyte (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've got five minutes. let's tackle your "national media" red-herring once and for all. SBS is the lowest rating of the five public television networks. It has a commercial arrangement with the FFA to televise soccer games. It is no doubt contractually required to call the game "football". The same applies to Fox, and it, being a pay network, has even lower ratings than SBS. Sky News' ratings are so low it is irrelevant to most members of the public. Most of its viewers are pub patrons. The ABC broadcasts its sports material from local studios in each state, naturally calling your favourite code "soccer" in my state, because "football" means something else. It does not take a national position at all. The Australian is a Sydney based newspaper. Similarly for the Fin Review, and it's obviously not part of sports media. So, can we drop this "national media" nonsense now please? HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

2nyte, your assumption is incorrect. In any case the word "football" is clearly not available to describe soccer except in circumstances when the context has already been made clear. In every part of Australia "football" can mean many things, only one of them being soccer. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

John, the Barassi Line certainly is very relevant to the naming of sports in Australia. I'm pleased you've been learning about it. Football in Australia IS complicated. A mention in the article would be sensible, but one of the three "can't call it soccer" editors here got very angry a few months ago when I tried to explain its relevance and proposed including mention of it in the article. He even denied that the line existed. I backed off, and use the term a lot less now in discussions here. I could go into more detail but it may not be wise now. I know I'm talking about another editor, but you did ask, and I can't see how I could answer honestly without doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Pithy warning

I am here because I am fed up seeing this on AN/I every two weeks. I am indifferent about which name this article is at, and I understand there was an RFC recently about it. I am here to say that if I see any commentary whatsoever about editors here I will warn once then block. I would also ask editors not to wind each other up by referring to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the like. --John (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I also point out that Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 was only closed last August. I propose no more naming-related discussions, unless major new evidence is discovered, until August 2015. --John (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

John, I will desist if asked, but as one of the users who has been driving the discussion since July/August 2013, this continues to be a major issue, one that I don't think has been resolved yet. I am not asking for change in my favor, I, along with other users are only seeking fair and open discourse. This is what I feel has lowered the discussion to the state it's in - a lack of fair and open discourse. I don't know wiki policy that well, but I do want this discussion to continue (fairly and openly) with wiki administrator mediation.--2nyte (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a fair request, but I respectfully differ from your opinion that this is a "major issue". Unreferenced BLPs are a major issue, falling editor numbers may be a major issue, but the name of this one article that was RfC'ed last August is not currently a major issue. I strongly propose taking even a few weeks or a month away from this, until the heat goes out of it. You will see what I mean if you do that. --John (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

John, users are applying the outcome from the last Requested move (to use "soccer") in every Australian based article. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of edits, a few edit wars (see Western Sydney Wanderers FC), all done so because of the decision? made in the last Requested move. Trust me, I have tried to stay away from this talk page as it has caused me a lot of grief, though I am a key editor on this topic in general (currently one of the main) and this discussion is always brought up in some way, necessarily so.--2nyte (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. There doesn't seem to be any edit warring currently at that article. Are there any editors or articles which are currently problematic? --John (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion at archive 3 proposed moving Soccer in Australia to Football in Australia. I can readily understand why that proposal was rejected. Has there been a recent (formal) discussion about moving the article to Association football in Australia? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No formal discussion, but plenty of informal stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've moved the extensive discussions from my talk page to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning in preparation to submit a new RfC on or before Friday 7 March. Please feel free to comment there or at my talk. --John (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please see the RfC I have started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Thanks. --John (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC is now ended. A consensus was reached not to revisit the naming question at this article until after 31 August 2015 unless there is compelling new evidence. There will need to be further discussion about the wider naming issue. Thanks to those who participated. --John (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming

Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes from "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team" in club articles

In several A-League club articles Macktheknifeau has unilaterally changed the word "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team". (Sometimes with the word "player" tacked on for sanity, but hardly for clarity and simplicity.) I see these changes as pointy, confrontational, and not in line with the agreed naming of Soccer in Australia There is a centralised discussion on this matter underway at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Macktheknifeau doing sweeping, pointy changes again. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Crappy source

What are we to make of a source that uses the name "soccer" at times to refer to the round ball game, but then apparently (and I'm guessing really) also uses the name "football" for the same game, in a country where four professional codes called "football" by their fans are played. It takes a fair bit of OR to drag a conclusion on participation rates out of that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The word soccer is used 7 times in the article, in every case in a definition (never stand-alone). In fact there is a clear definition of "football (outdoor)" as "Includes outdoor soccer only" on page 9 of that source. That doesn't seem at all confusing/ambiguous?... Macosal (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The name is completely ambiguous. I'm not impressed with a publication that clearly favours soccer in its naming convention. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Which source are we talking about? Hack (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the language. My worry is that it isn't clear that the one source is sufficient for the claim. The source being used [1] is ok, with a decent sized sample, but had a 23% response rate, covers the period to 2010, and doesn't include people under 15. Using ABS data, such as here, released in 2012, Netball appears to have a higher participation rate than soccer (although this isn't definitive - it does show a very different result for tennis, though). Other ABS reports, such as this one from 2011-2012, (similar sampling methodology and ages, but much higher response rate), have netball slightly in front. Given the different values, it seems safer to me to leave the claim out. - Bilby (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The first ABS source doesn't state how many women play soccer - which obviously means that no real conclusion can be drawn from it. The second also appears to have soccer with higher participation when you combine the number of male and female participants (although it's hard to say given there are no actual numbers included). Also none of these sources look at under-15 year-olds. Additionally, the tennis numbers seem to be very similar between the sources? Macosal (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right about tennis. :) The third source doesn't give numbers, but it shows netball, when both sexes are combined, as slightly above soccer when both sexes are combined. I guess the issue is that we don't have definitive figures. I certainly wouldn't want to say that soccer does not have the highest participation rate of team sports based on any of those surveys, either. I'd just rather leave the claim out, given the limitations of all the survey methods and the data we have available. - Bilby (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That third source virtually needs a ruler to judge - looking at the data from which that diagram is sourced (here) soccer has 489.1 thousand participants to netball's 450.2 (so would seem to be consistent with the first source as to the order). Macosal (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It would still contradict the first source. I'm not saying that soccer doesn't have the highest participation rate of team sports - just that to make a claim that strong, we need sources which aren't open to doubt. No source we have seems definitive on the question, especially given that we're interpreting the data to come to that conclusion. - Bilby (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the stats around this do appear pretty inconsistent (in number, if not in result) the below post by Mkativerata makes sense to me. Macosal (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Another problem is that of lies, damned lies and statistics. In no state of Australia does soccer have the highest participation rate. In NSW and QLD, it runs second to Rugby League, and in every other state and the NT, it runs second to the game I call football. To claim it has the highest participation rate in the country is simply misleading. Would Macosal be happy if I added that clarifying fact to his claim? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that is misleading? But yes any sourced fact which is relevant is worthy of addition (although the source given does directly contradict your unsourced claim). Macosal (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict my claim at all. Soccer simply does not have the highest participation rate in any state. Do you not understand how the figures work? HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the stats tables in the source (I did). NSW: soccer: 370,000; league: 121,000. NT: soccer: 10,000; AFL: 5,500. Do you understand how the figures work? I'd suggest having a look at the stats you refer to before resorting to personal attacks next time. Macosal (talk) 08:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It's a confusing source. I have no idea where to look. I find it very hard to believe that soccer is that far ahead of League in NSW. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Largely due to physical requirements of league as a participation sport, almost negligible number of female participants in league and availability of union as an alternative, I'd suggest (similar trend in QLD). Stats are in the tables at the end of the source. Macosal (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Then the female factor also makes the claim deceptive. Can I write that soccer is way behind Aussie Rules on the south western side of the Barassi Line. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

At this point it seems like you are trying (quite hard) to push a POV. Also why should female participation not be considered? Does any statistical anomaly contained in a stat make it misleading? Besides which, the number of females in football is less than half the number of males... Macosal (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

And you're not? LOL. I would not try to draw any such conclusions from the very limited data we have available. Just been discussing how inappropriate your conclusions were. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There's plenty of data... It just seems like you're searching for loopholes with the statement that soccer is the most participated-in sport (without bothering to check the stats...) Macosal (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

This debate is a very good illustration of the danger of using primary sources in this way. It is not the case that any sourced fact which is relevant is worthy of addition. Inevitably questions will be raised about the way in which we interpret and apply primary sources, running the risk of engaging in our own original research. I think that the article should only make claims of this kind if they are consistently supported by secondary sources, such as reliable news outlets or academic publications that interpret the statistical data. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

A good point, given the inconsistency of statistics discussed above. Macosal (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

Does anyone know the purpose of the neutrality tag at the top of the article? Such tags are meant to be accompanied by conversation here on the Talk page, but there is nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably because the wrong name is employed. Our sources use "football", rather than "soccer", and under WP:COMMONNAME, that's the name we should use. I quote: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes, then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.". --Pete (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It was added by User:LauraHale some time ago due to a perceived lack of coverage of women in the article. Spinrad (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Correction, it was added by User:FloNight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soccer_in_Australia/Archive_6#POV_regarding_genderSpinrad (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Dates are wrong

Over a couple of months, dates have been messed with throughout the article. Hack (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

More Balance

The article overly emphasizes the early days of soccer, and makes out it was mainly English immigrants who made the game. The game had an insignificant presence until southern and eastern europeans started the professional league. The sports imported during colonization were cricket and rugby, and these times predated soccer. Pre-1970s the game was mostly played by kids in primary (elementary) schools as rugby was generally too dangerous for them. (This how soccer got a foothold in the US, too.) Usually the school headmaster had the discretion to allow rugby, and many did not allow it or only allowed minimal training.14.202.190.178 (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 October 2015

The lead incorrectly states that the first football club, Wanderers F.C., was formed in 1830 instead of its actual date of 1880. (Source) SounderBruce 13:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed, is there a clean version we can revert to? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, the 1763 date in the infobox should also be 1880. Hack (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In the "Establishing the sport in Australia" section it should be something other than 1760s, and later on 1779 should be 1879.

Incidentally, ThomasMatt JayM, Allstar123500 and Melbourne367 are all the same user, it occasionally edit wars with itself, presumably to try give credibility to the first two mentioned accounts. There's another here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A-League&action=history

Filed an SPI for it, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JayM22. If you see this sort of thing happening again please feel free to leave me a note about it on my talk page, I'd been meaning to do this one for ages but was always too lazy. Jenks24 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It's also the user noted here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chuq/A-League_vandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.200.185 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, added a note to the SPI. Jenks24 (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A year later this user still active, having gone through many blocked accounts and IPs, currently using a 1.39.x.x range. Has to be watched, usually introduces bogus crowds which can slip by. The ultimate goal of this two year campaign is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.167.92 (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Soccer in Australia → Association Football in Australia – It makes sense to change it to association football since the federation includes the word "football" in its name. - AquilaXIII (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. — Andy W. (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed timestamp above — Andy W. (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• You probably mean Association football in Australia. Looks like this has been discussed before. See Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 1#Requested move and Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3. — Andy W. (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• This article should use which ever of "soccer" or "(association) football" is most commonly used in Australia to describe the sport (i.e. if it is generally called "football" that article should still be called "association football" to distinguish from Australian rules football. MrStoofer (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per inconsistency with Soccer in the Australian Capital Territory, Soccer in New South Wales, Soccer in Queensland, Soccer in South Australia, Soccer in Tasmania, Soccer in Victoria, Soccer in Western Australia. These pages all have redirects from an "Association football in" prefix. Unless statistics have changed, the RM close from earlier: There are good arguments, both anecdotal and statistical, backing up the argument that "soccer" is the most common name for the sport in Australia. It is also clearly understood and unambiguous probably holds. — Andy W. (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Just no - the length of argument over football / soccer for Australian articles is ridiculous. Current consensus is to use soccer. This is an all or nothing argument and I see no appetite for change now. Fenix down (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - yes 'association football' is better but as FD says, 'soccer' is the current preferred term on Aussie Wikipedia so we use that. If you want to change that consensus it needs a wider discussion that this talk page. GiantSnowman 18:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The sport is commonly known as soccer in Australia. That the federation is trying to promote the use of the word "football" is not reason enough. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - per above. Football is a problematic term in Australia due to the existence of Rugby and Aussie Rules, just keep it at soccer, its simpler in this case. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - We use the preferred term in each country, which is why Association football in the United States redirects to Soccer in the United States while Soccer in the Republic of Ireland redirects to Association football in the Republic of Ireland. If the preferred term in Australia is "soccer," then we use the term "soccer" on Wikipedia. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources?

There doesn't seem to be any sourcing for the repeated claim that "soccer" is the preferred term in Australia. Personal opinion is no substitute for reliable sources. --Pete (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pfft, you would reject any such sources out of hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.214.213 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, put 'em up and see what happens. Or admit there are none. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You just proved his point. Spinrad (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The IP's point - FWIW - is a personal thing. If it affects WP at all, it comes under WP:NPA. My point goes right to the fundamentals. Where are the sources? Attacking me for requesting that material be sourced isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work, now is it? --Pete (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Malha10 comments

The talk page on Soccer in Australia is commendable since it gives an insight into the kit colors. The page argues that the Football Federation Australia body ought to stick to the white kit to avoid the conflicting similarity between the Australian kits and south Africa kits which are both yellow and green. It also comments that Cambodia was not a communist state in 1965, but rather a monarchy. The page also suggests that the name soccer in Australia should be changed to Australia national team to ensure consistency.

Suggestions to improve the talk page include creating a disarm page that is more convenient. The term soccer also ought to be revoked and replaced with football since many people are more familiar with it. Furthermore, more expansion should be considered in the introduction to calm the undergoing disputes.

Participation in the sport has incredibly increased over the years based on an assessment done in 2013. Due to this, recommendations such as changing the manner of performance and the system can help develop players. Nevertheless, accentuation on coach edification have been integrated to support growing more professionals in the sport. (Ben Backley)With the most renowned competitions in the games, the federation has elevated more national based championships regardless of the infiltration in the municipal areas.Other competitions have also been introduced in several states to help up bring new players. Since there are no promotions and relegations of teams in the competitions, the federation have established more intense games to enable relegation and promotion of teams. Subsequently, this will construct a more established football to harness competition with other nations. Women and men’s soccer has dramatically improved due to countless efforts by the Football Federation Australia.(17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malha10 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The page gives a contradictory fact about the actual date when Wanderers F.C was founded. The accurate year ought to be 1880 but not 1830. The establishment of the game in Australia ought to be in the year1879. The given years between 1760s and 1779 are also incorrect accounts on the founding of the sport.(17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malha10 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it soccer?

Clearly there is some dissatisfaction with the way Wikipedia deals with the name of the sport. I have commenced discussion at Naming_conventions (Football in Australia) and I invite contributions. --Pete (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Skyring wants to re-open the football vs soccer war.

Earlier today I reverted an edit changing "soccer" to "football" in this article, with an edit summary that quoted policy - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). User:Skyring (AKA Pete) reverted, saying "It's no longer 1960. "Soccer" isn't the name of the game any more." This is a confrontational edit, firstly because it is in contravention of the above policy, and secondly because of that policy's history. This user and I were both major players in the very nasty debate around four years ago which led to the current policy. He didn't get the result he wanted from that debate, but has never given up. You will see another attempt of his to change the policy in the section titled "Sources" above, around two years ago. Today he is trying again, not in the correct way, but by defying the current policy and edit-warring.

I do not want another nasty fight. I submit that nothing has changed significantly enough in the past four years to cause the policy to change, and that User:Skyring is not editing in a cooperative way. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Message left on his talk page reminding him of consensus per WP:NCFA. Fenix down (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. What on earth makes you think I'm not aware of it? The world moves on, and frankly it's embarrassing to see this old term used for Australia's most popular sport, whose own governing body has long since moved on to the term used around the world. Time to reopen the discussion, it seems. --Pete (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not embarrassed. "Soccer" is the only name that makes sense where I live. HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine for you, then. The name was changed fifteen years ago, and there are editors keen to work on football-related articles who, I dare suggest, view your opinion with less flattering eyes than your own. What do you say to them? --Pete (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I say to them that the word football isn't owned by anyone. Words can be "owned", through copyright, or as trademarks, or by being deemed by the government to be nationally important, such as Anzac. In Australia, "football" is not such a word. It means far too many different things to different people in different places and at different times. It's just plain ambiguous. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

In your own mind, do you truly see the word "football" as ambiguous? I suggest that some people see it as referring to one sport only. Sports can be a matter of religious fervour to some, and attachments to heroes and deities and names runs very deep in such hearts. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"In your own mind, do you truly see the word "football" as ambiguous?" Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking over your contributions, you call their good-faith edits vandalism. How do you think they feel about this? --Pete (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Looking over your contributions, you call their good-faith edits vandalism." Not true. But perhaps we need a clearer template. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

"Someone using this IP address, 1.41.90.220, has made edits to 2018–19 A-League that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions."[2] (My emphasis). Did you not make that edit, ten seconds after reverting their good faith edit? --Pete (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

See link to proposal below, where I suggest renaming "soccer" to football in football-related articles only. --Pete (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)