Open main menu

Talk:Soccer in Australia

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

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,, 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."[1] (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)

Marconi Club, Italian basedEdit

I recall that David Hill, the head of the Australian Soccer Fedaration tolf the Marconi Club that it could no longer use Italian colours on its symbols because Italy, as part of the European Union, no longer existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It is clearly not SoccerEdit

Edit warring, and civility issues from now blocked IP. Lupin VII (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Despite the comments from the unwashed masses who have no interest in the sport and make comments based on the prediction of denigration of the term "football" as compared to its "common" usage names for "Rugby League" and "AFL" or "Aussie Rules" the name is football and it has always been football around the world for more than 100 years... There is no confusion when the correct names for the sport are used rather than denigerations such as "mungo ball" or "hand egg" stop with the bias please ladies.

IF all the articles on Wikipedia used their correct name with appropriate redirects there would be no misunderstanding. -- (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The current consensus is to use the "soccer" term per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). See discussion right here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Looking at practical usage here. Your changes may be in good faith but you broke some of the links and changed titles in citations via a search and replace function. Which is why it's reverted. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors may propose a consensus change by... editing -- (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
…especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
None of these changes are quote unquote "recent." If you would like to challenge it take it up with ANI not with me. I dare you. It won't go anywhere, as the article says "should" and not "must." If you have a problem with that other article take it up with ANI also. I think we're done here -- (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I have quoted the wrong sentence. The one that actually follows your quote is: That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. A sentence about guidance (for new editors, it seems) follows, and I have tried to provide such guidance. However, I now have the impression that guidance is not necessary in this specific case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@HiLo48 and others: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your cause. Please read Wikipedia:Not with particular reference to the last link.
Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

If you want to have an opinion start your own forum, this is not the place for it. (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
You've completely missed what consensus means. You're being rude, and have ownership issues. Please stop edit warring. Lupin VII (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Soccer in Australia" page.