Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Moving on...

In the past couple of weeks things here have become very quiet here. Apart from what to me was a largely incomprehensible sequence of squabbles between Administrators, we've had a couple of repeats of some of the usual completely incorrect claims from people who don't live there about how the way language is used in Melbourne, or "parts of Victoria". These were quickly refuted, again, by people who actually know what they're talking about. (I wish there was some consequence for editors who knowingly and repeatedly post nonsense as "facts" here. Without any consequence, it's inevitable it will all happen again.)

Nothing else seems to be happening in this discussion. It all seems to have stalled. But nothing has actually been resolved, so where do we go from here?

We can't just let this discussion fade away. There will inevitably be attempts in future to inappropriately change "soccer" to "football", if only by editors who haven't seen these discussions. We need what is virtually a policy on handling these edits. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that there be some sort of binding resolution potentially similar to the Ireland naming conventions. Hack (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel that an open discussion needs to take place. I disagree with a lot that has been said, a lot of what you have posted above HiLo48, and in no way do I think I am posting nonsense as "facts", as you say HiLo48.--2nyte (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Up above in the section headed "Herostratus's point" Macktheknifeau posted some very silly nonsense including the words "...Victoria does not equal Australia, and that what Football is called in some parts of Victoria..." This was all in a post where he used the name "Football" for a game in Victoria. Now, in Victoria, "Football" simply and unambiguously means "Aussie Rules", but I suspect it's not what he meant. Nobody among those who think "soccer" is a perfectly good name for the round ball game has EVER suggested that Victoria equals Australia. And language conventions surrounding soccer and Aussie Rules are virtually identical everywhere on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi line, not just "in some parts of Victoria". So Macktheknifeau's post was patent nonsense. You, however, suggested his point was valid. There was no valid point there. It was confusing. It ignored fundamental facts that have been repeated to him and you innumerable times. But you endorsed Macktheknifeau's comment. That's very unelpful. Endorsing nonsense is as bad as posting it yourself. Such continued presenting of rubbish must eventually lead to consequences. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Who ever gave you the authority to threaten other users with "consequences"? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Refusing to see a point doesn't negate the point for those who can see it. I also feel that calling other editors posts "nonsense" and making vague threats is Uncivil and should you continue to do so, I will contact John and request that he order you to withdraw the remarks or stop you from making more. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, take it to John. I have asked him several times what we can do about the repeated posting of incorrect "facts". I think he was hoping we could sort it out ourselves, but I'm not sure if he is really aware of the depth of the problem. I went to a lot of trouble explaining what was nonsensical about your post. What you said was simply wrong, and you have been told that many times. Yet all you do is repeat the nonsense below. Please discuss what I said in my post of 04:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC) above. And don't just repeat incorrect claims. That's guaranteed to inflame tensions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No threat there. Just an observation that, IMHO, those who disrupt conversation here by repeatedly and knowingly posting nonsense, should experience consequences. Do you have an opinion on the topic, rather than me? HiLo48 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My only strong opinion is that something should be done about the ridiculous inconsistency in Australian football / soccer / association / kickball, i.e. Soccer in Australia, Australia national association football team and Australia national football team results. Two different terms may be justifiable (general article rather than specific), but not three. On top of that, the category for Australia national association football team is Category:Australia national soccer team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that latter silliness. Wasn't game to raise it myself. But we probably have a safer environment to discuss it here now. My opinion on the best direction for a resolution is well known - "soccer" all the way. What's yours? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Association football, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules. All the way. Victoria does not equal Australia, and the majority of the population of Australia live in two states, and that majority of population and the media therein use Football to mean Association football, thus making Association football the best name to use (due to not pushing for football, league, union & afl, instead I offer the compromise that allows AFL to be called Australian Rules and for Association football to be used). Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why you keep saying "Victoria does not equal Australia". It's true, but it's irrelevant and adds nothing to this discussion, yet you keep repeating it. It's no wonder people get angry. Why do we need a compromise? Soccer is unambiguous and universally understood. No other name goes near that. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, Nelly. Some things one just can't let go. Macktheknifeau says "...the majority of the population of Australia live in two states, and that majority of population ... therein use Football to mean Association football..." I assume the two states you're referring to are New South Wales and Queensland? If so, this statement has just cost you all credibility.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I have asked John several times what we can do about repeated statements that are simply factually wrong. I think he was hoping we could sort it out through rational discussion. It ain't happening. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Repeating a nonsensical claim does not make it not nonsense. In NSW and QLD, the word "football" most certainly does not mean soccer. It usually means rugby league and sometimes rugby union. Only a small proportion of people who seem to live in insular enclaves of mostly western Sydney use the unqualified word to mean soccer. Oh, and yes the population of NSW and QLD combined are just over half the population of the country and even if all those people use the word football to mean soccer, which claim I utterly reject, the fact that a very large minority (those outside the two states) do not and use the word to mean something else entirely is of itself sufficient reason to reject using that word on ambiguity grounds. The word soccer suffers from no such ambiguity. Everyone in this country understands what it means, which cannot be said for "association football", a term virtually no one uses and fewer understand. You have not provided the slightest legitimate reason why the word soccer, which meets all of Wikipedia naming policies, should not be used. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think John did admirably in his effort above to try and distill all this down into something meaningful. And that's what we should be focusing on. Editors can waste an awful lot of energy in discussions, and when they're getting to this length with comments this inane, I think it's time to go just off and edit some articles.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I really appreciate the collegial manner in which this RfC has (largely) been conducted. I still intend to close this phase of the process tomorrow. It's looking like Q1 has consensus but Q2 will fail to be carried. Unless there is a strong swing in the last 24 hours of the poll, we will therefore have decided to postpone further discussion on the main article's name until August 2015, but we will have failed to agree to let the current position of article-by-article language choice continue. It might be worth thinking about how we plan to resolve the second question, as this outcome suggests that there is some remaining appetite to standardise. Will we need a further RfC to discuss how we standardise the naming conventions on the wider range of Australian articles? If we did, what would the options be? It seems clear that no one term from "football", "soccer" and "association football" will carry an overall consensus across all Australian articles. Would we want to use different terms for articles predominantly about a particular state or region with Australia? If we did, what would that look like? If we went down that line, how would we handle articles that covered the game as a whole within the country? Would they go with "soccer", as the main article does? Lots of questions. Please discuss. --John (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the national team, the highest level of soccer competition is a national league, the A-League. That league involves teams from all over the country, including that (almost) half of the country where "football" means an entirely different sport. The teams play each other. Team articles discuss rivalries and matches with other teams. So "football" cannot sensibly be used for any member of that league. And "association football" is simply an unknown name. There is only one option left, "soccer". Fortunately, it is completely unambiguous, and universally understood across the whole country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the national team, it is commonly known to all Australians as the Socceroos, and that will be the primary search term used by almost all of our readers to find the article. A quick look at the Football Federation Australia] website makes it obvious that that body has fully embraced the "Socceroos" name. Looks like a good name for the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The team could've call themselves the "penisroos" if they wanted to - it's irrelevant to this discussion. Note the name of the Football Federation Australia] - last time I checked it wasn't called the Soccer Federation of Australia. If the word soccer was unambiguous and universally understood throughout Australia, they wouldn't have named themselves the Football Federation of Australia. In addition to this Hilo48, you really need to re-visit your attitude towards arguing your point against other editors views on Wikipedia. Taking a step back and considering someone's viewpoint (albeit not necessarily agreeing with it) would go a long way. When something does not make sense to you, or is not in line with your viewpoint, this does not make it generally nonsensical and certainly doesn't make the editor incompetent or stupid. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Very little of what I write is my opinion. It is fact, unlike what you have written above. It is a simple, unarguable fact that "soccer" IS "unambiguous and universally understood throughout Australia". My attitude to people who seem to want to claim otherwise is pretty negative, and is unlikely to change. Posts that contain nonsense, as yours does, do not help here. Now, can we please return to discussing facts, rather than me? HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No one is arguing against that HiLo48. I agree, soccer is unambiguous and universally understood throughout Australia, I have never argued against that, and I don't think anyone has. But this case is unlike another on Wikipedia (at least that I know of). It's not just about common name or official name. I have said many theme before that if we only considered common name then "soccer" would be the preferred name on Australian wiki articles, but I think there is much more to this which is what I've been arguing. It seems like everyone is still arguing the same points made in August 2013 or 2006. That is why I want an open discussion.--2nyte (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually 2nyte, someone IS stupidly arguing against the FACT that soccer is unambiguous and universally understood throughout Australia. Look again at the post from 203.13.128.104 at 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC) above. It was immediately above mine that you have just criticised, wrongly. Shouldn't be too hard to find. It was the reason I made my post. I await your apologies, and yearn even more for the day when you will condemn utter nonsense from those on "your" side of this debate. None of it helps. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologise HiLo48, I misread that in the comment. But I do stand by everything I said after the first sentence - I think an open discussion is necessary, especially as this is a situation unlike any other on Wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What's not open about this conversation? HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Common usage is not like, magically tethered to what an authoritative body is called. that makes no sense at all. Spinrad (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, 2nyte, if you agree that soccer well satisfies the common name criteria, what exactly is your argument against the term? What exactly is the "so much more" of which you speak? You are right, the arguments here are those for the most part from earlier discussions. You say you want to open the discussion up now. OK, fine. Lay on M^cDuff, I say. Do your best. What are all the other new arguments that your "open discussion" discussion implies and why haven't you presented them before? Or is it that you really don't have anything new to add to this debate? Which is it? - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let's consider what we agree on and what there is still disagreement over. Q1 is carried; it seems clear there is an overwhelming consensus to postpone further discussion of the title of the soccer in Australia article. Of the three widely used names, only soccer seems to be agreed as being universally understood. (Per User:Herostratus "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Emerson that doesn't necessarily mean we need to universally standardise on it.) At the moment, as I understand it, we have instances of football (which I think we agree is potentially confusing in an Australian context, where so many other codes exist) and association football as well as 'soccer'. So, if we set up a further RfC on standardisation, following the failure to reach clear consensus on Q2, would it be reasonable to give two options, standardise on 'soccer' vs. leave things article-by-article? Do we need a geographical option? It doesn't seem to me there is a coherent geographical option we could propose, but please correct me if I'm wrong and this is a viable third option. Or is 'association football' a viable third option? We can start this next phase tonight or tomorrow. Comments please. Remember that we can use piped links (as shown) to reduce ambiguity to some extent. --John (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

John, "Association football" simply doesn't exist as a name in Australia. Nobody will know what it means, unless they look it up, or have already done so. (Or unless they find Victorian Football Association, an Aussie Rules competition. That's the well know usage of Association football.) The arguments for using "football" anywhere in Australia to refer to soccer have been done to death. I cannot see what can be achieved by continuing this. Can you not see that frustration with illogical and dishonest arguing is still a major factor here? Are you going to allow such posts to continue? HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have understood right from the beginning of this process that there is frustration about the matter; it would hardly be worth resolving otherwise. I don't have a problem with running the follow-up RfC as a two-option one, as I have said above. Would anyone else have a problem with that? --John (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

John, how about the dishonest posts? They are ridiculously frequent. Since you're not a local, they may not be obvious to you, but they are a major cause of the repetition, and hence frustration here. All Australian editors know which are the dishonest posts, including those who are making them, but if we get firm in pointing it out you naturally don't like it. It's concerned me all along that well-intentioned non-Australians such as yourself will take them as good faith contributions, and see value in continuing this process, where it should really have stopped weeks ago. Lies aren't "resolved" by giving the liars a chance to repeat them again and again and again. That actually leads to some innocent readers beginning to believe them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, provide some examples of dishonesty and lies you refer to - not agreeing with someone's opinion does not mean the person is lying or being dishonest. On a topic related note, it's interesting, perhaps ironic, isn't it that the game HiLo48 suggests is most commonly termed 'football' is the game in which the foot is used less than the hands. Association Football, or just 'football' is the only game of the 3 or 4 being discussed where players predominantly (and for the most part are required to by the rules of the game) use their feet. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, first of all let me say you are welcome to question my credentials in coming in to sort this matter out. Being Scottish, I was brought up with the game in my blood. My dad, who was a formidable goalie in his youth, taught me from a young age to be a goalkeeper. I represented my school at U-14 and U-16 level, and in my teens and twenties I played for and trained with various just-below-semi-professional teams. We always called the game 'football', of course. When I went to live in Botswana I was head-hunted by a third division club there and I trained with them a few times but never made the first team. There it was also always called 'football'. When I went to live in the United States I also played, by now in what they call recreational co-ed soccer. I played for several seasons there. Although I have progressively let go of my love for the sport over the years as my reflexes slowed, my vision got worse, and my knee and elbow damage accumulated, I still follow Scottish football religiously. I am chagrined by the decline in the Scotland national football team's fortunes, and that we have not qualified for a World Cup since 1998. I have been around long enough to have extensively edited our articles on the 2006 and 2010 world cups. Although I have never had the privilege of visiting your reputedly beautiful country, I had an Australian girlfriend for a while in the 1990s and an Australian colleague in for a year in 2006-07. I hope I do not lose any reputation I may have gained for neutrality by recalling that they both called the game 'soccer'. I have read and enjoyed books by Macarthur Job the Aussie aviation writer and when I was much younger loved the work of Ivan Southall. Finally I currently work with someone who lived in New Zealand for years and we often discuss the nuances of Scottish English versus Australian English versus New Zealand English. I've obviously participated in my time as an admin since 2006 in many discussions involving regional variations in English. I have also been a stickler in many cases at WP:FAR for WP:ENGVAR. So I think I am amply qualified to intervene here.

As regards "lies", you will find your best defence against statements you regard as inaccurate is to point out calmly where they are inaccurate, citing your supporting evidence. We need always to be in the top three levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. I recognise that we can all get frustrated sometimes, but we all have to accept that ultimately it is reasoned argument which wins debates, and that others may legitimately hold views that we disagree vehemently with. I was really trying to get through this without blocking anybody, and the one editor we have lost is already one too many for me. So be it. Please give some thought to what I am putting together in my sandbox, and please make helpful suggestions, with evidence, so that we may move further forwards towards a conclusion. --John (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

John, I'm not challenging your right to be the person coming here to help sort things out. It's great that you're putting in the effort. But we are all putting in effort, very repetitively. And some of this is caused by repeated nonsensical claims by people who should know better, because they have been told the truth is otherwise many times, by good faith editors. These falsehoods typically involve someone from the western suburbs of Sydney or Brisbane, who has rarely, if ever, spent time on the other side of the Barassi Line, making claims about how language is used there. A classic example is in the thread above titled "Herostratus's point". It's the one from Macktheknifeau, at 06:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC). He stated "A conclusion could be easily reached if people could accept that Victoria does not equal Australia, and that what Football is called in some parts of Victoria should not apply to every situation and article for anything related to Australia." Now, I have no idea why he spoke of people accepting "that Victoria does not equal Australia", because nobody involved in these discussion has, ever, made that claim. He must know that. It's obvious. Also, in saying "...what Football is called in some parts of Victoria should not apply to every situation", he is implying that relevant language "in some parts of Victoria" is somehow different from that used elsewhere in Victoria. That is simply wrong. Again, he knows it. He knows it because he has been told it dozens of times. As a non-Australian you cannot be expected to know that. I cannot blame you for that. The problem we have is that someone who does know it's wrong keeps making the false claim. Is it possible that he is taking advantage of a non-Australian's inevitable lack of knowledge of the truth? I don't know, but I do know that it is disruptive editing. And it has been going on for years, despite those who want the truth to be the basis of discussion trying all sorts of strategies to stop it. What can we do about it now? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I sympathise. Wikipedia, famously or infamously, has always been about verifiability rather than truth. There has also historically been an element of behavioural issues here. I am here to help you to resolve the issues by figuring out a guideline we can all live with and thereby avoid clogging up AN/I for many further volunteer hours in the future. If you continue to work with me, we can do it. Bring your arguments and your evidence to the next phase which will begin tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Verifiability rather than truth" has nothing to do with repeated incorrect claims about what other editors have said. And that's one of the nonsense areas here. See above again. Macktheknifeau has written many times as if other editors have said a certain thing. And they haven't. It's purely and simply disruptive editing. He is not alone. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

John, you ask, citing your supporting evidence. The quandary is that many editors do not do this. They state and restate the same material with no cites, assuming personal infallibility. Two editors holding divergent views, both assuming they need no cites, will come to conflict, diverting the flow of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.138.126.65 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have some individual(s) or incident(s) in mind, but haven't named them. That means nobody will feel guilt. I certainly don't. Sweeping, generalised criticisms don't help. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the IP is right. You are on 4 and 5. I took out some 6. You need to stay on the first three rungs. Cite your sources. Don't comment on others or their motivations. --John (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I know you're aiming for peace, but... Somebody has lied. Repeatedly. Knowingly. It's obvious to everyone who knows the truth that this person lied. If we cannot address it, it will keep happening. Unless you can show me another path. We have been playing peace games for ages now, and he is still lying. (See above.) We have shown him he is wrong, and he is sill lying. (See above.) Next? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to that, you keep asking us to work with you on this. Well, I haven't lied. Someone else has. He is clearly NOT working with you, yet it's my post you moderate. His posts are still up there, untouched, spouting lies, sucking in people from elsewhere in the world who are unaware of the the truth. I don't get that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and re sourcing, we see a lot of nonsense on that front too. The pro-"football" folk source to web sites of what they call "national media". It's a pretty meaningless concept, but they keep doing it. Repeatedly. It annoys the crap out of me and others. When called on these things they sometimes go quiet for a short time, then re-emerge and say exactly the the same things days later. It's the repetition of the nonsense that's a big problem here too. Pointing out that it's wrong doesn't stop it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, l'enfer c'est les autres. You have to grant other people the intelligence to read and detect what is and isn't true or convincing. Calling it out as "lies" isn't necessary or helpful. Apply yourself to the next phase please. Should we have a geographical option? --John (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already commented on that several times. Most recently at 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC) in this very thread, in response to an almost identical request from you. Others didn't. They discussed the "penisroos", and posted all about me. Any chance you could do something about such bad faith editing and close the thread based on lack of constructive comment from anybody else? You constantly have a go at me for mentioning others. I don't see equal treatment of the real offenders. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please desist from calling me a liar. Just because you have your own opinions, doesn't mean that other opinions that challenges yours are 'lies'. Thank you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're not lying, why do you persistently make comments such as the one below where you refer to a "Small group of Victorians"? This doesn't involve a small group of Victorians. It involves everyone south and west of the Barassi Line. Among those 10 million or so people there is no difference in the use of the word "football". It means ONLY Aussie Rules. You have been told this many times, yet you persist in your nonsensical claim. That's either lying, or incredibly bad faith editing, or....? So, over to you. Why do you keep with that idiotic claim? HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What terminology should be used to describe the sport variously known as football, soccer or Association football, within the Australian context on Wikipedia?

Main arguments used in previous discussions:

1. Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 in August 2013 strongly endorsed keeping the main article at Soccer in Australia.
2. The point has also been made that there is regional variation in the terminology used to describe the Beautiful Game in the Australian context.
3. The Australian association renamed itself Football Federation Australia in 2004.[1]
4. "Football" is highly ambiguous in this context as there also exist American football, Gaelic football, rugby union, rugby league, and Australian rules football, all of which could also be referred to as "football".
5. "Association football" (as used on Wikipedia's main article on the sport) is not a common name in everyday parlance anywhere.
6. "Soccer", while thoroughly unambiguous, seems to strongly offend some editors in some contexts.

Previously discussed centrally at

1. ANI 1
2. ANI 2
3. Arbcom
4. ANI 3

Question

As the previous poll showed a simple majority in favour of tolerating the current inconsistency, but there was significant dissent (8.5-5.5 or 65%), should we recommend standardising usage for the name of this sport?

• Option 1 Leave as-is. The sport can be referred to as association football, football, or soccer on an article-by-article basis, subject to the usual rules of encyclopedic clarity and principle of least astonishment for readers. Any changes in nomenclature would have to be discussed and consensus achieved in individual article talk. Drive-by or mass efforts to change nomenclature without a local consensus would be treated as disruption.

• • Option 1a As above, but deprecate 'association football'.
  • Option 1b As above, but deprecate 'football'.

• Option 2 Standardise on soccer on all articles pertaining to the sport in an Australian context. This would be somewhat like the existing situation regarding soccer in the United States.

Format (2)

Because this has already been the subject of extensive discussion at my talk page and various other locations, I would like to keep it succinct here. I also propose to run this for only 7 days (unless there are objections or insufficient interest), so I would propose closing on or after 28 March 2014. --John (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Responses (2)

Please only mark Option 1 or Option 2 to the question. You can also make a brief comment (no more than twenty words, not counting the signature) explaining your rationale, making reference to policy or practice. If choosing Option 1, you can also choose one of the options a-b if you feel we should deprecate one of the possibilities. There is a section for threaded debate below but please do not use it to falsify the arguments of others or to comment on their motivations. This may lead to more blocks, which I am very keen to avoid.

• Option 2 "Football" is deeply ambiguous; "association football" isn't commonly used or sufficiently recognisable; "soccer" is unambiguous, widely used and easily recognisable. Neljack (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1 See below – PeeJay 00:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 "Soccer" is only unambiguous widely used term in Aus. "Football": completely ambiguous. "Association football": meaningless to great majority of Aussies. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 Can't be football, too ambiguous. Association football isn't known to most people, Soccer is both understood and commonly used. Jevansen (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 We cannot have clubs playing the same game in one country written up as playing differently named sports. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1a Small group of Victorians can't be allowed to dictate changes to globally recognised name. Victoria doesn't have priority over planet. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 The Australian situation really is analogous to the American situation despite what this relatively minor sport's governing body and fans may want.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 NE Ent 23:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2/Alternative Football shouldn't be wholly deprecated. Soccer is the most common name but variations of football terminology are used in Australia. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 at least mention soccer early in the lead, but other terms can also be used as long as it is clear from the context that it is soccer that is talked about. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 but no gratuitous changes like inserting "soccer" everywhere ("domestic football competition" is ok). Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (2)

You should change the RFC. You just have to much going on. Don't do any suboptions for option 1 right now. Just do another RFC for those if option 1 wins out. And drop option 1c. It would be crazy to have an article named Soccer in Australia but rule that you can't use the word soccer in it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that would go against what we decided in the last phase. I'll remove that option. --John (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that every article on the topic should at least have the word soccer mentioned in the lede so that readers will be sure of the game involved. I have done a bit of an informal poll of people in Australia including those that play the game, and so far none knew what association football is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That'd probably push you towards option 2. Look at Manchester United F.C., a Featured Article on an English club. They call the club a football club, and this seems to be standard on European team articles. Option 2 would standardise Australian usage on soccer in a similar way. So long as we link at first instance and there is no danger of reader ambiguity, I don't see the harm in either approach, 1 or 2. What we really need to do is decide if we want to standardise, or agree to leave things inconsistent. I can see merits in both approaches. I did take the point made above that perhaps using three different names for this sport was overkill. That's why I included 1a and 1b. --John (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If the majority of votes choose option 1 without selecting 1A or 1B, Will that be considered a vote against any kind of deprecation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would retain the status quo for now. --John (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I can't make a longer comment above: The governing body for association football in Australia has begun a transition from the predominant use of the term "soccer" to "football", so to stipulate (as Option 2 would require) that we refer to the sport as "soccer" in all articles relating to the sport in Australia would result in the nonsensical scenario whereby, for example, the Football Federation Australia article describes the organisation as the governing body for a sport not described in its name. – PeeJay 00:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. I was looking at some of the articles on the sport in Ireland (where there is a comparable mix of terminology) and all the individual clubs' articles seem to use football per the European standard, but the Football Association of Ireland article calls it association football, presumably to avoid confusion with Gaelic football and rugby union. Could you live with a compromise like that? I think I could. --John (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

While it's true that "The governing body for association football in Australia has begun a transition from the predominant use of the term "soccer" to "football", it's a transition that simply cannot be completed, because of the word "football" universally meaning a totally different sport in half the country. It's not something that's going to change quickly, if ever. We must stop speaking in present tense (or, heaven forbid, future tense - that WOULD be speculation!) about the name change. Some name changing HAS happened. That's all we can say. It would be more accurate for the sentence I quoted above to read "The governing body for association football in Australia began a transition from the predominant use of the term "soccer" to "football". HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, whilst I agree that the governing body for soccer in Australia has changed its own usage to prefer football to soccer and is trying to force that usage on everyone else, it needs to be remembered that soccer is a minority sport in this country. I disagree that football means something else in only half the country, rather, although you are right that it means Aussie rules in the southern/western half (that is, in four out of the six states, plus one of the two main territories) in those other states and territory "football" does not mean soccer, it means one or other of the two forms of rugby.

• evidence for soccer as common usage in WA (WA government web site)
• evidence that the push for "football" comes from the FFA, rather than organic change
• evidence for soccer as the common name
• evidence for the use of the term soccer in NSW
• discussion about relative terms for soccer - probably not RS, but relevant, and finally
• evidence for all of the above and this one is a Federal government web site too.

These were found with a relatively quick Google search, I concentrated on sources that would satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, with the obvious exception of the discussion page.

- Nick Thorne ^talk 02:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

By what evidence do you claim football is a 'minority' sport? Participation rates for football are significantly higher than the three major oval ball codes. An example of which you can see at this link, which just happens to be a Government website that uses the words Football, AFL, Rugby League & Rugby Union. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's simple really, I don't confuse participation rates with support levels for the game. In any case. the figures in the article you quote are for people over the age of 15. You will find that participation drops off significantly with age. The article also makes the statement that about 95,000 people participate in soccer each week Australia wide. You often get several times that actually going to the game each week in the AFL and that is just one of the rival codes. Not to forget that the numbers who actually shell out their hard earned to attend the game is a minuscule fraction of the number of people that actively follow it, let alone those like me who have only a passing interest in football of any flavour. Consider the TV audiences for the various forms of football, I very much doubt that the numbers watching the A-league come within cooee of a very small proportion of those that watch other forms of football. It might be interesting to look at ratings info about that, if the figures are available. Also, have a look at the number of pages devoted to soccer (outside of during the World Cup) in the various newspapers around the country compared to the number devoted to the other forms of the game. Soccer is a minority game in Australia, get over it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The FFA can't really begin a transition because they can't legally enforce a transition. We've got no idea how much further it's going to go, if it's stagnated, or if it might reverse in some cases. Spinrad (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have an observation, and a suggestion based on it. Look at this ABC article. Not a mention of "football", or "soccer", or any sport at all. It's actually a very common journalistic style, and not just for soccer. Have a look at any other team sports article you like. Yet we all know what sport is being discussed. A similar approach could be taken here. Obviously we need to name the sport a club plays, once, but from then on we can simply avoid mentioning it unless it's really necessary for clarity. Will that idea ease tensions just a little? HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

When I look at that website, I see the header links are "AFL", "NRL", "Football" , "Rugby Union" & "Cricket". Interesting, especially as the ABC is a Federal Government organisation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on entirely missing the main point of my post. I made a constructive suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Government-owned corporation. They don't have editorial control over it. Spinrad (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Football is not ambiguous. All of those other sports have their own specific, official names that are specifically not football, which does refer to one specific sport alone worldwide and here on Wikipedia. Letting a small group of Victorians, who couldn't get consensus in the "RfC on naming" (65%-35% is a cleauctive uggestior consensus to me) anywhere remotely reaching parity with those who want to call the sport by it's real and official name, dictate their own little variation to a globally recognised term is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules, Football should be used. If people can't get out of their provincial bubble and join the worldwide terminology, they should create their own Victorian Wikipedia and they can choose whatever term they like. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Football is not ambiguous"? Ridiculous. See Melbourne's most popular radio station. That website has "football" all over it, and it isn't talking about soccer.

And there's that nonsense about "a small group of Victorians" again? What on earth are you talking about? HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

But there really isn't a large group on the other side of the argument either. And anyway Wikipedia generally seems to prefer a slight amount of provincialism in situations like this. Spinrad (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Aussie or a soccer fan. Perusing everything said Soccer seems to be known to everyone including those that call it Association Football. So far the evidence is persuasive to say that Soccer is the most commonly used name.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, nobody in Australia calls it Association football. The only time you will hear anything like that will be from some Victorians talking about the Victorian Football Association. Do check that link. It's not about the round ball game. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been called that since 1996, according to our article. --John (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to burden this thread with a detailed history of that body, and the (Australian) football politics surrounding it. The change of name had nothing to do with soccer, and the name of that body is still the ONLY use of the word "association" together with the word "football" that anyone has ever documented here as having ever existed in Australia. So, in Australia, "association" means Aussie Rules. Unless, of course, someone can produce an Australian source for the use of "Association" and "football" where it means the round ball game. I love learning new things, so please hit me with it. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• A caveat for those relying on how content is displayed on Australian news websites as a gauge for common usage: You'll find they often use month-day-year formatting on their sites too. But this can quite rightly be disregarded, as everyone well knows in Australia day-month-year is in fact the common usage. This renders saying "news websites do this or that" a practically worthless argument.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and FYI:
  • Shane Webcke and Ian Heads (2007). Warhorse: Life, Football and Other Battles. Sydney: MacMillan.
  • Mal Meninga and Alan Clarkson (1995). Meninga: My Life In Football. Sydney: Harper Sports.
  • http://channelnine.ninemsn.com.au/nineslivefridaynightfootball/episodes
  • http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/photos-e6frg6n6-1226598940941?page=12
  • http://www.vizrt.com/news/newsgrid/40403/Fox_Sports_Australia__Girraphic_unveil_the_next_generation_of_virtual_graphics_powered_by_Vizrt

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There's another aspect of all this I think I should revisit here. The highest level of soccer competition within Australia is a national league, the A-League. That league doesn't try to name the sport in its own name. It involves teams from all over the country, including that (almost) half of the country where "football" means an entirely different sport. The teams play each other. Team articles discuss rivalries and matches with other teams. So "football" cannot sensibly be used for any member of that league. And "association football" is simply an unknown name. There is only one option left, "soccer" to be used everywhere for Australian articles. And Socceroos for the national team. That's the name the FFA now fully embraces. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Socceroos is the name of the team but that isn't really evidence of anything. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is meant to be a discussion on whether we standardise naming across all Australian articles, or allow variation on an article by article basis. As someone who would like to see standardisation on "soccer", I was highlighting how that can extend even as far as the national team. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. It's a nickname. It dates back to the 60's. It extends as far as a nickname for the "Australia national association football team". The standard of "Soccer" should not be based on such a weak argument. Their Nickname or their official name shouldn't be used. The Dallas Cowboy's don't do Rodeos. The Socceroos play soccer just like the Australia national association football team play Association Football. Both add to an unneeded quandry.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand that post. What would you actually like to see? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Socceroos is a nickname for the team. It's not the teams actually name. It dates back to the 60's. It's not good evidence to make your case. I would actually like to see evidence that shows that soccer is the most common name.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What about some evidence that "(association) football" is the most common name? because we've seen none of that yet. Also "Socceroos" more or less is the official name sorry. Spinrad (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho - there has been masses of evidence presented over the past three years or so to show that "soccer" is the most common name. There really is no doubt, apart from in the minds of a small number of editors with very insular, parochial interests. I thought John had already ruled on that anyway. And you completely missed the point of my observation on the Socceroos. I asked above, what terminology would you actually like to see us use, and why? HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that publications (Eastern Australia?) which primarily use "football" for round ball provide "soccer" as a secondary term [2] (look at page title), [3] (again in the title) and in [4] this case use it for the worldwide sport name. NE Ent 13:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

John took action to the best of my knowledge that would prevent the RFC from deprecating the use of the Soccer. Along with the last RFC that makes sense. For us to deprecate what ever combination of football though the common usage of soccer is some of the best evidence. Using the nickname of a sports club however borders on the dubious.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Option 2 is the most ideal option. Flip flopping back and forth between soccer and football is abit confusing. However the evidence does show that football terminology is used. While soccer is clearly the primary terminology in Australia it is not the sole terminology the evdence seems to show. In an article about this sport in Australia that certainly would seem to merit mention. As such it wouldn't seem wise to wholly deprecate the usage of football. But for clarity the usage of football terminology should be wholly limited.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I sort of agree. Even though I've gone with option 2, the idea of prohibiting the game's fans (the ones who'll be contributing the most in the area) from using their preferred terminology at all doesn't sit that well with me. Maybe a few got overzealous and needed to be put back into their box, but should they ruin it for the many? Case by case should have worked, but I guess all the trouble we've seen so far has brought it to this need for a wide-ranging, hard and fast rule. Perhaps if option 2 prevails, "soccer" becomes the default setting but appeals can be made and considered on an article-by-article basis for its relaxation (but never abolition)? Or this might mean appeals popping up incessantly, creating more of the same time-wasting "discussion" we've been seeing. I don't know for sure. I'm just thinking out loud I guess. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, like all MoS guidelines this would be advisory and could be diverged from by local consensus at article talk, or revisited and amended through a similar process to this. I already discussed one possible exception in my post of 00:51, 22 March 2014 near the top of this section. --John (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If the evidence is true that football terminology is used then that certainly has a place in an article about this sport in Australia. That is to say though that it has a place. The current practice of shifting back and forth between football and soccer is untenable. It merits brief mention in the article. Also be careful of making a thought crime here. Everyone should be weary of reaching for a sword just because someone types in football. Soccer fans that call it football will call it football. Unless they are a tendentious there really is no harm nor foul. Their attribution can be fixed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is confusing and potentially dangerous territory. One of the editors who wants to call the round ball game "football" wrote in the section above titled Moving on... "...what Football is called in some parts of Victoria". The word "football" means one thing in Victoria (and a lot more of the country), and it's not the round ball game, but I, knowing the proclivities of that editor, could kind of guess that he maybe possibly didn't mean Aussie Rules, but who can know for sure? The thing about the word "football" is that south and west of the Barassi Line it's NOT ambiguous. It means Aussie Rules, and nothing else. If we allow those who want to use that name for the round ball game to keep writing that way in articles, confusion will reign. Note that when I raised the matter with the editor who said "football...in Victoria" and meant soccer, he said it should have been obvious. With that perspective, we won't have clarity or peace. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not confusing at Association football. Football may be ambigious in Australia. However that only matters to a certain extent. Soccer is called football and association football in Australia. Soccer just happens to be the most predominant name used there. The alternative terminology merits mention. Outside of that mere mention soccer should be the primary terminology. And with all do respect, their push for football mirrors your push for soccer. Politics aside the sport is known by all of the said names used here. We are writing a manual of style here basically. Politics aside why shouldn't it be mentioned that soccer is alternatively called association football or football in australia?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly valid to mention that it's also called "football", although not by a majority, but I've seen no evidence that it's ever called "association football" in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh other than where ever this information is mentioned Soccer should solely be used (of course pending the outcome of this RFC). And no not a majority. But it is a signifigant minority view point. That being the reason it should be mentioned. As far as Association Football, Well I'd have to peruse back thru the previous conversation. I thought they should that. I'm not going to however. I'll just take your word on that. The simple solution is that if anyone feels Association football merits mention (as with football) then they can provide reliable evidence to support that claim.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Using Association football has been global consensus since 2007. The handful of editors in this section who oppose Association football should take it up on that page. From the FAQ: "The title "association football" avoids any ambiguity over which code of football is being referred to, and also removes the potential for accusations of bias towards any particular code." I also note that the FAQ section uses the three specific terms I've called for all along, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules. This discussion is invalid and over-reaching by a handful of editors trying to turn over existing consensus developed by dozens of editors that has stood without issue since 2007. Macktheknifeau (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The basic problem with that proposal is that, while Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules are extremely well known names for their sports, the name Association football is never used in Australia. I'll admit that's my own observation at play there, and I could be wrong in the absoluteness of my statement, but can you provide any examples where the name Association football IS used in Australia? My point is that we are talking about naming conventions for Australian articles, and it would be very wrong to use a name that's meaningless to most Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Association football is the dictionary term for the sport, it is the best fit term for academic purpose. As Macktheknifeau mentioned, association football has global use on Wikipedia, yet the term has no common use in any country. In terms of "association football" being "meaningless", I disagree, its usage in reference to the round ball game has a lot of meaning - showing the change in Australia, remaining unbiased, remaining neutral. If a reader asks why we don't solely refer to the sport as "soccer", we'll answer because that is no longer the case in Australia, the sport is no longer solely referred to "soccer" and we are depicting that change as the global Wikipedia already does.--2nyte (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Unlike in some other countries, "soccer" is universally understood in Australia. It is far and away the most common name for the game, and the name that we are going to continue to use in Soccer in Australia. It identifies the game perfectly, just as the names Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules identify those sports perfectly. There is no logic in saying that we should use an unknown term, "association football", just because some people would prefer to use an entirely different name that's NOT "association football". HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I'll say is that the alternative terminology has a 'place in this article. While this is the English wikipedia the artcle is about Soccer in Australia. If Association Football is not used in Australia then it shouldn't be in the article. However again this is the English wikipedia. There is a likelihood that someone who use that terminology might attempt to find Association football in Australia. You can handle that with a redirect. If however you feel that Association Football is used in Australia and it should be mentioned then prove it. The major thing to note here however is that Soccer is widely the most common term used in Australia. It should be the primary term used in the article. The other terms should be mentioned but really only once. It seems we can all agree that football is used.

HiLo48, do you actually have an Issue with it as written now: "Soccer (association football), also known as football, is a popular sport in Australia."Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's OK, but I think I'd like to see the "also known as football" wording qualified to somehow reflect the reality that a when lot of Australians say "football" they mean something completely different. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Association football contains global consensus for using Association football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules as the correct terms for those sports on English wikipedia. "The title "association football" avoids any ambiguity over which code of football is being referred to, and also removes the potential for accusations of bias towards any particular code". An example of this consensus being followed can be found at Association football in New Zealand. There is no reason why the opponents of Association football here should over-ride that global consensus on English Wikipedia, and if they wish to do so, they should take it up at Association football. It is there in black and white, on Wikipedia, Association football is used to avoid any ambiguity over which code of football is being referred to. There is no need for any other terminology. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If non-ambiguity is the goal, there is no ambiguity with "soccer", and everyone in Australia knows what it means. Almost nobody in Australia knows what association football is. Oh and have you checked out the Victorian Football Association? It's the only use of the word "association" in conjunction with the word "football" that I know of in Australia. I am open to being shown other examples. I have no idea what you're talking about with your "accusations of bias". Can you elaborate? HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to change Association football to another term on Wikipedia, you should take it up at Association football. There are 42 pages of archives that I'm sure will explain any concerns you have and if you still want to try and change the global consensus that is your choice. There is long-term global consensus for using Association football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules as the correct terms for those sports on English wikipedia. Your concerns about ambiguity have already been dealt with by the global consensus. "The title "association football" avoids any ambiguity over which code of football is being referred to, and also removes the potential for accusations of bias towards any particular code." Macktheknifeau (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You trot out your "global consensus" like some sort of trump card. However, unfortunately for that line of argument, Wikipedia specifically allows for regional variation, so there really is no such thing as a "global consensus" that over-rides everything else when it comes to use of language. The usage of the word soccer within the Australian context is rather more like a different variety of English, your so-called "global consensus" is a non-starter in this instance. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

It is not a 'so called' global consensus', it is a long standing global consensus to use Association football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules as the correct terms for those sports on English wikipedia, and the fact that they included Australian rules makes it clear to me that they intended this to cover Australian topics and articles. This discussion has already been made a long time ago, and it specifically references the same sports that are in issue in Australia. WP:ENGVAR specifically says Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms'. Association football is global consensus and universally supported as the correct term to use, alongside Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well done sir, you successfully managed to completely miss the point. The very first sentence of WP:ENGVAR states "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other. These varieties (e.g. American English vs. British English) differ in many ways, including vocabulary (elevator vs. lift), spelling (center vs. centre), date formatting ("April 13" vs. "13 April"), and occasionally grammar..." Note that there is no preference for one variety over any other and that different varieties include differences in vocabulary. The discussion about which word to use to describe soccer in Australia clearly comes within the ambit of this part of the MOS. Thus, you cannot insist that one usage must apply to the entire project and it is completely within the rules and normal practice for there to be variation in terminology between one part of the encyclopaedia and another. Consequently your continued bleating about "global consensus" can be safely ignored as irrelevant. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Macktheknifeau - Along with Nick Thorne's point above, which I naturally endorse (and see United States men's national soccer team for a perfect example), I responded to to your comments about "accusations of bias towards any particular code" in my post at 09:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC), seeking clarification. You didn't clarify. You simply repeated virtually the same words. So your point is still unclear. Just what are these "accusations of bias towards any particular code"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That section is taken directly from the FAQ at Association football regarding the long-standing global consensus to use Association football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules as the correct terms for those sports on English wikipedia. In my opinion the US example is not the same as in Australia, because the sport is officially named football here, while in the US it is not. As for the line itself about bias, to me it is a simple line about how following the global consensus avoids any accusation or potential of bias over the four sports and their terminology. It should have prevented a situation like this RFC ever occurring, for the reasons I've stated since the very start of this process, that there are already four terms approved by global consensus to use, Association football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing someone here of bias? If not, and that's the only good faith answer you can give, there is nothing to worry about, and there is no point using an unknown name. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What? The explanation of the global consensus in using Association football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules includes the line about how use of those terms prevents potential bias in terminology usage. It's that simple. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What? What does it mean? I have no idea. Do you? Look, there's a clear example of non-standard use in the US. "Soccer" is also the only universally understood name for the game in Australia, where nobody understands "association football", and "football" means several other things. There's simply no reason to avoid "soccer" as the universal term for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If Football Federation Australia was named in the same manner that the peak body for association football in the United States is then you might have case. The global consensus works just fine for Association football in New Zealand and there is no reason Australia is any different to New Zealand or England in terms of having multiple major sporting codes where some sports are more dominant in some parts of the country. Association football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules are the globally recognised names for these four sports on Wikipedia, developed through long-term consensus since 2007. If you want to change that consensus you can bring up your reasons at Association football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see nothing new there. All of those points have been addressed by others on all the previous occasions you have said exactly the same things. Please address the points made recently by others. For starters, all Australians instantly recognise and understand "soccer". There is no need to use "association football". HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If you believe that the global consensus is inappropriate then go to Association football and state your case. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (2) - arbitrary break

I do not intend to further engage in discussion with Mactheknifeau in this section until and unless he introduces some actual new points. I regard the continued reference to existing points he has already made multiple times without addressing any of the points made by others here as disruptive. My failure to answer his posts from now on should not be taken to mean that I agree with him or that I have given up, only that I do not intend to further continue with non productive discussion with an editor who refuses to obey the normal rules of constructive argument. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The point about the global consensus at Association football is the only point I need to introduce. I also doubt those reading will be swayed by your Ad hominem arguments. It has stood since 2007 and specifically discusses Australia, including the use of Australian rules (a sport which is effectively exclusive to Australia), showing that it is intended to cover Australia. This is not the appropriate forum to challenge the long-term global consensus over using Association football, Rugby Union, Rugby League and Australian rules across the Wiki, a consensus introduced and repeatedly confirmed at Association football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If "global consensus", whatever that is, overrides everything else, then John has been wasting everyone's time here. I don't think he has. Clearly the intention is to build a local consensus here. Perhaps you're the one who needs to go to Association football to raise the matter of this outrageous miscarriage of justice in naughty little Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Courtesy notice

Per this and other comments by editors I respect I will no longer be automatically posting my admin actions at AN/I for review. In the future, I will expect other editors here to scrutinise my actions and raise a notice at AN/I if they feel I have erred in any way. I will continue to monitor this area and will block anybody already involved for making WP:POINT edits. Uninvolved editors will receive a warning and then a block. I still very much hope not to have to make more blocks though I have been disappointed in this expectation five times now. Please let this recent block be the last. --John (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Implications

Well, that was pretty convincing; 9-2 is an 82% support for standardising on "soccer" in an Australian context. There were two noteworthy provisos, and I agree with them; one is that the terms 'football' and/or 'association football' can continue to be used in the article Football Federation Australia (and possibly others which have not yet come up?), and the other was User:Johnuniq's excellent point about not going crazy and inserting "soccer" everywhere. This has been a difficult process and, although I think we attracted enough participation to make the result a meaningful consensus, there are bound to be editors who for whatever reason have not seen it. As with all parts of the MoS, it is perfectly permissible for a local consensus to agree to depart from MoS for good reason on a particular article, as in the example already given. It should go without saying, but let's make explicit again that this MoS consensus can be revisited in the future via a process similar to this one, and I would not necessarily have a problem with that if it is properly carried out. For now, let's continue to debate the implications and just how we implement this consensus but the poll above can be closed. --John (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There were several users banned with their contributions removed. This is a biased and flawed result, it is by no means 'convincing' and is not a real consensus by any stretch of the imagination. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken, nobody has been banned. --John (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please also see this offer. More than this I cannot do. --John (talk) 22:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What you describe as User:Johnuniq's excellent point about not going crazy and inserting "soccer" everywhere sounds fine on the surface, but I think it needs considerable clarification. I have been applying what I regard as a similar principle ever since the previous RfC, but it's been obvious that others haven't agreed with my approach. We need to develop some explicit words that make it a lot clearer than "not going crazy". They need to be written in positive terms, telling editors what they CAN do (along with what shouldn't be done, and consequences). They need to be easy to link to so that the consensus can be easily made clear to editors unaware of the conversations above. In the past we have had quite a number of edits justified with Edit summaries saying something like "That was an invalid consensus". Given some of the comments above, it wouldn't surprise me if that continued. What processes do we have to manage such situations? HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I posted the above comment. Having gone this far with the process, I will be happy to continue to enforce editor behaviour in this area. I will continue to post any admin actions for review at AN/I. At least we now have a clear and recent consensus for the terminology we use in this area. --John (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Again I have to note the importance of alternative terminology in Australia. It merits mention. I also have to note that this is an English language wikipedia. Someone may look for Association football in Australia. Both points are made in the RFC and each have a strong case. As far as Association football goes however, Unless they can show that it is used in Australia there's no point in inclusion. However a Redirect might be advisable, Association Football in Australia. Soccer (association football) as it is written in the article unless anyone has an issue with it is reasonable as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok so it looks like there is a redirect for that already.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OK world, what do we do now about the dozen or so most recent edits by User:Macktheknifeau, where he has just changed A-League and club articles from mentioning "soccer" to using "football". I don't believe that's what's supposed to be happening. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. --John (talk) 10:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you John, however, should we simply go and revert his edits, at least where he has changed soccer to football? - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

John, I note that Macktheknifeau is now attempting to wriggle out of his guilt on his Talk page with "Wellington is in New Zealand" and "I made a mistake" (about six times!). I can't accept that nonsense. The "mistake" changed things in precisely the direction he has wanted all along. Maybe you think we should accept it, but all I see is a sign that he is not accepting the result of the recent discussion. His block won't change his opinion (or prevent future "mistakes"). His change of name to "association football", which he is not even saying is a mistake, is surely also in violation of our new policy. The New Zealand team in question, Wellington, is actually a member of the A-League, the Australian national league, the one we've really been discussing all along? I thought that we had agreed to not use either "football" or "association football" in Australian articles. Wellington is a team in an Australian competition. It routinely and frequently plays against teams we have agreed will be described as playing "soccer". Perhaps this is a loophole we need to close. More work is needed here. HiLo48 (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have just put all the articles involved back into exactly the form they were in before Macktheknifeau's pointy edits. I think that will be a safe starting point for future work on them. HiLo48 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Moving on.... I see two main areas of work required.

1) Place the new consensus/agreement/policy/guidelines (Exactly what DO we have?) somewhere permanent, obvious, and easy to point to, so that editors making inappropriate changes can be quickly and clearly made aware of them. It must not be buried in some archive. This content must include advice to editors who think the consensus is wrong, so that they know how to correctly try to change it.

2) Define the boundaries 100% clearly. Does the new consensus cover the national team? Does it include Wellington Phoenix? (Which plays in the A-League, where very other club will now be a "soccer" club.)

And there's some related issues. One is - How do we describe a player? Right now we have some Australian soccer players described as "Australian footballers", and we have players of Australian football unsurprisingly also described as "Australian footballers". The latter convention matches common usage south and west of the Barassi Line, and isn't likely to stop any time soon. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Unlike players of sports with little or no international scope, a football player may be known worldwide or have a reputation in multiple countries (and certainty could play anywhere on earth) and as such players, coaches & officials should use the global consensus of calling them a footballer. If someone doesn't understand that Mitchell Langerak is footballer and not an AFL player they could click one of the several links on that page that explain what sport he plays, or what sports his German football club plays. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone considered a terminology section? Outside that section you can stick exclusively to Soccer terminology. In that section it can all be explained.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Where would this terminology section be? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Soccer in Australia? Other than that where the situation arises (in related articles) a mention can be made. Such as in the example you gave of those players known as footballers. It can be mentioned once that's what they are called and then everything else can just use soccer terminology.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that making it part of the text of an article is the answer. I've seen articles with come controversy attached to them have FAQs at the top of their Talk page. Doing that at Soccer in Australia could work. I'd be interested in what others think too please. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought that by having this discussion here and by making this edit, we have established a pretty good start. I mentioned the consensus here. By all means suggest other places we should publicise this. --John (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The information needs to be really obvious to anyone just glancing at this discussion. John - will you close this with a simple summary of the conclusions? HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The FAQ on the talk page really does seem to work fairly well elsewhere.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My view is that this 'consensus' only applies to articles where there is multiple sports being discussed, and for overarching disambiguation pages. On single topic articles then the global consensus of using Association football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Australian rules should be followed. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My view is different. I don't think any of the discussion above supports your view. HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The consensus has been established here that the word soccer is to be used when describing the sport within the Australian context and one editor is not entitled to act as if it was not, or has some much more limited scope. It is not, as you have put it, only for articles discussing more than one variety of football and disambiguation pages. Pretending to not have understood what has been decided and continuing to push a view that is directly contrary to that consensus is not acting in good faith. After your last little trip to the sin bin, Macktheknifeauu, I would have thought you would realise that this is not the time nor the place to continue to push a complete distortion of what the consensus is, and what it covers. You would be well advised not to embark on a campaign to overthrow the consensus like you did after the August RFC last year. It is time now to drop the stick and accept that your view has not won the support of your fellow editors. Accept it and move on and we can all get back to the business of building the encyclopaedia. Do not accept it and I predict further enforced Wiki-holidays in your future. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe this consensus is invalid and will always work to correct it to what I believe is a common sense position that matches the global consensus of using Association football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Australian Rules, and firmly believe that one day that will happen. Wikipedia doesn't believe in thoughtcrime the last time I checked, so please keep your opinions about what I should or should not do to yourself. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a wording problem there. Yes, you can think whatever you like, but on Wikipedia you cannot do whatever you like. There IS a consensus. Ignoring it will not help your case. HiLo48 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember, we are still discussing implications and it is too early to make any sweeping changes to articles until we are finished here. --John (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up some changes made by Macktheknifeau in several A-League club articles by simply removing the word "football", so that some text now reads "It competes in the country's premier competition, the A-League". I didn't add "soccer". There is no need to name the sport in that context. This will hopefully reduce the impact of the feeling by some that "soccer" must be removed. It feels to me like a diplomatic approach. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Uno momento This conversation is getting abit long. Before moving forward I think we should make a list to show the direct implications above in a bulletpoint format so it's clear.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And Hilo48. I'm not familiar with A-league or well soccer as a whole for that matter. I would recommend caution at removing all references to football to preserve Soccer. I wouldn't remove all mention unless football is actually completely irrelevant to the article. With all do respect your statement above makes me feel as if you might be POV pushing to prevent others from POV pushing. I assume that this team as a "Football" team isn't a majority view. That would lead me to ask if it is a notable minority point of view? If it's not I'd say not to remove all mention. If you choose to keep all mention removed I'd have to ask for a better reason for that especially while the implications of the RFC aren't completely clear yet.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point entirely. I am NOT on a campaign to remove "football" entirely as a word for "soccer" in Australia. (Even though I almost always find it confusing myself, being from a culture where "football" has meant ONLY Aussie Rules for all of my longish life.) I was tidying up after some changes by a now blocked editor, where HE had changed many mentions of "soccer" to "football"! (And got blocked for it.) Rather than going all the way back to "soccer", which obviously irks this particular editor, I had simply removed the name of the sport completely where he had made those changes. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

To add to what HiLo48 has said here, I would like to point out that removal of the word football in this particular case in no way effects the meaning of the article in question. The word is redundant and the context is clear about what is being spoken about. No need to use either football or soccer. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to sum up... I see what we have just achieved is a consensus that's pretty much the position that was being taken for some time now by editors not keen on seeing "football" used for the round ball game in Australia. It's not a significant change from that achieved in the past couple of RfCs, just clearer. That means that what most editors have been doing won't change all that much. Future edits that change "soccer" to "football" in Australian articles can be reverted with an Edit summary saying something like "Reverted in accordance with consensus shown in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). (Please make suggestions for improvement to that wording.) Just in case anyone begins Edit warring over such a matter, I'd like to have a simpler path than taking it to AN/I every time. That's rarely satisfactory. Any suggestions? HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Reverted in accordance with consensus shown in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#RfC_on_naming and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#Another_RfC_on_naming" Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion seemed pretty wordy to me at first, but it really does get the message across, regarding both the naming convention to be used, and the "freeze" on discussions. I like it. (Does Wikipedia have an equivalent to those web sites that provide short urls to replace overly long ones?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really but there is the shortcuts but I would probably archive this and then put the shortcut to there. I'd also just consider putting in FAQ just for the main page though.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

See if this helps: Wikipedia:Shortcut Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh hell just do this: "Reverted in accordance with consensus shown in RFC 1 and RFC 2"Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That won't fit in an Edit summary. I just tried. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoe..., I just used your suggestion of 07:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC) on a couple of edits on Melbourne Heart and Melbourne Victory. Let's see how that goes. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You can attach shortcuts here then if that's to big..Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Association football in Victoria

While searching for this thread, I found Association football in Victoria. As a mature aged Victorian I immediately though of Victorian Football Association, which redirects to an article about Australian rules football. It's the only common usage of the words "association" and "football" together that I've ever been aware of in the state of Victoria.

The article Association football in Victoria pointedly commences with the words "Soccer in Victoria..." Given our newly formed consensus, and all the above, it seems obvious to me that we should rename Association football in Victoria to Soccer in Victoria, so I tried to. The move failed, because Soccer in Victoria already exists, as a redirect to Association football in Victoria.

Where do I go from here? Do I have to ask an Admin to help sort this out? Anybody know? HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The details are at WP:RM but I don't think an admin would want to make that move just on a request because however clear the issues may be to someone familiar with the background, the fact is that such a move is controversial given the history. So, I think "Requesting a single page move" at WP:RM would be needed. I think some consideration for all similar names should be made together, rather than picking them off one-by-one. Bearing in mind that I know almost nothing about the topic, my first reaction would be to wonder whether a move is needed as presumably the topic of the article is Association football, and since only one title can be used, not every reader will be satisfied with whatever is chosen. Johnuniq (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, there's no doubt some editors won't like this, but in the section above titled "Another RfC on naming" we've just achieved a pretty binding consensus that the sport is to be known as Soccer in Australia in all articles pertaining to the sport in an Australian context. That discussion was run under pretty strict Admin supervision (by User:John). The reason he ended up so heavily involved was that there was some pretty cowboyish editing going on in the period leading up to that RfC. I'm now trying to tidy up bits of the preceding mess. So yes, it could be seen as controversial, and will be seen as such by some who are unlikely to ever accept the current consensus. But we now have a very clearly defined consensus, so the move is quite appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)