Talk:Soccer in Australia

Further to above

Just to tidy up a loose end, the discussion above re the proposed move was referenced here, requesting admin attention on the behaviour of editors. --Pete (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Tidy up a loose end? What? YOU started the thread. Stop being so shy. You tried to excuse those repeatedly spouting crap on the basis that they might have had truth on their side (they NEVER did), and got yet another pointless thread closed with no result. Not sure what that achieved. But I do still wish we could find a way to stop editors repeating provocative nonsense that has been clearly AND repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong. If you or anyone can find a productive way of doing that, I'd be delighted. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the Aussie Rules fans that campaigned so hard that the term "football" should not be claimed by one code go ahead and move Australian rules football → Aussie rules. If "soccer" can't use Football (soccer) in Australia or even Association football in Australia due to the term "football" belonging to many sports, it stands to reason that no code of football in Australia should lay claim to it in an article title. I'd love to know how this is different. Ck786 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need for this. Please stop. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

All I'm looking for is a simple explanation to a point that I feel is valid. If the term "football" does not belong to any one code, but in fact all four codes of football, why is Australian rules football exempt from this guideline and allowed to have "football" in its' name but "soccer" is not (in any of the forms suggested)? Ck786 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange comment. So, tell me, how many people and/or media organisations do you know of that refer to AFL/Aussie rules solely and unconditionally as "Australian rules football"? Ck786 (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not strange at all. While "association football" may be the official name, Wikipedia titles articles based on the common name which, based on evidence presented above and elsewhere is unambiguously "soccer". You might also care to read WP:DEADHORSE. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

So using that logic, while "Australian rules football" may be the official name, Wikipedia titles articles based on the common name which, based on evidence presented above and elsewhere is unambiguously "AFL" or "Aussie Rules". Yes? Ck786 (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, the official name for Australian rules football is Australian football, Australian rules football is just a common name for the code, and common nicknames for the code include: football, footy, Aussie rules and, for marking purposes by the AFL, AFL. --124.181.25.253 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been a discussion above that resolved this article should stay at Soccer in Australia. If you want to discuss the title of Australian rules football I suggest you do so on the talk page of that article. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Ck786 - you seem to have misunderstood the problem. There is nothing wrong with the name Australian rules football, because it's both a unique and common name for the sport. It's the whole name that's relevant here, not just one word out of three. Many times and by many people the qualified name Association football has been suggested as the name here for the round ball game. The biggest problem with that proposal is that it's clearly not a common name for the game. Many readers would have no idea what it meant. (I didn't until I began to edit here and was forced to look it up.) Some have also pointed out that for the first 40 years of its existence (mostly before soccer was codified) Australian football in Victoria was an Association game too, played at its highest level in the Victorian Football Association. To me that reason is less important than the simple fact that nobody actually uses the term Association football in common speech or writing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a perfectly rational explanation (regarding the term "association football"). The bit that I cannot get my head around is what the issue is with using Football (soccer) in Australia?? Seems to me that it fits around all of the concerns that were raised in the above move request. It encompasses the two primary terms used to describe the game in Australia - "football" by fans and most media organisations and "soccer" from non-"football (soccer)" fans. Furthermore, it does not claim exclusive ownership over the term "football"/"Football in Australia" nor will there be any confusion over what sport it is actually referring to. Ck786 (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll get nothing more than me. You have yet again gone down the bullshit path, making claims that are just not true. I don't want another fight. You won't accept what others tell you is the truth. Piss off. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that was unnecessary, I've been more than civil in this conversation - I thought it was quite constructive. Why can't you just answer the question? What is wrong with "Football (soccer) in Australia"? Ck786 (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You have NOT been civil. It is NOT civil to ignore editors who know what they're talking about when it comes to facts. You have persisted in doing that throughout the two conversations on this page, including in your post date stamped 04:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC) above. Can we get a couple of things straight? Soccer fans (not just non-soccer fans) on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line call the game soccer, as do all the media outlets based there. This represents roughly half of Australia's population. It includes the Riverina, Broken Hill, Wagga Wagga, the Northern Territory, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria. Now. You've been told a truth. You may not like it, but it's a TRUTH!!!! Deal with it, and don't ever spout bullshit again!!!!!!!!!! Repeatedly spouting bullshit is VERY uncivil. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the "bulls**t" that I am "sprouting". I tell you what is "bulls**t" - the Barassi line makes no reference to "soccer" at all except to say that there is little variance in it's popularity with respect to location. I would like to know your source to support the claim that "Soccer fans (not just non-soccer fans) on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line call the game soccer" - I'm sure you have one. Irrespective of this, if what you say is true and half of "soccer" fans call it soccer and the other half call it football, surely the most rational name is "Football (soccer) in Australia"? Again you have failed to answer why the article cannot be called "Football (soccer) in Australia"... Could you please respond to this point? Ck786 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I really wonder about your competence as an editor. Are you really trying hard to act so dumb? Nobody calls the game "Football (soccer)". Everybody knows what soccer is. It's the simple, non-controversial solution. There is nothing wrong with soccer. It works for everybody in Australia. Football doesn't. There is absolutely no point in adding it. We are one country, after all. And, all this has been said before. You lost. I have a discussion going elsewhere about editors who won't accept the umpire's decision. Very uncivil. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we know civility when we see it. HiLo, I started off this thread as a courtesy to other editors in case they wanted to add to the discussion on AN/I. There was no need for any discussion - it was just a pointer to another discussion on another page - one in which you were actively participating. Your response here wasn't in haste or under pressure, you had achieved a positive result on the renaming, and there was no necessity - as you often claim - to use personal attacks and foul language to draw attention to your points. There's no need to re-open the debate. It's not as if your team is behind seven points after a horror season and on track to lose next week's grand final - your side won this particular match. So why not just count to ten a few times and leave it be?

As I say, we have ways to deal with nonsense, and even if it's a line-ball decision, we use consensus to resolve matters. It would help if you - and everybody - stuck to the established procedures. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit! Yes, the formal rename request was lost, again, as it should have been. In fact, it should never have required re-discussing. But you won't shut up. Ck786 won't shut up. We DON'T have procedures that stop repetitive bullshit being posted. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Tell me that you at least see the irony of you playing the civility card after your potty mouth tirade? Also I'd suggest you have a read of this article before you start throwing around truly ambiguous terms such as "everybody" and "nobody" because if "soccer worked for everybody" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Fact of the matter is, you've just told me that half the population call the game football and the other half don't. Thus it would make sense to use both in the name of the article. You have zero evidence to back it up (as highlighted by your incorrect use of the Barassi Line to support your position) and you know as well as I do that the only reason the move request was resolved in the opposition was sheer weight of numbers with their own agendas. The above move request was certainly not decided on fact and evidence. Ck786 (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. And I'm retiring from this now. You have nothing. Fact wise OR intellectually. I should not have to explain why I mentioned the Barassi Line, and won't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Half the population does not define soccer as football. There is ZERO evidence to support this claim. If there is evidence, then it really needs to be put into Football in Australia, and I can find you a number of reliable sources that talk about how in the English speaking world, football is used ONLY in England as being universal for soccer. In other English speaking countries including the USA, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia, soccer is the word used to describe the game. Association football cannot be used in an Australian context because as sources demonstrate, this is not the word for the game in Australia. If you seriously want a rename with football, it would be Soccer (football) in Australia, and that is pretty silly. If you have new evidence and new sources to support the claims you are making, you need to update Soccer in Australia and Football in Australia regarding the word's usage. Until you have the references to support the claim, references you are citing on the talk page and in the article, please stop with your endless POV pushing (characterized by your lack of sources to support your preferential POV regarding WP:COMMONNAME.)--LauraHale (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The "half the population" point was raised by HiLo48 along with his irrelevant and ultimately incorrect reference of the Barassi line article. No one in any conversation on this talk page (that I can see) has claimed that the use of the word "football" in Australia is solely limited to "soccer", so that point is null and void. As Macktheknifeau raised in the request for the move, in 2011 when the page was moved to "Soccer in Australia", the vote was decided solely on the use of "Soccer" not "Football" by the media to describe the sport in this country. Macktheknifeau then provided physical evidence to show that nearly all major media organisations, print and television, have reverted to using "Football". The goalposts between 2011 and now seem to have shifted, as now apparently media notoriety, the naming of governing bodies, what the government refers to the sport as, etc, etc are not justification enough and the move request was decided by weight of numbers pushing their own POV, not on facts and evidence. Reading through the above move request discussion, there is no physical evidence from those opposing the move - there's plenty of anecdotal/heresay "evidence", but nothing physical. I note your search of libraries and also note that the original publishing date of the vast majority of "soccer" books is before the turn of the millennium and/or the books originate from the USA, where the sport is called soccer and only soccer by the public, fans, media, government, etc. Aside from that all "evidence" supplied by the opposition is anecdotal which does not come close to satisfying any Wiki standard for reputable source of information. Furthermore, "Football (soccer) in Australia" satisfies WP:NATURALDIS. "Soccer in Australia" fails WP:COMMONNAME based solely on the criteria that was used to move the page in 2011. Finally, I find it ironic that I be accused of WP:POV pushing when the entire opposition campaign above was one big baseless POV-push. Ck786 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Ck786, tl;dr. Links to the sources sources supporting your position regarding the name football being the dominant name and common name in Australia? That can be used to support your position despite all the references to in the Football in Australia saying otherwise? I request these reliable verifaible sources as a show of good faith regarding neutrality of your position. -- LauraHale (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you proposing be done? The requested move pretty comprehensively fell in favour of soccer as the most common name. If you're not going to open a new RM, move on - this is a venue for improving the article not a forum. Hack (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest some kind of major administrative review, as opposed to a single random admin deciding, who may or may not have any idea about why the AFL project are so protective of the name 'soccer', someone who can understand bias, knows how to defeat ingrained systemic biased against a group who use overwhelming numbers to smother debate and work to correct it would be a good choice to lead the enquiry. It's clear the AFL project are ultra protective of their non-neutral POV on the situation, they have destroyed objective discussion, ignoring the evidence and use that to force 'no consensus' rulings even when the old reasoning in 2011 was completely turned around now in 2013. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I know I said I was retiring, and I will make no more comment on content here, but "I would suggest some kind of major administrative review" into the appalling behaviour by the soccer fans here, who persistently and repeatedly refuse to accept the umpire's decision, while continuing to abuse those who disagreed with them. Fortunately, there are already discussions currently underway in several plces in WIkipedia about what to do about such vexatious, uncivil behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators have no more power than any other editor, just an extra set of tools to use, just as many non-admins are rollbackers, filemovers, reviewers etc. WP:CONSENSUS is the primary way we make decisions here and consensus is that this article is correctly located at Soccer in Australia. An uninvolved editor, who just happens to be an admin, has evaluated the above RM and made that evaluation so there is nothing more to be done here, and nothing to be gained from prolonging this discussion unnecessarily. I hope that everyone will realise that if we all walk away, it will just stop. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

...with the word "all" being the key word in that sentence. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to calm down. I'm fine with anything other than Football in Australia, as that's taken by the generic "lots of sports are called football in Australia" article. In previous discussions, Football (soccer) in Australia was discounted as parentheses are normally used here to denote that the first term is a subset of the parentheses term, not just an alternative word. Pretty minor issue, if you ask me, but that's what I remember reading. And for those Craig Foster devotees who bristle at the "insulting and derogatory" use of the term soccer in any context (outside of the USA, I guess), please explain why one of the biggest sporting TV shows in ENGLAND is called Soccer AM? Just because some of us use soccer doesn't mean we hate the game. The-Pope (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Soccer was created as/ and is still considered a nickname for the sport. The use of 'soccer' in 'Soccer AM' would be the similar use of 'footy' in 'The Footy Show (AFL)'/'The Footy Show (rugby league)'. To refer to the sport as 'soccer' is quite acceptable, though it should not be considered the 'official' name of the sport, as 'footy' is not considered the 'official' name of the other football codes.--2nyte (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

From what I have come to understand: the term association football is the unambiguous term for the sport on wikipedia, the term football is recognised as the name of the sport (most recent Laws of the Game [1] refers to the sport as "football" and the players as "footballers"), the term soccer was created as a nickname for the sport and has been used as such ever since (many people in Australia/USA know the sport as soccer, but would consider its 'proper', 'European name' to be football, even though it's not commonly known as such).--2nyte (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Soccer is often used to refer to football in this country. However, since 2005 when the A-League started, the associations changed the name to football. The majority of media outlets including Channel 7 and 9 also call it football. If you look at the articles of players and teams in the country, the majority of them are using football (soccer) by default. So it seems that we should change all Australian football articles to soccer or use football (soccer) which is already being used anyway. Portillo (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

What's just been posted here in the past twelve hours has all been said before. As AussieLegend said a few days ago "I hope that everyone will realise that if we all walk away, it will just stop." HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I will be going through every Australian football team and player and changing it to the proper name 'soccer', because most of them have either football (soccer) or association football. Portillo (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"Australian football team and player and changing it to the proper name 'soccer'". What!? Australian football is not soccer, Australian football is played in the AFL not the A-League! --124.180.168.76 (talk) 09:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

And right there is a classic example of the massive confusion caused by Australia's soccer administrators trying to change the game's name to football. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Does that include the Userbox on your User page, which strangely says "soccer" in its name but displays the word "football"?

This user plays soccer.

HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• For the benefit of editors here who seem never to have read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, "the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." This discussion is not at all about "discuss[ing] changes to [the] associated article" and there is certainly evidence of being "used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject". The page is being used as a general forum for discussion. Is there any reason why I shouldn't ask for this discussion to be closed? --AussieLegend (✉) 06:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• • No. Closing would be good. But someone who can't accept the umpire's decision is bound to start another discussion soon. What we really need is a way of closing it forever. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Forever seems rather drastic, as in this particular case as there is no real decision on the matter, only good assumptions. May I say this: I will undoubtedly support the use of soccer in Australian articles if Football Federation Australia change to Soccer Federation Australia and if clubs changed their names from Football Club to Soccer Club (FC to SC). Until that time I cannot support the use of soccer in Australian articles. It may be the common name for the code, but is not the official name, it's merely a nickname.--2nyte (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
      • ^ See what I mean? ^ HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
        • HiLo48, what would be sufficient cause to move Soccer in Australia and stop using "soccer" in Australian articles? What evidence would be needed for this to occur?--2nyte (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I said I would stop posting in this thread, but that's a polite question, so perhaps I should give it a go. However, when you said "move Soccer in Australia", you didn't say what you wanted to move it to. I think the multiple proposals about what people want to move it to has been part of the problem so far. Each has its own proponents and each has different problems, so discussion inevitably becomes confused. So I'll just comment on the advantages of Soccer in Australia, rather than the disadvantages of any of the alternatives.

Primarily, it's the single, unambiguous, common name, that actually works for the whole of Australia. Everyone in Australia know what it means, and would never be confused by it. None of the other proposals have that obvious benefit. In that way it complies best with Wikipedia policies too. So, if you want to move away from that, you need very good reasons why you want to use something that's less common, less clear, more ambiguous, or a name that nobody actually uses. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@ 2nyte, I see you have been ignoring my comments. I would support moving away from soccer provided a large number of sources from credible Australian sport historians and linguists that say soccer is not commonly used, nor understood to be in the roundball game in Australia and that the use of whatever word you chose (be it "roundball" or "football" or "kick the ball into the goal game") was the dominant lnguistic use in Australia. Do you have any sources from reliable sources on this? I am 100% certain you have NOTHING resembling this. It is why when repeatedly requested these sources, you instead do everything to distract people from your lack of sources. Sources please. Sources. Where are your sources?--LauraHale (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your argument about sport 'historians' is invalid. It doesn't matter what people used 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, it matters what is happening now. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

LauraHale - I was about to post the same thing as Macktheknifeau in response to your question above. Historical use is irrelevant in this conversation. What is relevant is present use. The metric that was good enough for the page to be moved from "Association football in Australia" to "Soccer in Australia" were purely media sources. However, I have below a list of media, government and organisation links - happy for you to expand on this. It's not meant to be all inclusive, however I have included 'official' uses of "Soccer" where I have come across them.

Media: - 12 "football" - 2 "Soccer"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/football
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/football
http://www.watoday.com.au/sport/soccer
http://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/football
http://www.foxsports.com.au/football
http://www.abc.net.au/news/sport/football/
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/football
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/football/
http://au.sports.yahoo.com/football/
http://www.sportal.com.au/football
http://www.theroar.com.au/category/soccer/ - uses 'soccer' in the URL, 'Football' on the page

Australian Government: 6 "Football" - 3 "Football (soccer)"
http://www.ausport.gov.au/about/australian_sport_directory - uses Football (soccer)
http://www.regional.gov.au/sport/resources/football_review/index.aspx
http://www.ausport.gov.au/about/publications/annual_reports/annual_report_2011-2012 - uses Football (soccer)
http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/sport/major-events - uses Football (soccer)
http://corporate.olympics.com.au/sports/football
State Academy of Sport
http://www.ausport.gov.au/ais/sports/football_men/home
http://www.qasport.qld.gov.au/sports/partnership-programs.html
http://www.dsr.nsw.gov.au/gatewaytosport/index.asp
http://guerin.ballarat.edu.au/community/westvicsport/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=48&Itemid=100

Organising Bodies: All "Football"
http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/
http://www.capitalfootball.com.au
http://www.footballnt.com.au
http://www.ffsa.com.au
http://www.footballfedtas.com.au
http://www.footballfedvic.com.au
http://www.footballqueensland.com.au/
http://www.footballwest.com.au
http://www.northernnswfootball.com.au
http://www.footballnsw.com.au

Now can I please see some evidence from anyone that supports the current use of "soccer" in any official capacity? Ta. Ck786 (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You are either completely incompetent, or you have chosen to deliberately ignore much of what was written in the earlier, now closed thread. Either way, there is absolutely no point in responding any further. The argument was lost there. The thread was closed, only eleven days ago. Nobody should have to waste their time further on the tendentious editing of the soccer=football obsessed. (There, I could have simply and quite justifiably said "Bullshit!" yet again, for precisely the same reasons as before, but thought I'd try the polite approach. I still doubt it will stop the nonsense.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Really kiddies, you all need to grow up a bit here. Ck786, you really, really, really, really, really, really, really need to drop the stick. The RM is over. Consensus was not to move it. The arguments you've put forward will achieve nothing. They are not aimed at improving this article and they can have no effect on the recent RM. HiLo, you've had more returns than Nellie Melba and, while I can understand your frustration you need to tone down the language. Let's all face it. Soccer sucks, AFL sucks, League sucks and even Union sucks. Marbles is by far the best game because when the schoolbell goes, you all have to stop the bickering and go inside, which you are not doing here. Even golf is good; at least the crowd gets some exercise. Now everyone, your mums are calling. Go inside and have dinner or you won't be allowed to watch cartoons. Sheesh! --AussieLegend (✉) 08:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have returned a couple of times too many, but at least one recent return was was surely justified. That was when I politely replied to an incomplete but polite question from 2nyte three days ago. I was hoping for a sensible, mature conversation. Sadly, despite clearly being active elsewhere since then, 2nyte has failed to respond to my answer. This just reinforces my major doubts about the competence and manners of the soccer=football obsessed here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding HiLo48, but you answered my question appropriately and I did not think a direct response was necessary as I have stated my view many times before, though I will briefly reiterate. I don't think assumed common name should replace fact. The fact being, as Ck786 stated here, the use of "soccer" has diminished in Australia--2nyte (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Amongst soccer fans, yes, "soccer" has become "football", but amongst non-soccer fans, no, "soccer" has not become "football". Also when soccer fans communicate with non-soccer fans, "soccer" has not become "football" either!

BTW those links mean nothing as they indicate some sort of "official" usage, not common usage which Wikipedia prefers! *Sigh* I don't know... please move on, the RM failed, so please end this nonsense and Stop feeding the trolls! --124.180.168.76 (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

124.180.168.76, that is not factually correct. You merely assume soccer fans use the word football and non-soccer fans use soccer. Your merely assume that soccer is currently the common name for the sport. Though, what is not assumed is that the majority of Australian media, government, and organising bodies of the sport use football in recent time, not soccer. That is fact. I may accept ambiguity as a defense, though I do not accept common name through speculation as such.--2nyte (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right, 2nyte. All I'm asking is for someone to point out to me where the evidence is that soccer is the Common Name.
HiLo48 - I've read through the RM, and aside from LauraHale's historical references (which as mentioned above prove nothing about current usage), I cannot see any proof at all that "soccer" fulfils any Common Name criteria. I'm not asking you to do a thesis on it, I'm just asking you to point out for me (because as you keep telling me, I'm apparently incompetent) where the evidence is because I cannot see it in the RM discussion. Simply saying that "it's soccer because the RM said so" or petty namecalling is both childish, deflective and missing the point completely.
AussieLegend - I'm happy to "drop the stick" after my simple request is answered. If you read through the discussion, I've asked a number of times, however HiLo48 chooses to only reply in childish insults and swearing (as you have also pointed out). Furthermore I don't believe that a true consensus has been arrived at following the RM above - otherwise this discussion would not be ongoing. As you'd know, achieving consensus is not as simple as tallying up the votes in a poll as polls can be influenced by WP:POV pushing from a partisan group of individuals. Consensus relies on factual information, again, of which I've seen none that proves that "soccer" fulfils WP:COMMONNAME. Ck786 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, despite concerns that Ck786 and 2nyte have failed to properly read the earlier thread, because the information was all there, I will try to politely reply. Online sources such as News Limited and TV networks all come out of Sydney. Anyone who has spent any time at all during football season south of the Barassi Line will simply know that media outlets there use football to refer to Australian football, and soccer to refer to the round ball game. At least two of us pointed it out and one offered to scan a print copy of the Herald Sun for you to prove it in that case. You chose not to respond. That proves either incompetence or denial. The TV news in Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth is the same. It's obvious you've never watched it. There. I've destroyed your case. I'm off to work. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Lunchtime now. I have a little more time. For an example of a media website that's actually based in Melbourne, look at 3AW - http://www.3aw.com.au/footy. It clearly uses "Football" to refer to Aussie Rules. That's normal for all media outlets based south of the Barassi Line. That makes "football" a non-viable choice as a name for "soccer" there.

I've travelled a lot around Australia, spending significant time in different places, and watching and listening to what media outlets in different parts of the country do. (I do wonder about the linguistic experience of our Sydney based soccer=football proponents. Have they equivalent experience south and west of Sydney, even the Riverina or Broken Hill?) I simply know that our language varies across the country, with a virtually insurmountable barrier to the use of "football" for "soccer" in Aussie Rules territory, which is around half the country. This is not a pro-AFL position. It's a pro-common sense position. I am quite keen on soccer. I grew up in soccer territory. (Latrobe Valley in the 1950s and 60s.) One can like the game (nuts about most sports actually), but see no point in trying to change its name to football south of the Barassi Line. It simply cannot happen in the foreseeable future. Soccer is the common name, and will remain so. It's not a negative. It's just how things are. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"I'm happy to "drop the stick" after my simple request is answered." - No, it doesn't appear that you are. There was plenty of discussion in the RM pointing to soccer being the common name and plenty of opportunity to prove that it wasn't. The closer acknowledged that while football "may be increasingly popular for referring to this particular sport, it has not been demonstrated that soccer is unrecognizable to a degree that would warrant usurping the Football in Australia article." That is essentially a statement that soccer is still the common name in Australia as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree that using "football" for one sport deny its usage for another, especially when the first is not officially referred to as football; this is were ownership of a word comes into account. Also HiLo48, you specified that "during football season south of the Barassi Line ... media outlets there use football to refer to Australian football, and soccer to refer to the round ball game." Are you saying that when AFL is not in-season football does not refer to Australian football, and soccer does not refer to the round ball game? Just clarifying.--2nyte (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The naming conventions I spoke of are followed all year round. And I really am curious. Have you spent time and paid attention to the media on the other side of the Barassi Line? HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My experience living in Victoria was that football only ever referred to Australian Rules football. No other sports mattered and I'm sure that for some Vicwegians, no other sports existed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, and perhaps it highlights a critical aspect of the cultural and linguistic difference. In Melbourne and everywhere else on that side of the Barassi Line, football has ONLY ever meant one thing, Aussie Rules. In Sydney, there have been two sports, Union and League, both referred to at times by that name, for over 100 years. That meant that when a third sport, soccer, decided to try to use it as well, it was a much easier change than down south and out west. Sydney folk were used to being flexible about the word. Those in Aussie Rules territory aren't. It really does have only one meaning there. There wasn't even the thought that it could ever mean something else. It was like telling someone that bus meant train. Not going to happen. We ARE a linguistically divided country, aren't we? HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for choosing to discuss this civilly. The point is though, that this article is about the sport in Australia, not Soccer/Football on the other side of the Barassi Line, or Soccer/Football in Victoria or any other iteration. As such, local usage in specific parts of Australia is irrelevant - as you say, we are a linguistically divided country. Given this page is about the sport's presence in the entire nation, why is it unreasonable to look at national news sources, national & state governing bodies and Australian government references as the most accurate point of reference to determine what the name of the sport is from a national' perspective?? I'm really happy for you to scan images, post links, send a postcard, etc, etc of any physical evidence of the use of "Soccer" at a national level. I'm especially interested in any evidence you may have that outweighs what the government, organising bodies, olympic committee and national general media refer to the sport as. Ck786 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

That response does not deserve a civil one from me. You either can't or don't want to understand some completely relevant information. Dismissing what I wrote like that is just plain rude, and demonstrates blatant incivility and/or complete incompetence! Now, piss off.HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't really been involved in this discussion, but I was curious about the claims that soccer is no longer used in media in Australia. Perhaps someone else has done this, so apologies if this is just repeating other work, but I went to Newsbank, which collects Australian newspaper articles in a searchable database. I limited the search to Australia, and restricted it to 2013. According to Newsbank, there have been 12,306 articles published this year in Australian press using the word "soccer". Limiting that to National sources, which means AAP, The Australian, and a couple of other newswires, gives 1300+ articles. Most of these won't be substantial articles, so much as match reports or other events, but the term has to appear somewhere in the article. Looking just at the use of the term in headlines, and thus not counting articles where "soccer" is only mentioned in the body, brings up just over 1000 articles this year.

There's no meaningful way of seeing how that compares to "football" without also including the other codes in the figures or using a very different methodology. So perhaps a case can be made that "football" is used more often than "soccer" to refer to the round ball game in Australia. But I'm not inclined to argue that soccer isn't used in the Australian media. - 11:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, no one is suggesting that "soccer" is not used in the Australian media. As references above, it clearly is. Though as you stated, there is cause that "football" is used more often than "soccer" to refer to the round ball game in Australia, if by no one else, it is at least done so by the government, organising bodies of the sport, olympic committee and national general media in recent times. Football is the World's Game, and Australia being such a multicultural country is starting to accept and welcome that, as is its media and its government.--2nyte (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. In that case, I'll just confirm that the term soccer is being used at a national level in national media, and state-based print media in all states. Hopefully that is of some use. - Bilby (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the key claims from the "soccer must be called football" crowd is that Melbourne's Herald Sun does just that, and it's been "proven" by a link to the online version of the paper. Some of us tried to point out that the print edition doesn't, but I'm sure that was ignored. I just had reason (nothing to do with this matter) to go to that paper's web page and noticed that we can look at a copy of the print edition. (Funny that the "soccer must be called football" crowd didn't notice that, isn't it?) A look at this is revealing. Right there, on the web for all to see, in the Table of Contents, is "Soccer" in all its glory. So, can we now and forever drop any claims that the Herald Sun calls the game football please? HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Been offline for various reasons for the past eight weeks, I'm sure HiLo48 missed me. 2nyte is correct and it's a point the "soccer" crowd continuously dodge. 'The sport is called "football" by the government, organising bodies of the sport, olympic committee and national media. What does it matter what the Herald f***ing Sun call it? It wouldn't be the first time a Murdoch print medium had shown bias when it has a vested interest in pushing an agenda, in this case protecting the AFL's "ownership" over the word "football", ie. WP:POVPUSH. Just as As I said above, the article is about the sports' presence in Australia, not what the sport is called in Victoria or by a select group of people on one side of a fictional line. The criteria for what a sport is called should be what the Olympic Committee/Government refer to it as. Then there can be no dispute. But logic obviously plays no part in this debate as some people are too blinded by their own POV. Ck786 (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's people on your side of the argument who suggested that what the Hun called the game was important. As for the government, it's easily possible to find many uses of the word "soccer" in government publications too. Re that "fictional" line, how much time have you spent on the other side of it? I've spent plenty on both sides. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, you can't just disregarded what officials call the game. In the whole of Australia (not just one side of a fictional line) the game is know by both soccer and football. It is perfectly acceptable to use either. Why must you (and others) go around Wikipedia censoring it to your will, to your own POV?--2nyte (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

For the 7,287th time, it's just plain silly to call the game football on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. That word simply means Australian football there. That alone. Towns have football grounds and soccer grounds. They are a different shape and have different goalposts. Schools have football teams and soccer teams. Kids call the games football and soccer, with no idea that the latter offends some people in Sydney. You obviously haven't spent any significant time on the other side of the line, but won't believe someone who has. Pushing that silly opinion is beginning to look like willful ignorance and self denial. That statement applies to the game's administrators too, who, the article makes a point of telling us, are Sydney based. They are either being silly and/or ignorant and/or deliberately confrontational. None of those are good attributes. I cannot for the life of me see what's wrong with the American approach, where everyone simply accepts that the game needs to be called soccer because the word football already has a cast iron, different meaning. That that may be true in only half the country in Australia still has to matter, even if it's not where the game's seemingly ignorant bosses live. HiLo48 (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A POSTSCRIPT TO THAT: Just after writing the above I heard a short segment on ABC local radio in Melbourne where a Welsh journalist was discussing with the local presenter the new Socceroos coach and his last game with Victory tonight. In the whole 5 minutes or so the word football was not used at all. Very logically, the word soccer was used every time the sport was mentioned. That's what wise people do in those parts of Australia where football means Aussie Rules. HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You can not compare Australia to America. Where Australia has shown a change in language both locally and nationally, America has not. The governing bodies of the sport, the clubs themselves (many on the AFL side of the Barassi line), independent bodies (government, olympic committee), these have all embraced the word 'football' for the game; and you can not say "some still use 'soccer'", because the fact that they use 'football' as well is reason enough for change. Maybe the more common term for the sport on the AFL side of the Barassi Line is not 'football', but if you use 'football' to describe the round ball game there, people will not question you as if they have never heard they term before; you might have to clarify, but they will understand. Compared to using 'bvyhfdshj' to refer to the sport, where no one will understand even if you clarify. If we clarify, if we make it perfectly clear that the sport being referred to is association football, then why can we not use 'football'? It only makes sense to do so, otherwise it just appears you are taking ownership of the word. We don't live in the 1910s; Australia now grows as one nation, not as separate colonies. Why can't you just embrace that 'football' can (and does) refer to many sports in Australia. If we clarify the term it can be perfectly applicable to either sport regardless of location, regardless of commonality.--2nyte (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And that's where you prove that you're an ideological campaigner some of the time rather than a rational discusser. You say "you can not say "some still use 'soccer'". Of course I can! Because most people on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line do! Why is it that soccer fans think everyone who disagrees with them is lying? And you ask why not use football for soccer? Because 1) There's no need, 2) It WILL confuse people unless you clarify (and why create that burden?), and 3) It creates unnecessary confrontation. Why go down that path? HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This discussion is going nowhere. Instead of this constant directionless argument, I suggest that an RfC on the naming of Australian association football so we can get a more definitive solution and we can go on building an encyclopaedia. Hack (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy for a RfC. There is an obvious difference in opinion on what term should be used to refer to association football in Australia. I think this would be the best approach to come to a decision.--2nyte (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Hack. The discussion is going nowhere and for as long as people can vote for or against a proposal on a encyclopaedic article without actually having anything factual to support their vote other than because they do or don't like something, the integrity of the process is flawed.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how or why we cannot just use the Official name for articles where the Common name is in constant dispute or at the very least, use a combination of the Official and Common names if it is agreed that there is too much ambiguity/disagreement with either name by itself.
A long term solution needs to be found - I don't think anyone wants this conversation to continue any longer than it has to. So what is the solution? Well, the sport isn't called Association Football in any Official or Common capacity in Australia - so we can safely rule that out. The sport is called 'Football' in both an Official (Governing body, Federal and State Governments, State Institutes of Sport, State and National leagues) and Common (amongst a percentage of the general public and most major media) capacities. The sport is also called Soccer in a Common capacity (amongst a percentage of the general public and one or two print media). In my humble opinion, the logical and reasonable name for this article, which is also a compromise between the two conflicting POVs in the discussion above, is Football (soccer) in Australia and that the sport be referred to as Football (soccer) in the title of all articles/templates/etc related to the code in Australia. Ck786 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Facts are needed. Did you know that governments also call the game soccer? The "most major media" claim is just plain wrong, and that has been demonstrated. Soccer people call the game soccer when they come to Melbourne. Can we also admit that the name of "football" for the game is a marketing exercise? One that hasn't succeeded on the other side of the Barassi Line, and won't in the foreseeable future. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for proving how flawed the voting system is when it is clear that people who are so impartial they cannot see beyond their own POV have as much of a say as people who are trying to achieve a reasonable outcome so this debate doesn't go on forever. It's time to quit the bitching and reach a Consensus that isn't driven by POV pushing and where the result isn't going to be debated 'til the end of time. With that in mind 'Football in Australia' is unsustainable as is 'Soccer in Australia' whereas 'Association football in Australia' fails the Common name policy. Fact of the matter is that the only amicable outcome that satisfies both Official name and Common name policies is Football (soccer) in Australia. It's that simple. If people cannot see past their own blatantly obvious POV pushing, then their opinion in this discussion should be null and void. Ck786 (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether it came from a marketing exercise or not "football" is now engrained in the round ball game in Australia, just as "coke" is to coca-cola (also marketing). There was a time where soccer was the only term to refer to the sport (and it's hard to change well established habits), but times have changed and that is no longer the case. There is no sport besides soccer that refers to itself as football in any official sense. Also, it's not like we have football (Australian rules football), or football (rugby union). Yes, I am well aware that many sports in Australia are refereed to as "football", but putting it plain and simple, there is only one Australia national football team, just as there is the Australian international rules football team, and the Australia national rugby union team. Is it that necessary to change it to Australia national football (soccer) team?--2nyte (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Using the name Football(soccer) would imply that the major name is football and that soccer is a minor, less important name. Trouble with that is that it's not the case for at least half the population of Australia. I am more and more convinced that those pushing the name football here have virtually never spent time on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, and so have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. They are arguing for what they want things to be, rather than what they are. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there's a real irony in you mentioning the Australia national football team, given that it's far more commonly known to ALL Australians, soccer fans or not, as the Socceroos. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Australia has multiple football codes, though none have grasp the title of "football", rather each code has adopted the term as a nickname for their respected sport. Whereas soccer, in recent times, through 'marketing exercises' has rebranded itself as football. This change in name may have been unsuccessful on the 'Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line' but is is official none the less, with "soccer" now nothing more than nickname and a memory for the sport.--2nyte (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and there's a real irony in you mentioning soccer on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, given that those governing bodies are officially known to ALL Australians, soccer fans or not, as Football Federation Northern Territory, Football Federation South Australia, Football Federation Tasmania, Football Federation Victoria and Football West.--2nyte (talk) 12:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Define "official", as distinct from "a marketing exercise" (that hasn't worked, and was never going to). Remember, a business cannot "own" a word, unless it can copyright it, and we all know that nobody can copyright "football". Please restrict your arguments to what IS, not what you want it to be. HiLo48 (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

10 years ago the Australian Olympic Committee, the Australian Institute of Sport, the national governing body of the sport and the nine state governing bodies of the sport used the term "soccer" as the name of the sport. Now they all use "football" as the name of the sport. The fact is "football" has replaced "soccer" as the sports 'official' name in Australia. If we were going to use Australian nicknames for sport we might as well call soccer "wogball" and call Australian football "aerial ping-pong" - I wonder how common that is.--2nyte (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. "Soccer" is not a nickname for the game around these parts. It's THE name. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Where "soccer" may be the official name on a regional level, "football" is the official name for the sport on a national level [2]. Logic tells me that in the current circumstance "football" is the correct name for the round ball game in Australia, regardless I still think "association football" would be the best outcome.--2nyte (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an official name. Your logic re the "correct name" is wrong. And what's the reason for your seeming desperate need to avoid using the name "soccer"? It's understood by everyone. It's not ambiguous. And it is a common name for the game. Those claims cannot be made for either "football" or "association football". HiLo48 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

"Soccer" has been in the Australian psyche for 60-70 years (and it's quite hard to break well established habits), but that doesn't change the fact that the sport is now referred to as "football" by the state/national governing bodies of the sport, the olympic committee and AIS - I would consider that 'official' usage (i.e. usage by an authority or public body) - and those are the highest bodies with greatest the authority. Australia is aligning with the 207 other countries that use "football" for the sport. No country in the world refers to the sport as "association football", it's just a good compromise to what would be a never ending dispute.--2nyte (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So this "arbitrary break" has worked out well. Predictably certain users (who have unsuccessfully attempted to take the moral high line in this discussion previously) have descended this into Football v Sokkah round #42,368. I did have to point out two stunning examples of ignorance and irony/hypocrisy:
•"There is no such thing as an official name" is an absolute pearler. I guess we should just go ahead and delete WP:OFFICIAL. Either that or we'd best start informing all official sporting and government federations/organisations that the name they refer to the sport is not the official one.
•"your seeming desperate need to avoid using the name "soccer"" is just littered with so much irony, though I'm not sure HiLo can see it for himself.
2nyte - Thank you for you attempts to be constructive in this conversation. I disagree however that "assoc. football" is a reasonable compromise as it fails both Official name and Common name. As previously mentioned, "Football" satisfies both Official name and Common name amongst a percentage of the population, whilst "Soccer" satisfies only Common name amongst a percentage of the population. "Football (soccer)", in my humble opinion is the only solution here, for the reasons I've listed above previously, but that will never get up whilst there are posters who are more interested in fulfilling their "desperate need to avoid using the name" football rather than the accuracy of an encyclopaedic article. It's pretty pathetic, childish behaviour, really. Ck786 (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What would you be differentiating football (soccer) from? Are you differentiating it from other football codes (AFL, union, league) or just the general term football?--2nyte (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not both? "Football (soccer)" is a form of Parenthetical disambiguation, and contrary to HiLo's assertions above, it does not mean that one name is more important that another, it is simply disambiguating the term football from the generic use by using it's alternate name in parentheses. There is no scope to refer to League/Union/AFL as Football (Rugby Union) or Football (Australian Football) because that would not make sense as their current titles already satisfy both Official and Common naming policies. It is clear that "Soccer" in isolation fails the Official name policy and is only a Common name for some sections of the public. Football is satisfies both the Common and Official name. Combining the two for use in Australia makes sense as it disambiguates the term and it will cease these inane, never ending discussions. For the record, it must be said that as Australian Rules Football and Rugby League are more popular sports in Australia, it follows that there would be more editors for those two sports compared to Football - as such any vote for anything with the word "football" in it will be down voted easily. In order to reach a resolution that is fair and reasonable that considers the facts and isn't biased with a POV, I'd suggest this needs to be referred to an admin. Ck786 (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a longstanding practice of using football (soccer) for Australian articles but this seems to have fallen by the wayside since the main article for the sport changed from football (soccer) to association football. In terms of clarity and disambiguation, soccer is the best title but I don't have a problem with football (soccer). Hack (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not Soccer (football)? HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Might as well write soccer. Soccer is less ambiguous than football. Hack (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how Football (soccer)/Soccer (football) would support naming conventions, as "football" is not a subset of "soccer", similarly "soccer" is not a subset of "football". The names are synonyms; so the only options would be association football, football or soccer. Now we've gone full-circle.--2nyte (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Virtually nobody calls the sport association football, anywhere. Football is ambiguous. That leaves soccer. If you don't want soccer, then football (soccer) is the only remotely logical option. Hack (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Soccer" is unambiguous, universally understood, and a very common name for the sport. (Didn't I say that before? Several times? Did it get ignored? Several times?) HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hack, Wikipedia calls the sport association football, that is unless there is an overwhelming pull from official name/common name (i.e. soccer in United States, football in Spain). As there is arguably no overwhelming pull from official name/common name, arguably is the key word, the sport should be referred to as association football, as it has been.--2nyte (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with "soccer"? (Didn't I ask that before? Wasn't the question ignored before?) It's unambiguous, universally understood, and a very common name for the sport. (Didn't I say that before? Several times? Did it get ignored? Several times?). "Association football" is neither a common name nor universally understood. So "soccer" wins 3-1. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

2nyte - association football is used for the main article because the word football is ambiguous on a global basis. Each individual country makes a call on which name to use based on local usage. Generally this is football where there is no significant alternative usage. In countries where there is no clear majority usage, an alternative like football (soccer), association football or soccer is used. Hack (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hack, football (soccer) can't be used [3], soccer is a historical term with only regional usage, football is the official term for the sport and association football is well established on wikipedia as the official term for the sport.--2nyte (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Official usage is irrelevant if the name is either ambiguous or is not the common name per WP:ARTICLETITLE. Hack (talk) 11:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

(*)football is the official and common term for the sport.--2nyte (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

For at least half the Australian population, it's NOT the common name. You have been told this many times. Why do you keep writing bullshit? HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification is needed on Football (soccer). Is it Football (soccer) → Football (association football), or is it Football (soccer) → Association football (association football)? In both cases I see problems. The first is simply soccer, which comes back to the common name/official name debate. The second does not support naming conventions as there is not subset.--2nyte (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your question is unclear. What are you asking? Hack (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In Football (soccer) is "Football" supposed to mean football or association football because in both cases there are problems.--2nyte (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is - you'd just pipe the link eg [[association football|football (soccer)]]. Hack (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me. If you break down Football (soccer) so you have one part "Football" and the other part "(soccer)", what is meant by "Football"? Is it supposed to mean football - defined as a number of sports that involve, to varying degrees, kicking a ball with the foot to score a goal. Or is it supposed to mean association football - defined as a sport played between two teams of eleven players with a spherical ball. Because in both cases there are problems, as stated above.--2nyte (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you wouldn't want it to be about "kicking a ball with the foot to score a goal". The only game I know where that's the only way of scoring a goal is Australian football. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Observation

This argument has been rehashed time and time again, its very clear that the word Football in an Australian context is ambiguous, moving forward its clear that some editors just wont accept the unambiguous Soccer as the title. So discontinuing that line there are two options left either association football or the disambiguated football(soccer). Suggest that editors just have a poll and see which has the better support; Gnangarra 12:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Football (soccer) as a compromise. Association football doesn't work from a disambiguation point of view. Hack (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

NO! Until somebody provides a rational answer to "What's wrong with Soccer", a question that's been asked a thousand times, I won't play this game. Refusal to answer that question does not mean that the single unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the sport should be ruled out. Oh, and "I don't like it" isn't a valid reason. HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If there was no validity in the argument it would not have gone on for so long. There is a legitimate reason for change, it's not personal opinion. The reason is football has replaced soccer as the name for the sport in Australia (Football Federation Australia, Capital Football, Northern New South Wales Football, Football Federation Northern Territory, Football NSW, Football Queensland, Football Federation Tasmania, Football Federation Victoria, Football West, Australian Olympic Committee, Australian Institute of Sport, increased usage in media). Shouldn't wikipedia reflect this. This is not like the case of North America, where soccer has 100% common and official usage. This may not be the case in specific regions, but nationally football has replaced soccer as the official and common name in Australia. We shouldn't just disregard that and pretend like the change never happened because specific regions choose to call the sport soccer. That would just be nonsensical and missleading.--2nyte (talk) 02:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You say "...football has replaced soccer as the name for the sport in Australia." No it hasn't. Next? HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you not see the facts presented in front of your eyes or are you just ignoring it. Where major sporting bodies previously used soccer now they use football, there is an increasing use of football in the media. Please HiLo48, tell me with these facts in mind how soccer has remained the official and common name for the sport in Australia.--2nyte (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If you were talk to the average person in the street about football without giving any clue as to which code you are talking about, you will be asked to explain which version you are talking about. This is no different - you need to clearly and concisely explain which form of football is being spoken about because the word football in Australia is still ambiguous without a qualifier. Hack (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hack, I'm in support of association football. The reason I'm bringing up football is to counter the soccer argument; football is flawed, soccer is flawed, football (soccer) is flawed, association football is the alternative.--2nyte (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And there we go again. You say "...soccer is flawed". No. It is non-ambiguous, universally understood, and the most widely used common name. We are not here to assist with marketing a new name that does not meet the aforementioned criteria, nor use a name that nobody understands. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Marketing or not, it has been adapted (increasingly so) in the media and in major sporting bodies. We cannot just ignore that. And in relation to association football, "...a name that nobody understands". Association football IS the unambiguous term for the sport on wikipedia. We're not dictating the Australian language, we're editing wikipedia articles.--2nyte (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)--2nyte (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about the sport in Australia. Per MOS:ENGVAR, the local usage is important in this context. Hack (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"Soccer" is non-ambiguous, universally understood, and the most widely used common name. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Football (soccer) for the reasons I have mentioned numerous times above. Whilst "association football" is used to differentiate from other codes of football in other countries (see: Association football in the Republic of Ireland where this exact conversation has gone on), it is my opinion that "association football", whilst an official name, is not a common name.
  As a comment, I would like to suggest that whatever the outcome of this is, that a lock gets put on this page from being moved and a review set for 12 months time with set criteria must be fulfilled in order for this page to be subject to any moves. Reason being, the move request from Association football in Australia to Soccer in Australia was passed solely on what the media called the sport (without any consideration for WP:OFFICIAL). As per the discussion above and the failed move request preceding it; despite the indisputable fact that most mainstream media now refers to the game as "football", people on the "soccer side" have now rejected this justification as being valid (for reasons that are unknown to me) when the move request back to Association football in Australia was voted down. So for as long as goalposts can be moved to satisfy a particular groups' POV, this discussion will continue for-evermore. It is also for that reason that the page cannot be referred to anything other than Football (soccer) as it was previously as it encompasses both terms. Ck786 (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ck786, I agree with everything you said besides your support for Football (soccer), as I said in the above section ([4] [5] [6]) it cannot be used as it goes against naming conventions.--2nyte (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

For the 2,387th time, on the "other" side of the Barassi Line, where it seems you two have never been, but where half of Australia's population lives, most mainstream media DOES NOT now refer to the game as "football". HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

2nyte, I do understand what you are saying. However, I am still of the opinion that "association football" fails Common name. That said, I am in more support of Association football in Australia than I am of Soccer in Australia for the reason that you highlighted here: ([7]). As for your point ([8]); the reasoning behind "Football (soccer)" is a disambiguation of Football, which is what it must be as there is already an article called Football in Australia. Ck786 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 - lets just assume what you say is true (though you have only provided a link to the online print edition of one newspaper). If half of the country's local media call it soccer, and the other half call it football, but the national media (Fox Sports, news.com.au, ABC, SBS, The Australian, Sportal, etc) all call it football, what do you do? Why should it be called one (either Soccer or Football) over the other?????? (NB. I also said MOST mainstream media, which as my examples show is correct) Ck786 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What do we do? We call it "soccer". Everybody understands "soccer". It's universally understood, non-ambiguous, and a common name to more people than any other name. That doesn't work for "football". Certainly doesn't work for "association football". I'm going to try once more. What's wrong with "soccer". Don't tell me that some would prefer something else. Tell me what's wrong with it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with Soccer in Australia? In a nutshell, it fails Common name for "at least half of the country" and also fails Official name. What is wrong with Football (soccer) in Australia? Ck786 (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I said it's A common name. And it obviously is. YOU know what it means, don't you? The problem with "Football (soccer)" is that 1. It includes the name football, which exclusively means something else on that, apparently mysterious to you, other side of the Barassi Line, and 2. Suggests that soccer is the minor name, which it isn't in that very same exotic place. Drop your Sydney centric view of the world, and your debating may improve. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Now this "Drop your Sydney centric view of the world, and your debating may improve" is a personal attack... Just sayin... For what it's worth, I could say the exact same in rebuttal to your point. ie. "Drop your 'other side of the Barassi Line' centric view of the world, etc, etc"...
Point two, in the context of the sport worldwide (and arguably in this country), "soccer" is a minority term which is completely irrelevant because, Point 3, using "soccer" in parentheses does not give any implication of minority names. Parentheses are used on Wikipedia to disambiguate a term, which is what "football (soccer)" does. Are you telling me that if you saw an article with the headline Football (soccer) in Australia that people would be confused as to what it was about??? Ck786 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the online usage consciously disambiguates the various footballs by placing AFL and/or the rugby codes before football in menus. We don't have the luxury of doing this on Wikipedia. Hack (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with the order, the various codes of football are (generally) listed as: AFL, (Rugby) League, (Rugby) Union and Football. We do have the luxury of changing Wikipedia to suit that, however that would not please the folks at project AFL. Ck786 (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for a personal attack.Hack (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Stick to facts and quality argument Ck786, not attacking imagined conspiracies. HiLo48 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

How the hell is anything I said a "personal attack"???? (1) I'm not "attacking" anyone personally and (2) If I went and put a move request on Australian Rules Football to AFL (sport) or similar, I'd suggest project AFL would not be pleased. Genuinely wondering how anything I said could be construed as a personal attack. Ck786 (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You really should stop blaming "project AFL" for being where we are at right now. There were 17 oppose votes to the Soccer in Australia RM, 2 were from members of the project. I could find only one Victorian (not including User:HiLo48 who technically never cast a vote). Opponents included a someone from the Hunter Region, NSW, another from the Riverina, NSW, someone from Sydney, two West Australians, two Queenslanders, two people from Canberra, a Brit from Yorkshire, an American, a member of WikiProject Football and another regular soccer editor. Only two of them + the Victorian, identify as AFL fans. Jevansen (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Where did I blame project AFL for anything? I simply said project AFL would be upset if I were to request a move from Australian Rules Football to the (media disambiguated term) of AFL (sport) as per the disambiguation conversation with Hack above. Ck786 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The thing about Australian English, is that we're fairly ambiguous a lot of the time, but accept that. And we generally understand both US and British variants, due to either the historical or current media exposure to those markets. Someone can root for their team, we might giggle, but we know what they are and aren't doing. You can ask the teacher for a rubber with a straight face, but understand why the US exchange student is aghast. Same with the word football. If the news says coming up "in football news" then start talking about playing Brazil or Japan, or Ange or Gallas or Del Piero, or the Glory, Heart, Victory or Wanderers we understand what they mean. If they say "in football news" and then talk about Sheedy, Judd, Ablett, the Giants, Crows or Collingwood, we understand too. But for a page here, both what I normally call football and what some others call football both need disambiguation. Australian rules football is the disambiguated name for my favourite sport, not it's official name Australian football (and I wouldn't even object to that redirecting straight to Football in Australia, not just a hatnote) nor the commonname football, for obvious reasons. I really don't care if this page is at Soccer in Australia or Association football in Australia or Football (soccer) in Australia. My preference is probably Soccer followed by Football (soccer) (although that does fail the "subset" norm of parentheses disambiguation, as explained on the FAQ on Talk:Association football: "On Wikipedia, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set of which the article's subject is a part. Therefore, the title "Football (soccer)" implies that football is a form of soccer, which is not the case." . It simply can't be Football in Australia as that is too ambiguous. The-Pope (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point about redirecting Australian Football to Football in Australia and whilst I'm on it, I'd have thought AFL (sport) should redirect to the codes' page of Australian rules football rather than the Leagues' page, but that's something for the AFL project (am I allowed to refer to them?) to decide. I understand the subset norm to be a guideline rather than a strict process (correct me if I am wrong) and I'm sure you'll agree this scenario is hardly "normal". No better example of this is the Football (association football) page itself - using the Wiki norm, that means that Football is a type of Association Football.
As Gnangarra pointed out at the start of this section, it really is down to using the Wikipedia standard name for the sport, "Association Football" or combining the two common names of the sport in Australia, into the disambiguated "Football (soccer)". My care factor is waning as to which it is, but it is clear that it cannot be Football or Soccer in isolation for reasons mentioned.
Also for what it's worth I regularly see/hear the sport being referred to as football on the national news' (Sky, Fox, ABC, SBS, etc). It is usually delivered as "...in A-League football news..." to disambiguate and Australian Rules Football is introduced as "...in AFL news..." - Ck786 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

For some of us, the objections to using AFL to refer to the sport compared to the League is probably equal or greater than the round ball fans objections the use of the word soccer! Using the "subset" rule, then it should be directed to the sport which is called AFL, but I think you are right in saying it's a guideline that isn't always followed. The mainly US sport standard of using (ice hockey), (American football) or (rugby league) as qualifiers not (ice hockey player) etc breaks that rule and instead uses what's in the parentheses to clarify the field in which the first name is notable for. Colin Campbell (ice hockey) isn't a form of ice hockey. Football (soccer) uses the parenthesis as clarification, not as a subset, and is probably becoming my preferred option. The-Pope (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In the scenario of Football (association football), a good comparison would be Defender (association football). I still support Association football over Football (soccer), as I pointed out here ([9] [10] [11]) "Football (soccer)" should not be used. Also, just adding my thoughts on Australian rules football. I think Australian football and AFL (sport) should both redirect to Australian rules football, as Australian football is the sports official name and AFL (sport) is specifically referring to the sport itself, not the league (as AFL is the common name of the sport to many people).--2nyte (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ck786 - Why can't it be "Soccer in isolation"? It's non-ambiguous, 100% clear at all times to all Australians, and at least A common name. In fact, given that soccer fans are a minority all over the country, it may be the most common name, because only hard core fans are obsessed with changing the name. No evidence to the contrary has been produced, just the ideology of some members of that minority of hard core fans. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, this has already been discussed. When you say "only hard core fans are obsessed with changing the name", I assume you are referring to the Olympic Committee, the Australian Institute of Sport, the national governing bodies of the sport and the national mainstream media (Fox Sports, news.com.au, ABC, SBS, The Australian, Sportal, etc) as "hard core fans".--2nyte (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That post is factually wrong, and contains irrelevancies (the AOC), and you have been told so many times. Can editors be blocked for repeatedly posting bullshit? HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that was quite uncivil. Can you please explain how my post was is "factually wrong, and contains irrelevancies"?--2nyte (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

There is more than one way to be uncivil. Persistently ignoring consensus that has been achieved on multiple occasions is one of them. On one of those more recent occasions, the closing Admin made the quite reasonable request that articles relating to Australia's international football involvement not be changed to using "soccer" (despite the name Socceroos ). Those of us opposing your obsession have followed that recommendation. Australia national association football team has rightly been left alone. (Despite the grammatically incorrect use of Australia rather than Australian.) Similarly, the AOC's interest is in international football. It's practices are irrelevant to this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of evidence has been produced, repeated and subsequently ignored by people who have their blinkers on numerous times in this (and previous) conversation(s). As 2nyte posted; National Media (Fox, Sky, news.com.au, The Australian, SBS, Sportal, ABC, etc, etc, etc, etc) and the vast majority of online media, State and Federal Institutes of Sport, State and Federal Governments, State and Federal Organising bodies and more. How much more evidence do you need. Show me your current quantitative evidence that supports "soccer"... I'll wait here. Ck786 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep waiting here. I might be a while. It's slow going with these blinkers on you know. (If you wait here does that mean you won't be posting more nonsense down below?) HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to be a while because you are just going to ignore a perfectly valid question, or are you going to be a while because the quantitative evidence to support your position does not exist? Ck786 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No. It's mainly because I can't be bothered answering it again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 - you've not answered that question at all. If you do not wish to repeat yourself, please provide a link to such a list of quantitative evidence. Ck786 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Soccer in Australia: It is clear and universally understood. If going with the contstruct football (code), I think Football (rugby league) in Australia and Football (Australian football) in Australia should be considered for the sake of consistency in naming conventions. --LauraHale (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If we're aiming for consistency across wikipedia, why not Football in Australia like the vast majority of other country's pages? Ck786 (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Because consistency isn't the #1 goal - the readers are. Orderinchaos 02:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That's my point... Ck786 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What's your point? That ALL readers matter? Including the 50% of Australians to whom "football" ONLY means Aussie Rules, and who only ever use the name "soccer" for the round ball game? HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As you conceded in discussing this topic with 2nyte, the word football is not associated with "ONLY one sport" no matter which country you are in, no matter what side of a fictional line you are on... Ck786 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ck786:, I've written a fair amount of content about soccer and the consistency you point to does not actually exist. If you want to align globally, United States men's national soccer team and USA construction seems to indicate a preference for soccer. Let's be consitent like USA articles are and call the articles by the most commonly understood name nationally in Australia and to an English speaking audience. Yo hablo español un pocito y los personas en españa que llaman el juego de fútbol. ¿Cuál es tu excusa? ¿En qué idioma se escribe en Wikipedia? ¿Inglés? El nombre en Inglés es Soccer. No hablas un lenguaje que llama al partido de fútbol. --LauraHale (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

LauraHale - the difference between the USA and Australia cases are that the sport is solely referred to as Soccer in the USA. In the media, on the street, by official governing bodies, by the government, by schools, universities, academies... everyone. That is not the case in Australia. The comparison is non-existent and thus irrelevant. Ck786 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Soccer in Australia - Football is an ambiguous term in Australia as is amply demonstrated and discussed above - were it not, this discussion would not be talking place. Further to this, depending on which state you're in, "football" or "footy" in common parlance means either Australian football or rugby league. Soccer as a term is used by most, and understood by all. Orderinchaos 02:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In fact, it's worse than that. On the AFL side of the Barassi Line "football" isn't ambiguous at all. To the vast majority of that half of Australia's population it means only one thing, Australian football. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is precisely why the disambiguated Football (soccer) would serve both purposes of avoiding the confusion as well as utilising the Official oame and alternative Common name of the sport. Ck786 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support the current title of Soccer in Australia. As this is the most common name of the sport in Australia, it is unambiguous whereas "association football" and "football" can be ambiguous, and is universally understood as to what sport is being discussed. "Football (soccer)" is not suitable as football is not a subset of soccer, but in saying that, "Soccer (football)" could be suitable as soccer is a subset of football, like all the other codes of football are also subsets of football. – Marco79 08:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The subset guideline is just that, a guide. It is by no means a concrete standard as was proven earlier with the example of Football (association football); Football is not a subset of Association Football. Secondly, how is "Association Football" ambiguous? Ck786 (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree that "Association Football" is not really ambiguous. Most people just find it meaningless. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Ck786, association football can also mean VAFA, WAFA, etc. But for older generations, particularly in Victoria, "association football" referred to the football played in the VFA and "league football" referred to the football played in the VFL. Though these days "association football" is less ambiguous than it was 25 or more years ago.

HiLo48, you're right that most people will find "association football" meaningless with regards to soccer, and as such soccer is still the best and less ambiguous option. – Marco79 09:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Marco - no offence intended, but given that we are editing an article in 2013, what Association Football meant in the VFL generation is as redundant as the name VFL itself (wrt to the name of the national competition). Same for "soccer". The use of the word "soccer" is waning however is not (and probably never will be) completely obsolete at least in a common name capacity for some parts of the country. However, for the majority of fans, the governing bodies, the government, national media, the primary name to refer to the sport is, whether people like it or not, football, hence the Football (soccer) suggestion. I'd be interested on your response to the answer to your subset concerns I raised above. Ck786 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Support change to Association football "Soccer" is an English Public School term from the 19th century. Many Wikipedians find its use offensive. If we followed the logic offered here we'd still be using the "n" and "b" words in articles about indigenous Australians simply because the usage in frequent and "everyone knows what you are referring to". Silent Billy (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That is offensive and ridiculous both to Indigenous Australians and fans of the game. I suggest you retract that comment. Hack (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the word "soccer" to those offensive words used for Indigenous Australians is not only offensive, but stupid. There is no comparison at all and I also request that you, Silent Billy, retract that comment. – Marco79 09:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Billy has made the very strange "offensive" claim a couple of times before. I've asked him to explain both times, and all that happens is that he disappears from this discussion for a few months, then reappears as if he hasn't read anything anybody else has said, makes the same idiotic claims, and disappears again. The "soccer = football" team needs a bit more consistency and interactivity from its players. (As well as needing logic and facts.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have NEVER met anyone who finds the name "soccer" offensive. (Unless chatting here means I've met you, Billy, and you're one of the sensitive ones. Who are the others?) Please explain how it offends. Oh, and don't ever travel. You may accidentally find yourself on the other side of the Barassi Line, and be offended several times every day. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Despite being a biased AFL fan, I actually have a copy of Johnny Warren's autobiography Sheilas, wogs & poofters and in it he uses both football and soccer interchangeably, often in the the same paragraph. A speech by Les Murray on Warren's induction into the hall of fame uses the word "football" twice and "soccer" five times. The front and back covers have the word "soccer" 9 times, "Socceroos" twice, "world game" once but no mention of "football". And in case you think things have changed in the 11 years since the book was published, remember that one of the biggest sports TV shows in England is called Soccer AM. To paraphrase Stephen Fry "'When you hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so what?' The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The term soccer is used differently all around the world, so you're not really seeing the full picture if you simply say that Soccer AM has 'soccer' in it, or Socceroo has the word 'soccer' in it. In Australia the team has strong connotation to the struggles of the game and its supporters. The-Pope brought up Johnny Warren's autobiography Sheilas, Wogs & Poofters; that perfectly depicts the hostility which the sport (under soccer) underwent. To an extent the term football has strong connotation to the strength and force of the modern world-wide game, that is probably why FFA chose to use it over soccer. The term soccer has a long history of usage in Australia - whether people do or don't recognise the connotation, the history is irrelevant - what is relevant though, is that there has been a push to the term football, and whether or not that push has been accepted in the various regions, it should be noted that the 'new' term for the sport is at least recognise. Soccer and football are now interchangeable in Australian language with the new term fiercely pushing for dominance even though it may be ambiguous in some regions.--2nyte (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. Soccer and football are NOT interchangeable in Australian language on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, but you wouldn't know that, because you've never been there (and ideology prevents you believing what others tell you). All of the secondary schools I've worked at (around 15 of them) have a football team and a soccer team. Naturally it's true for every school in that half of Australia. I cannot see that ever changing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, it is common sense. I doubt people on the "Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line" are as ill witted as you make them out to be - that they can not comprehend what Football Federation Australia is, or Football Federation Victoria, or Football West, or South Melbourne FC. There is only one Australian language and in it football is defined and recognised as more than just one sport, i.e. the term football can be interchangeable for soccer, just as the term football can be interchangeable for Aussie rules, or football for rugby league. That is the Australian language.--2nyte (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what unbelievable arrogance. Never been there, but knows exactly how people on the other side of the Barassi Line think. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, let's get this straight. Are you saying that people on the "Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line" only, may I emphasize ONLY know one sport as football, and that is Australian rules football, that they will not recognise nor acknowledge soccer as football, that they have no knowledge of other sports (nationally or internationally) being referred to as football, that they ONLY know one sport (Australian rules football) as football? I would doubt that, although some would call me arrogant.--2nyte (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, would you care to elaborate on that no.--2nyte (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Again... Because you don't have a reason or because the reason is invalid? Ck786 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support Association football - Soccer is no longer the definitive term for the sport in Australia (as it previously was), therefor it should not be represented as such on wikipedia. In some cases, the best fit is not always the right fit. This is such a curcumstance. Unambiguous, universally understood, and a very common name for the sport can very well apply to association football on wikipedia. Simply because it is not soccer and not football makes it the unequivocal best outcome for Australian articles on wikipedia - not just Victoria, not just New South Wales, but the whole of Australia. Let us agree to this and end the discussion once and for all - hopefully.--2nyte (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's just plain idiotic to claim that "Association football" is universally understood. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, association football is universally understood on wikipedia (which I specified), all that is needed is a link (association football). That is what we currently do anyway - provide links to association football.--2nyte (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. Yes, you did say "on Wikipedia". But why use such an obscure term, when there is a truly unambiguous, universally understood (by ALL Australians), common name already available? Can you guess what it is? HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

No, association football is not an obscure term on wikipedia. It is truly unambiguous, universally understood (by ALL Australians ON WIKIPEDIA) and a common name with a history of usage on wikipedia. It's no about what's 'more right', it's about what is the best fit and association football is just that, the best fit.--2nyte (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Only for those with a consciously ill-informed, fanatical, ideologically driven, consensus denying obsession with foolishly avoiding the perfectly good word soccer. HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There is much opposition for football and for soccer and there is none for association football, why can't that be the better term?--2nyte (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a stupid thing to say. I oppose Association football, and the opposition to soccer is clearly driven by an irrational, consciously ill-informed, fanatical, ideologically driven, consensus denying obsession. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Your opposition to association football has been that it is an obscure term and is not universally understood, to which I replied that on wikipedia it is universally understood. My opposition to soccer is that it has been replaced by football in an official sense and that its common usage has decreased in recent time, especially in national media; it is unreasonable to use soccer as the definitive term for the sport in Australia when it is not used as such - and when there is split usage (football/soccer) association football should be used in its stead, this is such a circumstance. Is that not reasonable?--2nyte (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@2nyte, I also oppose association because of the VAFA. The term association football can and does mean Australian rules football. You'd be using a more ambigious name, not less. Worse yet, your name convention would make the proposed solution inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia names for the article. See United States men's national soccer team. No hablas un lenguaje que llama al partido de fútbol. ¿Cuál es su problema? En el mundo de habla Inglés, el juego se llama soccer. If it is good enough for the USA, which has similar problems with multiple codes laying claim to the name football, why is it not good enough for Australia? --LauraHale (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the Victorian Amateur Football Association, the name refers to "Football" (as in Australian rules football) not association football.--2nyte (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Which version of the Australian football rules do they use? Mainstream football rules, or association football rules? I don't know for sure, and would have to look it up, and it's obvious you won't know. I seriously recommend that you avoid commenting on how things work in a place you've never visited, and about whose linguistic intricacies you know almost nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In Victorian Amateur Football Association or Australian Amateur Football Council, the sport is referred to as Football and they play an amateur level of Australian rules football (correct me if I'm wrong). There is no trace of association football rules on wikipedia (Variations of Australian rules football) or anywhere I can find.--2nyte (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not certain what variations they have. One is definitely that the umpires can send players off. That doesn't happen in the AFL. I do know that the old Victorian Football Association, which only disappeared quite recently, allowed only 16 players on the ground, not 18. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

National Basketball Association, Victorian Amateur Football Association, the old Victorian Football Association, even The Football Association; the name has Association in it, though it doesn't draw any reference to the sport of association football.--2nyte (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

So where's the "association" that "association football" is named after? This is silly. Association football is a concocted name that you think would be nice because you don't like soccer, but nobody outside Wikipedia knows what it is. What's wrong with soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo - "What's wrong with Football (soccer)?? Ck786 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Many things, which have all been mentioned above and elsewhere. Don't answer a (very pertinent) question with another question. It implies you have no answer. What's wrong with soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Many things, which have all been mentioned above and elsewhere. And it's a bit rich for you to accuse someone of not having an answer when for whatever reason you have dodged/not answered many questions throughout this debate where it has suited you. Ck786 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This bullshit has been going on for so long that I reckon I've answered every possible question I could be asked multiple times. But I haven't seen a sensible answer to "What's wrong with soccer?" HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Soccer is universally understood by an Australian audience, is the commonly word used in the country to describe the domestic game and meets WP:PRECISE because of potential linguistic confusion over what football code is being played. Soccer is no more an alternative to the phrase "wogball" than "football" is. If this was true, I suspect we'd have complaints with Channel Seven and Channel Ten, SBS and the FFA over the use of the phrase. I too am curious as to why soccer is not acceptable given the linguistic preference for soccer in the anglo-speaking world outside of the British Isles? --LauraHale (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

given the linguistic preference for soccer in the anglo-speaking world outside of the British Isles. I'm assuming that has a well-sourced reference that can be provided? Last time I asked HiLo48 for a source to backup random claims it was ignored or deflected, so here's hoping that you can provide one for yours. In any case, with this recent development, we'd better get cracking given we must now change EVERY national article about "Football in _______" to "Soccer in _______". Ck786 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's soccer in the USA, by far the biggest English speaking country. Off the top of my head I'm pretty sure it's soccer in South Africa, Canada and New Zealand. Apart from the UK, where is it not soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Most English-speaking countries in the Caribbean and Africa use football, eg Football in Jamaica, Football in Ghana, Football in Nigeria. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Three examples don't make "Most". But thanks anyway. So clearly, apart from the UK, in the countries most culturally close to Australia, it's clearly soccer. Given that, and the fact that soccer is the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia, I cannot think of any argument for not using it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

1) South Africa use both terms, like Australia. 2) If you are talking about the neologism, Anglosphere of the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, then by sheer virtue of the fact that the US has a greater population than all of the other countries combined, you can say that "soccer" is the most popular term. If you are referring to all countries where English is an official language, given this includes India which has a population of roughly 17% of the entire global population, and the sport is referred to as Football in India, then you would be incorrect. In reality, it is only the USA and Canada that solely use "soccer". Ck786 (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep. That's obviously why I didn't claim that anybody else solely uses "soccer". Why did you introduce such a red herring? Anything to avoid answering the question? What's wrong with soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "soccer", per se, but I'm yet to see any evidence that it is overwhelmingly the most common term used in Australia for association football. Even the Australian national association is called Football Federation Australia, in stark contrast to its former name, "Soccer Australia". Now, I'm not trying to suggest that the name the official governing body uses for the sport should be the name we use here, but surely it suggests that use of the term "football" to mean association football is prevalent enough in Australia to make it recognisable (unlike in the United States and Canada, where "football" almost never refers to association football). Clearly "football" isn't a term we can use exclusively to refer to association football as played in Australia, but its use does rather impinge on the all-encompassing supremacy you seem to think "soccer" has. Oh, and by the way, "football (soccer)" is, was and always will be a bollocks alternative. – PeeJay 00:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, another disingenuous misrepresentation of my position, which actually is that "soccer" is the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. In a difficult situation, it's the best choice. HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I'm not asking for this page to be moved and I would not support a move to any title other than Association football in Australia. You asked what was wrong with "soccer", and I told you. Try to keep up, dear. – PeeJay 01:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you didn't tell me. You just misrepresented my position. Not good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No HiLo48, you are misrepresenting everyone else's position; a position to only move to Association football in Australia, nothing else.--2nyte (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Your real position is an obsessional, irrational, unjustifiable opposition to the name soccer, which is the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. Association football is neither universally understood nor a common name. What's wrong with soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. The article is already titled Soccer in Australia. Why are you complaining? – PeeJay 10:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not. Why are you asking stupid questions? HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you're old enough to be using a computer? With responses like that, it's hard to tell. – PeeJay 10:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Fish in a barrel. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support football (soccer) in Australia: A decent compromise that contains both names and recognises the facts that the government, governing body and most media outlets refer to the sport as football. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Where was the first game played?

I'm genuinely confused.

Until last night the article said Parramatta in the Infobox, then it was changed to Goodna, without any change in sourcing. I reverted for that reason, but my old mate Pete/Skyring tells me it IS sourced. For the life of me I can't see where.

Meanwhile, in the History part of the text I'm told that the first game was in Wacol. I don't know Brisbane well. Is Wacol equivalent to Goodna? Whatever, this IS confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This article makes the claim on the basis of this article from 1875 that the game played in August 1875 was association football. The first article quotes a historian who seems to validate the claim. The 2012 article mentions Goodna, the original article says Woogaroo while the actual asylum is in the current suburb of Wacol. Hack (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I simply did a search of the page for the word "Goodna" and found the source. In the list of sources. I've spent a lot of time in Wacol, for school and army courses, and the difference between Wacol and Goodna is minimal. A few hundred metres. As is easily discovered through Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is where was the location of the The Park Centre for Mental Health in 1875. As for the first game played, I have rewritten the section (with intentions to continue editing/adding info) so to clear up that. The first game to be played under the laws of the game was in 1880, Parramata. The matches which came before were variants of the sport, not the official game; they are noteworthy but not the official first game played in Australia.--2nyte (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Google maps has the location of The Park Centre for Mental Health in Wacol [12], as does the address on the Queensland Gov. website [13].--2nyte (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation 2nyte, and for your edits overnight. It looks a lot better now. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

Can we leave the unsourced information out? If the information is important, it can be added back with sources that support the text. This is very important because otherwise, there is a very real concern about original research and synthesis material appearing in the article that violates neutral point of view. Having it fully sourced will also make the article more useful for people writing daughter articles, and assist in preventing future drama. --LauraHale (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Football in Australia

Just seeking to draw a wider range of informed opinion at Talk:Football in Australia regarding that article's future (whether persisting with the attempt at a comprehensive and well-balanced broad-concept article and how best to achieve that, or returning it to a simple disambiguation page). Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion under "Split/Merge Proposal" is my viewpoint on the situation. The page is completely non-necessary, and it's parts split into the specific sport articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The term football in Australia should be a disambiguation page with all codes linked to it to end this silly nonsense over which sport in this country is football. While I take the stance that the FFA takes "old soccer, new football," this is clearly an unresolvable matter among rugby league and AFL supporters who refuse to acknowledge the use of the dominant worldwide terminology for the game as well as the terminology accepted in this country by its governing body. As such to remove the nuances of such debates I think we should link all football codes to a disambiguation page under football in Australia --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

POV regarding gender

I added the pov tag because a quick read through indicates that the article does not encompass both women's and men's soccer as one would expect in an article with a general name such as this one is. The links that sound general take you to a men's team. Women's soccer is put in one section. That seems very outdated. I realize that the title has been under discussion over a period of time so I'm not unilaterally moving it but instead tagging it to show that the bias needs to be addressed. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on Talk:Australia national association football team about gender equality in article names. Anyway, about this article. When I cleaned-up the article a few months ago, I moved most of the women's information to Women's soccer in Australia, I didn't think there was any bias in doing so, though as a result the article became solely about the men's game. To make it more inclusive of the women's game I clearly stated 'Men's national teams' in that section and I added some representation of the women's game in the specific section with a Main link to Women's soccer in Australia. The women's game has grown separately to that of the men's, and it still does - maybe that should be included in the article. But again, I don't think there's any bias.--2nyte (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

An article with this general title needs to be inclusive of all aspects of soccer in Australia and not focus on men's soccer or the highest levels, and then have the other aspects of soccer appear as add-ons. Otherwise it seems as if the men's game is the "normal" game and the rest are alternatives. This is framing the content in a way that does not make a judgement about which kinds of participation in the sport are more important to be covered. Instead the content is driven by discussing the full range of ways that soccer is experienced. Being able to print one stand alone article that discusses the full range of soccer in Australia should be our goal. To accomplish this I think the article needs some tweaking. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The women's article already existed, I only wanted to expand it, and in doing so I removed the content specific to the women's game. I did add the women's section which has specific content to the women's game though otherwise I didn't think it a good idea to duplicate the information from Women's soccer in Australia to this article. This article still contains general information on the game (not specific to a gender).--2nyte (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there 2nyte, I'll be happy to work with you to create a general comprehensive standalone article about Soccer in Australia. IMO, soccer/football is one of the most important topics for Wikipedia to have a comprehensive general article because it is an important global topic and there is a high probability that the article it will be included in print books and an abridged offline Wikipedia as well as being read online. So whether the reader is looking at a general online article or one that is more focused, it is important to have a good overview of an important topic like soccer/football. Right now the way the article is organized it is primarily about the development of the men's game in Australia that led to the top national teams with much less mention of the other ways that soccer is commonly experienced in Australia. The good news is that Wikipedia is a work in progress and no one expects perfection today. But it would be really great if we can get this article up to feature article quality since it is an important topic. To do that now, it will need to be much more comprehensive. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but in terms of gender and Women's soccer in Australia. I would rather not duplicate the information on this article. What would be the better option, merging it with this article or continuing to develop the women's article similar to Women's football in England and Football in England?--2nyte (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see this article as a comprehensive general article so it will give a general overview of all aspect of the sport of soccer in Australia. This would include a general high level discussion of each aspect of soccer, including women's soccer, woven throughout the article as appropriate. Some of this will overlap a bit with the women's soccer article, but not as detailed. This will largely depend on the need for the article to be written in a manner that gives the reader a broad understanding of the topic. Remember, the women's soccer article exists to be more detailed about women's soccer. Additionally, a section on Women's soccer in this article could be included to give a summary of the topic if weaving the information throughout the article leaves some gaps in coverage. Or we want to draw the readers attention to subtopics like Women's soccer, or youth soccer. The content of this article is intended to include a broad range of information in one article so that it can be be stand alone article about the broader topic. Does that make sense? Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the article to this version before the system purge of wome by @2nyte:. The version that was here could be renamed Men's soccer in Australia without a problem. --LauraHale (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

LauraHale, please don't make careless edits like that. I spent many hours rewriting the article, adding references and content. I am welcoming of further edits but please do not 'restore' the page as you did.--2nyte (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)