Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Australian rules football / Association football / Rugby / Sports (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon Naming conventions (Football in Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Australian football (soccer) task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Rugby league.

Wellington Phoenix - an unacceptable edit?[edit]

A seemingly angry IP editor has just changed the game Wellington Phoenix plays from "soccer" to "association football". Now, I'm open to discussion on that one. (I tried above.) But the Edit is somewhat questionable.

Firstly, the Edit summary says "The league this team plays for is irrelevant." Well, that's just silly. Of course it's relevant. It's perhaps arguable whether it should be the deciding factor, but it's definitely relevant.

Then we have the Edit summary saying "The Phoenix are a NZ based team - in NZ we call this game by it's correct name. The RfC around the naming convention on Australian articles does not apply here." OK, it may seem reasonable for a fan from New Zealand to say that, but the funny thing is, the IP editor's address geolocates to Ryde, NSW, back across the ditch in Sydney, Australia. Now, one of the regular IP editors campaigning for the game to be called anything but "soccer" comes from Ryde.

Why on earth can't those who don't like the name "soccer" be more honest? This dishonesty takes that whole name changing right out of the good faith arena.

So, two issues here. What DO we do about Wellington Phoenix? And what do we do about dishonest edits?

(I just checked this IP editors past contributions. Back on 17 February he vandalised my Talk page!)

John, are you still watching? HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an Australian league even though this team is in New Zealand. Just change it and cite this page here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Well that is abit complicated. The argument here is that they do not use Association Football in Australia. He says they do mainly there in NZ.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
But do they? They might, but the credibility of the IP editor in question is shot. I'd like to hear from some real New Zealanders happy to make good faith, honest contributions. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No one but the sources are credible. My personal knowledge is they have a split usage similar to Australia. When using football they generally add a code qualifier such as Association football. You should probably request the IP to verify what he has said.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There would be no point in doing that. I don't believe he has anything constructive to offer. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
He said, "in NZ we call this game by it's correct name." A conversation about this is meaningless. A reliable source however is as constructive as can be. He gave you a resonable basis for his change. Now is his reasonable basis true? The only way you can answer that is with a reliable source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I say a conversation with him is pointless. He's not even in New Zealand. He's in Sydney Australia! So when he said "we", he was playing a somewhat tricky game. I'm not wasting my time going down that path, but I do wish some real New Zealanders could join us here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello HiLo48. Not sure a conversation about this is pointless, as you put it, but I'm happy to have a discussion - are you? In terms of your geo-location investigation, unfortunately your methods are flawed and your outcome incorrect. I live, and work in New Zealand. The company I work for (who's internet I was using at the time of the edit, and I am using now) has it's headquarters in Sydney, Australia. I'm afraid you've geo-located a corporate proxy server, located in a data centre in Sydney. Well done, but don't quit your day job. There's around 10,000 other people who sit behind the same firewall. Before anyone jumps to conclusions as John has done twice recently, I am not Osteres, and I am not Macktheknife, nor am I affiliated with these editors in any way - I will happily and vehemently defend any suggestion to the contrary. OK .. Now that we're all friends - on to business. The Phoenix - yep, they play in the A-League competition, and this fact is obviously important in the context of the content of the article (we wouldn't have much in the article if this weren't the bulk of it would we?). It is irrelevant however, in the context of naming of the sport the team play given that this is a NZ based team, a NZ based article and the consensus reached in the RfC is specific to articles pertaining to Australian sporting teams where there may be ambiguity surrounding the term football which could mean association football, Aussie rules, NRL or Rugy union. You refer to the Barassi Line fairly regularly in support of your view for the naming convention - this line obviously does not apply here in New Zealand. In New Zealand the most popular game by far, is Rugby Union - I think you'll struggle to find a Kiwi who is not a supporter of the All Blacks. We don't call this game football - we call it Rugby or simply 'Union'. Football means Association Football (what you're referring to as soccer). (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think any foreign branches of Australian companies would use Australian IPs.. The internet doesn't really work that way. Spinrad (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually I'll take that comment back. Spinrad (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
New Zealand Herlad article containing usage of the word "football".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the more polite contribution 61... And thank you to Gibson Flying V for pointing out the obvious exception, where "rugby" is referred to as "football". I also note that when I hover my mouse over the heading "Sport" on that page to see what other sports are covered, up comes the magic word "Soccer"! 61..., you may mean well, but your absolute statements about what New Zealanders call their various sports are just plain wrong. Just as in Australia, I'm sure every New Zealander knows what soccer is. How many ever call the round ball game "Association football"? And the fact that Phoenix plays in the A-League HAS to be relevant. It would be silly to describe a game involving two teams in that competition and have them playing differently named sports. So, can we continue this conversation a little more honestly, firstly acknowledging that the name "football" IS used for "rugby", secondly, that "soccer" is a perfectly sensible name for the round ball game, that will confuse absolutely nobody, thirdly, that the league the team plays in IS relevant, and fourthly, nobody EVER actually calls the game "Association football"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
In response to the four points/questions - 1. There would be occasion, but for the most part we don't refer to Rugby as football - the game is played with your hands. The ball typically connects with the foot only once every 5-10 mins. 2. Perhaps in Australia where there is the ambiguity you've discussed above, we don't suffer from that over here. 3. Disagree. It's relevant but not in the context of what's being discussed here. 4. Some call it Association football, but the majority just call it football, adding the 'Association' is just a more formal / official way of naming the sport. (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I note that 61.... has again reverted the name of the game played by Wellington to "football", making that three reverts in less than 24 hours. I won't edit war, or play that game, but I don't think much of an editor who makes a statement here, then reverts. That's not good faith editing. Nor is it discussing. It's obvious that 61... is wrong about several points in his earlier claim, but he's saying now "it's just a little bit" or similar. His contributions do not help here. Can any New Zealanders provide us with rational discussion and behaviour please? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the original reason for the name "football" is not because the ball is kicked by feet but because the game is played by running about ~ "on foot" in other words. Afterwriting (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edit to the article by as it appears to almost certainly be an IP edit by the indefinitely blocked Orestes. The arguments, personal style and terminology are very similar if not identical ~ such as the claim of "universal consensus". The IP's editing history also suggests that this person is in Australia and not from New Zealand as claimed. Afterwriting (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly see very similar confrontational and bad faith behaviour. I would love to unearth some soccer fans who don't behave that way. I'm sure they exist, but we don't seem to see them here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I have checked the IP address and, unsurprisingly, it resolves to Optus, Australia's second largest telco. I think we can take it as read that this is not someone posting from New Zealand and we should not take at face value any representations made by that editor as to common usage in New Zealand. I also note that one of the socks Orestes used after he was indeffed, also was an Optus one. This is not proof, of course, but given Afterwriting's perceptive observations above I think this is a case for the application of the duck principle and there certainly seems to be a fair amount of quacking going on. - Nick Thorne talk 07:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Late to the party but I'm here. I think this is very simple. Wellington Phoenix is a New Zealand based club, so the article should refer to the sport as what is standard by NZ articles of the sport, i.e. using "association football".--2nyte (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

2nyte, you're smart enough to have seen that arguments against that have been presented above. You may not agree with them, but if you ignore them in your comments, your post counts for little. It will just lead to more repetition and going around in circles. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, I have read the argument but Wellington competing in the A-League does not make it an Australian club. It is administered by the NZ FA, it is in all forms a New Zealand club, just as Perth Kangaroos IFC is an Australian club.--2nyte (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Nobody claimed that Wellington is an Australian club. Try again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not be rude HiLo48. You brought this topic up and my opinion on it is that as a New Zealand based club, Wellington Phoenix should follow whatever guideline the NZ community has set on wikipedia - that is to referrer to the sport as "association football".--2nyte (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That may well be. You do of course have reliable sources that back up your apparent positions that: a. "association football" is the commmon term in NZ for the round ball game; b. that "football" does not usually mean rugby in NZ; and (presumably), c. that the word "soccer" is not commonly used in NZ. Awaiting for you to provide your references with bated breath, because surely you would not make unsupported assertions here. - Nick Thorne talk 10:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not making any assertions, I am simply stating that as a New Zealand club, Wellington has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Wellington Phoenix FC is a business, owned and operated from New Zealand.--2nyte (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
...and operates under a franchise from Sydney, Australia! Stop being so silly. Of course Australian conventions, and laws, must have SOME influence. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, I think you are going a little to far out of your comfort zone. This is a very political issue, more so then you may know. The AFC, OFC and FIFA recognize Wellington Phoenix as a New Zealand based club, with no connections to Australia. Unlike non-English clubs competing in the Premier League (which must be accepted into the FA), the non-Australian club in the A-League cannot join FFA, it must operate under NZF. The A-League license is given to NZF for them to do with it as they will - to elect a NZ based club to compete in the A-League. Wellington Phoenix is essentially an international invitee in the A-League; this, evident in the squad formation of the club (which must be made up by New Zealand citizens).--2nyte (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No connections to Australia? ROTFLMAO! What a stupid comment. The club exists only to play in an Australian league! HiLo48 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Just because you do not understand something HiLo48, it doesn't mean you should claim it to be stupid. It looks very different for this side. I did say that the AFC, OFC and FIFA recognize Wellington Phoenix as having no connections to Australia, which is why the club cannot compete in the ACL.--2nyte (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I only recognise one of those abbreviations, but it's irrelevant anyway, apart from perhaps showing that it's you who cannot see things from outside the perspective of being obsessed with just this one sport and being unable to see and describe things from a broader perspective. It's simply idiotic to say the club has no connections to Australia. Wellington's sole reason for existing is to play in an Australian soccer competition (obviously a connection to Australia), where we have agreed to describe every other club as a soccer club. The name "soccer" is universally recognised in New Zealand. It seems very pointy to argue that we shouldn't do the same for Wellington. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
AFC OFC FIFA ACL? - Nick Thorne talk 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL. As a fan of many sports, several of which are called football, your clarification of the fourth one is certainly the first thing I thought of. Don't they do their ACLs in soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So 2nyte, that would be a "no", you do not have any reliable sources to back up your claims, right? Fair enough, just wanted to be sure where we stand. - Nick Thorne talk 22:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure of the point of this argument but the Wellington Phoenix are owned by the FFA with franchise/licence/operating rights held by a consortium of NZ businessmen. Hack (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And every other one of those franchises is known as a soccer club in Wikipedia. I wonder what those NZ businessmen call the game? The point here really is that all the opposition to the name "soccer club" being used has come from an IP editor whose credentials as a New Zealander and overall credibility are seriously in doubt, and our friend 2nyte, who, while generally a good editor, has opposed any and all use of the name "soccer" in every circumstance possible for as long as I have known him here. He has also insisted that Phoenix has no connection to Australia, which is just silly. It's disappointing, because he does some great work here, but for some inexplicable reason has never been able to accept that "soccer" is a valid name for this game, and this time that absolute opposition to the word "soccer", ever, anywhere, any time, has forced him to come up with a quite illogical argument. Overall, the case against Wellington being a "soccer club" is pretty weak. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, you fail to understand the situation and even worse, I don't think you want to. You are happy to sit back as long as the decision goes you way.--2nyte (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. I do usually respect your editing efforts. But put the word "soccer" out there in front of you, and you lose all rationality. I was seriously keen to learn what the situation is in New Zealand. Unlike most of Australia, I've spent very little time in NZ, and don't know the full situation myself. But your contributions haven't helped. Nobody on the "I hate the word soccer" side has. It's all been silly stuff. One thing I'd be confident of is that all New Zealanders would at least know what "soccer" is. All the Kiwis in my neighbourhood (and there's plenty of them!) comfortably call the round ball game that. Never heard 'em call the game "Association football". But that's here, in outer Melbourne. What's the real story in NZ? Do you know? Have you been there? HiLo48 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
So did you bring this topic up to address what New Zealand calls the round ball game or to address if the Australian decision on naming should apply specifically to Wellington Phoenix FC?--2nyte (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be good to resolve the latter question. Knowing the answer to the former would assist in that process. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, to summarise where we've got to... No credible evidence has been presented that the name "Association football" is actually used at all in New Zealand. Local media in Wellington calls the game "soccer", and uses the name "football" for "rugby union". The team plays in the A-League, where very other club is to be called a "soccer club". I believe we can safely and sensibly call Wellington Phoenix a soccer club. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry to butt in so late but I've just found this while trying to track down the reason for some shenanigans at a NZ soccer article. OK. Basically, in normal NZ terminology, 'football' is rugby union. 'Rugby' is rugby union. 'League' is rugby league. 'Soccer' is the round ball game. 'Aussie rules' is Australian football (and the only context where you'll hear those two words spoken by a New Zealander in that order without heavy irony). American football is only vaguely known here, sometimes are 'gridiron'. 'Association football' is normally understood and generally gets a reaction of 'oh, you mean soccer'. Calling soccer 'football' is often confusing and marks the speaker out as a British immigrant. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I reckon that would be "recent British immigrant". I learnt the name "soccer" in Australia in the 1950s and 60s from British immigrants, who were a big portion of the population where I lived. It seems it was the common name in the UK then, but the British have since decided it's an Americanism, and hence don't like it now. See here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Football/Soccer: too late to comment?[edit]

Hi all - I'm really new at this and so I'm not entirely sure that I'm going about this the right way. I've tried to read through as much as possible of what's been written (both here, above, and on other talk pages, etc) but there's points which I haven't seen made as clearly as perhaps they should have been, and I really just want someone to fill me in on the issue. I didn't realise that the naming conventions were such a contentious issue, and that it has apparently been resolved, but anyway, here goes:

It seems to me that the main point being argued here is how the average person on the the street refers to association football, and their understanding of the term 'football'. This is something that can't just be solved by arguing about it, and as far as I can tell nobody has yet conducted a study into these questions.

So I have a question: if Wikipedia is to be encyclopaedic, why is the (defacto?) official term for the sport - as used by it's governing bodies at both national and state level, the participants (i.e. such-and-such FC), the majority of mainstream media outlets (both News corp and Fairfax media refer to the sport as 'Football', as do the ABC and SBS) and the government (department of health > sport) - NOT to be used for the naming of wikipedia articles? Why is it up to us, as users, to determine how "we" shall call the sport? This is complicated by the fact that there are differences in opinion. Given that these differences in opinion exist, why isn't the official terminology used by default?

Corporal29 (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you might like to read through the archives of this talk page as this point has been raised before more than once. If the word football was unambiguous in Australia then your point would be well made, but it is not. Soccer, is however unambiguous and universally understood in this country and is in common use except for some enclaves especially in Western Sydney and I some parts of the press that have drunk the FFA Kool Aid. - Nick Thorne talk 10:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
my point isn't anything to do with what any term is understood to mean. my point is, again, that the term football is used by the official governing bodies of the sport in question, the vast majority of sources in the media, the government and the participants and that (considering that this is supposed to be as an encyclopaedia) this FACT should not be ignored simply because there's a perception that the term 'soccer' is somehow less ambiguous, whatever that's actually supposed to mean. there's nothing ambiguous about calling it 'football (soccer)', for example. In fact, expressing it that way actually encompasses both views and even helps to show that FOOTBALL (official name) is also known as SOCCER (colloquially) - doesn't it?
i myself grew up calling this sport soccer and, except when talking about the game in an international context, I still call it soccer - this isn't something I want to change because I think it's cool - i don't think it's cool, i just KNOW that it's the name of this sport in this country as used by the official governing bodies, the vast majority of the media... etc.
Until someone comes up with evidence that clearly illustrates that the use of the term football (with qualifications) is any more confusing than saying that "FOOTBALL Federation Australia is the governing body of SOCCER in Australia" (or something to that effect), then surely the most factual, most appropriate term to use is "football". I know that my saying this isn't going to change anything, and that any editing I did would just be reverted, so I'm not going to bother. But when a decision is made by a group of 11 voters as to how the sport - the name of which IS officially, at all levels, football - should be referred to otherwise on ALL relevant wikipedia articles... I just don't get why that decision can then be apparently binding for what's supposed to be 'the free encyclopedia'. it's not factual, it's not free - it's just seems petty.
the burden of proof lies with those who claim - contrary to the officially used name of the sport in this country for the past decade - that the game is actually, in fact, called soccer in Australia. it just looks ridiculous to see an article that "such-and-such F[ootball]C[lub]" is a "soccer club", especially when ALL of the teams at the top level of the competition in this country, and almost all of those in the tier below, refer to themselves as an FC, and not as an SC. Corporal29 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A vital point is that Wikipedia relies on a community of volunteers, and sometimes the best outcome is that we stop arguing, even if the decision is "wrong". The facts are pretty clearโ€”the football/soccer question has been argued and argued and argued. The best thing is that we find something else to do because there are good-faith and high-quality arguments for each side, and digging up contentious issues is ultimately disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Full names of soccer clubs[edit]

We have a new strategy being used by soccer fans to get the word "football" into their clubs' articles. They have begun to use the parameter in the Football club template called fullname. I'm aware of two instances of this so far.

This first happened when Melbourne Heart turned into Melbourne City. The renamed club turned up with a logo that says "Melbourne City Football Club". Given earlier legal disputes with the AFL and its clubs over the names Melbourne and Football Club (which the AFL won), I'm surprised they have gotten away with it, but it's still there in all its glory on the article page. (I have wondered if we have a right to use it here.) Everywhere else on the website they appear to still be using the FC suffix, or no suffix at all.

The second appearance was today at Central Coast Mariners FC. After a brief Edit skirmish, an editor has found one page of the club's quite extensive website that uses the words "Central Coast Mariners Football Club". It's a page on Sponsorship, and even those mentions come in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of a page that begins by using the name accepted here - "Central Coast Mariners FC". He must have dug hard to find it because everywhere else I can see on the website the club calls itself the latter name, or the further abbreviated "Central Coast Mariners".

The template's documentation says that "fullname" is to be populated with "The club's complete name". The problem is, what does that mean in the Australian context? In both the cases above, the officially registered name is still the one with FC on the end. The clubs don't market themselves as "XXXXX Football Club". It's always "XXXXX FC", or just "XXXXX"

I content that "fullname" cannot simply be populated by what some enthusiast puts somewhere on a club website, and that appeals to someone pushing the "football" barrow. Given the naming dramas over Soccer in Australia, it can surely only be the officially registered name, or the most common name used formally on the website, or just leave it blank as it has been up until now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be whatever name is registered. It's no different to any other company. Hack (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the full name should be whatever is most dominantly used by the club themselves in a formal setting (eg. press releases, legal documents etc.). Happy to concede that it should be referred to as "soccer" (the sport) in the body, but I feel pretty strongly that however the club styles itself should be what is in the box. Daniel (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
With regards to Central Coast Mariners, a couple of points...i) it's up at FAR (and about to pass) so an edit war would be less than ideal given one of the FA Criteria is stability; and ii) I really wouldn't care for "Central Coast Mariners FC" vs "Central Coast Mariners Football Club", provided it's one of the two. I can see points either way, but my personal opinion would lean to "FC" to be honest. Definitely has to have one of the "FC" or "Football Club" though.
Then you really need to talk to User:Macosal, who created today's instability by deciding to fight the "soccer must be called football" war there. And, of course, led me to create this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to boldly change it back to "FC", it's clearly the most used 'full name' by the club. There is a link on the talk page of the article to this discussion so if Macosal (or anyone else) has any dramas with this, I ask them to come here. Daniel (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Good move. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This again. What exactly do you mean by "the officially registered name, or the most common name used formally on the website"?
  • The club's business name registration? What if they don't have a business name registered, as with Melbourne Victory and Sydney FC? What if they have multiple business names registered?
  • The club's registered trade mark? What if they have multiple trade marks registered? What if they don't have any trade marks registered, since this is not a legal requirement?
  • When do we decide to use "the most common name" instead of either of the above? What does "used formally" mean? Does this mean used in the club's logo or crest? Is it the name in the title bar? Is it the name used on the "about" page of their website? The name in their copyright statements? The name used in a press release announcing the club's name (if there is one)?
  • If a club uses multiple variations of its name, such as "Hypothetical Rovers Football Club", "Hypothetical Rovers FC" and "Hypothetical Rovers", shouldn't the longest one obviously be the "full name" and the others short forms or abbreviations?
By all logic and evidence, the "full name" of the first-mentioned club is Melbourne Heart City Football Club โ€“ it's the full name on their press release announcing the name, it's in their logo, it's their pending trade mark application, and it's unambiguously what the "FC" in the shorter form stands for. There's no reason to abbreviate it to "FC" unless the consensus on Wikipedia is to do this for the "full name" of all clubs regardless (and I don't know why you would).
As an aside, the name of the club (i.e., the name the club calls itself) is an entirely different issue from what Wikipedia calls the sport. It is entirely acceptable to say: "Melbourne City Football Club is a professional soccer club..." โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 12:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC) [edited 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)]
(ec) I'd like to point out that I think these two cases (CCMFC and MCFC) need to be discussed separately. This isn't a one-glove-fits-all issue. With MCFC, one can make the case that a) their logo uses the full name & b) a fair whack of what they've put out uses their full name. With the Mariners, a) their logo doesn't include "Football Club" (or FC at all for that matter) and b) the overwhelming majority of formal and semi-formal club communication references "FC", not "Football Club". I say this as someone who wrote the CCM article and have been a member since day dot, travelling around Australia and Asia to watch them play.
I don't have a horse in the MCFC/MC Football Club race at all, and don't want to. I just wanted to point out that each club's situation needs to be taken separately, and in the case of CCM "FC" is preferable (in my opinion) over "Football Club". That shouldn't be a precedent to say that MC should use it; that discussion needs to happen totally independently of the CCM one. Daniel (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I would encourage discussion at Template talk:Infobox football club#Fullname parameter description to clarify the vague description for the fullname parameter in the infobox. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 13:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Next door to Melbourne City's home ground is the headquarters of "the Collingwood Football Club", also known as "the Magpies", and "the Collingwood Magpies" and "the Collingwood Magpies Football Club". What is the club's full name? HiLo48 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem appropriate to include an abbreviation in what is described as a "full name", regardless of the correct definition of the parameter. The convention across wikipedia is to expand "FC" to football club (which is (a) clearly what FC stands for and (b) easily backed up by sources) Macosal (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But it's not a normal abbreviation in Australia. Otherwise the clubs would not have universally chosen FC, rather than "Football Club", when they began. The common name of the game, and the Wikipedia name, is not football. Australia is different in this regard. There are NOT many sources that call the clubs football clubs. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
By "not a normal abbreviation in Australia", I assume you mean because the sport is traditionally called "soccer" here, not "football". This discussion is NOT about the name of the sport; it's about the name of the club. We really should be able to assume that "FC" stands for "Football Club" in the name of a football club in an English-speaking country where other football clubs are named as "football club" and there is no indication that that's not what it means โ€“ that just common sense โ€“ but I'm not going to push that point. However, where the club itself uses "Football Club" in its name (even if it also uses "FC" for the sake of brevity most of the time), the full name of the club is obviously with these words spelt out and should be recorded as such in the fullname parameter of the infobox โ€“ in the same way that "William Bradley Pitt" is his full name and recorded as such on his infobox even though he's usually simply called Brad Pitt. Just because it's not the most commonly used form of the name doesn't mean it's not the full name. To make this clear, I have proposed a revision at Template talk:Infobox football club#Fullname parameter description to clarify that "Football Club" should be spelt out in whole words if it is used by the club in this way at least some of the time. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 01:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. In addition (although common sense is more than good enough justification for this) a google search reveals that the titles of several of the clubs official pages contain "Central Coast Mariners Football Club". Macosal (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Careful. Some of those references are in the metadata for SEO to catch people who search for "football club", but not in the content of the pages. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 02:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
They also appear regardless of whether you include "Football Club" in the search (eg here). Macosal (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Go past the search results and click onto the page, however... โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
True (but still more evidence for the somewhat obvious proposition that "FC" stands for "Football Club"). Macosal (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't doubt that "FC" stands for "Football Club". I also agree that the words "full name" imply without abbreviation. The question is which form to use in the fullname parameter of the infobox if "Football Club" is used in only a few limited cases and "FC" the rest of the time. Do the words need to appear in any particular way (e.g., in a logo, press release, trade mark application, business name registration, etc.) in order to justify spelling them out in the "full name", or does it even matter if the club uses the words at all? That's a discussion for the infobox talk page to clarify the definition of fullname, so can we keep it there and keep the discussion on-point, please? โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 18:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Why did every single A-League club publicly use a name with FC on the end, rather than "football club", up until now? HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Abbreviation. And it's not an Australian thing. The FC suffix is a common abbreviation on the majority of football clubs. Reliable sources can show the (commonsense) assumption that FC = Football Club to be true. Do you have any reliable sources that state that the FC is a meaningless suffix? Macosal (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You know what's sad here? The loss of real history. I know the reason for the FC on A-League clubs was more complex than that. I have read many words on this for individual clubs and for the league itself, over many years, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I don't have them at hand right now, and don't have to time to go hunting for them. That you want the simple and simplistic explanation to be true, both because it's simple, and because it suits your preferred view of the world for your favourite club, does not help. I can assure you it wasn't that simple. I hate seeing history lost, but as a currently lone voice here, against editors who aren't interested in anything more than simple guesswork, it looks like it will be. That's sad. My inability to prove what I am saying at this moment in time does not make it false.
And deeper accusations of bad faith on my part are wrong, and also sad. I am not anti-soccer. As a teacher I manage soccer teams for schools quite often. I call the game "soccer" for many reasons. That's what I was taught as the name of the game by British immigrants in the 1950s and 60s. (See my User page for an article on this part of history.) The schools I have been at call the game soccer, because "football" means "Aussie Rules" at those schools, and it would be silly and quite impractical to use the name "football" for two different sports. My position is not one of bad faith. It's one of truth and good sense for the part of Australia I live in.
So, there are more complex reasons for all the A-League clubs using the suffix FC. I wish more people were interested in finding them out. Wilful ignorance is never a good thing for human knowledge. And Wikipedia is about knowledge. HiLo48 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I can believe the unreferenced claim that there are complex reasons for A-League clubs using FC (although believability is obviously not the same as being truth), but even that is (a) insufficient for its inclusion in Wikipedia and (b) does not prove that FC doesn't stand for anything (I would be interested in finding out, sure, but that certainly seems easier said than done - how would such sources be found? I had a pretty significant search just now and couldn't find anything relevant). Almost every sports club in the world uses some suffix - were A-League clubs going to use SC for Soccer Club when that was not the name of the sport as recognised by their own governing body? The explanation may well be as simple as that. Also I never accused you of being anti-soccer (I'm not sure if you meant me or not). I agree that history being lost is far from ideal, but we cannot source information from memory or anecdotes (especially in contradiction of reliable sources which can be accessed). I'm not clear what sort of source you are looking for? I can't believe an A-League club would ever have come out and said "FC doesn't stand for anything" and any other source would seem to be mere speculation. That being said, if you/anyone can find a source on this topic, would be interested in seeing it (and would clearly be relevant to this discussion). Until that occurs, however, it is not sufficient to claim this as a reason for obstructing referenced information. Macosal (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
What about a situation in which an A-League team has only ever referred to itself with an 'FC' and never as 'Football Club'? This would be an indication that 'FC' has been incorporated into the name for branding purposes only. If situations like this really exist, I would be concerned if Wikipedia were referring to that team as 'Football Club'. That's the whole crux here, isn't it? Is the total absence of anything from the team referring to itself as 'Football Club' a good reason for us to also decline referring to it as such? I tend to think so.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's my view. Editors here saying "FC obviously stands for football club", without any other supporting evidence, is actually unacceptable original research. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. There must be reliable sources which can confirm that FC does stand for Football Club. Where these do exist, however, I think it is clearly appropriate to recognise this. Macosal (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜For the record, I don't dispute the position that there needs to be a reliable source to verify that a club's name has the words "Football Club" rather than "FC", and I have not insisted that the words "Football Club" must be used even when the club never refers to itself as such. My concern is that there is no specific guideline on what qualifies as sufficient use by the club in order to justify including "Football Club" in its name, which has led to debate. In particular:

In an effort to avoid such disputes, I attempted to seek clarification on the definition of the fullname parameter in the {{infobox football club}} template, sadly without success. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 14:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the concern of "what qualifies as sufficient use" is a major one. For that reason I'd be inclined to think that "full name" should expand any abbreviation which can be supported by any reliable source. If not, the discussion gets into questions of degree/extent which could potentially undermine what has up till now been a very stable system. It's also consistent with the common English meaning of a "full name" to expand abbreviations as such. Macosal (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

So assuming a clubs full name is "Central Coast Mariners Football Club" is unacceptable original research, though assuming it is "Central Coast Mariners FC" is not unacceptable original research? How so? Also, would assuming "Port Melbourne SC" is an abbreviation of "Port Melbourne Soccer Club" be considered unacceptable original research?--2nyte (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised the latter isn't listed on Wikipedia as the Port Melbourne Soccer Club, or at least have that as a redirect. It would have had that name publicly from its founding in 1968, when "soccer" definitely was the almost exclusive name of the game in Australia. This is a case where the situation on the south-west side of the Barassi Line, along with the age of the club, is relevant. The Port Melbourne Football Club has existed since 1874. It plays Australian Football and, although it's not in the AFL, it has always been a major club in Melbourne. That meant that the round ball club, when it was founded nearly 100 years later, could not be a football club, and nobody from the soccer world objected to is being called a soccer club. In fact it was natural to do so. And it was a soccer club, not an SC. This is definitely a case where the SC is a modern affectation by the club. Unfortunately the club's history, both in our article and in their own website, is sadly lacking, and doesn't give us much about the early days at all. Have you seen this article about history of the use of the name "soccer"? (Don't reject it immediately because of the American slant. It's just as relevant to Australia.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't quite see how that's different to the "unacceptable original research" you described earlier re "FC". It's hardly surprising that SC/soccer club was used for a number of reasons but chiefly amongst them the fact that the official name of the sport in Australia was "soccer" until early last decade. I don't think a situation in which clubs do or don't require citations for their "full names" depending on their context in the opinion of an editor is ideal at all - opens up potential for a lot of inconsistency. Macosal (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Hence my comment about the quality of both our article and the club's website. A decent history of the club would tell us that the club was originally known as a "Soccer Club". I lived in Melbourne while that club was young, and that was the case for every such club. There were no such things as SCs then. It should be in the club's history and be easily citable. But it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Easily fixed: Port Melbourne Soccer Club now redirects to Port Melbourne SC. Redirects are cheap and some people are likely to use the longer name whether it's an "official" name or not (and it is named as such in the infobox). โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 01:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions (sportspeople)[edit]

Does the consensus regarding the situation with the word 'soccer' in Australia being roughly in line with that of Canada and the United States have implications for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer), which states the following:

  1. When there are multiple people with the same name, and one of them is a footballer:
    a. If the person is neither American nor Canadian, use (footballer)
    b. If the person is American or Canadian, use (soccer)

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like Australia can be added to that list. (New Zealand, too, maybe?) Perhaps reorganise thusly:
  1. When there are multiple people with the same name, and one of them is a footballer:
    a. If the person is American, Australian or Canadian, use (soccer)
    b. Otherwise, use (footballer)
โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 10:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)