Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning

User:HiLo48, you asked me to look at User:Macktheknifeau in light of the discussion we had here. I don't see any recent or actionable problematic editing from them, but I would encourage you to bring any future concerns here as opposed to article talk. Please show diffs when you do. Macktheknifeau, we are having an effort to sort out the problematic behaviour around Australian ball sports. It'd be great if you could join the effort, as I think HiLo48 has committed to do. Will you? --John (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

John, look here, especially the Edit summary. No discussion at all, of course. User:Macktheknifeau knows what the formal consensus is, but clearly doesn't like it.
Then look here from a couple of weeks later. Not even an Edit summary, let alone discussion.
These are but two examples of repeated similar behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The two examples HiLo48 presented (and there are many more on various articles - thousands of articles) came after 6-7 months of the most agonising discussions on Talk:Soccer in Australia. I don't want to make out HiLo48 as a punching bag, but I would certainly not be the only one to think he has created a situation where ("anti-soccer") editors are pushed against brick walls.
I am not condoning Macktheknifeau's actions, but there is really nothing wrong/should be nothing wrong with those changes. John, I am asking for discussion and for change.--2nyte (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is something fundamentally wrong, in that they breach consensus, but I guess your point is that you believe the consensus is wrong. I don't think I created that situation. You are describing a disagreement with consensus as feeling like being "pushed against brick walls". There are some areas on Wikipedia where I think consensus is wrong too. I feel frustrated by it, so I know how you feel. In those areas I just try to present the soundest and most complete cases I can. Doesn't always work though. In that area of "most complete case", what is always missing in the anti-"soccer" argument is a thorough explanation of what's wrong with the name "soccer" in Australia. That explanation has to cope with the reality that a huge number of Australians, including many fans and players, still very comfortably use the name "soccer" for the game.
I apologise to John for bringing that part of the debate here, and he can delete it if he wants, but I'm trying to home in on just the key issues here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Consensus is consensus, and I accept the decision. Though the only consensus reached was for the title of Soccer in Australia (with the agreement that Football in Australia is ambiguous for that title). Since then, I have attempted to engage in a larger discussion regarding the use of "soccer" in all Australian wiki content - I feel that discussion is still needed.
Now again, I don't want to vilify HiLo48, but I do feel he has targeted users (I being one of them) and this topic in general. Further, I believe HiLo48 should not be associated with the decisions regarding this topic. I know these are strong claims, but I will follow them through, though I do not know the procedure to do so. I accept opposition to debate (it adds legitimacy), but I believe HiLo48 has shown great bias, even hatred toward the topic.--2nyte (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Umm, I would not have thought that an admin's talk page was the smartest place to launch a personal attack on another editor. - Nick Thorne talk 06:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know wiki policy that well, but I'm basically asking for assistance. Assistance in discussing the Soccer in Australia issue and in discussing HiLo48. I wouldn't know "the smartest place to launch a personal attack on another editor", if there is even one. Here we are discussing Macktheknifeau's edits and I thing what I've brought up is related to the issue. As a key wiki contributor to the round ball game in Australia I want the two topics i brought up discussed and resolved, but I need assistance to do so.--2nyte (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the discussion. Those two edits are indeed worrying if they were to continue, but the last one was from over a week ago. I will ask them not to do it again. Would it help to clarify whether that RfC on the title of Soccer in Australia should be used as a rationale for changing the language in multiple other articles? 2nyte, the same standards apply to you as to the other editors I have invited here. If you feel another editor is currently behaving badly, bring a diff here that I can do something about. Otherwise, it would be best to leave these feelings (which I accept are strong) behind as we move forwards in bringing peace to this area. Can you work with me on that? --John (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
John, I am 100% certain that the intention of the RfC conclusion was that "soccer" would apply to all articles for the sport within Australia, but not to articles such as Australia national association football team, which obviously refers to a team playing internationally. I'm certain it was documented somewhere, but I don't know where. It was also agreed that we wouldn't go changing all articles immediately, but that we would do it as the need arose. I have only intervened where there was argument, or obvious and blatant changes TO "football". Unfortunately, there have been many.
I also note that in response to my effort to distil the problem above, a major point (What's wrong with "soccer") was completely ignored, and I was described as having "hatred toward the topic". Can you see the difficulty of having rational, constructive discussion here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can, which is why I don't think that currently the low benefit and high risk that I talked to you about last night make this a worthwhile area to fruitfully discuss. I would be in favour of having a break from arguing about titles and terminology in Australian football/soccer until August 2015. By that time tempers may have cooled and it could be worth talking again about this. What do you think of this idea? --John (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Can't see it working. Of the regular players there, you only have me and 2nyte participating here, and while I see that his intentions are mostly good, we two are hardly on the same wavelength. I'm happy with current consensus, He's not. And he's obviously not happy with me. Then there'e the editors not here. Some are known by name, and will probably reappear soon. And there's always the occasional IP editor and some less frequent others. I cannot see a mechanism that would work. Given that all I have been doing is defending a well established consensus, and breaking no rules, I think I have a right to continue doing at least that. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for being honest with me. If we can't do it informally, the next step is to go back to AN/I and get some topic bans handed out, or else enforce the truce idea. If this is not dealt with I think the alternative would be Arbcom, which I am keen to avoid if possible. I do think it is worth a try to see if we can solve it short of a formal process. --John (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, the only thing defending a "well established consensus" is the move-protection on Soccer in Australia. What you have been doing is defending your own interpreted of the current consensus.--2nyte (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • My own stance would be that if we see continuing strife in this area, we would need to hand out topic bans and/or short blocks. Please, please refrain from commenting on the motivations of others. If we can keep this solution-focused we can all get on with more interesting and rewarding activities. I want to see a compromise that all can live with. I am sick of seeing this dispute come round every few weeks on AN/I like a bad soap opera. I understand the underlying issues, and the nuances of linguistic and nationalistic pride that may cloud some people's judgement in an area like this. My gold medal is if in a month from now we have peace, no-one has been blocked or restricted, and AN/I can get on with its other important business. Will you help me? I am also pinging User:Tariqabjotu who closed the discussion in case he wants to comment. --John (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC) And let me also ping User:Drmies who commented above. Drmies, what do you think of this idea? Will you help? --John (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Next step; clarification

Ok, in that case can I suggest that you all describe what you think the consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 tells us. Please fill in your section below. For now, please restrict yourselves to stating your own opinion in your own section about the article titles and content, and how this is justified by the consensus. Comments about the opinions and supposed motivations of other editors will be removed. There will be a chance for threaded discussion after this. This phase will run for one week, until 7 March. Thanks for taking part.--John (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that at least two editors have not been able to read the above, or do not see the need to collaborate and so disregard the request. Moreover, are the comments really giving an opinion on "the consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3"? I suppose blocking each of the named editors until August 2015 would be regarded as a little extreme, but if someone were to propose that I would give it serious consideration. @John: When you get a chance, please try the result shown at talk convert. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I've given Macktheknifeau a short block for flagrantly ignoring my repeated injunctions not to make personal comments on others. I now have some questions for you all. Macktheknifeau can answer when his block expires. --John (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

John, I asked you a question earlier. You didn't answer. I think it's buried now in one of the threads you hatted because of what you call bickering. It's a key one. It relates to a big ongoing part of the problem at Talk:Soccer in Australia, which is that false claims of fact are often made in these discussions. It is happening here too now. The question is - How will you sort out what is actually the truth among all the statements below? This isn't about opinions. It's about facts. You don't want us to respond to each others' comments below, so how will you even know when a falsehood is being stated? If some editors know that what someone else has said is factually wrong, and that claim remains, unrefuted, we cannot have resolution. That is my current position here. I know that some of the statements below are factually wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  1. Given the close of the RfC (The result of the move request was: no move. There is ample evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that football is ambiguous in Australia. While the term 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.), how do you see the next step forward in this process? This could involve another RfC to clarify the first; as Macktheknifeau says, even if admins believe consensus is 'correct' for the "Soccer in Australia" article, in my opinion that consensus has zero impact or relevance to articles specifically and exclusively about football teams, players and groups such as Western Sydney Wanderers FC, and maybe this is a reasonable question; should the result of the naming RfC really be extrapolated onto other articles? I have previously proposed a moratorium on further naming discussions, but I would be ok with such a clarification. --John (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. If you agree with me that a RfC to clarify the implications of the first is desirable, what should the question be? What simple, neutrally-worded question(s) would best sort this out? --John (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:HiLo48

"Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1

Even if it's true that the Western Sydney Wanderers FC is exclusively called a football club in their geographic home (a claim I doubt), they are not isolated in a private bubble in the western suburbs of Sydney. They play in a national league against teams located where the game is almost exclusively called "soccer", even by its fans and players. There's a good reason for this naming practice. Where those other teams are located, "football" is not ambiguous. It means only Australian football, and has for over 160 years. It certainly doesn't mean the round ball game. So if we called Western Sydney Wanderers FC a "football" club, we would have to describe matches between two teams where one played football and the other played soccer. That WOULD be silly. More than half the Australian population call the game "soccer". This includes almost everyone on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, plus all the fans of the two rugby codes and a lot of other people on the other side of that line. "Football" is ambiguous in Australia. The Western Sydney Wanderers FC play in an Australian national league, that even chooses to avoid mentioning the sport in its name. (Ever wondered why?) This league also includes a team from New Zealand, where the game is also called "soccer". If the Western Sydney Wanderers FC never played against anyone else, Macktheknifeau might have a point. (He would need to prove it.) But that's not the case. HiLo48 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q2

We've had three RfCs. There is no point to having another. An insufficient number of RfCs is not the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:2nyte

First a few points:

1. The usage of "football" by other football codes is largely irrelevant.

2. The term "association football" appear in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary, on Wikipedia as the main neutral term for the sport and most notably in FIFA's name (Fédération Internationale de Football Association).

3. Association football is referred to as either "football" or "soccer" in Australia.

Now, pre-10 years ago (pre-2004), the term "soccer" was unequivocally the name, and only name, for for the sport in Australia (much like in the US) - local/national media referred to the sport as "soccer", state/national governing bodies for the sport used "Soccer" (e.g. Soccer Australia), and clubs were referred to as "Soccer Club" (e.g. Perth Glory SC). Since that time and since the sport own renaming the usage of "soccer" has lessened, subsequently replaced by the usage of "football" - local/national media referred to the sport as "football" (with exceptions), all governing bodies for the sport were renamed to "Football", and hundreds of clubs were renamed to "Football Club". This change has only increased in the past 2 years, with both "football" and "soccer" now common names for the sport.

The decision at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 resulted after pitting "football" and "soccer" against each other, with "soccer" chosen as the title name for the sport in Australia due to the use of "football" in reference to other football codes, making it ambiguous as an article title for a sport in Australia. My opinion is that even though "football" is ambiguous (at least for an article title) it is the more appropriate term for the sport in general usage considering the current circumstance the sport is experiencing - it is hard to argue against that when the first point I made above is considered. Now you could use the unambiguous term (soccer) in the title and the more appropriate term (football) in the content, but my opinion is to use the unambiguous third term available to us (association football) - reasons for in my second point above and again considering the current circumstance the sport is experiencing.

So to summaries my view, I think for the sake of neutrality, and to expressing the very real change in which the sport is experiencing, the term "association football" should be used in all article titles relating to the sport and in content that relates to more than one football code, and the term "football" should be used in content that only relates to the sport (with a hyperlink to association football in the opening line).--2nyte (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1

I think this is about context and common sense - this aligns with my summary above. That is, if an article is in context, if there is no ambiguity present, such as on Western Sydney Wanderers FC or Football Federation Australia, then the article may use the term "football" throughout to refer to the sport (with a hyperlink to association football in the opening). On the other hand, the use of "football" to refer to the sport would not be in context on the article Football in Australia or Sport in Australia, so "association football" should be used instead throughout - this would also apply to article titles (e.g. Association football in Australia or Australian association football league system).--2nyte (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question specifically: Should the result of the naming RfC really be extrapolated onto other articles? Yes, if specified. Additionally, maybe some form of naming conventions should be considered - drawing attention to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia).--2nyte (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q2

The problem (if you would call it that) is that this extends far beyond a simple, neutrally-worded question(s) that can sort this out. As I mentioned above, if we were to simply pit "football" and "soccer" against each other (even throw in "association football"), the consensus would again be in favor of "soccer". I say that because the process of thought usually goes in the vein of: football is ambiguous therefor soccer is the better alternative. But again, I bring up a point I made above, that is, if you disregard the ambiguity of "football" then "football"/"association football" becomes the better choice. So we have to ask ourselves why that is? Well, that is due to the shift from "soccer" to "football" by media and by the sport itself, and the subsequently dropping of "soccer" in recent time.

So to summaries, the best question(s) to ask would be much like in the case of global warming. Before you ask "What should we do about global warming?", you must first ask "Do you believe the global warming change is happening, and to what extent?" - I believe this would be very telling as those who believe in change to a large extent want to do something about it, where as those who don't believe in change (or believe in it to a lesser extent) don't want to do anything about it.--2nyte (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Macktheknifeau

Australian Rules Football, Rugby League & Rugby Union are the official names of those sports, so it should be perfectly acceptable for those sports to remain their official names and also have Football to use it's rightful & official name in this country (and across the planet). The sport is now called football across Australia, barring a handful of pro-AFL (with many having a direct financial connection to the AFL) media outlets in Melbourne. This was proven at the last name discussion.

It has nothing to do with 'monopolising' a name, because there is no name to monopolise, merely Football articles that are forced to use an unofficial name.

All the other sports have their own official names, and those are specifically not football and thus they should all be named by those official names here. Despite that, they bring up WP:COMMONNAME to support this ludicrous situation where three sports use their official name across the wiki, while simultaneously denying the use of the official name for the fourth because they don't like the sport itself, while also simultaneously denying that WP:COMMONNAME should mean that "Australian Rules" or "Australian Rules Football" should be renamed to "AFL" (a non-official name) across the Wiki because the majority of Australia calls their sport AFL. Ridiculous.

The sport is called Australia. Football in Australia is run by Football Federation Australia. It is run in each state by a state "Football Federation". Australia is part of the Asian Football Confederation & the ASEAN Football Federation as well as having recently been invited to play in the East Asian Football Federation cup. It is a member of the peak body Fédération Internationale de Football Association aka International Federation of Association Football. Football is the name of the sport.

As for the specifics, even if admins believe consensus is 'correct' for the "Soccer in Australia" article, in my opinion that consensus has zero impact or relevance to articles specifically and exclusively about football teams, players and groups such as Western Sydney Wanderers FC.

Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1

That result of that move request is flawed. A handful of newspapers (a point I raise here is that while a print version from one city might use a certain term, online versions in Australia massively favour the use of "Football" and online visitor rates are far in excess of print circulation and those rates will continue to soar as circulation of print falls and the actual paper aspect of the news outlets begin to die off) in a handful of cities in a handful of states, that combined don't form a majority of the population of Australia, was blown massively out of proportion compared to multiple media outlets both in print and online, as well as the official peak bodies across the planet (Fédération Internationale de Football Association), continent (Asian Football Confederation), sub-region (ASEAN Football Federation), Australia (Football Federation Australia), states (which use "Football" in their names), as well as the common & official names for clubs and leagues that use Football.

Note: While the AFL Commission 'officially' calls their sport "Australian Football" that term is uncommon even in an official capacity, with "Australian Rules Football" the de facto "official name" by common usage, and one that would apply here on Wikipedia as it does in 'reality'.

Association Football is an even less ambiguous term that can be used to describe the sport, and one that should be used in multi-topic articles where there would be any hint of confusion from those who think Football is somehow ambiguous when used next to Australian Rules Football.

Those handful of newspapers that do not use "Football" in that small part of Australia was declared 'evidence' that the term Football is 'ambiguous'.

"Football" should not be seen as ambiguous on Wikipedia, and the administrators should take a global worldview, one that has developed in this country to now co-incide with the majority of the population & media of Australia.

If there are issues with ambiguity then it is up to editors to police their articles to ensure that they do not use an incorrect, non-official term. If articles need to be rewritten or split, then that work should be undertaken to ensure that the four sports consistently use the terms Australian Rules, Rugby League, Rugby Union and either Football or Association Football. Which version of Football would depend on if the article is a single-topic article, or one that involves the other three sports or sport in general.

There would be no ambiguity at all.

As such, to directly answer the question:

On Wikipedia there are four major sporting codes for Australia and they can all use their own specific, official names without impacting on others. Australian Rules, Rugby League, Rugby Union and either Football or Association Football.

If that is the result from this discussion, there would be no need to 'extrapolate' anything, merely ensuring that every reference to these four sports on Wikipedia is given their proper, official name.

That would also ensure that Australian articles fall into line with consensus on a near-global scale,

Should the administrative decision deviate from that common-sense (in my opinion) solution, then the terminology used should be appropriate to the context of the article. Western Sydney Wanderers FC or Football Federation Australia would use Football, because it is clearly even more ambiguous for an article to have two different terms used throughout the title & article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q2

"The terms Australian Rules, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Association Football are the official names of their sports as named by their peak organisational bodies. As all four terms are distinct from each other, do you believe that these official names should be used across Wikipedia to refer to the sports involved?" Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:The-Pope

We have some people in the Australian community (both on and of wiki) who only call the round ball game football (or maybe association football) and get offended/upset/angry by the word soccer due to previous negative connotations of the word. Others use the word football exclusively for another code, most commonly Australian rules football, and only use soccer (without any intended offence) for the round ball game. Then you have another group who are happy to use either term, depending on context or to avoid any possible ambiguity. What proportion of the population is in each group depends on location, age, era, ethnicity/cultural background, etc. So there is no single consensus. I'm for soccer if it avoids confusion of codes (such as a in a multi-sport stadium article or a suburb article), but using football is ok if a dedicated article (such as a team or player article), all with a piped link to association football (a term which is rarely used and can also be ambiguous in parts Australia with Australian rules football games played in competitions named Associations such as the Victorian Football Association). Extrapolating the no move decision in that RM about a single parent article to apply to every mention of the sport is invalid, in my opinion. Achieving a true consensus is near impossible because we aren't a homogenous society. The-Pope (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The official name of the sport known here as Australian rules football is actually Australian Football, but we accept that that is very ambiguous.the common name in half the country is simply football, in the other it had recently become AFL. The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1 Answered above, especially the but in bold text.The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q2

User:Orestes1984

Despite my enforced absence this falls within the bounds of "existing disputant" moreover I wouldn't want to see my absence let this turn into another lopsided debate. so for the period of this discussion, I'm placing myself within the status of an active editor purely within the realms of this discussion and nowhere else.

My belief is straightforward as I have tried to discuss with other editors, loosely no one in particular here, is that the sport has demonstrably changed as evidenced by the official name change of the governing orginisation that administrates the sport in Australia. The reasons for these changes are many including the removal of cultural biases that continue to exist, I have attempted to discuss some of these issues and the fact these changes have been addressed both on national TV through Australia's national broadcaster SBS, and press releases from the FFA which can all be sourced by reading through the history of the FFA in the relating article here on Wikipedia and also elsewhere. The sordid past of the NSL and Soccer Australia can also be found in the article pertaining to the FFA and its history. There are significant cultural and historical issues pertaining to the name "soccer" that are being completely ignored and there is strong cultural and historical context that is lacking that I have also attempted to address.

The issue here is two fold, but fairly simple, in that the word soccer pertains to a historical and cultural context and to a period of denigration that makes it inappropriate for an article title on Wikipedia and moreover from a historical context the governing body of the sport has made a conscious effort to move away from such contexts and move in a direction where the sport can "grow up." "Soccer" is non-reflective of the current situation with the name of the sport and it's not exactly an adornment that is well taken to by anyone with more than a passing interest in the sport who knows all of of the problems involved with the word "soccer" in Australia.

This whole issue was a soap opera that played out on SBS on The World Game Australia between Soccer Australia, and elsewhere within the media, it really should be a matter that is resolved that sport is football and not soccer... Of course we can't have Football due to the issue with conflicting sports. I simply request in this case that the 2007 consensus on the talk page of Association Football that the sport should be referred to as Association Football be respected by all parties involved and that any meddling parties with other intents extricate themselves from this debate immediately. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1

I believe the last move discussion was whether or not we should move the article to football in Australia. Clearly the term football is one which is ambiguous, this is where I can agree with other editors here and elsewhere. Football can be used to refer to soccer, rugby league, rugby union, or AFL. I support the current article page of football in Australia it is representative of the current global page on football where more than one sport is referred to as football. I don't support arguments based on COMMONNAME however. If we go by common name then we run into all sorts of issues, where the majority of Australia calls Australian rules football AFL and the majority of people in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT refer to rugby league or rugby union as football, or footy. If we go by COMMONNAME then it argues to reason that the only article that should be referred to in terms of actual current viewership figures as football is rugby league and in terms of Common name usage all AFL articles should be moved to AFL.

Furthermore IF common name is to decide this we should have a lottery every year based on the outcomes of audience viewership, or something equally as ridiculous, to decide whether the article page for Australian rules football or rugby league should be the page which is referred to as football for that year. COMMONNAME Just doesn't any make sense here.

Football is the accepted term for the sport largely by its fans and followers, while some outsiders with a general interest in the sport call it soccer, the league that is played in is known as the A-League, but to address the red herring being thrown here that is because it stands for the Australian League, as is the case in Japan which has the J-League which stands for the Japanese League, and the K-League, which stands for the Korean League. This is to fit into the Asian Football Confederation and their naming titles and nothing else. It was determined by the Football Federation of Australia that the league structure in Australia would loosely follow that of its other Asian football counterparts when the FFA took over and joined the AFC.

Association Football IS commonly understood by anyone with a passing interest in the game, please note Sunderland A.F.C, Bradford City A.F.C, Leeds United A.F.C, Hull City A.F.C, Oldham Athletic A.F.C, AFC Darwen, A.C. Milan (Associazione Calcio Milan) - Association Football Milan (English translation) etc... Any claim that Association Football is not understood or widely used is nothing more than a red herring.

This really is simply a case where the 2007 consensus on association football comes in as a common name exception. This argument follows almost directly the same path as the previous discussion in 2007 which can be found on Talk:Association football. Association Football is an understood term, it is used in the dictionary and it is an accepted compromise where the sport cannot be called by its official name, it is understood and it is part of the name of the international governing body for the organisation Fédération Internationale de Football Association. In common english translation International Federation of Association Football, there is no ambiguity in what type of football it is... It is association football... just like the Australian rules prefix refers to the type of football played in the other part of Australia. Association football is a perfectly fine COMMONNAME#EXCEPTION as it was decided to be the case way back in 2007. It's simple and straight forward and easy to understand, we have Australian Football, Rugby Football, Rugby Football League and Association Football and these are their respective official titles... Official names make sense here not common names. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q2

Given that it is clear that no articles on wikipedia can be referred to football due to ambiguity should the official term association football be used or should the term soccer be used? --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


Other editors

User:Nick Thorne

I became aware of this dispute through its spill over into AN/I. For my part I have lived in Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and the New South Wales South Coast. I have family in Melbourne, Sydney and the South Coast as well as elsewhere in Australia. I visit Sydney and the South Coast reasonably often and am in touch with many people across the country more or less all the time. In my experience what is meant by the word football depends on where you are and who you're talking to. In Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, football almost universally means Aussie Rules. In NSW, the ACT and Queensland it usually means Rugby League, but sometimes it means Rugby Union or Soccer. Claims that soccer is the most popular sport on this country made by at least one editor here on the Soccer in Australia page are simply ludicrous. If talking about organised spectator sport that title would probably belong to cricket

In contrast, the word soccer is universally understood and unambiguous here. Other countries where football usually or even always means soccer don't generally have alternative varieties of the sport and so their usage is irrelevant to the Australian experience.

I will hold off responding to some of the points made above until the appropriate time as determined by User:John, however I will say this: the arguments need to much stronger than those presented so far (in support of using something other than soccer) to carry the day, in my opinion. This does not mean that they need to be expounded on in enormous length as seems to be the tendency by some here, in fact I would suggest that approach is likely to be counter productive. In the mean time I am keeping my powder dry.

Answer to Q1

After reading the August rfc my understanding of the existing consensus is that soccer should be used because of its use as the common name in this country. to limit that usage to only the Soccer in Australia article seems perverse to me. On any article where the term might be ambiguous we should use soccer. In cases where it is not reasonably ambiguous we should still use something like football (soccer) the first time we use the term football.

Answer to Q2

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

Nick Thorne talk 23:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent

The way forward is for the folks who held the minority position in last August's RFC to drop the stick and accept the decision for now. I'm not a fan of "can't be discussed again until" decrees, but whoever wishes to resume the discussion should be coming with lots of reliable sources indicating Aussie usage has changed significantly. NE Ent 22:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Next steps; another RfC

Background

The game Wikipedia currently calls association football is the most popular sport in the world as a whole, by far. In Britain, its original home, it is dominant and is referred to as simply "football", sometimes piped as football. There are however other areas of the world where other games like American football, Gaelic football, rugby union, rugby league, and Australian rules football enjoy sufficient popularity to make calling association football "football" ambiguous. Per WP:ENGVAR, we generally call the sport in those contexts either by its Sunday name association football or "soccer", an abbreviation of "association". Football in Australia consists of all the codes listed above, especially the last three, coexisting with the Beautiful Game, with some regional variations just to complicate matters. An RfC in August 2013 roundly rejected the proposal to rename the main article Soccer in Australia → Football in Australia. Since that time there has been conflict at the article talk page, at various other articles concerning Australian soccer/association football, and this has repeatedly spilled onto AN/I and led to many tens of hours of volunteer time being wasted on unproductive bickering.

Action

I invited several of the main disputants to discuss on my page what they saw as the best way forward. The following table presents my summary of their input.

User Took part in the August 2013 RfC? Comments Q1: should the result of the naming RfC be extrapolated onto other articles? Q2: if you agree that a RfC to clarify the implications of the first is desirable, what should the question be?
User:HiLo48 Yes, 29 comments largely defending the status quo. "Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. More than half the Australian population call the game "soccer". This includes almost everyone on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, plus all the fans of the two rugby codes and a lot of other people on the other side of that line. "Football" is ambiguous in Australia. We've had three RfCs. There is no point to having another. An insufficient number of RfCs is not the problem
User:2nyte Yes, 14 comments questioning the "soccer" consensus. The term "association football" appears in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary, on Wikipedia as the main neutral term for the sport and most notably in FIFA's name. Yes, if specified. Additionally, maybe some form of naming conventions should be considered - drawing attention to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) Ask an open question.
User:Macktheknifeau Yes, opened the RfC to change the "soccer" terminology to "football" and made a further 9 comments. Australian Rules Football, Rugby League & Rugby Union are the official names of those sports, so it should be perfectly acceptable for those sports to remain their official names and also have Football to use its rightful & official name in this country (and across the planet). Should the administrative decision deviate from that common-sense (in my opinion) solution, then the terminology used should be appropriate to the context of the article. Western Sydney Wanderers FC or Football Federation Australia would use Football, because it is clearly even more ambiguous for an article to have two different terms used throughout the title & article The terms Australian Rules, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Association Football are the official names of their sports as named by their peak organisational bodies. As all four terms are distinct from each other, do you believe that these official names should be used across Wikipedia to refer to the sports involved?
User:The-Pope Yes, voted "no" and made one other comment. I'm for soccer if it avoids confusion of codes (such as in a multi-sport stadium article or a suburb article), but using football is ok if a dedicated article (such as a team or player article). Extrapolating the no move decision in that RM about a single parent article to apply to every mention of the sport is invalid, in my opinion. No comment
User:Orestes1984 No. The sport has demonstrably changed as evidenced by the official name change of the governing organisation that administers the sport in Australia. It's simple and straight forward and easy to understand, we have Australian Football, Rugby Football, Rugby Football League and Association Football and these are their respective official titles. Official names make sense here not common names. Given that it is clear that no articles on Wikipedia can be referred to football due to ambiguity should the official term association football be used or should the term soccer be used?
User:Nick Thorne No. The word soccer is universally understood and unambiguous here. On any article where the term might be ambiguous we should use soccer. What terminology should be used to describe the sport variously known as football, soccer or Association football, within the Australian context on Wikipedia?

Proposal

I have read and reread the discussions and the consensus determined at the August 2013 RfC. I can find no fault with User:Tariqabjotu's determination of consensus. I do not therefore propose to re-examine what the main article on Australian soccer/football should be called so soon afterwards as I think this would be tendentious. While consensus can change, in this case the degree of disruption caused by dissent from the RfC consensus is so great, that I agree with User:NE Ent that we should postpone any further discussion of the title of the main article, I suggest until after 31 August 2015. By then it will have been two years since the RfC and it is possible that people will have moderated their stances by then. In the unlikely event that major new real-world evidence comes up (i.e. not just somebody on Wikipedia challenging the consensus but an announcement by the Australian government or something of that nature) then we can always re-examine this.

One common argument that has been used by various participants is WP:COMMONNAME. If we have established anything in the reams of discussion so far, it is that WP:COMMONNAME does not lead us to an easy solution to this problem. We must instead depend on WP:CRITERIA and on WP:ENGVAR to lead us to a consensual solution.

On the other hand, I think there is a valid argument and genuine variation of opinion about whether this RfC should be used to determine the titles of, and the language used in, other articles relating to Australian soccer/football. I am currently working on the wording for a further RfC to clarify this. I want to thank all the participants for their help so far in resolving this. I plan to launch the RfC on or before Friday 7 March. Any suggestions for wording should be made at my talk. --John (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

NE Ent

I am happy to take comments and suggestions here (or at my talk), if you think there is anything important that I have missed. Can I issue a further reminder that all comments that are not focused towards a solution, and especially those which comment on other editors or their supposed motivation will be removed and their authors may be blocked to prevent disruption. Think before you press "save"! --John (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No. NE Ent 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Happy to answer this if you can clarify what you mean. Do yo mean we should not have a further RfC? If you can come up with a better solution, I am open to hearing it. --John (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
No, we should not have another RFC. (You asked two questions: I answered Q1 no, making Q2 moot). The only problem I was aware was the personal attack I reported to ANI, which has been resolved. NE Ent 00:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Would you like me to add you to the summary table? --John (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Association football in Australia

John, I applaud your efforts on this. Well done! Just one point is puzzling me. There is and was already a Football in Australia article dealing with various diverse football codes, so of course any effort to rename Soccer in Australia to that existing article was doomed to failure.

You asked for an announcement by the Australian government or something of that nature. Here it is. The official name of the sport formerly known as soccer is now football, as per the Australian government website here. I quote:

'Soccer is now formally known as 'football' in Australia, in line with international usage.'

Renaming Soccer in Australia to Association football in Australia seems to be a more realistic proposal for an RfC, in line with government policy and the last attempt to obtain a consensus here. Thoughts? --Pete (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Football Federation Australia was renamed as such in 2004, according to our article. This would not therefore count as new in terms of this discussion. This was also discussed at the previous RfC. I think it was User:LauraHale who pointed out that this title would be ambiguous in this context. I would not support including this in the clarification RfC. John (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
My point is that the last RfC canvassed a title change to Football in Australia and that was quite rightly rejected. Soccer hasn't been the official name for years, as per the government, the sport's governing bodies in Australia, or the national media. I suggest that given the ongoing level of support within the article's talk page (most recently today), a reasonable view is that a name change to Association football in Australia is supported by the community and in line with Wikipractice. Saying that a failed RfC for a totally inappropriate name rules out any name change is a bold and shaky statement, to my mind. --Pete (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Pete is being selective in his quoting. The same article he quoted also states:
In each Australian state and territory the word football' has a different meaning. For those living in the Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, football usually refers to Australian Rules Football. In the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, and Queensland, it could mean rugby league or rugby union. The word 'soccer' equates to the game played by the Football Federation Australia for all of Australia

The football code an Australian plays or follows is often dictated by where they live, their cultural heritage, or by the code they were taught at school.

But for the players and supporters of all the football codes across Australia, the end of summer is welcomed since it signals the start of the 'footy' season. The season usually stretches from March to September, when fans crowd stadiums in their team colours to cheer and soak up the atmosphere of the game.

This makes it clear that "football" means different things to different people. What the "official" names of a sport may be is one thing, what those same sports get called by the majority of Australians is another one entirely. Soccer is no doubt called football by a number of Australians, mostly those from other countries, but there is no problem with that, go back far enough and we all come form somewhere else in this country, even the first Australians. The thing is that those that call the game soccer seem to largely move in fairly closely knit groups where it is no surprise that those they interact with all call soccer football. However, moving away from those groups which actually only represent a small proportion of the total Australian population and the situation is very different. Everyone here understands what soccer is. Football can be one of several sports and using the word unadorned is totally ambiguous in the Australian context as the government web site quoted above makes clear. Soccer is a word that has been used to describe the game since before it was first played in this country. The FFA may wish to purloin the word football for their exclusive use and seem to be making attempts to force that usage on others (see here), however soccer is only ever likely to be a minority sport in this country, at least for the foreseeable future. What it's internal naming may be has very little to do with what most Australians call the game.
Suggestions as some have made that because the game is known as football in other countries it should be here too is irrelevant to this discussion. Those countries do not have another game that is known by a significant majority as "football" as we do here and as is the case in countries like the USA, Canada and New Zealand. In the countries that do have such a sport they also use the term soccer to describe the round ball game.
Those pushing the barrel of using "football" in lieu of "soccer" seem to be prepared to take every opportunity to force their idea onto others. They have paid no attention to the results of the last RFC and took almost no time to try and overturn it, even though the consensus in that RFC was about as clear as any I have seen on Wikipedia. I do not see how having yet another RFC is going to change any of this. The "football" zealots we have here are never going to give up, no matter how clearly the outcome gees against their position. They have been disruptive and completely lacking in AGF. Starting yet another RFC will only encourage them to continue their campaign with the aim of "winning the war" by means of attrition. We cannot allow this to happen. - Nick Thorne talk 01:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
As noted, Football in Australia is already taken. Nobody is pushing for "football" to replace soccer here. That strawman will never fly. The significant point is that "soccer" is no longer the official name in any sense. In the community of editors as most recently polled, the support is for "Association football". As per:
A reasonable person using Wikipedia would be expecting consistency rather than chaos, I suggest. --Pete (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Using that argument, since it's called "soccer" in the US, and Wikpedia is located in the US, we should rename articles wikiwide to say soccer. In fact, per WP:ENGVAR Wikipedia has long accepted regional language variations. (John, note the pejorative rhetoric -- "strawman," "reasonable person," "chaos") NE Ent 02:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you brought up regional language variations. The relevant article for New South Wales is called:
Maybe not chaos, but if five out of the six Australian states call the sport "Association football" rather than "soccer", then why not abide by the majority choice? --Pete (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Of state specific articles that would use Association Football, New South Wales would have been the first one that should have been named Association Football, because the terms Rugby League, Rugby Union and Football are used, while "Australian Rules" is commonly called "AFL" (and the use of AFL as the name for the sport in NSW is actively pushed by the peak body for that sport as a way to push their branding), as AFL as a sport has little popularity, low tv ratings, low media coverage and extremely minor participation rates. The problem here is that any football editor attempting to change individual articles (even to make them appropriate and fit with the rest of the states) would be blocked by opponents citing the "Sport in Australia" or "Soccer in Australia" 'consensus' as a way to shut down the phrase Association Football or Football being used. My experience tells me that instead of having the article renamed "Association Football in New South Wales", we'd end up with another edit war or filibustered discussion ending in 'no consensus', followed swiftly by a counter-request for a rename for all the "Association Football in XYZ State" articles to be renamed to match the current New South Wales article name (edit: You can actually see exactly that being talked about in the old RFM, with the post "We should start renaming those articles as soon as possible to use soccer. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)") Like I've said here in the past, AFL is the 'common name' for the sport in the two states that make up the majority of the population of Australia. Yet I'm not going to request that Australian Rules Football by changed to AFL. I hope that the admins can see the common sense solution here is to use Association Football, as well as stopping anyone who tried to change Australian Rules Football to AFL, even if the guidelines would technically support a rename to AFL. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The Football in Australia page is illuminating, and it confirms the feeling I had that "Football Federation Australia (formerly Soccer Australia)" is an organization that wants to convince fans to say "football" and not "soccer". However, the government website cannot bring itself to use the unadorned word "football". For example, even in the Football Federation Australia section, it says "Australia's national football (soccer) team, the Socceroos...". In other words, even in the section discussing Association Football, the word "football" is ambiguous and "soccer" is required in an Australian context. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

But, to be fair, you'll accept that the government cannot bring itself to use the unadorned word "soccer". --Pete (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A government website is the product of a bureaucracy that follows formal rules. For example, Bill Clinton is titled "William J. Clinton" at the US government bio (although they soften that with "Bill Clinton" overlayed on his picture). Similiarly, the Australian government website follows the formal name of the relevant body, and uses the term "football" (although they soften that with "(soccer)" after almost every mention). Wikipedia follows COMMONNAME, and the gov.au site shows that "football" does not mean "Association Football" in Australia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
As shown in the last RFM, the Government uses Football. "The Australian Government uses Football in various websites and discussion on the sport, for example the "Strategic Review into the sustainability of football in Australia". The Australian Institute of Sport calls it's programs for the sport "Football - Men" and "Football - Women" as do a number of the state institutes that actually have a football program. The Australian Olympic Committee uses the word "Football as well." Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm about tired of this selective interpretation just like the selective interpretation of the abbreviation A-League elsewhere... This will get you nowhere, the part in brackets is a disambiguation. As for the other half of this the A in A-League stands for Australian League, just like J and K stand for Japan and Korea respectively in the J-Leauge and K-League... There is an agenda here to do nothing more than selectively interpret the facts of the matter to suit the story. The reality of the facts are quite different. Just like the claims that popularity of the word "soccer" is coming back... If you go to the governing orginisation for the sport the FFA, the term used is football... I'm not pushing Pete or his agenda here, I'm not sure what Pete is doing here? I asked him to stay away from my talk page on matters such as these... this really is silly Pete... Pete should just be left to hang himself rhetorically for bringing this here, but get the matters here at hand correct rather than reading what you want to read. The government website does not display anything of the sort... The word soccer is there simply to avoid confusion, and it's something we can all take note of here.
I have long pushed the ball on this and I have displayed the problem with common name and football, I'm glass John also recognises this problem as well --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
From your indent, I think you are replying to me, but I find that puzzling as I have no "agenda" and apart from "the part in brackets is a disambiguation" I cannot see anything in the comment which replies to what I wrote. Moreover, the disambiguation note confirms my point—the game has to be called "football (soccer)" at gov.au to clarify what they mean. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That is my point exactly, it's a disambiguation of what type of football they're referring to... It is not an acceptance of the word soccer being there... For the majority of government websites in Australia the term used is football, the content on Australia.gov.au is simply a clarification that when the world football is used they are referring to the sport formally known as soccer and if the government can do that why can't we? Why do we have to use the archaic, non representative term soccer at all to appease certain editors who can't understand the changes that took effect in 2004
To answer the question regarding Soccer Australia... You need some more historical context, you cannot leapfrog from the defunct Soccer Australia to the FFA the FFA traded briefly as the Australian Soccer Association before becoming the Football Federation of Australia. The FFA is not Soccer Australia, the FFA decided the word soccer was dead with many good reasons, the way Soccer Australia failed in front of public broadcast TV audience viewers eyes on SBS and in the national press in general is but one of the reasons... The soap opera that played out in 2004 when Soccer Australia collapsed was nothing short of a disgrace, but that also diverges from the historical and cultural reasoning as to why football was adopted. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, here we go. The term "soccer" is NOT archaic on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. It is the completely accepted, common name for the game. Here is how sports balls are organised at my very soccer oriented school:
Image:Football vs Soccer Ball.jpg
Everybody in Australia understands the name "soccer". Very few understand "Association football". "Soccer" is used by fans of the rugby codes where they are the dominant codes. A very good reason has to be given as to why the name "soccer" is OK for more than half the country's population, but we shouldn't use it here. Those reasons cannot include a history that's common to the whole country, because many people well aware of that history happily use the name "soccer" today. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It is absolutely archaic in the sense that the government and the governing body has disposed of the word soccer for all purposes except disambiguation... John has stated the issue with common name I'd suggest you actually take heed of what is being said here. But my simple question here is why will you not respect the official stance here in an encyclopaedic article? I won't be entering into the common name debate any further, John has stated my case... Please use more appropriately sized pictures or don't use them at all --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I have read the above and I remain unconvinced that it is worth re-opening a matter which was previously discussed at the August 2013 RfC. --John (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not suggesting we reopen that discussion, I am suggesting at a later date that we do talk about the appropriateness of using the official name. It appears to be the most appropriate compromise where common name simply does not work and is not representative of the direction the game is heading in Australia. Whenever that appropriately occurs is a matter for everyone to decide here, however it is a new discussion and it should be respected as such rather than one of any particular editor here pushing for the use of the word football. I concur the usage of football here on Wikipedia is unreasonable and inappropriate particularly when the widespread usage of the term football in countries such as the United Kingdom is not even a valid reason to use football as the global term here and when the football in England page itself refers to association football. We are not all special snow flakes here who want the exclusive use of the word football. I would only hope that you could finally see that the proposal put forward by myself is nothing more than well reasoned and historically accurate --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed two posts there that were verging into dangerous territory. Remember to comment on the case on its merits. Try to just state your case then leave it. Less is more. Try not to tell the other person what their argument means, or would mean if taken to extremes. This discussion reminds me why I restricted discussion in the first phase, and I am still not seeing compelling evidence to re-open the discussion from last August. A name change from 2004 definitely doesn't count as new evidence either. --John (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK John. I'm a bit confused. You created a section called Discussion. What ARE we supposed to be discussing? HiLo48 (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) There is quite a big difference between discussion and "not... [telling] the other person what their argument means, or would mean if taken to extremes...". Perhaps we should start here, where I offered you the opportunity the other day to actually put forward a logical reply to anything that I've stated regarding what is clear historical evidence on the matter. I'll even give you another tip that "you're wrong" is not a discussion here, perhaps you should read the other case I referred to on John's talk page about Gorgias and the defence of Helen of Troy. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for paraphrasing your argument inaccurately. It annoys me when people do that to me too. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)/Archive_2&oldid=1072533067"