Talk:Soccer in Australia

I'm a soccer fan

Well, not really. I prefer the use of "soccer" to describe the football game played with a round ball. However, my personal preference, like those of any other editor, doesn't weigh highly here. Looking at the sports pages of online Australian newspapers, such as The Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald, I'm finding that most have a list like this: Rugby League, AFL, Rugby Union, Football. The exception being The Age, where it is called "Soccer" (as opposed to "Real Footy").

I think if the newspapers are calling the game football rather than soccer, we're going to run out of reliable sources for the title of this article pretty soon. In fact, I'd say that the weight has shifted already.

If I can ask those supporters of the current title to list their reliable source, that would be helpful. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the universal applicability of the term in Australia. I think we can be agreed that many media sources are calling it football. Similarly, many media sources are still referring to soccer, in particular in states where "football" is the common name for "Australian rules football". So we have an ugly situation were:

• "Football" has been the official name of the sport since 2003, but is not universally the common name, and creates ambiguity in some states.
• "Soccer" is the common term in some areas, but has not been the official name since 2003.
• "Association football" is neither a common term nor an official term in Australia, but is generally recognised to refer to the sport.

So what do we do? Do we use an official term that isn't (and is unlikely to become in the foreseeable future) the common term in all states, a common name which is universally recognised but which the code is deliberately trying to move away from, or a term that isn't in common or official usage at all? - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The pertinent issue is deliberately moved away from, it is not really a matter of tried, but did, officially as I added myself in referenced edits here. The proponents of the other side of the debate largely rely upon an issue of linguistics of which there are few works out there attributed to the research of the word football itself purely from a linguistics research perspective in Australia. I have raised issue that I would like to see someone contribute some sort of meaningful editing to the matter under WP:V rather than replying that they don't need to bother. The terse response in reply is generally "why should I bother, I can say whatever I like so long as there is consensus with my fellow meat puppets." which my general response is... well then why should I bother editing Wikipedia? This type of response is what leads to the general frustration of many of the soccer supporting editors on this talk page. If someone wants to actually put some more effort in here there might be less animosity rather than simply claiming something is the case under WP:BLUE perhaps they should refer to WP:NOTBLUE especially on what is a contentious issue such as this. The synchronic view of linguistics that exists on this page, particularly in terms of certain users vocabulary really does amaze me. Of course as history reminds us, those things that become so synchronically defined usually end up dead. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a worthwhile question to explore right now, is not "do we use soccer, football or association football", but simply "how do we proceed?" We have two issues - what to do about the articles recently changed by User:Portillo, and what to do about this article. In regard to the articles about Australian soccer/football players and teams, that's probably best left for AN/I at the moment. In regards to this article, Wikipedia doesn't offer much once we've been through an RfC. We could try mediation, but in all honesty I don't see that coming to a satisfactory conclusion, as there hasn't been any sign that compromise is possible between the more polarised editors, and the role of mediation is generally to find a compromise solution. But we could try and give it a shot - nominate some editors to approach the mediation committee, and agree to abide by what eventuates if it is accepted and works. Alternatively, we could try another RfC, as ArbCom doesn't solve content disputes, and there is no higher recourse than an RfC or mediation open to us. The problem is that the last RfC closed in August, so it seems a bit early to start another one. Constant RfCs don't help, but perhaps we can agree on a decent interval before starting one again? I think six months is not unreasonable, so that would suggest March. - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think an RfC isn't really going to go anywhere in the short term at least, probably not in the long term either. The contentious issue that remains with consensus is also the fact that football (soccer) supporters in their truest sense are also likely going to be in a minority anyway, so consensus decisions aren't really ever going to be resolved favourably on grounds that are likely seen controversial, for whatever reason, by the two other dominant football codes Rugby League and AFL. For whatever reason however, there has appeared ever since this became an issue to be a mostly dominant contribution in RfCs by users who support AFL. At this stage there really is two options:

1) We wait until this inevitably boils over into another RfC either now or in 6 months time, where football (soccer) supporters are still not happy.

2) We go from this point into some sort of mediated solution where no one is happy with what will likely be a poor compromise due to the polarised views opposing any use of the word football in these and other football (soccer) related articles on Wikipedia that are Australian related.

--Orestes1984 (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We're in a situation where there are going to be unhappy people, no matter what. But personal feelings shouldn't determine our actions. We have wikipolicy developed over years as a guide, and I ask where is the reliable source that says that the Australia-wide name of the roundball game is soccer? We need a source. The official sources, such as they are, don't support soccer, and very few mainstream media outlets use the term. I've spent fifty years using the term "soccer", but if we go by wikipolicy - and we must - my personal feelings count for little. We have to have reliable sources for our content. If we have an RfC, then my vote will be different to the last time around, when I supported "soccer".

What i really detest is the level of personal animosity displayed here. It has gone on for a long time. We don't make an encyclopaedia by calling each other names. We work together. If there is some way to end this disruption sooner rather than later, I'm all for it. If that means a fresh RfC, then bring it on. Let us devote our time and energy to positive work. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

On this one I'm not quite sure what you are asking for as a source. If you want to know if there are media sources that still use soccer, then yes - the Advertiser and The Herald Sun, or example. In regard to statistics, a quick search of Newsbank for "soccer" in Australian press during 2013 gets 18,000 articles. There's a good discussion of the issues in Rosenberg, Buck Clifford (2009) "The Australian football wars: fan narratives of inter-code and intra-code conflict", Soccer & Society. 2:10. There isn't any real question as to whether or not "football" has different meanings for different people and in different states, and that soccer is used where football isn't. The question is really on how we reconcile this. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be looking for a statement in a very good high-level source saying that soccer is the name of the sport in Australia. Not just a few regional papers or counting google hits. Not something that is synthesis. If soccer really is the name of the sport, do we have a government report saying so? Something like that. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an overly high bar. The claim is not that soccer is the official name of the sport in Australia. The claim is that football is now the official name of the sport in Australia, but soccer remains a common name of the sport, especially in states where "football" is predominantly used to refer to Australian rules. I don't see that this point is in doubt. - Bilby (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be a high bar, but if we just write our articles by gut feel and who has the loudest voice, we aren't doing our job. We have good sources for "football" as a name, but where is the source for "soccer"? Inside ourselves? I personally prefer soccer as the name in general conversation, but for Wikipedia we need - as you put it - a higher bar. I'm seeing a lot of doubt and dispute on this very point, just reading through the talk page. --Pete (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading the discussion then. I'd be really, really surprised to see someone say that the sport is not referred to as soccer in Australia. I'm very happy to agree that the sport is also referred to as football, and that football is the official title (as of 2005), but you'd be hard pressed to make a viable case that soccer isn't a common name of the sport as well. That has never been the issue. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue never really was whether or not soccer is a commonly used name for the sport in Australia , for me at least, yes it is A commonly used name, however, no longer is it THE commonly used name by the administration body that gives it, its official name, the government, or by a large percentage of its fan base. The issue is reconciling the fact that football is now the official name of the sport in Australia. The ongoing issue here is the fact that I cannot see how using the official name is the least bit problematic SO LONG AS we disambiguate via a link that is not ambiguous, edit the lead paragraph to also known as soccer, and edit in such a way where ambiguous terms are linked to non-ambiguous redirects, or pages.

The reality is that is now eight to nine years down the road. The majority of people who have taken the time to take a glance at news/media their newspaper of choice or any other medium whereby they get information on current terminology will understand that soccer is also known as football and vice versa. There is a myriad of platitudes here that would keep most parties for the majority happy. Association Football in Australia as per the common global term for the sport, with a redirect to soccer in Australia, Association Football (soccer) in Australia, with a with a redirect to soccer in Australia and many others.

It amuses me that after 8 years we really cannot come up with an adequate solution here. The AFL and rugby code fans could simply click the soccer in Australia redirect, and we can click the association football in Australia link as per the common global name for the sport on Wikipedia. I do not see how this is unreasonable. We have one sport that is association football in Australia and it just seems a little silly that out of all the football codes in Australia, it would appear that it is the only code that is not allowed to have references to the word football in articles pertaining to it... --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is standing in the way of using association football in the first instance and subsequently using football, nor moving this article to association football in australia except those that want it to be referred to solely as football.... Gnangarra 07:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

On that other debate about football in Australia, on a matter purely of personal opinion, I don't think we can have any one sport in this country with an article on football in Australia. To do otherwise ignores the current global consensus that football is not a term specifically owned by one sport. The current page as it is, for football in Australia is fine. It really is more so about how we go about making less of a bun fight about it and actually coming with a better page over there. Every football code in Australia should be able to use the term football and as per the global consensus this page really should be association football in Australia --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

…you'd be hard pressed to make a viable case that soccer isn't a common name of the sport as well. That has never been the issue. That's not in dispute. I highlight the difference between making a statement of general opinion - sourced from where, precisely? - and complying with the requirements of Wikipedia. We require sources for our material. That's pretty basic. Where is our source for the implicit thrust of the title? Where is the reliable source that authoritatively states that the name of the sport in Australia is soccer? Is there such a source, or is it something we just go along with because we as editors feel that we don't need a source? --Pete (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing spate of users who edit this page who need to be reminded of verifiability. Rather than referring to essays which are not rules, or guidelines. There is also a few editors here that need to be consistently reminded of WP:CIRCULAR especially in regard to referencing that article on the barassi line. There are certain users who are using these and simmiliar justifications for their editing to justify why this articles main term should remain soccer. The way that they are going about it is consistently breaching WP:CIRCULAR, WP:NOR and WP:ORIGINALSYN and this really needs to stop. IF you cannot verify your argument you must desist, IF you cannot verify WHY concepts such as the Barassi line are relevant to the main term in this article you must desist and allow the use of the word football in this article. I have gone to the lengths of verifying why "soccer" in Australia is called football (soccer) and has been since 2004-2005. It is about time those opposing either put up an argument why soccer should remain relevant as the main term for this article or desist from their POV arguments. I suggest they start by reading WP:RELIABLE and then I also would suggest that they come up with some reliable sources to justify their position as to why soccer should be the main term that is used in this article. If you believe that soccer should be the main and relevant point to this article then score a point against me by justifying your point of view with a few good reliable sources. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pete, I'm loathe to buy into this "we need a source to say that soccer can be called soccer in Australia" argument. But although I don't have a copy of the Macquarie on hand, how about "On Friday 26 August 2005, a new national football league kicked off in Australia – again. Football, or soccer as it is generally called in Australia, has tried and failed numerous times to establish itself in not just a saturated and small sporting market, but a saturated football market". Rosenberg, Buck Clifford (2009) "The Australian football wars: fan narratives of inter-code and intra-code conflict", Soccer & Society, 2:10, p245.

What I'm mostly concerned about is process. Is it worth having an RfC again, given that the last one was less than six months ago, is mediation viable, or should we just call this an unsolvable problem for a few months and tackle it again at some point in the future? - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of whether soccer can be called soccer in Australia by all means call it soccer, or call it that game played by "sheilas, wogs and poofters" [sic]. It's not a matter of personal opinion, or what you call it, vs. what I call it and that's not what this article is about. What we should focus on is consistency, the term association football is in common usage cited in the Macquarie dictionary, as is this in the definition of "football."

Football in particular references any of the sports that involve kicking a ball with your feet. This list may include, Australian Rules, Rugby Union, Rugby League, Soccer and its dialectical variants of soccer including "British Soccer." Furthermore it also includes American football in that list. According to the Macquarie dictionary all of these sports are football. The Macquarie dictionary also defines football as soccer interchangeably and as a "form of football", but we can't use that as its ambiguous as is the Macquarie dictionary definition "to soccer a ball along the ground" in terms of Australian rules football. Association football would appear to be the current global consensus on the matter and so I think we should be sticking with consensus --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a reasonably old source. I'll bet that at that time, sports supplements still had sections headed "soccer". And that the sport had not attained the prominence of recent years, where the World Cup proceedings are of national interest, and the sport as a whole is one of the top participation sports in Australia. Look, I've always called the game soccer, but I just didn't think about recent changes. Seemed to be not worth discussing, really. Until I looked at all the disruption and acrimony here and thought, well editors aren't listening to each other, just getting upset and going around and around and around and achieving nothing but making each other unhappy. This is Wikipedia, we have ways of dealing with disharmony, let's get back to basic wikipolicy and go for the sources. So I went looking, and I found that "soccer" isn't quite as widespread as I thought. In particular, media outlets have pretty much stopped calling it that, at least in their section headings. Now, I don't think that "football" is going to unarguably mean the roundball sport any time soon, but we really should quit arguing and look to external sources for illumination. There seems to be a compromise position available in related articles at Australia national association football team, Football Federation Australia, List of association football stadiums in Australia, Association football in South Australia and many others. For the sake of consistency, we should get our act together.

I've mentioned Gorgias before as a way forward. Put simply, Plato tells us that when we listen to two debaters, neither of whom is prepared to concede defeat, we go nowhere, because it is personal. But when ego is set aside and the facts are sought, we progress. Wikipedia is about facts, not personal preference,

Do we need another RfC? Well, I've changed my !vote, so that's a little bit of difference. If the wrangling here goes on and on, then we are going to need some formal mechanism to end the disruption, and if an RfC isn't the answer, then what is? Every week there's more argument, more personal attacks, more mentions in ANI. This cannot go on. --Pete (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see another RfC in due time but I think we might need to sit on it for a while because the last one we had wasn't all that long ago and it didn't really get us anywhere. As far as the Macquarie dictionary definition. It is a reasonably old source, however Macquarie Dictionary is considered an authoritative source for dictionary specific definitions of words in Australian English. The trouble is that unlike other languages such as German, French and etc, we don't have an official orginisation that defines the language we use. We can do better here though as you suggest and as I have suggested by looking at context specific external sources.

I think there are only a select group of editors here that actually want the article on football in Australia to be moved to this article, I'm not one of them. We have to be realistic here that there are many games in Australia that are called football and the current compromise with the article on football in Australia is a good one. We could in fact look at the global page on football in order to get a better idea on how to handle the issue. I think you're also correct that there are a number of platitudes here that are available and that we need some consistency here, as you say we've got the Australia national association football team on the one hand and we've got Soccer in Australia here which is causing ambiguity in and of itself.

The major Kerfuffle here seems to stem from the actions taken by the federation which regulates the sport in this country circa 2004-05 when they adopted the name football, but we're not alone. New Zealand also adopted football, as has Samoa, and a few other current/former OFC member nations including Australia. The current wiki page for New Zealand is Association football in New Zealand but they seem to be having as many issues as we are about all of this.

I would like to hope that there aren't editors here who would like to go down the ultimate pathway of using the Fasces to resolve this matter and I would hope that we could come up with some sort of reasonable solution here. This is where as above I have stated that if some editors would like to pursue the linguistics pathway as their means of keeping this article title as soccer that I think a few credible sources could come in handy --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the Australian Bureau of Statistics credible enough for what the "official" government name is? They use soccer. The-Pope (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The figures refer to five years back. The contention here is that circumstances have changed over the past few years. What the mass media calls the game now is a better indication of current thinking than a Stats report from some time ago, to my mind. However, it adds a data point. --Pete (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• What I'm reading is that we have advanced this discussion to point where a proposal with simple voting would be a good indicator of future direction for an RFC. To this end I have started a section to garner a clearer idea of direction, please keep discussion to this section and leave the proposal section to just a simple response. Gnangarra 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should aim for a resolution like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Though change Football (soccer) to Association football.--2nyte (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gauge future direction

For the purpose of clarity please just choose either support or oppose, this is not a vote nor is it a discussion its purpose is solely to enable a clear gauge of where the on going discussion is at. After Jan 26 I'll commence an rfc on the matter based on this survey, even if there is an unambiguous indication. The RFC will include both this articles usage as well as usage in other articles related to this sport in Australia

article renamed to Association Football in Australia.

Support

1. . Gnangarra 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
2. .Orestes1984 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
3. . 2nyte (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support with a rider. The three major sporting codes in Australia already use their official names (Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules). Association Football is not the official name, Football is. However, Association Football is a far better alternative to ridiculous status quo of one state's nickname for the sport being kept because a wiki project for a sport unrelated to the actual topic would rather die than allow the real name for the sport to be used instead of the nickname used in states that don't even make up a majority of the population of Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Pete (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support SFCTID (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Support The term football has become far to common for soccer to really work anymore. The "official" term is not really that important. I think "Association football" works, and any ambiguity should be dealt with in the opening sentence. -- Shudde ^talk 09:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
8. Support --TinTin (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neljack (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

lead to start something like Association Football in Australia also known as Soccer or Football.... with football sufficient for all further usage within the article except where quoting or referring to a specific usage where soccer or some other term maybe appropriate.

Support

1. . Gnangarra 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
2. .Orestes1984 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
3. . 2nyte (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
4. . SFCTID (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Support --TinTin (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neljack (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Use the correct official names. If we have to add a 'disclaimer' for Football, will we have to start adding them to Rugby League, Rugby Union and AFL articles?

About time we talked about the name again

Looking at the !vote on consensus for a name change, there look to be more for Football or Association football than Soccer. Time for a formal discussion? --Pete (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is to update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and have it as standard on Australian wikipedia articles.--2nyte (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the actual reason for a name-change? So far I haven't seen any solid reasons for a name-change, just ideology and opinions. Spinrad (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Change in usage. Mass media calls the game football or association football nowadays, the official bodies and clubs go the same way. The only people calling it soccer seem to be those not involved in the sport. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've only seen "football" used in a couple of newspapers and their websites (and only in the sport sections) it isn't a universal thing from what I can see. I've never heard anything other than "soccer" used in TV media either. Involvement in the sport may be too difficult to define to make it a relevant argument. Spinrad (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No offence, Spinrad, but do you really think that anecdotal opinions of a couple of editors are a good basis for this? How about we assemble some reliable sources? Perhaps the sport sections of major newspapers would be an excellent place to start. --Pete (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that anecdotal opinions of a couple of editors is a good basis for this, which is why I asked about actual reasons in the first place. Spinrad (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I mentioned sports pages of major newspapers. Something everyone may easily check. The Australian, for example: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football --Pete (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned a while back. NewsBank lists 23,766 articles in the Australian press during 2013 which used the term "soccer". While we can debate the extent to which the term may be becoming less common, it continues to be extensively employed. I don't think the use of football or soccer in mainstream media is going to help decide this, given that both terms are being used, and I doubt that there is data available to let us know which is being used the most. - Bilby (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know how many uses of "soccer" were actually for "Socceroo". Though I agree with you last point, I don't think this should be decided with statistics. We know "soccer" and "football" are prevalently used to refer to the round ball game, though the usage of "soccer" is lessening and the usage of "football" is only increasing. That alone draws a pretty solid conclusion.--2nyte (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, searching for soccer and excluding socceroos gives 21,535 articles in 2013, when limited to Australian press. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinrad, on your first post: What is the actual reason for a name-change?. The fact is that many hundreds of clubs all over Australia have independently changed their names from Soccer Club to Football Club, all governing bodies have done so as well. As the sport has risen in popularity over the years, media (most notably national media) have adopted the usage of football in reference to the sport. That is not "ideology and opinions", that is fact. We would do well to follow, using the terms "association football" and "football".--2nyte (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked Wikipedia generally prefers common names to official names. So I don't see why any name-change should even be considered until it can be proven without a shadow of doubt that "football" or "association football" is the most commonly used name for the sport in Australia. Spinrad (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That was the point of my last post; that the usage of "soccer" has lessened and the usage of "football" has increased in recent time. I would even boldly state that a majority of clubs have dropped the usage of "soccer" and same with national media. If this is true I see the need to use the terms "association football" and "football".--2nyte (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has come down to something very simple.

In Australia common name can not (or should not) apply to the term "football". Specific to this discussion, in Australia association football is commonly know as both football and soccer. As Bilby mentioned above, "I doubt that there is data available to let us know which is being used the most" - we should not expect this to come down to 40% "Football"/60% "Soccer" - such statistics simply do not exist.

Again, this discussion has come down to something very simple: On a national scale the usage of "soccer" has declined and the usage of "football" has increased in reference to association football - that is what is spearheading the argument, and if we are to continue referring association football as "soccer", then that statement must be proven false. If that statement is deemed true, then we should drop the usage of "soccer".--2nyte (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't see a single thing in the guidelines that recommends a change of article name on account of an apparent uptick in the use of a different name. Spinrad (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Now, now! It really comes down to how we editors interpret the sources available to us. There is definitely a surge of interest in the roundball game in recent years, presumably due to our participation in the FIFA World Cup and the changing demographics of the population. Whatever it is, there is a corresponding surge in support for Association Football as the "correct", "official" name for the sport. Just looking at the media, the names of the clubs, the various bodies, it's undeniable. Call it an "uptick" if you will, but I see that as denial, an attempt to sway opinion without reference to facts. In all honestly, can we see the change in media sites replacing "Soccer" with "Football" in their sports coverage as "just an uptick"? --Pete (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone using or advocating for using "Association Football" as the sports name. "Football" sure, but we can't really use "Football in Australia" for the article name. Also the media is not some silver-bullet for justifying a name-change because they are small, closed organisations of people that don't necessarily reflect the general public. You just can't use a handful of media outlets using "football" (usually only in said sport's section) as evidence that it has become the most common name for the sport in Australia. Spinrad (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Superbowl in America, hyperbole in Australia. Let's look at the evidence. I posted the link to "The Australian" above. The heading of "Football" under "Sports" leads to what used to be called soccer.

• Try it http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport
• Likewise the ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/news/sport
• Ninemsn, the same: http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/default.aspx
• Yahoo 7: http://au.sports.yahoo.com/
• SBS: http://www.sbs.com.au/ (Don't even have to go to their sports menu; it's right there on the main line as "Football".)
• Ten is the exception here: http://tenplay.com.au/sport/sports-listing they call it soccer, alone out of the national networks.

It's the same everywhere - any media outlet serving an Australia-wide audience, chances are very good that they use "Football" in preference to "Soccer": http://www.theguardian.com/au is a recent example. Now, maybe you see mass media in Australia as a closed shop, but consider that there is fierce competition between the outlets for the market share that drives their revenue, and that audience votes with its feet. Media here - as everywhere else but in dictatorships - are driven by their audiences. Niche markets will differ, of course, but national audiences overwhelmingly prefer football to soccer. --Pete (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian isn't a great example because it uses "soccer" on its Australian page which then links to an international page for the sport which remains static no matter which edition you view it on. Also as I said before the media is pretty much irrelevant to the argument.Spinrad (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I see the mass media as woven directly into the popular culture. In a free market, the people reflect the media they consume, and the media takes its material from the population. You differ. Fine. --Pete (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, the media takes its position based on what people are doing, clearly people are happy to understand that football means soccer. For the duration of the World Cup, as the premier dominant football tournament played out through Australia's sporting media millions of people will be hearing the term football. It's been this way for at least 8 years now... We can say for at least a fortnight every 4 years association football becomes the dominant football code in Australia. It has to a fairly significant extent rubbed of on the broader sporting landscape. It is now time we adopt the Wikipedia wide policy of using Association Football, and use football as the word for the sport in the article. A disambiguation can be placed at the start of the article. No one will be confused... --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What does "common name" really mean for this topic?

There seems no doubt that "football" is the common name for the round ball game among its hard core Australian fans who live outside Aussie Rules territory. I believe that describes all those who come here arguing that it is "THE common name" these days. But that cannot be our definition of common name.

The article title uses the name "Australia", so for starters, we have to consider the whole country.

We must also consider usage among non-hard core fans of the game. They are in Australia too, and until Australia falls out of the World Cup later this year (hope it's not too early), will be talking about the game more and more. We almost all become at least soft core fans during that time.

This means that we must look at the name all Australians in all parts of Australia use for the game.

We need to look at what the media does all over the country, not just "nationally", which in fact has little effect on the local stage. The ABC, for example, might use "football" on its single website for the whole country, but it uses "soccer" in its Melbourne studios, and, I would strongly suspect, in its Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Broome, Wagga and Darwin studios. (And many other places.) Other TV networks (apart from SBS) do the same. The country's biggest selling daily newspaper uses "soccer" in its print edition. Other newspapers in Aussie Rules territory do the same.

I have already provided evidence. A month ago up above, at 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC), in the thread titled "Soccer is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia" I provided considerable evidence for the point I am making. It wasn't just restricted to where I live. I looked at other states too. I think other editors need to become certain about how things are in parts of Australia where they don't live before they again make sweeping claims about the common name.

Just repeating, my main point is that the common name has to be based on the name all Australians in all parts of Australia use for the game, not just the usage seen by its hard core fans in part of the country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, you speak of "the name all Australians in all parts of Australia use for the game", yet you're examples are regionally specific. As is being discussed above, we have to go past the region verse region mentality. On a national scale the usage of "soccer" is in decline and the usage of "football" is increasing in reference to the round ball game; this is evident in national media and within the game itself.--2nyte (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To be more precise, the usage of "soccer" HAS declined and the usage of "football" HAS increased, in part of the country, and by some people. We cannot predict the future, so we cannot really even describe it as still changing. Yes, my examples ARE region specific, but I've already acknowledged that serious fans in your part of the world do use "football". I'm saying that it's the other places and the other people we must look at. My main point is that "national" usage as claimed by many here is not representative of the whole country. And I strongly submit that we must look at the whole country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think decisions should be made on Wikipedia based on things in the future we can't predict. Also I can confirm that Hobart's ABC studios use "soccer" exclusively, as do the other networks. Spinrad (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in agreement but I used present tense, not future tense.--2nyte (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I explained the problem with that. While you may know roughly what has happened up until some recent time, you cannot know what is happening right now across the country. Past tense is the only valid one. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If we need to look at anything it will be what the national broadcasters of the game are doing, in this case the licensing agreements are with SBS and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, Fox Sports I suspect which will be the other major player during the world cup will also be using football nationally. The print media then falls under that as a dwindling market. That isn't an attack, it's a simple look at the reality of what is going on regarding print based media.

We also seem to have an ongoing tense issue simply to insert agendas that could be covered under WP:Weasel certain words like "partial" as if reference to partially completed, period which is not the case at all seen here names for association football. As to what the country calls it, there is a lot more to this that is historical in nature, I won't get into that argument here again as it simply will not be acknowledged. I suspect, when we look at what it is called during the World Cup due to the current television and radio licensing agreements in Australia you're going to be hearing a lot about football as will the majority of people tuning in. For the duration of the World Cup football will be the dominant term as SBS and Fox Sports is where the majority of viewership and listenership will simply be getting their information from on the world cup.

Pushing the print media perspective is not going to get you anywhere... During the previous world cup "soccer" attracted the highest listener/viewership out of any football code in Australia, which can be categorically proven as a fact. Millions of people heard the words football repeatedly, day in and day out and not once did I ever see anyone running around like the sky was falling in the same way people do here. IF the World Cup is anything to go by then the name for the spo here should be football, it really is as simple as that. Millions of people simply accepted that football was the term being used, at least as far as the duration of the tournament. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The frequency of "football" potentially increasing over a period of two weeks this year is a pretty bad reason for a move. In fact at this point you don't even seem to be debating why the article name should be changed, but rather why the general public should stop using "soccer" and start using "football". Spinrad (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The frequency of the usage of football for soccer will indeed be increasing as it has done and as it will continue to do so pretty much since around 2004, when all of these changes began to happen, our relative success in recent years of qualifying for the World Cup 3 times in a row is just a catalyst for this. But, at least every 4 years soccer does become the dominant football code, we can look at these facts in terms of raw viewership numbers. What that has to do with overall word usage is the fact that it has spawned a catalyst for ongoing attention to soccer (football) in this country.

The World Cup and Australia's predominately successful move to the AFC illustrates that there is more than a general interest in what the Socceroos are doing on an international level where the game is considered to be football. The broad national consensus for the usage of the word football in terms of national media as addressed above would appear to be football, the ABC, SBS, Nine, Seven, and Foxtel would all appear to have football as the dominant usage word in their style guides. This would appear to also be the case on every major network except channel 10. Using print media as an example is a pretty bad one primarily because print media is dying out anyway. We should look at digital media, analogue radio and the web. We've got a fair indication that most of the web based presence for the major networks are using football, most television based networks are using football, and the radio where football is predominately broadcast on the ABC and SBS are using football, either predominately or interchangeably.

The changes are occurring and it is fairly wide spread association football is a widely spread and accepted wikipedia category, and there is also a portal for association football. It's about time we got over this and accepted a widely held Wikipedia wide compromise of using association football where we cannot use what looks to have become the common name for the sport at least as far as the media is concerned. --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Orestes, you have not discussed the actual topic, which is by what process do we determine the common name for Australia. And to say "The frequency of the usage of football for soccer will indeed be increasing..." is pointless WP:SPECULATION and nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Oh, and can we drop this ridiculous nonsense that TV networks are using "football"? Apart from SBS, it's just not true. The types of prgorams where the name of the game will be mentioned are produced locally (news, sport, etc) and the word used is the common one for each particular area. You have been told by two other editors in this very thread that in Hobart and Melbourne it's "soccer". Claiming otherwise is incredibly bad manners. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The national television networks are using "football" - SBS, ABC, Fox Sports, Sky News - they are all nationally represented and they all predominately refer to association football as "football". So in terms of on a national scale, in recent time the common name for association football has become "football".--2nyte (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Fox Sports and Sky News have a negligible market share and the ABC doesn't really seem to use "football" in its studios anyway, not that corporate policy is proof of common usage by society. Spinrad (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo once again you demonstrate your inability to think outside of the box you've put yourself in and we've returned to your commentary that everyone who disagrees with you is a "wishful thinker" a "moron" or something similar. I've been sorely tempted to start an RFC/U about this behaviour, it's just not acceptable. I'm sick of it and your behaviour that started all this nonsense not only with me but with everyone else. Please stop this needlessly derisive behaviour. You have been called out as childish by a number of administrators here when it comes to resolving disagreements with other editors.

By what process do we determine the common name of the sport?

One example is by what the media is doing at a national level and you have been given examples of this by another user here that the predominance of style in terms of web presences is football and furthermore that the two main broadcasting networks in Australia call the sport football. Your claim about it being apart from SBS is just not true, apart from SBS there is also Fox Sports, and Channel 9's Wide World of Sports as notable examples of national coverage I can think of off the top of my head that use the term football. From a national perspective this simply has been increasing and has been doing so since right about 2004, this is not wishful thinking.

Another way is to look at all those people, sporting clubs, etc, that have decided voluntarily to adopt the word football, even in your home state of Victoria for the game being played... They don't have to but they do, while here in Queensland my local club has been renamed the Coolum Football Club. They've been around since 1975 and don't have to mandatorily change anything but they did anyway.

The other way is to look at what people are doing on the street, unfortunately despite your own "wishful thinking" we don't have a survey of linguistics that identifies that any one sport in any state has a predominant word usage of football that refers to any one sport, historicity tells us that this was the case at one point in time, but the modern landscape and influences of rugby league, union, and AFL across Australia have muddied the waters without looking at soccer on top of that, therefore we must look at what the current evidence based position is on the matter.

Until we have an evidence based position we can only go with what we know and that is that there are many sports called football, so the Wikipedia wide catch all category applies of association football. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

2nyte and Orestes, you are both wrong about the ABC. The free to air commercial networks use the common name in each state, so it's "soccer" in Vic, Tas, SA, WA, NT and the Riverina. (Fox and Sky are irrelevant.) In repeatedly saying otherwise about the big networks you are claiming to know better than other editors who actually live there, and I'm pretty sure neither of you have ever been. It's not a sensible position to take. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines seem to recommend avoiding name-changes unless there are very good, objective reasons to do so. So far no reason has been provided that isn't a matter of personal opinion or corporate media policy. Spinrad (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinrad, "very good, objective reasons"? - hundreds of clubs have independently changed their names, all organising bodies have independently changed their names and national media has independently adopted the usage of "football". Those is the best reason for name-changes. What more do you expect? A petition logged to Wikipedia from the Australian population? As was said above, "people reflect the media they consume", and the national media for "all Australians in all parts of Australia" has adopted "football" in preference to a long-standing historic usage of "soccer". That is completely objective and it must be represented on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Clubs changing their names doesn't really prove that "football" has become the most common name for the sport in Australia. Again corporate media policy isn't really an argument, not to mention the media's use of "football" is patchy at best outside of the internet. Doubly not to mention that many of the "national" media outlets mentioned above have tiny market shares at best. Spinrad (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "We need to look at what the media does all over the country" and what the media does all over the country is "patchy at best" I think we can agree, and I stated further, it's getting worse which is why we have to look at the digital/analogue landscape of the national television and radio broadcasters SBS, the ABC, and Foxtel to find out what their respective style guides state. Predominately, this is football. As far as most of the other national broadcasters excluding 10, the dominant term seems to be football as well, seriously, watch Channel 9s general broadcast outside of the AFL Footy show, you have Wide World of Sports where football is used, I heard a bunch of cricketers talking about the football where they were referencing the round ball game on this years Ashes coverage, we see it in Channel 7's coverage. In general media outside of specific local news the use of the term football has more traction than those opposing wish to give it credit. The catch all category however where the case is that there is more than one code known as football is association football. It really is not that difficult, soccer in Australia would become a redirect and nobody except the die hard AFL and rugby supporters opposing would lose any sleep --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong about the ABC and commercial networks. SBS and Fox have a direct commercial arrangement with soccer, so they are not taking an independent position. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Anecdotal examples of traction aren't really a good basis for an article name change. We've also really got to get past the (wrong) idea that the media is some kind of arbiter of sports names in Australia. "Association Football" probably shouldn't even be a catch all category in the first place, since it's neither common or official in Australia, so that's another shaky argument at best. Spinrad (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the media could count as part of the evidence, but that evidence is not what Orestes and 2nyte claim it is anyway. As for what the clubs do, that's insider behaviour, and clearly only a minority of Australians. We must consider what Australians everywhere, fans or not, do. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Lets face it HiLo, not to be rude or anything but... everyone who disagrees with you is wrong...I'm not asking you to comment on the above discussion but look at the links how am I "wrong?" How am I wrong when the most prominent all sports program on Channel 9 uses the term "football" to refer to soccer? What your local news broadcaster, not sure if you watch NBN, Prime, or whatever, but eitherway, what they do... It's actually kinda irrelevant, because that is a very small world perspective... You do know they call it "local" news for a reason right? --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

All those local stations that use "soccer" are going to add up though. Also as I said before what the media chooses to call a sport is not guaranteed to be representative of what a majority of a population calls said sport. We don't really know if it's even intended to be representative in the first place. Spinrad (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've suggested that someone find a linguistics study in the past, of which there isn't very many to put this all to bed, but HiLo seems to find it an afront that there is even such a discussion going on, or that such a concept should even be sourced. Let us be frank, we all know what Wikipedia says about unsourced information. "It may be challenged and deleted," personal anecdotes are not what this is about. We've all got more than a few to substantiate our own "personal" opinion. However, personal opinions violate NPOV and are seen as original research.... On two grounds, that's just not cricket. IF we ever want to resolve this then we need some research based linguistics studies from a credible source into how the word football is used in Australia at present, not 100 years ago, not 50 years ago, but what is actually going on now --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I provided multifarious sources a month ago, at 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC), in the thread titled "Soccer is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia". I have many more. HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There are four major sporting codes in Australia. Three use their official names. One is forced to use a nickname because of the AFL project meatpuppets creating false consensus. There would be no 'ambiguity' on Wikipedia should the fourth code be allowed to use the official name for the sport, because none of the other sports share that name. If there is 'ambiguity' that is a failure to correct report or use the right name in any article and should be fixed to point at the right sport. Rugby Union. Rugby League. Australian Rules. Football. I do find it interesting that people want to use the WP Common guideline as a reason to not use football, when I could just as easily use that same guideline to request that all use of Australian Rules on Wikipedia be changed to AFL since QLD & NSW (which are a majority of the country in terms of population and media) use AFL and not Australian Rules to describe the sport. Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Mack, the only case of meatpuppetry in the last RM was from you, recruiting Soccer supporters via Twitter, which you admitted to. Jevansen (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's also important to point out that the use of "football" to mean "Aussie Rules" in the Aussie Rules part of country is not just a fan or "AFL Project" thing. It's everybody. Even people who hate the game call it "football". It's universal. Which is very different from the situation with the name in the other part of the country. Some use it for the round ball game. Some for rugby league. And even some for rugby union. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

To almost all our readers in the Aussie Rules part of the country "football" almost exclusively means Aussie Rules. So it's worse than ambiguous. It means something quite different from what you want it to mean. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Very good point... Why do we not simply go over to the AFL page and create a false consensus that AFL is the only non-ambiguous name for the sport of Australia Rules Football? We are in the majority here in the north and that is the only name we know it by. The reality is that the majority of us here do not even care remotely enough to be threatened by another sport using the term football or a derivative there of such as association football... Do you see how ridiculous this all is HiLo? You're getting wound up, time and time again and have been told off by more than a few administrators for being childish, immature, and just plain impossible to work with and you've dragged me down to your own level. Over what really? An article on Wikipedia for a sport that you actually in reality, probably do not even care about in the same way as the majority of people who will read this article. Is it really worth all of the drama you have created over the last year at least to maintain a position that is simply causing everyone here to be more than a little annoyed? --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A consensus isn't false just because you disagree with it and level of extracurricular interest in a subject is a personal matter that doesn't add or subtract weight to anyone's arguments on Wikipedia. You keep bringing up HiLo48 being told-off by admins and I don't see why this has anything to do with the name of the article. He has been behaving just fine in this section of the talk page anyway. Also I find it extremely unlikely that "football" is the only name for the sport used "in the north". Spinrad (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not. League fans call their game "football", and use "soccer" for the round ball game. And "football" means Aussie Rules in the Riverina. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say football was the only name used in the north... I can say for the majority, AFL is the only common unambiguous name for Australian Rules football in the north though.... YET... Neither myself or anyone else cares enough to push that agenda, on every single AFL talk page out there. Clearly from an unbiased perspective there are OTHER issues going on here as to why those in the south have decided that they don't want to accept the wikipedia wide catch all category of association football

This is all despite the fact that we have the majority population of Australia here north of the ACT/NSW border.... I have the same right here to say "AFL is the only common unambiguous name in the majority of Australia's population for that sport played for the majority in Victoria." It's funny that... I don't go there, I have no need to go there... I don't go there because it's silly, pointless, and unnecessarily antagonistic as are the last eight, count them, eight, discussions on this talk page.

Extracurricular interest or not it's not about that.... I'm not saying anyone is stupid, not you not HiLo48, but this whole issue going on this take page and every other soccer related articles talk page IS stupid and I'm calling it for what it is. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Association football" is clearly not a common name. But that's not the point of this thread. It is to clarify by what criteria we decide on a common name. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Association football" is the default name for the sport on wikipedia (much like "Australian rules football" is for Australian football), and in the current circumstance it is the best name for this article.--2nyte (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But "Australian rules football" obviously IS a common name for Aussie Rules. All Australians will instantly know what it means. Not so for "Association football". Most Australians wouldn't have a clue what it means. I certainly didn't until I began working on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"Three use their official names. One is forced to use a nickname". Um, no Mack, 2 use official names, 2 use common names. Australian Football is the official name of the sport known here as Australian rules football, because we accept the official name is ambiguous on a national and global scale. The-Pope (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether people have an understanding of what association football is, a redirect will fix that, and editing this article in such a way to represent what it is will clarify it for anyone who is confused. It really is that simple, but to break it down into tiny little chunks for HiLo here about how the human brain works

1. types in soccer in Australia...

2. hmm redirect "wonder what that is... could it be soccer?"

3. Association football, otherwise known as football or soccer...

4. Lightbulb moment, "Eureka! The round peg goes in the round hole"

5. No more confusion.

How is that hard at all? As they say "problem Solvered." --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But completely unnecessary. There's nothing wrong with "soccer". No redirect needed. And you've gone off topic again. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again... There's nothing wrong... provided HiLo48 agrees with it... You are not a force unto yourself here --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with what I think. It's what I observe. I've just started work at a new school, one with a strong Italian flavour. Naturally there's a lot of the round ball game played here. A big part of the school's internal website is a section all about their, wait for it.... "Soccer Tour to Italy". Everyone in this part of the world is comfortable with the name "soccer". So it's not just my opinion. That's why I did all the research behind my earlier post up above, at 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC), in the thread called "Soccer is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia". "Soccer" works here. It's practical. No embarrassment. No confusion. (Apart from when we do encounter people trying to call it "football", because THAT'S confusing.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? "Everyone" according to furthering the point being driven home here about "everyone." According to "everyone" living in the majority of Australia, AFL is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for Australian Rules Football in the majority of Australia if I were to say Australian football, I could very well be talking about an Australia version of soccer. Do you see the problem with "everyone" here now yet? Now As I said previously... I don't want to go there... I have no intent of going there... HOWEVER, I do on the other hand have trouble with your persistence to consistently revert good faith edits to largely incorrect content, or simply just to revert problems rather than fixing them... The later is just lazy editing. I do also have trouble with the fact that you just don't seem to get the whole picture on this issue... It's rather polemic, I can understand your lack of desire to go into it, but on the other side of the coin, competence is required if you want to be here, and part of competence IS understanding the subject matter at hand and why certain editors here find the term soccer either outdated, abhorrent or both. Just because you find soccer is OK to "everyone" in your microcosm does not mean "everyone" else does. I also see a lot of issues going on here that could be interpreted as falling under WP:WEASEL much like other polemic issues, but I really don't see why this should be the case, it IS just a game... --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious that some find "soccer" outdated. Unfortunately, if it's still the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia, that's just bad luck. The non-outdated name is "football", and that's too ambiguous. As for finding it "abhorrent", please provide evidence that your feelings are any different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Sheilas" "Wogs" "poofters" connotations to girly men who play "wogball" what's not to love about "soccer" or the persistent media outcry, most recently both in Melbourne and Sydney about "soccer hooliganism" really this isn't an insult at all and I have no intention of making it one, but part of the key issue about having competence in a certain subject area is being able to understand all the facets of what is going on. Clearly you do not understand all of what is going on here and the polemic nature of "soccer" in Australia which is why you continue to get other editors backs up, I'm not sure if you're doing this on purpose or whether you really are not competent to edit in this space. It's OK to admit where you are not otherwise competent to edit and desist from doing so, or to come back when you have a better understanding of what is going on. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What? I have no idea what that post means, apart from again demonstrating that you don't like the name "soccer". That counts for nothing here. I've presented many sources showing that many people who love the game are very happy with that name. Your opinion hardly cancels them out.

But anyway, you've moved off topic again. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a lot more than simply "I do not like it." Let me break this down into simple english we all can understand. The use of the word soccer leads to hostilities and animosity, and strong worded tirades on both sides of the fence here purely because of its historical context. There are many strongly worded examples I have used in the statement above, it continues. Soccer continues to be associated with "ethnic tension" in this country directly, most recently both in Sydney and in Melbourne. This whole thing with the FFA using foothall was to a large extent to stop this nonsense, and your persistence of dragging it back to this without understanding absolutely everything involved in the situation is doing nothing more but adding fuel to the fire. That is a lot more than "I don't like it." Contextual knowledge is required before you're fully competent to edit in this area HiLo48, it's not beyond you either. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of the word "soccer" causing hostilities, I thought the FFA using "football" was just a marketing thing. Also I'll second HiLo48 in that it's getting harder and harder to figure out what point you are trying to make. Spinrad (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not the name that causes the hostilities. It's idiot fans. (Note that I am not saying that all fans are idiots.) And perhaps a game where the excitement comes in such short bursts, and where fans get segregated, so they only meet each other elsewhere. But that's WAY off topic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Soccer historically has always been associated with minority groups and it is representative in it's culture. Part of "old soccer, new football" was steering the governing body and the league at the time out of that quagmire, new football was supposed to be exactly that which is why old soccer had such a bad reputation. New football brought with it new clubs (predominately) that were not tied to old ethnic rivalries. In a lot of ways we only have ourselves to blame for it and why it copped names such as "wogball", which I find extremely offensive as with any derivative of that word. The analogy is similar to Nick Gianopolis, I don't find it humorous in any way shape or form to take such a racially charged word like "wog" and denigrate yourself like that. Likewise, I don't take the cultural connotations that come with old soccer with much good light either. The FFA moved to football and this was one of the reasons, it was an escape from this quagmire, those who hold onto it just drag us back into it, unknowingly or otherwise and that's the thing. I'm sure you mean well, but you might not understand the deep seated issues that come with soccer in this country, and for those who grew up outside of the ethnic confines that come with "soccer" in this country probably never will unless they take their blinkers off. Please do not dismiss this simply because you do not understand it. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There's something I've noticed. I try hard to post about the word "soccer". You seem to post an awful lot about me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your name keeps coming up because it seems at times you don't take into account that there could be some logic in what other people are saying and resort back to "we call it soccer where I'm from, so that's OK and nevermind what others might call it." It seems at times you are dismissive when you are given an understanding of some of the other factors in why the sport is now known as football. When it comes to a naming dispute like this, you really have to take into account everything is going on and sometimes I think you might not have a full understanding of the historical context. It's not your fault, you didn't grow up in that part of Australia, you don't live as I do on this side of the ethnic divide, and you will never see Australia through my eyes, or through the eyes of anyone else in that position. This isn't off topic... It all boils down to what the common name is here HiLo, and it's simple...

You say there is nothing wrong with soccer, everyone understands what it is, I will give you a conceded pass on the second, in other words a D+/C- what I wont give you is the first one, when you won't actually stop to consider all the factors in coming to your understanding of what IS wrong with soccer... Particularly when you can spend a little longer actually wrapping your head around it rather than simply saying "there's nothing wrong with soccer, it's unambiguous."

Claiming ignorance to the problems of soccer (and don't twist that into a personal attack) does not get you around the facts of what is wrong with it. I live it, I breath it, I grew up in the culture, you didn't. You talk about the Barassi Line, I talk about the ethnic divide.... It is something that is very real in this country you must understand before you even bother getting into talking soccer. --Orestes1984 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe there WAS a problem with the name "soccer". Is there still? (Evidence please.) Look at the enthusiasm with which the FFA now embraces the Socceroos name. Check out the website. It's everywhere. I am considerably older and much better travelled within Australia than you, and probably more aware of past issues, but we need to talk about the present. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The evidence with old soccer was seen roughly a month ago in the streets of Melbourne and Sydney, it's seen with some elements of the supporters of Melbourne Victory, and Sydney Wanderers and with teams like Sydney Olympic and South Melbourne continuing to push the agenda of being admitted into the A-League... the Meedya in Australia take these things consistently and run with "soccer hooliganism," "ethic/racial tension," and the ongoing debate that "sockahhh" is an inappropriate sport to be played in Australia, then you have people like Kevin Sheedy and Eddie McGuire run off at the first opportunity to grab a sound byte about how bad sockah is again, it happens without failure which is everything that is wrong with the term soccer... --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Old Soccer" as you're explaining it seems like a concept unrelated to FFA's attempt at changing the sports name in Australia. I still don't see how the name "soccer" actually has anything to do with the aforementioned ethnic tensions or how his proves that "Football" is the common name for the sport in Australia. Spinrad (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes Orestes, please be realistic. How can violence by and between stupid fans have anything to do with the name? That really demands evidence. If the name was a problem, there would be violence at every game in Melbourne, and there isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, OK, the we don't like it is a predominant reason, but it's explainable and furthermore, this was one among many reasons for the changes that occurred in 2004. That is, it was to remove the constant troll bait that the meedya has in this country to consistently refer to "soccer hooliganism" and "ethnic tension" which is associated with the general term "soccer" this is a very real reality. Actually the strict enforcement of "new football" during the first 5 years of the A-League where officials were quite strict on nonsense was also a part of this. Unfortunately it's quite hard to put a cat back in the bag once it has gotten out of one.

One of my other reasonings for pushing for a name resolution that is anything but soccer apart from it being historically incorrect, is the fact that it is inherently divisive and you've witnessed this yourself in the last few years being here. You may not realise why you're getting peoples backs up, but a lot of it refers to this. I am reasonable enough to recognise what the consensus is here and to discuss it in a reasonable way, I'm just highlighting what is going wrong here.

No one likes soccer on one side of the fence, and a number of users other than myself have stated openly it feels like it is being pushed upon this article, I have suggested an alternative which is a Wikipedia wide category. I can state that while soccer is a common name, it's ability to cause inflammatory debates does not make it a practical long term solution to this problem and it's not just me. You seem to have run into a number of editors that feel the same or similar about the term "soccer" in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It's clear now. Your opposition is a classical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But even a very intense feeling of WP:IDONTLIKEIT carries no weight here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You are very dificult to work with, that does not illustrate my thoughts at all, and yet you are bound by such black and white understandings of how the world works in your head that you cannot see the many differentiations of grey going on here.... I have expressed a lot of evidence here, you can go through the archives on SBS and trawl away at the shitfest that was played out on live TV around 2004 and how "soccer" was held ransom. It all happened, and it all expresses why none of us particularly like soccer or the bullshit that is involved with soccer. It seems you're still not competent enough to understand the finer details of what's going on here and as soon as I desist from this simply because you do not get the point you are going to get someone elses back up.

HiLo, if I may offer you just a little bit of helpful personal advice and a life lesson... The world is very often not as black and white as you see things and neither is this, in fact this whole shit show illustrates over a number of years exactly why it is not, you need to really understand what is going on and to be able to put yourself in the shoes of both parties before you add your two cents worth to things in life.... This is a good case where a little bit more of an understanding would do you the world of good. Now don't get your back up either, because that's about as politely as I'm going to put it. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If it's really so bad a word, how come half the country lives perfectly happily with it? HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you were dealing with someone who was enforcing rules, claiming ignorance would not get you very far, if it were a police officer you'd get yourself arrested, ignorance is not a defence. Being deliberately ignorant of the facts does not get you very far with me either.... How come half of the United States accepted segregation until the federal government decided it was unacceptable? If half of Australia decided to jump off a cliff would you be perfectly happy with it as a norm? --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing new there. Just more insults and pointless, irrelevant, attempted analogies. 20:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not comparing the use of the word "soccer" to segregation now are you? And regarding your previous comment, I've always thought of Wikipedia as being fairly black and white on most subjects. Spinrad (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

And I had to laugh when I saw the US brought into this discussion. I assume we're all aware that the game is called Soccer in the United States. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the reality of the situation, I took a picture yesterday of the way the PE teachers organise the balls at my very soccer oriented school.
(Sorry about the quality. It was a dark spot.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No one wants to see your soccer balls here, and no one wants to see your dismissive attitude here HiLo, as I have stated repeatedly you are not above everyone else here, so come off your high horse. As far as segregation goes, we're not playing an ignorance game about the history of this country here are we? Lets see now, Aboriginals, white Australia policy, ethnic divisiveness... Soccer being one particular side of that divisiveness.... Yeah... If I wanted to tally inflame this debate you would not have a leg to stand on regarding "segregation" and this country. I do not want to nor do I have any intention of going there though other than to use it as a loosely fitting analogy which will simply be ignored again by certain editors here to prove my point --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right about one thing. It's definitely a loosely fitting analogy. As for "No one wants to see your soccer balls...", it's obvious that you don't want anyone to see them, but it's quite possible others are actually interested. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You have ignored my position and skirted what I was saying to come up with your own perspective once again and this is largely the problem with your editing manners --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Haven't ignored your position at all. It's clear that your position on the name "soccer" is "I don't like it" which, of course, means nothings here. Your feeling don't matter. And you also have strong thoughts on racial/ethnic issues. I suspect we would pretty much agree on the latter. Australia doesn't have a great history on that front. But it's completely irrelevant to a discussion on the common name of the round ball game today. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot more to my position simply than "I do not like it," I have attempted to put this into context in a way that would be understandable. Unfortunately you don't seem to understand where I'm coming from, that's fine, I'm pretty much done trying to get that through to you. You're simply not going to get it --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I repeat the fundamental point that if the problem with the name "soccer" really was so serious, it wouldn't be in such common use by players and fans of the game in the areas where Aussie Rules is the major code. It simply cannot be as big a problem for most people as you seem to think it is. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it is a problem at all should wave a red flag here, however you seem to be stating "I don't see a problem where I live, so it's not a problem for everyone" This at best is highly ignorant of others thoughts and feelings at worst it shows a major lack of competence and should flag a reason why you should stay away from this page. I'm really not going to bother anymore. I'm just going to sit back and watch with popcorn next time you get in a shitfight with someone else over this, because it IS a problem that is simply not going to go away. I'm done with this... --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously a problem for you, but you seem incapable of explaining why. A whole bunch of people don't see it as a problem, and all the reasons you give for it being a problem to you would also apply to many of those people. Can you explain that. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have explained in numerous ways, you simply do not listen... I cannot help you if you are deaf to the problems that are going on here. I am done communicating with you... Consider this my self imposed right not to interact with you any further.... --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI and goodbye

There is a discussion taking place at ANI, the very likely decision of which is that I will be topic-banned from all articles relating to association football. Apparently my presence here is seen by the community as disruptive. I have some grumbles about the process, but I'll take that up with a higher league, as it were.

The immediate result is that discussion here will have to take place without my helpful contributions. I would hold this page up as an exact model of what consensus is not, and it seems that my disruptive behaviour may be holding things back. May you all find consensus, happiness and tranquility. Thanks for the pleasure of your stimulating company over the last few months. I've learnt a lot about football culture. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To each his own opinion is entitled Pete, I don't see that your contributions above directly infringe upon your IBAN but I did see this happening from a mile away when you opened up the discussion above. Unfortunately, it seems like it's too close to everything else that is going on and the long drawn out arguments elsewhere that WILL NOT be discussed here as it's completely inappropriate to both parties. Unfortunately you have an IBAN because of this and this I must say I abhore process where someone can be silenced like that and that I've been down similar pathways myself, but this is how Wikipedia works, in fact it's how systems work, and you've done wrong in the past so it's now easy to get caught back up in that net

It reminds me of the pettiness of when I was in high school, and the way AN/I plays out which is much the same... You try to avoid it at all costs, but eventually you'll get hit in the head with a boomerang as you're already on notice as a "trouble maker." Whatever that means, once you're affixed with that label it's almost impossible to get rid of it. Sorry you couldn't stick around.... --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

For some reason I'm still able to post here. Not for much longer, I guess.

I thought we were getting somewhere in the threads I started, looking at sources, dealing with facts. Other threads just went round and round in circles and acrimony. On that point, may I suggest NOT engaging with editors who view things in personal terms? Nobody gets anywhere that way and it's just a big time-waster. Follow the logos, follow the thread of the discussion, be prepared to change your mind when shown to be wrong. I called the game Soccer for decades, but I can't deny that the newspapers and the TV networks have switched to Football. I don't need to quibble when the facts are presented calmly and lucidly. I just accept the new reality.

Don't worry about me. I'm a big boy now and whatever happens I'll find a way to accept it and be happy. No point being all upset and stress-filled over trivia. In the big scheme of our own lives, the name of the game isn't what it's all about. In a couple of years time it'll be like looking back on arguments about VHS and Beta, and we'll laugh at how we wasted time on such rubbish. The Football tide is flowing in and one by one the Soccer sandcastles are crumbling.

Perhaps one way forward is to create a section in the article dealing with the name. List the media outlets that use each name. List the official bodies likewise. Be fair. Use reliable sources. After a while even the most dogmatic will have to accept the facts when presented calmly and clearly. It's like accepting the final score in a match; one might be a lifelong supporter of a particular team, but if the other side is carrying away the trophy and singing their victory song as they march to the sunny side of the stadium and overflow the crossbenches, one accepts the bitter truth. --Pete (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

First game in Australia debate

I think the constant reference to the Paramatta Wanderers game is a bit silly when the Hobart Cricketers game and the Qld Asylum game both clearly preclude it. While the exact nature of the Qld Asylum game is a little unclear, the Hobart one played under 'English Association rules' to me would seem very clearly to be Association rules one year prior to the Wanderers game. --TinTin (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Precede! --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Orestes1984, do you mean proceed? Anyway, the first match in Australia is truly unknown. We do know that the first recorded match played under the Laws of the Game was the Wanderers match in Parramatta, 1980 - as confirmed by FFA, and generally known within the sport.--2nyte (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

No I mean precede, as in the games came before... But actually, if we look at the history of football in Australia, no one is actually sure what type of game was played, or when it actually occurred. On the basis of that, we really shouldn't have a "first game" at all... --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

1980? Really? That seems quite late for Australia to be adopting the Laws of the Game. – PeeJay 23:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was a dyslexic moment, it should be somewhere closer to 1890... --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Leave it alone the both of you 2nyte and HiLo

Hilo We have a long standing convention going on here that it is Association Football on Wikipedia globally and you continue to ignore this fact. I have maintained convention here, not to change this article one way or the other to football or soccer despite my ongoing opposition to the term Soccer... You are continuing to attempt to introduce the words soccer into articles here despite convention otherwise you are not a force here to ignore this convention, I foresee further disruptive editing will lead to a block. Just leave this article alone until the issue is resolved or you will be introducing more tension into this debate yet again. Bold editing simply will not resolve this conflict!

For the time being 2nyte, all references to the word soccer should be reverted as they were. I have added a neutral perspective description, should this be reverted I will see this as nothing short of disruptive editing. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus for this change -- it should go back to "Soccer" per the prior consensus at Talk:Soccer_in_Australia/Archive_3. NE Ent 14:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have replaced all references of football to soccer where appropriate--Orestes1984 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Except for the lead paragraph. I've restored it. NE Ent 14:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I've restored everything. Why were the changes made and then why were they reverted again?--2nyte (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I reverted to an incorrect version in the first place... However the change in the lead represents an ongoing problem with this article... Why was that change even made in the first place? --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is this all about? It has my name in the title, but I have no idea why. No links have been provided. No articles have been named. It looks like just a typical clumsy attack on me from Orestes. I hope it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I would refrain from calling things clumsy or otherwise inciting more animosity into this debate than what you already cause the issue was with inserting the word "soccer" into the lead here.... Any unnecessary changes in terminology to this article at this stage should be discussed on this talk page until we have consensus about where to go next. It really is quite simple here, your attitude towards other editors categorically sucks... On the other hand my siesta between actually creating my account and the time I had away from here has led to certain issues with how I use this place, that doesn't impair my ability to actually communicate... You should really think about the type of garbage that comes out of your mouth sometimes. Admittedly I didn't read the full article and messed up the revert, that's not clumsy that's just being short sighted here, but that kind of language above is completely unnecessary... On the other hand, regarding your consistent behaviour and as noted by others, you make your own bed, and now you lie in it HiLo, there's not actually a lot of people here that like the way you act at the best of times. --Orestes1984 (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that there may be some confusion. Checking the history for the last month or so, the only changes HiLo48 made were minor copyedits or reverting back to the status quo, and while 2nyte made some bigger changes, there was nothing problematic in them. The nature of the reverts might have been a bit misleading if viewed on their own, so perhaps that is where the confusion came in. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clarifying that Bilby. And Orestes, thank you for clarifying your concerns. Consensus is that the sport is to be called soccer in Wikipedia's Australian articles. I make no apology for reverting changes that move the article away from that usage. In addition, the title of this article is Soccer in Australia, and the content must reflect the title. I will continue to make such changes every time they are required. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss edits to this article, not cast aspersions on other editors. NE Ent 04:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes as Bilby stated their was some confusion, is there ever not? About what is going on with this article... I didn't take the time to fully investigate exactly what was going on with all the recent nonsense --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In theory

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wanted to know in theory, what would be considered appropriate reason to move Soccer in Australia to Association football in Australia, and to replace the usage of "soccer" in the article with "football". Again, this is only theoretical. I think it is the best place to go in the discussion.--2nyte (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I think there's two main issues: Firstly, I don't understand the usage of "Association football" at all, anywhere on Wikipedia. It's not a common name anywhere I know of, and obviously not in Australia. Maybe if you can point us to the formal rationale behind using it elsewhere you will have a more solid basis for your goal. The other problem, of course, is that "soccer" is the only unambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. In normal circumstances that would guarantee its usage. Your problem is that you don't like it. Nor do some other editors. But we have a policy that says "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for any decision here. So you would have to come up with a really good reason to not use "soccer", the otherwise obvious choice. And it would have to be a reason that didn't sound like "I don't like it." HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC) The term "association football" may not be widely used, though it does appear in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary and most notably FIFA's name (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). There is sufficient amount of evidence on this talk page to suggest that both "football" and "soccer" are the common names for association football in Australia. That can be guaranteed. Though when you say that "soccer" should be used because "football" is ambiguous, that creates debate, especially when the usage of "football" has risen to it's current state in the game. These are special circumstances, and as with the title of Association football, the title of this article should use "association football" for the sake of neutrality.--2nyte (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC) But where is the formal policy that justifies using a non-common name? HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC) As I said, these are special circumstances, as with the Association football article, and many others. If we can agree to the move then I am sure other users will accept the decision and find it to be justified in the circumstance.--2nyte (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC) You're avoiding the issue. Where or what is the policy that says "don't use the common name in some (special?) circumstances"? An example isn't a policy. And you still haven't provided a reason other than "I don't like it" for not using the common name. You asked for responses. I have given them in good faith. Please don't just dismiss or ignore them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I don't know wikipedia well enough to quote policy, but as I said I think change is justified in the circumstance. I also mentioned that there is a sufficient amount of evidence on this talk page to suggest that both "football" and "soccer" are the common names for association football in Australia. And that the usage of "football" has risen to an extent that this should be considered a circumstances where we take action against wiki policy (if that is what we are in fact doing).--2nyte (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC) You headed this thread "In theory", which I thought was a good idea. And you concentrated on "Association football". But now you've moved on to claiming "facts" that I don't think are true, and are on another tangent, such as "football" being a valid choice for the name. You have taken your own thread off topic. I tried to work with you on this, but I cannot do it any more now you have gone down that path. I still think you are suffering from the problems of being an insider to soccer in Sydney, and not being able to take an Australia-wide, non-soccer fan perspective. To do that you MUST accept what those from places where you don't live tell you, whether it suits your argument or not. It doesn't seem to be happening. (Any chance we could get back to your original topic? It was a good one.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I think you misunderstood my post. I was trying to get across that in Australia "soccer" and "football" are common names for association football (the evidence is on this talk page through sources), so if this article title uses "association football" it would be for the sake of neutrality. It may not be wikipedia policy, but I think it is well justified to do so.--2nyte (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC) No. Again you are ignoring what you have been told many times already. That's bad manners, and that's what inflames discussions here. "Football", in Aussie Rules territory, means "Aussie Rules", and nothing else, apart from when a minority of soccer fans (certainly not all of them) are talking to other members of that same minority of soccer fans. "Football" is NOT a common name for the game in that (almost) half of the country. You are again claiming faulty "facts", rather than talking theory, which was a good idea. And without a policy that tells us to ignore the only unambiguous, common name for the game, this ain't going anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, not everything needs to be backed up with wiki policy. If we, the editors think that this is the best decision for the article then the change is justified. The "only unambiguous, common name for the game" will be redirected to this article, as Soccer is to Association football. The original question was how do we come to that conclusion where Soccer in Australia is moved to Association football in Australia, what is necessary for that move to take place? And before you ask why the move is necessary? Because "football" and "soccer" are both the common names for association football in Australia, so Association football in Australia is used for neutrality, as with other articles on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) A local consensus cannot override Wikipedia policy, please see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If "Soccer" is the common name of the sport in Australia , that's what the name of the article should be. NE Ent 04:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) And "football" simply isn't a common name for the round ball game in a big chunk of the country. It's THE common name for another sport. See NE Ent, "football" and "soccer" are both the common names. Both terms are used throughout Australia to refer to association football, and both terms have greater popularity in specific regions. If we agree that association football be used on all Australian articles for the sake of neutrality, then that is not LOCALCONSENSUS. We are making the decision for the community so we could override Wikipedia policy if need be.--2nyte (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Until you can present a better reason than "I don't like it" to reject the single, unambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia, you have no case to present to use "Association football". I told you that right back at the beginning of this thread. This IS based on policy. You are again ignoring an inconvenient REAL fact. Please stop wasting everyone's time on this again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC) The views on association football are here I suggest you both read them as they apply directly to what is going on here. The views that Association Football is the official name in Australia and also in terms of global context, and that Association Football is the least worst compromise, where Soccer IS problematic should be taken here, I have repeated this ad nauseum. The issue that if we can't use football no one else can is also valid here... this is clearly the case of Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Exceptions --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Why do we need a compromise at all? Remember, "I don't like soccer" doesn't count, and "soccer" fits all the criteria. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) You continue to ignore the facts that soccer IS problematic in large parts of Australia... As I've told you previously, I'd rather not discuss this as I'm sick of going round and round in circles. Perhaps you should just listen to the more than a few here who find the word soccer problematic for once? --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, but "it's problematic" is never going to be enough reason. It has to be explained better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I have provided the reasoning, the rules on this matter and the facts, your wikilawyering at this point does not amuse me which is why I am avoiding discussing this matter any further with you unless I have to. I'm simply sick of someone who wont listen and continues to simply put their hands over their ears to ignore what IS going on in reality... --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I'm all ears. Try me now. HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I have nothing more to say on the matter and I'm not going to bother to be drawn into this circular argument again, I've provided the reasoning for the move to association football, I've provided the case that this is the least worst compromise to both parties, and I have stated this as a good reason for an exception to common names. It doesn't matter if you're all ears, I can't help if you wont engage what's between them --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Well, you're right about one thing. This is going nowhere. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC) And it's going nowhere simply because you wont engage... You pretend to and then it comes to... round peg... round hole, this is all I know. Then everyone gets annoyed with you and it resolves nothing. I hear what you're saying, I always have soccer is an unambiguous commonly used name, however football is also a common name, there are now many reasons why soccer is not acceptable however.... The problem going on here is that you seem to think that just because because soccer is acceptable to you, it is and should be acceptable to everyone else. This is not the case and that's not how the world works, much less the rest of Australia... I have offered a reasonable compromise under the weight of an agreed global compromise which you conveniently ignore. I have attempted to discuss this with you on many fronts why the term is not acceptable, both in terms of history and the current position, you ignore that as well, there is simply no room for reason or logic in your head. The problem isn't me... I have attempted to position every reasonable solution in front of you and you simply ignore it... At this point, on two fronts, you're simply filibustering and wikilawyering your way to a situation that you find convenient, this is why I simply have given up engaging with you. I can't honestly be bothered taking up this cause anymore because we have a problem here and that problem is you. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I see things differently. You will do anything to avoid using the name "soccer", but cannot rationally and lucidly explain why. That makes it entirely your problem. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Association football is not recognisable to most Australians. The point of an article title is to make it recognisable to readers. The word football is blatantly ambiguous in an Australian context. This leaves a combination of football and soccer in some form or soccer by itself. I've not heard a cogent argument how soccer or football (soccer) can't work. Hack (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC) I am swayed by previous comments by @2nyte: that COMMONNAME should rule the day. 2nyte has repeatedly and successfully made the case that the name is not association football, provided multiple sources including a number of Australian newspapers and television shows that demonstrate the common name is soccer. I am swayed by @2nyte:'s argument regarding the need for COMMONNAME to rule here and that popularity should rule here. The article should stay at soccer until people other than 2nyte, who supports COMMONNAME and POPULARITY as the reason for this article to stay at soccer, can make a compelling argument that invalidates these arguments. --LauraHale (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC) You continue to ignore the issue altogether HiLo, no matter how it's presented. On the issue of football (soccer) SEE the debate on Association football here that I linked to above, I'm not going through this again as it's been done to death... "Football (soccer)" is against naming conventions as the item in parentheses is not a disambiguation, in that football is not a subset of soccer, neither is Soccer a subset of football they are the same game in this sense therefore, this IS NOT an option... The only neutral name to all parties involved is association football, it is the official name internationally and also in Australia, it has football in it and people know what it is, it's quite a lot more common then what you think, and the disambiguation is obvious that it is football "association" rules football... Everyone with more than a passing interest in Soccer knows that the game is governed by Football Association rules... I have explained lucidly both the history of the game in Australia and also many of the reasons why the association that governs the sport in Australia decided to name itself the FFA, I'm not going to repeat that one again either... I don't care how many cheerleaders you bring here HiLo --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC) The Football Association haven't determined the rules for almost 130 years. Hack (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC) That isn't what I was saying... the root of this is clear... Football Association rules comes from that, association football is not ambiguous to anyone with more than a passing interest in soccer... the name association football has more than 130 years of history. It comes directly from the name and history of the game, it is embedded in Fédération Internationale de Football Association.... There is nothing much ambiguous about it, what's more is that it's completely neutral. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC) The audience for this sort of article is not people with an interest in soccer, it is for everyone. This includes people who have no idea about the history of the various forms of football. Hack (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Yes, I'd be interested to hear what supporters of the other football codes in NSW and QLD call the round ball game. And people who regularly support no football code, or are interested in several, like me. I truly doubt if most call it "football". As for "Association football", almost nobody calls it that, or even know what it means. "Soccer" is fine. The FFA has newly re-embraced the name "Socceroos". One only has to look at its website to see that. The name "soccer" may have been a problem at some time in the past when ethnic divides damaged the game's image, though I'm yet to be convinced that the name was actually ever the problem. I've seen absolutely no evidence that the name "soccer" has any negative connotations anywhere in Australia today, except in the minds of a small number of hard core fans. And that simply equates to "I don't like it" from a tiny minority, which, of course, counts for nothing. So, "football" is ambiguous, and only a common name to a minority of people. "Association football" is virtually unknown, and obviously not a common name to anybody. "Soccer" is a common name to everybody in Australia, and unambiguous. Some really strong evidence that the name "soccer" is truly a problem today would be needed for us not to use it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC Your conscious stream of thought does not amuse me, nor does the amount of times I've had to correct you on the history of the sport in Australia in terms of edits, or those little agenda setting words you like to put into articles. The FFA has not changed its position, it's always been the Socceroos which has nothing to do with soccer... It's a nickname much like the Soca Warriors which has not got anything to do with soccer either. The thing with the broader Australian population is that they often get caught up with nicknames that are rarely used in general conversation and to some degree SBS promotes this. I really wish they wouldn't... It simply is what it is... If you are going to make statements like this as I've told you previously you must substantiate your beliefs, all I hear constantly from you is "this is the way it is in my head", which often differs wildly from reality or any actual inside perspective of what is going on. If you cannot switch your own TV on to see what is going on with media coverage and Soccer even in today's environment, I really am at a loss to even begin to help you understand the problem that is going on here. On top of this you have returned to positioning yourself with an heir of authority when you have none. In terms of what it IS called, there is not one person that I know where if I say football they won't at least know eventually what I am refering to, whether it is football, football, football, or football... See what I did there? It just takes a little context. You seem to maintain the opinion that people can't think in context... I'm sorry you share this simple minded Australianism that people like Tony Abbott also share when they speak in three word sentences and understand very little else. In terms of what the game IS called, football may be rugby league, soccer, or rugby union, usually in that order in Queensland, the thing is, I never have a problem extrapolating my thoughts to the point where people understand when I say football, I mean "soccer." You should really take the time to listen people in the context of what they are saying occasionally, it may help your level of comprehension. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC) This page is for discussion of the article, not comments on other editors. NE Ent 03:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC) ...nor Prime Ministers. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC) In 2005 the FFA made a bit of a show out of claiming that the Socceroos name would be allowed to die. Their website still primarily refers to the men's team as the Socceroos. Hack (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC) It's not a matter of "still". It's "more so". The use of Socceroos by the FFA is now bigger than ever. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC) That does not support ANY of the claims made above and furthermore... My response simply cannot be helped I am dealing with someone whose unreasonableness is unabated and moreover, when you are dealing with someone who consistently jumps to their own conclusions which are based on their own open stream of consciousness.... It simply makes it impossible to discuss anything in a civil manner. If you don't get the point I was making and actually think I was discussing Prime Ministers... LOL... --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Orestes1984, what point about Soccer in Australia are you trying to make? NE Ent 03:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC) "'Football' is ambiguous, and only a common name to a minority of people" - that goes against its usage in the media and by the organising bodies. "'Association football' is virtually unknown, and obviously not a common name to anybody" - that argument only works if the default name for the sport on wikipedia is not Association football, which it is. Also, it doesn't matter what supporters of the other football codes think, or even supporters of this football code. The only thing that matters is the fact - represented through the change by the media, the organising bodies, the clubs themselves. Anyone, football fan or not can see this change in name, despite the usage of "football" by other codes. Honestly, the usage of "football" by other codes should not be in this debate. Forget what Victorians call AFL, forget what Tasmanians call AFL, forget what Queenslanders call rugby league. The only question that should be asked is what do Australian's call association football, what do media call the sport, what do the organising bodies call the sport? If you compare the current state of the game with 10 years ago, there would be a tremendous change from "soccer" to "football" - and as both terms are common, we should use the wikipedia default term (association football), for the sake of neutrality, for the sake of expressing this very real change.--2nyte (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 2nyte, you're from Sydney. What you see the media doing is completely different from what someone in Melbourne sees. You MUST believe me when I say that, or you're showing bad faith. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC) I have no idea what it's called in Australia, but there is no "wikipedia default term" for content -- titles are determined by real world usage. NE Ent 03:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Obviously, Association football didn't get its title by real world usage. It was agreed upon as the best term for the game for sake of neutrality. And in every circumstance on wikipedia if "football" is ambiguous, "association football" is used in its stead. This is the exact time where that should come into action.--2nyte (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Look at Soccer in the United States. No Association football there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC) In United States 100% of the populations calls the game "soccer", 100% of the media calls the game "soccer" and 100% of the organising bodies call the game "soccer". That can not be said for Australia where in the past 10 years a tremendous change from "soccer" to "football" has occurred. Now both terms are common so we should use association football for the sake of neutrality.--2nyte (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC) If you used the word "tremendous" in an article, it would be removed as a weaselish adjective. You are an insider to the sport, in the city where the decision to change the name was made. You are not seeing the true, Australia-wide situation. The game is only rarely called "football" in the Aussie Rules part of the country, becasue it would be confusing, and I doubt if all the fans of the rugby codes call it football, even in Sydney. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, you're from somewhere in Victoria(?). Have you noticed hundreds of clubs changing their name for Soccer Club to Football Club (South Melbourne FC did so), and did you noticed the organising body for the sport changed its named to Football Federation Victoria? Also have you noticed the national media? Surprisingly a lot of them refer to the game as "football" - Sydney based or not, they represent the whole of Australia. "What you see the media doing is completely different from what someone in Melbourne sees", yes, I agree, so let's use the neutral term "association football", which is the term for the sport on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC) The term "national media" is a furphy. There is really no such thing. And we don't need a neutral term, because nobody has provided any evidence at all that there is anything wrong with "soccer", apart from "I don't like it". And "Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Assocation football did get its name from real world usage; specifically the lack of a common, worldwide name for the sport. Both Association football in the United States and Soccer in Italy are redirects to the common country names -- note it's Football in Italy, not Association Football. The question here is what is the common name of the sport in Australia as a whole country. NE Ent 11:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC) That's simple. It's "soccer". It's the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. But some people don't like it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, "soccer" may be the "only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia", but the question was "what is the common name of the sport in Australia as a whole country" - that answer is both "football" and "soccer" - that is why the opening sentence says "Soccer (association football), also known as football". This is the same for other sports; for instance other common names for Australian rules football are Australian football, football, footy, AFL and Aussie rules. The question should be what is the most appropriate title, and that answer is "Association football".--2nyte (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) That's a poor response, probably entirely motivated by the fact that, as I said in my previous post, you don't like the name "soccer". "Football" is simply NOT a "common name of the sport in Australia as a whole country". In around half the country, "football" means something completely different. And it probably means something different again to lots of people in your half of the country. Nobody in Australia calls the game "Association football". Until someone can demonstrate that there is actually something wrong with "soccer", apart from "I don't like it", it's the perfect name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, people in Victoria read/watch national media which calls association football "football", association football in Victoria is governed by Football Federation Victoria and many clubs are named Football Club, so that must mean at least some people in Victoria call association football "football" - the same applies to every other state in Australia, most to a larger extent. The argument that "Nobody in Australia calls the game 'Association football'" has no legitimacy, because "Association football" is not a common name in any part of the world, yet is it used on wikipedia for neutrality. Now even if I don't like the usage of "soccer" (which I'm not saying), it don't change the fact that many national media and local media outlets use "football", it doesn't the fact that the organising bodies and clubs use "football". HiLo48, you want a simple answer - why is "soccer" bad? - but there is no simple answer. We know the usage of "soccer" has lessened, we know the usage of "football" has increased. We know on wikipedia "association football" is a neutral compromise. We don't live in the United States where everyone calls the game "soccer", even if they have commercial interests in the sport. Whether you think it's right or wrong, whether you believe they should or shouldn't, the fact is they do. So we should use the neutral name that is available to us, the name that is used by the majority of wikipedia titles relating to the sport, because we need a neutral compromise that supports the statement "soccer has lessened, football has increased, but Australia still uses both".--2nyte (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC) But why use a name that doesn't match anybody's usage, when we have a perfectly good name now? In Australia, "soccer" works perfectly according to all normal Wikipedia naming rules. Give us a really good, current reason to not use "soccer". That another name has grown in popularity is not a reason. That name, "football", obviously cannot be the name we use here because of ambiguity. Its increased popularity doesn't negate the value of "soccer" as the only unambiguous, universally understood name. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, as I said in my above comment, you want a simple answer but there is none. You say we have a "perfectly good name now" - but many people think it's not perfectly good, similarly, people though the same for the Association football article and it was changed to its current name. For both circumstances there is fact, there is reason to support the change. And as I mentioned in my above comment. The increase usage of "football" may not negate the value of "soccer", but the decline usage of soccer does - especially in the national media, organising bodies and clubs. Let's say the usage of "Soccer"/"Football" was split 50/50 in Australia. If that was the case we should use the wikipedia neutral term "Association football". I don't know if it is 50/50, but there is fact saying both terms are used nationally. So if we have a neutral term available to us, that is certified by wikipedia, then why not use it?--2nyte (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC) You say about the name "Soccer", "...many people think it's not perfectly good". Can't you see that it sounds very much like "They don't like it"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC) It is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is not personal preference. This is based on fact, the fact that soccer has lessened, football has increased, but Australia still uses both. So, from that fact we have 3 options: use "football", use "soccer", or use "association football". The best option is to use the wikipedia neutral term "association football" - as I said above, we have a neutral term available to us, that is certified by wikipedia, so why not use it?--2nyte (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC) We don't have three options. It cannot be "football". I would never argue for that to be the name for articles on Aussie Rules, even though it's by far the most common name among its fans, and for the leagues and the clubs. That leaves two options. One is universally understood. The other is understood by almost nobody. Unless you can show that there is something explicitly wrong with "soccer", it's the perfect choice. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, I have answered that question so so so so so many times. One quarter of this whole talk page is me answering that question. The last eight comments I have made answers that question. I understand if you disagree with me, but it makes no sense for me to repeat the same thing over and over again to you. So, can you please tell me (your thoughts) if you think there is anything wrong with "soccer", anything at all; is it used 100% by everyone in Australia, or is it 99%. Does the usage of "football" by national and local media, by governing bodies, by clubs, the decline usage of "soccer" and subsequent increase of "football" have any impact? Do you even think what any of that is true, or am I making all this up? I really want to know if you think there is anything wrong, anything at all wrong with "soccer" - and please be as extensive as you can, as much as you can write, not just a simple yes/no.--2nyte (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with "soccer" apart from the fact that some people would prefer another name, just as with Aussie Rules, which I call "football". That's just a variation on I don't like it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, so you are saying the usage of "football" by national and local media, by governing bodies, by clubs and the decline usage of "soccer" and subsequent increase of "football" is untrue? No. What I am saying is the words I have written. Don't try to suggest that I am saying something different. But I should probably repeat one clear point. There is really no such thing as "national media". What Melburnians see is very different from what Sydneyites see, on TV, on radio, and in print. Otherwise, to summarise my position, "soccer" is universally understood. "Football" is preferred by some, but unacceptable. The only thing wrong with "soccer" is that some don't like it. Policy says that's not enough reason to change. HiLo48 (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, ok then, though do you agree that the usage of "soccer" has declined and the subsequent usage of "football" has increased (represented through media, by governing bodies, and by clubs nationwide)?--2nyte (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Yes. But only by some media. Certainly not much of the media in the Aussie Rules part of the country, because "football" there, free of any further narrow context, means only one thing, "Aussie Rules", and it has meant that for over 150 years. "Football" is the most common name of "Aussie Rules" there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC) There's no reason to tip-toe around it, the answer is yes. Both "football" and "soccer" are used by the media, both are considered common names for the sport in Australia. Why not use "football" - because it is ambiguous when out of context. Why not use "soccer" - because it specific usage has lessened, it's specific usage has been replaced by media and by the sport itself. So use "association football", the neutral term available to us, that is used everywhere on wikipedia - "association football" may not be common in Australia, but it is the perfect name we need - a neutral name, a name with the most usage on wikipedia relating to the sport; that is the reason we move the Australia national association football team article. "Association football" is the best fit name in the current circumstances.--2nyte (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I don't believe there is a Wikipedia policy that says we won't use a term "because its specific usage has lessened", especially when that term is still extremely common in the country (almost certainly more common than the name "football"), is universally understood, and is unambiguous. There is no need for an unknown neutral name. "Soccer" IS neutral, and known by everybody. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC) There is no Wikipedia policy to justify the usage of "association football", yet it is used in the title of almost every article relating to the sport in general. If the users think it is the right thing to do, then it is justified.--2nyte (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "Soccer" is not common enough on a global scale to use on articles with an international focus. "Football" is too broad, so a compromise has to be made for international articles. On the other hand "Soccer" plenty common enough in Australia to use in articles with an Australian focus. Spinrad (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Spinrad, on Talk:Association football it says "association football" is used for neutrality, not because "soccer" is not common enough.--2nyte (talk) 09:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC) What's non-neutral about that photo above? HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Everything... It's staged and framed to prove a point which is what's wrong with this... You don't want to resolve this conflict you just want to prove a point... There is clear conflict that can be resolved simply by using Association Football... This is a direct mirror of the debate that was held on Talk:Association football way back in 2007, but I don't suspect you've taken the time to read the evidence in front of your face. This is nothing more than a shallow minded religious debate about why Australian Rules should be the only sport refereed to as football in Australia rather than listening to the reasons why Soccer may be inappropriate... It's simple you don't want to listen, you don't want to resolve anything, you just want to wikilawyer and filibuster until you piss everyone off enough that they no longer care... like myself... and I quite frankly don't care what actions are taken with regards to anything I say right now as it's simply a matter of facts. I simply don't give a shit anymore... And furthermore I've resolved not to edit on this page because of this --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I wholeheartedly agree.--2nyte (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC) If HiLo wants the technical answer he should read Wikipedia:No original research, I doubt he will... And I'm simply not going to colour in between the lines about what I think anymore either. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC) "Staged and framed" is crossing into conspiracy theory territory. No one is saying that only Australian Rules should be referred to as football. Not agreeing with your opinion doesn't mean that editors don't want things resolved. Spinrad (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Sure why not we already have other fringe cultural theories about Ron Barassi that almost no one who would read this article would give a fuck about being pushed here, not to mention anyone with any interest in soccer would give a shit about... Why not just add some more regional specific original content to this thread to go with it? The fact that some AFL wank theory is even being pushed here is blatantly ridiculous. This article is about soccer no one gives a shit about AFL theory here, or AFL balls... Or photos OF AFL balls for that matter... For fuck sake just drop the AFL bullshit... It has nothing to do with this article... And tell HiLo to get on his bike and go off some place to edit AFL pages... No one here gives a shit about the AFL bullshit being propagated here. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Right about now at this point I've been dragged that far off topic by my own annoyance in dealing with someone who deals in stream of consciousness rather than facts, that I'm not making any point at all other than stating the case of what IS going on here... I've just been dragged back into this circular argument again with a complete and utter lack of cogent thought from the other party based on any form of evidence that "the popularity of soccer is coming back"... Right about now I'm going to just step away from the keyboard because you'll never get anywhere putting logic in front of people who deal purely in the realms of emotional connection to another sport in this country. I have put forward many rational points and the above statement is again nothing more than stream of consciousness, the funny thing is, no matter which way you ask HiLo to substantiate any of his thoughts, he never seems to be able to put evidence behind his statements.... --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Last August there was fairly clear consensus Soccer is the best name for the article. Of course, consensus can change, but the keyword is consensus. It's up to those who wish to change the name to provide convincing evidence to other editors than nationwide Australia usage has changed to the point where Association Football is now the common term. While English terminology varies across the wikiworld, I'm reasonably confident human nature doesn't change very much. I suspect its true that argument by assertion and ad hominem are universally not a good way to get folks to change their minds. NE Ent 11:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Actually how we ended up with association football was with a common name exception... That also happens on Wikipedia and is particularly applicable in this case where for various reasons, including recent historical precedent in the change of the official name and also the long standing history of the game have led to a position where soccer is not the most appropriate name for the sport. Claiming ignorance of the facts as HiLo48 continues to do, is a completely inappropriate way of resolving this conflict, in fact, it only serves to perpetuate it. I've played chase the dogs tail with HiLo48 more than enough... I simply wont do it any more, at this point... my summation of thoughts about this particular editor are more than appropriate. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC) No, in fact, thoughts about editors are in direct contravention of talk page guidelines. NE Ent 12:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Right now I honestly do not care, how do you like them apples? --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Making some sense of the indenting and structure of this thread: The photo was taken through a wire fence (see the one at the back), with a locked gate, in a dark area under the school gymnasium. Hence the poor quality. If I had staged it I would have had a much better photo. This is the whole truth. I am an honest person. This scene is typical of all schools in the Aussie Rules part of the country. To these people, "football" means Aussie Rules, and is the name of the ball used for that sport. Perhaps some here would like the label on the left to say "Association footballs". HiLo48 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC) You miss the point, even if this is the case it IS original research which is irrelevant... How's about you actually go back and read why we all came up with the consensus on Association Football back in 2007 and drop the AFL bullshit. This is the third time you've posted a picture that is completely irrelevant to any form of content that could be included on the actual article page here, and once again you fail to understand the concept of not including original research in your edits. --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I'm not playing that game. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC) I'm not playing a game :) Clearly you fail to understand how we even got to this place with association football in the first place through proven ignorance on this page as with ignorance of just about everything that doesn't fit in a round peg and hole view of the world... Your sheer ignorance of the wherefores, whys and hows of what is a reasonable compromise here are astounding to the point where most peoples heads would explode. There is a common sense consensus based compromise here however as with everything that doesn't agree with your ignorance and obliviousness to what is going on, you simply chose to ignore it --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC) HiLo48, you are completely oblivious to the whole situation. This isn't about what sport is called "football" or what sport uses "football" the most - that is completely irrelevant and that is what is dragging this discussion back. EVERYONE KNOWS Aussie rules and rugby are called "football", I wrote a whole article about the subject on my sandbox. No one is suggesting we name this article Football in Australia, so Aussie rules and rugby should not even be brought up. The fact is that both "soccer" and "football" are used in Australia to refer to association football (this was not the case 10 years ago). In a usual case on wikipedia we would chose "soccer" because "football" is ambiguous when out of context. Though in this case we have a third option, "association football". The thing that makes "association football" a better choice is that it was chose for the article Association football (and other articles relating to the sport) in similar circumstances to what we have; that is, it was a third option and neutral one. So the only question that needs to be asked is do you think it is necessary in the current circumstance of the sport (in comparison to 10 years ago) to change the article name to a neutral one (as was done with the Association football article)?--2nyte (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC) No, the question is, why do we need your unknown "neutral" term at all? There is nothing wrong with "soccer". All Australians understand it. The existence of another name does not make it unacceptable. You understood that image above. You know precisely what kind of balls you will find in the left hand container. I simply cannot see a problem. The word "neutral" really doesn't seem to fit this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC) The fact that you can say that there is nothing wrong with soccer after being here for this long is ignorant at best and at worst it's simply a FILIBUSTER, like your FILIBUSTER of my good faith edits with errors on names for association football --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC) See the photo above. A similar scene could be found at every school in the Aussie Rules part of the country. All Australians know what the left hand container is for. The kids call the game "soccer" here. So there is obviously no problem with the name "soccer" in this half of the country. It really is hard to believe that a name that works fine in half the country can be unacceptable in the other half. In fact, I know that it's not. I know that rugby league fans in NSW and QLD often still call the game "soccer", because they save "football" for their league team. "Soccer" works. I know that for some it's not the preferred name for the game, but that not a reason for Wikipedia to avoid it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Your lack of factual and cultural understanding clearly makes you incompetent to edit here, go away please until you understand the factual and cultural perspectives involved in this dispute... this is not simply a matter of I don't like it and your ignorance of the factual and cultural perspectives involved in this issue and immaturity only serve to piss everyone off. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC) If "this is not simply a matter of I don't like it", you need to be able to explain why soccer players and fans in the Aussie Rules part of Australia happily use the name "soccer". (See photo above.) Have they not had the same cultural experiences as you? HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Pithy warning

I am here because I am fed up seeing this on AN/I every two weeks. I am indifferent about which name this article is at, and I understand there was an RFC recently about it. I am here to say that if I see any commentary whatsoever about editors here I will warn once then block. I would also ask editors not to wind each other up by referring to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the like. --John (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I also point out that Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 was only closed last August. I propose no more naming-related discussions, unless major new evidence is discovered, until August 2015. --John (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

John, I will desist if asked, but as one of the users who has been driving the discussion since July/August 2013, this continues to be a major issue, one that I don't think has been resolved yet. I am not asking for change in my favor, I, along with other users are only seeking fair and open discourse. This is what I feel has lowered the discussion to the state it's in - a lack of fair and open discourse. I don't know wiki policy that well, but I do want this discussion to continue (fairly and openly) with wiki administrator mediation.--2nyte (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a fair request, but I respectfully differ from your opinion that this is a "major issue". Unreferenced BLPs are a major issue, falling editor numbers may be a major issue, but the name of this one article that was RfC'ed last August is not currently a major issue. I strongly propose taking even a few weeks or a month away from this, until the heat goes out of it. You will see what I mean if you do that. --John (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

John, users are applying the outcome from the last Requested move (to use "soccer") in every Australian based article. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of edits, a few edit wars (see Western Sydney Wanderers FC), all done so because of the decision? made in the last Requested move. Trust me, I have tried to stay away from this talk page as it has caused me a lot of grief, though I am a key editor on this topic in general (currently one of the main) and this discussion is always brought up in some way, necessarily so.--2nyte (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting. There doesn't seem to be any edit warring currently at that article. Are there any editors or articles which are currently problematic? --John (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion at archive 3 proposed moving Soccer in Australia to Football in Australia. I can readily understand why that proposal was rejected. Has there been a recent (formal) discussion about moving the article to Association football in Australia? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No formal discussion, but plenty of informal stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've moved the extensive discussions from my talk page to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning in preparation to submit a new RfC on or before Friday 7 March. Please feel free to comment there or at my talk. --John (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please see the RfC I have started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Thanks. --John (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• The RfC is now ended. A consensus was reached not to revisit the naming question at this article until after 31 August 2015 unless there is compelling new evidence. There will need to be further discussion about the wider naming issue. Thanks to those who participated. --John (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Barassi Line

Why is there no mention of this in the article? If the controversy about naming is anywhere near as spirited in the real world as it is on Wikipedia, could there be a larger section on nomenclature on this article? Could it be sourced? --John (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I did attempt to address this on the article Football in Australia by rewriting the article on User:2nyte/sandbox, but it was rejected on Talk:Football in Australia#Reworked article. I would still like my version of the article to be applied, I think it sums up the various football codes quite well, addressing the current situation in terminology and the regional and cultural differences in the Australian sporting landscape.--2nyte (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, I will have a look tomorrow. It strikes me this could be a way forward. --John (talk) 02:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we really say there is an actual controversy in the real world when the only people making any noise about it in the real world are a very small minority? It seems not unlike the so-called controversy about evolution in the scientific community that is claimed by creationists when in fact there is no such controversy. There is similarly none in Australia about calling the round ball game soccer. Some enthusiastic soccer fans have posted here here try to make out that there is some up-swelling of support for using "football" to mean soccer whereas there is nothing of the sort. They try to marginalise to common usage by claiming it is only a Melbourne thing. Soccer is the usual term used throughout the country. Sure, when the context is obvious, some people sometimes call it football, but that is entirely beside the point - when context is not obvious the game is almost universally called soccer. There is no doubt that these people believe what they are saying, they are not acting in bad faith, except for the fact that they refuse to accept the consensus which was expressed in no uncertain terms in the August RFC which involved a great many more editors than this little contretemps. It is time for the "I don't like the word soccer" people to drop the stick and if they won't it should be taken off them. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick Thorne, by the "I don't like the word soccer" people, I assume you are referring to all the organising bodies of the sport, the hundreds of clubs, national media (SBS, ABC, Fox Sports, Sky News, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review) and many local media. This is not a Sydney thing or a Melbourne thing, this is an Australian thing. This is a major issue for the sport in Australia and it's a real world change that is legitimate and completely factual.--2nyte (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've got five minutes. let's tackle your "national media" red-herring once and for all. SBS is the lowest rating of the five public television networks. It has a commercial arrangement with the FFA to televise soccer games. It is no doubt contractually required to call the game "football". The same applies to Fox, and it, being a pay network, has even lower ratings than SBS. Sky News' ratings are so low it is irrelevant to most members of the public. Most of its viewers are pub patrons. The ABC broadcasts its sports material from local studios in each state, naturally calling your favourite code "soccer" in my state, because "football" means something else. It does not take a national position at all. The Australian is a Sydney based newspaper. Similarly for the Fin Review, and it's obviously not part of sports media. So, can we drop this "national media" nonsense now please? HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

2nyte, your assumption is incorrect. In any case the word "football" is clearly not available to describe soccer except in circumstances when the context has already been made clear. In every part of Australia "football" can mean many things, only one of them being soccer. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

John, the Barassi Line certainly is very relevant to the naming of sports in Australia. I'm pleased you've been learning about it. Football in Australia IS complicated. A mention in the article would be sensible, but one of the three "can't call it soccer" editors here got very angry a few months ago when I tried to explain its relevance and proposed including mention of it in the article. He even denied that the line existed. I backed off, and use the term a lot less now in discussions here. I could go into more detail but it may not be wise now. I know I'm talking about another editor, but you did ask, and I can't see how I could answer honestly without doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming

Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Soccer is only required to be used once per article

As per the 'consensus' on terminology, all single topic articles related to the sport of football are only required to have the word 'soccer' in the title (if necessary) and in the first paragraph (barring references to the archaic term being used for old organisations eg Soccer Australia). All further examples of the name of the sport after this first usage are to be 'football'. I have subsequently started on replacing obsolete terminology (after the single required usage in the first paragraph) where I found it in various articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)