Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force

Archives

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/Archive 1

Religious affiliation

A couple of ip editors have been adding Category:Australian Muslims to Turkish-Australian footballers including Ufuk Talay, Selin Kuralay and Tolgay Özbey. No reference to them being Muslim is included in these articles let alone a reference. Could people keep an eye out for this... The Hack 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:09, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

User 60.224.0.121 and football (soccer) edits

Over the past week this user has modified a large number of club and player pages to have the lead line change from either "Australian football player" or "Australian association football player" to "Australian football (soccer) player"

I have no real strong opinion on the name of the sport, but I think having "football (soccer)" looks untidy in the lead sentence and goes against consistency with the rest of the project. "football player" is consistent with the rest of the articles, and the link to the association football article disambiguates the term.

The user claims consensus for all pages based on a three year old conversation by 3 people on the name/title of the Socceroos article so I think having some additional discussion here would be good.

You can see the list of edits by the user here. Camw (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• It has been agreed on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Football_is_more_than_one_game.2Fcode. Why do you insist on trying to change something that was already agreed on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Because that discussion is 3 years old and had input from 3 people. Furthermore the linked page is not discussing the opening sentence on player pages, it is specific to the national team. I insist on discussing the change because it is right to do so. Can you expand on why you think this change should be made? Camw (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Once something has been discussed does not mean it can never be discussed again, it's not like it was a month or even a year ago that it was "agreed on". Consensus can change. You are changing articles and refusing to discuss further which seems pretty disruptive to me. It would be a show of good faith if you would stop making the changes until we have talked about it more? Camw (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this suffice? - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• That depends if we can agree on what it should be called. The head body of the sport in Australia and the head state bodies have football as the main part of their name, the AOC and the AIS for a start call the sport football. 60.224.0.121 doesn't seem willing to discuss which is going to make this difficult. Camw (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• What do people think about "association football player" as a compromise? Association football is the name of the main article on the sport. I'm more concerned about consistency than the actual name and if this editing pattern continues we'll have 45% of the players with "football" and 45% with "football (soccer)" and the others with something else again Camw (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that was tried a few years ago, but it was not agreed on. See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Page_move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more official surveys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Requested_move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• That section is for a proposed title change for the national team article, it doesn't cover descriptions of players or teams within the article, nor can I see that it mentions association football at all. Camw (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So it was tried a couple of years ago, that isn't a good reason not to have another discussion. Camw (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For pete's sake, I said you can discuss it all you want. But try looking at the reasons it was not passed the first time60.224.0.121 (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that if we call australian football players, "australian football players". That we will have to go through every AFL player and change it to australian rules football players. I dont see it like that at all. I dont intend to edit one AFL page. Portillo (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still being incredibly outlandish by following the manual of style. UK-centric articles are being reverted to "footballer"/"football player". I'd like to (not true, really) bend the rules for one user, but, like I said, that's not true. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.

The decision to use "football (soccer)" was done years ago - when the main article for the sport was football (soccer). It was moved to association football some time ago (maybe 18-24 months?). I wasn't aware the change was under discussion until it happened (neither were other prominent Aus football editors, since they would have posted on WikiProject talk pages, noticeboards, and the like) and as such none of us had any say in it.

I can't speak for the others, but IMO we had just gotten most of the articles into a stable state and I wasn't keen on stirring things up by mass editing them all again. I have generally used "association football" when creating or cleaning up articles - since that is (a) non ambiguous (b) consistent with the name of the main article (c) doesn't call it "soccer" and (d) doesn't call it "football". Football (soccer) is not perfect but acceptable, but should be changed when updating articles. I'm baffled as to how someone would think that Association football (soccer) is a good idea - it is long winded, contains unnecessary disambiguation, repetitive, and looks ugly. It is not a compromise - "Association football" itself is the compromise.

User:60.224.0.121, if you think this is wrong, going and mass editing a heap of articles is NOT the way to do it. Discuss it first. If I sound cynical about your intentions, well, I have had several years of IP's showing up, claiming they know all the naming conventions, making a mess, causing arguments and then leaving. Repeat ad nauseum with another IP. -- Chuq (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Chuq, I think that you are right that "association football" is a good compromise as it is the name of the main article on the sport and it disambiguates the subject sufficiently from other football codes. Camw (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to people calling the game "football" in everyday speech, because that is the name many Australian soccer fans (but not necessarily a majority) are used to calling it, IMO banning the word soccer from articles that relate primarily to Australian is simple/narrow minded and ideological (in the sense that it has nothing to with society as it actually exists). I don't see why speakers of Australian English, whether they are from Manly, Geelong, Darwin or Kalgoorlie, when they use Wikipedia, should be baffled by the name "Association football".

BTW, this is a classic tail wagging the dog issue, in that it results from a campaign by a handful of soccer officials and sports bureaucrats, who are either unaware of the normal usages of Australian English – or don't care. When the word "soccer" is no longer used by most of the population of Australia, then it should be dropped from the name of Australian soccer articles. Grant | Talk 13:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

From Saturday's Herald Sun:

KS: Andrew, how do we stop Frank Lowy and Ben Buckley from calling soccer “football”, [when] they still manage to call the national team the Socceroos?

AD: There were 87,000 people at the MCG on Thursday and a few million watching on television who know what footy is.

Not to mention tens of thousands at Subiaco Oval, Perth or Football Park in Adelaide.

Then there is the second most popular kind of football in Australia, rugby league, played at Sydney Football Stadium, and Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane. Grant | Talk 03:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Those quotes are fine I guess, but I don't really see the relevance to articles about football/soccer as we aren't talking about AFL or Rugby League or any claim to a name. As linked above, the sport is now called football by the governing sports bodies and the AIS and AOC for example as well as some media (SMH is my local example but I'm sure there are others). How exactly do you judge when a term is "no longer used by most of the population of Australia", surely it will be difficult/impossible in a non anecdotal way. Anyway, if football (soccer) is determined to be the best term then I have no problem with that, as long as there is some agreement that it will be consistent across all relevant articles and if we can work out what articles would come under the scope of the term (as an example, Tim Cahill, an article on an Australian player in a foreign league or Charlie Miller a Scottish player who has spent most of his career overseas and played one season so far here) - if we have some guidelines that people can agree on then hopefully editing wars can be avoided. Camw (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose if they are forein players playing the the A-League association football term is ok, but if they are Australian players (regardless where they are playing)they should be refferred to as either football (soccer) players or association football (soccer) players 60.224.4.25 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

All the federations have changed there names to football.

"FFA is a federation of whom the state federations are constituent members. These include a governing body for each state (Football Federation Victoria, Capital Football (Australian Capital Territory), Football Federation Northern Territory, Football Queensland, Football Federation of South Australia, Football West (Western Australia) and Football Federation Tasmania), except New South Wales which has two: Football NSW in the central and southern parts of the state, and Northern New South Wales Football in northern New South Wales. Football NSW is by far the largest football association in Australia." Portillo (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is all very well, Portillo, but it has nothing to do with what the majority of Australians call the game, i.e. "soccer".

Camw asks, "How exactly do you judge when a term is 'no longer used by most of the population of Australia', surely it will be difficult/impossible in a non anecdotal way."

The two major authorities on Australian English are the Macquarie Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of Australian English. The ODAE is irrelevant as it dodges the issue of "football", saying something along the lines of the word referring to several different games. The Macquarie says that "football" refers primarily to Australian rules and rugby league, but this may change as a result of the FFA's policy. As in, it hasn't yet. Grant | Talk 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an Australian-only site. It is an international site. If someone doesn't know what association football means, and can't guess, and the references to A-League/Socceroos/clubs in Europe/whatever don't give it away - they can always click on the name and be taken to the article on Association football and find out in an instant! The "most people don't call it football" argument has be used before and refuted, this search shows that I have done this at least three times before, one of them on your own talk page. I'm sick of wasting time by repeating myself. -- Chuq (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So what was the outcome when you reported it to the Wikipedia admins? Portillo (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no interest/response I believe. I let it go because the IP at least started talking about it. Why the IP wants to spend so much time pushing articles sideways that are of no interest to them I don't know. Camw (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So whats the consensus? Portillo (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The user is still making the changes - Special:Contributions/60.224.2.159. I can't see a clear consensus above, maybe someone else can. If that doesn't work then if someone can bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment then that might have to be the way forward, I just don't have time to do it at the moment. It's aggravating that this editor wastes so much time that could be spent improving areas that they are actually have some interest in. Camw (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time you have done this Camw. You claimed I am making changes, but also fail to mention that I am simply reverting edits by User:timsdad. Why was he not mentioned when he changed them back to what you think they should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You drop out of the conversation when you don't get your specific way, and just go back to doing what you were doing. You haven't contributed to this conversation other than to try to WP:Canvass some known supporters of your viewpoint to discuss it for you. You can see above that not a single person has suggested "association football (soccer)" as a compromise (not even you) and yet you continue to put it into articles over and over. Association football (soccer) is an even worse idea than football (soccer) in terms of clarity, I have to start to wonder if you are just doing this because you know it will annoy other people? If not, tell me the specific reason that what you are doing is of any benefit to the encyclopedia/project? Camw (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed your canvassing at the Wiki Project for Rugby League, what do they have to do with this subject? If I were making trivial and disruptive edits on a large number of articles on Rugby League (and I happened to save a couple of their articles that were up for deletion just the other day, so don't assume I have anything against them or the sport) that their project did not agree with, I would not come running here because this Project isn't related to the problem/discussion at hand. Why not try your hand at improving some articles, it would probably be a better feeling than to be involved in edit warring that accomplishes nothing. Camw (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If it came down to a choice between association football (soccer) and football (soccer) I would go for the latter as it concisely covers the two most common names for the sport. Very few people when they see football (soccer) are still going to be wondering which sport is being referred to. In any case hasn't this already reached some sort of consensus? The Hack 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you outline what you think the consensus is leaning toward as I don't see anything clear above. If we manage to select something we should plan to change all articles under our scope (the suggestion above is to have foreign players in the A-League not changed, but Australian players and articles changed, are people satisfied with this proposal?). Camw (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll just say this has been a war on many fronts.[1] As long as association football (soccer) isn't the result I'll be reasonably happy.The Hack 02:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the compromise is football (soccer). Football doesnt deserve to be the only sport in australia called football ...lol... Portillo (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the anon's dropped out of the discussion again and continued to change it to "association football (soccer)". --timsdad ^(talk) 08:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"association football (soccer)" is the least desirable out of any options in my opinion. It is redundant and clumsy. Nobody has suggested it as a good idea as far as I can see and it really seems to be bordering on bad faith to keep pushing this option. If the editor responsible would actually get involved in the discussion I hope that they would see that. There is absolutely no consensus to use "association football (soccer)". Camw (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You can call it canvassing, but you started this in a soccer discussion. I was making sure all people made got their say not just soccer fans. I agree to compromise with portillo, football (soccer) is much better than association football (soccer). I'm happy with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.2.159 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is canvassing, and I started the discussion in the area that actually works on improving the articles in question. Nobody has come across to enter the discussion from your canvassing, maybe they are too busy actually working constructively on improving articles in their area of interest. Camw (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No its not. Not one non-soccer fan would ever have come in here if not for my asking ie: Grant. You would have only have had soccer fans in here, and your idea on the subject would have won hands down. From what I have read, football (soccer) is acceptable to me, Portillio and the hack. So that seems fair to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

At least you are somewhat discussing it now, although you seem only willing to read comments that agree with what you want. If I wanted to change the lead line of AFL articles to X is an Australian Rules Football (AFL) player, you could be sure that the people actually interested in discussing the changes would be the AFL project and they would be the best people to decide on a change. Anyway, it looks like that might be as close as we'll get to something people might agree on, instead of changing 5-6 articles at a time, how about helping to compile a list of where it isn't consistent so that it can be done cleanly and in one automated hit? Or would that somehow not suit you and you'd prefer to keep getting blocked for edit warring? Camw (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with using "association football"? The use of descriptive brackets in the first sentence of pretty much all Aus association football articles is unsightly to say the least. Why would association football be confusing? Is there real world Australian consensus on calling this type of footy by the name of soccer? Either way, "association football" represents a decent compromise. Why is "association football" being dismissed as an option? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion about this option above but it didn't really gain momentum. If you want to push for that then I think it is the best option as well. Camw (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of people call the sport either football or soccer. To introduce a third choice identifier confuses the matter even further.The Hack 05:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy with either "football", "association football" and as a last choice "football (soccer)". For foreigners "football". Portillo (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hack:- The problem is that football is considered ambiguous in the Australian variant of English. Personally I wouldn't have a problem calling both Aussie rules and soccer players as "footballers" because I think readers are intelligent enough to notice the difference. However, in lieu of a need for 'specifiers' "association football" is very simplistic and is as easily understood as the equally well established "aussie rules football" and "rugby football". I am not an Australian native so I cannot comment on what is or isn't in use: So my options would be

• (1) if "soccer" is in widespread and current usage, use that
• (2) if not, use the unambiguous "association football".

Beyond that, I really don't see a need for "football (soccer)" as this is hedging our bets (using both terms) in the most ugly of ways. Maybe this is extremely pedantic but you all know that 'soccer' is derived from 'association', right? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This was the reason I brought this discussion up in the first place, I thought that football (soccer) is a clumsy way to introduce the subject. As a guess, soccer is the widely used term among people who don't follow the sport. The links posted above though show a move away from Soccer to Football by the people running the sport (Football Federation Australia, Football NSW, Football Federation Victoria etc) and the other major sporting authorities (Australian Institute of Sport, Australian Olympic Committee). I tried to use the "association football" being the origin of the term soccer argument with the IP early on but was promptly ignored. Camw (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that "Association football"is virtually unknown, whereas "soccer" is well-known and unambiguous. Moreover, no-one objected to the word soccer until about 10 years ago. It was the name used by every single soccer club and federation in Australia. FWIW I think this will actually harm soccer in the long run, because Australians hate pretension, arrogance and being told how to behave (or talk). And they are used to the word soccer. As in Socceroos. Grant | Talk 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So do you think "soccer" is the best idea? It's also the choice that creates the least headaches as it's unambiguous and widely understood, even though some Anglo-centric editors may wrongly dismiss it as an "Americanism". Can we get input from another Australian editor about this? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course soccer was used 10 years ago, why would that mean that we have to use soccer here? When the A-League was launched, soccer became football. Portillo (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that the official bodies have been renamed to "football" too. If soccer is a disputed/outdated term then that leaves us with option (2) Association football. Any takers for association football? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My order of preference would be: "association football" then "football (soccer)" - other options I'd be fairly strongly against. Association football is the title of the page describing the game itself on Wikipedia, that was the compromise that people thought would be appropriate in that case and it seems to be working reasonably well. If I find a term that I'm not familiar with on a wikipedia page then I'll click through to the article linked to and from then on I'll know what that term means if I see it again, I'm sure others can do the same if they haven't encountered "association football" previously and can't deduce it from the context of the page itself? Camw (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've played and supported the round ball game since I was a kid and have never encountered anyone seriously calling the game association football - it's either been football or soccer.The Hack 06:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Football" won't be acceptable to those outside this project I'm certain. "Soccer" is likely to generate more edit wars than it solves. Would "football (soccer)" be your preference then? Camw (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcastic smart alec comments mean nothing to me camw60.224.2.159 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

60.224.2.159:- What comment is "smart alec" here? No offence, but this statement is neither pertinent nor intelligible to the discussion. I recommend that you state your point of view, and your reasons for arrival at this view, or you will simply be interpreted as irrelevant white noise.

The Hack:- I would never suggest that people would say that they had gone to a "association football match", but that is not the point. I'm suggesting using "association football" on its first instance only and "football/footballer" thereafter as a disambiguation compromise. Wikipedia is read by all, some of who will not concur with you regarding with what "football" is (there are numerous codes). Is saying "association football" in the first instance really that disagreeable? (e.g. more so than "soccer" or "football (soccer)"). This discussion hasn't been whipped out of thin air, but rather by the fact that a significant proportion of Australians refer to a different sport in terms of what "football" signifies. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Or would that somehow not suit you and you'd prefer to keep getting blocked for edit warring?" 60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You've shown no willingness to contribute positively to the discussion so you really should not be surprised if people start to get annoyed with you and assume you are here to incite arguments rather than improve anything. It's always the same, you only hear what you want to hear and ignore everything else. So tell me, are you willing to contribute to the discussion in any kind of effort to actually reach a satisfactory conclusion or not? Camw (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

and again, you've gone and continued to make changes to articles that are clearly disputed, saying refer to this discussion. I wasn't being sarcastic when I infered that if you continue then you are likely to face an extended block. Camw (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

60.224.2.159, would you please just stop continuing to go around mass editing before we reach a consensus? I'm not going to revert more of your edits, but you must join this discussion or you will be blocked again, and again, until you're banned. --timsdad ^(talk) 03:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) seems fair to me. It seems unneccesary to add association as long as it is football (soccer). As long as it is stated that it is football (soccer) in the title or either the first line, then it can therefore be referred to soley as football in the rest of the article. I would prefer football (soccer) to association football, so most soccer fans call it soccer or sometimes football. No-one really calls it association football or association football (soccer). I think an exception can be for the national team, where it doesn't need the (soccer) tag. But it should not be football on its own as a lot of Australians call rugby league football and sometimes call it our national football team (wheither they're right or wrong). So call it our national association football team would be best. I say football (soccer) is better as it call the sport football (which is what the soccer fans want) but lets it know what kind of football it is (to avoid confusion). Association football and association football (soccer) are just not used in speech by fans or media. The soccer is in brackets and I think that is better than writing soccer. It lets people know what it it the majourity of people in Australia that call it soccer.Sliat 1981 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well let's just get it straight first. None of us, even 60.224.2.159, wants it as association football (soccer), that would be just plain silly. Although I firmly believe that if association football is written anywhere and people don't know what it is they should just click on the link, it would be much better in Australian articles to change everything to football (soccer) and, as Sliat said, just use football throughout the rest of the article.

The issue is not whether people are getting confused between association football, Australian rules football or rugby, it is whether we should use association football or football (soccer) in articles. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Our main article on the sport in Australia is titled Association football in Australia - this has been the page location for over a year now and seems like it has been working fine. I think it would be okay to describe the sport as such in articles on players. (A quick note, the same goes for Association football in Victoria, although I notice the NSW article was never changed, we should bring these into line at some point, whatever the consensus ends up as).Camw (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, a point from the FAQ on Talk:Association football;

Q: What about "Football (soccer)"?

A: On Wikipedia, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set that the article's subject is a part of. Therefore, the title "Football (soccer)" implies that football is a form of soccer, which is not the case.

There are also 42 sections of circular debates, heated arguments and a little bit of reason linked to on the talk page about the naming of the article, with the end result being Association football being the best compromise. We aren't quite there yet, hopefully we can sort it out before it gets to that ;) Camw (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) is much better. No other sport is allowed to have the football (aussie rules, rugby league) etc. It is letting the soccer have the football tag albeit with a little tag to know which football it is. I think that's fair. Would you prefer Soccer (football) then? Association football is ok for countries like UK etc, but it is more coomonly refeered to as soccer in Australia. By putting football, you give it the name that the soccer federation wants it to have, but also give it the name that most aussies call it 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only clear options are "association football" or "football (soccer)" (as happened at the talk page discussion linked above). I see the arguments for both sides, including: in terms of what exactly the parentheses would mean, and the need to express the mixed usage. I'm still leaning towards "association", for clarity and consistency, but I don't think that having "football (soccer)" would be a disaster; I'm feeling quite neutral about it. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the people who are actually interested in editing soccer/football articles and improving them have leaned toward a first preference of "association football" in this discussion. Those are Sillyfolkboy, Chuq, Portillo and myself. The Hack has said anything except "association football (soccer)" and would prefer not to use "association football". The comments and opinions from others are fine and they add to the discussion, but in the long term they are unlikely to be involved in the maintenance and improvement of articles under this projects scope. If I were to go and involve the wider WikiProject Football in this discussion I'm pretty sure we would see a preference for "association football" (after all, that was the final consensus against football (soccer) on the wider scale of the main article on the sport) as well. I'd prefer that we can come to a decision here rather than involving them as we should be able to sort out our own local project issues. Camw (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I think I've come to my own conclusion that I'd prefer association football, as this was the general consensus in most discussions on this topic. As Australia is making its way towards calling it football everywhere, I think Wikipedia should support that, for Australian articles anyway. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i.ttf come to my conclusion that football ?robberK. I think that football soccer in brackets is the better option. Football federation australia does not own the sport and has no real authority to saw what we can or can't call it. Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.69 00:57, 14 April 2009

How about the governing body FIFA then? "Fédération Internationale de Football Association (French for International Federation of Association Football)" per FIFA. Camw (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start planning the list of articles under our project scope to change to "association football", I believe a consensus has formed regarding the preferred term in terms of consistency and being something that most people involved with the project are happy with. Not everyone can or will be satisfied with the outcome but I ask that rather than disruptive the running of the project and encyclopedia by reverting edits to articles or making changes to further articles against this consensus, you either let the project run its area of interest, or raise the issue at the appropriate dispute resolution venues. Further comments are welcome of course, but the direction the project wants to take these articles has been made clear. Camw (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to this so called 'consensus', when we started this particular project we chose football (soccer) for its title and there didn't seem to be too much angst about it. Later on we had a guy called User:Krabby me changing articles to 'association football' to suit his pro-aussie rules or anti-soccer agenda. At the time, the argument used by the majority of people within this project was that football (soccer) was the best compromise because it indicated to Australian readers that an artcile was about soccer, but to international readers, the majority for whom soccer is football, what we meant. In terms of daily use, as a fan both aussie rules and soccer, I use the terms interchangebly, and depending on audience. I don't even know what some of you people are arguing for anymore. Is this is an issue of clarity, or an issue of ideology. Too often when this issue comes up it's about cultural wars and not about what is in the best interests of clarity etc, and it's only disguised as the latter. You can do what you like because I'm fed up with this stuff. Blackmissionary (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles are all over the place in regards to the term being used, there is no consistency, edit wars were occurring across a set of high profile articles and a decision and direction needed to be discussed. I was willing to be convinced either way and the discussion so far has led me and others to where we are now. Reading the discussion above (and the one on Talk:Association football), it's long and winding but I personally see very little compelling argument for the clumsy football (soccer) option. Camw (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To me, these are the options and issues -

1. Football - Ambiguous in Australia - four professional sports in Australia use this term either as part of an official name or as a short form identifier. Current administration prefers this term.

2. Soccer - Contraction of Association in Association Football. Historically most commmon identifier for the sport in Australia officially and colloquially.

3. Association Football/Association Football (soccer)- semi-official name for the sport, referenced in names of key bodies such as FIFA and IFAB. Rarely used in Australia to refer to round ball game.

4. Football (soccer) - encapsulates the most common international and local names for the sport. The vast majority of readers will know exactly to which sport is being referred.The Hack 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be preferable at all to prose-ify option 4? (i.e. "Little Johnny (14 April 1999) is a football, or soccer, player who plays for Dingos FC...") In my opinion the first two options have too many issues while the 3rd and 4th also have minor issues. Is there a third (or fifth) way? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The concensious has not been set yet. Grant, me, sliat_1981 and the other annon have not agreed yet. I personally think they DO have compelling arguements for the football (soccer) tag (as does Blackmissionary and the hack). You said you'd be willing to convinced either way, but you've dismissed their views because you don't "personally" see their arguements. Doesn't seem like you want to compromise with anything that is not "association football"60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "other anon" is clearly you. It's the same IP range and ISP that you used to make the exact same edits to the exact same articles that this IP range was making edits to. You accusing others about not making any effort to compromise is interesting. We clearly aren't all going to agree, you can take it to dispute resolution if you don't like it. Camw (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What's this about Australia is making its way to calling it everywhere? Most news shows or tv guides still call it soccer (eg Herald Sun tv guide still calls Aussie rules football and soccer soccer). The FFA has asked them to call it football, but they have not and have showed no indications of changing. Most sport programs call is soccer. Just because one organisation calls it football, doesn't mean it changes our language and what we can or can't call it. They don't decide what we say or what we do. FIFA is different as it controls the sport worldwide. And other countries Canada and US still call it soccer even though they compete in it. A few have changed to calling it football but most have not. FFA doesn't make the final decision on what we call it. What gives them the right to re-name words in the Australian dictionary? What gives them the final say? That is like saying the ARL controlled rugby league. Super league was created and challenged that. There's always a slight chance it would happen in soccer. It proves that FFA does NOT own the sport OR the naming rights to what Australians can or can't call it. 60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Err the other annon was actually a friend of mine who I asked to help. If it was me, then why wouldn't she have edited them back while I was blocked? Offer proof or stop accusations.60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And YOU can take it to the dispute resolution because a concensious has NOT being reached. You don't just decide to end it and say "the discussion is over because I disclaim all of your arguements. 60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

People in the UK don't like the word "soccer" because there is an aversion to slang in British English and/or it is (incorrectly) regarded as "American". The same things are not true in in Australia, because Australian English is less formal than UK English and many words that originated as slang have become acceptable in Australia. In other words: soccer is not slang here. It has been the common name of the game for around 100 years. It was also the name used by soccer clubs and federations here until an IMO misguided campaign by Johnny-come-latelys: FFA, sports bureaucrats and a few journalists.

Given the long history of instability and fractiousness within soccer administration in Australia, FFA may well disintegrate once Frank Lowy decides he can no longer support it. The "it isn't soccer" campaign will go the same way. In the meantime, "football (soccer)" is a reasonable compromise. Grant | Talk 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave it for now. Can you propose how the problem will be solved. Also, you were already told a number of times that canvassing for support is frowned upon and you are continuing to do it. If you are simply trying to get people involved in the discussion then in fairness you should be letting people know about the discussion that don't necessarily agree with your point of view as well as people who do, it would be a show of good faith to do so. Camw (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless as it goes, it will not end on something we will agree on. I wanted just soccer and I lost. Only thing we all don't want is association football (soccer). And also if you look at my contributions I did invite people who reverted the articles to association football, but they did not respond60.224.2.159 (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not reaching any result would be the worst result. As it stands there is no consistency across the articles looked after by the project. There must be consistency and there must be some result to the discussion, I and the others here have spent too much time talking about this for there to be no end result. Camw (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't just call it Soccer. It's not a derogatory term and it is obvious what sport we are talking about. 'Association Football' is a meaningless name for most Australians and 'Association Football (soccer)' is just ugly and is messing up some templates. Bongomanrae (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Partly because we are not writing only for an Australian or US audience. Blackmissionary (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially in the case of articles/subjects like Tim Cahill, Lucas Neill or foreign players that play in the A-League (but I think we have agreement that we won't try to contest the wording on those), that come under the project scope there would be extremely strong push back in the case of soccer or football (soccer). Camw (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "association football (soccer)" was ever an option. The "Association" part was the disambiguator, so why have "(soccer)" too? I think "association football" has been rejected as it doesn't reflect common usage. In which case, we are left with "football (soccer)" and plain "soccer". Given that we are actually having this discussion it appears that "soccer", although the simplest solution, is not accepted by a number of people. Are we sticking to "football (soccer)" for now then? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Its football but not as you know it. Portillo (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

not really portillo. I would prefer soccer on its own, but I acknowledge that it's not gonna happen. This seem to be leaning more towards football (soccer) than anything else. That's got my vote. It encoporates with FFA want to call it and what most Australians call it. As for forein players in the A-League, you can call them association football or footballers, but Tim Cahil is Australian so he must have the football (soccer) term. True Blackmissionary, we are not catering to just us an US, but by that rational, should we make English articles call them association football, instead of just football? 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree with making players such as Tim Cahill have the "football (soccer)" term. I have a strong inkling that the majority of readers of that article are English readers, purely on the basis of the fact that he is in the English news frequently, is a club player at one of the biggest clubs of the biggest sport in England, and the British population outnumbers that of Australia by three to one. Thus, just "football" would suffice given the readership (not that any Aussies would be stupid enough to think he's an Aussie rules player anyway...). Similarly, I would argue that Robbie Fowler maintain the plain "football" term, given the inherent readership/historical connections. Still, I'm in favour of setting all players with strong A-League connections with "football (soccer)". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) for A-League based players then. Portillo (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sillyfolkboy, I understand what you're saying, but you can't have it both ways. If Robbie Fowler has the Football alone tag, then Tim Cahill can't. Fowler is based in the A-League competition. Sure he is English, that's why I agreed not to edit him. But you can't turn around and say that Tim Cahill gets the football alone tag too. He's Australian. The only reason I did not re-edit the Fowler asrticle because as an Englishman he has the right to the football tag. Tim Cahill may play in a forein league, but he is mainly known here as a socceroo. As an Australian he must have the football (soccer) tag. Tim Cahill article is for an AUSTRALIAN player so its an AUSTRALIAN article. Since the current debate on what to call soccer players is still being disputed (here) he can't have the football alone tag. You say that English readers outnumber us one to three. By that rational, the people who call it football other than soccer outnumber us by far more than that. So by your rational, the article Association football should be renamed simply FOOTBALL because that's what more than half the world calls it. 60.224.2.159 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability

At what point does an Australian footballer become notable from a footballing point of view? Is it enough to have played NSL/A-League. The Hack 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Playing an A-League game does confer notability as the league is fully professional. The guidelines for athletes says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" so the A-League qualifies. Was the NSL professional or semi-professional? I think it was semi-pro, so if true players would need to either have played at senior or olympic international level, played in a different professional league or to meet the more stringent notability criteria of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Camw (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There were pro players and semi-pro players in the NSL, and there were eras where clubs went professional, which complicates this issue greatly. At the very least, award winners, leading goalsscorers and such from the NSL should be included, since even the most obscure A-League player gets a mention. Blackmissionary (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If the broad notability guidelines can be satisfied (and award winners, leading goalscorers etc should be okay as long as the reliable sources can be found) then an article is definitely appropriate. I've been meaning to try to start articles on the large number of NSL players that played for the Socceroos and don't have articles yet, but have been busy with other tasks. Camw (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So a player like Mitchell Johnson (soccer) (assuming he hasn't yet played in the ACL) isn't notable? The Hack 12:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Without looking further for sources and if Newcastle United weren't fully professional during the time he played for them he would be borderline and I'd be leaning toward him not being notable. If more articles like this are around then that would make a strong case for inclusion under the significant coverage criteria. The other sources in the article only contain brief coverage of him. Camw (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your previous comments and looking at the notability guidelines he would have to have played in a fully pro league, which the NSL was at no point. When I created the article I was only able to find three articles where he was the primary focus. I figured that having played NSL, being the highest level in this country, would have sufficed.The Hack 05:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Visiting teams to Tasmania

I notice that the article Association football in Tasmania doesn't refer to matches played by UK professionals in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, or the international visits by teams such as the Chinese tour of 1923. Is it simply that people didn't know the matches took place, or is there some other reason which prevents them being mentioned e.g. not significant enough ? I have some basic details which could be added to the article if acceptable.

RossRSmith (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's to do with Tassie, so you may never know! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable reference for it probably be should put it in...The Hack 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!. Will sort out the citations for the half dozen or so that I have already and update article by end of the week.

RossRSmith (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)