Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)

A sensible summary

An extremely sensible summary of the situation. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

One question: Does this mean that an article about, say, Sport in Melbourne, when talking about UK football, will be recommended to use

"The city has a football (soccer) club, Melbourne Victory, represented in the A-League, the premier league of football (soccer) in Australia..." (example written by me)

Seems mildly convoluted to me, I would think that just using soccer would be better, since disambiguation will have to be done anyway? Sam Vimes | Address me 10:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it would probably be more like "The city has a football (soccer) club, Melbourne Victory, represented in the A-League, the nations premier league..." or "The city has a club, Melbourne Victory, in Australia's premier football (soccer) league, the A-League.." or some other way that would result in the sentence flowing better. -- Chuq 11:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

100% support from me. I reckon "American football", by the way :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is in-line with the guidelines that the Football Project (that is, football (soccer)) have established. Which is, use most commonly used name of the region, football or soccer, or when both are almost equally common, use football (soccer). – Elisson • T • C • 19:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then, Ellison settles it. Soccer is no where near as popular in Australia as other codes. Yes i know all Australians follow their national team in all sports. Rugby Union was watched by everyone, yet it didnt take over australia. Looks like we have to go back to calling it soccer in lines with the convention made by the soccer people. Krabby me 10:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Links to prior discussions

This section is a summary of prior discussions - please add any that you find here which are not already listed:

• December 2005 - Talk:Australia national soccer team/Archive 1
• February 2006 - Talk:Australia national football (soccer) team#(Article name)
• February/March 2006 - Talk:Australia national football (soccer) team#Football is more than one game/code
• March 2006 - Talk:A-League#football vs soccer
• March 2006 - Talk:Rugby league#Football Needs You
• March/April 2006 - Talk:Football (soccer) in Australia#protected
• May/June 2006 - Talk:Football (soccer) in Australia#Socceroos
• July/August 2006 - Talk:Australia national football (soccer) team#It is Soccer in Australian English vernacular and you can't spell Socceroos without Soccer but:

(more to come..) -- Chuq 10:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

First use

This sounds like a pretty good summary of the conclusions of the conversations I've seen. Should the sentence In an article that only relates to one of these codes, the above name should be used in the title (if the word "football" is in the title) and the first paragraph. The word "football" can be used throughout the rest of the article. be changed to In an article that only relates to one of these codes, the above name should be used in the title (if the word "football" is in the title) and the first time in the article. The word "football" can be used throughout the rest of the article. to reduce the convoluted style suggested at the top of this talk page? (changed "...first paragraph" to "...first time in the article") I support this proposal with or without this suggested modification. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, the intention of the wording was "once in the first paragraph", not "throughout the first paragraph" which is similar to what you suggest. -- Chuq 23:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Soccer templates

User:Urgeback has alerted me to the fact that User:Chuq is insisting on using "Football" and not "Football (soccer)" on the soccer templates Template:AUS fb natteams and Template:AUS fb general. I don't think this is in the spirit of the convention and is provocative and unnecessary. Grant65 | Talk 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

These templates are only used on articles about association football, therefore I thought the context would have indicated which code was being discussed. However, to make things clearer, I have made some changes to the templates. When they are viewed individually, such as at Template:AUS fb general, the headers show Football (soccer). When they are included in a page, such as Football (soccer) in Australia, where the page itself makes it clear what is being discussed, the headers show Football. Hopefully this should eliminate any confusion. -- Chuq 05:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to the context, they looked OK to me before (the usage description identified the code of football, and the transclusion meant they followed the "first use" rule on pages). They certainly appear fine now, unless somebody is going to try to argue they should be renamed like {{AUS fb(s) general}} ! --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem comes in when Joe Blow, who is unaware of the politics involved, searches for information on Australian rules, rugby league or even gridiron (which known simply as "football" in the US and Canada) in Australia using the phrase "football in australia" and comes up with this stuff on his Google search. We are supposed to avoid ambiguity, not create it. Grant65 | Talk 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would expect someone who finds a page on google would then proceed to actually READ the page, which would clarify which sport it was in the title or first paragraph. -- Chuq 09:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuq's reasoning definitely makes sense, and there shouldn't be any major problems with these templates as they are. However, I do feel that headings on boxes like this shoudl be treated more like titles than subsequent uses in the article text. JPD (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuq, they shouldn't have to read the pages, that is my point. Grant65 | Talk 12:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But all google searches return the page title in a large fon

t at the top of each search result. Go ahead and do a Google search for "football in australia". Wikipedia's Football (soccer) in Australia and Australian rules football in Australia are in the top three; each clearly says either "soccer" or "Australian rules" in the heading. It is extremely clear to anyone searching. -- Chuq 23:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

1. To me, Grant65 has shown his ignorance by presuming that Canadian football and American football are the same.
2. Google (at least) will not return a Wikipedia template page above an article page that also matches. Confusion will not come to casual browsers who only see the content of these templates in the context of Australian football (soccer) articles. Any potential confusion would only be to editors trying to add these templates to articles about other forms of football in Australia. The usage info should give them a clue that these templates are always about soccer, not parameterised by football code. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just answer me this chuq and be honest. If you see a template in Australian rules football that says football in Australia, will you change it? Urgeback 08:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would I? It would be an Australian rules football page. It's a type of football as well. If that is deemed to be the most appropriate name by the page's editors, there is nothing wrong with that. -- Chuq 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to keep the rules the same for all codes. If we use football (soccer), then we should also use football (afl), and football (rugby league), as they are the same structure. For soccer headings we should use Association Football. This is the same as other codes that use Australian Football, or Australian Rules Football. In the article we should use football after notifying what code is used. However we should also notify what code we are referring to every few paragraphs. This is alot like when writing a book with a lot of speaking. Is it possible to get something that tells us the percentile of each country viewing pages. If the majority of people viewing the page are from australia we can just use soccer, football and rugby league/union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krabby me (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You definitely lost me at that last paragraph:

1. Do you think that absolutely all Australians call it "soccer" [1] [2] and we are just calling it "football" to please people overseas? [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
2. Not to mention, do you think that absolutely all Australians call AFL "football"? [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
3. How many people would know what "association football" is?

I was going to say you may not know about prior discussions here, but seeing as I discussed the exact same thing with you 6 months ago, I can only guess you forgot, or just enjoy a good argument. The intention of this page is NOT to argue the same thing all over again - if you have something new to add, feel free, but if want to read the same old stuff over and over, I have provided links at the top of the page. -- Chuq 10:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey chuq before you go on saying we are wrong for calling it soccer, you have just referred to Aussie rules as 'afl'. Afl is a league, not a sport. Stop being hypocritical Urgeback 08:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, association football is the official name (see FIFA) but "Football (soccer)" is clearer, which is why it is the convention in Wikipedia. "Football" is not clear, and that's why we have naming conventions. That is the issue in a nutshell.

We are treading old ground here. Do I think that absolutely all Australians call it "soccer" and we are just calling it "football" to please people overseas? No and no. The members of the Barmy Army who live here and have taken out citizenship certainly call it "football". As shown above, several outlets in the Sydney-based media also favour "football = soccer" usage. It would never happen in the so-called "AFL states", or the ACT, and not (me thinks) in Queensland either. The Macquarie Dictionary (4th ed., 2005) states that in Australian English, people usually mean rules or league when they say "football" (with the proviso that the SBS-FFA pact may [only may] have some impact on usage in future). (Please don't try to tell me that the Macquarie isn't authoritative and/or there is no such thing as Australian English.) Even SBS drama and news progams use "soccer" --- because it's common usage. I think the fad will eventually dissipate among those oddball Sydney sports journos as well.

Scott, I wrote most of History of American football, so I'm well aware that it and Canadian football are different games. They are similar enough to both be classified as "gridiron" in an Australian context, I mean I've never heard of anyone referring to "Canadian gridiron"! Grant65 | Talk 16:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Grant you may be interested that the editor of the SMH, who is an English immigrant, introduced it last year around the time of the WC qualifyer in Sydney. I have been trying to include this in his biography, like someone before me I may add, and have been aggressively reverted by two users(maybe socks) named Tancred and Dibo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.10.112.157 (talk • contribs)

Chuq, can you read?? Did i say in that paragraph that ALL Australians call AFL football? no. No im not looking for an argument but it sounds to me like you are. I suggested a perfectly good way to use naming in articles that created a consistency across all the football codes. Yet you with your obvious bias towards soccer have decided to find a lot of news websites that are based in Sydney or made for Sydney. The soccer World Cup has died down, you can stop using football = soccer now. As with making things clear. Perhaps we should use Association Football (soccer)...yes i know thats its a abv and that its been discussed already....however it makes it alot more formal. ":#How many people would know what "association football" is?" reply: How many people in Australia recognise football as soccer? Yes a lot of young people play soccer, i was one of them. But i have only ever called ausse rules, football. Its only in small areas that soccer is football. SBS calls it football because it is a channel that shows stuff for the minority. --Krabby me 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Too right Krabby, for us in the northern states it is rugby league football and the commen terminology for soccer is not football but soccer. The amount of people who recognise soccer as "football" on some type of moral level is probably declining daily from interaction with these folk who are trying to claim that Australians in any serious numbers, call soccer football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.10.112.157 (talk • contribs)

Some people haven't signed the posts so I'm not sure who is saying what here, so I will reply to all at once:

1. Chuq, can you read?? Did i say in that paragraph that ALL Australians call AFL football? It may not have been your intention, but that is what I took you saying If the majority of people viewing the page are from australia we can just use soccer, football and rugby league/union. to imply.
2. I suggested a perfectly good way to use naming in articles that created a consistency across all the football codes. Football (soccer) works - it is the name of the main article; it contains both "football" and "soccer", the most common names for the game, so all people should be able to recognise what sport it refers to; and it can be written as [[football (soccer)|]]. "Association football" on the other hand, isn't as clear or as simple to link to.
3. As shown above, several outlets in the Sydney-based media also favour "football = soccer" usage. and Yet you with your obvious bias towards soccer have decided to find a lot of news websites that are based in Sydney or made for Sydney. The only sydney one is SMH. The rest are national. I did not intentionally search for sites using "football", you will notice I pointed out the ones that use "soccer" as well - I went to ALL the major news sites to find what they used. Most news corp sites don't have their own sports section. Oh and I just found Seven's [15]. The point was to find what they called the round ball version "football" or "soccer", the point was to see what you would expect to find in a section named "football" and nothing else.
4. Yes a lot of young people play soccer, i was one of them. But i have only ever called ausse rules, football. I played "soccer" (round ball) and "football" (oval ball) at school as well. That was the 80s and 90s. Things have changed a lot since then.
5. The soccer World Cup has died down, you can stop using football = soccer now How is that relevant to what people call it? If anything, more people would have been calling it "football" then because it involved international competition and probably 30 of the other 31 countries there call it "football" (or a translation thereof, eg. "futbol").
6. SBS calls it football because it is a channel that shows stuff for the minority. SBS call it football because they played games from the English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Brazilian, Argentinean leagues, as well as international matches and international club matches, and all of those nations call it "football" (or a translation thereof). I don't think they even had the rights to the National Soccer League, when it existed.
7. with the proviso that the SBS-FFA pact may [only may] have some impact on usage in future I'm not sure what pact that is; SBS are probably more biased AWAY from the FFA - SBS have never had A-League rights and as of 1 Jan 2007 will not have any rights to any Australian team (national or club) at all.

The big question is, how does any of this affect what is on the main page for this naming convention? -- Chuq 11:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"The only sydney one is SMH. The rest are national." National in circulation, but based in Sydney. SBS in particular is notoriously Sydney-centric. As for your final question, the templates should reflect the convention of the English Wikipedia as whole (i.e. not just Australian articles) and refer to "football (soccer)". I'm amazed that adherence to such a long-standing convention is controversial. In fact, there is even more reason to do this with Australian articles because of the rival codes.Grant65 | Talk 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC

1. To imply: that if most people are Australians we can go by wikipedia rules and use the common names of the WHOLE country.
2. Well if we take the common name, then for Australian Football we should use football (AFL) as they are the two most common names. I reckon we should make the headings inside all soccer articles, Association Football (soccer), and for smaller ones, just football. In articles involving more than one code we cannot use football (soccer), we must use soccer as it is much easier to read. Consider "Bill quickly took off his slippers (thongs) as he walked into the house, and put on his slippers (woolen)". If this was in australia we should use thongs then slippers. It is much like the discussion we are having now.
3. What Grant said + check the adelaide, WA and tasmanian ones. \
4. Maybe in your small community of soccer fans yeah, but hardly anywhere else.
5. People and the media only started TRYING to call it football during the campaign (not just the actual soccer world cup)
6. Yes cos the only people who watch SBS regularly are the minority in Australia. It is made for the foreigners.

We have to consider what most australians would search for. When a youngster searches for football from his shack on the coast of adelaide, will they get what they searched for, without having to keep checking the heading of the page.Krabby me 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rugby league football

Hi, I believe the official name of the sport is rugby league football and all references to both football in a unambiguous circumstance and rugby league football in an ambiguous circumstance should be used. I think that it is manifestly stupid that this has to even be argued. One only has to hear an international rl player talking about international football to know what commen terminology is. I thought this was already the case and the practice and am amused that soccer people have claimed that it is not referred to as football, so here is to making it official. P.S. I am not interested in comments by SOCCER people who will make aggressive POV claims as is their want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.10.112.157 (talk • contribs)

That is ok so long as it unambiguous, accurate, and agreed upon by other rugby league editors. Going by the articles in Category:Rugby_league_in_Europe, Category:Rugby_league_in_Oceania, and Category:International_rugby_league_teams, I think it is pretty clear most of the others think "rugby league" is the most convenient name that is short (easy to type/link to), descriptive (it is used to describe the sport internationally), and unambiguous ("Rugby league" won't be confused with any other sport)

I think that it is manifestly stupid that this has to even be argued. I think this shows a complete lack of understanding. Any supporter of any code should be able to recognise that there may be conflicts. To think otherwise is a refusal to wear a neutral point of view hat.

I suspect it is not you changing "rugby league" to "rugby league football" that is the problem; it is the fact that it is often the only change you make, or it is accompanied by uncivil comments, which makes it harder for other editors to sympathise with you. -- Chuq 12:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rant from blocked user deleted -- Chuq 12:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate suggestions

The follow was added to the proposal page by an IP address:

Other suggestions:

• football (AFL)
• Association Football (soccer) <---mainly for headings
• Football (American)

These would not be suitable because:

• AFL is a league and a governing body, not a sport; there are the VFL, SANFL, WAFL, and hundreds of local leagues which play Australian rules football, but they are not AFL.
• "Association football (soccer)" is like saying "soccer football (soccer)" - the term soccer came from "association" - so would be redundant.
• I think "American football" would be just as clear and easier to read.

-- Chuq 09:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there really a problem with this naming convention that the discussion is trying to solve? The convention looks fine to me as it is now - and I only had one lesson of soccer in PE at school. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so - I did base the page on the results of all the past discussions so it should be pretty well spot on - but I just wanted to check with others first. It is just the American football/Gridiron terminology that is "unsolved", but as we don't have an "in Australia" or "national team" article for either I don't think there is a hurry. -- Chuq 20:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about football (Australian), football (soccer), and football (american). They are all in the same style and are not bias towards a particular code. At current articles are biased towards soccer by using football (soccer). AFL was used before because people in previous discussions have said AFL = football (Australian). Association Football (soccer) is a bit like that yes. However i believe the point in having it is more like "Portable Computer (laptop)" which are the same thing, yet people recognise laptop more.59.100.121.184 22:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. "football (Australian)" and "football (American)" could be read as "Football (soccer) in Australia" and "Football (soccer) in the United States" to someone from a football (soccer) dominant country who doesn't know about all the different codes. Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline recommends using a name without brackets, if such a name exists and is easily recognisable. I'm not sure why football (soccer) was used instead of association football, but it is probably something to with overwhelming international usage. I don't think the current titles are biased towards any particular code either - for such a commonly linked-to article, I would rather a Football (soccer) have a regular name without brackets in it, so I consider it a disadvantage, it is inconvenient writing [[Football (soccer)|]] all the time (the same as Melbourne/Victorian editors have to write [[Victoria (Australia)|]] all the time!). By the way your comment about "football (American)" and my reply that it may be ambiguous makes me think that "American football" may be just as ambiguous. We may need to go with something with Gridiron in the name for that one.

The laptop analogy would make sense if every country in the world, except for 4-5, only had laptop computers, and had never heard of or seen desktop computers, and just called their laptops "computers". -- Chuq 08:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if they're from a soccer dominated country, it's important for them to know that not all countries call is football. That would be like us asking them to call theirs football (soccer). Urgeback 08:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But they do. Football (soccer) is the main article, even though the global usage is much more in favour of "Football" by itself. Also, "not all countries call is football" seems to implying that no-one in Australia calls it football. Quite obviously, some of us do! -- Chuq 12:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is possible to have a standard for both international and articles that mainly australians would view. For example, not many people from overseas would read about A-league, nrl, or the AFL. In these articles we should probably use soccer, rugby league, and football. Or some other variant. I haven't really thought about international ones yet, but i think that we cannot continue with football (soccer), rugby league, and Aussie rules, as it implies that a significant amount of people call soccer "football" (which isn't the case), and that people go around talking about afl, using aussie rules. I play all three sports, i call bith rugby and afl balls, a football. And a soccer ball a soccer ball. I also call rugby, rugby/football/footy/league, i call australian football, football/footy/afl, and soccer, soccer. I think that represents a vast majority of Australians, and we can work something out from those. Krabby me 09:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A vast majority of the people you know and talk to, doesn't mean a vast majority of Australians. I would suggest a vast majority of people reading Australian Football League call Australian rules "football", and a vast majority of people reading National Rugby League call rugby league "football" and a vast majority of people reading A-League call association football/soccer "football". Then it gets confusing. Sydney FC is an Australian team playing in the A-League, but has also played in the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship. and will play in the AFC Champions League 2007 both of where the name "football" is predominantly used. Your statement "as it implies that a significant amount of people call soccer "football" (which isn't the case)" appears to be the crux of your argument. Lots of people DO call it football, just not the people you know/talk to. Do a Google search for 'Australia football'. You may think that google is biased towards official organisations or media organisations, so try Youtube search for 'Australia football' which is almost all 'grassroots' content. Football in Australia explains usage patterns to anyone confused. -- Chuq 01:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well yes that would actually go by most australians. If you look at that logically. To prevent me writing to much, using football (word), we can say that MOST of Australia calls soccer, soccer. Thats out of the way. For rugby league, and union, which are called league and rugby to distinguish between the two in colloquial language, where its popular it is called football/footy. That is only in NSW (mostly Sydney) and the most populus area of QLD. In the rest of Australia except for pockets of other codes around the place, Australian Football is almost always called football/footy. Im not disputing the fact that in articles that are to do with a particular code should use football the most. All soccer articles should be able to use the word football, but only after stating what type it is. The type should also be stated every now and then in the article. such as. 3 or paragraphs into the article..."..Archie Thompson recently scored five goals against the New Zealand Knights. According to sources this amount of goals is a first for soccer in this country." This should happen with all codes. Currently what is happening is that in sites talking about more than one code, we have headings such as Australlian Rules Football, and later down, football (soccer). This suggests that soccer is called football by the majority of Australians. This is not the case. Also, in aricles, people are using "football" under the soccer heading, and when someone tries to use "football" in the aussie rules, or rugby sections it is changed back immediately. It is this type of behaviour that is eroding the links between the codes, and bringing on the destruction of wikipedia. I have many friends who are trying to call soccer football. Guess what!! They are all from Sydney. What a suprise!! However i have far more from Sydney who think that calling soccer football is just stupid and weird. I also know people who love soccer, don't like australian football, or rugby, but refuse to call it football. Why would someone search for australia football?? It is more logical to search australian football.Do that and see the results. Also switch google to australian mode, and search "football". Oh and in the paper today John O'Neill stated that AFL is easily the highest football code, followed by league, soccer then union. Krabby me 05:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you realise that this isn't "what sport is most popular", I think it is pretty obvious that Australian rules football is more popular that football (soccer) (in Australia) and no-one is trying to claim otherwise. The discussion here is "there is some naming confusion here, which terms can we use to avoid confusion". Not a single thing you have posted on this page has been in aid of this. I could reply to all that you have written above, but I have done it over and over to dozens of different users (who show up to edit various football articles to their POV, disappear). Also, in aricles, people are using "football" under the soccer heading, and when someone tries to use "football" in the aussie rules, or rugby sections it is changed back immediately. .. Yes, that is a problem. That it what this proposal is supposed to fix. -- Chuq 11:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been talking about what sport is the most popular. Stop trying to discredit me. I have been writing about which people would be most likely to visit all the different pages relating to all type of football in australia. This involves what sport is the most popular of them. I gave a list of all the different names the majority of australians use to call the three main football codes (if u can even say three).

• Australian Football: football/footy/aussie rules/afl/australian football
• Rugby League: football/league/footy/rugby league
• Association Football: soccer

They are the main names that Australians use. I wrote that above. Have you ever thought that those dozens of users are right. It is just your and the other soccer recruits from other countries that are wrong. In an easy to read format:

• the football word shall be used after initially stating what type it is in the first paragraph. It should also be stated every few paragraphs just like a normal encyclopedia entry.
• the words Australian rules football, Association football, and rugby league football should be used in all headings where more than one code is the main sport
• in articles that are a large majority of the readers are Australian, the words soccer, football, rugby union, and rugby league shall be used.Krabby me 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The first problem with this is that Wikipedia does not choose it's word usage based on assumptions concerning where the large majority of the readers are from, but simply what form of English is most relevant to the subject of the article. The second problem is that there are enough "football means soccer" people in Australia now to not be able to ignore it on Wikipedia, whatever we might think of the matter (WP:NPOV). As someone who grew up (in Sydney) calling Aussie rules "football", surrounded by people who thought "football" was rugby league, and who avoids using "football" to refer to soccer, even here in London where it is normal, I think the current guidelines are fairly reasonable. The only place they are currently causing problems is things like Sport in Australia, where as far as I can tell, the guidelines say that "football (soccer)" should be used throughout that section, although there could be an argument for using "football" after the first mention in all of the relevant sections. I think that in that context using unamgibuous terms is better, but "football (soccer)" is awkward. Are the soccer people really against using "soccer" alone in any situation? JPD (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The main issue I have with Krabby Me's most recent suggestion, above, is that he seems to be denying that Association football is called "football" by anyone (notice it is listed as an option next to the first two, but not the third). I understand that he might never call it that himself - but as another example, I have never ever in my life heard anyone call rugby league "football" in casual conversation, but that is because I don't follow it myself, or hang around with people who follow it, or live in an area where it gets much media coverage at all. However, I don't try to deny that it is called that by it's followers though. -- Chuq 00:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you had actually read all the wording you would have seen that those names are a list of what games are regularly called around Australia. However if you would like me to make a list of every name that a given code can be made, i'll try my best. But yes i do think along with most of Australia that there are not many people calling soccer football. It is just a very vocal minority. Do you really think that Ben Buckley started calling soccer, football on his own admission?

• Australian Football: football/footy/aussie rules/afl/australian football/gayfl/national game/australian rules football/australian game/our game/aerial ping pong
• Rugby League: football/league/footy/rugby league/thugby/rugby/rugby football/nrl
• Association Football: soccer/football/wogball/footie/gay-league/world game/english football/world football/aerial ping pong/woosy sport

There you go. That should make you happy. What you have to realise that is as much as what people may say that soccer will be known widely as football in Australia, it is not happening at the present time. Now we need to look at the names that people use a lot in AUSTRALIA now. We need to decide on a convention that will keep australian, rugby and association football people happy when they do a search. A lot of soccer people around the world know that their 'football' is soccer. But not many Australians know soccer is also called 'football'. Krabby me 02:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You must be on something if you think soccer could possiblr be called ariel ping pong. How do you figure that. Urgeback 09:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just doing a few minutes of research. I was looking at New Zealands use of words, as they are quite similiar to our country. I also looked at previous uses of words on Australias entries. What i came up with, was that New Zealand has a similar level of support of soccer as Australia, yet in their articles they use soccer in both headings and inside the aricles mpst of the time. I also looked at the history of Australian articles. It was the soccer people that upset the equilibrium of naming in Australia. They started using the name "football" in about october 2005. This was about the time that many discussions took place regarding naming. I suggest we go back to the original naming as it was non controversial. Krabby me 06:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

My previous comment, that is "just because you and people you know do not call it football, does not mean that there isn't a significant amount of other people who do" still stands. Check almost any Australian football (soccer) forum [16] [17] [18] [19] - even some of http://www.bigfooty.com 's (an Aussie rules forum) "soccer" forums are a mixture, 2 named "football", 2 named "soccer".

So far as your comments about searching; the proposed policy allows for that (articles with "football" in the topic (eg. Football in Australia) will be a disambiguation page, for example).

Who cares how New Zealand articles are named - that makes as much sense as naming ours the same as England, or France, or Brazil. -- Chuq 09:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa...ALL of the soccer people have banded together in order to make petitions to change the way media works in this country. Trying to change 150 years of views. A survey on a site that supposedly has about 15000 fierce supporters. Yet a petition that seems pretty well advertised on the Melbourne Victory website only has about 900 signatures. Do you really think that a couple of forums for each team in the A-League, and a couple more on the Australian soccer team mean that a significant number of Australians follow soccer?? The town in which i live is the home town of one of the australian womens soccer team players. There is a large italian community, and they all follow soccer. They never call it football. It is only a very small number of people calling the game soccer around Australia. Yes they have a lot of forums calling it football, but would all of them call it football around Australians? I think not. Soccer is the name that ALL australians recognise. Football is a term most Australians associate with AFL then league then soccer then union. Soccers A-league only has 3 games above 30 000 spectators so far this year, and only 9 above 20 000, in fact 42 / 60 games so far have had below 15 000 spectators. This does NOT represent a significant amount of people. Nor does the 2600 members of the Melbourne Victory forum, or the similar amount of people on the Sydney soccer club site. I researched New Zealand as they are a country that is extremely similar to us. They follow similar sports in rugby league, union, and cricket. They also follow soccer and aussie rules to a lesser extent. That is a quite similar to Australia with a few sports swapped around. Notably union and aussie rules. I totally agree with having disambiguation pages for most articles containing football, with a exceptions like official names that are used a fair bit. It is however disturbing that soccer writers seem to have the need to replace all "football" uses in australian football aritles with "australian rules football" when it is quite obvious that it is about that sport. This is while they have changed soccer to football in the same article, confusing people reading the article in the process.Krabby me 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't see why you are complaining about the guideline, Krabby me. They quite explicitly say that on articles about a particular code or footballer, "football" can be used later in the article. The only place I have seen people exchanging "football"/"Australian rules football"/"Aussie rules" recently is in Sport in Australia. In this case, the text as originally written (not by a "soccer writer) was "Australian rules", etc, and Urgeback changed it to football. I (again, definitely not a "soccer writer") changed it back, because this article is not an Australia football article, and it seems natural to me that when we are specifically discussing many sports including at least four varieties of football, we should use the unambiguous terms. This is in line with the guidelines and should apply equally to the soccer section, which by the current guidelines should use "football (soccer)". Since this is awful writing, I would prefer to use simply "soccer", and tend to think that if it werent' for people objecting to jsut about every use of "football" to refer to soccer, the soccer fans wouldn't be so keen to avoid the term "soccer". JPD (talk) 12:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I see many people leaving soccer to simply football after football(soccer) term is used, lets see on the MCG site. Urgeback 09:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that word usage is slowly being change by soccer writers on wikipedia. Pretty soon they will be requesting that football is not used at all by other codes. I have also seen people exchanging football/aussie rules. In all other government type pages i have visited, soccer is used with every use. It seems that only articles that are viewed alot are using the word football instead of soccer. I also would prefer to use the word soccer. However i think that if the soccer fans accepted that is what their code is called then there would be no problem. Krabby me 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty soon they will be requesting that football is not used at all by other codes.. Haha.. so after all this, your main concern is not what is being proposed, but what you think might be proposed later on? Word usage on wikipedia is being changed ONLY as usage in the real world is being changed. I can't forsee football (soccer) becoming the nations primary football code in the forseeable future, and even if it was, I don't think anyone would suggest changing the naming on here - due to the significant history of the other codes. -- Chuq 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That was only a statement in passing, a statement that i don't believe will occur. Well if word usage only occurs as the usage is changed then there is no need at all for football (soccer) to be used, and the word soccer should be used in most cases. Yes you may think that soccer has an enormous potential to change usage of the word football currently, but at the moment it is not used popularly. In fact, have you noticed that a lot of media organisations have begun to revert away from using soccer = football. I reckon if you did a survey of people at a-league soccer matches, more than half would use soccer over football, and about a quarter would not call soccer football at all. Krabby me 01:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Back to normal

Ok, now if there is anyone who isn't listed here left.. back to the suggestions? -- Chuq 11:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we revisit and update this

7 years on and this is still on ongoing topic. So can we revisit and update this so we can discuss some standards to apply to articles. I like the basic template of this, so by update I am referring to Football (soccer) and Gridiron/American football. My suggestion is to replace Football (soccer) with Association football, and replace Gridiron with American football. This is reflecting the changes on Wikipedia and within Australia which have taken place since this was last active.--2nyte (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I approve of the idea of updating this page, in about one month from now once things are a bit clearer. If anyone who is watching this is interested, we are crafting an RfC to clarify naming and terminology in this area below. Please comment if you would like. --John (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning

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

John, look here, especially the Edit summary. No discussion at all, of course. User:Macktheknifeau knows what the formal consensus is, but clearly doesn't like it.

Then look here from a couple of weeks later. Not even an Edit summary, let alone discussion.

These are but two examples of repeated similar behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The two examples HiLo48 presented (and there are many more on various articles - thousands of articles) came after 6-7 months of the most agonising discussions on Talk:Soccer in Australia. I don't want to make out HiLo48 as a punching bag, but I would certainly not be the only one to think he has created a situation where ("anti-soccer") editors are pushed against brick walls.

I am not condoning Macktheknifeau's actions, but there is really nothing wrong/should be nothing wrong with those changes. John, I am asking for discussion and for change.--2nyte (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is something fundamentally wrong, in that they breach consensus, but I guess your point is that you believe the consensus is wrong. I don't think I created that situation. You are describing a disagreement with consensus as feeling like being "pushed against brick walls". There are some areas on Wikipedia where I think consensus is wrong too. I feel frustrated by it, so I know how you feel. In those areas I just try to present the soundest and most complete cases I can. Doesn't always work though. In that area of "most complete case", what is always missing in the anti-"soccer" argument is a thorough explanation of what's wrong with the name "soccer" in Australia. That explanation has to cope with the reality that a huge number of Australians, including many fans and players, still very comfortably use the name "soccer" for the game.

I apologise to John for bringing that part of the debate here, and he can delete it if he wants, but I'm trying to home in on just the key issues here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is consensus, and I accept the decision. Though the only consensus reached was for the title of Soccer in Australia (with the agreement that Football in Australia is ambiguous for that title). Since then, I have attempted to engage in a larger discussion regarding the use of "soccer" in all Australian wiki content - I feel that discussion is still needed.

Now again, I don't want to vilify HiLo48, but I do feel he has targeted users (I being one of them) and this topic in general. Further, I believe HiLo48 should not be associated with the decisions regarding this topic. I know these are strong claims, but I will follow them through, though I do not know the procedure to do so. I accept opposition to debate (it adds legitimacy), but I believe HiLo48 has shown great bias, even hatred toward the topic.--2nyte (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I would not have thought that an admin's talk page was the smartest place to launch a personal attack on another editor. - Nick Thorne ^talk 06:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know wiki policy that well, but I'm basically asking for assistance. Assistance in discussing the Soccer in Australia issue and in discussing HiLo48. I wouldn't know "the smartest place to launch a personal attack on another editor", if there is even one. Here we are discussing Macktheknifeau's edits and I thing what I've brought up is related to the issue. As a key wiki contributor to the round ball game in Australia I want the two topics i brought up discussed and resolved, but I need assistance to do so.--2nyte (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate the discussion. Those two edits are indeed worrying if they were to continue, but the last one was from over a week ago. I will ask them not to do it again. Would it help to clarify whether that RfC on the title of Soccer in Australia should be used as a rationale for changing the language in multiple other articles? 2nyte, the same standards apply to you as to the other editors I have invited here. If you feel another editor is currently behaving badly, bring a diff here that I can do something about. Otherwise, it would be best to leave these feelings (which I accept are strong) behind as we move forwards in bringing peace to this area. Can you work with me on that? --John (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

John, I am 100% certain that the intention of the RfC conclusion was that "soccer" would apply to all articles for the sport within Australia, but not to articles such as Australia national association football team, which obviously refers to a team playing internationally. I'm certain it was documented somewhere, but I don't know where. It was also agreed that we wouldn't go changing all articles immediately, but that we would do it as the need arose. I have only intervened where there was argument, or obvious and blatant changes TO "football". Unfortunately, there have been many.

I also note that in response to my effort to distil the problem above, a major point (What's wrong with "soccer") was completely ignored, and I was described as having "hatred toward the topic". Can you see the difficulty of having rational, constructive discussion here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can, which is why I don't think that currently the low benefit and high risk that I talked to you about last night make this a worthwhile area to fruitfully discuss. I would be in favour of having a break from arguing about titles and terminology in Australian football/soccer until August 2015. By that time tempers may have cooled and it could be worth talking again about this. What do you think of this idea? --John (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't see it working. Of the regular players there, you only have me and 2nyte participating here, and while I see that his intentions are mostly good, we two are hardly on the same wavelength. I'm happy with current consensus, He's not. And he's obviously not happy with me. Then there'e the editors not here. Some are known by name, and will probably reappear soon. And there's always the occasional IP editor and some less frequent others. I cannot see a mechanism that would work. Given that all I have been doing is defending a well established consensus, and breaking no rules, I think I have a right to continue doing at least that. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest with me. If we can't do it informally, the next step is to go back to AN/I and get some topic bans handed out, or else enforce the truce idea. If this is not dealt with I think the alternative would be Arbcom, which I am keen to avoid if possible. I do think it is worth a try to see if we can solve it short of a formal process. --John (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, the only thing defending a "well established consensus" is the move-protection on Soccer in Australia. What you have been doing is defending your own interpreted of the current consensus.--2nyte (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• My own stance would be that if we see continuing strife in this area, we would need to hand out topic bans and/or short blocks. Please, please refrain from commenting on the motivations of others. If we can keep this solution-focused we can all get on with more interesting and rewarding activities. I want to see a compromise that all can live with. I am sick of seeing this dispute come round every few weeks on AN/I like a bad soap opera. I understand the underlying issues, and the nuances of linguistic and nationalistic pride that may cloud some people's judgement in an area like this. My gold medal is if in a month from now we have peace, no-one has been blocked or restricted, and AN/I can get on with its other important business. Will you help me? I am also pinging User:Tariqabjotu who closed the discussion in case he wants to comment. --John (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC) And let me also ping User:Drmies who commented above. Drmies, what do you think of this idea? Will you help? --John (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Next step; clarification

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

It would appear that at least two editors have not been able to read the above, or do not see the need to collaborate and so disregard the request. Moreover, are the comments really giving an opinion on "the consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3"? I suppose blocking each of the named editors until August 2015 would be regarded as a little extreme, but if someone were to propose that I would give it serious consideration. @John: When you get a chance, please try the result shown at talk convert. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given Macktheknifeau a short block for flagrantly ignoring my repeated injunctions not to make personal comments on others. I now have some questions for you all. Macktheknifeau can answer when his block expires. --John (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Questions

1. Given the close of the RfC (The result of the move request was: no move. There is ample evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that football is ambiguous in Australia. While the term may be increasingly popular for referring to this particular sport, it has not been demonstrated that soccer is unrecognizable to a degree that would warrant usurping the Football in Australia article.), how do you see the next step forward in this process? This could involve another RfC to clarify the first; as Macktheknifeau says, even if admins believe consensus is 'correct' for the "Soccer in Australia" article, in my opinion that consensus has zero impact or relevance to articles specifically and exclusively about football teams, players and groups such as Western Sydney Wanderers FC, and maybe this is a reasonable question; should the result of the naming RfC really be extrapolated onto other articles? I have previously proposed a moratorium on further naming discussions, but I would be ok with such a clarification. --John (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
2. If you agree with me that a RfC to clarify the implications of the first is desirable, what should the question be? What simple, neutrally-worded question(s) would best sort this out? --John (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:HiLo48

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

Answer to Q1

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

Answer to Q2

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

User:2nyte

First a few points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer to Q1

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

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

Answer to Q2

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

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

User:Macktheknifeau

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer to Q1

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

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

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

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

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

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

There would be no ambiguity at all.

As such, to directly answer the question:

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

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

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

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

Answer to Q2

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

User:The-Pope

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

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

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

Answer to Q2

User:Orestes1984

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

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

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

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

Answer to Q1

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

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

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

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

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

Answer to Q2

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

Other editors

User:Nick Thorne

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

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

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

Answer to Q1

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

Answer to Q2

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

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

NE Ent

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

Next steps; another RfC

Background

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

Action

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

Discussion

NE Ent

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

No. NE Ent 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy to answer this if you can clarify what you mean. Do yo mean we should not have a further RfC? If you can come up with a better solution, I am open to hearing it. --John (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, we should not have another RFC. (You asked two questions: I answered Q1 no, making Q2 moot). The only problem I was aware was the personal attack I reported to ANI, which has been resolved. NE Ent 00:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you like me to add you to the summary table? --John (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Association football in Australia

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

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

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

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

Football Federation Australia was renamed as such in 2004, according to our article. This would not therefore count as new in terms of this discussion. This was also discussed at the previous RfC. I think it was User:LauraHale who pointed out that this title would be ambiguous in this context. I would not support including this in the clarification RfC. John (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the last RfC canvassed a title change to Football in Australia and that was quite rightly rejected. Soccer hasn't been the official name for years, as per the government, the sport's governing bodies in Australia, or the national media. I suggest that given the ongoing level of support within the article's talk page (most recently today), a reasonable view is that a name change to Association football in Australia is supported by the community and in line with Wikipractice. Saying that a failed RfC for a totally inappropriate name rules out any name change is a bold and shaky statement, to my mind. --Pete (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pete is being selective in his quoting. The same article he quoted also states:

In each Australian state and territory the word football' has a different meaning. For those living in the Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, football usually refers to Australian Rules Football. In the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, and Queensland, it could mean rugby league or rugby union. The word 'soccer' equates to the game played by the Football Federation Australia for all of Australia

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

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

This makes it clear that "football" means different things to different people. What the "official" names of a sport may be is one thing, what those same sports get called by the majority of Australians is another one entirely. Soccer is no doubt called football by a number of Australians, mostly those from other countries, but there is no problem with that, go back far enough and we all come form somewhere else in this country, even the first Australians. The thing is that those that call the game soccer seem to largely move in fairly closely knit groups where it is no surprise that those they interact with all call soccer football. However, moving away from those groups which actually only represent a small proportion of the total Australian population and the situation is very different. Everyone here understands what soccer is. Football can be one of several sports and using the word unadorned is totally ambiguous in the Australian context as the government web site quoted above makes clear. Soccer is a word that has been used to describe the game since before it was first played in this country. The FFA may wish to purloin the word football for their exclusive use and seem to be making attempts to force that usage on others (see here), however soccer is only ever likely to be a minority sport in this country, at least for the foreseeable future. What it's internal naming may be has very little to do with what most Australians call the game.

Suggestions as some have made that because the game is known as football in other countries it should be here too is irrelevant to this discussion. Those countries do not have another game that is known by a significant majority as "football" as we do here and as is the case in countries like the USA, Canada and New Zealand. In the countries that do have such a sport they also use the term soccer to describe the round ball game.

Those pushing the barrel of using "football" in lieu of "soccer" seem to be prepared to take every opportunity to force their idea onto others. They have paid no attention to the results of the last RFC and took almost no time to try and overturn it, even though the consensus in that RFC was about as clear as any I have seen on Wikipedia. I do not see how having yet another RFC is going to change any of this. The "football" zealots we have here are never going to give up, no matter how clearly the outcome gees against their position. They have been disruptive and completely lacking in AGF. Starting yet another RFC will only encourage them to continue their campaign with the aim of "winning the war" by means of attrition. We cannot allow this to happen. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As noted, Football in Australia is already taken. Nobody is pushing for "football" to replace soccer here. That strawman will never fly. The significant point is that "soccer" is no longer the official name in any sense. In the community of editors as most recently polled, the support is for "Association football". As per:

• Association football in Victoria
• Association football in Queensland
• Association football in South Australia
• Association football in Tasmania
• Association football in Western Australia

A reasonable person using Wikipedia would be expecting consistency rather than chaos, I suggest. --Pete (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Using that argument, since it's called "soccer" in the US, and Wikpedia is located in the US, we should rename articles wikiwide to say soccer. In fact, per WP:ENGVAR Wikipedia has long accepted regional language variations. (John, note the pejorative rhetoric -- "strawman," "reasonable person," "chaos") NE Ent 02:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up regional language variations. The relevant article for New South Wales is called:

• Soccer in New South Wales

Maybe not chaos, but if five out of the six Australian states call the sport "Association football" rather than "soccer", then why not abide by the majority choice? --Pete (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Of state specific articles that would use Association Football, New South Wales would have been the first one that should have been named Association Football, because the terms Rugby League, Rugby Union and Football are used, while "Australian Rules" is commonly called "AFL" (and the use of AFL as the name for the sport in NSW is actively pushed by the peak body for that sport as a way to push their branding), as AFL as a sport has little popularity, low tv ratings, low media coverage and extremely minor participation rates. The problem here is that any football editor attempting to change individual articles (even to make them appropriate and fit with the rest of the states) would be blocked by opponents citing the "Sport in Australia" or "Soccer in Australia" 'consensus' as a way to shut down the phrase Association Football or Football being used. My experience tells me that instead of having the article renamed "Association Football in New South Wales", we'd end up with another edit war or filibustered discussion ending in 'no consensus', followed swiftly by a counter-request for a rename for all the "Association Football in XYZ State" articles to be renamed to match the current New South Wales article name (edit: You can actually see exactly that being talked about in the old RFM, with the post "We should start renaming those articles as soon as possible to use soccer. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)") Like I've said here in the past, AFL is the 'common name' for the sport in the two states that make up the majority of the population of Australia. Yet I'm not going to request that Australian Rules Football by changed to AFL. I hope that the admins can see the common sense solution here is to use Association Football, as well as stopping anyone who tried to change Australian Rules Football to AFL, even if the guidelines would technically support a rename to AFL. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

But, to be fair, you'll accept that the government cannot bring itself to use the unadorned word "soccer". --Pete (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A government website is the product of a bureaucracy that follows formal rules. For example, Bill Clinton is titled "William J. Clinton" at the US government bio (although they soften that with "Bill Clinton" overlayed on his picture). Similiarly, the Australian government website follows the formal name of the relevant body, and uses the term "football" (although they soften that with "(soccer)" after almost every mention). Wikipedia follows COMMONNAME, and the gov.au site shows that "football" does not mean "Association Football" in Australia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As shown in the last RFM, the Government uses Football. "The Australian Government uses Football in various websites and discussion on the sport, for example the "Strategic Review into the sustainability of football in Australia". The Australian Institute of Sport calls it's programs for the sport "Football - Men" and "Football - Women" as do a number of the state institutes that actually have a football program. The Australian Olympic Committee uses the word "Football as well." Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm about tired of this selective interpretation just like the selective interpretation of the abbreviation A-League elsewhere... This will get you nowhere, the part in brackets is a disambiguation. As for the other half of this the A in A-League stands for Australian League, just like J and K stand for Japan and Korea respectively in the J-Leauge and K-League... There is an agenda here to do nothing more than selectively interpret the facts of the matter to suit the story. The reality of the facts are quite different. Just like the claims that popularity of the word "soccer" is coming back... If you go to the governing orginisation for the sport the FFA, the term used is football... I'm not pushing Pete or his agenda here, I'm not sure what Pete is doing here? I asked him to stay away from my talk page on matters such as these... this really is silly Pete... Pete should just be left to hang himself rhetorically for bringing this here, but get the matters here at hand correct rather than reading what you want to read. The government website does not display anything of the sort... The word soccer is there simply to avoid confusion, and it's something we can all take note of here.

I have long pushed the ball on this and I have displayed the problem with common name and football, I'm glass John also recognises this problem as well --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

From your indent, I think you are replying to me, but I find that puzzling as I have no "agenda" and apart from "the part in brackets is a disambiguation" I cannot see anything in the comment which replies to what I wrote. Moreover, the disambiguation note confirms my point—the game has to be called "football (soccer)" at gov.au to clarify what they mean. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That is my point exactly, it's a disambiguation of what type of football they're referring to... It is not an acceptance of the word soccer being there... For the majority of government websites in Australia the term used is football, the content on Australia.gov.au is simply a clarification that when the world football is used they are referring to the sport formally known as soccer and if the government can do that why can't we? Why do we have to use the archaic, non representative term soccer at all to appease certain editors who can't understand the changes that took effect in 2004

To answer the question regarding Soccer Australia... You need some more historical context, you cannot leapfrog from the defunct Soccer Australia to the FFA the FFA traded briefly as the Australian Soccer Association before becoming the Football Federation of Australia. The FFA is not Soccer Australia, the FFA decided the word soccer was dead with many good reasons, the way Soccer Australia failed in front of public broadcast TV audience viewers eyes on SBS and in the national press in general is but one of the reasons... The soap opera that played out in 2004 when Soccer Australia collapsed was nothing short of a disgrace, but that also diverges from the historical and cultural reasoning as to why football was adopted. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, here we go. The term "soccer" is NOT archaic on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. It is the completely accepted, common name for the game. Here is how sports balls are organised at my very soccer oriented school:

Image:Football vs Soccer Ball.jpg

Everybody in Australia understands the name "soccer". Very few understand "Association football". "Soccer" is used by fans of the rugby codes where they are the dominant codes. A very good reason has to be given as to why the name "soccer" is OK for more than half the country's population, but we shouldn't use it here. Those reasons cannot include a history that's common to the whole country, because many people well aware of that history happily use the name "soccer" today. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It is absolutely archaic in the sense that the government and the governing body has disposed of the word soccer for all purposes except disambiguation... John has stated the issue with common name I'd suggest you actually take heed of what is being said here. But my simple question here is why will you not respect the official stance here in an encyclopaedic article? I won't be entering into the common name debate any further, John has stated my case... Please use more appropriately sized pictures or don't use them at all --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read the above and I remain unconvinced that it is worth re-opening a matter which was previously discussed at the August 2013 RfC. --John (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we reopen that discussion, I am suggesting at a later date that we do talk about the appropriateness of using the official name. It appears to be the most appropriate compromise where common name simply does not work and is not representative of the direction the game is heading in Australia. Whenever that appropriately occurs is a matter for everyone to decide here, however it is a new discussion and it should be respected as such rather than one of any particular editor here pushing for the use of the word football. I concur the usage of football here on Wikipedia is unreasonable and inappropriate particularly when the widespread usage of the term football in countries such as the United Kingdom is not even a valid reason to use football as the global term here and when the football in England page itself refers to association football. We are not all special snow flakes here who want the exclusive use of the word football. I would only hope that you could finally see that the proposal put forward by myself is nothing more than well reasoned and historically accurate --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've removed two posts there that were verging into dangerous territory. Remember to comment on the case on its merits. Try to just state your case then leave it. Less is more. Try not to tell the other person what their argument means, or would mean if taken to extremes. This discussion reminds me why I restricted discussion in the first phase, and I am still not seeing compelling evidence to re-open the discussion from last August. A name change from 2004 definitely doesn't count as new evidence either. --John (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

I apologise for paraphrasing your argument inaccurately. It annoys me when people do that to me too. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC on naming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Main arguments used in previous discussions:

1. Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 in August 2013 strongly endorsed keeping the main article at Soccer in Australia.
2. The point has also been made that there is regional variation in the terminology used to describe the Beautiful Game in the Australian context.
3. The Australian association renamed itself Football Federation Australia in 2004.[20]
4. "Football" is highly ambiguous in this context as there also exist American football, Gaelic football, rugby union, rugby league, and Australian rules football, all of which could also be referred to as "football".
5. "Association football" (as used on Wikipedia's main article on the sport) is not a common name in everyday parlance anywhere.
6. "Soccer", while thoroughly unambiguous, seems to strongly offend some editors in some contexts.

Questions

1. Can we agree to postpone further discussion of the title of the article Soccer in Australia until after 31 August 2015? It seems unlikely that any new arguments will be made, but obviously if there were genuine new data before Aug 2015 we could agree to bring this forwards. Saying "Yes" to this will allow editors to get on with more useful endeavours, pending the emergence of genuinely new data, and prevent AN/I from being continually clogged up with this dispute.
2. Is it perhaps unrealistic and unhelpful given the regional variation in terminology of this sport to try at this stage to homogenise the nomenclature on all articles which discuss the sport in the Australian context? Can we agree to allow the current inconsistency to persist in the interest of editor harmony and reader experience, given that there is no suggestion that using 'soccer' or 'association football' will seriously mislead or confuse anybody? Saying "Yes" will allow editors to debate proper terminology on an article-by-article basis without worrying about anybody making sweeping changes and using the August RfC as a justification.

Format

Because this has already been the subject of extensive discussion at my talk page and various other locations, I would like to keep it succinct here. I also propose to run this for only 14 days (unless there are objections or insufficient interest), so I would propose closing on or after 20 March 2014. --John (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Responses

Please only mark yes or no to the two questions. You can also make a brief comment (no more than twenty words, not counting the signature) explaining your rationale for each answer, making reference to policy or practice. There is a section for threaded debate below but please do not use it to falsify the arguments of others or to comment on their motivations. This may lead to blocks, which I am very keen to avoid.

• Q1 Yes too much heat in discussions Q2 Yes -- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes Q2 No "Association football" IS confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes nothing new in recent times. Q2 Yes but with reservations: I fear that it may only move the location of the acrimony. No Upon reflection I realise that Association Football is confusing, practically no one understands the term and fewer use it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes assuming that this discussion comes to a consensus-based conclusion Q2 Yes, "association football" is an acceptable compromise for WP:FOOTY, so it's clearly not that confusing. – PeeJay 22:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 No, because the August 2013 discussion was based on a proposed move to Football in Australia, not association football in Australia. Q2 No, because the present inconsistencies are nonsensical. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes leave it now, come back August; new RFC NOT involving move to football in Australia which is a functional article. Q2 Yes association football isn't really confusing. Even if it's confusing that's not Wikipedia's issue… SEE: Wikipedia:AMORAL, Wikipedia:NTAC Wikipedia ONLY provides information! --Orestes1984 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes Q2 Yes It's best to work out how to live with the genuine disagreement; not winner-takes-all. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 No. Football or Association Football will be title of page someday. Blocking discussion is not helpful to that inevitable change. Q2 Yes Association Football isn't confusing. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes Q2 Yes. Because better. Herostratus (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes, Q2 No - soccer is a more natural disambiguator than association football. Hack (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 No This serves no real purpose but to shut down conversation and this is in no way binding. Q2 Yes.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes Q2 No Unlike soccer, most people would be confused by the term Association football. Jevansen (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes Q2 It depends Some inconsistencies might be acceptable, others wouldn't. The question is too vague to admit of a yes or no answer. Neljack (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• Q1 Yes Q2 Yes--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threaded discussion

(User:John, any chance you could rephrase Q2 so it wasn't actually two questions, the first being written in a somewhat confusing, negative form?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've bolded the main question in each case; does that help? --John (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Cool. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the argument that "soccer" strongly offends some users is nonsense and I'm one of the users arguing against the use of "soccer". I think the main argument is really the inconsistency of naming in the real world - within Australia, within the media. We have two common names for the sport, but one of them ("soccer") is the "old term"', it's the one being replaced, it's the name the sport and the media is moving away from. So it only makes sense for Wikipedia to represent this change. The only question we should be asking is should we represent the real world change of name on Wikipedia? If that answer is yes, then the next question is how can we represent the change? This is done by replacing the usage if "soccer" in all content where there is no ambiguity with "football", additionally we use "association football" where there is ambiguity, as is already general practice on Wikipedia outside Australia. The only arguments against the change in name are that "soccer" is the more common name and that "football" is ambiguous. John did mention that WP:COMMONNAME should be avoided if we want a consensual solution. My suggestion above also refers to content being in context - therefore, no ambiguity. Additionally, what constitutes as "genuine new data"? To quote John, "major new real-world evidence ... (i.e. not just somebody on Wikipedia challenging the consensus but an announcement by the Australian government or something of that nature)". We already have real world evidence, genuine data that is being ignored because "'football' is ambiguous". We have the governing body of the sport public announcing that the sport is named "football" in Australia. We have every governing body of the sport changing their name and hundreds of clubs changing their name. Then, to make the change legitimate, we have national media, who formally referred to the sport as "soccer" now using "football" (many exclusively using "football"). We also have local media dropping "soccer" in preference to "football". Again, all this is being ignored because "'soccer' is more common" and "'football' is ambiguous".--2nyte (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere, the plain and simple fact is that Wikipedia is here to provide the most amoral and comprehensive perspective. Association Football does that, it is a neutral term, and it is the most accurate term that could be used. It is the official name of the sport. Wikipedia is here to provide neutrality through accuracy. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality would only be required if there was a problem with the only unambiguous common name for the sport in Australia today. A majority of Australians, including fans and players at the highest level, happily use the word "soccer" every day. Please explain the problem with the word "soccer" today. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

None of that even begins to answer what I said, go back and try again. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If the answer to Q2 becomes 'We will use Association Football', does it not follow that 'Soccer in Australia' should be renamed to Association Football in Australia? Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Q2 Compromise discussion

As per Question 2, I completely agree with the administrators who can see that Association Football is not confusing. I have opened this discussion about my views for what terms should be used where. To me, I have what I believe is a very simple solution. On articles solely about the sport of Football that the term itself used be Football. Example on Football Federation Australia or Western Sydney Wanderers FC. On pages involving multiple sports, terminology used be Association Football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Australian Rules. As for article titles, Association Football would be used on articles not about specific groups, events, teams or leagues (ie, we wouldn't change Football Federation Australia to "Association Football Federation Australia"). Example, moving Soccer in New South Wales to Association Football in New South Wales to match the other state articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The only reason Association Football is not confusing is because no one knows what it is, except for a vanishingly small proportion of the population. Actually I take that back, it is confusing because probably half the country would most likely think is an archaic name for the local variety of Aussie Rules played in country Victoria and suburban Melbourne (remember the Victorian Football Association?). Why use a term that virtually no one understands and even fewer use when there is already a word in use, that has been in use for over a hundred years and which everybody understands and most use? - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not about confusion please see Wikipedia:AMORAL. Editors reserve the right to be as confusing as they damn well want to be. Whats more a little confusion occasionally is a normal and helpful thing, it's how we learn new things, like what football may otherwise be called. On the issue about association football, everyone who has more than a vague interest in soccer knows the official name of the game is association football. Please note Hull City AFC, Leeds United AFC, Bradford City AFC, AC Milan (Association Calcio Milan) English translation, Association Football Milan, AFC Wimbledon and many more. Some of the oldest and most prestigious clubs like Leeds and AC Milan make a huge note about being association football clubs. It is simply not at all confusing... What type of football is it? It is association football. --Orestes1984 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

None of those clubs are Australian. whatever they call the game is irrelevant to this discussion. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick's right. This is not about what clubs halfway around the world do. It's about Soccer in Australia. It must be written in language suitable for Australians, who will obviously be the primary audience. And it has to be written for Australians without a long term, passionate interest in the game. Many WILL become passionately (if only temporarily) interested over the next few months because of the World Cup. They will come here for information. Using a name unknown to almost all Australians, when there is a universally understood name available, seems like a form of Newspeak. More Australians will know of the Victorian Football Association (an Australian Rules Football competition established in 1877) than will know of "Association football". And there is absolutely no point looking for a "compromise" when nobody can explain what we're compromising over. Nobody has properly explained the problem with "soccer" today. It's universally understood. It's is aggressively and officially embraced by the FFA as part of the name of the national team. Google will take you there via a weblink called "Official Socceroos | Home - Football Federation Australia". We don't need "Association football". HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I will make this very clear: FFA has made it very clear that "Socceroos" is only an homage to the history of the sport - it is in no way an embracement of "soccer". "Association football" is Wikipedia's title name for the sport, it appears in the Australian English Macquarie dictionary and it is a compromise. Lastly, yes we do need a compromise; many feel that "more common" name should no longer apply in the current situation of the sport - we have solid real world evidence that the sport and the media is moving away from the usage of "soccer" - we have the option to represent this change, to move away from "soccer" to another unambiguous terms for the sport that is widely used on Wikipedia, so we should take that option.--2nyte (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually look at that Socceroo link? It's a very strong commitment to the Socceroo name. You can say that the sport HAS internally and partly moved away from "soccer". You cannot say it still is moving. That's effectively predicting the future. And the name change simply cannot go all the way. It's virtually impossible for "football" to become the common name for the game where Aussie Rules is the dominant code and is therefore primarily known as "football". And saying "many feel that more common name should no longer apply" sounds precisely like they don't like it. And I submit that it's really not all that "many". HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A simple redirect will solve all of the problems HiLo48 is complaining about. Soccer is simply an inaccurate descriptor of what the sport was and doesn't flow with NTAC --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing inaccurate about "soccer". Every Australian knows precisely what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes HiLo48, I agree 100% that every Australian knows precisely what the term "soccer" means, though that doesn't mean it's the right name we should be using on wikipedia. There is so much more to this equation, so much that can not be ignored simply because "soccer is more common".--2nyte (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. So "soccer" is more common. Everyone understands it. Your "so much more" needs to be pretty persuasive to convince us to not use "soccer" for Australian articles. That a relatively small minority don't like it doesn't work for me.

First of all who said that? Second of all... John clear stated this nonsense shouldn't return to I like it or I don't like it. The fact that this has been going on for so long is indicative of one simple thing. Some editors here like to engage in meaningless intellectual jousting over something that doesn't affect their precious sport of AFL... It really is as simple as that and if it has nothing to do with you, it might be a good time to leave it alone. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Why the derogatory and inflammatory "precious sport of AFL"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. This discussion has gone in the complete opposition direction that I intended. Yes Hilo, we know you don't like the word Association Football, but wikipedia isn't just about what you or Nick Thorne want. Association Football is a dictionary term, and one that is globally recognised as the official name of the sport (International Federation of Association Football). There is in my opinion, a clear majority consensus developing that has the answer to Question 2 being that Yes, Association Football will not mislead anyone. I believe on that basis that we have moved on past the "Soccer" vs "Association Football" argument, that Association Football will be an acceptable term, and I was hoping to find a compromise to create a (probably non-binding) guideline as to what terms should be used where. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

To restate that again, my compromise: For Football specific pages, that Football be used. For multi-sport articles, then Association Football. The other sports to be called Rugby League, Rugby Union & Australian Rules. Article titles use Association Football eg: Association Football in New South Wales. Perhaps to appease the AFL community and show that I want to make this compromise in good faith, on articles about AFL that have an incidental mention of football, they can feel free to use their preferred term for football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What is this "AFL community" you feel the need to appease? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Macktheknifeau, note the lowercase on "association football" (as in Association football in New South Wales).--2nyte (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets just be a little smarter here and ignore the attempt to derail the actual discussion by people who are that deeply rooted in their position they would need a stump grinder to extricate themselves. This discussion appears to be going forward despite the lack of helpful and meaningful contributions from those that oppose it. I would simply say, just ignore the nonsense that doesn't help --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my intention with starting this section discussion. If people don't want to participate in discussion except to dismiss the growing consensus to Q2 where Association football is an acceptable word to use, then we will inevitably head to Arbitration or an AN/I discussion, where I think that refusal to engage will tell in the negative for them. I'm happy that we are working through the issue, and believe the compromise I have put forward would be acceptable to any rational person. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a compromise - to change almost all mentions to "football", with "association football" in a few cases. - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you think we'd be better off simply using Association football and leaving discussion of using football to individual pages? Having Association football as the 'default' would make any guideline easier to setup. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I am arguing the simple term association football as football generically is simply a bridge too far, that is just my position though based on an understanding of how the rest of Wikipedia works in the majority of cases. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

With the above in mind, and considering that it appears as if consensus is swinging in Q2 to have Association football as an acceptable, non-confusing term, would this be acceptable? The sports to be called Association football, Rugby League, Rugby Union & Australian Rules. Article titles use Association football eg: Association football in New South Wales. I also offer as an appeasement to the AFL community, in good faith, that single-topic involving AFL that have an incidental mention of football, they can feel free to use their preferred term for football. Am I getting somewhere? Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What is this "AFL community" you feel the need to appease? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Editors who are involved with editing AFL articles. We all have our favourite subjects to edit and pointing out that doesn't seem to be a bad faith move by myself. There certainly was no intention of being derogatory on my part. I also don't want to get involved with dictating what an AFL article can call the sport of football, and as such I'd rather have it made clear in any guideline that AFL articles where required, can call incidental links to football by the preferred nomenclature for football of those involved in editing AFL articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So what's with the appeasement? And what on earth do you mean by the word "football" in that post. You must know that to "the AFL community" it means that game, Aussie Rules or AFL, and nothing else. Or were you referring to "soccer"? That post is a classic example of a time when you need to use an unambiguous name. "Football" doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What I choose to call the sport of football on this page has nothing to do with what we will call it on the wiki. You know perfectly well which sport I call football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(Then what happened to the appeasement?) You really must accept that where I come from "football" almost always means only one thing, Aussie Rules. That's the case for probably more Australians than for whom it means "soccer". Then there's the "rugby league" fans who use the name "football" for their game. You will hopefully have noticed that, although "football" is by far the most common name for Aussie Rules where I live, and the name I would automatically use if I didn't think about my audience, I don't use that name here when talking to you. Please try to make your posts as unambiguous as possible, for all readers, rather than being as pointy as possible. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no issue with the first bit, the second bit is a bit more sketchy if we have four football codes referring to themselves as football hence why I offered up the neutral term in the first place. I guess it's workable except in cases where there is more than one type of football in the article we need a clear disambiguation term, in which case the current Australian rules football would suffice if I am to follow my own stance here that the type of football comes first. The same could apply to rugby league, rugby union and American football. So long as we know which page we're on this shouldn't be an issue. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What's not neutral about "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk)

Many Australian rules football articles (players, clubs, etc) already use "football" in its content to refer to Australian rules football. I really have no problem with this as the content in in context. The same should apply to association football articles (players, clubs, etc) where "football" can be used when in context. I really hope this is not a "bridge too far" as it does resemble the current Australian sporting landscape. I explained this in the terminology section in the article I created on User:2nyte/sandbox.--2nyte (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian football articles use the word "football" because that's been the common name of the game in Australia for the past 150 years. Feel free to return to this issue when that's the case for the round ball game. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Except in New South Wales and Queensland, where it's called a myriad of other derogatory names and where currently the name "AFL" is used and encouraged by the peak body as the word for the sport, AFL as the name for the sport is in common usage and in the media in NSW & QLD, two states which I will repeat again, make up the majority of the country. But like I've said above, I'm not seeking to force a change to the wording in any AFL article or topic. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope we can ignore the derogatory names here. We do for soccer. The use of "AFL" as a name for the game by the Australian Football League is a pretty recent marketing strategy, and is perhaps intended to keep the two words "Australian" and "Football" in the forefront when people think about what it means. Obviously, with the bulk of the fans of Aussie Rules elsewhere, it's only a numerical minority who use that name. It's always intrigued me that the FFA left out the name of the sport entirely when they named the A-League. They used an A, presumably for Australia, but no mention of the sport. Compare that with National Rugby League too. HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has yet satisfactorily explained in this new discussion why we need a compromise at all. A minority of Australians would prefer a different name from "soccer". A large majority are quite comfortable with "soccer". That's what we need to look at. Consensus is NOT achieved by counting votes here. (I do wish John had not made the choice to encourage that.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem that this would have any binding effect except to those that specifically agree to it. I'm not seeing the point.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

I would hope that coming to an agreement would allow users to 'stick to their own topics' so to speak, and mean people don't have to expend energy and time fighting edit wars on topics they don't ordinarily edit. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Any concept of "their own topics" is a dangerous and foolish one. I'm a sports nut. I have edited articles on scores of different sports on Wikipedia, in many different countries and regions. I also edit articles on many other topics which have nothing to do with sport. I expect both numbers will continue to increase. I also address vandalism, POV pushing and parochial editing on any topic. I think that seeing the multiple diverse approaches to writing articles across all these areas makes me a better editor. HiLo48 (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I could be more clear. By 'sticking to their own topics', I mean that by sorting out that we would use Association football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Australian Rules as per the consensus here, that people can simply 'stick to the topic' of improving the actual articles they edit, without having to worry about getting involved in edit wars, complaints to admins and talk page discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There has still been no reason presented here (in this new discussion) as to why we cannot use "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

No matter what you do here it can be disregarded. Consensus can change and this RFC has the authority of a water balloon.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If those involved don't respect the growing consensus that confirms his viewpoint that Association football is not confusing and thus a valid term to use on Australian sport articles, John has already threatened to take this issue beyond an RFC to somewhere that would carry authority. Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL. Not confusing? Growing consensus? You have to be kidding. I submit that most readers will not have a clue what it is. The game is never publicly called that in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In can be used on articles, but it can't be the title, because commonname is actual policy, last August's RFC (which had way more editors than this discussion) established a clear consensus soccer is the common name, and there's been no evidence presented that usage has changed significantly in the intervening time. NE Ent 23:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Growing consensus? Don't make me laugh. The same two or three "soccer" phobic editors posting ever increasing walls of text in complete denial of reality is not consensus. I am tired of all the hand-waving towards WP:COMMONNAME which is actually POLICY. None of those who wish to do away with the word soccer have shown the slightest evidence that popular usage has changed in Australia. Put up or shut up. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Many more Australians will know what the Victorian Football Association (VFA) is than know what association football is. For those who are unaware, the VFA was an Aussie Rules competition formed in 1877. It was renamed the "Victorian Football League" (still playing Aussie Rules, of course) in 1996. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Macktheknifeau - I would be very comfortable seeing this taken to any higher authority, where those responsible would presumably ask for reliable evidence that 1) there is anything wrong with the name "soccer", and 2) that "association football" is not confusing. Do you have any such evidence? HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Has any real compromise been attempted? Football in Australia (Soccer), Soccer in Australia (Football), or anything of the like?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a compromise. "Soccer" is unambiguous and universally understood in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol sure thing. This lame fight has been going on wikipedia since at least 2006 but you don't need a compromise.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not playing that game. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus for "football (soccer)" until editors started to do their own thing after the football (soccer) article became association football. 08:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

All I see is the same bunch of three or four editors here stating why this debate should be shut down. That doesn't help anyones cause, and surprise fellas but the cat is already out of the bag. How's about you contribute something meaningful rather than attempting to stuff the cat back in? --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not playing your game either. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The compromise I have introduced (and one that was supported by members of WP:FOOTY, the Association football 'global' project) was my attempt at a good faith compromise that doesn't need things like having to include both terms in the same line, at best, on some articles it may require a hat-note. It even lets the anti-football editors continue to use their archaic term for football on AFL articles that have an incidental mention of the sport.Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The core of the anti-football argument is that they don't want football to use just "football" despite that being the official name for the sport, being used commonly across the country, and the other major sports having their own specific names, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Australian Rules. Association football should be an acceptable compromise in my opinion, as the term is already used on wikipedia, and is a dictionary term. Unfortunately we have stalled yet again, because editors on the anti-association football side of the issue refuse to even discuss the possibility of accepting such a compromise. In effect, filibustering this discussion by declaring it invalid. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need a compromise. All Australians understand "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Football" isn't being used for the sport commonly across the country, that's the problem here. Spinrad (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Q2 Compromise - arbitrary break

• John has asked me to explain what sort of inconsistencies I would or would not find acceptable, in light of my answer to the second question that "it depends". I'm happy to clarify.

My uncertainty essentially stems from not being quite sure what sort of inconsistencies were being referred to. In particular, since articles on this (or indeed any other) sport in Australia are not ones where I have a background in editing, I'm not really familiar with whatever inconsistencies there may be. I have noticed that we have an article on the "Australia national association football team" rather than the "Australia national soccer team"". I have not made any attempt to change that and don't intend to (though I would support changing the title to the "Socceroos", which would sidestep that issue and seems to me to be the COMMONNAME). While I prefer the use of "soccer", I have no interest in going around rooting out uses of "association football" in articles about the sport in Australia; my only involvement has been to oppose the attempt to move this article.

What I wouldn't find acceptable is using "football", which is deeply ambiguous in Australia, or using different terms in the same article (unless there's a good reason, e.g. that the terms are being discussed). Relatedly, the proposal at the beginning of this section seems to me to misunderstand what is suggested in question 2. I understand question 2 to suggest that the status quo be left in place, so that articles that currently use "association football" will continue to do so and likewise for articles that use "soccer". That is quite different from a new "compromise" that involves getting rid of all use of "soccer" (and is therefore completely one-sided). Neljack (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand why using "football" would be unacceptable. I also don't think ambiguity is that strong of a reason. I agree not to use the term in artticle titles, but in content is a different story.--2nyte (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Having travelled extensively in Australia and observed the obvious ambiguity of "football" everywhere in the country, except perhaps among some very insular groups that ignore every other sporting culture, even in their own neighbourhood, I CAN understand why using "football" would be unacceptable, but I can't understand why using "soccer" would be unacceptable. It's unambiguous, and universally understood. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Neljack (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that those opposing the word soccer simply don't like it. There has been no rational reason why this word should not be used - it meets all the POLICY criteria for article naming on Wikipedia in a way that no other term can. Pretending that the reality on the ground is not true - which is, that the overwhelming majority of all Australians from all areas of the country use the word soccer without even a second thought when discussing the sport in question - is either grossly disingenuous or deliberately misleading and obstructive. I leave it to those reading this sorry saga to determine for themselves which is most likely. I am running short of AGF towards those who continue to push the anti soccer line. Either they should address the policy issues here, or give valid rational arguments why those policies should not apply (that don't amount to "I don't like it"). Continuing to making up "facts" about the usage of the word in an apparent attempt to fool non-Australian editors who are not particularly familiar with Australian English is dishonest and I will continue to call out any that try it. Pretending that the word football can be used instead is even worse. It is time to finish this. - Nick Thorne ^talk 08:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Neljack commented above about the merits of using "Socceroos" to primarily refer to the men's national team. This is now virtually a no-brainer. Anyone looking at Football Federation Australia's home page will be instantly convinced that it has fully embraced that name. Without even moving my mouse, I see "Socceroos" in big, bold, mostly gold letters at least five times. Of course, "Socceroos" is also the common name of the team throughout Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Getting in to broken record territory but the FFA use "Socceroos" as the primary name for the men's national team except where they're forced to use "Australia" by FIFA. FWIW Socceroos is a registered trademark of Football Federation Australia Limited. As HiLo48 mentions, it is also the common name for the men's team. Hack (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion to take this to a higher Authority

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to suggest this be taken to a higher authority. Get impartial mediators. Get a binding decision. How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/ Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to go anywhere near ARBCOM because of all the nonsense that is involved in this and what should be the open/shut nature of an encylopeadia article. I am most reluctant because the facts don't add up to the ideological "only soccer is acceptable" position. The facts are that the name of the game has changed and there is a growing number of bodies, orginisations, news and media groups, as well as people who are generally using football to refer to the sport. This should be represent under Wikipedia:NTAC and Wikipedia:AMORAL not the ongoing ideological nonsense that soccer is the only acceptable name. This is an encyclopeadia and people really need to sit down and think about accuracy and not their own ideological dramas that they are having where everything but soccer is not acceptable. How this has gotten this far is beyond me when it is a simple case that Wikipedia "does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects." This is purely a suppression of anything to do with the word football by a group of editors who have a trivial interest in the sport.

If ARBCOM gets a hold of this they may simply choose to go with what the ideological "anything but football" editors actually think which is represent of no reality in terms of what HAS actually been happening over the last 12 years in the game and I'm pretty certain none of them seem to care about their own incompetence in understanding all of the factors involved. The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and their cultural context are lacking.

I've spent a lot of time here simply filling in the blanks in peoples understandings of what HAS gone on in the game in the last 12 years and when there is generally this level of incompetence going on it should render the "anything but football" logic entirely invalid. We really shouldn't even be having this debate. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And that's another unhelpful post. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And so is soccer is the only unambiguous name ding dong nonsense...and so is typing in small --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I win? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what ARBCOM would do. However it can't get any more rediculous than this. While the facts don't add up to this for you it does for others. They might rule for you or against you. It will be a binding decision. Right now this is a Mickey Mouse Club version of a Kangaroo court. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom rule on editor behaviour, not on content disputes. Their interest is in user conduct, and they would be unlikely to rule on what the proper terminology should be. But either way, before a case is accepted all other avenues need to have been tried, including formal mediation. Arbcom is only used as a last resort in dispute resolution, and it tends to be more of a blunt instrument. - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom rule on content disputes as well. I've seen them choose a Admin to moderate an RFC and 3 nuetral experienced editors mediate. This could be moved to formal mediation before that. Any other avenue as well. I just suggested ARBCOM specifically because someone said a specific name was agreed upon and that agreement was thrown out the window fairly quickly. I'm just suggesting that this is moved to the a higher step on the ladder.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This decision will be binding, as I explained on your talk. --John (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I recall. You will clog up AN/I to insure it. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you do not recall. I will enforce this by blocking those who threaten the process if necessary, then take my actions to AN/I for review. Do you have a point? --John (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I have point out the inherent conflict of interest here.

The inherent reason that this won't be binding is because consensus can change. The date you threw out is arbitrary and doesn't represent anything. The greatest travesty would be if someone saw this and actually assumed they had to wait until that arbitrary date. They could simply instead open another RFC or go thru the other forms of dispute resolution. An affirmative result on this RFC does not bind it to that date but instead binds it until the consensus changes. Now if there is as suggested a reason to bind this then it should actually be bound. For peace, Harmony, to keep it off AN/I, or insert reason here then do something to make it binding. Otherwise don't misrepresent this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

From Q1 above, "Saying "Yes" to this will allow editors to get on with more useful endeavours, pending the emergence of genuinely new data, and prevent AN/I from being continually clogged up with this dispute." You'll have to explain to me what you mean by "the inherent conflict of interest here". --John (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not the inherent conflict of interest in your RFC question. "I will enforce this by blocking those who threaten the process if necessary, then take my actions to AN/I for review." The inherent conflict of interest there. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I am still not seeing it. How does that relate to WP:COI? --John (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong policy. WP:INVOLVEDSerialjoepsycho (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see. I don't agree with you, but if you have a point you are welcome to raise it at AN/I, now if you want to raise it pre-emptively, or in response to the next administrative action I need to take in this area. The community can decide if you are right. --John (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Pre-emptively? It's your power. Go ahead and abuse it. Back to topic. This RFC isn't binding. No one should consider it as such. If this should be used in anyway to supress anyone I would suggest going thru the channels of dispute resolution. Open a new RFC. Formal mediation. Ect ect ect. Go thru the list.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Herostratus's point

I had to trim this because of its length, but it is too good to waste. Discuss, please. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Emerson. We don't need to be and shouldn't try to be a consistent as an entity such as Britannica where there is a managing editor or editorial board or whatever who hands down the rules. Our glory and our sorrow is our method of governance, and for good or ill it's no good trying to be something we're not. Let the individual editors of the articles that interest them decide. Also, as long as we have plentiful redirects and generous use of "X, also known as Y or Z" type constructs, we should be OK. The point of using a term and by far the main point is to clarify the information to the reader. It's all about the readers. (Finally, I'm puzzled as to why "soccer" is offensive. It's not like it's "fukker" or something.) - User:Herostratus via --John (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this meant to be a satirical appeal to emotion or is it a legitimate proposition that what ever beloved phrase for soccer be used?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems perfectly clear to me. --John (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the final question in brackets. It certainly needs answering. Or have we reached the stage where it is rhetorical? (And unanswerable?) But the earlier part of that post seems like a recipe for hundreds of individual naming battles. (I might be misreading it.) HiLo48 (talk)

Discussions do not have to be battles. I am comparing it in my mind with the discussions we have on articles where WP:ENGVAR is a concern. If there is no obvious and overwhelming reason to prefer a particular dialect, we keep the terminology introduced by the original author, or else we debate it at the article talk page if it is felt it should be changed. Why should this area be any different? --John (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If I thought it was clear I wouldn't have asked. It's very well written. I applaud the writer. However I was curious if it was meant to be facetious or literal?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And yes it is meant to be literal.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It'd be nice if there was some consistency here, particularly with the facts... I am consistently reminded that Wikipedia is here to provide a comprehensive and accurate account of what is going on. Soccer is no longer the accurate encyclopaedic term for the sport. Call it whatever you like as the common name between your mates HiLo48, but we are here to edit an encyclopaedia. The only place where soccer should be used is in reference to now defunct governing bodies and orginisations such as the NSL and soccer Australia. This nonsense about Victoria, needs to stop and everyone needs to look here where it says Soccer is now formally known as 'football' in Australia, in line with international usage. and at the governing bodyhere. It doesn't get any more official than that folks, the governments position is that it is football, the governing bodies position is that it is football, that's pretty much checkmate I would say. The official perspective is that the game is football no matter which way you look at it which completely invalidates the archaic term soccer as anything more than an archaic term and where consistency falls here term association football should be used in line with the 2007 consensus on Talk:Association football. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The print edition of the Herald Sun uses soccer though. Also that is not an offical statement from the government sorry. Spinrad (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct about the Herald Sun. The print edition uses "soccer". And that government statement is simply a description of the fact that the FFA calls the game "football", apart from when they mention the Socceroos, which is quite often. Just follow that link and have a look. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder which has more daily readers, the print version or the website? Print circulation has seen double digit year on year circulation drops, with the Herald Sun dropping below 400,000 circulation for the first time from September last year. Relying solely on the print media, in such a global online world (especially for a site on the internet) when it's online arm speaks more modern language isn't something I want to rely on to decide exactly how a term is being used. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Do come to Melbourne some time, and see how things actually work, rather than just speculating. It's like this:

How the PE teachers organise the balls at my school

If you really want to know how the language is being used in Melbourne, you could also rely on the word of editors who live there.

HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Language is decided by how it is used, not by the declaration of one commercial organisation. The majority of Australians call the game "soccer". That makes the word common usage. It is not archaic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

And the majority of Australians use the term AFL to refer to Australian rules. You aren't going to advocate changing Australian rules to AFL to appease the majority of the population of Australia, who live in NSW & Queensland that use the term AFL exclusively though... Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the population of NSW and QLD use the term AFL exclusively, but whatever, that's not what we're discussing here. There is no controversy about the name of that game. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The population of NSW & QLD, as well as the Media almost exclusively use the term AFL. The sport has no other name. I point it out as an example of how your view of "WP:COMMON" trumping all isn't quite right and has exceptions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere near almost exclusively, a majority sure. Still a lot of people who use "rules" in my experience, not to mention quite a few people from South NSW and the Gold Coast who straight up call the sport "football". Don't really understand why you keep bringing up the AFL though. Spinrad (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point about using AFL. I would be happy to discuss it at the right place, but not here. (I hope you noticed that nobody ever tried to get AFL/Aussie Rules called "football" on Wikipedia, even though it's at least a very common name for the game among it's fans.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I did notice, and it's why I bought it up here. COMMON isn't the be all and end all of naming issues. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Then you missed my point. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's serious. Use of rhetorical flourishes does not invalidate an argument for goodness' sake. That Churchill said "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender" rather than "Our current military policy is forward defense, with defense in depth as a backup strategy, and negotiations are not on the table at this time" doesn't mean that his speech is invalidated as a appeal to emotion and it certainly doesn't mean that his point (that vigorous defense was appropriate in the situation) was invalidated as being based on emotion. Sheesh.

As to merits, consider this: every time you make an editor do something he doesn't want to do you damage the project because you alienate editors. Very many times this is necessary, of course. But if you can avoid it you should. Some pettifoggers sometime decided that MOS should proscribe "In January of 1941..." and require "In January 1941..." in all text. I prefer the former and it's alienating that I can't do that. And there's no benefit: it's not like readers are all "OMG, it says 'In January of 1941...' here but in another article it said 'In January 1941...', and now I'm confused, do these refer to the same thing?". So since there's not benefit to the reader we shouldn't do that. Consistencies, hobgoblins, and all that.

It's about the reader. Period. "It'd be nice if there was some consistency here..." No it wouldn't. Prove it. You can't, it's just a personal opinion. We do not need to be consistent unless, and only unless, this aids the reader.

It's not about which term gets the "honor" of being our preferred term. That's bullshit and so let's stop thinking like that. If the reader is confused and thinking "Wait, I'm confused, is this passage talking about american football or rugby or soccer/football or what?" then we have a problem and we need to address that problem with proper redirects and prose devices. If it's about what terms were used when you were coming then you have a problem. (And let's admit this: 90%+ of the editors arguing really vigorously for a particular term are (coincidence!) arguing for the term the they themselves personally use and probably learned in youth. Look inside yourselves, you know its true.)

It is true that certain inconsistencies that we have here tend to make us look somewhat loosely governed and amateurish. So what. We are loosely governed and made by amateurs, and readers who are really and truly unable to cope with that should probably save up and get a Britannica subscription or do without. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion around news/media's preference when it comes to naming this game - note what the Herald-Sun have chosen to use in their main headings/links along the top of their sports news site here [21]. It would appear Melbourne's most popular print news source have not deemed this term too 'uncommon'. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

"Melbourne's most popular print news source" use soccer in print. The same is true of The Australian. Hack (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about the naming of an article in a print-based encyclopedia, we're talking about an on-line, globally used encyclopedia. Moreover, the volume of people who refer to print based media for news and current affairs continues to reduce significantly year on year. I'm not sure that an argument based on what's written in the declining print version of the Herald Sun has much merit here. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, two corporations (one of which isn't even Australian) don't represent the population or its linguistic trends. Spinrad (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Then unless there's some scientific evidence such as a study or other published material about the worlds' linguistic trends on the naming of the sport in question, the official name needs to be used in a factual based encyclopedia. Given 'official name' can differ between countries, states and people's own viewpoints the only thing we have to fall back on is the name as determined by the governing body for the sport. It is neutral, unbiased and technically 'correct'. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Good faith editors who aren't from Melbourne will accept the word of good faith editors from Melbourne that "soccer" is almost never called "football" here. The reason is obvious. All over the world, the name "football" is used to refer to the dominant sport in any particular area. On the western side of the Barassi Line that sport is Aussie Rules. You will only be wating your time trying to prove otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, the issue here is what to call "soccer". The answer is not difficult. That name is perfect. It's the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just the point HiLo48, the term "soccer" is not the 'universally' understood name for the sport. Universally is more than just Australia, and certainly more than just Victorians. Australian's are not the only people who use Wikipedia, and are not the only users who will read the article. The Barassi Line is irrelevant, it describes the most popular sports either side of a fictional line - Rugby League and Aussie Rules, nothing to do with the code of football you term 'soccer' or how many people call it 'soccer'. I agree, 'soccer' is used to describe this code of football by a lot of Victorian's and probably many Australian's in general, but this is notwithstanding the larger population of the world as well as people in Australia who correctly refer to this game as football. Australian's refer to Flip-Flops as 'thongs' - it's mentioned in the article as an alternate name but is certainly not the article's name - as the majority of the world do not call Flip-Flips, thongs. Consistency - a wonderful thing when it's adhered to. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's approach has been to use the language of the region that the article refers to. So Flip-flops referring to the footwear from an international perspective, doesn't use an Australian name, but we wouldn't create Flip-flops in Australia if we were discussing it from an Australian perspective - we would create Thongs in Australia. So whatever the international name for association football/football/soccer might be, an article focusing on the sport in Australia would normally use the Australian terminology. It is an ugly fix to the messy problem of how to cope with regional variations in an international encyclopaedia, but it is the approach we use.

That said, the question on hand is a bit more narrow. I don't think we need to decide what the language should be here, as we've had that debate at length and got nowhere. Our focus is more on how to approach the situation. - Bilby (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

203...., you have missed my main point. "Soccer" simply IS a universally understood name for the game in Australia. Every Australian knows what it means. It's the name used for the game by a majority of Australians Everyone on the western side of the Barassi Line, plus all rugby fans and a lot of other people in the rest of the country use it. We cannot use the name "football". It's far too ambiguous in Australia. "Soccer" is the perfect choice. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, this has already been decided by the August RFC which had a much greater participation from the community and showed that the word soccer was overwhelmingly supported in the Australian context. It seems to me that two or three editors who simply don't like that word, for whatever reason, and who have been repetitively arguing their case ever since that RFC are not entitled to overturn an overwhelming consensus of the wider community. Unless the nay sayers can come up with convincing arguments (ie new evidence, not yet another resdtatement of their already expressed opinions) showing that either the consensus has changed or popular use in Australia has changed, the current consensus should stand. Continuing to whine about why they do no like it or trying to establish a highly localised consensus of their own is simply disruptive. So far John's attempt to try an resolve this issue seems to be making some progress. Perhaps it is time to allow it to move on towards a conclusion. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this has again been a process of seeing nothing more than the arguments that were presented in last year's RfC. The closer supervision and oversight has meant a discussion with less heat, and now, little activity. I too hope there is a simple way to now reach a conclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A conclusion could be easily reached if people could accept that Victoria does not equal Australia, and that what Football is called in some parts of Victoria should not apply to every situation and article for anything related to Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Football"? You know it's ambiguous HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether Macktheknifeau was referring to association football, Australian rules football or both it would not have changed the point of the comment.--2nyte (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is no language usage of the word "football", or "soccer", that is exclusive to just "some parts of Victoria", so I really have no idea what his point is. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's been established at this point that the use of "soccer" occurs throughout Australia not just parts of Victoria. Spinrad (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

In parts of the country that do not count as a majority of the population. The majority of the population consume media and talk about the sports using the terms football, AFL, rugby league & rugby union. But as I remind people constantly, I do not seek to have Australian rules renamed to "AFL" on NSW or QLD related pages, and am happy to accept Association football as a clear and obvious alternative. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

So have you dropped your nonsense about "some parts of Vicotria"? I hope so! Despite your repeated, nonsensical statements to the contrary, "soccer" is used as the common name for the round ball game by virtually everyone on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, plus rugby league fans and rugby union fans in the rest of the country. That would be about 80% of the population. "Soccer" is understood by everyone. It is unambiguous. We don't need an alternative. HiLo48 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mediation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have filed a Request for Mediation on behalf of Serialjoepsycho in regard to the important question of whether the binding nature of this RFC is legitimate. Others who wish to participate in that mediation as parties may add their names and consents to participate at the request page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how this mediation was ever viable, but I gather that John has declined to take part. Thus it seems that it will not proceed. - Bilby (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving on...

In the past couple of weeks things here have become very quiet here. Apart from what to me was a largely incomprehensible sequence of squabbles between Administrators, we've had a couple of repeats of some of the usual completely incorrect claims from people who don't live there about how the way language is used in Melbourne, or "parts of Victoria". These were quickly refuted, again, by people who actually know what they're talking about. (I wish there was some consequence for editors who knowingly and repeatedly post nonsense as "facts" here. Without any consequence, it's inevitable it will all happen again.)

Nothing else seems to be happening in this discussion. It all seems to have stalled. But nothing has actually been resolved, so where do we go from here?

We can't just let this discussion fade away. There will inevitably be attempts in future to inappropriately change "soccer" to "football", if only by editors who haven't seen these discussions. We need what is virtually a policy on handling these edits. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that there be some sort of binding resolution potentially similar to the Ireland naming conventions. Hack (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel that an open discussion needs to take place. I disagree with a lot that has been said, a lot of what you have posted above HiLo48, and in no way do I think I am posting nonsense as "facts", as you say HiLo48.--2nyte (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Up above in the section headed "Herostratus's point" Macktheknifeau posted some very silly nonsense including the words "...Victoria does not equal Australia, and that what Football is called in some parts of Victoria..." This was all in a post where he used the name "Football" for a game in Victoria. Now, in Victoria, "Football" simply and unambiguously means "Aussie Rules", but I suspect it's not what he meant. Nobody among those who think "soccer" is a perfectly good name for the round ball game has EVER suggested that Victoria equals Australia. And language conventions surrounding soccer and Aussie Rules are virtually identical everywhere on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi line, not just "in some parts of Victoria". So Macktheknifeau's post was patent nonsense. You, however, suggested his point was valid. There was no valid point there. It was confusing. It ignored fundamental facts that have been repeated to him and you innumerable times. But you endorsed Macktheknifeau's comment. That's very unelpful. Endorsing nonsense is as bad as posting it yourself. Such continued presenting of rubbish must eventually lead to consequences. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Who ever gave you the authority to threaten other users with "consequences"? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Refusing to see a point doesn't negate the point for those who can see it. I also feel that calling other editors posts "nonsense" and making vague threats is Uncivil and should you continue to do so, I will contact John and request that he order you to withdraw the remarks or stop you from making more. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, take it to John. I have asked him several times what we can do about the repeated posting of incorrect "facts". I think he was hoping we could sort it out ourselves, but I'm not sure if he is really aware of the depth of the problem. I went to a lot of trouble explaining what was nonsensical about your post. What you said was simply wrong, and you have been told that many times. Yet all you do is repeat the nonsense below. Please discuss what I said in my post of 04:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC) above. And don't just repeat incorrect claims. That's guaranteed to inflame tensions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No threat there. Just an observation that, IMHO, those who disrupt conversation here by repeatedly and knowingly posting nonsense, should experience consequences. Do you have an opinion on the topic, rather than me? HiLo48 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

My only strong opinion is that something should be done about the ridiculous inconsistency in Australian football / soccer / association / kickball, i.e. Soccer in Australia, Australia national association football team and Australia national football team results. Two different terms may be justifiable (general article rather than specific), but not three. On top of that, the category for Australia national association football team is Category:Australia national soccer team. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that latter silliness. Wasn't game to raise it myself. But we probably have a safer environment to discuss it here now. My opinion on the best direction for a resolution is well known - "soccer" all the way. What's yours? HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Association football, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules. All the way. Victoria does not equal Australia, and the majority of the population of Australia live in two states, and that majority of population and the media therein use Football to mean Association football, thus making Association football the best name to use (due to not pushing for football, league, union & afl, instead I offer the compromise that allows AFL to be called Australian Rules and for Association football to be used). Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please explain why you keep saying "Victoria does not equal Australia". It's true, but it's irrelevant and adds nothing to this discussion, yet you keep repeating it. It's no wonder people get angry. Why do we need a compromise? Soccer is unambiguous and universally understood. No other name goes near that. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah, Nelly. Some things one just can't let go. Macktheknifeau says "...the majority of the population of Australia live in two states, and that majority of population ... therein use Football to mean Association football..." I assume the two states you're referring to are New South Wales and Queensland? If so, this statement has just cost you all credibility.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I have asked John several times what we can do about repeated statements that are simply factually wrong. I think he was hoping we could sort it out through rational discussion. It ain't happening. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Repeating a nonsensical claim does not make it not nonsense. In NSW and QLD, the word "football" most certainly does not mean soccer. It usually means rugby league and sometimes rugby union. Only a small proportion of people who seem to live in insular enclaves of mostly western Sydney use the unqualified word to mean soccer. Oh, and yes the population of NSW and QLD combined are just over half the population of the country and even if all those people use the word football to mean soccer, which claim I utterly reject, the fact that a very large minority (those outside the two states) do not and use the word to mean something else entirely is of itself sufficient reason to reject using that word on ambiguity grounds. The word soccer suffers from no such ambiguity. Everyone in this country understands what it means, which cannot be said for "association football", a term virtually no one uses and fewer understand. You have not provided the slightest legitimate reason why the word soccer, which meets all of Wikipedia naming policies, should not be used. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think John did admirably in his effort above to try and distill all this down into something meaningful. And that's what we should be focusing on. Editors can waste an awful lot of energy in discussions, and when they're getting to this length with comments this inane, I think it's time to go just off and edit some articles.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• I really appreciate the collegial manner in which this RfC has (largely) been conducted. I still intend to close this phase of the process tomorrow. It's looking like Q1 has consensus but Q2 will fail to be carried. Unless there is a strong swing in the last 24 hours of the poll, we will therefore have decided to postpone further discussion on the main article's name until August 2015, but we will have failed to agree to let the current position of article-by-article language choice continue. It might be worth thinking about how we plan to resolve the second question, as this outcome suggests that there is some remaining appetite to standardise. Will we need a further RfC to discuss how we standardise the naming conventions on the wider range of Australian articles? If we did, what would the options be? It seems clear that no one term from "football", "soccer" and "association football" will carry an overall consensus across all Australian articles. Would we want to use different terms for articles predominantly about a particular state or region with Australia? If we did, what would that look like? If we went down that line, how would we handle articles that covered the game as a whole within the country? Would they go with "soccer", as the main article does? Lots of questions. Please discuss. --John (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the national team, the highest level of soccer competition is a national league, the A-League. That league involves teams from all over the country, including that (almost) half of the country where "football" means an entirely different sport. The teams play each other. Team articles discuss rivalries and matches with other teams. So "football" cannot sensibly be used for any member of that league. And "association football" is simply an unknown name. There is only one option left, "soccer". Fortunately, it is completely unambiguous, and universally understood across the whole country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the national team, it is commonly known to all Australians as the Socceroos, and that will be the primary search term used by almost all of our readers to find the article. A quick look at the Football Federation Australia] website makes it obvious that that body has fully embraced the "Socceroos" name. Looks like a good name for the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The team could've call themselves the "penisroos" if they wanted to - it's irrelevant to this discussion. Note the name of the Football Federation Australia] - last time I checked it wasn't called the Soccer Federation of Australia. If the word soccer was unambiguous and universally understood throughout Australia, they wouldn't have named themselves the Football Federation of Australia. In addition to this Hilo48, you really need to re-visit your attitude towards arguing your point against other editors views on Wikipedia. Taking a step back and considering someone's viewpoint (albeit not necessarily agreeing with it) would go a long way. When something does not make sense to you, or is not in line with your viewpoint, this does not make it generally nonsensical and certainly doesn't make the editor incompetent or stupid. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Very little of what I write is my opinion. It is fact, unlike what you have written above. It is a simple, unarguable fact that "soccer" IS "unambiguous and universally understood throughout Australia". My attitude to people who seem to want to claim otherwise is pretty negative, and is unlikely to change. Posts that contain nonsense, as yours does, do not help here. Now, can we please return to discussing facts, rather than me? HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

No one is arguing against that HiLo48. I agree, soccer is unambiguous and universally understood throughout Australia, I have never argued against that, and I don't think anyone has. But this case is unlike another on Wikipedia (at least that I know of). It's not just about common name or official name. I have said many theme before that if we only considered common name then "soccer" would be the preferred name on Australian wiki articles, but I think there is much more to this which is what I've been arguing. It seems like everyone is still arguing the same points made in August 2013 or 2006. That is why I want an open discussion.--2nyte (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually 2nyte, someone IS stupidly arguing against the FACT that soccer is unambiguous and universally understood throughout Australia. Look again at the post from 203.13.128.104 at 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC) above. It was immediately above mine that you have just criticised, wrongly. Shouldn't be too hard to find. It was the reason I made my post. I await your apologies, and yearn even more for the day when you will condemn utter nonsense from those on "your" side of this debate. None of it helps. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologise HiLo48, I misread that in the comment. But I do stand by everything I said after the first sentence - I think an open discussion is necessary, especially as this is a situation unlike any other on Wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What's not open about this conversation? HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Common usage is not like, magically tethered to what an authoritative body is called. that makes no sense at all. Spinrad (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, 2nyte, if you agree that soccer well satisfies the common name criteria, what exactly is your argument against the term? What exactly is the "so much more" of which you speak? You are right, the arguments here are those for the most part from earlier discussions. You say you want to open the discussion up now. OK, fine. Lay on M^cDuff, I say. Do your best. What are all the other new arguments that your "open discussion" discussion implies and why haven't you presented them before? Or is it that you really don't have anything new to add to this debate? Which is it? - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let's consider what we agree on and what there is still disagreement over. Q1 is carried; it seems clear there is an overwhelming consensus to postpone further discussion of the title of the soccer in Australia article. Of the three widely used names, only soccer seems to be agreed as being universally understood. (Per User:Herostratus "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Emerson that doesn't necessarily mean we need to universally standardise on it.) At the moment, as I understand it, we have instances of football (which I think we agree is potentially confusing in an Australian context, where so many other codes exist) and association football as well as 'soccer'. So, if we set up a further RfC on standardisation, following the failure to reach clear consensus on Q2, would it be reasonable to give two options, standardise on 'soccer' vs. leave things article-by-article? Do we need a geographical option? It doesn't seem to me there is a coherent geographical option we could propose, but please correct me if I'm wrong and this is a viable third option. Or is 'association football' a viable third option? We can start this next phase tonight or tomorrow. Comments please. Remember that we can use piped links (as shown) to reduce ambiguity to some extent. --John (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

John, "Association football" simply doesn't exist as a name in Australia. Nobody will know what it means, unless they look it up, or have already done so. (Or unless they find Victorian Football Association, an Aussie Rules competition. That's the well know usage of Association football.) The arguments for using "football" anywhere in Australia to refer to soccer have been done to death. I cannot see what can be achieved by continuing this. Can you not see that frustration with illogical and dishonest arguing is still a major factor here? Are you going to allow such posts to continue? HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have understood right from the beginning of this process that there is frustration about the matter; it would hardly be worth resolving otherwise. I don't have a problem with running the follow-up RfC as a two-option one, as I have said above. Would anyone else have a problem with that? --John (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

John, how about the dishonest posts? They are ridiculously frequent. Since you're not a local, they may not be obvious to you, but they are a major cause of the repetition, and hence frustration here. All Australian editors know which are the dishonest posts, including those who are making them, but if we get firm in pointing it out you naturally don't like it. It's concerned me all along that well-intentioned non-Australians such as yourself will take them as good faith contributions, and see value in continuing this process, where it should really have stopped weeks ago. Lies aren't "resolved" by giving the liars a chance to repeat them again and again and again. That actually leads to some innocent readers beginning to believe them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, provide some examples of dishonesty and lies you refer to - not agreeing with someone's opinion does not mean the person is lying or being dishonest. On a topic related note, it's interesting, perhaps ironic, isn't it that the game HiLo48 suggests is most commonly termed 'football' is the game in which the foot is used less than the hands. Association Football, or just 'football' is the only game of the 3 or 4 being discussed where players predominantly (and for the most part are required to by the rules of the game) use their feet. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, first of all let me say you are welcome to question my credentials in coming in to sort this matter out. Being Scottish, I was brought up with the game in my blood. My dad, who was a formidable goalie in his youth, taught me from a young age to be a goalkeeper. I represented my school at U-14 and U-16 level, and in my teens and twenties I played for and trained with various just-below-semi-professional teams. We always called the game 'football', of course. When I went to live in Botswana I was head-hunted by a third division club there and I trained with them a few times but never made the first team. There it was also always called 'football'. When I went to live in the United States I also played, by now in what they call recreational co-ed soccer. I played for several seasons there. Although I have progressively let go of my love for the sport over the years as my reflexes slowed, my vision got worse, and my knee and elbow damage accumulated, I still follow Scottish football religiously. I am chagrined by the decline in the Scotland national football team's fortunes, and that we have not qualified for a World Cup since 1998. I have been around long enough to have extensively edited our articles on the 2006 and 2010 world cups. Although I have never had the privilege of visiting your reputedly beautiful country, I had an Australian girlfriend for a while in the 1990s and an Australian colleague in for a year in 2006-07. I hope I do not lose any reputation I may have gained for neutrality by recalling that they both called the game 'soccer'. I have read and enjoyed books by Macarthur Job the Aussie aviation writer and when I was much younger loved the work of Ivan Southall. Finally I currently work with someone who lived in New Zealand for years and we often discuss the nuances of Scottish English versus Australian English versus New Zealand English. I've obviously participated in my time as an admin since 2006 in many discussions involving regional variations in English. I have also been a stickler in many cases at WP:FAR for WP:ENGVAR. So I think I am amply qualified to intervene here.

As regards "lies", you will find your best defence against statements you regard as inaccurate is to point out calmly where they are inaccurate, citing your supporting evidence. We need always to be in the top three levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. I recognise that we can all get frustrated sometimes, but we all have to accept that ultimately it is reasoned argument which wins debates, and that others may legitimately hold views that we disagree vehemently with. I was really trying to get through this without blocking anybody, and the one editor we have lost is already one too many for me. So be it. Please give some thought to what I am putting together in my sandbox, and please make helpful suggestions, with evidence, so that we may move further forwards towards a conclusion. --John (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

John, I'm not challenging your right to be the person coming here to help sort things out. It's great that you're putting in the effort. But we are all putting in effort, very repetitively. And some of this is caused by repeated nonsensical claims by people who should know better, because they have been told the truth is otherwise many times, by good faith editors. These falsehoods typically involve someone from the western suburbs of Sydney or Brisbane, who has rarely, if ever, spent time on the other side of the Barassi Line, making claims about how language is used there. A classic example is in the thread above titled "Herostratus's point". It's the one from Macktheknifeau, at 06:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC). He stated "A conclusion could be easily reached if people could accept that Victoria does not equal Australia, and that what Football is called in some parts of Victoria should not apply to every situation and article for anything related to Australia." Now, I have no idea why he spoke of people accepting "that Victoria does not equal Australia", because nobody involved in these discussion has, ever, made that claim. He must know that. It's obvious. Also, in saying "...what Football is called in some parts of Victoria should not apply to every situation", he is implying that relevant language "in some parts of Victoria" is somehow different from that used elsewhere in Victoria. That is simply wrong. Again, he knows it. He knows it because he has been told it dozens of times. As a non-Australian you cannot be expected to know that. I cannot blame you for that. The problem we have is that someone who does know it's wrong keeps making the false claim. Is it possible that he is taking advantage of a non-Australian's inevitable lack of knowledge of the truth? I don't know, but I do know that it is disruptive editing. And it has been going on for years, despite those who want the truth to be the basis of discussion trying all sorts of strategies to stop it. What can we do about it now? HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I sympathise. Wikipedia, famously or infamously, has always been about verifiability rather than truth. There has also historically been an element of behavioural issues here. I am here to help you to resolve the issues by figuring out a guideline we can all live with and thereby avoid clogging up AN/I for many further volunteer hours in the future. If you continue to work with me, we can do it. Bring your arguments and your evidence to the next phase which will begin tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Verifiability rather than truth" has nothing to do with repeated incorrect claims about what other editors have said. And that's one of the nonsense areas here. See above again. Macktheknifeau has written many times as if other editors have said a certain thing. And they haven't. It's purely and simply disruptive editing. He is not alone. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

John, you ask, citing your supporting evidence. The quandary is that many editors do not do this. They state and restate the same material with no cites, assuming personal infallibility. Two editors holding divergent views, both assuming they need no cites, will come to conflict, diverting the flow of discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.138.126.65 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have some individual(s) or incident(s) in mind, but haven't named them. That means nobody will feel guilt. I certainly don't. Sweeping, generalised criticisms don't help. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No, the IP is right. You are on 4 and 5. I took out some 6. You need to stay on the first three rungs. Cite your sources. Don't comment on others or their motivations. --John (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I know you're aiming for peace, but... Somebody has lied. Repeatedly. Knowingly. It's obvious to everyone who knows the truth that this person lied. If we cannot address it, it will keep happening. Unless you can show me another path. We have been playing peace games for ages now, and he is still lying. (See above.) We have shown him he is wrong, and he is sill lying. (See above.) Next? HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to that, you keep asking us to work with you on this. Well, I haven't lied. Someone else has. He is clearly NOT working with you, yet it's my post you moderate. His posts are still up there, untouched, spouting lies, sucking in people from elsewhere in the world who are unaware of the the truth. I don't get that. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and re sourcing, we see a lot of nonsense on that front too. The pro-"football" folk source to web sites of what they call "national media". It's a pretty meaningless concept, but they keep doing it. Repeatedly. It annoys the crap out of me and others. When called on these things they sometimes go quiet for a short time, then re-emerge and say exactly the the same things days later. It's the repetition of the nonsense that's a big problem here too. Pointing out that it's wrong doesn't stop it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, l'enfer c'est les autres. You have to grant other people the intelligence to read and detect what is and isn't true or convincing. Calling it out as "lies" isn't necessary or helpful. Apply yourself to the next phase please. Should we have a geographical option? --John (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have already commented on that several times. Most recently at 22:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC) in this very thread, in response to an almost identical request from you. Others didn't. They discussed the "penisroos", and posted all about me. Any chance you could do something about such bad faith editing and close the thread based on lack of constructive comment from anybody else? You constantly have a go at me for mentioning others. I don't see equal treatment of the real offenders. HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please desist from calling me a liar. Just because you have your own opinions, doesn't mean that other opinions that challenges yours are 'lies'. Thank you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're not lying, why do you persistently make comments such as the one below where you refer to a "Small group of Victorians"? This doesn't involve a small group of Victorians. It involves everyone south and west of the Barassi Line. Among those 10 million or so people there is no difference in the use of the word "football". It means ONLY Aussie Rules. You have been told this many times, yet you persist in your nonsensical claim. That's either lying, or incredibly bad faith editing, or....? So, over to you. Why do you keep with that idiotic claim? HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Theorising

If tomorrow we decided to refer to the sport as "association football" and we put that decision into effect in articles and article titles what would happen? What negative or positive would result? Would readers even notice, would they even care? On the last two, I think no, readers would neither notice nor care. Though I think the benefit would be great. The same questions can apply to the article Association football.--2nyte (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What would those great benefits of which you speak be, exactly? What, exactly, is wrong with the word soccer? Please show - with references - how "Association football" is a more commonly used term than soccer in Australia. Please show, exactly, where this term is used. Your opinions on what readers may or may not do are just that, your opinions. We don't use editors' opinions to determine naming in Wikipedia, we follow policy and guidelines. Common name is POLICY. If I ever have to choose between policy and the opinions of an editor with an apparent agenda, I'll go for policy every time.

Oh, and while you're explaining those things, perhaps you might like to answer these questions. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC on naming

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

Main arguments used in previous discussions:

1. Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 in August 2013 strongly endorsed keeping the main article at Soccer in Australia.
2. The point has also been made that there is regional variation in the terminology used to describe the Beautiful Game in the Australian context.
3. The Australian association renamed itself Football Federation Australia in 2004.[22]
4. "Football" is highly ambiguous in this context as there also exist American football, Gaelic football, rugby union, rugby league, and Australian rules football, all of which could also be referred to as "football".
5. "Association football" (as used on Wikipedia's main article on the sport) is not a common name in everyday parlance anywhere.
6. "Soccer", while thoroughly unambiguous, seems to strongly offend some editors in some contexts.

Previously discussed centrally at

1. ANI 1
2. ANI 2
3. Arbcom
4. ANI 3

Question

As the previous poll showed a simple majority in favour of tolerating the current inconsistency, but there was significant dissent (8.5-5.5 or 65%), should we recommend standardising usage for the name of this sport?

• Option 1 Leave as-is. The sport can be referred to as association football, football, or soccer on an article-by-article basis, subject to the usual rules of encyclopedic clarity and principle of least astonishment for readers. Any changes in nomenclature would have to be discussed and consensus achieved in individual article talk. Drive-by or mass efforts to change nomenclature without a local consensus would be treated as disruption.

• • Option 1a As above, but deprecate 'association football'.
  • Option 1b As above, but deprecate 'football'.

• Option 2 Standardise on soccer on all articles pertaining to the sport in an Australian context. This would be somewhat like the existing situation regarding soccer in the United States.

Format (2)

Because this has already been the subject of extensive discussion at my talk page and various other locations, I would like to keep it succinct here. I also propose to run this for only 7 days (unless there are objections or insufficient interest), so I would propose closing on or after 28 March 2014. --John (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Responses (2)

Please only mark Option 1 or Option 2 to the question. You can also make a brief comment (no more than twenty words, not counting the signature) explaining your rationale, making reference to policy or practice. If choosing Option 1, you can also choose one of the options a-b if you feel we should deprecate one of the possibilities. There is a section for threaded debate below but please do not use it to falsify the arguments of others or to comment on their motivations. This may lead to more blocks, which I am very keen to avoid.

• Option 2 "Football" is deeply ambiguous; "association football" isn't commonly used or sufficiently recognisable; "soccer" is unambiguous, widely used and easily recognisable. Neljack (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1 See below – PeeJay 00:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 "Soccer" is only unambiguous widely used term in Aus. "Football": completely ambiguous. "Association football": meaningless to great majority of Aussies. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 Can't be football, too ambiguous. Association football isn't known to most people, Soccer is both understood and commonly used. Jevansen (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 We cannot have clubs playing the same game in one country written up as playing differently named sports. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1a Small group of Victorians can't be allowed to dictate changes to globally recognised name. Victoria doesn't have priority over planet. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 The Australian situation really is analogous to the American situation despite what this relatively minor sport's governing body and fans may want.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 NE Ent 23:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion (2)

You should change the RFC. You just have to much going on. Don't do any suboptions for option 1 right now. Just do another RFC for those if option 1 wins out. And drop option 1c. It would be crazy to have an article named Soccer in Australia but rule that you can't use the word soccer in it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that would go against what we decided in the last phase. I'll remove that option. --John (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that every article on the topic should at least have the word soccer mentioned in the lede so that readers will be sure of the game involved. I have done a bit of an informal poll of people in Australia including those that play the game, and so far none knew what association football is. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That'd probably push you towards option 2. Look at Manchester United F.C., a Featured Article on an English club. They call the club a football club, and this seems to be standard on European team articles. Option 2 would standardise Australian usage on soccer in a similar way. So long as we link at first instance and there is no danger of reader ambiguity, I don't see the harm in either approach, 1 or 2. What we really need to do is decide if we want to standardise, or agree to leave things inconsistent. I can see merits in both approaches. I did take the point made above that perhaps using three different names for this sport was overkill. That's why I included 1a and 1b. --John (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If the majority of votes choose option 1 without selecting 1A or 1B, Will that be considered a vote against any kind of deprecation?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would retain the status quo for now. --John (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I can't make a longer comment above: The governing body for association football in Australia has begun a transition from the predominant use of the term "soccer" to "football", so to stipulate (as Option 2 would require) that we refer to the sport as "soccer" in all articles relating to the sport in Australia would result in the nonsensical scenario whereby, for example, the Football Federation Australia article describes the organisation as the governing body for a sport not described in its name. – PeeJay 00:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point. I was looking at some of the articles on the sport in Ireland (where there is a comparable mix of terminology) and all the individual clubs' articles seem to use football per the European standard, but the Football Association of Ireland article calls it association football, presumably to avoid confusion with Gaelic football and rugby union. Could you live with a compromise like that? I think I could. --John (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

While it's true that "The governing body for association football in Australia has begun a transition from the predominant use of the term "soccer" to "football", it's a transition that simply cannot be completed, because of the word "football" universally meaning a totally different sport in half the country. It's not something that's going to change quickly, if ever. We must stop speaking in present tense (or, heaven forbid, future tense - that WOULD be speculation!) about the name change. Some name changing HAS happened. That's all we can say. It would be more accurate for the sentence I quoted above to read "The governing body for association football in Australia began a transition from the predominant use of the term "soccer" to "football". HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, whilst I agree that the governing body for soccer in Australia has changed its own usage to prefer football to soccer and is trying to force that usage on everyone else, it needs to be remembered that soccer is a minority sport in this country. I disagree that football means something else in only half the country, rather, although you are right that it means Aussie rules in the southern/western half (that is, in four out of the six states, plus one of the two main territories) in those other states and territory "football" does not mean soccer, it means one or other of the two forms of rugby.

evidence for soccer as common usage in WA (WA government web site), evidence that the push for "football" comes from the FFA, rather than organic change, evidence for soccer as the common name, evidence for the use of the term soccer in NSW, discussion about relative terms for soccer - probably not RS, but relevant, and finally evidence for all of the above and this one is a Federal government web site too. These were found with a relatively quick Google search, I concentrated on sources that would satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, with the obvious exception of the discussion page.

- Nick Thorne ^talk 02:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

By what evidence do you claim football is a 'minority' sport? Participation rates for football are significantly higher than the three major oval ball codes. An example of which you can see at this link, which just happens to be a Government website that uses the words Football, AFL, Rugby League & Rugby Union. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's simple really, I don't confuse participation rates with support levels for the game. In any case. the figures in the article you quote are for people over the age of 15. You will find that participation drops off significantly with age. The article also makes the statement that about 95,000 people participate in soccer each week Australia wide. You often get several times that actually going to the game each week in the AFL and that is just one of the rival codes. Not to forget that the numbers who actually shell out their hard earned to attend the game is a minuscule fraction of the number of people that actively follow it, let alone those like me who have only a passing interest in football of any flavour. Consider the TV audiences for the various forms of football, I very much doubt that the numbers watching the A-league come within cooee of a very small proportion of those that watch other forms of football. It might be interesting to look at ratings info about that, if the figures are available. Also, have a look at the number of pages devoted to soccer (outside of during the World Cup) in the various newspapers around the country compared to the number devoted to the other forms of the game. Soccer is a minority game in Australia, get over it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The FFA can't really begin a transition because they can't legally enforce a transition. We've got no idea how much further it's going to go, if it's stagnated, or if it might reverse in some cases. Spinrad (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have an observation, and a suggestion based on it. Look at this ABC article. Not a mention of "football", or "soccer", or any sport at all. It's actually a very common journalistic style, and not just for soccer. Have a look at any other team sports article you like. Yet we all know what sport is being discussed. A similar approach could be taken here. Obviously we need to name the sport a club plays, once, but from then on we can simply avoid mentioning it unless it's really necessary for clarity. Will that idea ease tensions just a little? HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

When I look at that website, I see the header links are "AFL", "NRL", "Football" , "Rugby Union" & "Cricket". Interesting, especially as the ABC is a Federal Government organisation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations on entirely missing the main point of my post. I made a constructive suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Government-owned corporation. They don't have editorial control over it. Spinrad (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Football is not ambiguous. All of those other sports have their own specific, official names that are specifically not football, which does refer to one specific sport alone worldwide and here on Wikipedia. Letting a small group of Victorians, who couldn't get consensus in the "RfC on naming" (65%-35% is a cleauctive uggestior consensus to me) anywhere remotely reaching parity with those who want to call the sport by it's real and official name, dictate their own little variation to a globally recognised term is not in the best interests of Wikipedia. Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules, Football should be used. If people can't get out of their provincial bubble and join the worldwide terminology, they should create their own Victorian Wikipedia and they can choose whatever term they like. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Football is not ambiguous"? Ridiculous. See Melbourne's most popular radio station. That website has "football" all over it, and it isn't talking about soccer.

And there's that nonsense about "a small group of Victorians" again? What on earth are you talking about? HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

But there really isn't a large group on the other side of the argument either. And anyway Wikipedia generally seems to prefer a slight amount of provincialism in situations like this. Spinrad (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Aussie or a soccer fan. Perusing everything said Soccer seems to be known to everyone including those that call it Association Football. So far the evidence is persuasive to say that Soccer is the most commonly used name.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, nobody in Australia calls it Association football. The only time you will hear anything like that will be from some Victorians talking about the Victorian Football Association. Do check that link. It's not about the round ball game. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been called that since 1996, according to our article. --John (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to burden this thread with a detailed history of that body, and the (Australian) football politics surrounding it. The change of name had nothing to do with soccer, and the name of that body is still the ONLY use of the word "association" together with the word "football" that anyone has ever documented here as having ever existed in Australia. So, in Australia, "association" means Aussie Rules. Unless, of course, someone can produce an Australian source for the use of "Association" and "football" where it means the round ball game. I love learning new things, so please hit me with it. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• A caveat for those relying on how content is displayed on Australian news websites as a gauge for common usage: You'll find they often use month-day-year formatting on their sites too. But this can quite rightly be disregarded, as everyone well knows in Australia day-month-year is in fact the common usage. This renders saying "news websites do this or that" a practically worthless argument.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and FYI:
  • Shane Webcke and Ian Heads (2007). Warhorse: Life, Football and Other Battles. Sydney: MacMillan.
  • Mal Meninga and Alan Clarkson (1995). Meninga: My Life In Football. Sydney: Harper Sports.
  • http://channelnine.ninemsn.com.au/nineslivefridaynightfootball/episodes
  • http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/photos-e6frg6n6-1226598940941?page=12
  • http://www.vizrt.com/news/newsgrid/40403/Fox_Sports_Australia__Girraphic_unveil_the_next_generation_of_virtual_graphics_powered_by_Vizrt

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There's another aspect of all this I think I should revisit here. The highest level of soccer competition within Australia is a national league, the A-League. That league doesn't try to name the sport in its own name. It involves teams from all over the country, including that (almost) half of the country where "football" means an entirely different sport. The teams play each other. Team articles discuss rivalries and matches with other teams. So "football" cannot sensibly be used for any member of that league. And "association football" is simply an unknown name. There is only one option left, "soccer" to be used everywhere for Australian articles. And Socceroos for the national team. That's the name the FFA now fully embraces. HiLo48 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Socceroos is the name of the team but that isn't really evidence of anything. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is meant to be a discussion on whether we standardise naming across all Australian articles, or allow variation on an article by article basis. As someone who would like to see standardisation on "soccer", I was highlighting how that can extend even as far as the national team. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously. It's a nickname. It dates back to the 60's. It extends as far as a nickname for the "Australia national association football team". The standard of "Soccer" should not be based on such a weak argument. Their Nickname or their official name shouldn't be used. The Dallas Cowboy's don't do Rodeos. The Socceroos play soccer just like the Australia national association football team play Association Football. Both add to an unneeded quandry.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand that post. What would you actually like to see? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Socceroos is a nickname for the team. It's not the teams actually name. It dates back to the 60's. It's not good evidence to make your case. I would actually like to see evidence that shows that soccer is the most common name.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What about some evidence that "(association) football" is the most common name? because we've seen none of that yet. Also "Socceroos" more or less is the official name sorry. Spinrad (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho - there has been masses of evidence presented over the past three years or so to show that "soccer" is the most common name. There really is no doubt, apart from in the minds of a small number of editors with very insular, parochial interests. I thought John had already ruled on that anyway. And you completely missed the point of my observation on the Socceroos. I asked above, what terminology would you actually like to see us use, and why? HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No person has listed any evidence that soccer is the current name. The internal beliefs of wikipedia editors cannot be evidence. Newspapers haven't used the term soccer since the 1990s. Wikipedia should use the current name. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_football_in_Victoria