Jump to content

Talk:A-League Men

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:A-League)

Finals ladder is misleading

[edit]

The ladder graphic explaining which team is which is inaccurate and contrary to the explanation text. Looking at the ladder you would think in the semis number 1 plays the winner of 3 vs 6, and 2 plays the winner of 4 vs 5. Yes, the text in the graphic gets it correct, but what's the point of a graphic if only the text is correct?

I recommend the following instead

Elimination Finals Semi Finals Grand Final
3 vs 6 1 vs Lowest Rank winner of Elimination Finals Winners of Semi Finals
4 vs 5 2 vs Highest Rank winner of Elimination Finals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.19.20 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in either unlinking the 2 Elimination Final matches from the 2 Semi Final matches or even removing the graph as all is explained in the text above in the Finals series section. --2nyte (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Championships/premierships tables

[edit]

Why are there teams listed on the Championships/premierships tables that haven't won anything? It seems pointless. A team should only be listed here if they have won something. Does anyone mind if they are removed? Anderch (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --2nyte (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Championship info in infobox

[edit]

I noticed at some point the information about current champions and most championships was removed from the infobox. I couldn't find anything on the talk page about it, so I have restored this content. -- Chuq (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the League, for all time, not the most recent season. That's elsewhere, for anyone to look up if they wish, so current champions seems out of place. As for most championships, with a max of two for anyone, it's pretty trivial. Maybe in 40 or 50 years time when the numbers are more significant... HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fields for "current premiers" and "most premierships" were already included - surely the same would apply to them? -- Chuq (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said in my edit summary that I moved the content to A-League Finals Series. I noticed someone created the page, so I thought I would populate it with relevant information. And it seems stupid to have the same stuff on this page so I deleted it here. In a few years time it would be good to have a developed article focused on the finals series, also this page doesn't go into that much detail about the tournament so maybe we can be more comprehensive on the A-League Finals Series article. --2nyte (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the finals series are a part of the A-League season itself. You seem to be wording it as if there is one competition, that runs for 27 rounds, called the "A-League season", and the top six from that competition qualify for another separate competition called the "A-League finals series"? I can see how it might appear that way, but in practice the "A-League season" runs from round 1, through to the Grand Final. -- Chuq (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought of the final series as a separate "mini-competition". You are right though; it says pretty much exactly what you said on the competition rules summary. So what do we do with A-League Finals Series page? Do we continue to expand it, or revert back to what we previously had and delete A-League Finals Series? I don't mind either way. We also need to specify what was said by Chuq in the A-League article, that the "A-League season" runs from round 1, through to the Grand Final. --2nyte (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay here. I don't think that there is a problem with separate articles about the finals series; so long as the finals are included as part of the season information itself (both in this article and in the various season articles (2012–13 A-League, etc.) I don't know if it needs to be explicitly pointed out - since it is a pretty standard setup for other sports leagues in Australia? -- Chuq (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the "...disastrous television deal with the Seven Network..."?

[edit]

The text above is in the Origins section, but there is no elaboration on it, and it doesn't seem to crack a mention in any of the sources. What was the deal? What was wrong with it? Can we source it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The television deal was made in 1998 between Soccer Australia (now FFA) and the Seven Network. Essentially, the broadcast rights to the NSL were sold to Channel Seven for a 10-year deal. Seven eventually limited the coverage to one hour of highlights a week, which was shown after mid-night. The lack of coverage resulted in loss in sponsorship and a decline for the NSL. This decline and soon demise was the catalyst for the creation of the A-League. As for a source, I assume it would not be that hard to find one describing the events.--2nyte (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That certainly sounds like an unsatisfactory deal. I picked up on the text because of the somewhat non-encyclopaedic word "disastrous". That cannot stay without a source that supports it, and should really only be in a quote, otherwise we're expressing an opinion ourselves. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it should be reworded and a source should be added.--2nyte (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to find a decent source. How about this? HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Channel 7 didn't just 'limit' coverage, they deliberately squashed it to help the AFL. All came out in the C7 Sport vs Optus court case. Age report. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visa players

[edit]

The article currently reads:

The following do not fill a Visa position: 1Those players who were born and started their professional career abroad but have since gained Australian Residency (and New Zealand Residency, in the case of Wellington Phoenix); 2Australian residents (and New Zealand residents, in the case of Wellington Phoenix) who have chosen to represent another national team;

Is there a reliable source that says that an Australian resident (rather than a citizen) qualifies as a local? Hack (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current PFA Collective Bargaining Agreement (2008-13, extended for 2 more years recently) says "Foreign Player means a player who is not an Australian Citizen. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player who is a permanent resident of Australia or a New Zealand citizen who does not require a work visa to permit him to be employed by a Club in the A-League is a foreign player." Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I recall seeing a more recent document that suggested that the FFA could declare a permanent resident a local player if they committed to playing for Australia once they were eligible. Hack (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I would like to move the existing Asian Champions League and National Youth League sub-sections into a new section to be called Related competitions as they aren't DIRECTLY part of the A-League so I don't think should be in the Format Section. Basically the new section would cover other competitions in which A-League clubs participate. So in addition to the NYL and ACL subsections it would include new subsections covering the W-League and FFA Cup. I would not include a NPL sub-section as there is no direct overlap. I created something similar on New Zealand Football Championship. Any feedback? Cheers --TinTin (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move Club Section to top of main body

[edit]

SHould we have the clubs at the very start of the main body? It's a football competition and the clubs who partake in it is a pretty important part of what the competition is. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC) --aggree with above --TinTin (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change Youth League sub-section to Youth Team sub section

[edit]

Change Youth League sub-section to Youth Teams sub section with further reading links to both the NPL and NYL. It would also have a paragraph describing the A-League teams with associated teams in the state leagues. This is becoming increasingly common, I think it maybe even mandatory for the NPL state-leagues to allow A-League youth teams in the relevant NPL division now? I think this is the best way to cover both topics, as they directly overlap.--TinTin (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think everything but the Continental qualification information in the Related competitions section should be removed. We only need a brief one sentence mention of the youth league/women's league/all-stars in the opening.--2nyte (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree I think they have a high-level of interaction between A-League clubs and these other leagues is important and this section provides appropriate context of which the A-League operates within. Maybe moving the majority of it to another article (or new article) and it could be summarised a bit more?--TinTin (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can move the majority of it to the youth league/women's league/all-stars articles. We can set the context in the opening of this article (without having a whole section on it) and link to those respective artciles. I think this article should remain focused on the A-League and not other competitions. We should stay on topic. If users want information on other competitions there are those artciles available (most of them need more content anyway).--2nyte (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Icon boxes

[edit]

Why on earth have we gone all FOX Sports on wikipedia with stupid icon boxes? Why cant we just have boxes with just 2 colours or just have the icons that we have been using for the last 8 or so years? --115.166.22.2 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

does this recent Category link kk:Футболдан Аустралия чемпионаты to the Kazakh Wiki have a place here ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's the corresponding page on the Kazakh WP, so yes. Hack (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on A-League. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A-League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017

[edit]

The word soccer should be replaced by the phrase Association football in the opening sentence Isaacd1- (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Partly done: I instead replaced it with "association football (soccer)" since football is the term predominantly used in the article but soccer is used quite a bit. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A-League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

[edit]
203.13.3.90 (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ITS FOOTBALL NOT SOCCER CHANGE ALL WORDS TO FOOTBALL!!!

Not done: Please see WP:NCFA for reference. If you want to change name, please discuss on WT:FOOTY first, thank you! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Level on Pyramid

[edit]

An ill-mannered editor reverted my attempt to remove this item from the Infobox for this league, asking me to bring the issue here. In my view, having no promotion/relegation means there is effectively no pyramid. It does not have the same meaning as it does for leagues where there is promotion/relegation. We should not use confusing fields in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that having it there was the status quo, but I agree that with no pro/rel it makes little sense to have this. Or it may be an issue with the infobox title itself, perhaps the "on pyramid" is not helpful ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  05:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How was I ill-mannered? Promotion and relegation isn't the key to where it stands on the pyramid. Are you saying that the AFL or NRL aren't the top tiers for their sports? What of the MLS, which also doesn't use promotion and relegation? What about the fact that the National Premier Leagues are promoted as Australia's second tier competitions by the FFA themselves? Why should the A-League be any different to those? BTW, someone calling someone else ill-mannered looks hypocritical when they are acting self-righteous. - J man708 (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other stuff exists proves nothing. I am arguing this from an independent, logical position. A team can end up in the A-League by having one rich person convince league management they can provide what's needed. That has nothing to do with any pyramid. The pyramid is logical when teams get to the top level through promotion. That's not the case with the A-league. As for the AFL, it's nonsensical there too. It's the football code I am closest to, and I have never heard a player, coach, administrator, fan or commentator use the expression in over six decades of observing. This looks like one of those parameters in an Infobox that people use simply because it's there. They shouldn't. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, you wouldn't call the SANFL, VFL, NEAFL or WAFL second tier competitions nationally either? What's your take on the MLS then, wherein their system has a similar setup? For me, the pyramid isn't defined by promotion and relegation, but by the shape and structure of it resembling a pyramid itself, which is what we have with the status quo. We have a pyramid setup currently with one top tier, approx 10 second comps, a dozen third tier comps, etc. Here's another point for you - the NSW NPL competition (which has been listed as a second tier competition by the FFA themselves), what tier do you suggest we show them with? They're not the top tier nationally, so they can't be shown as a 1, but they're also top of their promotion tree, so by what you've suggested, they have to show a 1? I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. I think you've seen this with tunnel vision toward purely promotion and relegation and not thought through what happens to the lower tiers. If the NSW NPL 2 competition has promotion and relegation, then it needs to show a tier number. What would you suggest we do there? - J man708 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't call the SANFL, VFL, NEAFL or WAFL second tier competitions nationally. I've managed without such terminology for more than 60 years. The terms just aren't used in Aussie Rules, or if they are, it's rare. I'm not a fan of Infoboxes at the best of times, and this is something that Infoboxes are really bad at. It's stuff that is much better explained in the text. HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, where do you stand on the tiering of the NPL? - J man708 (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the emphasis on it being some sort of second tier is just silly. They are the leagues for the various states, as distinct from the A-League being that for the whole nation. That's all that needs to be said. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football in the hopes of gaining some extra insight ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  23:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you can't drop or come up into the league, there is no point having the pyramid. I agree with its removal. NZFC(talk) 00:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're at 3-1 for removal then, will give it a few more days for discussion though. FYI HiLo48 it really shouldn't be removed until consensus is reached and this discussion is closed though (which is why I reverted you earlier). ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  00:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the beginning of this section. I began this discussion, because one person objected to its removal. Haven't seen a decent nor any significant argument against my thoughts. I feel no remorse for removing it. I could suggest those re-instating claims of this non-existent pyramid are edit-warring. HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FFA refer to them as Hyundai A-League clubs and Member Federation clubs ([1]). With that, I agree with J man708 that tiers is not only for pro/rel. It is to know at what level the league is. Obviously the fully-professional A-League is a level above the semi-professional NPL - it is the top level of soccer a player can play at club level in Australia. Also a point to consider is that A-League clubs play their reserves in the NPL competitions. I think the "level" should stay, preferably with an explanatory note stating that there currently isn't pro/rel. --SuperJew (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to such a comment. (I wish there was an easy way to stop people repeating comments others have made.) The A League is a national league. The NPL leagues are state based, so of less significance. That says it all. Putting levels beside them is just silly. And confusing because it implies promotion/relegation. This seems to be trying to apply conventions from countries where there is promotion/relegation to a country where there isn't. Australia is different from those other places. Make the article different. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there's a note, it won't imply pro/rel. It makes sense as for example when Kenny Athiu joined A-League club Melbourne Victory from NPL club Heidelberg United it was considered a big deal as it is a step up. Also, as I said, the fact that A-League clubs play their reserves/youth in NPL competitions shows the NPL is a level below the A-League. --SuperJew (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind HiLo, that the MLS article shows it at tier 1, without any promotion and relegation. Also, so too does the NZFC article. If you were to delete the tier info from the MLS pages, I'm sure you'd have some people Insta-revert it. We should also keep this in mind that the MLS and A-League should show the same information, seeing as their setups are the same. - J man708 (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about a real reason? Your expectation of an instant revert is not a reason. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nobody is convincing me here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: please also read WP:SSEFAR, particularly the last point. --SuperJew (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But why? All you are doing is applying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If someone asked the same question about the article on MLS, would you say it's because the A-league article has it? Please see the (lack of) logic in what you are doing. You haven't provided a reason at all. So, why? It's confusing, and not needed. Your turn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not applied WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at all. What I said stands by itself, namely that a fully-pro league is a higher level than a semi-pro, A-League clubs play their reserves in the NPL as it's a lower level league, and that an explanatory note is enough to clear-up confusion and make sure there is no implying pro/rel currently. --SuperJew (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you have said actually justifies such a confusing addition. Australia soccer, and every other sport, has survived for the over 60 decades I've been watching without that confusing field. And what's the point of simple numeric field in an Infobox when it needs an explanatory note? HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think you're quick to throw that guideline around without bringing up an answer to the point I've made. Just because there's a guideline similar to it, it doesn't mean it's not a valid point and can be ignored by sticking your fingers in your ears, yelling "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS". SuperJew's point is pretty valid in saying this can be cleared up with an annotation. Who are we specifically to define that a semi-professional lower competition without promotion isn't the second tier on the pyramid when the FFA themselves call it a second tier? - J man708 (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me more about this annotation, and why a simple code should need one? What will it say? Where will it be? Would anyone be confused by leaving out this confusing field that needs an annotation? HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've asked you several times now to answer my question that you keep dodging. - J man708 (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure precisely what your question is. In Australia we have national league, and we have state based leagues. A number in the Infobox, so confusing it needs an annotation, is not going to help a reader too stupid to work out in their own heads what the relationship is between natiopnal and state based leagues. Does that answer your question? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need an annotation, it was just a suggestion of a compromise. Also, my question was/is how does this differ from the MLS showing tier 1? Or the newly formed Canadian Premier League showing tier 1, or the New Zealand Football Championship showing tier 1? And while we're at it, why are we ignoring the fact that the FFA themselves call the NPL a tier 2 competition. Who are we to override the sport's governing body in Australia? - J man708 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do that already with the name of the game. This numeric stuff is, as you have just shown, simply a custom with no real reason. There is a field in the Infobox, so people unthinkingly fill it in. Why isn't the World Cup Level 1 on the pyramid, with everything else at a lower level? HiLo48 (talk)
Because one is international and one is club. International competitions don't have a tier, as their tier is defined on a domestic basis, hence why it links to the Australian pyramid page. - J man708 (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just a description of what happens, not a reason. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to surrender on this one. The answer seems to be that we include the pyramid number because everybody else does it, and it's what we've always done. It's an answer that doesn't satisfy in the slightest, but I concede there is little chance of change in the short term. HiLo48 (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018

[edit]


its football change all to football in aus foxsports labels it as football not soccer jus because the malaka media cant get the words right they too scared to call it football

CHANGE ALL SOCCER TO FOOTBALL NOW 203.13.3.94 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Done, you seem to already be aware of the page, but again for your informaiton Naming conventions (Football in Australia). NZFC(talk) 00:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it soccer?

[edit]

Clearly there is some dissatisfaction with the way Wikipedia deals with the name of the sport. I have commenced discussion at Naming_conventions (Football in Australia) and I invite contributions. --Pete (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is assosiation football commonly called football before the fa was set up soccer was a similar but the matches you tried to get a ball it to the "goal" games were brutal and went on for days in some cases there was deaths the fa was set up to stop this and invent an official store FIFAREF100 (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to 'sharing franchising elements with...Major League Soccer...' sentence

[edit]

I wanted to raise the point that this sentence is accurate except for the reference to Major League Soccer. Many American sports leagues contains one or more franchise elements. Major League Soccer, however, is a single-entity institution. All players are MLS employees. Owners are MLS shareholders with an exclusive license to manage a particular team, and make a number of operational decisions, but are not true owners of a club. Owners cannot unilaterally make player hiring decisions on their own for their team. Player contracts are with MLS and must be approved by MLS, even if the ownership group has taken recruitment steps. They do not own the intellectual property of the team they manage - MLS does. THe lack of control over one's own badge precludes a team from being considered a club, is my understanding. I suggest Major League Soccer be removed from the referenced sentence.

Dream-king (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Championship info in infobox (2)

[edit]

See (1) above 2013.

Which is more important? Premier or Champion? Which one is mostly used to denote the winner of the season?

The distinction (between Premier and Champion) is described well in the intro, but can it be included in the League championships section or (especially in) the table headings, too?

… for dummies (like me) who don’t know much about soccer.

MBG02 (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

[edit]

Why are people editing this and changing things to incorrect info FIFAREF100 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More details please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FIFAREF100, you can visit WP:NCFA Hhkohh (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about football

[edit]

This is not a general article about Australian sports. It is an article about a specific sport that is called football. There is zero chance for confusion with any other sport such as various codes of rugby, table-tennis, or anything else. The sport's various groups and bodies don't call it soccer, so why should we? I'll accept that in a wider context there may be confusion, especially from people who pick the ball up with their hands, but nobody reading this article is going to think that the word "football" refers to anything else but football.

And, speaking of the wider world, look at the heading fields of this sports site: Sections on "Rugby League AFL Cricket Football Racing More" Also here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (headings of "Sport, Cycling, Football"). If the ABC calls it Football, why the hell is Wikipedia calling it anything else? We are required to use reliable sources, surely? Not just make stuff up? --Pete (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyring: We have on Wikipedia the naming convention WP:NCFA, as you know well seeing you wrote on the talk page there discussing which terminology should be correct. In that discussion, the consensus was clearly for "soccer" as is in the naming convention. If you believe anything has changed since the last discussion, you can bring it up for discussion on that page's talk page again. However, this article should not be changed until consensus is reached to change the convention. And even if consensus is changed, the terminology needs to be used correctly instead of as it was done in the last changes on this page which resulted in broken links and changing factual names of organisations (such as "Soccer Australia" - that was it's name at the point discussed and no change of terminology later on will retroactively change what the organisation was named). --SuperJew (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of all that old stuff. Don't treat me like an idiot. I'm more interested in your observations on the current facts. Consensus can change and the situation is that our reliable sources now call the game "football" and not "soccer". As editors, we are reliant on sources. --Pete (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So as I said, if you think there has been a change in the situation, bring it up for discussion on the talk page of WP:NCFA. Don't try to push it through on a specific page and don't do it in a brutish way which breaks links and retroactively changes historical names. --SuperJew (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless Rant

[edit]

The article goes on endlessly about all sorts of stuff which may be interesting to some, but probably not that many. If you want to know who won the thing, you are lost. I a sure it is hidden somewhere - and numerous people will point out that I am the idiot here. 09:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Oalexander (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox you have listed the current champions and the current premiers. Under the section "League championships" you have a list of all the winners, expanded in the article List of Australian soccer champions. --SuperJew (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Jamie Maclaren is now Leading Goalscorer in the league 143. Get it changed from Berisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.11.151 (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A-League_Men&oldid=1258986289"