Talk:Australia national association football team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Association football (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Australia national association football team is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australian football (soccer) task force.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Football (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australian football (soccer) task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the National teams task force (marked as Top-importance).
 


Article neutrality tag[edit]

Hi. I have added a neutral point of view tag on the article. The article title is neutral to gender, but the article itself is not. No attempts have been made to make the article text neutral to gender, and there was no consensus that the article was neutral to gender. Please do not remove the article neutrality tag again until this is resolved. Article neutrality is a seperate issue from the name, and until the article neutrally addresses the gender segreation, it should stay. As @2nyte: says, this article should comply with Australia national netball team naming, which is specific to gender because the rules of the game segregate based on gender. --LauraHale (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the tag as the article has a hatnote clearly stating that this is about the men's team and providing a link to the women's team article. I strongly suggest you read WP:FLOG and go and concentrate on being productive somewhere else or improving your Spanish. Number 57 18:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have re-added the tag as a no consensus close indicates the issue is not resolved. Suggest WP:FOOTY start their own fanblog where they can pretend women don't exist - here we don't have that luxury. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, as the tag is completely out of place. The name of the article and the content of the article is two different question. We have a hatnote that says "This article is about the men's team. For the women's team, see Australia women's national association football team." and that should suffice. When no-one is suggesting that "the neutrality of this article is disputed", we shouldn't have a tag that says so. Mentoz (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's an idiotic comment. It should be obvious even to the thickest, misogynist soccer fan that at least two people are disputing it. Two people is extremely different from "nobody". And you can make that three. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The closing admin agreed that this was an issue that affects more than just this article. It makes little sense to tag only this article. Yhere's been no agreement here about the problem, let alone the solution. Sionk (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's very different from saying "no-one is suggesting that the neutrality of this article is disputed". I have grave doubts about either the motives, intelligence or comprehension of such editors, and see no reason to respect their views on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
That's funny, HiLo; because your second statement works both ways. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
These antics are hugely disrespectful and disingenuous. Apart from anything else, it betrays a total lack of understanding of the purpose/function of the tag. There is currently no 'live' dispute taking place at the talk page of any other men's national team articles. If there were those articles would be tagged too! Yes: even if some, in their colossal arrogance, wanted to close their eyes and pretend no such dispute was talking place. There are multiple editors in good standing who have a genuine problem with this article's lack of NPOV (amongst other failings). We're not going anywhere. Please stop edit warring out the tags while discussion is ongoing. Thanks. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
As the closing admin said, "raising the issue for this article again within the next few months ventures firmly into WP:IDHT territory." A different/more creative solution will need to be found in the meantime. Sionk (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you point that out to the painfully vexatious editors who won't accept "soccer" as the name for the game in Australia? And no matter what the closing admin said, suggesting that nobody is disputing the neutrality of the article still demonstrates something a long way from rational thinking. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the dispute is resolved, does it? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
There's no consensus that there is or isn't a problem with the current situation. Not ideal but true. Unless something new is being done to resolve the dispute (other than endlessly rehashing the same old arguments here) I can't see the benefit or practical purpose of a neutrality tag. Sionk (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, the neutrality of the article IS disputed. Do you want to hide that fact, or just make it go away by lying about it, like Mentoz? HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry for the late reply, HiLo48, but my point was to try to say that no-one is saying that the the neutrality of the content of the article is disputed while a some editors feel that the neutrality of the title is disputed. The way I see it, the neutrality-tag is for content, and unless the editor(s) who adds the tag to the article can tell the rest of us how we can fix the neutrality-issues we shouldn't have that tag. And if you want one combined article for both the men's and the women's team, you should start a merger discussion, not add a neutraliy-tag. Mentoz (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Gee it's difficult discussing stuff with hard core soccer fans. It seems that if I disagree on one thing, all sorts of assumptions are made about other things I might think. An absence of reading what I've explicitly posted seems common too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the articles content, it is only the title that users have issues with, and the title is clarified with the hatnote. There should no longer be an issue, though if users do have issues then they can take it to a larger venue if they so chose.--2nyte (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Piss off. Your blatant deflection tactic is impractical and boring. Have the guts to discuss the issue here. To see a hatnote a reader has to open an article. A more accurate title would avoid that. Would it not be better if readers never mistakenly opened the wrong article? HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope we can keep this discussion WP:CIVIL. I totally agree with you that we should help the readers reach the article they are looking for, and when the article about the men's team has 12 times as many page-views as the women's team, creating a disambiguation-page would not help the majority of our readers because they would first have to enter the dab-page before finding what they are looking for. Mentoz (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There are far worse ways of being uncivil than me using a word you apparently don't like. Repeatedly and gutlessly avoiding discussion by proposing an impractical diversion strategy, as 2nyte is doing, is one of them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If you feel that way, you should try to ignore the comments from 2nyte, and instead try to explain the rest of us what needs to be done with the content of the men's team's article to solve the neutrality issues. Mentoz (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yawn. I sometimes get really sick of debating with hard core soccer fans. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Hi, I noticed the AN/I report. I will be reading this (rather lengthy) talk page but meantime can anybody succinctly explain the dispute(s) to me? While we're discussing, can people please refrain from reverting/tagging/untagging etc on the article itself? --John (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  • The major bone of contention is twofold; should this particular article contain some reference to the male gender in the title or not, and should an article located at this title be a DAB or a mixture of both team's genders? There is also the fairly perennial "association football" vs "soccer" debate as well, as well as a disputed POV tag. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Fwiw, my understanding of what's gone on here (alas, not so admirably succinct as the preceding):
  1. Some people objected to an article whose title says it's the national team, while the content says it's only going to cover the men's team, for the women's team go to another article whose title specifies "women's".
  2. A proposal was made to fix this perceived neutrality problem by renaming this article to have a name that specifies "men's", parallel to the other article whose name specifies "women's".
  3. Some people objected to the move on the grounds of PRIMARYTOPIC. Proponents said PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply to a long title that isn't the most commonly used name for the thing. Some opponents, invoking PRIMARYTOPIC, further maintained that any sexism in the title passively reflects existing sexism in the culture, while some proponents maintained that the article actively promotes sexism.
  4. The neutrality issue got mentioned in the move discussions, where some people maintained the hatnote was sufficient while others claimed the hatnote doesn't help with the sexism problem. It was suggested that if the article doesn't get moved, the other way to fix the neutrality problem would be to cover both the men's and women's teams in this article.
  5. The move was proposed and discussed twice, with both discussions closed as "no consensus". Afaics, no formal discussion has taken place regarding the neutrality problem specifically, which would presumably be the basis on which one would claim that the closure of the move proposals does not bear on the neutrality issue.
Anyway, that's my understanding of about how things have gone. To be clear, I'm one of those who wrote and voted in favor of the move, suggested PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply, and still maintain that the article in its current form is offensively sexist; so, my attempt to neutrally summarize things is made while holding those positions. --Pi zero (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Coming from a similar personal position to Pi zero, I feel it's important to also mention that some editors clearly opposed to the change are using the argument that we can't change this article alone because it would be a precedent that would also apply to "tens of thousands" of articles worldwide. They say it can only change if it's first taken to some global forum. That generates heat in discussion, because it's effectively saying "We won't discuss it here.", when what's really happening is that they are opposing the proposal. Another editor clearly opposed to the change declared "When no-one is suggesting that the neutrality of this article is disputed, we shouldn't have a tag that says so." This was said in the middle of a thread centred around the fact that the neutrality of this article IS disputed. It was a dumb comment, and so also generated more heat than light, with no apology or retraction from the person who made that comment. So we have some very poor and inflammatory discussion techniques being used by the opponents of change. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to explain my "dumb" comment a little in the thread above. Mentoz (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is actually quite simple; users who have had no involvement in the article came and claimed there was a NPOV issue and campaigned heavily for a page move to Australia men's national association football team. During this first move discussion I added a hatnote (which appears in many other national team articles) and suggested the topic be taken to a larger venue due to the scope of the discussion, covering many thousands of articles (football and other). Both my suggestion and my addition of the hatnote were rejected by those who were campaigned for the move.
Again, this is quite simple; the hatnote clarifies the gender issue and if those who want to remove "sexism" from the title are acting in good faith, then they should take the topic to a larger venue as was advised in both closed discussions.--2nyte (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
And there's a classical inflammatory approach. Mentioning "users who have had no involvement in the article" implies ownership by a few, a few who, not surprisingly, don't want change, because they made the article the way it is. New opinions will only come from newcomers. Suggesting that their opinions don't count is very bad faith, and insulting, and confrontational, and... HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, determination is something I applaud; and you HiLo48, as well as LauraHale are determined to change this article title. I understand that opposition is motivating you to strive on, but please do so at a larger venue. I'm not saying don't change this article title, I'm just saying take the discussion to a larger venue first. What will you do if you if this article title is change? Will you them move to Australia national under-20 association football team, Japan national football team, Great Britain Olympic football team, Australia national rugby union team or India national cricket team? All those article have sexist NPOV titles and there are thousands more. Why no just discuss their change all at once?--2nyte (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That's a pure diversionary tactic. It suggests that you don't have a decent argument against the proposal. Your position is clear in one sense. You won't discuss the topic, and don't want anyone else to. Not helpful. But clear. Can you see how yours is actually a very confrontational position? HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hardly confrontational. Just plain wrong. An RFC was recommended by the Dispute Resolution process. RFC's are designed exactly to get new users involved. And so they came. It was hardly heavy one-sided campaigning either, there were many new'uns who argued against the proposal. Sionk (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The ANI summary puts the current situation fairly succinctly, though the accusations of sexism and mysogyny have largely disappeared. Actually there have been three lengthy discussions about these issues, all of which have failed to find agreement for an article name change (I raised the first name change dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where the arguments were gone through again). Sionk (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I opposed the move, but I agree with Pi zero's summary of what's been going on here. Mentoz (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of stirring up a wasp's nest, why hasn't the discussion been taken to a wider audience? If this article title is undesirable because it's sexist, why not also (for instance) Singapore national football team? As it stands at the moment there seems to be a hodgepodge of various inconsistent naming standards (see, for instance, Canada men's national soccer team), and I think this is a situation that could use some consistency. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

It has, several times. The tactic from the obstructionists is to say wider proposals are too general, and specific proposals too narrow. They appear desperate to "kick it into the long grass", as it were. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Which wider audience? I can't think of one where an objective discussion would occur. Other changes around the world that have recognised women as equal members of society didn't happen at a global level. They began at grassroots level, with change happening bit by bit. I think that those demanding the wider audience approach know that it wouldn't succeed there all at once. That's why they want that approach to be taken. If it's right that Australian soccer articles should be named in an equal way, men's and women's, it's right to change it now, not wait to ask the rest of the world about it. Articles for other teams can be changed as and when those involved with them think it's appropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, HiLo48. Theorise what we would do. What specific articles would we change to gender specific titles, and would categories also be gender specific like the US team?--2nyte (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
As I've mentioned several times already on this page and elsewhere, discussing with hard core soccer fans has it's interesting moments. Which article(s), you ask? This one! Start with this one. Are you really that thick? HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • HiLo, did you seriously just make that ridiculous statement? The history of feminism is entirely irrelevant to this particular dispute, particularly as historically, women were prohibited from having any say; that is obviously not the case here, and the people who want the name change have been invited, asked, begged even, to go to a higher level, which didn't happen in the past either. Terrible analogy, particularly as there's no oppression here, just a dispute over naming. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I did seriously make that well thought out statement. Have you finished with the unthinking, conservative, knee jerk reaction yet? HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started a formal RfC here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#RfC: How should articles on national sports teams handle gendered teams? Let's see if an RfC causes more heat than light. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

  • There's a carefully guarded distinction between "football" and "women's football" within the culture of most countries where soccer is is the main sport for men. Australian soccer does not have the same hegemonic masculinity attached because historically it has been seen as a game for "Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters", while all the manly men supposedly played the other codes. So it's as good a place as any to start. The issue isn't going to go away as women's football increases in stature all the time: Sepp Blatter said "the future of football is feminine" nearly 20 years ago. Clearly all this is invisible to some, who perhaps don't realise they are in the sort of reactionary vanguard. Equally to those outside it seems like an unwelcome intrusion from the distant past and a burning source of shame to Wikipedia in the present. Because, well, in the 21st century we wouldn't have singers and women's singers, authors and women's authors, lawyers and women's lawyers, would we? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

First goals in world cup[edit]

OK, let's try to move this forward. Paragraph five of "golden generation":

Their goals made history, being the first ever scored by Australia in a World Cup

That might come as news to Angela Iannotta. Perhaps the 1995 FIFA Women's World Cup never happened?

Paragraph four:

Although their ranking vastly improved in subsequent months after a series of exhibition matches against high profile teams, including a 3–1 win against Liechtenstein

With all due respect to Liechtenstein, "high profile"? Are you sure? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Haha, good point ;) Sionk (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, LOL. That rubbish sentence about Liechtenstein should just disappear. It's simply very poor peacock language. As for "first goals", I'd change "Australia" to "the Australian men's team (the higher ranked women's team had already scored goals)". HiLo48 (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't see why Clavdia didn't just make the changes, for the very obvious reasons outlined. The Leichtenstein stat is particularly silly. Sionk (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The two changes made ([1] [2]) are quite unnecessary. There is no clarification needed, the article only refers to the men's national team. In the first edit: "dubbed the "golden generation" in the history of the Australia national team" - the Australia national team - referring to one specific team, which cannot be confused with the women's or youth teams. In the second edit: "the first ever scored by Australia in a World Cup" - again the article makes a point of specifying that "Australia" in that context refers to the men's national team, and "World Cup" refers to the FIFA World Cup competition, not the women's or youth tournaments. I think these are unnecessary additions. Regarding the third paragraph of Early years, I've been meaning to clean that up as it doesn't add anything to the article besides 'we won some games/we lost some games' - which all team do.--2nyte (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the news article makes it clear, but the Wikipedia article doesn't. There's no harm in correcting, or rather clarifying the claim. After all this is an encyclopedia article which will be referred to and quoted by many people. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC refers to article names, not necessarily article content. Sionk (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes 2nyte, in your mind the changes may be unnecessary (some would disagree) but they do no harm. I don't understand your ongoing opposition to a perspective that would do no harm, would make everything more precise, and make several editors and probably a lot of our readers happier. HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Sionk, both are unnecessary additions, there is no reason to 'clarify', and it is in no way "correcting" the sentences. Both sentences are in context to the rest of the article, so specifying "mens football team" (here) is redundant, and the use of "Australia national team" (here) is acceptable and preferred over "Socceroos" in that context.--2nyte (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be your own personal opinion. The article you refer to, for example, calls the team the Socceroos. I don't understand your opposition to these changes, whcih I presumed would be helpful and fairly non-controversial. Sionk (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Sionk, the article I am referring to is Australia national association football team and not any reference. This article (Australia national association football team) refers to the men's team as "the team", "the national team" and "Australia" - there is no need to to specify "men's" in any instance, it is redundant, unnecessary at the least. And I purposely wrote the article not to include "Socceroos" in the main content. I just don't see how these changes are necessary, I find them redundant as I previously said.--2nyte (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'll be repeating myself if I say WP:PRIMARYTOPIC governs how articles are named, not how the content is written. Your opposition to quite minor changes to the article seems to be POINT-y at best. Bye for now! Sionk (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Sionk, why do these two specific edits need to be made? They are both in context to the rest of the article.--2nyte (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
See the initial explanation from Clavdia chauchat in this section and my comments in the edit history. Claims that a team "made history" need to be clearly explained. Sionk (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
2nyte, your obsession with avoiding "Socceroos" as part of your broader hatred of the word "soccer" is looking silly. Have a look at the relevant page on the FFA's webiste. It shows that the FFA fully endorses and promotes the name "Socceroos". You may need to ease your hatred, or tell the FFA they've got it wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems Clavdia was wise to raise these points here rather than just making the changes. Anything that produces this much heat is best handled with a potholder. --Pi zero (talk) 06:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that's a helpful post. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
2nyte has done good work on this article but his ownership issues seem to be a factor in the various other problems. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Sionk, you said "Claims that a team "made history" need to be clearly explained" - there are no claims that "a team made history", it was specified that "the Australia national team" [3], the team, not a team; as I said previously, this is in context with the rest of the articles direct reference to the men's national team. In the other edit "Their goals [Cahill's and Aloisi's] made history, being the first ever scored by Australia in a World Cup" [4] - "Australia" is used 20+ times to refer to the men's national team (and only the men's national team), as is "World Cup" used in the article to refer specifically to the FIFA World Cup and not the women's or youth equivalent. These two sentences are in context, the edits are redundant, you are repeating information readers already know from reading the article, or even that specific section of the article.--2nyte (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@2nyte:, While you make the claim that the article is exclusively about the men's team, this is actually in dispute. Multiple people have explained this to you. Any claims about Australia or the World Cup need to be gendered because of this dispute. We can solve this easily by moving forward with your proposal to disambiguate the article. --LauraHale (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • If you're being this pedantic about "the first Australian player to score a goal in a world cup", the first goals would be far more likely to have come in the 1954 Rugby League World Cup (since that is the terminology used in Rugby League) than in either gender of football. No one is proposing that, however... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@LauraHale: Please don't use this thread to continue your arguments about the article title. This isn't what this is about. That will only inflame the discussion and send it off on a tangent. I've nothing further to add about the recent small changes that have been made to the article. Several editors have explained why a few things need clarification. If 2nyte is not going to add anything new I think the discussion is dead. Sionk (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Sionk, this threat was started specifically to continue the gender arguments. The OP (Clavdia chauchat), along with HiLo48 and LauraHale are the one pushing for the gender specific change. They are the one who argue the pov tag should remain. Read the opening paragraphs and read the hatnote, "This article is about the men's team", there is no need to "clarify" what is already in context, what is already clarified. The npov tag should be removed and the 2 edits should be reverted. This is just going too far.--2nyte (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The thread starts with the words "OK, let's try to move this forward". The thread isn't about the article name change, is it?! If you and LauraHale want to make this into a general discussion about the POV tag then that is taking things backwards, exploding things to a general argument that noone here will ever agree on. Sionk (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Sionk, I think this was "taking things backwards". As for you need to "clarify", I think Lukeno94 said it best above. Do you think "Australia is a four-time OFC champion and AFC National Team of the Year for 2006" needs clarification to "Australia men's team" or "Australia men's national association football team"?--2nyte (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest clue what point you're making now. I didn't make that comment and Lukeno94 seems to be agreeing that the claim needs clarifying. Case dismissed m'lud. Sionk (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
2nyte, don't be so defensive about changes to 'your' article. Finding consensus is all about finding compromise and (hopefully) incremental improvement. Yes, the article name change was derailed by WP:FOOTY (and a closing admin who doesn't grasp WP:NOTVOTE) but that doesn't mean that the problems all go away. We've all got a collective responsibility to hammer things out here. If these two obvious corrections provoke such a reactionary "head in the sand" response – I'm sorry – but I think you might find things even more difficult from here on. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Clavdia chauchat, you just proved my point exactly in that the two edits were made in response to not moving the article to a gender specific title. Yet the hatnote clarifies that the article is about the men's team, and no one is going to read "Their goals made history, being the first ever scored by Australia in a World Cup" without knowing its context within the whole article.--2nyte (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, now it is beyond any doubt, which can only be a good thing for a claim of making history. Sionk (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Gender specific article title[edit]

As the topic continues to be a major issue here I thought I would clarify it.

I would think that there are two ways we can come to decide if an article (like this one) needs a gender specific article title. The first would be to set a standard for all articles, which would allow all articles with gender specific content to move to a gender specific title. The second way would be to go case-by-case through all the articles and identify if one gender is Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to the other, this would leave one article with a gender specific title and the other (PRIMARYTOPIC article) without one and with a hatnote explaining.

Specifically on this article, if we are to go case-by-case then this article is the PRIMARYTOPIC article compared to the women's team article, based on general coverage within the Australian media, and hits on the wikipedia articles (men's hits in the last 90 days: 94,592 [5], women's hits in the last 90 days: 6,956 [6]).--2nyte (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Why start this all again when there have been three attempts to resolve this and all have failed? This is bordering on disruption! Sionk (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sionk, this is an ongoing problem, one I wish to resolve. I see no reason for the npov tag or any 'gender specific' additions; this is an obvious response to the failed moved to a gender specific title. I am simply stating that this article alone cannot move, as there is no reason for it to specifically do so. If you have ethical reasons to move the article then go campaign to move all gender specific sport articles, make that into wiki policy. But if you don't want to do that then please realise that this article explains to readers that it is focused on the men's team; there is no reason to repeat that in every sentence or even state we are somehow biased with the npov tag.--2nyte (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Talk:Australia_national_association_football_team#Suggested_move_discussion_#2 was closed with the instruction not to raise the subject again here in the next few months. How is raising the same subject two weeks later going to resolve anything? You don't need to lecture me about the article title, I opposed the move too. Sionk (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
That was a faulty close, based on votes rather than quality of argument. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No, it wasn't; it was only a "faulty close" because you didn't get the result you wanted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Try discussing the evidence rather than me. The closure was based on votes. That is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The closure was based on the fact there was no consensus. That's what it stated. There was no consensus in terms of validity of arguments, or in terms of numbers. WP:DROPTHESTICK should apply here, but you're long past that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, and you seem to want to make this personal. That's sad. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)