Talk:Australia national soccer 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 soccer 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.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.
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).

Requested moves[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per consensus. The clear weight of support is in favor of moving, and the common name argument is compelling; the fact that people in other countries would not call it by that name is basically an argument against WP:ENGVAR, and carries little weight. bd2412 T 22:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

– Since the result of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 4#Another RfC on naming, which concluded with a consensus for "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.", articles (and categories, etc.) relating to soccer in Australia have been steadily renamed from association football → soccer. These national team articles are the last ones to go. Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: a third option, to do away with "association" and name these articles simply "Australia national football team" has been suggested below. I personally do not endorse that proposal. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. There might also be some related categories to be moved as well. Not sure.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Most of the category names already use soccer, for whatever reason. (May or may not need to be moved, depending on the outcome of this move) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macosal (talkcontribs)
  • Comment I'm torn on this one. Despite a massive number of nasty accusations and criticisms made against me in those earlier discussions, I was always willing, at least as an indication of good faith (unnoticed by some) to leave the international team names in international form. So I have never argued for this one (and the rest of the list) to be changed in the past. I agree that the situation here is similar to that in the USA, and the world of soccer does survive with that country's team called a soccer team. My personal inclination is to change it all to "Soccer", but I don't want a big fight on this again. The earlier fights took me to ANI several times, never ending up with me being censured, although there were quite a few boomerangs. Unfortunately, the bigots on Wikipedia now point and say "Look at HiLo. He's always being brought to ANI. He MUST be bad!" HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Special cases. The name is not ambiguous (the reason for the changes elsewhere) and fits in (better) with broader conventions on Wikipedia. Also worth considering as the official name per WP:OFFICIAL - this is the national team run by Football Federation Australia (although does not state that the article should be called this, but confirms that it could). However, it is worth noting that the consistency argument (between articles on the sport in Australia) is a relevant consideration too. Macosal (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That post demands comment. The FFA is not the "Association Football Federation of Australia". "Association Football" is not a common name for the game anywhere. You may have done better using FIFA's name as your justification, but an awful lot of fans have no idea what FIFA stands for either. I am a sports nut. Been close to soccer all my life. But I hadn't heard of "Association Football" until I saw the term used on Wikipedia a few years ago. Non fans won't know what it is, and this encyclopaedia is meant to be for everyone. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I just meant the keeping of the word football, I suppose (or "association football", in its expanded form). If anything I guess that's an equally good argument for moving the page to "national football team". Redirects hopefully get around that issue nonetheless. It's probably not the strongest argument either way, WP:OFFICIAL not being applicable here other than to show what could be the name. Macosal (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Macosal. I know I said a fair bit of this to you on my talk page the other day, but bear with me I'm saying this mostly for the benefit of the closing admin. I think that "special cases" section applies only to the redirect, and does not specifically "association football" as the title for this article. Note that even if this is moved, I still think Australia national football team should redirect there. I also think it's worth noting that the consensus at RfC was to follow what's done with the US articles and they do use "soccer" for their national teams. I'm also unsure about whether the current title actually does fit better with the broader conventions, most articles use simply "football" for their national teams (the term being unambiguous in those countries) and "association football" seems almost as rare as "soccer". This all said, I completely see where you're coming from in your response to HiLo about this being a good argument for simply "football" and indeed if the consensus at this RM is against moving to soccer (seem unlikely, but we'll see) then I think moving to "football" would be a much better option than leaving it at "association football" – a term used by such a small amount of sources that I'm sure both people who refer to the sport as football or soccer are surprised when they land on this page. Jenks24 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I certainly found it educational to learn here that soccer is also called association football. But I cannot support the name football alone, simply because of its ambiguity in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to add that (Australia national football team) as a third option? I agree that it would seem to be a bit inconsistent with the consensus but maybe appropriate given the circumstances explained in the "special case" situation (which attempts to explain why "Australia national football team" is not overly ambiguous). Speaking of which: the reasons given in the "special case" section would seem to support the use of either football or association football being the name used in my view. That said, it was evidently written before the relatively newer consensus which is why this discrepancy has arisen, I think (it exists to justify why "football team" should go to this page and is apparently unaware that the title of this page may itself be disputed). Macosal (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not really feasible to make to fiddle with the RM templates and the nomination is not actually meant to be neutral (see WP:RM/CM), so I think if I add anything to the actual nom it would confuse the closing admin. However, I've left a note just below the nomination saying that it has been suggested that simply "football team" should be used. Let me know if you'd like me to tweak that note in any way. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, maybe a discussion to have some other time. (It does look like there would be different opinions in some cases if it were just football but irrelevant for the current discussion). Macosal (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "football" in that sentence? There are four sports played professionally in Australia that are all called football by their fans. HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I mean if the title could be just "national football team" as opposed to the current situation (I felt like that was clear in context but apologies if it was not). Macosal (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I accept your apology. I know your proposal is made in good faith. But I was genuinely confused by that sentence. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "soccer" per Australian English (consistency with the primary Australian English article on the topic Soccer in Australia). It isn't the national rugby team. -- (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. In Australia, "association" is not associated with soccer, even in soccer clubs. Usage is divided strictly between undisambiguated "football" and "soccer". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, most Australians would struggle to connect "association football" with the game of soccer. Obviously, "football" is even more ambiguous and should not be used alone in an Australian context. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Support. "Association football" is an acceptable natural disambiguation solution when other options aren't available, but that's not the case here. Obviously "football" isn't doable for most if any of these due to Australian rules football and other forms of football, which have an equal claim on the name. But as Soccer in Australia and the "Socceroos" attest, clearly the name "soccer" is well established and widely used in Australia, much more so than "association football". It's unambiguous, well established in the local variety of English, and a more natural NATURALDIS option than "association football".--Cúchullain t/c 14:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note, there is no national team which plays Australian Rules Football. Macosal (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Point taken, but by that token there's no "national association football team". I also see All-Australian team, Australia international rules football team, and several other things at Australia national football team (disambiguation), and articles like Football in Australia show just how ambiguous the term "football" is in Australia. The benefit to "soccer" is that it's both unambiguous and much more common than "association football".--Cúchullain t/c 15:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Macosal, we cannot depend on our readers knowing that there is no national team which plays Australian Rules Football. As a young kid I certainly didn't know. This is a global encyclopaedia. It's actually our job to tell them that. There are certainly national teams that play the two rugbies, often called "football" by their fans. And did you know that, firstly, there ARE national teams from many other countries that play Australian Rules Football (see Countries playing Australian rules football, and also this film), and secondly, the AFL does have a national team, that plays International Rules?
Yes I am aware of both those things. How do you intend to tell readers that there is no national team which plays Australian Rules Football? Will this move help with that? Macosal (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
No. It's a red herring. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – previous discussions seem to have reached (not without difficulties) a fairly solid consensus on 'soccer' (for Australia). Oculi (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are lot of citations above that Australian readers may find the word football confusing. It should be noted that this page (and any similar ones) are not exclusively read by people living in Australia. Wikipedia is a global site and the names should be based on the global common name.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I find that post confusing. Did you realise that the proposal is to change the name from "Association football" to "Soccer", not to "Football"? And I'm not sure what we would define as "the global common name". "Association football" isn't common anywhere. But I reckon any English speaker would know what "soccer" is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
My point is that those supporting the move keep citing that Australians may not recognise the sport as being called football, but the pages in question are not solely read by Australians and football is a more globally recognised term for the sport. I agree with you on the use of 'Association' but general name for such articles is simply 'national football team', with Association having been added based on a similar argument of Australians being the only people to read such articles, and therefore there is parity with Australian rules football, which for the vast majority of the world is an obscure minority sport. There is no Australian rules football team at the Olympics or Paraolympics yet the teams cited are entered in a sport referred to by the Olympics themselves as football so changes to those articles serve no purpose and is again based solely on the premise that only Australians will ever read those articles and that should take precedence over precision and the globally recognised common name. The same goes for most of the other pages listed in the RFC. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Which "globally recognised common name" are you arguing in favour of? "Football" or "Association football"? HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not difficult - the common name of the sport is football. Personally I believe it should be described simply as that as the overwhelming primary topic with other games that lay any claim to the term being disambiguated as such. However, the current situation is that at some point association was added (probably back in the days of WP being US centric) in the belief that other sports have enough parity that the sport shouldn't be considered primary topic. I think that's a poor judgement but it exists non the less. Changing to Soccer moves such titles even further away from their common name than they currently are so I oppose it. As I said, people keep saying that Australians may find the titles confusing, but would someone in Ghana? Or Argentina? Or Iceland? Or Spain? Or China? The Olympic team is a prime example as the Olympics don't include a sport called soccer and no Olympic soccer teams exist because you win medals for football - what someone in Australia might call a team doesn't change that. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
So which type of football is played at the Olympics? The only clue is to the right where it says Federation of Association Football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not the point - 'Soccer' isn't played at the Olympics so to move article names to that title is incorrect.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Football is the common name in some countries but certainly not in all, so it's not the common name at all, especially in the many countries where more than one code of football is played. --AussieLegend () 10:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It is the common name in he vast majority of the world, to describe it as 'some countries' is to attempt to massively downplay it's preponderance. There is absolutely no comparison in terms of global recognition between the sport of Football and the sport referred to as Football in Australia, and to claim there is enough parity to cause confusion on a world wide website is untrue. The idea of the primary topic being moved to be referred to by a nickname while the minority sport retains the word football is the wrong way to go.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Bladeboy, you have convinced me of one thing. You have completely misunderstood what this Requested move is about. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am fully aware of what this RM is about and the agenda it supports. I also understand patronising remarks. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether it is the common name "in he vast majority of the world"[sic] is debatable as there are no verifiable facts and figures that support the claims. What is relevant is that soccer is still a commonly recognisable name and it's far less ambiguous when referring to the sport played in Australia. In fact, from an encyclopaedic point of view, it's important for readers from areas where they are limited in the number of football codes available, to understand that football is not the common name in Australia. --AussieLegend () 11:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, some American editors persistently tell me that a majority of the world's English speakers live in the USA, where the name is clearly "soccer". (I think they're a bit wrong, but...) This is English Wikipedia, so maybe "soccer" should be our global name. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it really "important for readers from areas where they are limited in the number of football codes available, to understand that football is not the common name in Australia"[sic] to the extent that the article should be specifically titled that way? I haven't seen any guideline suggesting that... Certainly it is clear that the vast majority of the world call the sport football (in terms of numbers of clubs/national associations etc). I assume the argument directly above this from HiLo is facetious (certainly not constructive, accurate or feasible). In fact the fact that football is the common name in a global sense is an interesting point which has not been really considered in the discussion to date (as far as I've seen). Macosal (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. I hope you've noticed that I have not actually expressed an opinion on the Move proposal, but I cannot resist the temptation to tear apart poor argument from anybody. I think the global commonality of "football' IS in everyone's minds, but we cannot ignore the fact that the word is hopelessly ambiguous in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
But this isn't the Australian language Wikipedia and the pages in question are not solely read by Australians so that is an irellevant argument.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No, one can debate how much weight should be placed upon the fact that "football" is ambiguous in Australia, but it's stupid to claim it's irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Its no more relevant than the understanding of someone in Ghana or Argentina or Scotland as these pages are not 'owned by', or soley written for, Australians so an 'Australians only' argument isn't relevant.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
That's true. But I don't think anyone has made such an argument. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, one of the purposes of an encyclopaedia is to educate the reader, so educating the reader that Australians call soccer "soccer", by way of article titles, is encyclopaedic. This applies regardless of whether the reader is from Australia or some other country. WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles and there is a current consensus that "soccer" is the common name in Australia. --AussieLegend () 08:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The current consensus is that Football within Australia can be referred to as Soccer - but the very nature of the pages cited is that they are about Football played by Australians outside of Australia - these are national teams playing against other national sides who are are football teams, governed by football associations and playing in football tournaments for football trophies. Soccer comes nowehere in any of the activities they undertake. Also - of the pages listed there isn't even an Australian Football team that exists for the majority of the variations, so what are we trying to disambiguate against? There can be no confusion with the Australian Football Paralympic team because it doesn't - and very probably will never - exist.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You really should stop making absolute claims such as "Soccer comes nowehere in any of the activities they undertake". The Americans, who claim they provide around half the readers of English language Wikipedia, won't be pleased with you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no FIS, no FIS World Cup. So technically no teams under their juristiction plays soccer - that's just a nickname used by some people - the name of the sport is association football, generally shortened to football.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure the Americans don't regard "soccer" as a nickname. And it was the official name in Australia for many, many decades. So not a nickname here either. Just less preferred at an official level. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
And "Soccer" obviously won't confuse anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The only globally recognized name is "soccer"; "football" means different things in different places. "soccer" seems to be the form most used in the English-speaking world (ie. Australia, South Africa, Canada, USA, former US-held territories) while "football" is ambiguous in many places where it is also used for another sport besides association football (ie. Ireland, New Zealand) ; so if we really want to serve the world, we should either use "soccer" or "association football", and never "football" for all articles and categories, since we serve and English-language audience, and that audience recognizes soccer, and football is outright wrong in places (ie. US, Canada), or where it causes confusion over large portions of the readership,. -- (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
And FFA's website seems obsessed with the name "Socceroos". Oh well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per my other comments on this page. There is a standing consensus that "soccer" is the common name in Australia so it seems only logical to apply WP:COMMONNAME. --AussieLegend () 08:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Given that soccer is the predominate term for the sport in Australia and the team is known as the Socceroos, this move makes sense. Calidum Talk To Me 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Unambiguous and allows for consistency across Australian articles. Association football is the third of two good choices given its rare use in Australia. Football is rarely used by non-fans of the game and is ambiguous with several other sports commonly known as such. Hack (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - As this RM discussion has been specifically flagged at WP:Australia I have copied the same notification to WP:Football at the other primary project concerned with thiese pages. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Amazing that the Republic of Ireland national football team article has not been renamed by the zealots here Silent Billy (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Ange's nationality[edit]

I'm starting to wonder if I'm actually in the wrong. Is there a consensus on whether we should list him according to his birthplace or his international career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFlarz (talkcontribs) 03:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are correct - certainly for players, nationality is determined by which country they represent, and I'm fairly sure the same applies for coaches who have had rep careers as a player. Even if not, the fact that Ange has lived in Australia for 45+ years is also relevant. Definitely listing with Australia is right. Macosal (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Umarghdunno (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, Australian, on the basis of playing career. See also the Postecoglou's FIFA player page[1]. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, SMH, SBS. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-free use of File:Football Federation Australia logo.svg[edit]

The logo being used in the infobox (File:Football Federation Australia logo.svg) is non-free, but is lacking the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c for use in this article. Non-free images need to satisfy all 10 of the criteria listed in WP:NFCCP for each use of the image, otherwise they are not allowed to be used. If someone feels that a valid non-free use rationale can be written for this article, then please add it to the file's description, and then readd the image. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure most (if not all) of national football team pages use their Association's logo. There must be a standard reasoning for it. I don't have time to look into it right now, but if no one else does, I'll do it later. --SuperJew (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the logo should be used here per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI since the parent organization of the team is the Football Federation Australia and the national team is a child entity of the FFA. There are, however, differences in opinion as to how or even if UUI#17 applies in cases such as this. Regardless, the image is still non-free and, therefore, needs a non-free use rationale for each use, including this one. Whoever thinks the use of the image in this article complies with WP:NFCC just needs to add a nfur for the article per WP:NFCCE. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this from the team's official Twitter account could be used instead of the federation's logo? It seems specific enough for the men's team (the women's team uses this and thus avoids any problems with UUI#17. It could be uploaded as non-free and tagged with {{non-free use rationale logo}}. Other than the text, the only difference from the federation's logo is the green coloring inside the globe and the black background. The same logo is also being used on the team's official Facebook account. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Football Federation Australia logo.svg is not the official emblem of the Socceros. Τhis is the official emblem of the Socceros ([2]). --IM-yb (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding much sooner IM-yb. That does seem to be the official logo from the .pdf link you've provided. Is the black background OK? Do you know if there's a version of the the one used on the team's Facebook account with a lighter colored (preferably white) background? I can upload the one from the team's Facebook page and add the non-free use rationale if the black is OK. If the black is not OK, I can probably have it taken out by someone at WP:GL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
User Marchjuly, the logo is here in png format with official sources. Make, if you want, the necessary actions to upload the logo in enwiki. --IM-yb (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you IM-yb. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully that's fixed it. - J man708 (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you J man708. Looks OK to me. The only tweak I would suggest is to add either the team's Facebook page or the .pdf link provided above by IM-yb as the source website and the Wikipedia page as the direct link for the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think that was necessary. Meh, I'll do it now. - J man708 (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

U17 caps[edit]

@Macosal, Matilda Maniac, SuperJew, TinTin, Hack, Umarghdunno, and 2nyte: Hey guys, quick question. The U17 team has played some interesting matches which haven't been listed as youth caps. @Simione001: mentioned that the two recent Lafarge Foot Avenir international matches aren't caps. The 2014 Nike International Friendlies seem to be official youth caps. Was the pre-WC friendly/warm up game against Costa Rica a full youth cap? If so, then the relevant players need their matches upped by one on the WC squads page... Does anyone know what the deal is here? Cheers! - J man708 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I can think of no reason why it wouldn't be... Are we sure it wasnt already updated? Simione001 (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure. Armenakas played in all 3 Nike matches, both Lafarge Foot Avenir matches, the Costa Rica friendly and the Germany WC game and is listed as having played 4 matches. Brimmer played 9 prior to leaving for Chile and also played in the Costa Rica and Germany games and is now listed as having 10 caps. - J man708 (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The answer is technically "whatever the FFA recognise as caps are caps," so the Lafarge Foot Avenir matches could be caps, but unfortunately the FFA's coverage of such matches is bad enough that they barely even state results, let alone lineups or whether they consider them to be caps. Often there are giveaways (vs club side/not 45 min halves suggest not; official tournament games presumably are) but unfortunately a number will remain in a potentially uncomfortable middle-zone. My default is to consider matches of 45 min halves against other national sides "official" but I know that opinion isn't shared by some (e.g. above, I'm assuming on the grounds that there was one club side in the tournament?). Another good indicator could be seeing if opposing nations considered the games as "official" but that could be some task in itself. Macosal (talk) 10:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll check out the American pages on the Lafarge tourny. Thankfully they keep their pages a bit better or organised and not in French. I'd actually agree with you, Mac, but I'd also add in utilising the correct amount of substitutes for it to be a cap in my eyes. - J man708 (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)