Talk:Australia national soccer team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 ([1]). --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, 2nyte, and Eccy89: 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)

Opposition to use of "soccer"[edit]

  • Oppose. Well, chalk me up to the anti soccer team... also, isn't the voting carried out by to few people, to make it legitimate. it seams like a handful a people made the decision for everyone. VC19 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
If somehow all Australians were to participate, the outcome would be even more lopsided. Those who follow other types of football are hardly going to take any notice, and few of the non-sporting general populace would even know Soccer Australia changed its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although the way this is written appears as a double-negative and can easily be mis-construed as opposing the opposition to the use of the word but I understand what you mean. I am happy to see this debate take place regularly. The move from the common use of the word soccer to using the word football in Australia will take a generation. However this transition has been in train for many years now and is evidenced at a number of levels. The most obvious is with Federations, Associations and Clubs. The change can also be observed from many mainstream media outlets. Probably and most importantly is that the change in language can be heard amongst participants of the sport, particularly younger ones, and this may not be obvious to those not involved with the sport who oppose the change in language.

For those who aren't supportive of the change in language there are two references that are commonly used. The first is Wikipedia itself. It is unfortunate that the previous decisions to maintain the use of the word soccer for Wikipedia purposes, is in fact used by many as a reason to continue with this opposition. From this angle, Wikipedia is actually being regressive and is indeed a blocker to the language change that is occurring elsewhere. Secondly, the men's National Team's nickname, the Socceroos is also used regularly as an argument that the language shouldn't be changed. Let's look at it this way... if Mary Smith grows up with the nickname 'Smithy' and then gets married and changes her name to Mary Thompson, her good friends are still going to call her 'Smithy'. Many would like to see the nickname change (not to Footballroos, that sounds even worse) but this is obviously not a priority of the FFA. Nor is it reason for people to block the language change. The use of the word Socceroos is heavily outnumbered by the use of the word football by most amateur clubs across the country and as previously mentioned, much of the media.

I propose that whilst the language is in transition that the title of all football related articles could read as such... Australian National Football (Soccer) Team and that all further references within the articles themselves then contain only the word football/footballer, etc. This should ensure that there is clarity for those who are concerned that simply using the word football may cause confusion between the four sports in Australia that use the word. Umarghdunno (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"The media" is actually a small group of people. The decision to abruptly stop using soccer on a masthead after decades of common usage is probably down to one or two people per organisation, and I very much doubt vox pop plays any part in their actions. So again, this has the general population who wouldn't know or care that soccer changed its name, and the other football codes, who do care and naturally reject it. Leaving just the soccer community, who admittedly are bizarrely strident about claiming the word for themselves, and may win out eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The governing body is Football Federation Australia. It is the OFFICIAL name for the sport. those that project Sokkah on the sport are doing it out of a misguided attempt to keep the sport marginalised. Football is the official name and it is used not only in all official correspondence, but by a vast majority of newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects common usage in general, not just revisionist soccer fans. It's also unambiguous.
The middle of a pre-existing talk page of an article probably isn't the right place to have this discussion. Head to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and create a new section if you want to restart this more general conversation or add any new points. Macosal (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised this debate continues to be upheld by people who assume bad faith. The name is FFA, the Australian government states "Soccer is now formally known as 'football' in Australia, in line with international usage." The term is football, the governing body in every state in Australia is football Football federations in Australia the vast majority of people who play and actively participate in football competitions from grass roots to the national level participate at football clubs. I am sorry, but the term is clearly football. This is a regressive policy held by some in the Wikipedia community as a form of "point scoring game" for the fun of it, and nothing more even New Zealand calls it football on Wikipedia and they have an equally long tradition of calling Rugby among other things football -- (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


since when did our second colours become two-tone grey ? I've seen goalkeepers in such attire, but not the whole squad. Royal blue from the last time we competed competitively. Is there a link ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right - the most recent jersey is more dark blue than grey as of March this year. Macosal (talk) 05:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven't the time to trawl through the history to see when it was changed. The women in the Olympics were generally all yellow (slightly different as they had some olympic trimming), and not blue in any of the games. But also, not grey. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)