Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Australian rules football / Association football / Rugby / Sports (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon Naming conventions (Football in Australia) 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the Australian football (soccer) task force.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Rugby league.

Moving forward[edit]

While I cannot say that I am at all pleased with what has just happened, perhaps it gives us a chance to make some progress. The way the discussion was going I felt that we were getting a consensus for "football (soccer)" rather than "Football" (my preference) or "soccer", the current but dated term.

I'd like to see if we can gauge consensus on this, perhaps by opening up an RfC.

One proviso, before any !vote is concluded, HiLo should have a chance to !vote. Being excluded from wikiprocess on a subject close to one's heart is galling. --Pete (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Largely agree. Although I won't pretend I agree with HiLo on some of the issues being discussed here, his blocking should not be used as an excuse to claim a consensus in his absence. Definitely a time to seek further opinions in one way or another (whether by RfC, waiting to see if anyone else contributes in the near future or by posting to relevant WikiProjects etc) before determining any consensus. Macosal (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the issue in Australia is similar to the international situation, where both terms are used, some more than others in different parts of the world. As a result, the article about the sport in general is Association football. While I would prefer Football (soccer) I think we should be consistent. It's been a long time since I involved myself in these discussions (I didn't even see the discussion/consensus which lead to the current naming) but my original proposal was this one: - it is (in my belief) the fairest proposal. Note that at the time the main (international) article was at Football (soccer). -- Chuq (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Just to be clear, are you saying we should be consistent and call everything "association football" (in line with that page's name) or consistent in how we refer to articles in an Australian context? WP:ENGVAR also recommends consistency where possible. I agree with your suggestion as linked. Macosal (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I never intended to exclude HiLo48 from any discussions or !vote; various personal comments were simply out of line. I agree that any resolution should wait for HiLo48 to return and have a say. That said, I hope there can be a fruitful discussion in the meantime.

Regarding any proposals, please be clear about what is being proposed. For example, is it suggested to use "football (soccer)" on the first instance within each article, and "football" (or "soccer") thereafter? What about article and category titles? Personally, I would rather avoid overuse of "football (soccer)" which is clunky phrasing, especially if used repeatedly. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 11:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I believe further discussion is required to work out the best options that are available. Obviously the first choice one has to make is between keeping things the way they are only using the term soccer, or incorporating football back in. There are a number of options available if we go down the football route such as using "football (soccer)" I am happy to compromise with this but I also agree that it shouldn't be overused and could perhaps be used at the beginning only. Another option is to use association football at the beginning and then refer to it as football from then on. Third option that comes to mind is having a short message at the top of the page that explains that Football refers to Association football/soccer, there would then be no need to use any term other than football in that article. I am of the opinion that given that no other sport is referred to as football on wikipedia (as far as I can see) people would quickly learn that football means association football/soccer however as I said earlier I am willing to compromise on anything that is reasonable.
Now the reason I started this discussion was because I felt that soccer was an inappropriate term in certain contexts such as "Australia national soccer team" I believe this in particular should be brought back in to line with every other country that is described as "X national football team" with the obvious exception of the US which is a different situation than we have here (but I won't go in to this). With this in mind another option would be whether or not we use the same term across all articles or deciding what is appropriate for each type of article. I hope others will discuss what they feel good options would be.Lajamibr (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"...given that no other sport is referred to as football on wikipedia..." This is clearly incorrect. See football for a discussion on the many codes referred to as "football" depending on context. I don't think a hatnote explaining what "football" is would be helpful, as it would need to be evident from the context of the article. Bear in mind that there will be some articles that refer to multiple codes (e.g., Sport in Australia refers to Australian rules, rugby league and soccer, all of which are called "football"). โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 13:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me clarify, what I meant was that from what I have seen no other sport is referred to as Football rather than say Rugby Union, for example, on a consistent basis and I could quite possibly be wrong. I'm talking about on Wikipedia articles not common usage. Like I said these are just ideas for discussion. The reason I suggested a hatnote is that there would then be no need to use "football (soccer)" and I do believe in the vast majority of articles it would be self evident. It would simply be for those that would apparently be confused. May not be a good idea I don't know. What do you believe the best solution would be Lajamibr (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Having looked into it more some of my statements might not be true such as saying Rugby Union is not often referred to as only Football on Wikipedia. In fact on the article Rugby union uses the word football frequently. Just acknowledging my mistake Lajamibr (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Rugby football can also refer to Rugby league, as you can see from Rugby Football League, and the fact it is also known as Rugby league football. Back to the union point, Leicester Tigers are technically Leicester Football Club. That's not even getting into the American Football debate, or any of the others. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I dare say that any number of articles about Australian rules football leagues, clubs and players will use "football" (and "footballer") with abandon. It should usually be clear from the context, but there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It might be worth remembering that some players change codes during their careers (e.g., Sav Rocca from Australian rules to American football, Benji Marshall from rugby union to rugby league, Israel Folau from rugby league to Australian rules to rugby union), so the plain use of "football" is liable to confusion even for readers with a vague sense of the subject (although I can't think of any examples of converts to or from soccer). โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 15:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Jesus is a common name in much of the world, and yet when we refer to Jesus, we generally know who we are talking about, whether the Islamic prophet or some particular living person. So to with Football - in most cases the context will make it clear which code is being referred to or whether it is a generic term for all. I've been bold and edited the project page to reflect what I see as consensus here. I trust that common sense among editors will prevail. HiLo's established position noted, but I wasn't seeing any other strong push for "soccer", and his statements weren't swaying others in discussion. --Pete (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Sroc, I agree in principle that if "football (soccer)" was being repeated everywhere then it could get a bit messy/clumsy. It is certainly worth noting, however, that it is very rare for articles to mention the sport multiple times. Even clubs show limited usage of the name (Adelaide United FC, Brisbane Roar FC, Sydney FC etc, for example, mention it once) so this may be less of an issue than it seems. In other (rare) scenarios I think one or the other should be ok. Also I think the wording should be "soccer" or "association football (soccer)" on articles which relate to multiple codes as the use of "football" in such situations does seem more redundant/ambiguous (although it could sometimes there be noted that the official name of the sport is football). Macosal (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Pete: Having said "One proviso, before any !vote is concluded, HiLo should have a chance to !vote. Being excluded from wikiprocess on a subject close to one's heart is galling" yesterday, why did you contradict yourself by implementing your proposed change while the conversation was not yet concluded and HiLo48 had not had a chance to participate? โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 03:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Well spotted. I figured even without HiLo, we had a consensus in discussion and we could save a LOT of time and effort better spent on more productive activities by simply implementing what had already been achieved without going through DR. From what I can see there are no good and well-sourced arguments for soccer. But hey, if we want to have a long trawl through wikiprocess to get to the same result, I'll go along with that. --Pete (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜In any case, I tend to agree with HiLo48 that "soccer" is a simpler term, certainly compared with the garish "football (soccer)" or "association football (soccer)". If the sources show usage in the Australian population is fairly evenly mixed, then the simpler "soccer" ought to be preferred as a more concise and readily understood term. Only if and when "football" becomes a clearly more well recognised name for the sport than "soccer" in the general population (not just in official sources and club names) should Wikipedia follow suit. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 03:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "football (soccer)" (used once per article) that garish? The issue which is causing the regular debates is touched on in your second sentence - how will it be evident when football is "clearly more well recognised"? Certainly it is regularly already used by the majority of reliable sources, but the concept seems vague/near impossible to quantify. Macosal (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that because a term is simpler it is therefore appropriate. It is obvious that football is at the very least a common name used by many in Australia to refer to association football and should not be excluded from Wikipedia. In other cases Association football has been deemed appropriate in regards to countries that also don't use this name commonly either. I don't agree with Petes change where he has inserted football (soccer) as the name for association football in that list. I personally believe in that context Association football is most appropriate as it is the full name of the sport whether its commonly used or not. Australian Rules Football is also not commonly used but it is the name given in that list. I believe many articles on other sports use 'official' names and thereafter refer to the sport using a more common name such as football. I agree that there is probably not a one size fits all solution here which is part of why I was against the previous decision to only use soccer. It's more complicated than simply saying it must be this word or that word used in all cases as this does not reflect the reality of usage. I would say in some cases "Association football commonly referred to as Football or Soccer..." is appropriate at the beginning with football being used through the rest of the article and in other cases it wouldnt make sense as an introduction Lajamibr (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Also sroc can we not get into which term is more common in Australia I believe this has been discussed at length and the conclusion was reached that we can't prove which is most commonly used. Nobody is arguing that Soccer is recognised as only being one particular sport but that doesnt mean it should be the blanket term for the sport. I apologise if this is not what you meant Lajamibr (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
"Association football is most appropriate as it is the full name of the sport whether its commonly used or not." I doubt that "association football" is commonly used in Australia, much less so than "soccer", and I suspect "soccer" is easily the more well recognised term, which is a perfect reason to prefer that term. I haven't seen the evidence to provide an informed view on this, however. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 06:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I specifically state that association football is not a common name but that hasn't stopped it being used in many other cases on Wikipedia and being deemed more appropriate. I am well aware that soccer would be more commonly used thats why I suggested it would be "Association football commonly referred to as Football or Soccer..." at the start, it gives the proper name of the sport as well as giving the common names. Lajamibr (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused. I thought we were talking about the appropriate term for general usage in Australian articles. "Association football commonly referred to as football or soccer..." might be OK for an article specifically about the sport in Australia, but it's a mouthful when talking about "Striker McSomebody, a player in association football, commonly referred to as football or soccer,...". โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thats exactly what I was saying, its appropriate for particular articles but not for others hence why I believe there should not be a blanket term. It's simply what I believe should be used for some articles such as "Soccer in Australia" which I believe should be "Association football in Australia" with that sentence at the start. I'm just demonstrating that it needs more discussion and there should be multiple solutions found not just one blanket term. Lajamibr (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
That actually might be a much better way to think about this, replacing abstract with practical thinking. I can think of three real/common types of article where this comes up:
  • Players: A single sentence to open the article ("x is an Australian international/professional ____ for [club] in [league]"). For mine, this is a classic case to use "football (soccer)" - only used once and entirely unambiguous.
  • Clubs: Usually also a single word early in the article, very occasionally a further mention/two later on. Here I would suggest a solution relating to the club name. A number of clubs use the suffixes SC or FC. SC is much more common in areas such as Perth/Victoria, where there is greater potential for ambiguity. I would suggest that for "FC" clubs, "football (soccer)" is used, whilst for "SC" clubs, "soccer (football)" or just "soccer" is used. This is both easy to apply, creates consistency and unambiguous.
  • Articles about a number of sports/sport in general: Here I would suggest the use of "soccer" with a note of its alternative names (as Lajamibr suggests).
What do people think of this? Macosal (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This current thing began in mid-November with editors coming in cold and warring over the unadorned use of "soccer" to describe the sport know known as Football. I think that we are going to see more of this - Football is played by more Australians than any other code, and we are naturally going to see these people want to correct an outmoded and deprecated term. We can construct a careful naming model for various situations as above, but any unadorned use of soccer is gong to be challenged: it's not the official name in government or organising bodies, it's not the name used by the great many who play or follow the sport, and it is not the name used by the national media. "Soccer" is a term used by those with no involvement with the sport. If Wikipedia continues to use it, then we are going to find ourselves increasingly out of touch with those who come to us for information. --Pete (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
"a clearly more well recognised name for the sport than "soccer" in the general population (not just in official sources and club names)". How do we quantify this? Personal opinion? A poll of the sports-crazed Wikipedia editors? An opinion piece in The Guardian? We have official sources, media usage, and the sport itself. And if we follow the reliable sources, the term is going to have to be "Football" without any qualifier. --Pete (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I thought ya'll had a Rfc on this topic & decided to stick with soccer. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but some here didn't like it. - Nick Thorne talk 21:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't those who "didn't like it", risk being seen as disruptive, via their filibustering? GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
You would think so, but it would seem that at least part of their aim was to provoke a particular reaction from an editor who regrettably made the desired response and got blocked by what appears to be a trigger happy admin. I find it hard not to consider this to be poking the bear. These people will never accept anything except their preferred option, exhibit classic confirmation bias and simply repeat the same arguments ad nauseum, probably hoping to wear down their opponents by attrition. The currently established consensus included the determination that this issue should not be revisited until at least next August. Like it or not everyone should recognise that it well past time to drop the stick and abide by the decision that has already been made. - Nick Thorne talk 00:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, the naming of this whole section "Moving forward" (which is actually a sub-section of the entire discussion), comes across as rude towards the editor-in-question who's been blocked for a month. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:AGF. The ideas I myself have put forward were certainly not discussed in the RfC which occurred several months ago. In addition, I don't think any of the editors involved here other than HiLo and Nick were actually party to that discussion. Macosal (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Nick, nobody was aiming to get HiLo banned he did that entirely on his own by becoming hostile, attacking other editors, and then to top it off he removed the complaint about him at An/I with another hostile edit summary, not sure how other editors can be blamed for his actions. By refusing to participate in this discussion from the beginning you have shot yourself in the foot and thinly veiled attacks on editors don't help either. And as for being called disruptive because we didn't like the previous decision, how can we be disruptive when we weren't involved in it. New editors are providing new arguments and new evidence while the other side is sitting there arrogantly refusing to back up there own arguments or even explain what is flawed about our argument. Nick has done more than others and I appreciate that but still very little. There is no evidence presented whatsoever to support the use of the term soccer, literally zero and we are supposed to just accept this decision? thats not how this works. Please do not respond with "this was all covered in previous discussions there is nothing new here" because thats an outright lie, my argument that neither side can prove which is a more common usage in this country was not presented before, evidence proving that football is at least A common usage was not presented before. You have repeatedly been asked to provide evidence for your side of the argument and not a single editor has done so. Lajamibr (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Can I also ask everyone if there is any need to wait for HiLo's ban to end before reaching a resolution. We are well aware of his stance on the matter and I'm happy to have his vote counted towards using soccer in his absence and he has had ample time to provide his arguments and evidence. I just think if we are ready to reach a resolution before a months time is there any real reason not to just count HiLo's vote as one for using "soccer". If I'm missing something let me know. Lajamibr (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I am absolutely opposed to usurping the currently agreed consensus within less than half the time period agreed in that consensus before further consideration of the matter. That you were not part of that RFC is entirely beside the point. This issue has been a festering sore for a very long time and I do not see how picking the scabs now serves any useful process. We have processes here for a purpose and the deferment of further consideration of this subject until August next year was made for a good reason. I have been following this debate for several years, not just during the last RFC. Maybe you think your arguments have not been made before, well sorry, you are just plain wrong on that point (don't bother asking for diffs, as I have no intention of trawling through dozens of pages of text walls to find them). The last RFC was conducted on a limited and closely moderated basis with very specific questions under the supervision of the admin John (talk). Not all issues that had been raised in the previous years of debate were used in the RFC. I am afraid I am not especially impressed by newcomers to a long debate telling me they have all new and vital information when they have not been part of the discussion except for the very latest part of it. Also, it may not have been your intention to provoke HiLo48, but the same cannot reasonable be said of Skyring. Those of us who have been around this place for more than the last five minutes are well aware of the antipathy that exists between those two editors and this is not the first time this sort of thing has taken place. - Nick Thorne talk 03:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you can't engage without condescension. From you're very first post here you have been disrespectful for absolutely no reason. Having said that I thank you for atleast explaining your reasoning the only reaction I wanted from anyone here was discussion and reasoning which is not what I have been met with. While I am new to the debate on Wikipedia that does not mean that I have not been involved in debate for most of my life, this does not make your opinion more valid than mine despite being here for "5 minutes". As for Pete apparently targeting HiLo and trying to provoke him Pete has specifically spoken to me about not pushing HiLo too far and to remain civil so I find it disrespectful to accuse people of such things. HiLo has been disrespectful towards many people from the beginning of this discussion and blaming it on other people is not helpful.
Now to address the points you have made. I would like to point to that one of the provisos was that Football or Association Football would be allowed to be used in the article for Football Federation Austalia and similar articles, it is obvious that has not been followed. Another proviso was that soccer not be inserted every where and completely replace football/association football, another one that has not been followed. I also cannot see where it states that we could not discuss this matter for 18 months though I'm not saying it doesnt exist just that I don't see it. I believe that part of what fuels your opposition is that the consensus was in your favour. Now I understand the reasoning behind only using soccer as it is simpler and completely unambiguous in all contexts, this does not however make it the right decision and does not represent the usage of terminology in Australia. Rugby Union for example is also completely unambiguous yet when you go to that article the term football is littered all over the article. I put it to you that if football can not be used in relation to soccer then it cannot be used in relation to any sport in Australia, would you agree with this? Lajamibr (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, you need to understand that you cannot expect to determine how other editors will respond. This is not your private blog, editors may respond however they like within the rules of conduct here. It is most certainly not within any editor's purview to decide the manner or subject matter of other editor's' comments. Life is full of disappointments, if you don't want to be disappointed by other editor's comments, then don't decide in advance how you want them to reply. Regarding the relative validity of your opinions, when those opinions are about what has gone on before (ie those opinions are about facts) then those of a newcomer most certainly are not as valid as those of a long term participant. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. When you state things about what has happened in the past, AGF would suggest that you would be best advised to accept the words of others who WERE here before you.

WRT Skyring, he is a very experienced campaigner. I would recommend against drinking too much of his Koolaid, the truth may not always be quite the way he paints it.

I wish you would address the points I made, but alas, you are very selective in what you choose to respond to. Firstly never think you know what another person is thinking. You have no idea what "fuels my opposition", don't presume you do. You have provided no compelling argument for why this needs to be discussed now so soon after the RFC, bearing in mind that the RFC ended a very significant amount of bickering that had literally gone on for years before. I recommend reading the essay drop the stick. As for language usage in Australia, what makes you so sure? Newspaper usage? Well the largest circulation newspaper in the country uses the word soccer at the top of the pages in the sports section about the sport. 774, ABC local radio in Melbourne uses the word soccer when discussing the sport. Is that not good enough for you to demonstrate that in a significant part of the country soccer remains in common usage? Go to practically any school and you will find both football teams and soccer teams (although just what sport is played by the football team depends on where you are). If they have only a football team, it will hardly ever be a soccer team. As for claims made that soccer os the highest participation sport in the country that is a laughably incorrect claim wildly made by the FFA and soccer tragics that is just not backed up by real statistics. Oh, and finally regarding your last question, the answer is "no". - Nick Thorne talk 08:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • "It is most certainly not within any editor's purview to decide the manner or subject matter of other editor's' comments" - ironic, given that as you say this you are also arguing that editors may not discuss this subject.
  • "when opinions are about what has gone on before... then those of a newcomer most certainly are not as valid as those of a long term participant" - I don't really get what you are trying to say here, but it is not true that senior editors opinions are any more valuable.
  • WP:NPA. Saying that an editor is giving others "koolaid" is questionable at best.
  • WP:STICK suggests that an editor was involved in a discussion in the first place.
  • Soccer is the highest participation team sport in the country according to the ABS and the Australian gov't (here and here) (I wouldn't call them "laughably incorrect" and I would call them "real statistics"). Macosal (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The RfC which purportedly postponed any discussion until August 2015 can be found here maybe? That was only re one specific article's name, however, so I might also be missing something. I'm also unsure if such an RfC is a valid use of the process (it essentially overrules WP:CCC) and was not decided based on any guidelines/policy, just a number of editors (who aren't present in this discussion) saying "yes" or "no" before their "votes" were tallied to get a result. Macosal (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Nick, its quite strange to witness someone lecture people on their behaviour while simultaneous describing their own behaviour to a tee. I did address some of your points such as when you say we are not allowed to discuss this until next August (for no other reason that I can see other than you don't want to discuss it anymore) I stated two clear provisos that you're side of the argument did not follow so it is apparently open to interpretation. I literally and directly addressed your main point about why we should use soccer so I don't know how you can call me selective in what I respond to in fact I resent the notion. I may not have addressed everything but then I did not want to write too much so I picked a few. Please tell me specifically what else you want me to respond to and I assure you that I will. You're telling me that because you were involved in the previous discussion my view counts for nothing and we should only listen to you in regards to the validity of the "football" argument? If I was born yesterday I'm not sure that I'd be able to work this keyboard but anyway.
Heres a point I forget to address, you cite the countries most circulated newspaper as using soccer while we have cited everyone of the top online news sources (with evidence that online news sources have more readers than print media) as using 'football', in your eyes your evidence counts and mine doesn't, I would love to see the logic behind that. You cite schools using soccer instead of football (without evidence but I feel no need to argue this point) while we cite the professional, semi professional, and amateur teams that use Football Club not soccer, granted as you go further down the pyramid Soccer Club is sometimes used but both FC and SC exist. We cite the governing body of the competition and the confederation we belong to using the word Football exclusively. Put simply our evidence is far far more compelling. How about some reasoning behind why you believe 'soccer' is the only one of the codes in Australia that is not allowed to use the term 'football' though I found your simple "no" quite amusing considering how much more experience you have than me because it doesnt show I have to say. If you want me to address your arguments better I would expect the same in return. One can't help but "assume" things about your motives Lajamibr (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, Nick, if you are going to direct me towards readings you should have a better understanding of them, the community is clearly still interested in the debate and therefore there is no reason to drop the stick as Macosal said you may have a point if I was involved in the last debate but I wasn't and neither were the other people in this discussion. Lajamibr (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Pipelink compromise[edit]

Has anyone considered the pipe-linking solution - [Association football|soccer]? GoodDay (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is much of a compromise - that is already the current situation as I understand it, and also what I believed to be the correct way to pipe (to avoid redirects). Macosal (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Pipe-linking is irrelevant to how the sport is referred to in text, which I understand is the issue here. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

sroc's perspective[edit]

I thought it might be useful to offer these comments from my perspective.

  1. The latest consensus resolved: "Standardise on soccer on all articles pertaining to the sport in an Australian context." Any change to this would need to establish a new consensus.
  2. Nick Thorne claims: "The currently established consensus included the determination that this issue should not be revisited until at least next August.". My understanding, however, is that that timing applies to a previous RfC regarding the naming of the Soccer in Australia article, not the naming of the sport generally.
  3. Whereas HiLo48 has been a vocally opinionated contributor on this issue, it would be improper for a change in the consensus to be concluded whilst he is blocked (which would only further fuel his sense that he is being vilified to shut him out of the issue). This was originally suggested by Pete ("before any !vote is concluded, HiLo should have a chance to !vote") and supported by Macosal ("his blocking should not be used as an excuse to claim a consensus in his absence"). Lajamibr asked: "if there is any need to wait for HiLo's ban to end before reaching a resolution. We are well aware of his stance on the matter and I'm happy to have his vote counted towards using soccer in his absence...", however, it is important to remember that a !vote is, literally, not a vote but a way of gauging consensus by reasoned argument, so counting "one for soccer" is no substitute for making the argument in any proposal. (I would like to highlight that my actions regarding HiLo48's incivility do not imply that I disagree with him, much less that I was trying to shut him out; as I've said repeatedly, focus on the issue, not the individual.)
  4. The current proposal is unclear (to me at least). The guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Terms for football codes simply indicates that the code should be referred to as "soccer". It appears that the proposal is to replace this with "football (soccer)" or "association football (soccer)", however, actual usage may be more nuanced and a blanket rule raises questions about, for example:
    • what terminology to use for repeated references;
    • how to refer to players (e.g., "footballer", "soccer player", "player of football (soccer)", etc.);
    • how to reconcile usage with the names of actual clubs (whether known as "____ FC", "____ Football Club", "____ SC", "____ Soccer Club", etc.);
    • how to apply this in contexts where multiple codes are referred to (e.g., soccer and Australian rules).
    Any proposal would need to be clearly thought out and clearly explained in order for any discussion/!vote to be effective and meaningful.
  5. Lajamibr claimed: "There is no evidence presented whatsoever to support the use of the term soccer, literally zero". However, as Nick Thorne has pointed out, there is a multitude of sources referring to the sport as "soccer". By my count, there is a good mix between "soccer" and "football", to wit:
    1. The Age prefers "soccer" but also uses "football";
    2. SMH uses "football";
    3. and The Australian use "football";
    4. ABC uses "football";
    5. Yahoo!7 uses "football" but Yahoo!7The West uses "soccer";
    6. Sports News uses "soccer";
    7. SportsBet uses "soccer";
    8. TAB uses "soccer";
    9. Bet365 uses "soccer".
    While both terms are common, there's not an overwhelming balance that demands a shift in the current consensus, particularly where confusion may arise between the codes. Although the trend is towards phasing out "soccer" in favour of "football", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and does not predict future trends but, rather, follows established usage. Once "football" becomes more firmly established as the norm in the wider community, there will be a stronger argument for change in the terminology used on Wikipedia. The onus is on those seeking to change the consensus to convince me that the time is nigh. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 13:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC) [edited 15:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC) and 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)]
Thanks. If the national broadcaster use Football, I'd say the time has come to follow suit. The ABC is about as reliable an Australian source as one can get. --Pete (talk) 13:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not blindly follow any single source, much less when there is such a divide.
I would add that the principles in WP:CONCISE and WP:NATURAL are useful to bear in mind here (although those policies strictly only relates to titles, it is helpful to keep text and title formats consistent). "Soccer" is a natural term, much more concise than "football (soccer)" and, of course, much less ambiguous than "football". โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 13:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you sroc for breaking down your perspective and presenting it to us clearly, its much more constructive. I would like to address the points you have made.
1. Im not actually sure what you are trying to say with this one. Nobody is trying to have the previous decision changed without consensus
2. I agree obviously, I don't think there is a legitimate reason this issue can not been discussed
3. In regards to HiLo I understand its not just about counting the votes its about providing opinions etc. However I did say that HiLo has had ample time to provide his arguments, we know exactly what his opinion is and why. If he had not already provided this information repeatedly I would agree with you but if we are being realistic HiLo is not going to come back with a different opinion but if everyone insists then I won't push the issue. It was just a suggestion, despite not agreeing with HiLo on many occasions I hold no ill feelings and am not trying to take advantage of his absence
4. The current proposal is certainly unclear but its because we are in the middle of discussing it, you yourself said that you don't believe a blanket term is right but you seem to be saying that it would be right if that blanket term is soccer, as is the current situation. As for Association football (soccer), this is redundant there is no need to clarify Association football as soccer. While it certainly wouldn't be considered to be a common name used by people many know what it refers to, for those who don't it is simply one click and they know it for the rest of their lives. Is Wikipedia not a place for teaching and learning after all. Many seem to be against letting readers learn.
5. I'm disappointed in that list. I appreciate that you are showing sources that use soccer but I don't believe that betting websites can be held in the same esteem as the national news outlets that have been shown to be the place where Australians get their news the most. I would also like to point out that you have listed Yahoo7 as using the term soccer, I am looking at the website now and it is most definitely 'football'. We have been accused of cherry picking sources already so it would be better for you to include your sources in the section above titled so that we can see them all in one place, putting very few of our sources next to all of your sources and then claiming the balance is not in favour of football is wrong. My comment that no evidence was presented for soccer was perfectly legitimate at the time so I appreciate you providing far more than anyone else has Lajamibr (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Also sroc the onus is not only on the football side of the argument to prove themselves, that is called being opportunistic and using the previous decision as an excuse not to have to prove your own side, I acknowledge that you would not be one of these people but the same can't be said for other editors. You are obviously providing evidence to back your arguments up its just disappointing that it took this long to get someone from the soccer side of the argument to do what you are doing Lajamibr (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed response.
Regarding HiLo48, I think it would be best to wait until the block is lifted before reaching any conclusions. We can hardly take on his comments on a proposal (or consider that his comments may influence others) when a clear proposal hasn't even been formed yet. In the meantime, this time could be used to discuss and formulate a clear proposal before starting a fresh RfC with a clearly formulated question to which HiLo48 can then contribute. Besides, there's no rush.
Regarding the sources, I certainly don't mean to represent that the list I provided was comprehensive, merely that usage is divided. The link for Yahoo!7 in Australia clearly uses "soccer" on my screen; perhaps you are being redirected to another Yahoo! site that uses "football" based on your geolocation? Betting websites, although not news sources, show how the terminology is used in the mainstream, which I consider to be relevant in selecting "natural" terminology likely to be understood by readers. I'm sure there are many other sources that could be found using "soccer" or "football" โ€“ I thought that others may already have done a more thorough survey and my selections may be seen as cherry-picking โ€“ but it merely demonstrates my view that usage is divided (far from "soccer" having been eradicated) so there is a point that needs to be proven to persuade me that a change is in the best interests of Wikipedia, having particular regard for clarity, conciseness and common use. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 14:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok I understand what you are saying but I feel that you are actually proving my point. If there is a split in terminology why has a blanket term of soccer been adopted while completely eradicating association football and football. The list of sources here is not intended to prove that only football is used, only to show that the term football is widespread and should not be excluded from Wikipedia its as simple as that. In regards to HiLo, if that is what everyone thinks I am certainly willing to accept that. If we can agree that there is atleast a valid argument for the use of the term football or association football I would appreciate if we could discuss how that change would be implemented because I agree that a blanket term should not be used. Lajamibr (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
As for the link you have provided for Yahoo7, when clicking the link it takes you to the page of "The West Australian" which I assume is a subsidiary. If you were to click on the Yahoo7 logo at the top it will take you to the main page, if you go to sport from there it will show that football is used. Lajamibr (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, you are quite right. I have corrected the reference in my original post. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought there would be such a list (note that your link is outdated; it ought to be a redirect), although I note that there are many key omissions. This still doesn't escape the fact that "football" is inherently ambiguous and "soccer" is not, so while usage is fairly divided (although there are strong advocates for either term), "soccer" is a clearer term to distinguish it from the other codes.
This is not to say that the word "football" needs to be eradicated. For example, an article about an AFL player might open "Wiki Pederson (born 1993) is an Australian rules footballer..." and later say "...began playing football..." if it is clear from the context which code is intended. On the other hand, I would not say "Wik E. Pedia (born 1995) is an Australian footballer..." because it is unclear which code is intended. Starting "Wik E. Pedia (born 1995) is an Australian soccer player..." does not lend itself to saying "football" later in the article when that word hasn't been introduced, so sticking with "soccer" is much easier to understand as well as being concise. These issues will need to be addressed in any proposal. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 15:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Now that I've got a bit of time I'll address each point raised above. But first, saying that "football" is inherently ambiguous isn't a killer point. The example of national media outlets demonstrates that. They are serving up information to mass audiences and they use the word "Football" alongside "NRL", "AFL" etc. I used the example of the ABC above. It's not the sole source using the term, it's one of many. The thing about the ABC is that it is the national public broadcaster with a greater gravitas than any commercial organisation, and it is widely accepted here as a good source for reliability, objectivity and impartiality. We might individually disagree with occasional opinions expressed, but by and large I've found that Australian editors will accept the ABC where they might not accept more partisan outlets such as The Australian or The Guardian.
If the ABC has made the switch to Football, then that has to be the result of high-level editorial decisions based on audience research. Granted, they are not Wikipedia with all our peculiar ways of doing things, but they are an example of a decision made, implemented and sustained. I'm not seeing a public outcry over the confusion or ambiguity or the tragedy caused by the ABC's choice. I suggest that if we go the same way, we'll have the same successful outcome. And, of course, there are the other media outlets who have gone down the same track without causing rioting or confusion. --Pete (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Adding that "football" is always going to be ambiguous to some degree, but "Football" isn't. It's the difference between bandaid and Band-Aid, photoshop and Photoshop, xerox and Xerox. --Pete (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Responding to the points made above:
1. Consensus. Looking at the last !vote, there were eleven participants. The questions addressed weren't framed along the lines of the current discussion, of whom five participants played no part in the previous. Although it's a mantra amongst some that nothing has changed, that is not the case. We have found new sources and the media is even more solidly in favour of Football. I also take exception to the "winning" statement that Football in Australia is "like the existing situation regarding soccer in the United States." It is not. If NPR, NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox all called the sport Football, if the teams, players, leagues and national organisations called the game Football, if Barack Obama called the game Football, then the situation would be similar. Clearly, it is not.
2. Scope. The wording says, Standardise on soccer on all articles pertaining to the sport in an Australian context. That's broader than just one article.
3. HiLo. I think we'll have to wait for his block to expire or be lifted. Although he has claimed that he's going, this is par for the course with stressed editors suffering a major setback. Just human nature, and the chances are high that he'll be persuaded to continue. Editors do change their behaviour to fit in with the community. I've come back from a permanent ban, as has GoodDay, whose participation here has been productive and civil. I don't believe the claim that Wikipedia is broken. It has problems and is far from perfect, but it has worked well enough to virtually kill off some giant competitors, such as Encyclopaedia Brittanica. The Wikipedia page on any given subject is often first and almost always "above the fold" in any search results. I think that this collection of nerds, geeks, obsessives and tragics works pretty well, considering.
4. Name. I think we can come up with a list of options and situations here, but we'll need to consider multiple names and article types, as outlined. I note that "football (soccer)" and "Football" were not options and I think both have a lot going for them.
5. Sources. One point noted by all is the paucity of good sources concerning usage in the community. The media list given seems balanced to both Football and soccer, but in reality there are several major national "Football" sources omitted, such as Fox, Ninemsn, SBS, The Guardian. Realistically, national media uses "Football" and some regional outlets prefer soccer. However, the trend has been entirely in the direction of "Football". It is also worth noting that almost the only sources using "soccer" are those isolated to or hostile to the game. With Football having a greater number of players than any other team sport (far more than Australian Rules and Rugby League combined), and all of them calling it Football, ignoring this major community is hardly an NPOV position.
Thanks, sroc, for putting up a list of discussion points. --Pete (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"Adding that "football" is always going to be ambiguous to some degree, but "Football" isn't. Hogwash. Firstly, "Football" isn't a proper noun deserving of a capital any more than rugby league or rugby union (are you trying to infer that "Football" is a trade mark rather than a sport?). Secondly, we cannot invent a distinction between "football" (generic) and "Football" (meaning soccer) and expect readers to intuit this. Thirdly, even if the prior two points were disregarded, there would still be no distinction at the beginning of sentences, etc. For each of these reasons, "football"/"Football" is always inherently ambiguous unless given proper context.
The purpose of my list was not to quantify what proportion of sources use "football" vs "soccer" (which would require a more substantial undertaking) but simply to highlight that usage is fairly evenly mixed. The point is this: plenty of people use "football" to refer to other codes and use "soccer" to refer to this code. In my view, even if "football" is somewhat more common than "soccer" (which I am not ready to concede at this point), I am not convinced that it yet so overwhelmingly dwarfs "soccer" that it should override the key considerations of clarity and conciseness in sticking to the inherently unambiguous "soccer".
I should point out that I am not an ardent supporter of the term "soccer" and, in fact, I prefer "football" in conversation where the meaning is clear. Amongst my friends (of Greek heritage) who follow both AFL and soccer, they tend to call it "soccer" for the sake of clarity and I tend to be the one jokingly pulling them up on it, saying: "Ah, football!" This notwithstanding, for the purposes of Wikipedia, I believe that we should adopt clear, meaningful terminology to benefit our readers in understanding the content, and as such I am yet to be convinced that "football" is preferable to referring to "soccer" in the Australian contexts given the other competing codes also referred to as "football". โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 05:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
sroc I understand your point and it is a valid one, however, I do not believe that conciseness should be the only consideration here. Using this reasoning we would need to go through and change every article to soccer not just the ones relating to Australia. Association football is used in reference to English articles even when soccer would be the most concise and cannot be mistaken for anything else. I don't believe your solution is in keeping with any other sports related articles, 'football' is used in articles relating to all the other codes despite its supposed ambiguity. Soccer is essentially a nickname and to replace every instance of football or association football with this term purely for conciseness is not right. It is basically like saying "Footy, otherwise known as Australian rules football or Football.." and I don't think anyone would agree that that is appropriate. "Association football, also known as soccer or football..." is much more in keeping with Wikipedia, you start with the "proper" name, introduce the common names, then switch to using the shortened common names. In this instance it would not really make sense to switch from Association football to soccer during an article and that is why I believe Football should be used once context is established. I know this relates to a particular type of article but I feel if we can agree on this we can work through the different types of articles and their solutions. Lajamibr (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Lajamibr: We're not discussing the naming of the global Association football article, are we? We're discussing the nomenclature at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) which tells us how the sports should be described in general, to wit:
This, of course, is only one context. Consider Sport in Australia:

There are a number of professional sport leagues in Australia, including the Australian Football League (Australian rules football), National Rugby League (rugby league), Super Rugby (rugby union), the National Basketball League and Women's National Basketball League (basketball), the A-League and W-League (soccer), ANZ Championship (netball), the Australian Baseball League (baseball) and Sheffield Shield (cricket).


...Australian Football League (Australian rules football), National Rugby League (rugby league), Super Rugby (rugby union), the National Basketball League and Women's National Basketball League (basketball), the A-League and W-League (football), ...

Any proposal on terminology needs to consider a variety of contexts of use. In particular, any proposal to use "football" needs to consider how this would read either in the context of an article referring to a specific code or in relation to several codes. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 07:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
sroc, I think you mean "imply" above rather than "infer", and no, I'm not implying it's a brand name, but that's a way of avoiding confusion. If need be. Mostly the football code is obvious from context, but where it isn't, we just capitalise the first letter and use the specific terms to refer to other forms of football, none of which use "Football" to refer to their sport. Capitalisation is a common way of showing the difference between the general and the specific. As for beginnings of sentences, just copy-edit to remove any ambiguity.
If ambiguity and confusion is a real problem. For these multi-billion dollar media organisations run by paid professionals, confusion and ambiguity doesn't seem to have loomed large in their decision to change the term. They are peddling information to the masses, same as we are. Why is this such a massive problem for we amateurs when the professionals don't see it that way?
If we regard ourselves as a national information provider, then we aren't with the Innovators or the Early Adopters or even the Early Majority or Late Majority on this. We're firmly in Laggard territory.
Usage isn't as mixed as you make out. All the major national news websites use Football with the exception of Ten. However, thanks for the entry into the world of sports betting, and yes they do overwhelmingly use "soccer". I suspect they all subscribe to one particular results feed, judging by similarities in listing format, but that's by the by. I'll add them to the "sources" page.
My point about NPOV is worth exploring. Why are we ignoring the most pertinent community? That's like the old dispute over using CE/BCE dates rather than AD/BC in Christian articles. One humanist zealot began replacing all BC dates with BCE dates and naturally the Christians editing those pages got upset. We're seeing the same sort of thing here with Football followers changing soccer to Football where encountered - say, in articles about the club they support.
Personally, I don't care about any football code. If we're getting into personal opinions. They are all "noise" to me and I change the channel. The one and only sports interest I have is baseball, and the only problem that perfect game has is that they have an off-season, where sports is a total wasteland. My interest here is in language uses and the way in which culture changes and innovations adopted. I find that fascinating. Until I encountered this "old soccer, new football" thing, I couldn't imagine any reason to stop referring to the game as soccer. But I'm swayed by the evidence. The players, the clubs, the government, the media all call it Football. The name has changed. --Pete (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Pete: ", I'm not implying it's a brand name, but that's a way of avoiding confusion." You used a series of capitalised brand names to make your point. No, capitalising "Football" is not a valid "way of avoiding confusion" for the reasons I have already given. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 07:07, 13 December 2014โ€Ž (UTC)
Implication and inference isn't a zero-sum game. Not everything that is implied by a writer is inferred by a reader. And vice versa. In this case, you inferred something I didn't mean to imply. Not to worry. We differ. Are we of one mind on the other points? --Pete (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
What other points? You wrote: "Capitalisation is a common way of showing the difference between the general and the specific." No, your examples are brand names, not ways of showing the specific. I disagree with the entire notion that capitalising "Football" somehow magically distinguishes one code of football from the others. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters: there's nothing there that calls for using a capital letter for "Football". โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 07:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. As I say, we differ. My points above concern
1. The fact that ambiguity and confusion don't appear to be a problem to the professional major media outlets. We're lagging well behind their adoption of the term.
2. The WP:NPOV problem caused by deliberately ignoring the POV of the most pertinent community. Do we insist on atheist terms (such as CE/BCE in Christian-based articles? We do not. So why insist on using soccer in Football-based articles?
I put some effort into explaining the context there. I'm interested in your thoughts. --Pete (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Re 1: We are not racing to keep up with anyone else. Re 2: I'm not about pushing any POV over which term I prefer (I'm actually pushing against the term I personally prefer); I have Wikipedia policies/guidelines and readers' interests at heart. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 15:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not a race. But if professional information outlets with audiences of millions don't see using Football as a problem causing confusion and ambiguity, why should we? And I'm interested in your thoughts about the application of a fundamental policy pillar. NPOV. I'll open up the questions to all editors. Maybe there's some point I've missed? --Pete (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
sroc, I dont have time to make much of a post at the moment so I'll just say one thing in the examples and contexts you gave football is actually not ambiguous, Australian rules football, rugby union, and rugby league were all named and football could only refer to one other sport. That is besides the point as I have already said that Association football should be used to establish context and after that football can be used unambiguously. Is there an issue with the term Association football, it is no different to the name Australian rules football, this is not the common name of the sport and yet it is used to establish context. Finally I just want to say that this is a place of learning, I myself was taught what Association football was by Wikipedia some years ago. I looked at the word, thought to myself "what is association football" clicked the link and within 5 seconds I had learnt the meaning of the word Association football for the rest of my life it's pretty simple. (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
" the examples and contexts you gave football is actually not ambiguous, Australian rules football, rugby union, and rugby league were all named and football could only refer to one other sport." This is false for two reasons. Firstly, there are, in fact, other codes of football (e.g., American football, international rules football, etc.). Secondly, without context, Wiki Pedia (born 1990) is a professional footballer... does not imply soccer by omission of specifying another code.
"...Association football should be used to establish context and after that football can be used unambiguously." That's not what was proposed above. "Association football" is also not a common term for the sport in Australia, compared with "football" (which is ambiguous) and "soccer" (which is not). Why should we use a less common term that readers have to click to understand rather than using a more familiar and unambiguous one? โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 15:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

In summary, my position is:

  • "football" is inherently ambiguous;
  • "Football" is inherently ambiguous and orthographically incorrect;
  • "football (soccer)" is needlessly unwieldy;
  • "association football" is unambiguous but not commonly used in Australia;
  • "soccer" is unambiguous, commonly used in Australia and readily recognisable to readers โ€“ as such, it is the preferred term for articles regarding the sport in Australia. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 16:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate this point, but it doesn't seem to be a problem preventing other major Australian websites from using Football to refer to what they previously called soccer. If the ABC, The Australian, SBS, Nine and the rest have had this same discussion years and chosen Football, why are we using soccer? The same arguments were presumably considered and rejected by their boards, and we can see the result on their websites. --Pete (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You are simply repeating yourself; I have already explained my position at length. It is also inaccurate to say others use "Football" (capitalised) โ€“ I see no evidence that anyone does this and it is contrary to proper usage in English. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 02:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I've agreed to differ twice already on the Football thing. That's fine. We can stop mentioning it. I'm still hoping you'll address the other two points. If you've already done so and I've missed it, could you include a diff? Thanks. --Pete (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
sroc you are assuming people don't know what association football is, I said that EVEN IF readers don't know what it means they would click it and learn it within a few seconds why are you so against people learning from Wikipedia. Association football is not a common term anywhere and yet it has been the accepted terminology all over Wikipedia until some editors decided we live in America and should follow their example. No one is denying that soccer is completely unambiguous but that is not the only criteria required to determine appropriateness, if it was many many articles would require changing. Now for the points you made above.
  • "football" is not unambiguous in context, you repeatedly ignore me when I say football should be used in context. You are only against football being used for only this sport, why is that.
  • "Football" this was not my suggestion so I won't comment on it now.
  • "Football (soccer)" is needlessly unwieldy? one word in a bracket once at the beginning of an article is unwieldy? I don't buy that even a little bit
  • "Association football" It is not commonly used terminology but can you really say it is not common knowledge. Everyone here knows what it means yet you suggest Australians don't know what it means. As I said the absolute most confusion this can cause is 5 seconds of clicking and reading. Is this not part of the reason links are provided in articles, I myself click links all the time to learn things in relation to what I am reading, this is not a good argument against Association football.
My suggestion is the only one that incorporates Association football, soccer, and football. When people are against this one has to wonder why it is they want soccer/football articles to be unique to all other sports articles who are allowed to use football.
If it is accepted that there are four main codes of football in Australia why do you then tell me Oh we have to remember there is American football and international rules football. So are we remembering a global audience or not, when it suits the soccer side of the argument we have to keep terminology local but when it doesnt we have to remember a global audience, which one is it? and stop saying that I am suggesting "Wik.E.Pedia is a professional footballer" I never said that, I would suggest "Wik.E.Pedia is a professional Association footballer" or "Wik.E.Pedia is a professional football (soccer) player" or any number of alternatives. Lajamibr (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
For anyone who doesnt understand why people are offended by the term Soccer. I have just come across a Facebook page titled "YOU'RE IN AUSTRALIA. IN AUSTRALIA ITS CALLED "SOCCER" NOT "FOOTBALL" this page has 15,000 likes and you will find links there to other wonderful pages such as "Back in my day Soccer was gay... oh wait it still is" this page has close to 3,000 likes. This epitomises the behaviour and words many people have faced their entire lives because they support an "Un-Australian" sport. This is not part of the argument it is just for those who can't seem to understand why some people are offended. Lajamibr (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I would only be repeating myself to respond to these points. You are both railing against "soccer" (although you admit it is "completely unambiguous") yet you cannot agree on what alternative name to use โ€“ you have no less than four alternative forms, none of which I consider is superior to "soccer" for the reasons I have already given. If you want to convince me otherwise, you will need to formulate a clear proposal and provide cogent arguments why it is preferable to the status quo. In the meantime, there is little point arguing over this when you both keep shifting the goalposts on what you are proposing, so I'm taking a sabbatical from this discussion until you clarify what it is you want. Invite me to the RfC. โ€”sroc ๐Ÿ’ฌ 02:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I already told you that we have not decided on a clear proposal yet it has taken this long just to get people to listen. Nobody is shifting goal posts and the only reason I am "railing" against soccer is because it means Association football and football disappear from Wikipedia articles regarding Australia. This does not represent terminology in Australia and therefore has no place on Wikipedia. You presented arguments and I countered them I never claimed that we had a set proposal yet, right now we are only arguing for the inclusion of football back in to articles. We are currently discussing what the proposal would be and Pete and myself have been engaging with you instead of each other because you were making points that you wanted to discuss. Lajamibr (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts on these matters, summarised:

  • I think the website needs to better represent the varied usage of the term in the population and amongst editors per WP:ENGVAR.
  • I cannot accept that "football (soccer)" is unwieldy, especially given that it would only appear once per article. Brackets are a common part of the English language (and Wikipedia) and often used in contexts where a word may be ambiguous. The first sentence of Soccer in Australia already contains a very similar use of brackets which nobody has complained about being "unwieldy". Subsequent references could use "football" (no longer ambiguous) and these are very rare in any case.
  • I have never seen "Football" capitalised in any context/to have a different meaning.
  • I think clubs which call themselves "SC/soccer clubs" should be referred to as playing "soccer", just as "FC/Football Clubs" should be referred to as playing "football" or "football (soccer)"
  • I do not think "football should be the primary term used on articles where it may be ambiguous/articles about multiple codes. Such articles should probably use "soccer", although depending on the article it may well be worth noting the official name
  • I believe these solutions would solve a number of the ongoing disputes in this area on this site.

What do others think? Macosal (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that we cannot make rules in advance for every contingency. Players, for example, change nations and codes as they see fit, and if we try to work out what to call an English football player who plays Australian Rules here in the off-season, we are going to tangle ourselves up, trying to think of every possible circumstance.
We need not. We can surely do what every other themed area in Wikipedia does - see what works and what doesn't. As editors, we can find ways of wording our content to avoid ambiguity, if that is truly a problem. It seems not to be a problem for similar information-based websites - they call the sport what the sport's own bodies call it and nobody is confused. We have the advantage of being able to link to other articles, whether we mean football, football, or football. Where is the confusion? --Pete (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Main page[edit]

For what it's worth, Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/December_16,_2014 happens next Tuesday morning (AU time). It would be awesome if there was some kind of resolution, however interim, for that. While I accepted "soccer" as the existing consensus, I never supported it (I use 'football' in conversations), and I can't deny I'm a little embarrassed at the thought of putting the word "soccer" on the main page for a global audience to see. (For those also wondering, the club and I are working through getting some better free images for the article, which will hopefully be finalised by Monday AU time). Daniel (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I doubt that there will be a resolution by then. I'm not sure why no one can see that calling 'Central Coast Mariners Football Club' a soccer club is inappropriate but the article is looking good none-the-less Lajamibr (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
In any case, it does serve as a reminder that Wikipedia is read by a global audience and as such it would make sense to use global language. -- Chuq (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Rubbish. There are any number of example throughout Wikipedia where specific language differences are catered for. This is just another one. - Nick Thorne talk 01:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
But it is worth noting that there is an explicit aim for consistency (where possible) (WP:COMMONALITY). Macosal (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor conduct[edit]

GoodDay says, Don't those who "didn't like it", risk being seen as disruptive, via their filibustering?

Nick Thorne responds, You would think so, but it would seem that at least part of their aim was to provoke a particular reaction from an editor who regrettably made the desired response and got blocked by what appears to be a trigger happy admin. I find it hard not to consider this to be poking the bear. These people will never accept anything except their preferred option, exhibit classic confirmation bias and simply repeat the same arguments ad nauseum, probably hoping to wear down their opponents by attrition.

Nick, I'm seeing those comments as projection. I'm happy for my "preferred option" to be proven wrong, but frankly, I'm not seeing the sources put forward to support this.

I take exception to the comments about provoking HiLo. I'm sorry if he or others feel that this is the case, but this is not my intention. Having him melt down gives me no pleasure at all. I would very much prefer him to stay calm, focussed and happy. And productive. The biggest problem with the previous RfC was that not everybody who wanted to participate was able to. I note a comment above about a very long and exhaustive process where several editors in favour of using the name "football" continued to make rude and disparaging comments about those with whom they disagreed, and got themselves blocked.

So why do we have to make personal and provocative comments about other editors at all? If the intention is to provoke other editors and get them thrown out of discussion, then the whole process is going to be flawed. A discussion which is essentially a shouting match full of personal insults or a one-sided rump is unacceptable. Can we lift our game, gentlemen? --Pete (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering you just compared using the word 'soccer' to calling Barack Obama a nigger, I'm not sure you really have much of a right to criticise other's behaviour. Cheers Spinrad (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Spinrad! Would that a personal criticism of the behaviour of another editor, by any chance? Your comments on the NPOV question are welcome, by the way. --Pete (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


If we opened a particular article with "Barack Hussein Obama II (US Listeni/bษ™หˆrษ‘หk huหหˆseษชn ษตหˆbษ‘หmษ™/, UK /หˆbรฆrษ™k huหหˆseษชn ษตหˆbษ‘หmษ™/; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States, and the first nigger to hold the office" then there would be an outcry, even if some said it was unambiguous, in common usage, shorter and simpler.

The game previously known as soccer is no longer called that by the government, the media, and most of all by the enormous organisation - it now has more people playing in teams than the next two football codes combined. Some years ago it went through a rebranding exercise to call itself Football. This has been amazingly successful, but instead of including the POV of this very large community, we are instead adopting the name used by those who are NOT part of the Football community. This is contrary to WP:NPOV and I intend to raise this issue at the NPOV noticeboard for discussion. So why are we still using a "nigger" term? They don't call themselves that any more, and the huge community of Football players should be respected, because this is Wikipedia and a neutral point of view is what we do. --Pete (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph: argument by false analogy. Epic fail.
Second paragraph: yes, we agree that Soccer Australia decided to re-brand themselves as the Football Federation Australia. No doubt it has been successful and soccer's followers mostly use the word football to describe their sport. Even large parts of the press use the word football to describe the sport. I am quite prepared to concede all these things. However, regardless of those facts, a large proportion of the population of this country still calls the sport soccer. Large parts of the media also call it soccer, including both the Age and the newspaper with the largest circulation in the country, the Herald-Sun.
Some examples of newspapers using the word soccer not previously discussed here
So, although I would not be so foolish as to say that these papers never use the word football in this context, neither can you say they do not use soccer. The point you always gloss over is that despite what it might look like in parts of Australia where soccer support is at its highest, there remains a large ports of Australia for which the word soccer is current. It is arrant nonsense to say that calling the sport soccer "disrespects" anyone. Unlike your example of an offensive word for non-Caucasian people, soccer is not a pejorative word. Football remains an entirely ambiguous term when used without context in this country. No one, including the most die-hard followers of the sport fail to understand what the word means. You have simply failed to provide any compelling reason why the current consensus is inadequate or why it needs to change. There is nothin POV about using the word soccer, that is a canard you have trotted out because your argument is poor. I won't fall for it. - Nick Thorne talk 01:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick. The Herald-Sun appears to call the game Football on its website. There's no dispute that some regional media outlets still call the game soccer. A diminishing number, going by the changes I've seen in the year I've been following this issue. The national media overwhelmingly uses Football, as per links provided earlier. NPOV is about giving due weight to diverse views. We don't adopt one position to the exclusion of all others; we give each view due weight according to support, and fringe views don't get a look in.
Are we regarding the views of the largest team sport in the nation, the national media, and the government as fringe? By discounting them entirely and refusing to use their preferred term, you appear to be doing so.
You may not consider it offensive to call Football soccer, just as many Americans don't see it odd to describe Barack Obama as a nigger, but why use a minority term in the first place? Barack Obama would prefer our current usage of "African-American", I am quite sure, and Football Federation Australia would prefer their sport to be called Football. You may have your own private opinions, but looking at the wider community I think that we should give Football due weight, in line with NPOV policy, rather than relegate it to fringe view status. --Pete (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If you take the school/other juniors out of your stats I think you'll find that soccer's claim to be the highest participation sport in Austrlia begins to look a bit thin, needy even. BTW, whatever the participation rate, what the fans of the sport call it does not determine what ordinary Australians call it, however you torture the statistics you cannot claim that the number of participantys is greater than the number of non-participants, so using your logic why should the opinions of a few (participants) trump that of the overwhelming majority (non-particiants). Indeed, this helps explain the media thing, sports writers write for a particular audience. If their target audience (ie soccer fans) call it football, then no surprise if the media does too. The majority, who don't read the sports pages, or if they do might only read the cricket, the golf or the tennis, or even the AFL, depending on their interests never see what it is called because they don't follow that sport. Yet these people still use language and I'd wager a large amount that most of them call it soccer. This is why using media as a guide to language usage is flawed - it can tell you that a word is used, but says nothing about its relative prevalence in the general population. "NPOV is about giving due weight to diverse views" indeed, so why do you discount the language used by most Australians, just because they couldn't give two hoots for your favourite sport? The true believers will find it anyway, but surely the point of Wikipedia is to inform people who do not already know what we are trying to say. In Australia, most people (bearing in mind that most people do not play any sport, let alone socccer) are not going to expect football to mean soccer, they probably have never even heard about the aversion to the word that a small subset of its fans seem to have. We are not writing Wikipedia for soccer fans.

Oh, and lay off the false analogy, it is highly offensive for you to try to equate perfectly ordinary language usage - that even started out within the soccer playing cumminity - with a pejorative term coined by the oppressors of black people in the US. - Nick Thorne talk 06:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • My favourite sport is baseball. I couldn't give two hoots for football of any variety.
  • I've yet to see a source for your view about what most Australians call it. We work on sources, not opinions.
  • The figures come from the ABS; presumably they use the same methodology for all codes, and include players at all levels for all codes. I can't see why they'd only include juniors for just one sport. Not sure about the "target audience" theory.
  • The use of "Football" is on the main pages. "Rugby Union, Football, NRL, AFL" is how it generally goes. The target audience for the main sports page would be all sports followers, not just Football.
Sorry, Nick, but you haven't changed my opinion that this is an NPOV matter. Anyone else? --Pete (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about changing your opinion, which I doubt I could change no matter what. What I do care about is providing a counter to your arguments where they are unconvincing. - Nick Thorne talk 20:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm available to be convinced. As I've said several times now, I've always called the game soccer. I changed my mind when I noticed the big media had changed their tune. That impressed me. --Pete (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint, but Wikipedia is not all about what convinces you, Pete. - Nick Thorne talk 22:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Funny. Just saying I can change my mind. My views aren't set in stone. I guess you gave it your best shot. That's fine. All views welcomed. --Pete (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that NPOV is the most convincing argument in favour of using "soccer" in the sense that I personally do not see the term as an offensive one. That said, WP:NPOV does require "proportionate representation" of all the significant views which have been published by reliable sources (which is on the "football" side, and moving in that direction). I think unsourced allegations or a "marketing campaign" are also on the wrong side of this policy ("avoid stating opinions as facts"). Macosal (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been following various Australian TV and radio sporting reports (both ABC and commercial networks) in the past week and they have all, without exception as I recall, constantly called the sport allegedly "formerly called soccer" by it "former" name ~ "SOCCER"! Afterwriting (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That'd be anecdotal evidence, then? And we're aware of regional differences. --Pete (talk) 12:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
It needs to be the starting point for this discussion that nobody can reasonably claim that one term is always used/another is not. Reliable sources make it very clear that neither is universally accepted. The number of back-and-forths in which people point to examples of a source using one term or another doesn't add much to this (already long and somewhat repetitive) discussion. For what it's worth, I'd suggest that radio news might use "soccer" because in that context (a discussion of many sports) "football" may be ambiguous - and I would suggest that Wikipedia should also use soccer in such contexts where multiple sports are being discussed. Macosal (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)