Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:50, 17 February 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soccer in Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Football: Australia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Australian soccer task force (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Soccer High‑importance [REDACTED] Soccer in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Australian soccer task force (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia. [REDACTED] The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Football in Australia

Just seeking to draw a wider range of informed opinion at Talk:Football in Australia regarding that article's future (whether persisting with the attempt at a comprehensive and well-balanced broad-concept article and how best to achieve that, or returning it to a simple disambiguation page). Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion under "Split/Merge Proposal" is my viewpoint on the situation. The page is completely non-necessary, and it's parts split into the specific sport articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The term football in Australia should be a disambiguation page with all codes linked to it to end this silly nonsense over which sport in this country is football. While I take the stance that the FFA takes "old soccer, new football," this is clearly an unresolvable matter among rugby league and AFL supporters who refuse to acknowledge the use of the dominant worldwide terminology for the game as well as the terminology accepted in this country by its governing body. As such to remove the nuances of such debates I think we should link all football codes to a disambiguation page under football in Australia --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The only reason there is any debate is because soccer administrators in Sydney decided to tell the half of the country where "football" means one thing,and one thing only, Aussie Rules, and has meant that for 150 years, that it actually means something else. Stupid. There doesn't have to be debate, just acceptance of reality. "Football" has a very definite meaning on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. It won't change just because some ill formed administrators and some soccer fans think it should. Please accept that fact. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The Barassi Line argument that is completely nonsensical, football is a globally acknowledged term, everybody in the world knows that football means football, or some variation of spelling of the world football such as futbal, futbol, etc, every governing orginisation from top to bottom in this country is a football orginisation as has been stated repeatedly. Every football team in this country at a semi-profesional (Australian Premier League) professional level (A-League) has the FC acronym on the end of their team name, not SC, FC, not Sporting Club, not Soccer Club, but Football Club. FC is a well acknowledged acronym. A lot of amateur clubs will soon be playing in the FFA Cup, again this is the Football Federation Australia Cup.... Once again Football not Soccer. The fact that for branding purposes the Qantas Socceroos use the world Soccer in their name doesn't mean anything, Trinidad and Tobago use the word Soca and it doesn't mean anything nor does it have any relevance to the word Soccer despite the fact that it is pronounced the same.

There was a consensus decision made in 2004-5 that the word used by the governing body in this country for the sport would be football NOT soccer, as such the term soccer IS offensive and considering the history of the sport in this country soccer IS offensive. claiming Ignorance or being ignorant of the fact is not, I'm not sure which one it is? is NOT a valid argument.

There is very little argument against the term football being recognised in this country I suggest youdrop the stick. On the personal argument here, I AM NOT FROM SYDNEY --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You're from Brisbane. Same side of the Barassi Line as Sydney though. If "soccer" is offensive, why do all my soccer playing friends call the game "soccer"? Are you ever planning to travel to the other side of the Barassi Line and learn the truth you won't accept when others tell you? Refusing to believe good faith comments here is far more offensive to the editors who make them than the name "soccer" can ever be to its fans. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all the Barrasi line has nothing at all to do with football, nor does it effect it, second of all I suggest you go into the football heartland in Melbourne and ask what football supporters actually call football on your side of the barassi line particularly in areas such as south Melbourne. Just because you repeat an argument does not indeed make it a fact --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A tip - When you're talking to someone from Melbourne and use the name "football", the first and obvious meaning will be Aussie Rules. If you don't believe that there is no hope for you. So that post above actually makes little sense in Melburnian English. That's where the Barassi Line comes in. On the Aussie Rules side, the word "football" has meant just one thing, Aussie Rules, for the past 150 years. (Longer than soccer has existed.) The line is more than a divide of what sport is popular. It's a linguistic and cultural one too. I should probably try to get something along those lines into the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A tip - If you actually go into one of these areas and talk to a football supporter about football it is very likely you will get a couple of things... Comments like "Aussie League" in reference to the A-League, Soccah with a h on the end of it to show your ignorance of the fact you call it soccah, or in other circumstances you might just get laughed at for calling it soccer. Given your views I heavily doubt you interact with people who actually follow the sport religiously in the area that you live in --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's possible, at least to some extent, but the suburb I live in has a "...Soccer Club". It also has a "...Football Club" that plays Aussie Rules. The latter club is the older one too. Can you see the problem yet? And anyway, we don't write this encyclopaedia for hard core fans. We write it for everybody, including the roughly half of the Australian population for whom "football" means Aussie Rules, and nothing else. As I've now said many times, "soccer" is the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common names for the game in Australia. All its players that I know don't find it offensive. (That sort of claim just makes your argument look silly.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We are returning to the same sorts of arguments that cost Australia the rights to a World Cup here that "Aussie Rules" is an older and more respected sport than football WHICH when you look at the global statistics on the matter is blatantly ridiculous. But it seems you cannot teach AFL supporters class, understanding, or respect for the game which is the worlds largest sport. As I have said repeatedly, football is the single, universally understood, unambiguous name for the sport in this country. There is not a single governing body in this country that recognises the term soccer and YES all of your local clubs fall under the Football Federative Victoria. Once again football NOT soccer --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Stupid aspects of that post:

1. "These arguments cost Australia the rights to the World Cup here." LOL. That bid was the most incompetent, bungled, dishonest, pie-in-the-sky, taxpayer money wasting attempt at a sports hosting event I have ever seen. Don't blame people who don't support the game.

2. Aussie Rules IS older. It's a fact.

3. Insulting Aussie Rules supporters. Insulting anybody is always a winner.

4. "Football" is used for four professional sports plus a few more amateur ones. It could hardly be more ambiguous. Your statement that "football is the single, universally understood, unambiguous name for the sport in this country" really is just idiotic.

5. The federations can call it what they like. This encyclopaedia does not do soccer's marketing for it. We use common names. "Football" is a common name for many sports. "Soccer" is the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. That statement is unarguable.

It's stupid posts like that one of yours above that lose all credibility for the "soccer = football" argument. You are doing more harm than good. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

One of the greatest single debates was with the AFL about the naming rights and availability of football stadiums among many other things in this country, that is an undisputed fact. Football as a sport as we know it has been played by clubs for more than 200 years. Ignorant Aussie Rules supporters are always a winner. Football is the only recognised unambiguous name for the sport as codified by the governing body in this country it is not a marketing name, soccer does not exist as a name for this sport in this country any longer. Your arguments are invalid --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your knowledge and logic appear to have now failed you completely. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's about time you gave up because you are incorrect --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Just about everything that Orestes writes is illogical. The opposite is true for HiLo. Afterwriting (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

POV regarding gender

I added the pov tag because a quick read through indicates that the article does not encompass both women's and men's soccer as one would expect in an article with a general name such as this one is. The links that sound general take you to a men's team. Women's soccer is put in one section. That seems very outdated. I realize that the title has been under discussion over a period of time so I'm not unilaterally moving it but instead tagging it to show that the bias needs to be addressed. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on Talk:Australia national association football team about gender equality in article names. Anyway, about this article. When I cleaned-up the article a few months ago, I moved most of the women's information to Women's soccer in Australia, I didn't think there was any bias in doing so, though as a result the article became solely about the men's game. To make it more inclusive of the women's game I clearly stated 'Men's national teams' in that section and I added some representation of the women's game in the specific section with a Main link to Women's soccer in Australia. The women's game has grown separately to that of the men's, and it still does - maybe that should be included in the article. But again, I don't think there's any bias.--2nyte (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

An article with this general title needs to be inclusive of all aspects of soccer in Australia and not focus on men's soccer or the highest levels, and then have the other aspects of soccer appear as add-ons. Otherwise it seems as if the men's game is the "normal" game and the rest are alternatives. This is framing the content in a way that does not make a judgement about which kinds of participation in the sport are more important to be covered. Instead the content is driven by discussing the full range of ways that soccer is experienced. Being able to print one stand alone article that discusses the full range of soccer in Australia should be our goal. To accomplish this I think the article needs some tweaking. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The women's article already existed, I only wanted to expand it, and in doing so I removed the content specific to the women's game. I did add the women's section which has specific content to the women's game though otherwise I didn't think it a good idea to duplicate the information from Women's soccer in Australia to this article. This article still contains general information on the game (not specific to a gender).--2nyte (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there 2nyte, I'll be happy to work with you to create a general comprehensive standalone article about Soccer in Australia. IMO, soccer/football is one of the most important topics for Misplaced Pages to have a comprehensive general article because it is an important global topic and there is a high probability that the article it will be included in print books and an abridged offline Misplaced Pages as well as being read online. So whether the reader is looking at a general online article or one that is more focused, it is important to have a good overview of an important topic like soccer/football. Right now the way the article is organized it is primarily about the development of the men's game in Australia that led to the top national teams with much less mention of the other ways that soccer is commonly experienced in Australia. The good news is that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and no one expects perfection today. But it would be really great if we can get this article up to feature article quality since it is an important topic. To do that now, it will need to be much more comprehensive. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but in terms of gender and Women's soccer in Australia. I would rather not duplicate the information on this article. What would be the better option, merging it with this article or continuing to develop the women's article similar to Women's football in England and Football in England?--2nyte (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see this article as a comprehensive general article so it will give a general overview of all aspect of the sport of soccer in Australia. This would include a general high level discussion of each aspect of soccer, including women's soccer, woven throughout the article as appropriate. Some of this will overlap a bit with the women's soccer article, but not as detailed. This will largely depend on the need for the article to be written in a manner that gives the reader a broad understanding of the topic. Remember, the women's soccer article exists to be more detailed about women's soccer. Additionally, a section on Women's soccer in this article could be included to give a summary of the topic if weaving the information throughout the article leaves some gaps in coverage. Or we want to draw the readers attention to subtopics like Women's soccer, or youth soccer. The content of this article is intended to include a broad range of information in one article so that it can be be stand alone article about the broader topic. Does that make sense? Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the article to this version before the system purge of wome by @2nyte:. The version that was here could be renamed Men's soccer in Australia without a problem. --LauraHale (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

LauraHale, please don't make careless edits like that. I spent many hours rewriting the article, adding references and content. I am welcoming of further edits but please do not 'restore' the page as you did.--2nyte (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

FloNight is clearly correct. Readers coming to an article on "Soccer in Australia" are entitled to expect that it will include proper coverage of both men's and women's soccer. They are both within the article's scope, which is set by the title. If the article is to focus on men's soccer, then it should be titled "Men's soccer in Australia". Neljack (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm reading this page due to a little issue at WP:ANI, but am pausing to confirm that the comments by FloNight are entirely correct. It does not matter what a local consensus has decided because an article on Soccer in Australia simply must be generic. It does not have to be fixed immediately, but it does need to be fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment

User:HiLo48 and others appear to be using ideological arguments such as repeated and continual references to what was a highly biased article barassi line in order to justify their position. Might I remind these users Misplaced Pages is not a battle ground and furthermore Misplaced Pages is not about winning. Just drop it... I have been watching this argument idly for a numerous amount of years now that I have forgotten how many its been. It would not have been going on for so very long if this was not a valid issue. Drop the stick get over it let it go. --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A completely nonsensical response exactly the type of response I expected --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a response I tend to use for editors who won't face facts. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You have presented with "facts" on multiple occasions and yet you return to your same personal opinion on the matter --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your facts are not geographically representative of the whole of Australia. I think mine are. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your "facts" are at best regional specific and are related to a concept that does not effect the sport of football. To end this silly debate, there are professional A-League teams in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia, also New Zealand... That is on both side of the line AND outside of it. There are semi-profesional (Australian Premier League) football clubs in most of the other states as well. There is nothing that can be said about football that is geographic, in fact the traditional heartland of football in Australia has been South Australia and Victoria which are again on your side of the line as well as New South Wales on the other side of that line. Your argument about the Barassi line being representive of football in Australia is ridiculous and you are clutching at straws --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using ambiguous language. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The term football is not ambiguous --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a stupid post. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Your argument violates WP:PA and it seems where there is little else to say this is often the net result --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't violate WP:PA at all. It criticised your post, not you. A judgement can validly be made about your statement about no ambiguity, and mine in response. I think it would come down in my favour. I have no idea why you made such a dumb post. If I speculated, that would get a lot closer to a personal attack, so I won't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We can all speculate about which side of the fence is an idiot and I could speculatively presume you were one, note the word speculatively for holding such a grudge which I could speculate was based on a belief that by calling "soccer" football it would be somehow detrimental to the sport of Australian rules Football. The long and the short of that speculation would be that it isn't and it won't be. I'm going to stop now however before I put myself in a situate that is actually a violation of WP:PA

You have either completely misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting my position. The former demonstrates incompetence, the latter incivility. Neither is acceptable here. I said absolutely nothing about your proposed change being "detrimental to the sport of Australian rules Football". That WOULD be a POV position, and mine isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am going to drop the stick purely because we have irreconcilably different opinions and it's it's not the end of the world. This does not change my opinion on the matter, I've just had enough of playing this game --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep using that word "opinion". My position is based on facts and logic, not opinion. I have no idea what yours is based on. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

IF your "facts" are indeed "facts" could you please provide a referenced article from a credible source other than a direct link to another[REDACTED] page or otherwise Misplaced Pages:NOR. I await your submission. As far as civility goes, I suggest you take a good hard look in the mirror --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You back again? I thought you were quitting this discussion. Anyway, which facts do you dispute? And have you read all the preceding discussions on this page? HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "back again" I'm just responding to your last comment. I've read this talk page in which many of the points I have raised have been raised by others, and substantial evidence from news articles, the government, and the Football Federation Australia as well as subsites representing the state governing bodies of football have been raised. I don't have to go into a long winded reiteration of the evidence that is put forward on this page. Furthermore, the only thing that appears to be raised by yourself consistently is the Barassi Line which has no relevance to the sport of football (soccer) in this country.

As I stated above your opinion is considered original research which is unacceptable under Misplaced Pages:NOR. Please substantiate it with credible references or desist from continuing this line of argument. Your facts need to be verifiable its not a matter of facts or opinions under Misplaced Pages:Verifiability you may also wish to look at Misplaced Pages:The_Truth --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comprehension is the problem here. If you cannot see why the Barassi Line is relevant after all the effort I've put into explaining it, there is no point continuing the discussion. This simply adds to the fact that you stupidly claim that the name "football" is not ambiguous. I see incompetence. Goodnight. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of my competence or otherwise, your use of yet failure to explain why the Barassi line is relevant shows a lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages:NOR please substantiate why the Barassi line is relevant or desist from that line of argument. Please take the time to read Misplaced Pages:V#Sources before you comment any further on the matter. You MUST provide credible sources that support your opinion that the barassi line is relevant to "soccer" --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have explained it. Do you know what I meant when I said it was, among other things, a linguistic divide? HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You have explained it, but you have failed to substantiate it, as far as[REDACTED] is concerned that is merely an opinion which is original research which goes against Misplaced Pages:NOR. Please substantiate your claims, it's really not that difficult --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're talking bullshit. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking bullshit and you have clearly once again shown a lack of civility along with recent claims about my "competence." You're unwilling to substantiate your beliefs certainly has shown a lack of your own credibility however --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your apparent inability to comprehend the significance of the Barassi Line on the use of the word "football" across Australia, combined with your insane claim that "football" is not ambiguous in this country, have convinced me that you are not capable of understanding any more that I say. In this matter you simply ARE incompetent. For that reason there is no point in me communicating with you further on this topic. Goodnight. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of civility and inability to comprehend the changing nature of the sport of soccer in this country is astounding, it is little wonder why you continue to raise issues with others about civility. You should take a good hard look at yourself before you continue to comment and waste everyones time. Furthermore, you are in no position to judge or not judge my competence. I could draw conclusions that you are a wanker but I won't go that far --Orestes1984

Furthermore,

In 2005 the Australian Soccer Association changed its name to the Football Federation of Australia and was followed by some of the state federations as they embraced football as the name by which the code would officially be known. Since the 1880s the game has been known successively as British football, soccer football, soccer and, more derisively, ‘wogball’ during the period of post‐Second World War migration (Talia Cerritelli, ‘Football: A code divided’, Victorian Soccer Federation website, March 2005. The original link was accessed 23 March 2005, by which time the VSF had become the Football Federation of Victoria, following Western Australia and the Northern Territory. By now all other states have fallen into line. If you have anything else to add please SUBSTANTIATE your claims --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The reference to the Barassi line is really just to point out that most of the people arguing to use the word football live on the Rugby side of the line. And whilst the two rugby games are sometimes called footy or football, the fans are not really that attached to the word "football", as they have other brief unique names for their sport, "League" or "Union". Hence, the a lot of the Sydney based national media has happily fallen into line with the FFA's wishes and now calls soccer, football. However, in Victoria, SA, WA & Tassie (the SW side of the Barassi Line), the word football has been linked with Australian rules football for 150 years. Not just the last 10. So we have a problem. Two sports in Australia are now officially, intricately and intrinsically linked to the same word - Football. So, on the world wide Misplaced Pages, the Australian rules football articles have (generally) happily accepted that we can't just use the word football, or even Australian Football (which according to the AFL is the official name of the game), as they are ambiguous terms, so we use Australian rules football. So, what can the round ball code do. I am adamant that they can't use Football in Australia, because for a great number of Australians that phrase doesn't refer to soccer. Association Football in Australia is a possibility, but that phrase whilst common on Misplaced Pages, isn't commonly used here, and in the past often mean Australian rules football played in leagues that were called Associations, such as the Victorian Football Association. So we are left with either Soccer in Australia, Soccer (football) in Australia or Football (soccer) in Australia or similar. And all are welcome to read through the pages of discussions above and at Talk:Football in Australia to see why they are or aren't liked by many. And finally, for most Australians in 2013 and onwards, soccer is not used to deride or denigrate the game. It is used because it is part of our language and for clarity. It is the one name that is completely unambiguous. To claim otherwise is just wanting to be offended for the sake of it, or to make this a battleground. The-Pope (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct, we on the rugby side of the line are just as happy to refer to rugby as rugby or league, occasionally rah rah pejoratively thrown at us by those who follow union. Union people also use football or rugby without confusion generally. Being from a migrant background, football intrinsically becomes the round ball game, or the world game and we have an aversion to the term soccer as it generally shows a lack of sporting maturity. Being a representative of a migrant background I can use the terms interchangeably when necessary as do many others. If I were around other migrants we would be more comfortable using the term football, but not soccer. I am in a pretty unique position however it shouldn't be about me I've sourced my opinion on this and simply take the position that the governing bodies of the sport do and that is that sport is considered football.

As I said before I'm going to drop the stick because this argument is going nowhere and the other participant simply won't listen to reason about the matter --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hilo will never accept the obvious solution of every sport being named it's specific, official name. He wants to ensure that Australian Rules, Rugby League and Rugby Union can use their official names, while also denying the same 'official name' standard. He loves the "Barrassi Line" so much, I wonder if that means I can propose AFL be renamed to "GayFL", or maybe "Aerial Ping Pong" or "Seagulls Scrapping Over A Chip" or "Handegg" or "Fumbleball" or maybe even "Boganball", some of those are extremely common names for AFL in NSW & QLD, which as we all know, make up the majority of the population of Australia.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the silly abuse and insults, you seem incapable of comprehending that what you call the "official" name for the round ball game, football, is also by far the by most common name of Aussie Rules on that side of the Barassi Line, and almost uniquely understood to mean Aussie Rules there. Using that name for soccer on Misplaced Pages would simply create ambiguity where there is no need for any to exist. "Soccer" is the perfect name for the game here. It is the only unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. (Have you planned that big adventure journey to the other side of the line yet?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, can't you put your pride aside and realise that in Australia the game is officially known as football, like Australian rules football is officially known as Australian football. The term soccer was removed, so the specific use of it seems dated and illogical, especially on an encyclopedia which prides itself on being up-to-date and current. It is as if[REDACTED] is a book written in 2003, with no update since. Everyone associated with the game in Australia knows the sport is now called football; why does it matter what others call the sport when simply shouldn't know because they have no association with the sport. Many Australian call Australian rules football AFL because they don't know any better, because they aren't associated with the sport, though it doesn't change the name of the sport. I bet there are a couple of older fans of Australian rules football who call the sport Victorian rules football. Isn't the change in that sports name just a 'marketing gimmick'?--2nyte (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Does this really need to be repeated again? Those silly (or ignorant?) soccer administrators in Sydney want to change the name of soccer to a name that has for 150 years uniquely meant something else for the half of the Australian population on the other side of the Barassi Line. To change the name of soccer to football here would create unnecessary ambiguity. The soccer players on that other side of the line from you still call themselves just that, soccer players. You really should take on the big adventure some time and travel there to learn about another culture. (It seems you'll keep talking crap until you do.) "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. (PS: That isn't pride on my part. It's providing facts that you and the soccer administrators seem to want to ignore.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I think the silly (or ignorant?) ones are those who follow Australian football, rugby league or rugby union, but choose to use the ambiguous 'football' even when football is known all around the world as the official name of soccer. Football Federation Australia never forced Australians to ONLY use football, in fact the state federations choose to change their names, as did many clubs, South Melbourne FC being one. Maybe you yourself should go exploring and get out of your comfort zone; your local clubs might be called 'Soccer Club' but that's just for show, to appease the ALF crazies in Victoria. Go talk to the fans, administrators, players, even in your local club; they probably call the game football, as many Australian have done their whole life, they probably follow the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, as many Australian have done their whole life. (PS: almost 1/4 of all Australians immigrated here after WW2 from countries where football has only one meaning; like it or not, that is modern Australia.)--2nyte (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My local soccer club is called "HiLoSuburb Soccer Club", and its players, of whom I know several, all talk about playing soccer. There's a massive logic to that. There is another club, "HiLoSuburb Football Club" in my suburb, which plays Aussie Rules. The local high school has a football team and a soccer team. It's like that across the half of the country you know nothing directly about. And that's why Aussie Rules supporters this side of the Barassi Line call their game football, and not anything else. Aussie Rules came first! It was codified and got that common name across half of Australia from 1859 onwards, well before soccer was codified. In expecting them to change the common name for their sport you are asking that Aussie Rules fans drop a usage that's 150 years old. Whether they "should" or shouldn't is irrelevant. It's just un-bloody-likely. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I think you are misunderstanding something very important, that is, by using association football or even football on[REDACTED] instead of soccer there is no direct or indirect impact on any other sport, whether it be Australian rules football, rugby league, American football, netball or tennis. There is no impact whatsoever, we are just updating[REDACTED] to reflect the change undergoing the round ball game in Australia. A change that can not be denied, even in Victoria, Tasmania or South Australia. PS: if you don't believe the change is happening and has happened already, read the past few discussions, there is a lot of links and facts from all around Australia supporting that statement.--2nyte (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you simply don't understand. At no point have I been discussing the impact of the name change on other sports. All through this I thought you must have been confused. That proves it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, then what are you arguing? That Soccer in Australia is the best title and the only title that can be used for this article? One of the biggest events in the history of the sport in Australia was the changing of its title from soccer to football. This must be represented in the article title, there is not reason to argue against it. If football is ambiguous then an alternative must be used and on[REDACTED] that alternative is association football. It is very simple, again there is not reason to argue against it. Like any other article would, this title must change. If a film changed its title, we would change its article title. If an actor changed his title, we would change his article's title. If the A-League changed its title to the Australian League, we would change its article title. A change in title is needed and Association football in Australia is the best outcome.--2nyte (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If I have read right, you are suggesting replacing an unambiguous title with a title virtually nobody in Australia uses. Are you taking the piss? Hack (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, nobody actually calls the game "Association football". It's obviously not a WP:common name, so quite unsuitable. "Football" alone is confusingly ambiguous. "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

There is need for change. A notable event occurred and we must act accordingly, not ignore it. Association football in Australia is the best title for this article. Misplaced Pages refers to the sport as association football and the sport is refereed to association football in the Macquarie Dictionary (Australian English).--2nyte (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We have noted that "notable" event in the article. But the notable event was to change the name to "football", so why argue for "Association football". I don't get it. What's wrong with "soccer"? Yes, some people want a different name. one that can't be used here, but an awful lot don't want a new name, or don't care. And it's the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, the changing from soccer to football was a move specifically away from soccer. Therefor it is inappropriate to use in this article title. This does not need to be spelt out. There is not consequence, Association football in Australia is just the best title for this article.--2nyte (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

But where does that leave people who either aren't seek or specifically don't want that new name? (There's an awful lot of them, including many soccer players and fans.) With a name that nobody uses? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am specifically talking about changing this articles title.--2nyte (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hilo as I have stated repeatedly , repeatedly , repeatedly , and again and as the point of verifiability originally was. it is about VERIFIABILITY and not "facts." As someone who has two degrees, your consistent contention that there is such a thing as FACTS in academic research gives me a headache... You are perhaps THE single most frustrating editor on Misplaced Pages I've come across and you deserve a Barnstar for that --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BLUE? HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

For a significant percentage of Australians it is no longer obvious that the sky is blue... I have provided the reasoning for this in the history of the game which I will expand upon further to include the logistical reasoning behind that as soon as I paraphrase it. --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You've misunderstood, again. There is no doubt at all that the Sydney based administrators of the game want it to be called "football" by everyone everywhere. But that places no pressure at all on Misplaced Pages to change. I have simply been trying to get you to understand how unlikely it is that the change will succeed among non-fans, any time soon. Since there are more fans of other codes, that means nothing changes for us. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what others think about the matter you are pushing a POV agenda, what matters is that for all intents and purposes as per the history of the game which I have just updated, the game is football. I suggest you read the evidence, there's that word again, that I have provided for why this is the case --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is no doubt at all that the Sydney based administrators of the game want it to be called "football" by everyone everywhere. There's plenty of evidence for that. But it doesn't change the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again you have pushed a POV agenda about the "Sydney based administrators of the game." The point of the matter which I will reiterate is that the only english language word for the game that is being played outside of park "soccer" is football and that is clearly evidence based. Despite what your local "soccer" club is called, it falls under administration by the Football Federation of Australia and is thus considered a football club, every level of the game in this country is considered football. As far as the governing body of the sport is concerned the term soccer no longer exists with reference to any team playing under it --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That governing body must have conniptions every time it sees those naughty soccer players and clubs who still use that name. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@User:Orestes1984, refer to WP:OFFICIALNAME - just being an official name doesn't make it the most logical name under WP:NAMING. I would suggest you don't accuse others of behaviour that can't be directed back at you. If you are proposing a name change, don't make this personal and stick to Misplaced Pages policy. Hack (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@User:Hack I find this all blatantly ridiculous and lacking of my main concern, academic integrity when a game of "soccer" can be administered by the Football (key word) Federation of Australia and when furthermore an outsider who reads this article will only find out by reading this article that the sport of "soccer" becomes football. There is no way to disambiguate this evidence, which as I stated only leads to confusion. What the opposing side of the argument is asking us to do is to ignore the successful historical push to have the sport recognised as football at least to it's supporters and the grounds and reasoning why this occured over the last 10 years.

I have addressed the matters as they are in the article based on evidence and as such yes I do not believe that name of this page is suitable any longer for the sport of "soccer" in this country, it is more than just an administrative decision as those opposed would have you think, there is far more to it then that which is why hilo should be declared incompetent to edit this page --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

How is it not suitable? For many Australians, football is something else. You need to be able to disambiguate the term football in the article title. This is not about personal preference, this is about avoiding confusion to the reader. Hack (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Watch out Hack. I've been saying that for months, and it apparently makes me incompetent. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It is really not suitable on the grounds I mentioned above, I do not need to repeat myself. Firstly soccer is not the sport that is played by the Football Federation of Australia as it says under the orginisation section which causes confusion. Secondly as I have stated previously and as the peer reviewed article I have used states the term football is one which is culturally significant to "soccer" supporters and finally as I have also stated, circa 2004-2005 the sport becomes football as more than simply an administrative name

On those grounds the user above who suggests it is just a name is highly incompetent and should not be editing this page --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tunnel vision on display there. The world is not what you and the FFA want it to be. Many soccer players and fans still call the game soccer. It's their choice. It's not a problem to them. Why should it be a problem to you?

You know, I actually feel a bit sorry for you and others who have been led along by the FFA. The are the administrators of the game you love, so you want them to be perfect. But either through deliberate deception, or incompetence, they took soccer in Australia down a path it could never get to the end of. They have let you down. It's tough on you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Feigned sympathy does not help your cause and further to the point to expand upon what the administrators of the game have said, they know this is just the beginning. Besides the point, when so many people in this country are playing soccer eventually something has to give, it's not a matter of if but when. The A-League in terms of attendance is having another good season on top of the last 2 since it has built a bridge with the former NSL teams and established the Australian Premier League. The FFA has also had actual success in terms of establishing a team in Western Sydney where the AFL has not despite being able to spend more money and bankrolling flop players like Israel Falou. If anything it will be the fact that the sport is not affected by thebarassi line which will see it continue to grow in popularity. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Orestes1984, what is your opinion on the article title?

My opinion is that the title will lead to nothing less than confusion based on the recent history in the sport and the current title is not up to date purely from an academic perspective. This is based on evidence I have found whilst I have shaped the recent history section of this article. The term soccer is problematic because by the end of having read the history section an outside reader will realise that the game is actually football. There is also no simple way to disambiguate the issue in a a way that maintains the thoughts of the people who originally contributed them and for me to change the thoughts of what the FFA said to state it in a way that used the word soccer would lead myself to imputing original research. I have already suggested the alternative football (soccer) in Australia which is available. As I have stated previously and as a trained historian, my interest is in evidence not facts --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Confusion to whom? Even in English-speaking countries where football unambiguously refers to the game administered by FIFA, soccer is clearly understood. For example the likes of Soccer AM and World Soccer Magazine amongst many others. Hack (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If I was alien to this and wanted to come into this article and find out what soccer is in Australia and by the time I read the end of the history section it told me that the sport was football I would be confused and there really is very little way to disambiguate the goings on in the sport over the last 10 years other than to refer to it as the happening of "football" as they've occured. Even as someone who is not alien to the sport I find that a football federation playing soccer is confusing, one or the other not both and the decision was made in terms of cut and dry academics nary 10 year ago to call the sport football and so it is --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, looks like more trolling. I'll come back when there is a serious proposal. Hack (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Hack LOL! I must be a funny looking troll for someone who has actually been putting quite a few good faith edits on this page recently. You might want to have a look at Misplaced Pages:Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is that "football" cannot be used in Misplaced Pages as the name for "soccer" in Australia because of its ambiguity. It is used by far more than half of the Australian population as the common name of something else. HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, that is a very broad statement, that "football" cannot be used on any Australian[REDACTED] article to refer to the round ball game. Does that apply to every other football code on Australian articles? American football, rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules football, etc.?--2nyte (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would think so, because it's ambiguous everywhere, although I can imagine some Australian football content using the word because it that code was the only meaning the word had on that side of the Barassi Line until soccer's Sydney based administrators started playing their little games with it. Are you going to show me some examples? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

But "football" in reference to Australian rules football is ambiguous in New South Wales and Queensland. In those states "football" would refer to soccer or a code of rugby, as it would in every other country in the world, with exception to North America, where "football" would refer to Gridiron football.--2nyte (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not defending it. Just saying it wouldn't surprise me to see an example of such usage. There are certainly places where soccer articles are written without thought as to possible ambiguity. To me, some of the most amusing are the articles on Australian soccer players. I've seen several where the player is described as "an Australian footballer". (See Tim Cahill and Lucas Neill as examples.) Well, not surprisingly, that's the perfectly valid description given in articles about players of Australian football. (See Stephen Milne (Australian footballer).) Best to avoid just "football" to describe any code in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the point, I'm just trying to see where you stand on the matter.--2nyte (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Hope it's clear now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

right... so it's coming back to this again... "Sydney based administrators" this IS NOT neutral point of view please refrain from using this argument again to justify your edits as it is a clear violation of neutral point of view. As for Tim Cahill in particular his notability to millions of Europeans, and British folk for years at Milwall and Everton was as a Football player because that's what the game IS called in Europe/the UK. You really are incompetent --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides in any way here. The soccer administrators ARE Sydney based. It's significant. I am 100% certain that if they had been Melbourne based they would never have made the decision to change the code's name to "football". They simply wouldn't have followed that thought process. The cultural background of people is critical here. And doesn't it bother you at all that Cahill is described in exactly the same way as people who play Australian football? As for whether I know what the British folk call the game, of course I do (although the first British folk I met were immigrants here who happily and enthusiastically called it soccer). I just described the identical descriptions as amusing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The location of soccer's administration IS irrelevant, there are other factors involved in why soccer is considered football in Australia. you are pushing an argument that violates NPOV the game is called football in this country for other reasons and has a completely different fan base that doesn't recognise AFL's line in the sand. As we can see through the history of the sport in Australia "soccer" is a game played by outsiders, and if I ever heard a migrant calling the game soccer I would laugh, no matter whether in Melbourne, or in Sydney. At best I can assume you are one of the new soccer football fans who doesn't understand the historical and cultural connection to the word football as noted in the history of the game. At worst you are pushing an argument that is not NPOV and assuming that Australian Rules Football has any sort of notability where Tim Cahill played the majority of his career, or that football as it were outside of Australia should conform to standards about an Australian rules football article. Tim Cahill's main notability is as a football player for Everton, you have nothing to stand on --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Missed both points (and a question) completely, but that seems normal. As for me being a new fan, that's amusing too. I grew up in a country town that won the state soccer championship way back in the 1950s. It was soccer territory because of a massive migrant population. Ten years later I wasn't good enough to get into the school soccer team (the competition was just too hot!) but I still played for fun. It was only ever called soccer back then, precisely by that immigrant population, who called it that with great enthusiasm. Never a negative about the name. The stupid fans, and the bullshit promotional crap and insistence on unnecessarily and confusingly changing the name in recent times, has been pushing me away. But I reckon I probably know a bit more about the history of the game, at least in Victoria, than you. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your insularity and incompetence astounds me, furthermore it was only ever called soccer as a form of appeasement to the people like yourself that can't understand why the game is called football --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Appeasement? LOL. I can't stop you believing whatever you want, but I was there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't understand that when I say the word soccer it is a form of appeasement and always has been you're lost. As I have provided in referenced material the word football is highly cultural and significant. I would take evidence over your personal opinion every day of the week and twice on Tuesday --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. You constantly allege that I am expressing opinion. I have gone out of my way in these discussions to not do so. Your certainty is somewhat of a worry. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have verified just about everything I have stated here with evidence, might I remind you as I said on your talk page, it is often easier to substantiate than argue. Might I also remind you of the policy when it comes to matters such as the above as the old rules go but remain largely verbatim verifiability, not truisms --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's nice that you are so certain about what people did 50 years ago 1800 km from where you live. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not really what the source says - it doesn't argue that the change to "football" from "soccer" was made because the term "football" was highly cultural, but that the move was made on cultural grounds, as they were attempting a cultural change through rebranding. - Bilby (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

the cultural change was the ethic ties that had brought violence to games, the idea was to reduce that issue. As successful as it has been at the top level the lower levels of the game remain bonded to those ethnic ties. Gnangarra 04:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Some searches of Trove, the best source for information relating to Australia;

• football NOT soccer digitized newspapers 2.2m articles, journals 2.3m articles 20,000 books, 50,000 photos 464 organisations.....
• soccer NOT football 144,000 articles, 8,000 books, 9,000 photo's, 488,000 journals,
• football no other condition digitized newspapers 2.3m articles, 26,000 books, 2.5m journals....
• football and Victoria 300,000 articles, 6000 books, 48,000 journals,

The whole point is it doesnt matter how one pulls footballs usage apart its usage in Australia is ambiguous at the very least, in reality "Australian Rules Football" is the most dominant usage of the term in Australia therefore an argument could be put forth for it being the primary topic. The most logical outcome, least controversial and most likely to remain stable is no one topic uses the term and each use a term thats acceptable to the majority. Given that this argument is circular, unresolvable thru discussion and frequently push WP:NPA, WP:NPOV to respective limits then maybe its time that editors agreed to leaving this discussion as is and move on to more productive activities. Gnangarra 04:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

What the article clearly says the re-branding is very much cultural. It does not say that this has anything to do with inter-ethnic conflict. It then goes on to state the business reasons why the move were made is because the NSL was dead as a product as a result of a number of issues.

Some of these issues are inter-ethnic conflict, other issues include general corruption of the NSL and its inability to continue as a body as it was basically defunct. The NSL threatened to run an opposing season, but in the end basically couldn't getit off the ground. As I have stated, everything I have added here is verifiable. If you think it's too close to the source (as I understand it has to be to close to what the source says) FIX it, don't REVERT it.

The biggest issue with this article is the number of editors who are either incompetent to edit it on various grounds or who consistently push a view that either falls under NPA or against NPOV. I have abstained from personal view and verified what I have stated with evidence, I only wish other editors here would do the same --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

And that from the editor who wrote five days ago "The term football is not ambiguous". LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

To quote myself properly rather than as a misquote above, from my perspective football is not ambiguous KEEP READING this is not Tony Abbott we can do a little better than 3 word slogans. I assume in good faith that the majority of Misplaced Pages editors are not completely incompetent.

Football is not ambiguous it may refer to many different things in different contexts, if I must push a POV it's that the correct word should be used in its context specific linkage to the topic at hand. It is really not that hard to see in the case of this article that football would refer to the round ball game. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That was not a misquote. It was a copy and paste of your entire post at 04:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC). I await your humblest apologies. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 It still remains a misquote of my thoughts which I have later elaborated upon and am not going to reiterate. I agree with the above, so long as the link is correct, the term in context is not ambiguous and can be disambiguated by a lead statement stating that it is also known as soccer --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. First time I've ever heard of the concept that directly quoting precisely what someone said, in it's entirety, could be a misquote. Ah well, it's good to learn something new every day. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to be realistic of our outcomes and what we want to and should achieve. Firstly, in Australia, in a general context the term "football" is ambiguous, it can mean any of the football codes. Though in a specific context the term "football" is not ambiguous. That is how we should approach this on Australian[REDACTED] articles, where "football" can be used in a specific context with a hyperlink (i.e. football, football, football). In articles specifically about association football, Australian rules football, ect. the use of "football" is not ambiguous, it is specific and in context. Now to this article: it should be titled Association football in Australia, association football is the default name for the sport on wikipedia, it is in the Australian English dictionary and it is impartial to any bias form "football" or "soccer". While "association football" will be in this articles title, "football" may be used in the article to refer to the sport, as the article has no ambiguity as is specific and in context to one sport. We must also specify in the article that the sport is commonly known as "soccer", as the term is brought up in the article (Soccer Australia, National Soccer League, ect), so we need the context. The only argument against the use of "football" is ambiguity, and this prevents it.--2nyte (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly ambiguous, and I think it's also invalid to argue that "football" is the common name for the sport in Australia. It's certainly not the common name on the Aussie Rules side of the line. Almost everybody there, including soccer fans and players, calls the game soccer, and that's half the Australian population. League fans are unlikely to call it football. The media targets them with a Footy Show. Not sure about Union fans, but that already takes us well over the 50% mark who don't call it "football". HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Except of course when league fans do. There are a number of newspaper articles published on the Rugby league side of the Barassi line that use football to refer to league. "Then we took the boys to the football grounds for practice. They returned home dirty and exhausted." That sort of thing occurs in a lot of columns. On the younger side, there are often a number of references to touch football as football. During the season, you also have gridiron football referred to as football. In almost all contexts, articles have other words surrounding it that make clear what the code is if it is not 100% obvious. ("Football kicks off this weekend in Sydney's suburbs with the top soccer league in the state starting their competition." "His experience with rugby in Australia helped him get a scholarship to play football at a university in the United States.") Football on its own, no matter the code on both sides of the Barassi line, almost always requires some modifier to make clear. I've been re-visiting academic sources and books on Australian football. I have yet to find a source that discusses the linguistics of football to support any such claim regarding universal usage. If there is, cite the sources. (That's what is frustrating. Academic and book sources are required here to support these claims, and the soccer pushers have none. They are not familiar with the body of academic work.) --LauraHale (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets not argue about common name because in Australia none of the main football codes have one and only one distinct common name; they all have many nicknames, common names and official names. For example, in Australian English association football, football, soccer and the world game can refer to the same sport. Let's allow the use of "football" in specific articles where no ambiguity exists, where only one sport is refereed to, articles such as National Rugby League, Geelong Football Club, Western Sydney Wanderers FC, Tim Cahill; there is no ambiguity if we say: Tim Cahill (born 6 December 1979) is an Australian footballer, who plays for the New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer and the Australian national team - "football" has a link to the correct sport (association football), so there is no doubt whatsoever, there is no problem, no ambiguity whatsoever. If you have any doubt then you simply don't know how[REDACTED] works. So there is no argument necessary.--2nyte (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I support the above statements, and anyway lets not go there anyway, because SBS also runs a show that is unambiguously called Thursday FC (football club) across Australia as does Foxtel and SBS refer to the sport as football across Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

2nyte - that's fine in principle, but is not a magic bullet solution. I still see problems arising because of the incorrect certainty many editors have about how things happen and how the language is used in places they're really not familiar with. You and Orestes are perfect examples.

As for your example above, as soon as Tim Cahill is described as an Australian footballer, before following the links, a person on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, who hasn't heard of Cahill, will first think he plays Aussie Rules. You see, because of the strength of meaning of "football" in that area, there is no doubt among such people. An Australian footballer plays Australian football. They wouldn't even think of the alternative. Yes, later text makes it clearer that he probably plays another sport, but it still doesn't say "soccer", the name my hypothetical reader knows the game by. For an Australian subject, we're still ignoring the linguistic habits of half the Australian population. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, firstly, the statement Tim Cahill is an Australian footballer is NOT ambiguous. The link to association football alone removes ambiguity, anyone who known anything about[REDACTED] knows that. Secondly, using "football" is only being current, as anyone who knows about the sport in Australia (whether they call it soccer or football) knows that it is called football by the official governing bodies. That is the trend going through the round ball game in Australia. Lastly, despite what you might think, half the population do NOT call Australian rules football "football"; half of Australia doesn't follow the sport, the last AFL grand final had 2.7 million views (not half the population) and many hundreds of 'soccer' clubs south of the Barassi Line‎ are named 'Football Club' by choice. Unless you have facts to prove otherwise, don't come up with those remarks.--2nyte (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You haven't been on the other side of the line, and your incorrect comments about how people think and speak in a place you've never been, are simply proving my point. You are just plain wrong. How can you possibly be so arrogant? And I work with schoolkids. They use Misplaced Pages like a Bible. Most of them have no idea how it works. They just believe the first thing they read there and copy and paste it into essays, thereby losing all the links. Looking at links and sourcing is something I naturally try to teach them, but it's an uphill battle. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the stupidest thing I have every heard. Don't use "football" because school kids in Melbourne who plagiaries[REDACTED] won't get the full context. No Hilo, try again and respond to my three points above. Explain how my three points are incorrect in detail.--2nyte (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You've never been to the other side of the Barassi Line. What is it that makes YOU think you know how and what people there think? HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I never said nor assumed I know what people think. I am just being factual and logical. I made three points above, if you disagree with them explain why.--2nyte (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Simple. You are wrong on all three points. Partly right in some areas, but wrong in total due to tunnel vision. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, you have said three times that my statement is wrong but you have failed to explain why. Please explain why the statement is wrong and do so specifically to the three points so I can understand you reasoning.--2nyte (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no point. You won't accept it. It involves telling you that what you think is the reality somewhere you've never been just isn't the case. Your fanatical loyalty to soccer involves a belief that those Sydney administrators have chosen the perfect path forward. They haven't, but you won't accept that yet either. At an absolute minimum you should try to get all your soccer news from the other side of the Barassi Line for a while. Difficult with broadcast media, so I can understand the difficulties you face, but at least do it with print media. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, stop dodging my questions and answer them. Otherwise, if you don't want to cooperate then leave the discussion. I have three very legitimate points and I want you to respond specifically to them, and them only.

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Point 1: On[REDACTED] the statement Australian footballer is NOT ambiguous. The link to association football removes ambiguity, anyone who known anything about[REDACTED] knows that. The hyperlink provides context to the word "football", which without the hyperlink is ambiguous.

Of course the statement "Australian footballer" is ambiguous. Do you live in an alternative universe where "ambiguous" means the opposite of what it means in this universe? And your link for "footballer" is to "association football". Therefore your argument contradicts itself. It doesn't "remove" ambiguity at all ~ it only serves to highlight it. I have rarely read such complete and utter nonsense on Misplaced Pages as your so-called "point". Afterwriting (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Point 2: Using "football" to refer to the round ball game is only being current, as anyone who knows about the sport in Australia (whether they call it soccer or football) knows that it is called football by the official governing bodies. That is the trend going through the round ball game in Australia. Read this for more info.

Point 3: Despite what you might think, half the population do NOT call Australian rules football "football"; half of Australia doesn't follow the sport, the last AFL grand final had 2.7 million views (not half the population) and many hundreds of 'soccer' clubs south of the Barassi Line‎ are named 'Football Club' by choice. Unless you have facts to prove otherwise, don't come up with those remarks.

Please respond to those three points specifically.--2nyte (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

They have all been responded to, many times. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, why are you so unwilling to respond to my points. Stop dodging my questions and answer them. I don't care if you already have, I want them clarified.--2nyte (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all I have already stated under Misplaced Pages:Notability Tim Cahill is recognised by a larger population throughout Europe alone as an Australian football player than he is in his native country as a "soccer" player. NB: They play football in the UK, you have even stated that people on your side of the Barassi line may not even recognise Tim Cahill which supports my point. Furthermore Tim Cahill is internationally recognised and every Everton and Milwall fan will be looking for Tim Cahill as a Footballer.

Secondly as for you your conflated oppinion that AFL is football therefore all Australian football players must be soccer players... This makes you incompetent to edit this article alone. Please refrain from inserting your opinion that fails to meet NPOV and furthermore shows a complete lack of understanding of Misplaced Pages:Notability. You are inserting a view that an internationally recognised football player that has more notability outside of the country he represents should be called a soccer player purely because you are an AFL tragic.

As a complete misuse of Google and purely original research purely to prove a point, Tim Cahill and Football returns About 730,000, while Tim Cahill and soccer returns about 467,000 results. This is not notability, however it simply returns which search terms would actually return more results about Tim Cahill --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Worst post you've made yet, I think. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Can both 2nyte and Orestes please plan a trip to the other side of the Barassi Line. You won't believe what others tell you about it. Maybe you'll believe your own ears and eyes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is isn't the weight of evidence shows your conflated and incorrect opinion for what it is. It's obvious what your editing agenda is when it comes to this and other soccer related articles. If anyone is agenda pushing it is yourself and your use of Tim Cahill is perhaps the most flagrant example --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent point to let this sit for a while. Happy to let the rest of the world judge.

Of course I'd like any such judgements of my comments to be based on what I have actually said, not on someone else's interpretation of what they think I meant by what I said. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

@HiLo48:, I disagree. They do not need to visit the other side of the Barassi Line. Rather, they need to familiarize themselves with academic sources about football in Australia for a multi-code perspective. WP:V is important here. There is a lot of WP:OR regarding usage of the name, but very few sources. The sources out there that do exist say the sport in Australia is called soccer. I'd be more inclined to believe good faith efforts to resolve issues here, to uphold policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV if instead of turning Misplaced Pages into a combat sport, they would work to resolve issues. I notice @2nyte: still hasn't fixed the problem he introduced into the article of completely removing women from the article. How about we deal with FULLY CITING this article, and putting women back into the article. After those huge issues have been resolved, after @2nyte: and @Orestes1984: have started reading lots and lots of sources to deal with these problems, we should be at a point where a trip to the other side of the line is not required. --LauraHale (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you LauraHale One of the key issues here that I've been trying to raise consistently is that you do need to verify. The other issue I've raised with Hilo48 is that consensus is not not always the best way of looking at things as Hilo48 should know given his past encounters. I'm going to leave this with what you've stated above as with full disclosure I am aware that occasionally I can tend to come off as abrasive and/or stubborn.

As you are aware I have begun adding citations for large chunks of the history of the game in this country that were missing. So lets stick to that shall we so as we don't get into battleground debates about issues here. I will stick to verifying where I stand so long as others realise we do need to cite that the sky is blue --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This article should be moved to Association football in Australia. Other Australian articles specific to the sport (clubs, players, organisations, etc.) should refer to the sport as "football" with a hyperlink to association football (i.e. football) in the opening paragraph. In other non-specific articles (e.g. Sport in Australia) the sport should be referred to as association football. Although "soccer" is not a dead word in Australia, it's usage is no longer official (as shown here); it is no longer appropriate to refer to the sport as "soccer" on Australian[REDACTED] articles, the sport has moved on and we must represented this change.--2nyte (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

So you want my local soccer club, officially referred to in its own name, by all its fans and players, in all its publicity, and in its legally registered name, as a soccer club, to be described as a football club in Misplaced Pages? That's just plain stupid. Maybe you you come and visit the club and tell them all they're wrong. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That source makes it clear that the change to football from soccer is not universal, with papers in the AFL states continuing to refer to soccer. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

All of this campaign from 2nyte, Orestes, and occasionally others seems built around the fact that they cannot cope with the name "soccer" being used for the sport. That's a very POV position. Huge numbers of Australians, including many soccer players and fans, and big chinks of the media, comfortably use that term as their primary name for the sport. There has been no good reason given for not using soccer, except for things like "the sport is trying to move away from that name". Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't change what a huge number of people around the country do. A marketing drive by a sport must never be the driver of what we do on Misplaced Pages. More than half the country's population is completely happy with soccer as the name for the sport. It's the ONLY non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. It's the perfect name for the game in an Australian context in Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The campaign for "football" also ignores that fact that article names should use "common names" rather than "official names" for things. The argument for the official name, therefore, is invalid unless "football" is also the common name which, in Australia, it still isn't for the general population as opposed to the sport's supporters. On this basis alone the article must continue to use "soccer" in the title. If "football" ever became the common and unambiguous name in Australia then the issue can be reconsidered. Until then it cannot. If you don't like Misplaced Pages's article name policies then challenge them in the appropriate places instead of seeking to invent your own policies. Afterwriting (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Afterwriting, there is no actual facts supporting the claim that "soccer" is currently the common name for the sport in Australia. And in terms of ambiguity, the term "football" is only ambiguous on[REDACTED] if it is not in context; in the article Western Sydney Wanderers FC for example, referring to the sport as "football", especially with a hyperlink to association football (i.e. football) in the opening is not ambiguous as the word "football" is in context, the reader knows specifically what sport is being referred to, no other meaning would nor could be assumed.--2nyte (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Bilby, yes the source makes it clear that the change to football from soccer is not universal, although would the change ever be considered universal in Australia? Even if all the major newspapers referred to the sport as "football" (if they haven't already, the article was written months 14 ago) people would still argue that the sport should only be referred to as "soccer", as stated in the article. The fact is that one of the biggest events in the history of the round ball game in Australia was the changing of its title from "soccer" to "football"; it can never be considered a universal change, but it is a change nonetheless, one we must represent, as we would for any other topic on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not? I've told you about schoolkids in Victoria. Your response was a combination of "I don't believe you" and "they must be stupid". Dunno about yours, but the page I'm looking at right now has a link on the left called "Random article". I know people who entertain themselves by clicking on that repeatedly. Nothing they read is "in context". They could hit Western Sydney Wanderers FC, with no idea what sport it's about. And not everybody checks all the links. I know that you classify such people as stupid, but that's not a smart argument. Your world of playing soccer and being a hard core, very loyal fan, based in one part of Sydney, is very insular. The world, even Australia, is very diverse. Most people do not have your perspective. You really have to believe people who tell you what things are like elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, firstly you completely misquoted me on both occasions, I previously said "That is the stupidest thing I have every heard" - in relation to school kids who plagiaries[REDACTED] not getting the full context. Again, all we should do is make sure what we produce is in context, it is up to the reader to interpret the information as they will.--2nyte (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

So let's make it as easy as possible for everyone. "Soccer" is the ONLY non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. Logic tells us that it is more common than "football". A minority's ideological objection to the name "soccer" cannot drive policy here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I really think you should read this article. A quote: "Of course, a name is only a name. Many will continue to call it "Soccer" wherever they live - and proponents of "Football" should accept that. No-one has the right to dictate which terms should be used on an individual basis. But that courtesy should also be extended to those who prefer "Football", too. It’s no longer enough to say "in Australia, it’s soccer" because for many, it simply isn’t." This is not a war of ideology, this is just you, HiLo48, pushing your opinion of what you think the sport should be called. Call the sport whatever you want, but don't expect others to follow.

If we are going to be completely unbiased, if we are going to represent the current state of the sport in Australia we must stop referring to it as "soccer" for the sake it it; ignorance is no longer a reason. The change in name was one of the biggest events in the history of the sport in Australia. We must use "football" (with a hyperlink to the sport) on specific articles, and "association football" on non-specific articles.--2nyte (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that I need to make it clear again that, regardless of what the official name of something is, article names on Misplaced Pages use the 'common name. The official "change in name" argument is irrelevant to article names. Unless you have any evidence that "football" is now also the common name then most article names for the sport in Australia should continue to use "soccer". As for using "football" or "association football" in the body of the article, that is a different issue. Afterwriting (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Afterwriting, what would be considered evidence that "football" is now also the common name? Would the changing of the national and state body names, the changing of hundreds of club names, the changing of the union name and the use by newspapers in the most populous area of the country count as evidence? The term "soccer" may not be dead, but it's usage has dramatically lessened, it is no longer the universal term for the sport as it once was.--2nyte (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Soccer" may no longer be quite as universal in Australia as it once was but it is still almost certainly the name which the vast majority of Australians still call the sport. Unless this changes, which seems highly improbable in the near future, then "soccer" remains its common name and that fact is expected to be recognised in Misplaced Pages article names. For better or worse that is the way thing work on Misplaced Pages. Afterwriting (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Afterwriting, how can we know that "soccer" is still the common name of the sport? And even if it still is, doesn't the "official change in name" have an impact? On any other[REDACTED] article a similar change in name would have seen a change within the article - that is why many can not comprehend the unwillingness of some to follow suit.--2nyte (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You really have just proven my point. That's one of the most blatant, ideologically driven posts in this whole discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, a radical ideology, whereby[REDACTED] acts on current events, where[REDACTED] is unbiased and sports are truthfully represented. Now that is dreaming...--2nyte (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

"Truthfully", eh? Interesting concept. Your version or mine? HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Gee, 2nyte, you really are a dishonest, ideologically driven prick. I've just noticed your edits today to Victorian Premier League. Despite an insistence that we need to include the "FC", being part of the "full name" of A-League clubs, in that article you put in a lot of effort to avoid displaying the full names of clubs. I can only assume it's because some have names with "SC" on the end. Now, what could that S possibly stand for? And why did you avoid using the full names there? Very bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

To others reading this, this hypocrite has now attacked me on my talk page for raising it here. I won't apologise. The edits I'm condemning just reinforce my view on this POV pusher's philosophy. Even the S for soccer has to be hidden. And all this after telling me I was wrong when I insisted that soccer is still the main name for the game in Victoria. He discovered evidence I was right, and hid it. Didn't come out and say "HiLo, you were right", did he? What do we make of such behaviour? I think it's perfectly valid to mention this behaviour here to show the obsession we are facing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Out of a quick survey to prove a point of not peddling agenda we've got Dandenong, Richmond and Green Gully which are all SC, what a club name or a team name is however, is frankly irrelevant, the majority of these clubs have long established history which includes the name of the club that dates at least prior to the demise of the NSL some clubs like Green Gully were at one point or another part of the NSL and have almost 60 years of history attached to the club and club name as well as links to the Dutch and Maltese community in Melbourne. Product branding and familiarity is often significant. If you read about the first 5 or 6 years of the A-Leagues history, many supporters disavowed the A-League purely on the fact that A-League clubs were seen as "plastic" franchises.

Anyway lets just say a name is a name and just because they are called soccer clubs, as I have repeatedly stated does not mean the fans have to call the sport soccer, or that the main institution that runs the game has to all of a sudden adopt the name of "soccer." I'm over this really, if anyone is agenda peddling its you HiLo48 to state that more than one sport cannot be refereed to by its official name. We do it just fine in here in Queensland either calling the sport of Australian rules, Australian rules football, or AFL which in the acronym stands for football. No I don't suffer confusion or memory loss when I have to call a sport football in reference to rugby league, or rugby in reference to rugby union and no my brain didn't explode having to think about that sentence --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No. There's a point you still haven't got. I won't try again. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Having read the illuminating link provided above by 2nyte, I liked this line - "Many will continue to call it "Soccer" wherever they live - and proponents of "Football" should accept that. No-one has the right to dictate which terms should be used on an individual basis." In all of the back and forth, red herrings, non sequiturs and other misdirections, the bottom line is that for about half the country, the word football is very ambiguous. Official, yes, maybe in common use by some, but for many others, it is ambiguous. And where possible, we avoid ambiguous names for article titles here. Context and clarification are easy in a sentence, a news report or a conversation, but not so in a title. Soccer on the other hand, is understood, but obviously not liked, by all. The-Pope (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

unambiguous name yes, also disliked by many yes and there underlies why this article will most likely never have it's disputes resolved BUT we are beginning to sound as bad as some of the Greek/Macedonian and Greek/Turkish disputes that go on in Misplaced Pages... Yet while we continue to use a name such as soccer this dispute will continue whether it is by myself or any other user on Misplaced Pages. There MUST be a resolution to this dispute that doesn't involve one side walking away unhappy which is what the current term of soccer is doing --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to stop considering yourself a "side". This isn't a soccer (or football) match, with two sides vying for dominance. It's a place where we seek consensus. I don't think you're doing that. You ardently want everyone to call the sport "football". They don't, and for the foreseeable future, they won't. That's fundamentally what I have been trying to demonstrate to you. I've tried to explain why that is the case. I don't think you wanted to hear the facts I was telling you. Unfortunately too, in your drive to make everyone else use "football" as the name, you've said some very silly things, like saying it's not ambiguous. The name on Misplaced Pages IS "soccer". Stop letting it hurt you. Promote the game in other ways. The name is less important than many other aspects. Effectively having the name "soccer" in my neighbourhood isn't harming the game at all. It's thriving. Stop thinking that the name is a big problem. It's not. And it's a reality. HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The-Pope, We need to resolve this. Rename the article title to Association football in Australia. Use the term "association football" when ambiguity is present within the article and in article titles. Use the term "football" (with a hyperlink to association football in the lead e.g. football) in articles when there is no ambiguity present. This should be what we follow for the foreseeable future.--2nyte (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Three points:

1. How do YOU know when there is no ambiguity present? You refuse to accept what others tell you about how the language works in places you've never been. Hyperlinks may help to lessen ambiguity, but they alone can never remove it. We should not create ambiguity when there is a very simple way to completely avoid it.

2. Nobody actually uses the term Association football for the game in Australia. It fails absolutely on the criterion of common name.

3. Stop treating "soccer" as a bad word. The sport is doing very well in places where that name is clearly the primary name, and where nobody is offended by it, treating it as the natural name of the sport. (I really wish I could understand what's got into your mind to make you think it's so evil. It's as if you've been brainwashed by the promoters of some form of Newspeak.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 Adding a hyperlink does remove ambiguity, it gives context to the word like a footnote would; it's basic language skills. Misplaced Pages refers to the sport as "Association football", it is the default name for the sport on wikipedia, the term is also in the Australian English Macquarie Dictionary - so it is appropriate to use. Now, "soccer" is not a "bad word" though the head body of the sport decided to change the name. The change in name from "soccer" to "football" has the exact same principles as the change from "Victorian Rules" to "Australian rules football". And to this statement: "The sport is doing very well in places where that name (soccer) is clearly the primary name" - well in those placed the sport is organised by "Football Federations" (e.g. Football Federation Australia) and apparently they are "doing very well".--2nyte (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Why do you ignore my point. In much of the country, the sport is comfortably called "soccer", by its players and fans (and everybody else in those areas). You know that the name of the federation is hardly ever mentioned in daily conversation, but the name of the sport, "soccer", is. And it's not a problem. That is my basic point. You are objecting to the most obvious, unambiguous, common name we have, apparently for reasons that don't carry much weight at all here. And in objecting, you are effecrtivley telling all my soccer playing mates that they are wrong. Sorry, language doesn't work like that. (And that change from "Victorian Rules" to "Aussie Rules", when do you think it happened. My dad taught me the name "Aussie (or Australian) Rules" when I was a kid, and he died of old age ten years ago. So I don't recall the details. Do you?) HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, it doesn't matter what you and your mate calls the sport. My mates and I call Australian rules football "AFL". You might know that is how the sport is marketing in NSW and Queensland - as AFL. I know it's incorrect to call the sport that, but that is what the sport is known by. I've never heard the sport referred to as "football" or "Australian football" in media or in general conversation - the sport is always referred to as AFL. In much of the country, the sport is comfortably called "AFL". Even the governing body for the sport is called AFL NSW/ACT and AFL Queensland. Should we now change "Australian rules football in Australia" to "AFL in Australia" due to common name and refer to the sport as "AFL"?--2nyte (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The important thing about Aussie Rules/AFL is that nobody is campaigning to call it "football" on Misplaced Pages, even though a lot of its fans call it that too. The current name is unambiguous, so we leave it that way. "Football" is ambiguous, no matter how much you Wikilink/hyperlink it, no matter what you claim. "Association football" is unknown. So we use the perfectly good, unambiguous, universally understood, common name of "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 "Soccer" is an old term for the sport, it can not be used on[REDACTED] if we are to depict the sport in a fair and current manner. "Association football" may be unfamiliar to the general public but it is not unknown; it is in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary and is the default name for the sport on wikipedia, again ON WIKIPEDIA. And any English word can be taken out of context, "football" is no different. If we add context then the word is not ambiguous.--2nyte (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an irrational post. Soccer is current to an awful lot of Australians, probably well over half the population. It's not "unfair" unless one has been brainwashed to think so. Those I mentioned in my first sentence obviously don't think of it as unfair. They comfortably use it themselves without a second thought. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, you didn't respond to my second and third point. Anyway, to your point: many people may refer to Australian rules football as "football", but how do you know those people don't refer association football as "football" as well? In NSW and Queensland we can refer both association football and rugby as "football" with no confusion, because a little thing called context. You may say that's ambiguous to do so on Misplaced Pages but context still applies; comprehensive narrative writing, the use of hyperlinks - these are tools of our disposal to add context to articles on Misplaced Pages. The only people who would be considered "brainwashed" are those who choose not to read the context of the word; those who read a perfectly structured article, with addition of a hyperlinks (e.g. Western Sydney Wanderers FC) and choose not to identify "football" as soccer.--2nyte (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a point of reference re: the Barassi line to come back to things here for a second, according to my research the split is actually roughly 62 to 42% in terms of viewing audience. If we take your argument that the term football (soccer) is used on the other side of the line then on that basis using the Barassi line as a point of reference then the dominant use of the word football must be the interchangeable use of the word football to refer to the rugby codes and soccer.

of course this is a false logic argument, but I'm just using it to point out the illogical nature of such an argument in the first place. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Today's obsessed, ideological vandal is...

...User:Portillo, who has in the past couple of days, changed the articles for hundreds of Australian clubs and players to say that they play football, rather than soccer. I have politely asked him to stop and discuss his intentions here. His only response was to immediately delete my posts from his Talk page, with no discussion at all.

Rather than take this straight to AN/I, a place I find delivers anything but justice a lot of the time, I was hoping for some support from others who post here. Maybe a soccer fan or two could tell Portillo that, even if you agree with his goal, his approach is quite inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I don't remember you opposing this inappropriate approach from Portillo. And when I approached you on your talk page on various topics you delete my posts from your talk page here and here. Double standards? Maybe some bias from you HiLo?--2nyte (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I at least humoured you with discussion before deleting the discussions containing your posts. A smart editor would surely have noticed the difference. It's perfectly normal for me to clean up my Talk page by removing old discussions from time to time. As for Portillo's decision to previously change in the opposite direction, I can't explain such inconsistent behaviour. Can you? Anyway, the issue now is the hundred's of articles now changed against consensus by Portillo. Your thoughts on that? (Rather than attacking me.) You may ideologically agree with him, but you know it's not an acceptable way to do things on Misplaced Pages. So what will you do about it? HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, my thought, rather, my opinion is for you to ignore Portillo and Macktheknifeau for the time being, as I have ignored your 'pro-soccer' edits on various articles (especially Western Sydney Wanderers FC). I think all we should be doling is seeking a resolution for the football/soccer argument, and a real resolution (you know what I mean by that HiLo); if the 'pro-soccer' is to succeed in this argument then all that will result is many editors receiving blocks for 'vandalism' and 'bad faith edits'; this is not true resolution and you HiLo must be the first to accept it.--2nyte (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There is resolution! At this point in time, consensus on Misplaced Pages simply IS pro-soccer for Australia. There have been multiple formal discussions here seeking to change the name to football for Australian articles. All have failed. That's the status quo. That means that nobody should be changing any article from saying soccer to saying football. Consensus and multiple RfCs have decreed otherwise. That some soccer fans think it's OK to persistently ignore and confront consensus simply tells me that they're not terribly rational, ethical or polite people when it comes to discussing their favourite sport here. And yes, that includes you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, yes I agree (as I mentioned above) that no one should be changing soccer to football, but also no one should be changing football to soccer either. A decision was made, and now that decision is being argued against; as it has been since August 2013. Resolve the current football/soccer argument before making such edits. And please HiLo, try to compromise; soccer is no compromise, soccer is no true resolution.--2nyte (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

So, formal consensus at Misplaced Pages is not resolution, eh? It seems you have a very big problem. Maybe this is the wrong place for you. HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the[REDACTED] community is asking for change. Since August 2013 I have argued for change. The problem is some just choose ignore it. Some choose not to compromise.--2nyte (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There's a handful of soccer fans, mostly from Sydney and one from Brisbane to my knowledge, obsessively pushing an impractical POV against consensus. Those editors tend to accuse those who disagree of being part of an evil AFL cartel, or similar, and claim in depth knowledge of cultural and linguistic behaviours in places they've never been. They ignore good evidence presented to them, and the fact that this article has to be meaningful for all Australians, many of whom only ever use "soccer" to describe the game. They allege that "soccer" is an unacceptable word, but can't explain how soccer fans and players in half the country use the term to describe themselves and the game they love and play. That's not the same as "the[REDACTED] community is asking for change". HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well then, there is a handful of fans asking for change and rightfully so. A change that is unbiased, factual, current and notable for the sport in Australia. The sport has undergone change and some choose ignore it. I do not.

You say the sport is/has been commonly known as "soccer", so I comprised and said we should add that in the opening of this article .

You say the change from "soccer to "football" is ambiguous, so I compromised .

You say "soccer fans and players in half the country use the term to describe themselves and the game" - please provide sources to prove that because Football Federation Victoria, Football Federation Tasmania, Football Federation South Australia and Football West counter your argument.--2nyte (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. It's all been said. Many times. No new arguments. So no change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

And User:Portillo is still at it. Against multiple requests. How do we stop him? HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

At the end of the day, not a single source has been provided that says football is the common name for the sport in Australia. Australian football barrack ears need to put up and score a goal by shooting into HiLo48's net the penalty shot for the win which is a source doing that. Come on! Score! Score! Score! Score a goal on HiLo48. Prove him an idiot, a know nothing Victorian rules barracker who thinks you need four posts for true footy. Source = Goal! Demo monstrance your for for the pedia and it's policies by scoring on him!--LauraHale (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL. Thanks Laura. Made my day. Anyway, this has now been raised at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive824#User:Portillo and football (soccer). HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignore good evidence? LOL, if I wasn't on holidays right now I'd actually state this a bit more obviously... The simple fact of the matter is that your claim, HiLo48 that you can state whatever you like as "facts" goes counter to the core of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Furthermore your anecdotes ≠ evidence! I have already been over this with you. You are being highly incompetent and are clearly pushing a POV argument. As per above, I have also stated that half the football viewing audience calling the sport soccer because of the Barassi line is nonsense when less than half of Australia's football code viewing audience lives in states that are on the west/south side of that line and the split based on actual viewing audience figures is roughly closer to 58% (Rugby codes) 42% (AFL). You cannot use this as your argument, seriously, because if anything 1) it demarcates that the rugby side of the line actually has a larger total audience and 2) the whole concept of this nonsense has little to do with the sport of "soccer," which if we look at the evidence it has been considered a marginalised sport played by foreigners from pretty much day dot. The concept that this has anything to do with Ron Barassi, Ian Turner, or some line in the sand really is nothing more than a POV argument that is factually incongruent with reality. As for the whole silly naming dispute this was resolved by the FFA in 2005 that the sport be referred to as football, if we are going to run an encyclopaedia here then certain users need to get with the times rather than being POV pushers --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing new there. Just the usual personal attacks ("highly incompetent", etc) and an apparent failure to understand realities of the complex Australian sports demographic. And you completely failed to address the topic of this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No I addressed it and your argument and what I stated was relevant to the point. I have have already raised with you and others on the matter of don't drink the consensus kool-aid and maintain my position regardless. I'm not getting into the details of Vandalism purely because I have a view on the matter that is consistent against vandalism. Consensus is consensus in so far as actually making disruptive edits even if you don't agree. Portillo should desist from vandalising this page while referring as per above. There are better ways to address the matter than vandalising the article itself. Regarding competence, see WP:COMPETENCE. Your views lack competence on the grounds of a biased concept that has relatively minimal relevance to the sport of soccer in Australia while also ignoring evidence surrounding the ongoing shift towards football at all levels of club and governmental administration in this country. You also continue to ignore the official name for the sport in Australia. If we are to be considered to be editors of an encyclopaedia your views are incongruent with the ongoing changes to the sport in this country --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with the point of the thread. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. However I do have a hint for next time you go down this path. IF you're going to address someone in a discussion I suggest you address them by name rather than locality. Addressing people by their locality does not do help your cause and merely promotes your systematic bias that is abundantly clear every time you peddle that POV argument regarding the Barassi line. --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Off topic again. Try somewhere else. On second thoughts, no please don't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not off topic when you mentioned myself above in reference to a SPECIFIC editor from a SPECIFIC location. This only further highlights your lack of competence when you cannot commit to supporting an argument that you created by mentioning SPECIFIC people in this discussion. Overall your meat puppetry in this talk page is far from amusing and overall it shows a specific lack of competence to engage in a discussion that meets a NPOV. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

This thread is about Portillo's unacceptable behaviour. I have raised no other topics. HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

While you thought you might have been smart, you have specifically implicated by reference to their location, a number of editors that are otherwise irrelevant to this discussion if it was supposed to be about Portillo. I suggest you rethink what you say next time so as not to implicate uninvolved editors in your personal crusade.

For those interested refer as above ...There's a handful of soccer fans, mostly from Sydney and one from Brisbane to my knowledge, obsessively pushing an impractical POV against consensus --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That was a constructive response to an off-topic remark made by somebody else. This issue is now being dealt with at AN/I. I'll stop here now. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a soccer fan

Well, not really. I prefer the use of "soccer" to describe the football game played with a round ball. However, my personal preference, like those of any other editor, doesn't weigh highly here. Looking at the sports pages of online Australian newspapers, such as The Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald, I'm finding that most have a list like this: Rugby League, AFL, Rugby Union, Football. The exception being The Age, where it is called "Soccer" (as opposed to "Real Footy").

I think if the newspapers are calling the game football rather than soccer, we're going to run out of reliable sources for the title of this article pretty soon. In fact, I'd say that the weight has shifted already.

If I can ask those supporters of the current title to list their reliable source, that would be helpful. Cheers! --Pete (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the universal applicability of the term in Australia. I think we can be agreed that many media sources are calling it football. Similarly, many media sources are still referring to soccer, in particular in states where "football" is the common name for "Australian rules football". So we have an ugly situation were:

• "Football" has been the official name of the sport since 2003, but is not universally the common name, and creates ambiguity in some states.
• "Soccer" is the common term in some areas, but has not been the official name since 2003.
• "Association football" is neither a common term nor an official term in Australia, but is generally recognised to refer to the sport.

So what do we do? Do we use an official term that isn't (and is unlikely to become in the foreseeable future) the common term in all states, a common name which is universally recognised but which the code is deliberately trying to move away from, or a term that isn't in common or official usage at all? - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The pertinent issue is deliberately moved away from, it is not really a matter of tried, but did, officially as I added myself in referenced edits here. The proponents of the other side of the debate largely rely upon an issue of linguistics of which there are few works out there attributed to the research of the word football itself purely from a linguistics research perspective in Australia. I have raised issue that I would like to see someone contribute some sort of meaningful editing to the matter under WP:V rather than replying that they don't need to bother. The terse response in reply is generally "why should I bother, I can say whatever I like so long as there is consensus with my fellow meat puppets." which my general response is... well then why should I bother editing Misplaced Pages? This type of response is what leads to the general frustration of many of the soccer supporting editors on this talk page. If someone wants to actually put some more effort in here there might be less animosity rather than simply claiming something is the case under WP:BLUE perhaps they should refer to WP:NOTBLUE especially on what is a contentious issue such as this. The synchronic view of linguistics that exists on this page, particularly in terms of certain users vocabulary really does amaze me. Of course as history reminds us, those things that become so synchronically defined usually end up dead. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a worthwhile question to explore right now, is not "do we use soccer, football or association football", but simply "how do we proceed?" We have two issues - what to do about the articles recently changed by User:Portillo, and what to do about this article. In regard to the articles about Australian soccer/football players and teams, that's probably best left for AN/I at the moment. In regards to this article, Misplaced Pages doesn't offer much once we've been through an RfC. We could try mediation, but in all honesty I don't see that coming to a satisfactory conclusion, as there hasn't been any sign that compromise is possible between the more polarised editors, and the role of mediation is generally to find a compromise solution. But we could try and give it a shot - nominate some editors to approach the mediation committee, and agree to abide by what eventuates if it is accepted and works. Alternatively, we could try another RfC, as ArbCom doesn't solve content disputes, and there is no higher recourse than an RfC or mediation open to us. The problem is that the last RfC closed in August, so it seems a bit early to start another one. Constant RfCs don't help, but perhaps we can agree on a decent interval before starting one again? I think six months is not unreasonable, so that would suggest March. - Bilby (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I think an RfC isn't really going to go anywhere in the short term at least, probably not in the long term either. The contentious issue that remains with consensus is also the fact that football (soccer) supporters in their truest sense are also likely going to be in a minority anyway, so consensus decisions aren't really ever going to be resolved favourably on grounds that are likely seen controversial, for whatever reason, by the two other dominant football codes Rugby League and AFL. For whatever reason however, there has appeared ever since this became an issue to be a mostly dominant contribution in RfCs by users who support AFL. At this stage there really is two options:

1) We wait until this inevitably boils over into another RfC either now or in 6 months time, where football (soccer) supporters are still not happy.

2) We go from this point into some sort of mediated solution where no one is happy with what will likely be a poor compromise due to the polarised views opposing any use of the word football in these and other football (soccer) related articles on Misplaced Pages that are Australian related.

--Orestes1984 (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We're in a situation where there are going to be unhappy people, no matter what. But personal feelings shouldn't determine our actions. We have wikipolicy developed over years as a guide, and I ask where is the reliable source that says that the Australia-wide name of the roundball game is soccer? We need a source. The official sources, such as they are, don't support soccer, and very few mainstream media outlets use the term. I've spent fifty years using the term "soccer", but if we go by wikipolicy - and we must - my personal feelings count for little. We have to have reliable sources for our content. If we have an RfC, then my vote will be different to the last time around, when I supported "soccer".

What i really detest is the level of personal animosity displayed here. It has gone on for a long time. We don't make an encyclopaedia by calling each other names. We work together. If there is some way to end this disruption sooner rather than later, I'm all for it. If that means a fresh RfC, then bring it on. Let us devote our time and energy to positive work. --Pete (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

On this one I'm not quite sure what you are asking for as a source. If you want to know if there are media sources that still use soccer, then yes - the Advertiser and The Herald Sun, or example. In regard to statistics, a quick search of Newsbank for "soccer" in Australian press during 2013 gets 18,000 articles. There's a good discussion of the issues in Rosenberg, Buck Clifford (2009) "The Australian football wars: fan narratives of inter-code and intra-code conflict", Soccer & Society. 2:10. There isn't any real question as to whether or not "football" has different meanings for different people and in different states, and that soccer is used where football isn't. The question is really on how we reconcile this. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be looking for a statement in a very good high-level source saying that soccer is the name of the sport in Australia. Not just a few regional papers or counting google hits. Not something that is synthesis. If soccer really is the name of the sport, do we have a government report saying so? Something like that. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's an overly high bar. The claim is not that soccer is the official name of the sport in Australia. The claim is that football is now the official name of the sport in Australia, but soccer remains a common name of the sport, especially in states where "football" is predominantly used to refer to Australian rules. I don't see that this point is in doubt. - Bilby (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It may be a high bar, but if we just write our articles by gut feel and who has the loudest voice, we aren't doing our job. We have good sources for "football" as a name, but where is the source for "soccer"? Inside ourselves? I personally prefer soccer as the name in general conversation, but for Misplaced Pages we need - as you put it - a higher bar. I'm seeing a lot of doubt and dispute on this very point, just reading through the talk page. --Pete (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be misreading the discussion then. I'd be really, really surprised to see someone say that the sport is not referred to as soccer in Australia. I'm very happy to agree that the sport is also referred to as football, and that football is the official title (as of 2005), but you'd be hard pressed to make a viable case that soccer isn't a common name of the sport as well. That has never been the issue. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue never really was whether or not soccer is a commonly used name for the sport in Australia , for me at least, yes it is A commonly used name, however, no longer is it THE commonly used name by the administration body that gives it, its official name, the government, or by a large percentage of its fan base. The issue is reconciling the fact that football is now the official name of the sport in Australia. The ongoing issue here is the fact that I cannot see how using the official name is the least bit problematic SO LONG AS we disambiguate via a link that is not ambiguous, edit the lead paragraph to also known as soccer, and edit in such a way where ambiguous terms are linked to non-ambiguous redirects, or pages.

The reality is that is now eight to nine years down the road. The majority of people who have taken the time to take a glance at news/media their newspaper of choice or any other medium whereby they get information on current terminology will understand that soccer is also known as football and vice versa. There is a myriad of platitudes here that would keep most parties for the majority happy. Association Football in Australia as per the common global term for the sport, with a redirect to soccer in Australia, Association Football (soccer) in Australia, with a with a redirect to soccer in Australia and many others.

It amuses me that after 8 years we really cannot come up with an adequate solution here. The AFL and rugby code fans could simply click the soccer in Australia redirect, and we can click the association football in Australia link as per the common global name for the sport on Misplaced Pages. I do not see how this is unreasonable. We have one sport that is association football in Australia and it just seems a little silly that out of all the football codes in Australia, it would appear that it is the only code that is not allowed to have references to the word football in articles pertaining to it... --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No one is standing in the way of using association football in the first instance and subsequently using football, nor moving this article to association football in australia except those that want it to be referred to solely as football.... Gnangarra 07:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

On that other debate about football in Australia, on a matter purely of personal opinion, I don't think we can have any one sport in this country with an article on football in Australia. To do otherwise ignores the current global consensus that football is not a term specifically owned by one sport. The current page as it is, for football in Australia is fine. It really is more so about how we go about making less of a bun fight about it and actually coming with a better page over there. Every football code in Australia should be able to use the term football and as per the global consensus this page really should be association football in Australia --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

…you'd be hard pressed to make a viable case that soccer isn't a common name of the sport as well. That has never been the issue. That's not in dispute. I highlight the difference between making a statement of general opinion - sourced from where, precisely? - and complying with the requirements of Misplaced Pages. We require sources for our material. That's pretty basic. Where is our source for the implicit thrust of the title? Where is the reliable source that authoritatively states that the name of the sport in Australia is soccer? Is there such a source, or is it something we just go along with because we as editors feel that we don't need a source? --Pete (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing spate of users who edit this page who need to be reminded of verifiability. Rather than referring to essays which are not rules, or guidelines. There is also a few editors here that need to be consistently reminded of WP:CIRCULAR especially in regard to referencing that article on the barassi line. There are certain users who are using these and simmiliar justifications for their editing to justify why this articles main term should remain soccer. The way that they are going about it is consistently breaching WP:CIRCULAR, WP:NOR and WP:ORIGINALSYN and this really needs to stop. IF you cannot verify your argument you must desist, IF you cannot verify WHY concepts such as the Barassi line are relevant to the main term in this article you must desist and allow the use of the word football in this article. I have gone to the lengths of verifying why "soccer" in Australia is called football (soccer) and has been since 2004-2005. It is about time those opposing either put up an argument why soccer should remain relevant as the main term for this article or desist from their POV arguments. I suggest they start by reading WP:RELIABLE and then I also would suggest that they come up with some reliable sources to justify their position as to why soccer should be the main term that is used in this article. If you believe that soccer should be the main and relevant point to this article then score a point against me by justifying your point of view with a few good reliable sources. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Pete, I'm loathe to buy into this "we need a source to say that soccer can be called soccer in Australia" argument. But although I don't have a copy of the Macquarie on hand, how about "On Friday 26 August 2005, a new national football league kicked off in Australia – again. Football, or soccer as it is generally called in Australia, has tried and failed numerous times to establish itself in not just a saturated and small sporting market, but a saturated football market". Rosenberg, Buck Clifford (2009) "The Australian football wars: fan narratives of inter-code and intra-code conflict", Soccer & Society, 2:10, p245.

What I'm mostly concerned about is process. Is it worth having an RfC again, given that the last one was less than six months ago, is mediation viable, or should we just call this an unsolvable problem for a few months and tackle it again at some point in the future? - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of whether soccer can be called soccer in Australia by all means call it soccer, or call it that game played by "sheilas, wogs and poofters" . It's not a matter of personal opinion, or what you call it, vs. what I call it and that's not what this article is about. What we should focus on is consistency, the term association football is in common usage cited in the Macquarie dictionary, as is this in the definition of "football."

Football in particular references any of the sports that involve kicking a ball with your feet. This list may include, Australian Rules, Rugby Union, Rugby League, Soccer and its dialectical variants of soccer including "British Soccer." Furthermore it also includes American football in that list. According to the Macquarie dictionary all of these sports are football. The Macquarie dictionary also defines football as soccer interchangeably and as a "form of football", but we can't use that as its ambiguous as is the Macquarie dictionary definition "to soccer a ball along the ground" in terms of Australian rules football. Association football would appear to be the current global consensus on the matter and so I think we should be sticking with consensus --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a reasonably old source. I'll bet that at that time, sports supplements still had sections headed "soccer". And that the sport had not attained the prominence of recent years, where the World Cup proceedings are of national interest, and the sport as a whole is one of the top participation sports in Australia. Look, I've always called the game soccer, but I just didn't think about recent changes. Seemed to be not worth discussing, really. Until I looked at all the disruption and acrimony here and thought, well editors aren't listening to each other, just getting upset and going around and around and around and achieving nothing but making each other unhappy. This is Misplaced Pages, we have ways of dealing with disharmony, let's get back to basic wikipolicy and go for the sources. So I went looking, and I found that "soccer" isn't quite as widespread as I thought. In particular, media outlets have pretty much stopped calling it that, at least in their section headings. Now, I don't think that "football" is going to unarguably mean the roundball sport any time soon, but we really should quit arguing and look to external sources for illumination. There seems to be a compromise position available in related articles at Australia national association football team, Football Federation Australia, List of association football stadiums in Australia, Association football in South Australia and many others. For the sake of consistency, we should get our act together.

I've mentioned Gorgias before as a way forward. Put simply, Plato tells us that when we listen to two debaters, neither of whom is prepared to concede defeat, we go nowhere, because it is personal. But when ego is set aside and the facts are sought, we progress. Misplaced Pages is about facts, not personal preference,

Do we need another RfC? Well, I've changed my !vote, so that's a little bit of difference. If the wrangling here goes on and on, then we are going to need some formal mechanism to end the disruption, and if an RfC isn't the answer, then what is? Every week there's more argument, more personal attacks, more mentions in ANI. This cannot go on. --Pete (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see another RfC in due time but I think we might need to sit on it for a while because the last one we had wasn't all that long ago and it didn't really get us anywhere. As far as the Macquarie dictionary definition. It is a reasonably old source, however Macquarie Dictionary is considered an authoritative source for dictionary specific definitions of words in Australian English. The trouble is that unlike other languages such as German, French and etc, we don't have an official orginisation that defines the language we use. We can do better here though as you suggest and as I have suggested by looking at context specific external sources.

I think there are only a select group of editors here that actually want the article on football in Australia to be moved to this article, I'm not one of them. We have to be realistic here that there are many games in Australia that are called football and the current compromise with the article on football in Australia is a good one. We could in fact look at the global page on football in order to get a better idea on how to handle the issue. I think you're also correct that there are a number of platitudes here that are available and that we need some consistency here, as you say we've got the Australia national association football team on the one hand and we've got Soccer in Australia here which is causing ambiguity in and of itself.

The major Kerfuffle here seems to stem from the actions taken by the federation which regulates the sport in this country circa 2004-05 when they adopted the name football, but we're not alone. New Zealand also adopted football, as has Samoa, and a few other current/former OFC member nations including Australia. The current wiki page for New Zealand is Association football in New Zealand but they seem to be having as many issues as we are about all of this.

I would like to hope that there aren't editors here who would like to go down the ultimate pathway of using the Fasces to resolve this matter and I would hope that we could come up with some sort of reasonable solution here. This is where as above I have stated that if some editors would like to pursue the linguistics pathway as their means of keeping this article title as soccer that I think a few credible sources could come in handy --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the Australian Bureau of Statistics credible enough for what the "official" government name is? They use soccer. The-Pope (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The figures refer to five years back. The contention here is that circumstances have changed over the past few years. What the mass media calls the game now is a better indication of current thinking than a Stats report from some time ago, to my mind. However, it adds a data point. --Pete (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• What I'm reading is that we have advanced this discussion to point where a proposal with simple voting would be a good indicator of future direction for an RFC. To this end I have started a section to garner a clearer idea of direction, please keep discussion to this section and leave the proposal section to just a simple response. Gnangarra 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should aim for a resolution like Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Though change Football (soccer) to Association football.--2nyte (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Gauge future direction

For the purpose of clarity please just choose either support or oppose, this is not a vote nor is it a discussion its purpose is solely to enable a clear gauge of where the on going discussion is at. After Jan 26 I'll commence an rfc on the matter based on this survey, even if there is an unambiguous indication. The RFC will include both this articles usage as well as usage in other articles related to this sport in Australia

article renamed to Association Football in Australia.

Support

1. . Gnangarra 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
2. .Orestes1984 (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
3. . 2nyte (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
4. Support with a rider. The three major sporting codes in Australia already use their official names (Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules). Association Football is not the official name, Football is. However, Association Football is a far better alternative to ridiculous status quo of one state's nickname for the sport being kept because a wiki project for a sport unrelated to the actual topic would rather die than allow the real name for the sport to be used instead of the nickname used in states that don't even make up a majority of the population of Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Pete (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Support SFCTID (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
7. Support The term football has become far to common for soccer to really work anymore. The "official" term is not really that important. I think "Association football" works, and any ambiguity should be dealt with in the opening sentence. -- Shudde 09:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neljack (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

lead to start something like Association Football in Australia also known as Soccer or Football.... with football sufficient for all further usage within the article except where quoting or referring to a specific usage where soccer or some other term maybe appropriate.

Support

1. . Gnangarra 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
2. .Orestes1984 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
3. . 2nyte (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
4. . SFCTID (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Neljack (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Use the correct official names. If we have to add a 'disclaimer' for Football, will we have to start adding them to Rugby League, Rugby Union and AFL articles?

"Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia

We seem to have three options on the table - football, association football and soccer.

Despite some strange denials, football is going to be ambiguous to most Australians, no matter how it's linked to something else. In fact, one could argue that for those on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line it's not ambiguous at all. It means only Aussie Rules.

Association football is that mysterious term which definitely means the round ball game, but nobody actually uses it to describe the game in Australia, and most wouldn't know what it meant without looking it up. I'm a mature aged sports nut, with an interest in soccer going back over half a century, and I had to look up association football when I first saw it used in Misplaced Pages. Obviously not universally understood. Not a good option.

OK, time for some evidence...

I have been doing some research at school websites. School is where kids learn their "common" language. Check out this. It's typical of the language used in schools. The school plays football and soccer. Obviously football means Aussie Rules. Also out of many suitable examples (I found none unsuitable), I point editors at a couple of websites for more soccer oriented schools, here and here. Now, the former is a Greek school, so it has a strong commitment to soccer. The latter is in a high immigrant part of Melbourne, an area where soccer is very popular. What's worth noting is the name of the round ball game. Soccer every time.

Australia's biggest selling daily newspaper, Melbourne's Herald Sun, still uses "soccer" in its print edition. I could normally point you at the table of contents of the web copy of their print edition, but they must be in holiday mode at present. All sport is under the simple heading of "SPORT". Maybe wait until next week when games are underway again after the break. I think we all know that Melbourne's other daily, The Age, uses soccer. See the index bar here.

I also Googled "soccer club" in all the states on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. I found many, many examples of clubs with that as part of their name, in every state, even as far north as Wagga Wagga in NSW. I won't list them here, but I've saved dozens of URLs if people really want to see them.

Soccer is obviously a name many Australians, including many fans and players of the game, are very comfortable with, making it their choice for the name of their club and the name they use for the sport in daily discourse.

Some here want to reject soccer for a range of reasons. Some say it's offensive. Well, it's obviously not offensive to all the above mentioned fans and players. To say their language is offensive is just silly, and possibly offensive in itself. Others point out that the national body changed the formal name to football a few years ago. Yes, it did, but obviously not everyone has followed their lead, including many fans and players.

So, back to evidence. Can anyone provide a current reliable source that tells us that soccer is an unsuitable name? If not, it's by far the best of the three options in my first paragraph above.

So where's that mysterious source telling us that soccer is unsuitable today? HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well then I guess you're abstaining from the vote above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orestes1984 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR, this includes any analysis or synthesis of published material . The perfectly acceptable section above did not ask for comments, it simply asked you to state a position here support or object. There are editors here that are trying to seek a consensus towards moving forward about what to do next who are trying to handle this in a civil and polite manner rather than Civil POV pushing which includes pushing marginalised viewes or pushing views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or giving undue weight to fringe theories without providing reliable sources to substantiate the fringe theory that the Barassi line deliniates the soccer/football boundary when the article itself contains no such evidence and there is very little evidence out there to substantiate that it actually does.

There is a global consensus on association football to disambiguate the term "football" and besides, some editors that are also part of project AFL such as User:Jenks24 here in Australia there has been little issue with the change on other former "soccer" countries page articles such as association football in New Zealand. I'm not sure what the problem is here, I can assume under any changes made the term soccer will not be leaving this article, and that a redirect would be in place for those who searched for soccer in Australia. This really only affects the updated and current official name of the sport, there is not much left here to object to for any other reason purely than a POV argument. All I see from all of this is a bunch of meat puppetry going on, on behalf of Project AFL.

Please refrain from passive aggressive argumentation which is getting us exactly nowhere and as per WP:MEAT Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Misplaced Pages and supporting your side of a debate.--Orestes1984 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The ONLY reason the unknown name "association football" is being proposed is because some editors here won't accept the quite popular and ONLY non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia, "soccer". That unwillingness to accept the name "soccer" seems to be a pure POV position, not supported by any current, reliable source. Where is the source telling us that "soccer" is an unsuitable choice today? HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have already sourced the official name which you conveniently continue to ignore for your own reasons much like the drive by commentary from your fellow AFL editors in New Zealand of all the places, seriously? Project AFL it would appear would like to wage a global editorial campaign to have the word football struck from all "soccer" related articles on Misplaced Pages. Including in countries where there football code is irrelevant at best and at the most a fringe sport played by expatriates.

There is also a consensus that affects Misplaced Pages globally where if there is more than one sport known as football, football adopts the term association football. It is really not that hard to understand. The official name is football, the majority of the media that represents the sport call it football, 58% of the viewing public is on the opposite side of your fringe theory line which makes AFL the minority in that regard. The only thing that stops us adopting the word football is a minority of POV pushers who just can't accept that even New Zealand of all the places can use the word football because of Project AFL. Project AFL wants to be coddled and have exclusive rights to the word football. Sorry HiLo48 it doesn't work like that --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the attacks. You obviously don't have a source teeling us that "soccer" is an unacceptable name. So, can you point us at the policy that says "...if there is more than one sport known as football, football adopts the term association football"? (LOL, can you see how stupidly that sentence reads, absolutely proving the ambiguity of the name "football"?)

see the page on association football, I don't have time to explain things. There are no personal attacks here excepting your own, once again, I am pointing out the issue here that Project AFL has been running an ongoing campaign against the use of football, on an international level, as I have shown this is occurring in countries where Australian Rules have little to no significance, or established relevance to claiming the name football, where if anything the only football codes in New Zealand of particular interest are the rugby codes. This is beyond ridiculous as is the maintenance of fringe theory articles purely for the purpose of claiming a one up in this debate. I already went to the lengths of cleaning up the majority of extraordinary claims that were in that article previously. Unless you can substantiate why soccer should remain the name here rather than a platitude of association football you should desist from this line of argument --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss the points I am making, rather than an alleged malicious campaign against soccer. If I go anywhere in Australia and say "soccer", everyone will immediately know precisely what I mean. If I go anywhere in Australia and say "football", people will either assume I mean Aussie Rules in one half of the country, or ask "Which football?" in the other half. If I go anywhere in Australia and say "association football", almost everyone will say "What?" "Soccer" is the ideal solution, unless you can provide a really good current source proving that it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already provided a peer reviewed journal article that states the current official name for the sport as adopted in the period between 2004-2005 is football which you continue to conveniently ignore. You are being tendentious, it is not up to me to find an article that the sport should be called soccer, that is up to you. As I have said if you want to prove me wrong, do it through linguistics and prove your fringe theory about the Barassi line correct. Find me some articles that go against the well established position that football is where it is positioned in Australian culture because it has been seen as a foreign sport, nationally. If you would like to claim it is because of a magical fairy line in the sand then do it and put the editing effort into this article and desist from this nonsense on this talk page. No one will object, if you can substantiate. You should know this given that you are degree qualified. I'm assuming you are not just a VET teacher --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Are you deliberately misrepresenting me, or...? In my very first post in this thread I acknowledged the formal name change by the FFA (9th paragrah, if you want to check), so please stop accusing me of ignoring it. And I am not asking you to provide a source that says we CAN name the game "soccer", I'm saying that it's the obvious common name and YOU need to provide a source that says we CAN'T. The desire of some to not use the name "soccer" is the only reason the generally unknown name "association football" has been suggested. "Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. Unless you can provide that current, reliable source showing why we cannot use "soccer", it's the obvious choice. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I obviously don't think much of your claims. I have substantiated why we cannot, it's blindingly obvious that soccer is a non-word in terms of describing the sport as it is currently being played. The term does not exist in any officiating body for the sport at any level. The referred terminology for the sport is football NOT soccer. It really doesn't need to go any deeper than that. You must establish the case after all levels of officiation have called the game football, why it CAN be called soccer. The weight of balance of historical correctness is on your shoulders to establish why it SHOULD be called soccer in this day and age when the term has been discarded from the code itself by its governing bodies in this country. It's not good enough to just say, "well that's what my mate calls it so fair play" --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But it IS called "soccer", by an awful lot of people. That was the point of my first post and the research behind it. To all those people it's obviously not a "non-word". It's THE word used to describe the game. HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So establish the case that all those people living on your side of the fairy line are calling it soccer, do it in the article and stop arguing --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to establish in the article. The name is in the title. Because some here disagreed, persistently and repeatedly, I presented this detailed case here on the Talk page. I know it won't please you, but it hasn't been refuted. Only a current reliable source telling us why we cannot use "soccer" could do that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already told you why we cannot use soccer, purely from a historical perspective it is the incorrect terminology for the sport according to the official name, IF we are running an encyclopaedia we must represent the historical facts of the matter correctly. It's not about what you call it or your mate calls it, the governing bodies who run the sport call it football. There are other football codes out there, so the only solution that is viable is to call it association football in line with every other association football page on Misplaced Pages in these circumstances AND the Australian national team. That's right you had better tell Project AFL to get over there to fix that up as well --Orestes1984 (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Do have a look at the last RfC. It was agreed, in the interests of good will, to not change the name of the national team article. And I don't believe there's a Misplaced Pages policy that says "official" name (whatever that means) trumps common name. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe it states "Official English names are candidates for what to call the article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used". You're the one that wants to keep the "common name" so quit wasting my time here and prove that it is the common name. It seems you like to talk a lot, but rarely edit anything with supporting evidence to prove your point.

Furthermore, for someone who complains about ambiguity in the once sense you sure are creating a lot of ambiguity by splitting the sport in two. On the one hand, you've got the Australian national association football team, on the other hand you've got soccer in Australia. You might even say you're contradicting your very own argument by supporting this page staying where it is, creating a lot of fuss over nothing and being a hypocrite, purely for the purpose of splitting the sport in half on Misplaced Pages --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing new there. Even the abuse is becoming repetitive. I suggest you drop it. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me make this as simple for Orestes as possible. As I have already explained several times on this matter before, Misplaced Pages's article name policy is that article names use the subject's COMMON NAME when that is different from the official name. As the sport's common name in Australia is still "soccer" ~ and the word "football" has long been used by other sports in Australia ~ all of Orestes' arguments about the sport's official name are, therefore, completely invalid and irrelevant. Afterwriting (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk that this is the case yet no one is willing to substantiate, for someone who likes to engage in copy editing pedantry it shouldn't be too hard to actually substantiate the case, or really is it? I see a lot of people linking to essays rather than the official policy on the matter which the facts are you must substantiate if this is your claim --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There are various official Misplaced Pages pages which include information on this issue.

THIS ONE on "article titles" ~ and THIS ONE on "official names" ~ may be the most definitive on the subject.

The introduction to the second page says:

"New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Misplaced Pages article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Misplaced Pages practice and policy.

Misplaced Pages:Article titles is the relevant official policy and reads in part:

Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.

In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be.

I suggest that you read these official Misplaced Pages pages and familiarise yourself with their information. Afterwriting (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

All of the above is irrelevant, I suggest if you want to do anything you substantiate the case as to why soccer is the common name, once again more talk, more rhetoric, little evidence from a reliable source that states that soccer is the currently accepted common name for the sport in Australia --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are your comments a pathetic joke?! These official policies are entirely relevant. You have just proven your complete inability to understand and follow Misplaced Pages's clear policies on the matter. Your own opinions on this matter are entirely without merit. If you seriously think that "football" is the common name for the sport in Australia ~ and unambiguous ~ then you are seriously ignorant and out of touch with reality. Afterwriting (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hence the effort I put into collecting the evidence for this thread, all up there in the first post. Even a Melbourne Greek school, that doesn't have Aussie Rules in its sports program at all, uses the name "soccer". Orestes, you really have to accept some realities here that don't fit what you want the world to be. I HAVE provided evidence. Please accept it. You're welcome, of course, to check other school websites in the Aussie Rules part of Australia yourself. Please share any that call the round ball game "football". (You won't find any calling it "association football"!) I'm always happy to learn new things. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a dispute, it's a simple matter of agenda here which is not my own. If it really is so easy to claim then find a citation --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Orestes has taken the battle elsewhere

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Please discuss the article rather than the editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

To Names for association football.

I don't want an Edit war. Can other editors please try to help sort this out? HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is very good evidence that Orestes also edits soccer articles under at least one other user name as well as anonymously as an IP editor. See my talk page for some information about this. Afterwriting (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, I had seen the IP editing, using exactly the same style as Orestes. Hadn't picked up "Danausi". Not sure about that one. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of "Danausi's" edits have the same idiosyncratic writing style as Orestes as well as the same kind of comments worded very similarly. Too similar, I believe, to be purely coincidental. Last time I checked, however, that account seems to have been abandoned. Afterwriting (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, what exactly is wrong with this edit? I see no problem.--2nyte (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fairly significant changes without discussion. Something along those lines could have been OK, but to do it unilaterally, without discussion, in the current climate, was purely confrontational. You will note that when asked to discuss it, he simply abused. Not smart. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my editing, I have removed the reference to broad claims, irrelevant material and weasel words what HiLo48 is asking for is nothing short of support in a round of meat puppetry. If you would like to continue this I am more than welcome and willing to go to AN/I on grounds of harassment. You have refused to discuss and have used expletives in your edit summary. There are grounds enough there alone... --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What utter nonsense. Just about everything to do with your editing is a problem. You don't seem to have a clue ~ and you have already revealed yourself as a sockpuppet. Afterwriting (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL... This is my only account on Misplaced Pages, your claims are baseless, and you are being verbally abusive here as well AGAIN. This counts as nothing other than grounds for harassment. There are no grounds here for confrontation other than in the thoughts held be HiLo48. Furthermore, discussing matters surrounding a separate article on this page are nothing more than silly. Furthermore, I was never asked to discuss the matter on the specific article page. If you wanted to discuss then I would be more than willing to discuss on the appropriate page which is Talk:Names_for_association_football or at a stretch my user page, Hilo didn't bother to engage on either front before unilaterally reverting. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pull the other one ~ it has bells on it! There is very good evidence indicating sockpuppetry by you on soccer articles. And you have also repeatedly shown yourself to be incapable of intelligent discussion as your silly dismissal of Misplaced Pages's policies on article titles as "irrelevant" amply demonstrated. You are just another repeatedly contentious editor with a personal agenda who pushes the agenda against all evidence and logic. Your criticisms of HiLo are also remarkable examples of hypocrisy. Afterwriting (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I will reiterate that this is my only registered account on wikipedia, your accusation otherwise is nothing short of harassment, particularly when you fail to substantiate your claims. This thread in particular is nothing short of wikipedia:hounding where I am being asked to discuss changes being made on a separate page. This is not User talk:Orestes1984 or Talk:Names_for_association_football. The claims you've raised about Misplaced Pages:Official names are irrelevant as that's not what I am discussing. I was merely asking for a substantiation in the page that the common name is soccer and have been nothing short of harassed. I am dealing with a user here who has repeatedly been engaged in battles that display nothing short of incivility and your character defamation is nothing short of harassment. If you want to continue with this do it, at AN/I I've had enough of this. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated hypocrisy and ridiculous comments are quite remarkable. Who the hell do you think you are?! Do you think we have nothing better to do than to keep putting up with your continuous nonsensical "arguments" and contentious editing? I've certainly had enough of your crap! Afterwriting (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Raise the issue on AN/I if you have one otherwise desist from your harassment --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

More of your hypocritical crap! Afterwriting (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to clear these kinds of incidents up, if you have an agenda to put forward do it at AN/I --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The only "agenda" I have is to try and prevent people misusing Misplaced Pages for their own silly little agendas. You just don't get it! Afterwriting (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that purposely tracking a user for reasons such as the above can be construed as wikipedia:hounding. I would desist before you get too far along your little agenda here as this thread is evidence alone of wikipedia:hounding and WP:MEAT . If you have an ongoing issue with me, be brave and raise the issue at AN/I. This is not the place to resolve it. I am not simply just going to follow your directives by your "who do you think you are" harassment. If you have substance in your claims then raise an issue at AN/I --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When all else fails you resort to these silly games. You still don't get it! Afterwriting (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no silly games going on here you do not have rights under WP:OWN to that other article, neither yourself or Hilo raised an issue in the appropriate manner either on my talk page or on the talk page of the specific article. There was no agenda involved in my edits, this is nothing short of wikipedia:hounding. If you have a serious issue with me then raise it at AN/I or desist you are playing the ball in the wrong court and you have failed to even discuss with myself in the appropriate places before you made any of these wild accusations. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comments, as usual, are both absurd and hypocritical BS. You will need to be a lot more clever if you want to fool me with your little games. You won't achieve anything except further wasting everyone's time. Afterwriting (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If it is a game then call me out raise the matter at the appropriate place, otherwise please desist from your abusive language. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yawn!!! Snore!!! (Can someone please wake me up when Orestes finally stops all of his boring hypocrisy.) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Afterwriting (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK then we're obviously good then and the previous changes on the other page I made can be reverted back to. There was no agenda involved other the preposterous ones raised in Hilo48s head, there was no need to discuss and if there was a need to discuss then it should have been done appropriately either on the article page itself or on my talk page. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD says you can Boldly make such changes without discussion if you really, in good faith, believe them to be justified, then someone else who disagrees with that view can Revert, then you MUST Discuss. Discuss doesn't mean "Accuse those you disagree with of being stupid and part of an evil conspiracy". HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well said! Afterwriting (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

BRD also says that you must discuss, a concept that you failed to address before getting all the way down this path and flaring up issues that could fall under WP:MEAT AND furthermore it also says BRD must not be used simply to revert edits that you disagree with. Anyway, I'm about sick of THIS issue and the ongoing harassment and user space harassment which is unjustified. NEXT TIME, use the correct talk page if you wish to discuss, THIS is not it and do not create threads that could be construed as WP:MEAT simply to support your pro AFL agenda --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Disengage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Please discuss the article rather than the editors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Everybody needs to disengage with the personal attacks, this is getting beyond where any resolution can be obtained without WP:ARBCOM intervention which will result in editors being topic banned, or even enjoying holidays that is neither good for the article nor the subject matter. I have offered to frame an RFC after 26th but I can as easily frame an arbcom case as well. PLease discuss the subject but keep the opinions of others out of the discussions. Gnangarra 02:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That post contains unhelpful generalisation. You said "Everybody needs to disengage with the personal attacks". I don't believe I've been making personal attacks. I did a lot of research into the use of the name "soccer", carefully prepared a comprehensive and informative post about it, and was roundly abused by Orestes. I don't know how many warnings he can get without real sanction. I have a quiz question: When is a warning not a warning? When it's followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then followed by further behaviour of the kind the editor was warned about, then followed by another warning, then..... Please note the repeated allegation in the post immediately above this thread about my "pro-AFL agenda". This allegation has been made dozens of times by Orestes, about several of us here. Is it not enough evidence on its own of behaviour deserving sanction? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It is disgraceful that appropriate action by an administrator wasn't taken against Orestes much earlier. This could have spared us all a lot of grief. I have seen some ridiculous and immature behaviour on Misplaced Pages over the years but Orestes probably takes the cake. Virtually everything he has attacked other editors about is a much more accurate description of his own behaviour. And yet I get the administrator warnings for "personal attacks" instead of him ~ giving him "permission" to think he is in the right and encouraging him to be even more abusive. This is farcical. We should not have to tolerate such behaviour by an editor who clearly lacks the needed competence to contribute with intelligence or maturity. Afterwriting (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a very shallow and insulting approach from Gnangarra. This a geographically complicated issue. All but one of those arguing against soccer come from Sydney and Brisbane, all on the non-Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. It's obvious they don't know how the language works on the other side. Each time I try to explain it, at least one of these editors abuses me, and the people living on the other side of the line. Any wise administrator who had a good look at at least some of the broader history would have made a fairer comment than that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

ok these must be erroneous , Comment on content, not on the contributor please chose your language more carefully in the future because that is not what I've been reading and understanding with your comments. Gnangarra 13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The first of those links is me highlighting the fact that a user was creating massive disruption on hundreds of soccer articles. He was not communicating at all with other editors, and still hasn't! He was probably led astray by the bullshit editors like Orestes1984 have been posting. It needed to be stopped quickly. I believe he is incompetent, but he's still here! (Did YOU do anything about him?) No apologies from me on that one. The second link is one from Afterwriting. I could try to say something, but I'll leave it to him. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You should also "choose your language more carefully in the future". Your highly inadequate and inconsistent behaviour as an administrator has only helped to fuel matters. You should pay more attention to justified criticism of how you have mishandled things. Afterwriting (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may pleas comment?

Simply the fact that "Orestes has taken the battle elsewhere" should be seen for what it is. Hilo was using this page to establish a case for meat puppetry and nothing else and in terms of administration he should consider himself very lucky not to be sanctioned for such a statement. I have been as abused, if not more so and had my "competence" challenged by both Afterwiting as well as Hilo and verbally threatened with "who do you think you are" type comments merely for stating my opinion and going against a consensus which I believe is false, I have also been followed by a number of users. One in particular, Bidgee, who was not even originally a part of this discussion, I have an ongoing assumption also that my edits are also monitored by Afterwriting purely for the purposes of harassment. This is ridiculous on both sides of the argument. I do believe Hilo in particular needs to step away from the keyboard as he already has a track record of incivility towards other users particularly on football (broadly) related pages. The fact Hilo is trying to paint me alone out as being uncivil does not help his cause --Orestes1984 (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your latest comments only serve to demonstrate your lack of personal insight into your own offensive and disruptive behaviour. You are principally responsible for this saga. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and begin to recognise how your negative comments about others apply to yourself. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Disengage and look at your own behaviour in a mirror, I'm sick of these kinds of incredulous statements purely being directed towards me. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Soccer" is the "gentleman's name for the sport"

And "football" is the commoners' name for it,

See here. (Right near the end.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

How is this information relevant to the article?--2nyte (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, just doing some research and wandering through some documents. Thoughts I'd share some fun and/or interesting ones. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, this is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.--2nyte (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And here is a Commonwealth Government article effectively describing the Barassi Line. (Though they missed the Riverina.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And, rather tellingly, this "barrassi line" is not mentioned anywhere.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, how is this information relevant to the article? The linked article debunks your Barassi Line theory, stating "Football (soccer) is recognised by many to be the first sport in Australia to establish a truly national competition", meaning not restricted by region, unlike AFL and NRL. Also the first article was posted on Feb 1, 2001 and the second on Jan 10, 2004. Since that time the Australian sporting landscape has dramatically changed.--2nyte (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the soccer landscape has changed. The other sports haven't changed much. The Barassi Line is still there. I have no idea what you mean when you say the article debunks my Barassi Line theory. Do you pay much attention to any sports other than soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The Barassi Line has nothing to do with soccer in Australia. It has zero to do with soccer. The Barassi Line is purely about where rugby league is played versus where Australian rules is played. The only possible universe where Barassi Line is debunked by soccer is if some one is arguing "Australian rules is the exact same sport as soccer." Barassi Line is not a linguistic concept of where the term football is used. It is about the relative REGIONAL popularity of these TWO codes as they compete with each other. @2nyte:, which sport are you arguing soccer is as it related to the Barassi Line? Rugby league or Australian rules? --LauraHale (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting link from HiLo48 as it states Soccer is now formally known as 'football' in Australia, in line with international usage. its uses Football(soccer) for clarity Gnangarra 12:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There's not really any question about what the formal name is. :) The debate is only about what the common name is. I am a bit lost about what is being referred to as the "Barassi line argument", though. - Bilby (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The argument is the same as Mumbai and Uluru more sources for old names but the new name is what is being used and has been the dominant name to describe the sport for a reasonable period of time. Gnangarra 13:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be the same if there was already a big rock called Uluru when the name was changed, that was just as popular. :) What makes this difficult is the ambiguity "football" causes, such that it may not be the dominate name in all states. So we either a) go for a formal name that creates ambiguity and isn't always the common name; b) go for a common name that isn't the formal name, and which the formal body is trying to move away from; or c) go for an international name which is barely used in Australia. At any rate, the issues haven't changed. Maybe "Association football in Australia" will win enough support to let us move on. - Bilby (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of editors that are trying to mainain a fringe theory here that the Barassi line, a concept which according to them divides Rugby and Australian Rules football, is also applicable to "soccer." I have tried to also remove this from the names for Association Football article on the grounds of relevance, but am currently tied up in a BRD over that. Frankly, BRD is not something that has to be officially be followed, but unlike some others here I am actually willing to and have a proven track record of compromise in my actual article editing.

There is very little evidence out there that the Barassi line has anything to do with soccer, other than indirectly. In fact from the research I've done on the matter "soccer" has been seen as a football code that has been played by foreigners and migrants pretty much as long as there has been recorded history on the matter, those who wish to continue along that path should really read Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories and come up with a solid evidence based position to support this linguistic divide in Australia or desist from that line of reasoning. They should particularly look at this bit A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. IF the Barassi line has any relevance to the name of association football or "soccer" in Australia it must be substantiated as any other claims aside from that are fringe theory. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost by that, as clearly soccer is played nationally. My best guess to what you are referring, if I understand things correctly, is that the argument at issue is HiLo's one that says states where Australian rules is traditionally played used "football" to refer to Australian rules football. Thus in those states there has been a resistance to moving to calling soccer "football", as the term already had a different meaning. Is that what the "Barassi line" argument is about? If so, it doesn't appear to be a fringe theory. The use of "Barassi line" to distinguish the Australian rules football states may not be used often in the relevant sources, but the situation seems reasonable. Or are we referring to a different argument? - Bilby (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much the crux of this ongoing debate, Hilo seems to suggest that in states where AFL is dominant, football has been and continues to be used pretty much exclusively to refer to Australian Rules football because of the Barassi line at least in the direct sense. The line I take which is reasonably well supported is that "soccer" is in its current position as its been traditionally a sport considered to be played by those on the outside of Australia's football culture divides which has very little if anything to do with it being a result of the Barassi line. If anything, the marginilsation of "soccer" has had an indirect effect on both sides of the line where "soccer" has been pushed to the margins of society where it has been played by "sheilas, wogs and poofters" . It still is if we look at the recent media about "soccer" fans that has been getting fairly broad coverage. This has been the case, it would appear, since the 1800s according to what I've read and that's both in Sydney (Wanderers) and Melbourne (Victory) where it would appear to be continuing. Pretty telling that it has nothing to do with the Barassi line, but general acrimony towards the sport on both sides of the fence.

In terms purely of anecdote and nothing more, I have played "soccer" since way back 20 odd years ago, even then while we played "soccer" in Queensland the discussion was relevant that the game was "football" elsewhere and rightfully "football" (soccer). Also from an anecdotal context this has always been the case among most "migrants" of which I might also be considered (for the purposes of "soccer") even though I was born here full well knew that the international game was "football" even those of my extended family who originate from Melbourne like a large percentage of Australians of Greek descent.

While at orginisation and club level it may have been soccer, I have a fairly dim view that it has anything to do with the Barassi line, and from what I've read I'd loosely suggest that it was if anything more to do with the broader historical context and the establishment of other "football" codes before "soccer" really gained any traction with the wave of migration of predominately Southern European migrants after World War II. Football was already rugby in the northern most states of New South Wales and Queensland, and AFL elsewhere but this is not the Barassi line this is just an Australian context of wherever so it happened that a code simply became dominant historically while "soccer" was an outsiders sport. The Barassi line simply does not explain away the nation wide hostility towards the sport of "soccer" nor does it adequately explain the issues with the name "soccer" in Australia. "Soccer" is, or was depending on which way you look at it "soccer" purely because it never got the traction to become football in any part of Australia. It has very little directly to do with any artificial lines in the sand and if anything it has more to do with not being "Australian" enough.

I had used references that supported this assertion in my most recent edits of the history of the sport, but for the majority it would seem they've been removed. I'm not sure why other than the fact that they're behind a paywall, but as per the rules on sourcing, just because it is hard to access does not make it any less acceptable as a source --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We're actually getting somewhere here. Unfortunately, it's obvious that some here don't like the concept of the Barassi Line. Feel free to challenge the existence of the article if you wish, but right now it exists, and I find it a handy term to describe the division of Australia into parts where Rugby League AND Union are more popular, and where Aussie Rules is more popular. My point is that in the Aussie Rules part, "football' has meant only one thing for 150 years. In the other part, "football" already had multiple meanings. Adding an extra meaning for football was always going to be easier where people were used to multiple meanings, but not where it only meant one thing. That, combined with the fact that "football" is the common name for Aussie Rules in that part of Australia, means that "soccer" is the common name of the round ball game there. And "soccer" carries no negative connotations there. It IS the name of the game, for virtually everybody. (Including gentlemen - see the title of this thread.) And the game is thriving. There is nothing wrong with "soccer". Yes, the Barassi Line thing is an indirect connection. I've never tried to claim otherwise. I'm not trying to prove anything here, or convince anyone of anything. I'm just describing a very relevant reality in a part of Australia where most of those seeking change don't live. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, so in the Aussie Rules part of the country, "football" has only meant Australian rules football. How would you explain the use of "football" by hundreds of association football clubs, and the use of "football" by Football Federation Victoria, Football Federation Tasmania, Football Federation South Australia and Football West? Surely these recent changes represent a change in the sporting landscape / culture / or language. As you said, the game is thriving, and the sport has the highest participation and supporter rates in those states out of the football codes.--2nyte (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The clubs and association were told to change by the national body. Many did. Surely what's more notable is the number that haven't changed. That so many are willing to defy a national instruction is telling. (Have any not changed to "football" in Sydney?) And even with all those clubs that have changed their official name in the Aussie Rules domain, I can assure you that the fans and players still call it "soccer" in day to day conversation. Not sure about the highest participation claim. Certainly true at a junior level, but figures at a senior level are hard to come by. Not arguing about it though. It may well be true. Just advising caution in claiming it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Clubs and associations were not told to change their names to "Football", that was decided by the individual clubs and associations themselves. The only such incident in the sport was by Soccer Australia in the 90's, when clubs were required to change their names and badges to remove any ethnic ties the clubs had.--2nyte (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I noticed a pretty powerful campaign to get rid of the name "soccer". What was it? "Old soccer, new football" or something like that? And a lot of clubs in my neck of the woods have ignored it. So that was a serious question. How has the conversion rate been in Sydney? HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, the "old soccer, new football" slogan was a marketing campaign by FFA to gain public awareness of the "rebranding" of the sport. There was never a push by FFA for clubs or state federations to use "Football", they were never told to change their names, they just decided to do so on their own merits.--2nyte (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. How has the conversion rate been in Sydney? It's a genuine question. I know the situation in Melbourne, but not Sydney, and I'm curious. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, if you are asking how many clubs have changed their name from Soccer Club to Football Club in Sydney then I don't know the answer, though I do know that all of the high-profile (top division) clubs have changed to "football", and I know many hundreds outside NSW, as well as many Victorian clubs have changed to "football"; again, these recent changes represent a change in the sporting landscape, culture, and language in Australia. On the other hand, maybe a good question would be how many association football clubs have changed their name in recent time from Football Club to Soccer Club? I would suspect none.--2nyte (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Almost certainly true. But what gets me is that there's a handful of you here so determined to not allow "soccer" to be used that you will accept a name nobody knows, "association football", while many clubs all over the country, along with their fans and players, are perfectly happy to use the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name of "soccer". I truly don't understand your position. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, it is an academic position. We are forming an encyclopedia, so how should we present this sport to not only Australian readers, but to readers who know nothing about the culture, the language and the sporting landscape in this country. What is the best way to present the sport to all these people without bias. I do agree that "soccer" is currently the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the sport. Though it is not the only current name for the sport, and unlike "football" or "association football" it's specific usage has been 'called off'. The title Association football in Australia is the best title simply because it doesn't have the restriction that "soccer and "football" have. It is a completely unbiased and very common name for the sport on wikipedia; and that's what we should be seeking.--2nyte (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"Soccer" is used by an awful lot of Australians. I don't think many people around the world will be confused by our usage of it. It works for America. Your term "called off" is unconvincing. Clearly, soccer fans themselves do not have a common view on the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the sport is moving away from the term "soccer", as are many media outlets in Australia (based in NSW or otherwise), and the article itself explains a move away from the term "soccer" in Australia. It would then seem confusing to many - biased to others - that we would continue to name this article Soccer in Australia when Association football in Australia is a perfectly acceptable, maybe even better fit title.--2nyte (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

How can a name that nobody understands at first sight be "perfectly acceptable"? (And how on earth did Misplaced Pages decide to use it at all?) HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, do you think readers (that don't study biology) actually understand every word in the opening paragraph of Mycobacterium at first sight? Of course they wouldn't and we don't write article for people to understand every word at first sight. Soccer in Australia would be redirected and the term "association football" would be explained in the first line, as it is in the Association football article.--2nyte (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Mycobacterium is a complex scientific article, with few alternatives to the proper scientific language. Soccer in Australia isn't. You still don't really seem to have an answer to "Why not use soccer?", apart from "I don't like it". A lot of other people do, including fans, players and club officials. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you still think the use of "soccer" is still acceptable on wikipedia. - The governing body change its name. The state federations independently changed their names. Hundreds of clubs independently changed their names. Media (not all regional, but all national) refer to the sport as "football". If you read this article, your conclusion would be that the sport is called "football". Many people still call the game "soccer" (and that is fine), but on[REDACTED] there are only two outcomes we can draw from: those are, 1) Football, 2) Not Soccer.--2nyte (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The claim that soccer has the highest participation rate is a bit misleading - Australian rules has a higher participation rate in SA, WA, NT, Victoria and Tasmania. (Also, if you look at attendance, rather than participation, the attendance rates are much lower than the other codes in all states). It isn't a core issue, but it helps explain why the term "football" can mean different things in different states, due to the different dominate codes. - Bilby (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"I find it a handy term to describe the division of Australia into parts where Rugby League AND Union are more popular"

Maybe it is, but until we get some solid evidence supporting the case it affects all sports in Australia it's a minor theory at best and at worst it falls under Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories. As I've stated it doesn't go broadly enough or deeply enough to explain a lot of things, which would appear to be glossed over, it doesn't explain the national agenda both AFL and Rugby Leauge in particular (of the rugby codes) have against the "soccer" code. It doesn't explain the history of the establishment of the game, as I've said, "soccer" until fairly recently has failed to gain any real traction in terms of broad public interest, and so never was established as the dominant code anywhere in Australia. You could argue that, that this is still the case, it would appear the average A-League fan has little interest in the international game, and furthermore that there is only narrow interest in the success of the Australian national team much in the same way there is only narrow interest in the northern most states in the success of the Swans/Lions in the AFL.

Anyway, the "Barassi line" or any such concept does not in terms of historical evidence explain away enough the situation which has led the sport of soccer to where it is now and furthermore as with that other article I see no point in inserting things into articles that could at best be described under Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories to come up with answers as to why it is the case that a sport for the majority played by the population of 3 states should have exclusive rights to the term football in any way shape or form, including a hands off policy on association football.

I've found it hard to find any real evidence from sources that the Barassi line actually delineates the term football in any state in terms of a soccer/AFL/rugby divide, if anything historically football is not soccer because it failed to gain any sort of prominence on Australia's sporting landscape. If anything you could argue for this case, but trying to explain it on a linguistic concept that does not exist in the sport of "soccer" really is pushing a heavy object up hill. Anyway, the point remains, it's football now which cannot be explained away, the obvious and open compromise is the use of association football with a redirect from this page to association football in Australia. This divisiveness to a non-threatening concept really must stop, or this article really is not worth maintaining. The use of I statements should also be refrained from --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the sources you have used in the past, Rosenberg (2009) p248, mentions the Barassi line when highlighting the regional distinctions between football codes. It then discusses the "football wars" in terms of the use of the word "football". I am a bit confused as to why you refer to the Barassi line as a fringe theory - it isn't a theory, but just a term used to identify the traditional Australian football-playing regions from the regions that have traditionally supported other codes. - Bilby (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and Orestes is quite right in observing that the AFL and NRL will do anything in their power to limit the growth of soccer. That's how business works. And at that level, it's a business at least as much as it's a sport. And surely the only reason you want to use the effectively unknown name "association football" is because you won't use the much more common, universally understood, unambiguous name of "soccer". I keep trying to emphasise that there's nothing negative about it anywhere these days. A lot of players and fans use "soccer", as do many clubs. If you can show me that there is a problem with it, I may begin to see things from your perspective. So, show us the source that says that "soccer" is a bad name today. HiLo48 (talk)

Anecdotally soccer is and always has been an anachronism, a commonly understood anachronism but an anachronism none the less, there's also the many links to the word and what ended up happening when the NSL and soccer Australia collapsed which should be reason enough for any well minded "soccer" fan to support football and the FFA, in the end it was about taking the spirit of the game where it was envisaged by people like Johnny Warren and Frank Lowy, how well this has been achieved is an obvious matter of dispute. Anyway, a friendly conversation with someone who supports the world game proper will highlight this, as opposed to fans of "new football" (general) aka the A-Leauge. I'm not sure it needs much further explanation. If you have a long winded conversation with a "migrant" Australian you'll soon get a pretty good explanation as to why it just doesn't sit well. Anyway, I can't be bothered pushing this any further at this stage, so I'm going to sit on it for now. Sometimes it's best just to walk away.

As the general debate usually ends, its "Soccer" for the general public unwashed who don't understand the nuances and details of the game in Australia for the game played in Australia and football for those who support the game in Australia as well as watch the international code. You go off and sit in that corner over there -> I'll sit in that corner over here <- Really though it's simply just about growing up about things and that's where the anachronism stems from --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please come to a "soccer club" (there are plenty of them), or a school, where "football" means "Aussie Rules", and tell them they're using an anachronism for the name of the game. That's a really stupid claim. It's worse when you declare that such people are not "well minded" or "grown up". You're back on the path of insulting people. Be careful, or I will report you this time. I'm getting very sick of your approach. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling something an anachronism isn't an insult unless you choose to take it that way, it just is what it is, soccer is a well recognised anachronism of the sport at an international level in just about every country that calls the game football or a language/dialect spelling of football, you're out on your own if you wish to disagree with me on that one. There was also no reference to Australian Rules in my comment above, I am talking about "soccer" and we should remain on topic rather than having a blow up about a subject matter I didn't even touch. If you also consider "growing up" an insult I suggest you merely stay away from the game because they're not my words. It's the general perception held by "soccer" analysts and people of historical notability to the sport such as Les Murray, Johnny Warren, Frank Lowy as well as the current administrative body, the FFA has stated that the sport needed to grow up and part of that was "new football." To be insulted by the comments above shows a lack of understanding of the position of "soccer" in Australia, and particularly the last 10 years of the game in this country. It also really puts you out there as an Australian Rules supporter, that's not an insult either, but a perspective. Please do not take a trip to England, you may be easily insulted by someone over there who calls you a stupid git for using the word soccer. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling anyone stupid, or not grown up, or not "well minded" for using the language the way it's been used for 150 years where they live IS an insult. You need to stop now. HiLo48 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As per above you are missing the concept and understanding of how the word football is used internationally, I would also seriously reconsider any AN/I reports as "nothing good ever comes from that place" and with the way you have been throwing mud at me you're just as likely to get a sanction. This has already been explained above. If you want to ignore the friendly advice from an administrator above you are more than welcome to go there though. But, I'll say one last thing... This place seem to mean a hell of a lot more to you than it does to me, so I'd watch it if I were you --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you've called me and others stupid, not grown up, and not "well minded" for the way we use the language, and you're accusing me of throwing mud at you. Please go on. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, you have simply interpreted this in the wrong way. You are looking for a reason to be upset about the decision the orginisation that controls the sport in Australia made that it is "new football" and that its about time we all moved on. They also stated obviously it would take some longers than others. On the issue of being a stupid git, I did not call you a stupid git, I merely stated that if you went somewhere abroad you may be easily offended by someone who may call you a stupid git for using the word soccer. This is not an insult but a matter of cut and dry facts. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't be offended. Just further convinced that (some?) soccer fans are not very polite people. And I'm not upset that the FFA decided to change the name to football. I just don't think they realised or properly thought through how such a change was going to work where the word "football" is so ingrained with another meaning. They obviously marketed their idea successfully to you, but you don't live in the problematic area of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Some British folks are just plain offensive as a matter of course, some "migrant" Australians are just as much so, I digress, Australia has never felt what it is to have a real conflict in their country, or a real reason to not be polite to people in general. If you lived under the Nazi government in Greece, or the military dictatorship, or in a former yugoslavic state you would think most people in general were contemptible idiots 90% of the time.

There is also simply the fact of misinterpretation between having an offensive opinion on a matter vs. having a spirited opinion about something some Australians can have about as much emotional feeling as a bag of cement. That being the case, what can often be seen as offensive behaviour by some members of Australia's multicultural society, can often be seen as nothing more than a spirited debate and at some point this all ends, we both call each other wankers (loosely translated) and we simply move on in a more "normal" conversation. The social movement towards causes that are either just or against those which are unjust is practically non-existent in this country and sometimes when people don't speak up they get exactly what they deserve. For as long as we're all Australians living in a multicultural society we must realise not all of us live the dream of VB and XXXX ads while singing come on Aussie come on, and I come from the land down under at the same time while listening to John Williamson. I invite you to take a trip down to Carlton, or Lygon street, or St Kilda wherever there is a large ethnic population even further out and actually sample what the culture is like out there.--Orestes1984 (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

come on, stop being like that bag of cement --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Regional Variation: there should be no blanket rule

HiLo argues that "football" cannot be used since in AFL states that only means AFL. He's spent a great deal of time using the (irrelevant, in my opinion) Barassi Line to explain why "football" cannot be used Australia-wide. Fine, that's an argument for another day. But in non-AFL states, "football" (and particularly "association football") are commonly accepted and largely unambiguous terms for the sport. As such, it makes little sense to prohibit Western Sydney Wanderers or Sydney FC being called "football clubs" in their respective articles. I think it is quite frankly ridiculous to say that Sydney FC shouldn't be called a "football club" just because someone in Geelong, or Perth, might find this confusing. These clubs are teams for *Sydney*- not all Australia, not Victoria. If you think it's confusing, then don't call A-League teams in AFL states "football clubs." Go ahead and call them "soccer clubs." But in Sydney, the potential for confusing AFL fans in other states is absolutely irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a repeatedly achieved consensus on this. You have produced no new evidence. Please stop Edit warring at Sydney FC. I will treat future such changes as vandalism, and look towards reporting you for your behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you're just refusing to answer the argument. Explain to me why the common meaning of "football" in Geelong or Melbourne is at all relevant to the name of association football in New South Wales. In Sydney- which is where Sydney FC and the Wanderers play -association football is commonly and regularly known as "football." *Your* name for the sport is irrelevant- what should matter is the name of the sport in the region that the club is playing in. So- once again, explain to me why the name for association football in Geelong is relevant to an article about a football club in Sydney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if you're confused by the fact that it has been archived from this page, but see Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3#Requested move again for the most recent formal move discussion. Please don't continue arguing it here without new evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

NO, the other discussion area is irrelevant. I'm not talking about the name for association football in Australia. I am talking about the name for Association football in *SYDNEY*. Answer my question- Why does the name for Association Football in Geelong have any bearing on a club from Sydney, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Three minutes is not long enough for you to have read that thread. No point discussing this further until you do. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Far out- I read it before I started this! Answer my question or you obviously have no justifiable response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll humour you briefly. Sydney FC plays in a national league. It would be silly to have different teams in that league listed as playing different sports. I don't believe there's a precedent anywhere in Misplaced Pages. "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game across all of Australia. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"Listed as playing different sports?"

You're kidding right? Association football and soccer are the same sport, just different names. The Socceroos play in international competitions- and internationally "football" is the most common word for the sport -and yet I recall you spending a great deal of time attempting to change the Socceroos'[REDACTED] page to "Australian national soccer team." Clearly you don't actually think that all teams should use the same name for a sport if they're in the same competition. You only use that argument when it suits you.144.132.236.205 (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you intend to grace me with a reply, HiLo? I want recourse to reason but you simply seem focused on pushing your on agenda of calling the sport "soccer" regardless of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

When did I attempt to change the Socceroos' Misplaced Pages page to "Australian national soccer team"? I would not have done that. You clearly have not read all the preceding discussions. It was agreed that we would not change the national team and internationally oriented articles, and I have not attempted to. And to answer your core question, it would be just silly to have different names for the game being played by members of the same league. I know you are going to disagree with that. That's fine. This is a discussion page and differning views are welcomed. But please stop lacing your responses with attack style language. I am not pushing an agenda. This has nothing to do with anyone being an AFL fan. I've played more soccer than Aussie Rules. It's all about the name more than half of Australians use for Aussie Rules and for the round ball game. In Aussie Rules territory, even people who hate Aussie Rules call it "football". This has all been said before. Using these facts as attack points is foolish, and shows bad faith. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is where you tried to change it: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Australia_national_association_football_team#Soccer.3F_Has_it_become_a_non-word.3F Moving on, I don't see the problem with having different names for the sport in the league, especially considering that is the reality of the situation- Sydneysiders call the game football, Melburnians call the game soccer. If we're happy to call the game "football" in England and "soccer" in America, then we should be equally happy to call it "football" in New South Wales and "soccer" in Victoria. We don't have to decide which one of them is "more correct" and then adopt a blanket rule- there is no reason why we can't refer to the sport as "soccer" in Melbourne-related articles and "association football" or "football" in Sydney-related articles.

I am a member of Sydney FC and I have been since the club was founded. I am also a member of the Sydney Swans, for even longer. I honestly think it's misguided and unfair for my A-League club to be told the name of the sport it plays by some Aussie Rules fans from south of the border. 144.132.236.205 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you got that allegation about me completely wrong. Here are my precise words:

"I have no intention of trying to change the name of this article away from "...association football...". That's fine with me."

I await your apology. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologise :D But you still haven't responded to the bulk of my post, so I'll paste it here:

"Moving on, I don't see the problem with having different names for the sport in the league, especially considering that is the reality of the situation- Sydneysiders call the game football, Melburnians call the game soccer. If we're happy to call the game "football" in England and "soccer" in America, then we should be equally happy to call it "football" in New South Wales and "soccer" in Victoria. We don't have to decide which one of them is "more correct" and then adopt a blanket rule- there is no reason why we can't refer to the sport as "soccer" in Melbourne-related articles and "association football" or "football" in Sydney-related articles. I am a member of Sydney FC and I have been since the club was founded. I am also a member of the Sydney Swans, for even longer. I honestly think it's misguided and unfair for my A-League club to be told the name of the sport it plays by some Aussie Rules fans from south of the border." 144.132.236.205 (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Simple response. I disagree with you. And it's silly to say you are "to be told the name of the sport it plays by some Aussie Rules fans from south of the border". Isn't that effectively what the Sydney based administrators of soccer did when they decreed that the name of the sport throughout Australia would be "football"? At least you have the wisdom, something those administrators didn't appear to display, to see that the name "football" really is already taken in Aussie Rules territory and unlikely to ever become the common name for the round ball game there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a silly comparison to make. Having random AFL fans tell me what to call my sport is entirely different from having the governing body of my sport tell me what to call my sport. Go to an A-League game- even in Melbourne -and the vast majority of football fans refer to it as "football." You still haven't explained why we can differentiate the name of the sport between England and America but not between New South Wales and Victoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "random AFL fans" telling you anything. Among other things, it's about me, and many others who know the situation, telling you that "football" means only one thing to most people in Aussie Rules territory. It means Aussie Rules. And it's the most common name for that game in that area. Even people who hate Aussie Rules call it "football". Soccer players call it "football". And all of those people call the round ball game "soccer". So please drop the "AFL fans" nonsense. That's alleging bias where none exists. On your other point, Misplaced Pages is unlikely to treat two states of one country like two entirely different countries. Of relevance there is the fact that a lot of non-soccer fans in NSW still call the game "soccer". And I'll try this one with you. Nobody else with your perspective is able to answer it. What's wrong with "soccer"? Don't tell me about the "official" change. That doesn't answer the question. I ask this knowing that all my soccer playing friends very happily call the game exactly that, "soccer". My suburb has a soccer club. It's a normal word around these parts. No negative associations. So, what's wrong with "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Media, governing bodies and clubs have dropped the usage of "soccer" in preference to "football". It's plane and simple. it's not personal opinion, it is fact, "soccer" has been dropped everywhere in Australia to an extent.--2nyte (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question, what's wrong with "soccer"? And without quantification or other specifics those claims are meaningless anyway. You even felt the need yourself to qualify your own claim with "to an extent". What's wrong with "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, people can call the sport what they like, but in an encyclopedia I think football is the more appropriate name. The problem I- and the majority of football fans -have with the name "soccer" is that it is anachronistic. In fact it is often pejorative. Maybe not in your case, but many non-football fans use that name as a pejorative, without doubt. Ultimately, people use the proper names of all the other sports but then refer to ours by a nickname. It's debasing. Many non-football fans take glee in refusing to use the sport's proper name. If you haven't read Johnny Warren's book 'Sheilas, Wogs and Poofters' I recommend that you do. The fact is, "soccer" as a name will always have negative connotations for most football fans. It is an (often hurtful) reminder of an inglorious and unfair past.

So essentially, call it what you like in conversation. But this whole thread shows just how much association football fans care about the name of their sport. It's strange that non-football fans such as yourself are equally obsessed by the name of a sport that you don't follow yourselves. Clearly, there is controversy about the name of the sport. Clearly, a lot of people care. The only obvious solution is a compromise whereby the title becomes "Association football in Australia" with an opening line including the words "commonly referred to as football or soccer" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.236.205 (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And that post displays the shallow bullshit that epitomises soccer=football campaigners. It completely ignores what I've said about language usage in half of Australia. It's a pointless post. Show me a good current source that says thee's anything wrong with soccer NOW. And I say again, ALL my soccer playing friends call it "soccer", so what are you saying about them? HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And I'm retiring from this repetitive nonsense for the moment, unless something really demands attention. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We came to a pretty quick consensus as soon as I mentioned the word filibustering on that other article page HiLo48? It's just a shame that there is so many needless RFCs going on here, because the same situation probably wont work on this page. As I said this really isn't that painful and I wouldn't want to raise an an AN/I on this and/or other pages, because that's the way I see it, but I may have to if pages are consistently reverted just because you disagree with the terminology, particularly on an "association football" page. I have proven repeatedly that I edit in good faith, it's about time others were treated with the same dignity and respect. I am willing to wear one on the chin and raise this at AN/I if it does mean resolving the issue of filibustering. If it means kicking the can a bit further down the road so we can deal with this in a sensible manner, so be it, so I wouldn't tempt me to do it. Its about time we leave pages alone that clearly reference football, association football, or whatever in the article itself, and likewise AFL folks stay on their side of the line (NB: not referencing Ron Barassi). If you can't edit in good faith then clearly you are not competent to be here on this page. As per examples, It is bad faith to consistently revert edits to flagrantly incorrect article versions as you did Names_for_association_football. You have consistently railroaded and blockaded other editors from making changes to this and other soccer related articles purely because of a POV agenda, it's about time somebody actually said something. --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, most people in NSW and QLD that I have spoken to use "football" in reference to rugby league rather than association football. Spinrad (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter, there is a group of editors that won't be happy with anything but soccer who think the whole of Australia needs to be coddled. They think people will confuse a game played with four goal posts and oblong ball on an oval with a game played with two goal posts, a cross bar with non extending posts and a round ball on a rectangular field. This has already been to AN/I where the user HiLo48 thought they could get rid of me, but that's not the point. AN/I cannot be used to resolve this matter, despite the fact that user HiLo48 believes that every user who disagrees must be subordinate to the users views... Or in direct quote "give up the fight." As HiLo48 should know though AN/I is not the place to resolve naming disputes such as this one... Nothing can change here until we have a change of consensus, or arbitration on the matter and no single user has to change their world views because of a set of rfcs that have occurred here.

As I said above, it really is a shame that this has to go through so many pointless rfcs... No one here is happy, but there is nothing we can do about it, this is an issue that will be irreconcilably unresolved simply because certain people need to coddled, and cannot even accept a broadly accepted Misplaced Pages wide compromise of association football. It really is more than a little bit silly... It is actually completely offensive and borderline derogatory when users such as HiLo48 call this all "shallow minded bullshit." Furthermore, that kind of language will be the same type of language that will see HiLo48 back at AN/I with another case to answer for with regards to his consistent and ongoing personal attacks against every user that does not subordinate to his own short sighted and reactionary viewpoint purely because the user lives in Melbourne. As far as I can see that argument has nothing at all to do with the contents of what should be an encyclopaedia that is both current and relevant, and everything to do with what is simply a POV agenda. --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Orestes, you just said "HiLo48 should know though AN/I is not the place to resolve naming disputes such as this one". I explicitly said in my opening post at that AN/I thread "This discussion must not turn into one on what the game should be called." It was intended to be entirely about your behaviour. My thoughts on your lack of manners, comprehension and competence are now further reinforced. I know you will probably fail to understand this post. It is primarily intended to show others how bad an editor you are. Those who want to present a serious case about changing the name of the game here should be doing all they can to get rid of you. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The way you phrased your discussion on AN/I made it anything but the case, this was not about me, but your shallow minded personal vendetta to get rid of anyone who doesn't believe in your version of the "facts" otherwise it would not have been about "giving up the fight" and before you say anything, those are your words not mine. I have bared witness to this on more than one occasion, what's worse is that you really are a cunning individual in the way you go about doing this. Now that is the truth. You continue to throw around issues of competence and yet you have shown consistently that you cannot edit within the lines of facts to save your life. Your consistent questioning of my intelligence is actually beyond being uncivil and is nothing more than a personal attack. You were reminded on AN/I to look at your own behaviour, do not turn this around and throw it back at me again... Your behaviour is completely and utterly atrocious and I have never ran into an editor that is more poorly mannered and impossible to work with than yourself, do yourself a favor and just walk away while you have some dignity, I'm over replying to your nonsense. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish. I go out of my way to choose explicit words saying it was not about the name of the game, and you insist that I really meant it to be about the name of the game. How much clearer can I be? You really are incompetent. How much longer can you be allowed to post here? HiLo48 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I know it's easier said than done, but when dealing with incompetent editors there really isn't much point trying to have intelligent discussions with them. They simply, unsurprisingly, cannot understand or recognise just how incompetent they actually are and the negative effects they have on others. Attempting sensible discussion is nearly always more trouble than it's worth and a waste of time and energy. They usually have trouble expressing themselves with logic as well as emotional objectivity and common sense and prefer to keep provoking others and then blaming them for the resulting conflict. So it's generally best to try and ignore them until they find something else to focus their negative behaviour on. Afterwriting (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry HiLo48 I have no case to answer, as the administrators have stated, you have a history of throwing around this language and have been called out for it on more than one occasion with lengthy bans as a result. I will no longer put up with this, call me incompetent again and you will run the risk of going back up on AN/I for another round of incivility charges. Next time it will be me doing it so you cannot back away before a throwing stick hits you in the head... desist immediately or I will have no other option --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I dare you to take a case to AN/I claiming that when HiLo said "X" he really meant "Y". Laughable. Do try discussing the subject rather than me, honestly and rationally, accepting information from others that fills gaps in your own knowledge. HiLo48 (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is a disgrace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Please discuss the article rather than the users. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What a sad and sorry advertisement for Misplaced Pages and coöperative editing. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh, tell me about it! And I thought Americans referring to "football" as this instead of this drives non-Americans nuts! Lol, I guess it is just as heated for Aussies too, not just us Yankees. Dwscomet (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry guys, there are certain users here that have a previous track record that speak for themselves, I am not one of them, I have never had as many issues with cooperation as I have had until I ran into a certain couple of users who patrol this page. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A group of meatpuppets who don't even like football have vowed to create false consensus in favour of keeping the official names of three sports on Misplaced Pages while stopping the fourth major sport (Football) from using its official name to appease those people who come mostly from one city of Australia who prefer a quaint sport truly popular only in that one city. Until they accept that all four sports should use their official names, there will continue to be issues. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Only popular in Melbourne and nowhere else" Regardless of the side of the argument you are on I don't think we should be promoting falsehoods like that. Spinrad (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me. I said only "truly popular only in that one city". No-one could possibly deny that the AFL is only massively popular in one city, Melbourne, considering that city provides 50% of the clubs in the highest level competition worldwide, and until relatively recently (on a timescale since the creation of the league), provided 100% of them.Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct, AFL has a proven interest at the highest competitive level with teams in a national competition in three states. Historically there is little proven interest in the sport outside of the areas of Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, or internationally. None the less anyone without their own biases would note the Australia wide attempts by some members of the rugby and AFL community to denigrate soccer at every given opportunity and no one should put it beyond them bringing their own biases here. If I refer to my own editing here names for association football it should be seen that I've done nothing more recently than attempted to clean up this mess. How this has gotten this far is well and truly beyond me. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this talk page is a disgrace. And I have been one of the culprits. But you really cannot take Orestes' comments above at all seriously. These are just further examples of his repeated inability to recognise the major unconstructive contribution he has made to this mess. His comments about others and his feigned innocence are risible. All he ever seems to want to do is blame other editors, distort and misrepresent their comments and then proclaim how good his intentions are while accusing other editors of "persecuting" him when his own frequently erroneous and abusive comments are challenged. He has also been treated favourably by an administrator who shares his opinions and who should know better. A neutral administrator should have taken appropriate action about his behaviour weeks ago. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nowhere above did I state I was "innocent" or being "victimised" the words feigned innocence are your own and beyond what is actually being stated here. Your own abusive language and personal attacks at times have been reprehensible, there are no innocent parties here, so I wouldn't even begin to claim you're better than anyone else here. I am merely taking up defense of a position where other users have sat on the sideline and put up with the nonsense from yourself Hack, and HiLo48, sometimes that kind of confrontation to the status quo can be a little challenging to deal with. My intentions are clear as above, that is all I am saying, you are reading what you want to see in this where there is nothing to be seen beyond what I have stated. If anything I have brought this kind of disrepute in discussion with yourself and the aforementioned parties simply to address your true character, which is what stands out every time my intelligence and integrity is challenged by yourself, Hack, HiLo and the rest of your tag team, the fact you believe that this should be resolved purely in your favor is entirely incomprehensible. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, Orestes, enough is enough. You have been repeatedly and excessively offensive and abusive to myself and other editors. You have also repeatedly accused other editors of "persecution" and played the victim card. That is an undeniable fact. You constantly see the chip in someone else's eye while failing to notice the beam stuck in your own. Responsibility for the conflict between you and other editors on this page and elsewhere is overwhelmingly due to your behaviour. The sooner you realise this the better it will be for everyone. Afterwriting (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hows about no, your own behaviour needs looking at and the consistent and ongoing use of four letter words by HiLo48 should have seen him blocked ages ago, your actions are a little better but not by much, if you want to throw personal attacks at myself I will not simply stand down. You are not an authority to yourself here either, so I wouldn't try that role. User interaction history is not in your favour here, so I would strongly consider you take a good hard look in the mirror before you continue hounding me about not falling into line. The facts are,[REDACTED] is not a bureaucracy and I do not have to agree with your position, nor do I have to fall in line with consensus here. If you do not like me, that's fine, stay behind your line in the sand. Nowhere in the rules does it say we have to be friends in order to edit here... Every time you have a disagreement with me you paint this horrible picture which is exaggerated beyond belief. I'll give you something Afterwriting, you'd make a good politician. Not only have you created a good smear campaign here, you've also dragged administrators into it. Well done... --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Usual self-pitying comments ~ "tag team", "smear campaign", "personal vendetta", "hounding", "persecution". Your list of provocative and false accusations against me and other editors who challenge your opinions continues to expand. Very sad. Afterwriting (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Except no it's not and I didn't say I was being persecuted, get your facts straight. There is nothing going on here other than your own dramitisation of the events because you would wish to label me with a non-existent persecution complex. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the talk page is really that big of a problem. The fact that the name of the page has remained stable despite all the disagreements here is a positive sign of Misplaced Pages's collaborative editing. -- Chuq (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think its time we archive the last 6 discussions on this page and get on with the business of what to do next --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The disagreements are the problem here. The name of the page itself, not so much. It's not as if this was a highly-politicised or religious topic, where editors are inclined to kick heads. It sets a bad example for newer editors to see folk who should be setting the example acting so poorly. Hatting or archiving non-productive sections would be a start - like immediately cleaning up graffiti tags. Keep the personal warfare invisible and leave the talk page for useful editing discussion. You know, like 99.9% of Misplaced Pages talk pages which are boring in the extreme. --Pete (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed these insults serve no purpose other than to make us all look like children, something I shouldn't have been drawn into in the first place, but it's a bit hard not to with charges of "incompetence" and being called a "moron." That kind of language is clearly unnecessary, and charges of lack of[REDACTED] competence should not be something that should be used where the same claims can be returned to the user that first threw them out. Lets start by sorting this mess out and returning to the discussion on where to take things from here. It would be wise if someone would archive the last 6 discussions here. The real questions to be answered are 6 discussions up. --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just quietly, but do you think you are helping keep things cool? Maybe dialling things back a notch might help. Your voice is important, of course, but maybe counting to a hundred before responding. I always find that a moment of stillness and quiet helps focus my thoughts. --Pete (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

About time we talked about the name again

Looking at the !vote on consensus for a name change, there look to be more for Football or Association football than Soccer. Time for a formal discussion? --Pete (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is to update Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and have it as standard on Australian[REDACTED] articles.--2nyte (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the actual reason for a name-change? So far I haven't seen any solid reasons for a name-change, just ideology and opinions. Spinrad (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Change in usage. Mass media calls the game football or association football nowadays, the official bodies and clubs go the same way. The only people calling it soccer seem to be those not involved in the sport. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I've only seen "football" used in a couple of newspapers and their websites (and only in the sport sections) it isn't a universal thing from what I can see. I've never heard anything other than "soccer" used in TV media either. Involvement in the sport may be too difficult to define to make it a relevant argument. Spinrad (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No offence, Spinrad, but do you really think that anecdotal opinions of a couple of editors are a good basis for this? How about we assemble some reliable sources? Perhaps the sport sections of major newspapers would be an excellent place to start. --Pete (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that anecdotal opinions of a couple of editors is a good basis for this, which is why I asked about actual reasons in the first place. Spinrad (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I mentioned sports pages of major newspapers. Something everyone may easily check. The Australian, for example: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football --Pete (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned a while back. NewsBank lists 23,766 articles in the Australian press during 2013 which used the term "soccer". While we can debate the extent to which the term may be becoming less common, it continues to be extensively employed. I don't think the use of football or soccer in mainstream media is going to help decide this, given that both terms are being used, and I doubt that there is data available to let us know which is being used the most. - Bilby (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know how many uses of "soccer" were actually for "Socceroo". Though I agree with you last point, I don't think this should be decided with statistics. We know "soccer" and "football" are prevalently used to refer to the round ball game, though the usage of "soccer" is lessening and the usage of "football" is only increasing. That alone draws a pretty solid conclusion.--2nyte (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, searching for soccer and excluding socceroos gives 21,535 articles in 2013, when limited to Australian press. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Spinrad, on your first post: What is the actual reason for a name-change?. The fact is that many hundreds of clubs all over Australia have independently changed their names from Soccer Club to Football Club, all governing bodies have done so as well. As the sport has risen in popularity over the years, media (most notably national media) have adopted the usage of football in reference to the sport. That is not "ideology and opinions", that is fact. We would do well to follow, using the terms "association football" and "football".--2nyte (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Last I checked Misplaced Pages generally prefers common names to official names. So I don't see why any name-change should even be considered until it can be proven without a shadow of doubt that "football" or "association football" is the most commonly used name for the sport in Australia. Spinrad (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That was the point of my last post; that the usage of "soccer" has lessened and the usage of "football" has increased in recent time. I would even boldly state that a majority of clubs have dropped the usage of "soccer" and same with national media. If this is true I see the need to use the terms "association football" and "football".--2nyte (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has come down to something very simple.

In Australia common name can not (or should not) apply to the term "football". Specific to this discussion, in Australia association football is commonly know as both football and soccer. As Bilby mentioned above, "I doubt that there is data available to let us know which is being used the most" - we should not expect this to come down to 40% "Football"/60% "Soccer" - such statistics simply do not exist.

Again, this discussion has come down to something very simple: On a national scale the usage of "soccer" has declined and the usage of "football" has increased in reference to association football - that is what is spearheading the argument, and if we are to continue referring association football as "soccer", then that statement must be proven false. If that statement is deemed true, then we should drop the usage of "soccer".--2nyte (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I can't see a single thing in the guidelines that recommends a change of article name on account of an apparent uptick in the use of a different name. Spinrad (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Now, now! It really comes down to how we editors interpret the sources available to us. There is definitely a surge of interest in the roundball game in recent years, presumably due to our participation in the FIFA World Cup and the changing demographics of the population. Whatever it is, there is a corresponding surge in support for Association Football as the "correct", "official" name for the sport. Just looking at the media, the names of the clubs, the various bodies, it's undeniable. Call it an "uptick" if you will, but I see that as denial, an attempt to sway opinion without reference to facts. In all honestly, can we see the change in media sites replacing "Soccer" with "Football" in their sports coverage as "just an uptick"? --Pete (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone using or advocating for using "Association Football" as the sports name. "Football" sure, but we can't really use "Football in Australia" for the article name. Also the media is not some silver-bullet for justifying a name-change because they are small, closed organisations of people that don't necessarily reflect the general public. You just can't use a handful of media outlets using "football" (usually only in said sport's section) as evidence that it has become the most common name for the sport in Australia. Spinrad (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Superbowl in America, hyperbole in Australia. Let's look at the evidence. I posted the link to "The Australian" above. The heading of "Football" under "Sports" leads to what used to be called soccer.

• Try it http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport
• Likewise the ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/news/sport
• Ninemsn, the same: http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/default.aspx
• Yahoo 7: http://au.sports.yahoo.com/
• SBS: http://www.sbs.com.au/ (Don't even have to go to their sports menu; it's right there on the main line as "Football".)
• Ten is the exception here: http://tenplay.com.au/sport/sports-listing they call it soccer, alone out of the national networks.

It's the same everywhere - any media outlet serving an Australia-wide audience, chances are very good that they use "Football" in preference to "Soccer": http://www.theguardian.com/au is a recent example. Now, maybe you see mass media in Australia as a closed shop, but consider that there is fierce competition between the outlets for the market share that drives their revenue, and that audience votes with its feet. Media here - as everywhere else but in dictatorships - are driven by their audiences. Niche markets will differ, of course, but national audiences overwhelmingly prefer football to soccer. --Pete (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian isn't a great example because it uses "soccer" on its Australian page which then links to an international page for the sport which remains static no matter which edition you view it on. Also as I said before the media is pretty much irrelevant to the argument.Spinrad (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I see the mass media as woven directly into the popular culture. In a free market, the people reflect the media they consume, and the media takes its material from the population. You differ. Fine. --Pete (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, the media takes its position based on what people are doing, clearly people are happy to understand that football means soccer. For the duration of the World Cup, as the premier dominant football tournament played out through Australia's sporting media millions of people will be hearing the term football. It's been this way for at least 8 years now... We can say for at least a fortnight every 4 years association football becomes the dominant football code in Australia. It has to a fairly significant extent rubbed of on the broader sporting landscape. It is now time we adopt the Misplaced Pages wide policy of using Association Football, and use football as the word for the sport in the article. A disambiguation can be placed at the start of the article. No one will be confused... --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What does "common name" really mean for this topic?

There seems no doubt that "football" is the common name for the round ball game among its hard core Australian fans who live outside Aussie Rules territory. I believe that describes all those who come here arguing that it is "THE common name" these days. But that cannot be our definition of common name.

The article title uses the name "Australia", so for starters, we have to consider the whole country.

We must also consider usage among non-hard core fans of the game. They are in Australia too, and until Australia falls out of the World Cup later this year (hope it's not too early), will be talking about the game more and more. We almost all become at least soft core fans during that time.

This means that we must look at the name all Australians in all parts of Australia use for the game.

We need to look at what the media does all over the country, not just "nationally", which in fact has little effect on the local stage. The ABC, for example, might use "football" on its single website for the whole country, but it uses "soccer" in its Melbourne studios, and, I would strongly suspect, in its Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Broome, Wagga and Darwin studios. (And many other places.) Other TV networks (apart from SBS) do the same. The country's biggest selling daily newspaper uses "soccer" in its print edition. Other newspapers in Aussie Rules territory do the same.

I have already provided evidence. A month ago up above, at 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC), in the thread titled "Soccer is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia" I provided considerable evidence for the point I am making. It wasn't just restricted to where I live. I looked at other states too. I think other editors need to become certain about how things are in parts of Australia where they don't live before they again make sweeping claims about the common name.

Just repeating, my main point is that the common name has to be based on the name all Australians in all parts of Australia use for the game, not just the usage seen by its hard core fans in part of the country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, you speak of "the name all Australians in all parts of Australia use for the game", yet you're examples are regionally specific. As is being discussed above, we have to go past the region verse region mentality. On a national scale the usage of "soccer" is in decline and the usage of "football" is increasing in reference to the round ball game; this is evident in national media and within the game itself.--2nyte (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

To be more precise, the usage of "soccer" HAS declined and the usage of "football" HAS increased, in part of the country, and by some people. We cannot predict the future, so we cannot really even describe it as still changing. Yes, my examples ARE region specific, but I've already acknowledged that serious fans in your part of the world do use "football". I'm saying that it's the other places and the other people we must look at. My main point is that "national" usage as claimed by many here is not representative of the whole country. And I strongly submit that we must look at the whole country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think decisions should be made on Misplaced Pages based on things in the future we can't predict. Also I can confirm that Hobart's ABC studios use "soccer" exclusively, as do the other networks. Spinrad (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we're in agreement but I used present tense, not future tense.--2nyte (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I explained the problem with that. While you may know roughly what has happened up until some recent time, you cannot know what is happening right now across the country. Past tense is the only valid one. HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If we need to look at anything it will be what the national broadcasters of the game are doing, in this case the licensing agreements are with SBS and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, Fox Sports I suspect which will be the other major player during the world cup will also be using football nationally. The print media then falls under that as a dwindling market. That isn't an attack, it's a simple look at the reality of what is going on regarding print based media.

We also seem to have an ongoing tense issue simply to insert agendas that could be covered under WP:Weasel certain words like "partial" as if reference to partially completed, period which is not the case at all seen here names for association football. As to what the country calls it, there is a lot more to this that is historical in nature, I won't get into that argument here again as it simply will not be acknowledged. I suspect, when we look at what it is called during the World Cup due to the current television and radio licensing agreements in Australia you're going to be hearing a lot about football as will the majority of people tuning in. For the duration of the World Cup football will be the dominant term as SBS and Fox Sports is where the majority of viewership and listenership will simply be getting their information from on the world cup.

Pushing the print media perspective is not going to get you anywhere... During the previous world cup "soccer" attracted the highest listener/viewership out of any football code in Australia, which can be categorically proven as a fact. Millions of people heard the words football repeatedly, day in and day out and not once did I ever see anyone running around like the sky was falling in the same way people do here. IF the World Cup is anything to go by then the name for the spo here should be football, it really is as simple as that. Millions of people simply accepted that football was the term being used, at least as far as the duration of the tournament. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The frequency of "football" potentially increasing over a period of two weeks this year is a pretty bad reason for a move. In fact at this point you don't even seem to be debating why the article name should be changed, but rather why the general public should stop using "soccer" and start using "football". Spinrad (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The frequency of the usage of football for soccer will indeed be increasing as it has done and as it will continue to do so pretty much since around 2004, when all of these changes began to happen, our relative success in recent years of qualifying for the World Cup 3 times in a row is just a catalyst for this. But, at least every 4 years soccer does become the dominant football code, we can look at these facts in terms of raw viewership numbers. What that has to do with overall word usage is the fact that it has spawned a catalyst for ongoing attention to soccer (football) in this country.

The World Cup and Australia's predominately successful move to the AFC illustrates that there is more than a general interest in what the Socceroos are doing on an international level where the game is considered to be football. The broad national consensus for the usage of the word football in terms of national media as addressed above would appear to be football, the ABC, SBS, Nine, Seven, and Foxtel would all appear to have football as the dominant usage word in their style guides. This would appear to also be the case on every major network except channel 10. Using print media as an example is a pretty bad one primarily because print media is dying out anyway. We should look at digital media, analogue radio and the web. We've got a fair indication that most of the web based presence for the major networks are using football, most television based networks are using football, and the radio where football is predominately broadcast on the ABC and SBS are using football, either predominately or interchangeably.

The changes are occurring and it is fairly wide spread association football is a widely spread and accepted[REDACTED] category, and there is also a portal for association football. It's about time we got over this and accepted a widely held Misplaced Pages wide compromise of using association football where we cannot use what looks to have become the common name for the sport at least as far as the media is concerned. --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Orestes, you have not discussed the actual topic, which is by what process do we determine the common name for Australia. And to say "The frequency of the usage of football for soccer will indeed be increasing..." is pointless WP:SPECULATION and nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. Oh, and can we drop this ridiculous nonsense that TV networks are using "football"? Apart from SBS, it's just not true. The types of prgorams where the name of the game will be mentioned are produced locally (news, sport, etc) and the word used is the common one for each particular area. You have been told by two other editors in this very thread that in Hobart and Melbourne it's "soccer". Claiming otherwise is incredibly bad manners. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The national television networks are using "football" - SBS, ABC, Fox Sports, Sky News - they are all nationally represented and they all predominately refer to association football as "football". So in terms of on a national scale, in recent time the common name for association football has become "football".--2nyte (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Fox Sports and Sky News have a negligible market share and the ABC doesn't really seem to use "football" in its studios anyway, not that corporate policy is proof of common usage by society. Spinrad (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo once again you demonstrate your inability to think outside of the box you've put yourself in and we've returned to your commentary that everyone who disagrees with you is a "wishful thinker" a "moron" or something similar. I've been sorely tempted to start an RFC/U about this behaviour, it's just not acceptable. I'm sick of it and your behaviour that started all this nonsense not only with me but with everyone else. Please stop this needlessly derisive behaviour. You have been called out as childish by a number of administrators here when it comes to resolving disagreements with other editors.

By what process do we determine the common name of the sport?

One example is by what the media is doing at a national level and you have been given examples of this by another user here that the predominance of style in terms of web presences is football and furthermore that the two main broadcasting networks in Australia call the sport football. Your claim about it being apart from SBS is just not true, apart from SBS there is also Fox Sports, and Channel 9's Wide World of Sports as notable examples of national coverage I can think of off the top of my head that use the term football. From a national perspective this simply has been increasing and has been doing so since right about 2004, this is not wishful thinking.

Another way is to look at all those people, sporting clubs, etc, that have decided voluntarily to adopt the word football, even in your home state of Victoria for the game being played... They don't have to but they do, while here in Queensland my local club has been renamed the Coolum Football Club. They've been around since 1975 and don't have to mandatorily change anything but they did anyway.

The other way is to look at what people are doing on the street, unfortunately despite your own "wishful thinking" we don't have a survey of linguistics that identifies that any one sport in any state has a predominant word usage of football that refers to any one sport, historicity tells us that this was the case at one point in time, but the modern landscape and influences of rugby league, union, and AFL across Australia have muddied the waters without looking at soccer on top of that, therefore we must look at what the current evidence based position is on the matter.

Until we have an evidence based position we can only go with what we know and that is that there are many sports called football, so the Misplaced Pages wide catch all category applies of association football. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

2nyte and Orestes, you are both wrong about the ABC. The free to air commercial networks use the common name in each state, so it's "soccer" in Vic, Tas, SA, WA, NT and the Riverina. (Fox and Sky are irrelevant.) In repeatedly saying otherwise about the big networks you are claiming to know better than other editors who actually live there, and I'm pretty sure neither of you have ever been. It's not a sensible position to take. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages guidelines seem to recommend avoiding name-changes unless there are very good, objective reasons to do so. So far no reason has been provided that isn't a matter of personal opinion or corporate media policy. Spinrad (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)