Jump to content

Talk:Australia men's national soccer team/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

AN/I

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

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

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

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

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

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

First goals in world cup

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

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

Paragraph four:


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

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

Gender specific article title

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

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

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

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

Changing use of nickname to proper article title in various pages

On various football related pages, the word "Socceroos" is used, occasionally as a link word to this article, but occasionally simply the word itself with no links. I have changed these examples to using the wikipedia title, Australia national association football team. We don't go around calling the St. George Illawarra Dragons the "Red V", the Penrith Panthers the "Chocolate Soldiers", nor do we refer to the GWS project as "AFL's Vietnam" or the "Canberra Giants". There is no need to use a nickname. Have put this here just in case anyone feels they need to complain about my edits. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

But we do call the Australia national rugby league team "the Kangaroos", and the Australia national rugby union team "the Wallabies". Similarly, we do also call this team "the Socceroos". This doesn't appear to be a WP:Wikilinking issue at all. Anyway, more at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Football_in_Australia)#Macktheknifeau_doing_sweeping.2C_pointy_changes_again.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A discussion on this matter occurred at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Changes from "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team". As a result of his changes, Macktheknifeau has been indefinitely blocked. The changes have been reverted. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Socks in original kit

The ref for the original kits says that the socks had maroon cuffs. Could someone with the relevant expertise modify the kit so that it matches the referenced colours? Hack (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The only team to have been the champion of two confederations

Having won the 2015 AFC Asian Cup, Australia are now distinguished so. Some other national teams have participated in multiple continental tournaments as invitees, but none have achieved this. I think this deserves a mention in the article. --Theurgist (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added it to the lede here, as well as mentioned it at Sport in Australia and Australia. -- Chuq (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

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

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

– Since the result of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 4#Another RfC on naming, which concluded with a consensus for "Standardise on soccer on all articles pertaining to the sport in an Australian context. This would be somewhat like the existing situation regarding soccer in the United States.", articles (and categories, etc.) relating to soccer in Australia have been steadily renamed from association football → soccer. These national team articles are the last ones to go. Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: a third option, to do away with "association" and name these articles simply "Australia national football team" has been suggested below. I personally do not endorse that proposal. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Most of the category names already use soccer, for whatever reason. (May or may not need to be moved, depending on the outcome of this move) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macosal (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I'm torn on this one. Despite a massive number of nasty accusations and criticisms made against me in those earlier discussions, I was always willing, at least as an indication of good faith (unnoticed by some) to leave the international team names in international form. So I have never argued for this one (and the rest of the list) to be changed in the past. I agree that the situation here is similar to that in the USA, and the world of soccer does survive with that country's team called a soccer team. My personal inclination is to change it all to "Soccer", but I don't want a big fight on this again. The earlier fights took me to ANI several times, never ending up with me being censured, although there were quite a few boomerangs. Unfortunately, the bigots on Wikipedia now point and say "Look at HiLo. He's always being brought to ANI. He MUST be bad!" HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Special cases. The name is not ambiguous (the reason for the changes elsewhere) and fits in (better) with broader conventions on Wikipedia. Also worth considering as the official name per WP:OFFICIAL - this is the national team run by Football Federation Australia (although does not state that the article should be called this, but confirms that it could). However, it is worth noting that the consistency argument (between articles on the sport in Australia) is a relevant consideration too. Macosal (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
That post demands comment. The FFA is not the "Association Football Federation of Australia". "Association Football" is not a common name for the game anywhere. You may have done better using FIFA's name as your justification, but an awful lot of fans have no idea what FIFA stands for either. I am a sports nut. Been close to soccer all my life. But I hadn't heard of "Association Football" until I saw the term used on Wikipedia a few years ago. Non fans won't know what it is, and this encyclopaedia is meant to be for everyone. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure. I just meant the keeping of the word football, I suppose (or "association football", in its expanded form). If anything I guess that's an equally good argument for moving the page to "national football team". Redirects hopefully get around that issue nonetheless. It's probably not the strongest argument either way, WP:OFFICIAL not being applicable here other than to show what could be the name. Macosal (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Macosal. I know I said a fair bit of this to you on my talk page the other day, but bear with me I'm saying this mostly for the benefit of the closing admin. I think that "special cases" section applies only to the redirect, and does not specifically "association football" as the title for this article. Note that even if this is moved, I still think Australia national football team should redirect there. I also think it's worth noting that the consensus at RfC was to follow what's done with the US articles and they do use "soccer" for their national teams. I'm also unsure about whether the current title actually does fit better with the broader conventions, most articles use simply "football" for their national teams (the term being unambiguous in those countries) and "association football" seems almost as rare as "soccer". This all said, I completely see where you're coming from in your response to HiLo about this being a good argument for simply "football" and indeed if the consensus at this RM is against moving to soccer (seem unlikely, but we'll see) then I think moving to "football" would be a much better option than leaving it at "association football" – a term used by such a small amount of sources that I'm sure both people who refer to the sport as football or soccer are surprised when they land on this page. Jenks24 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I certainly found it educational to learn here that soccer is also called association football. But I cannot support the name football alone, simply because of its ambiguity in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to add that (Australia national football team) as a third option? I agree that it would seem to be a bit inconsistent with the consensus but maybe appropriate given the circumstances explained in the "special case" situation (which attempts to explain why "Australia national football team" is not overly ambiguous). Speaking of which: the reasons given in the "special case" section would seem to support the use of either football or association football being the name used in my view. That said, it was evidently written before the relatively newer consensus which is why this discrepancy has arisen, I think (it exists to justify why "football team" should go to this page and is apparently unaware that the title of this page may itself be disputed). Macosal (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not really feasible to make to fiddle with the RM templates and the nomination is not actually meant to be neutral (see WP:RM/CM), so I think if I add anything to the actual nom it would confuse the closing admin. However, I've left a note just below the nomination saying that it has been suggested that simply "football team" should be used. Let me know if you'd like me to tweak that note in any way. Jenks24 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, maybe a discussion to have some other time. (It does look like there would be different opinions in some cases if it were just football but irrelevant for the current discussion). Macosal (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "football" in that sentence? There are four sports played professionally in Australia that are all called football by their fans. HiLo48 (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I mean if the title could be just "national football team" as opposed to the current situation (I felt like that was clear in context but apologies if it was not). Macosal (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I accept your apology. I know your proposal is made in good faith. But I was genuinely confused by that sentence. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Just as a note, there is no national team which plays Australian Rules Football. Macosal (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Point taken, but by that token there's no "national association football team". I also see All-Australian team, Australia international rules football team, and several other things at Australia national football team (disambiguation), and articles like Football in Australia show just how ambiguous the term "football" is in Australia. The benefit to "soccer" is that it's both unambiguous and much more common than "association football".--Cúchullain t/c 15:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Macosal, we cannot depend on our readers knowing that there is no national team which plays Australian Rules Football. As a young kid I certainly didn't know. This is a global encyclopaedia. It's actually our job to tell them that. There are certainly national teams that play the two rugbies, often called "football" by their fans. And did you know that, firstly, there ARE national teams from many other countries that play Australian Rules Football (see Countries playing Australian rules football, and also this film), and secondly, the AFL does have a national team, that plays International Rules?
Yes I am aware of both those things. How do you intend to tell readers that there is no national team which plays Australian Rules Football? Will this move help with that? Macosal (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
No. It's a red herring. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – previous discussions seem to have reached (not without difficulties) a fairly solid consensus on 'soccer' (for Australia). Oculi (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There are lot of citations above that Australian readers may find the word football confusing. It should be noted that this page (and any similar ones) are not exclusively read by people living in Australia. Wikipedia is a global site and the names should be based on the global common name.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I find that post confusing. Did you realise that the proposal is to change the name from "Association football" to "Soccer", not to "Football"? And I'm not sure what we would define as "the global common name". "Association football" isn't common anywhere. But I reckon any English speaker would know what "soccer" is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
My point is that those supporting the move keep citing that Australians may not recognise the sport as being called football, but the pages in question are not solely read by Australians and football is a more globally recognised term for the sport. I agree with you on the use of 'Association' but general name for such articles is simply 'national football team', with Association having been added based on a similar argument of Australians being the only people to read such articles, and therefore there is parity with Australian rules football, which for the vast majority of the world is an obscure minority sport. There is no Australian rules football team at the Olympics or Paraolympics yet the teams cited are entered in a sport referred to by the Olympics themselves as football so changes to those articles serve no purpose and is again based solely on the premise that only Australians will ever read those articles and that should take precedence over precision and the globally recognised common name. The same goes for most of the other pages listed in the RFC. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Which "globally recognised common name" are you arguing in favour of? "Football" or "Association football"? HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not difficult - the common name of the sport is football. Personally I believe it should be described simply as that as the overwhelming primary topic with other games that lay any claim to the term being disambiguated as such. However, the current situation is that at some point association was added (probably back in the days of WP being US centric) in the belief that other sports have enough parity that the sport shouldn't be considered primary topic. I think that's a poor judgement but it exists non the less. Changing to Soccer moves such titles even further away from their common name than they currently are so I oppose it. As I said, people keep saying that Australians may find the titles confusing, but would someone in Ghana? Or Argentina? Or Iceland? Or Spain? Or China? The Olympic team is a prime example as the Olympics don't include a sport called soccer and no Olympic soccer teams exist because you win medals for football - what someone in Australia might call a team doesn't change that. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
So which type of football is played at the Olympics? The only clue is to the right where it says Federation of Association Football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.125.138 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not the point - 'Soccer' isn't played at the Olympics so to move article names to that title is incorrect.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Football is the common name in some countries but certainly not in all, so it's not the common name at all, especially in the many countries where more than one code of football is played. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
It is the common name in he vast majority of the world, to describe it as 'some countries' is to attempt to massively downplay it's preponderance. There is absolutely no comparison in terms of global recognition between the sport of Football and the sport referred to as Football in Australia, and to claim there is enough parity to cause confusion on a world wide website is untrue. The idea of the primary topic being moved to be referred to by a nickname while the minority sport retains the word football is the wrong way to go.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Bladeboy, you have convinced me of one thing. You have completely misunderstood what this Requested move is about. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I am fully aware of what this RM is about and the agenda it supports. I also understand patronising remarks. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether it is the common name "in he vast majority of the world"[sic] is debatable as there are no verifiable facts and figures that support the claims. What is relevant is that soccer is still a commonly recognisable name and it's far less ambiguous when referring to the sport played in Australia. In fact, from an encyclopaedic point of view, it's important for readers from areas where they are limited in the number of football codes available, to understand that football is not the common name in Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, some American editors persistently tell me that a majority of the world's English speakers live in the USA, where the name is clearly "soccer". (I think they're a bit wrong, but...) This is English Wikipedia, so maybe "soccer" should be our global name. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it really "important for readers from areas where they are limited in the number of football codes available, to understand that football is not the common name in Australia"[sic] to the extent that the article should be specifically titled that way? I haven't seen any guideline suggesting that... Certainly it is clear that the vast majority of the world call the sport football (in terms of numbers of clubs/national associations etc). I assume the argument directly above this from HiLo is facetious (certainly not constructive, accurate or feasible). In fact the fact that football is the common name in a global sense is an interesting point which has not been really considered in the discussion to date (as far as I've seen). Macosal (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, my comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. I hope you've noticed that I have not actually expressed an opinion on the Move proposal, but I cannot resist the temptation to tear apart poor argument from anybody. I think the global commonality of "football' IS in everyone's minds, but we cannot ignore the fact that the word is hopelessly ambiguous in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
But this isn't the Australian language Wikipedia and the pages in question are not solely read by Australians so that is an irellevant argument.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No, one can debate how much weight should be placed upon the fact that "football" is ambiguous in Australia, but it's stupid to claim it's irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Its no more relevant than the understanding of someone in Ghana or Argentina or Scotland as these pages are not 'owned by', or soley written for, Australians so an 'Australians only' argument isn't relevant.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
That's true. But I don't think anyone has made such an argument. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, one of the purposes of an encyclopaedia is to educate the reader, so educating the reader that Australians call soccer "soccer", by way of article titles, is encyclopaedic. This applies regardless of whether the reader is from Australia or some other country. WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles and there is a current consensus that "soccer" is the common name in Australia. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The current consensus is that Football within Australia can be referred to as Soccer - but the very nature of the pages cited is that they are about Football played by Australians outside of Australia - these are national teams playing against other national sides who are are football teams, governed by football associations and playing in football tournaments for football trophies. Soccer comes nowehere in any of the activities they undertake. Also - of the pages listed there isn't even an Australian Football team that exists for the majority of the variations, so what are we trying to disambiguate against? There can be no confusion with the Australian Football Paralympic team because it doesn't - and very probably will never - exist.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You really should stop making absolute claims such as "Soccer comes nowehere in any of the activities they undertake". The Americans, who claim they provide around half the readers of English language Wikipedia, won't be pleased with you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no FIS, no FIS World Cup. So technically no teams under their juristiction plays soccer - that's just a nickname used by some people - the name of the sport is association football, generally shortened to football.Bladeboy1889 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Pretty sure the Americans don't regard "soccer" as a nickname. And it was the official name in Australia for many, many decades. So not a nickname here either. Just less preferred at an official level. HiLo48 (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
And "Soccer" obviously won't confuse anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The only globally recognized name is "soccer"; "football" means different things in different places. "soccer" seems to be the form most used in the English-speaking world (ie. Australia, South Africa, Canada, USA, former US-held territories) while "football" is ambiguous in many places where it is also used for another sport besides association football (ie. Ireland, New Zealand) ; so if we really want to serve the world, we should either use "soccer" or "association football", and never "football" for all articles and categories, since we serve and English-language audience, and that audience recognizes soccer, and football is outright wrong in places (ie. US, Canada), or where it causes confusion over large portions of the readership,. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
And FFA's website seems obsessed with the name "Socceroos". Oh well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - per my other comments on this page. There is a standing consensus that "soccer" is the common name in Australia so it seems only logical to apply WP:COMMONNAME. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Given that soccer is the predominate term for the sport in Australia and the team is known as the Socceroos, this move makes sense. Calidum Talk To Me 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Unambiguous and allows for consistency across Australian articles. Association football is the third of two good choices given its rare use in Australia. Football is rarely used by non-fans of the game and is ambiguous with several other sports commonly known as such. Hack (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - As this RM discussion has been specifically flagged at WP:Australia I have copied the same notification to WP:Football at the other primary project concerned with thiese pages. Bladeboy1889 (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

Ange's nationality

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

I believe you are correct - certainly for players, nationality is determined by which country they represent, and I'm fairly sure the same applies for coaches who have had rep careers as a player. Even if not, the fact that Ange has lived in Australia for 45+ years is also relevant. Definitely listing with Australia is right. Macosal (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Umarghdunno (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, Australian, on the basis of playing career. See also the Postecoglou's FIFA player page[7]. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 15:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, SMH, SBS. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

U17 caps

@Macosal, Matilda Maniac, SuperJew, TinTin, Hack, Umarghdunno, 2nyte, and Eccy89: Hey guys, quick question. The U17 team has played some interesting matches which haven't been listed as youth caps. @Simione001: mentioned that the two recent Lafarge Foot Avenir international matches aren't caps. The 2014 Nike International Friendlies seem to be official youth caps. Was the pre-WC friendly/warm up game against Costa Rica a full youth cap? If so, then the relevant players need their matches upped by one on the WC squads page... Does anyone know what the deal is here? Cheers! - J man708 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Pretty sure most (if not all) of national football team pages use their Association's logo. There must be a standard reasoning for it. I don't have time to look into it right now, but if no one else does, I'll do it later. --SuperJew (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think the logo should be used here per No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI since the parent organization of the team is the Football Federation Australia and the national team is a child entity of the FFA. There are, however, differences in opinion as to how or even if UUI#17 applies in cases such as this. Regardless, the image is still non-free and, therefore, needs a non-free use rationale for each use, including this one. Whoever thinks the use of the image in this article complies with WP:NFCC just needs to add a nfur for the article per WP:NFCCE. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this from the team's official Twitter account could be used instead of the federation's logo? It seems specific enough for the men's team (the women's team uses this and thus avoids any problems with UUI#17. It could be uploaded as non-free and tagged with {{non-free use rationale logo}}. Other than the text, the only difference from the federation's logo is the green coloring inside the globe and the black background. The same logo is also being used on the team's official Facebook account. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Football Federation Australia logo.svg is not the official emblem of the Socceros. Τhis is the official emblem of the Socceros ([8]). --IM-yb (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding much sooner IM-yb. That does seem to be the official logo from the .pdf link you've provided. Is the black background OK? Do you know if there's a version of the the one used on the team's Facebook account with a lighter colored (preferably white) background? I can upload the one from the team's Facebook page and add the non-free use rationale if the black is OK. If the black is not OK, I can probably have it taken out by someone at WP:GL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
User Marchjuly, the logo is here in png format with official sources. Make, if you want, the necessary actions to upload the logo in enwiki. --IM-yb (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you IM-yb. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hopefully that's fixed it. - J man708 (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you J man708. Looks OK to me. The only tweak I would suggest is to add either the team's Facebook page or the .pdf link provided above by IM-yb as the source website and the Wikipedia page as the direct link for the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't think that was necessary. Meh, I'll do it now. - J man708 (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

uniform

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

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

Opposition to use of "soccer"

  • Oppose. Well, chalk me up to the anti soccer team... also, isn't the voting carried out by to few people, to make it legitimate. it seams like a handful a people made the decision for everyone. VC19 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
If somehow all Australians were to participate, the outcome would be even more lopsided. Those who follow other types of football are hardly going to take any notice, and few of the non-sporting general populace would even know Soccer Australia changed its name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.85.7 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although the way this is written appears as a double-negative and can easily be mis-construed as opposing the opposition to the use of the word but I understand what you mean. I am happy to see this debate take place regularly. The move from the common use of the word soccer to using the word football in Australia will take a generation. However this transition has been in train for many years now and is evidenced at a number of levels. The most obvious is with Federations, Associations and Clubs. The change can also be observed from many mainstream media outlets. Probably and most importantly is that the change in language can be heard amongst participants of the sport, particularly younger ones, and this may not be obvious to those not involved with the sport who oppose the change in language.

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

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

"The media" is actually a small group of people. The decision to abruptly stop using soccer on a masthead after decades of common usage is probably down to one or two people per organisation, and I very much doubt vox pop plays any part in their actions. So again, this has the general population who wouldn't know or care that soccer changed its name, and the other football codes, who do care and naturally reject it. Leaving just the soccer community, who admittedly are bizarrely strident about claiming the word for themselves, and may win out eventually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.85.7 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The governing body is Football Federation Australia. It is the OFFICIAL name for the sport. those that project Sokkah on the sport are doing it out of a misguided attempt to keep the sport marginalised. Football is the official name and it is used not only in all official correspondence, but by a vast majority of newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.189.79.113 (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects common usage in general, not just revisionist soccer fans. It's also unambiguous.
The middle of a pre-existing talk page of an article probably isn't the right place to have this discussion. Head to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and create a new section if you want to restart this more general conversation or add any new points. Macosal (talk) 02:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I am surprised this debate continues to be upheld by people who assume bad faith. The name is FFA, the Australian government states "Soccer is now formally known as 'football' in Australia, in line with international usage." The term is football, the governing body in every state in Australia is football Football federations in Australia the vast majority of people who play and actively participate in football competitions from grass roots to the national level participate at football clubs. I am sorry, but the term is clearly football. This is a regressive policy held by some in the Wikipedia community as a form of "point scoring game" for the fun of it, and nothing more even New Zealand calls it football on Wikipedia and they have an equally long tradition of calling Rugby among other things football --120.22.200.187 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australia national soccer team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australia national soccer team. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Crest

The crest of the team should be this [9], not the logo of the Federation. 210.121.176.105 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Protection request

Random IP addresses are editing this pages, adding random fixtures that haven't been confirmed. Can someone please protect the page? Thanks, #bodyContent a[title="User:Aaxelpediaa"] { background-color: #0000ff; color: #ff0000; font-weight: bold; (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED as proposed. For whatever reason, it appears we are doing moves like this piecemeal, which is bizarre; the suggestion to launch a humungous move request to tackle (haha) all of them at once is well-taken. It's possible that such a move will fail, of course. However, the consensus here is clear. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Australia national soccer team → Australia men's national soccer team – this page is for the men's team. the current title implies that it is 'the' national team with no regard to the existence of the women's team Clifton9 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  • From browsing Category:National association football teams it appears that out of the ~200 Wikipedia articles on men's national association football teams, only United States men's national soccer team and Canada men's national soccer team specify men's in the title, presumably because the women's teams in those countries are significantly more distinguished than the men's teams, although that logic would seem to apply to China national football team too. The Australian women's team has been somewhat more successful than the men's, but I'm not sure it meets whatever standard is being applied to all the other articles. Rublov (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comment. I don't think it should matter whether a women's team or men's team is more or less established or successful in a specific nation. The standard should be that all men's teams articles should be titled as such as per the women's teams. The current format implies that all the men's teams are the primary national football team and that the women's teams are secondary. The titling of articles shouldn't be about popularity or success, it should be about equality. Clifton9 (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia_men%27s_national_soccer_team/Archive_7&oldid=1126570462"