Jump to content

Talk:Brisbane Roar FC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brisbane Roar

[edit]

I heard the club is being renamed to Brisbane Roar because of the fact Gold Coast Galaxy and North Queensland Thunder will also be Queensland Teams. Probably to early to rename article. ronan.evans (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been announced today that it will happen, but it is still too early for the page move - the A-League site says Queensland, the qldroar.com.au site says Queensland, wait until it actually happens before moving. Some people think there is a prize for being the first one to move it. -- Chuq (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - keep in mind I made that comment more than a year ago now! 58.178.16.73 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming takes place from today. Will need help changing player info-boxes and changing Queensland to Brisbane throughout the article... Ck786 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VAMOS BRISBANE ROAR 200.114.247.207 (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Away kit

[edit]

Anyone know the colours of the away kit? I just had a stab at it, not sure if it's right. --Jimar 13:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think all A-league away strips are white shirts. Not sure about the shorts. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 09:17, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


They are generally white but having seen a couple of them they all have a little colour in them. I think there may be two away designs shared by the club (4 & 4 is the split). They are in the shops now . --Tancred 00:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Guys, we have them in blue at the moment, but I'm pretty sure they were in white at the weekend. Luther Blissett 05:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All A-League teams away strip are white. The only thing that differentiates them are the club colours on the neck and arms of the shirt.

Due to an apparent mix-up (OK whose mum got it wrong?) Qld Roar played an Adelaide away game in white socks and their *home* tops on 20/1/08. Not sure if this is worth a mention in the main article. 1dragon (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Player positions

[edit]
Stuart McLaren's position needs to be confirmed. Because he is Josh McCloughlan's replacement he may be a Center Back or Left Back. 144.140.31.5

Stu Mclaren's position is central back. Although he is about to leave the club due to work commitments very shortly.

Isn't Jordan Simpson a forward? I've only ever seen him play up front. 144.140.31.5 06:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was played up front, but his position is defensive midfielder. Another who will probably leave the club shortly.

Reinaldo Elias da Costa

[edit]

Reinaldo Elias da Costa never played for Corinthians. Actually, he played for another team called Corinthians: Corinthians Alagoano, a club from Alagoas state. Read this link. The link has a brief biography of the player before his move to Queensland. It is Portuguese, unfortunately. I fixed the article. Regards, Carioca 20:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

[edit]

Hi all. I've restructured this article, according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Please help expand the sections that are empty or lacking in content. Also, please discuss the proposal to merge the article on former players into the 'Noted players' section. Normally, this would only include players who have had a significant impact (e.g. played over 100 games), but with only one season under their belt, most/all former players can be included. Fedgin 20:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey... kinda like the way it is now but what about having a honour board kind of idea where lists exist for the 2005/6 season, the 2006/7 season etc. then the noted players section will grow and a record will be kept of all players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veed (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 January 2007
Hi Veed, I like the additions you have made, but could you please provide references for many of the statements? (Even if you know it is true, people who read the article need to be able to easily verify statements made.)
Also, can someone verify the details about the supporters groups? I have only really heard of "The Den", which from reading the article appears to be the name of the supporters bay, not the group itself. Can someone clarify? -- Chuq 22:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Club History

[edit]

Does anyone have any details on the club's history pre-A-League, i.e. original formation, pre-NSL, NSL, Brisbane Premier League etc.? Football in this country did not magically appear with the creation of the A-League, so it would be nice to have some information from the "prehistoric times", before football was cool. Greekfire 11:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is stupid. Queensland roar has been around since 1957 under the names Hollandia, Brisbane Lions and Queensland Lions, why is there no history on the past of club. There is no other football club on wikipedia which has so little on its history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.180.38 (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several years later and still nothing? Surely there's some info about the team somewhere. 86.135.127.43 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Roar is not as old as perported. It was a new club when formed, it was never the Queensland Lions playing at a higher level as it was only an ownership investment unlike Perth and Adelaide who have not changed at all since NSL days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.147 (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the club were founded in 1957, though they became owned by the QLD Lions and had their name changed for the purpose of the new league to not clash with the owning club. Once Oudendyk left, they became their separate club when they dropped all relations with the Lions. Protenpinner (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd comparisons

[edit]

Should we indicate how many home matches were played by each Brisbane team? For example, I’m sure the Queensland Reds didn’t play as many home games as Queensland Roar. --Executive.koala 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official kits

[edit]

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/78980,stripped-exclusive-pictures-of-new-aleague-strips.aspx

Official kits for A-League 2007-08. Please do not revert The Frederick 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with a reference --Squilibob 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities

[edit]

Stuart McLaren is Scottish and Hyuk Su-Seo is South Korean but both are shown in the players list with Australian flags alongside their names. Anyone know how to change this? Awotam 12:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McLaren has Australian citizenship and Seo will be naturalised soon, making both players Australian in the eyes of the A-league, hence their Australian flags. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.153.194 (talk • contribs) 25 July 2007.
That is correct and besides, Queensland would be breaking the 4 foreign player rule otherwise. --Squilibob 10:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Sergio van Dijk, I request that his nationality stop being changed. The nationality flag, at least with my understanding, represents the nation FIFA recognizes the player as being eligible to represent. While yes Sergio does have Indonesian heritage I have read that he is ineligible to represent Indonesia because of residency issues. Could someone please help me confirm this as I believe he should only have a Netherlands nationality flag attached to his name.Trent McCrow (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Is there a demand for a history of the club page as there is alot of history stuff, alot of figures, previous season positions, stats, etc. Think it is definitely worth looking into. Alexsanderson83 (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Portillo (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Former Players

[edit]

Towards the end of last year someone deleted the Notable Former Players section due to it not having a clear induction policy. I have remade it, deleteing some of the players that were on there, who in my eyes were not notable. I have also cleaned it up, and made it more presentable then what it was last time. Nath1991 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate Records and Statistics page

[edit]

Most of the A-league team articles are made up of mostly statistics and records. I'd like to propose that a seperate page be crated to keep track of these things and have a sumerisiong paragraph that links to the main records article.Trent McCrow (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Portillo (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

definitely should happen. way too much statistics stuff on here which could go on a new article. i'll tag the article for splitting. — Limabeans 23:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the link's are posted, even if they're posted here, I'll edit the stuff in as I have all the stats on my computer so it won't take much time to fix. — Protenpinner 17:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Is anyone working on this??? It's been 8 months since it was suggested and two months since it was tagged... Ck786 (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing it within the next couple of days. As I let you know, I'm a bit busy with a few other things (staffing the Roar forum among other things) but it should be up by the end of the week (Friday) Protenpinner (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the page (Brisbane Roar FC records and statistics). I've left the other records bit on the page as I feel it should be left there. I've only moved the other bits over to the page like the head to head, awards and what not. As you can see via the Victory's page (Melbourne Victory & Melbourne Victory records and statistics), the edits I've made are pretty much identical. Please let me know of any changes. I'll be adding in the player records bit once I add up a bit on the info I have. Protenpinner (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

On the 2011-12 season page under fixtures i've noticed that there are country flags on each of the teams as opposed to the team coulours as used previously. I've just loaded the fixtures onto the Wellington Phoenix page but haven't included the flags as i'm not sure which ones to use. Can anybody clear this up? Thanks in advance Pereirab04 (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the A-League being comprised off teams from Australia and one from New Zealand, a lot of people prefer to use the flags of the country in which the team are based. Hope that helps. Protenpinner (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great help! Thanks, i'll update this today! Pereirab04 (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-code record for unbeaten streak

[edit]

There is a clear need to define precisely what leagues and/or sports are included in the otherwise vague 35-match record for an unbeaten streak in "any Australian code". It is known (for example) that this record includes the VFL/AFL history, but excludes the SANFL, WAFL, etc., which have at times in their history been roughly equal in standard to the VFL; likewise the BRL as compared with the NSWRL/ARL/NRL. Are national soccer league predecessors to the A-League included? Is it just team sports? Aspirex (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is just team sports as the streak defines "unbeaten streak for an Australian club". National Soccer League streaks are included, hence the 27 game unbeaten streak by APIA Leichardt being included, which did the rounds in the media when the team surpassed it. All top level codes in Rugby League and AFL are included. Protenpinner (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I have found which spells out this record in specific detail is the FFA page, which mentions only the VFL/AFL, NRL & predecessors, NSL/A-L and Super Rugby. I have not seen any source that specifically claims any sport outside of football, nor any other leagues included. As I said before, there is a clear need to define exactly which leagues are included in the record, and to make this explicit within the article, within a footnote like the one you removed; otherwise, it is a non-encyclopedically vague statement. Aspirex (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to post the link? I'm not sure where it is on the FFA site. Don't get me wrong though, I agree there should be something to define which leagues and clubs are taken into account in regards to the streak, I just feel it should be fully figured out before it is put up permanently. Protenpinner (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link: http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/news-display/brisbane-ready-for-phoenix-battle/42441 .Aspirex (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Victory rivalry.

[edit]

Hello i was wandering if i could have the consent to adding Melbourne victory as a rival not only were melbourne the only team not to lose to roar while they were on there unbeaten streak they were also the only team to beat the roar in the 2010-11 season.Ange signing with MV will no doubt add to this and there will be big crowds for the games next season. I no as a personal fact the two sets of fans hate each other.

Something like this, Feel free to edit.

  • Melbourne Victory - Melbourne Victory were the only team to beat Brisbane during the 2010-11 season, When Brisbane Roar were undefeated on there 36 game winning streak during the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons, The only team they had not defeated were the Victory most notably Victory had hanged on for 2-2 draw with nine men. On 17 April 2012 Former Brisbane Roar head coach Ange Postecoglou signed with Melbourne Victory. Aussie4ever4 (talk) 18:56, April 29, 2012‎ (UTC)

Although a good idea, there isn't much there to begin with. I can see where you're coming from but the being the only team to beat the Roar in the streak and 11/12 season doesn't make a rivalry, neither does one coach defecting from one club to the other. The fans can hate each other, and it's a known fact they do for a number of reasons, but that's really the only rivalry. A rivalry isn't created from the stands. Protenpinner (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm i would say a rivalry is a mix of things with the fans being the key but ok we'll see how it goes next season and thank you for replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.225.80 (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes from "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team"

[edit]

In this and several other articles Macktheknifeau has unilaterally changed the word "Socceroos" to "Australia national association football team". (Sometimes with the word "player" tacked on for sanity, but hardly for clarity and simplicity.) I see these changes as pointy, confrontational, and not in line with the agreed naming of Soccer in Australia There is a centralised discussion on this matter underway at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Macktheknifeau doing sweeping, pointy changes again. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Young

[edit]

Why is Jamie Young down as English in the squad section? He moved to England from Australia when he was 16/17, which makes him an Australian first, surely? Not sure why he's got "English football players" cat on his player page either to be honest - I suppose he might have citizenship. HornetMike (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that he does have Australian citizenship, too. It's because he played for the England Youth International teams that this is his nationality shown. Brazilian players who gain Spanish citizenship are still shown as Brazilian. I think until he plays for Australia, it's safe to call him English. - J man708 (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does the F in FC stand for?

[edit]

I'm confused. Is this a Football Club or a Soccer Club? --Pete (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text says Brisbane Roar FC is a professional soccer club but the part soccer is misleading. It should be football not soccer. They identify themselves as a FC obviously. It is even in their logo FC. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In North America we call the sport in which you kick a ball into a net 'soccer', but the rest of the world calls this sport 'football'. In North America we use the term 'football' to describe the 'grid-iron' sport where the ball is carried across a goal, but only North America plays it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.201.237 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "association football" is accurate. Their name is "Brisbane Roar Football Club". That shows they identify themselves as a football club. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pointed out that although it has been discussed ad nauseum, the discussion recurs every few years. In previous years the association football or football (soccer) wording has been the standard. It all depends on which group of editors gives in soonest. Personally I've grown tired of spending considerable time getting it corrected only for it to be reverted back later when I'm not paying as much attention to the project. -- Chuq (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nick Thorne, I have seen RfC closing many times where the closer ignores the comments made by other editors. The wording should be association football or possibly association football (soccer).[1] QuackGuru (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there was a dispute - a very heated dispute, with editors being pulled out through one tactic or another, generally because they grew too heated - makes any technical solution problematic. We now have the most dogged defender of the deprecated (at least out in the real world of sweaty bodies and balls) term "soccer" publicly announcing that he has withdrawn from the fray, and I suggest that if we hold another RfC it will go a different way. --Pete (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first change in this sequence was this edit by 220.239.167.26 which was to replace the word "soccer" with "Association Football". I reverted this and since then two other editors have ignored the BRD cycle and are seeking to impose their POV in opposition to the currently established consensus which was arrived at via RFC as mentioned above. Until and unless that consensus has been changed - and this is not the place to do that - I will continue to insist that the current consensus be respected. We surely do not wish to return to the anarchy and bitter acrimonious fighting that disrupted this topic area before the RFC. - Nick Thorne talk

Given that the most bitter and acrimonious participant has apparently departed, I don't think we'll get to that point. We're reasonable people. We can take turns. --Pete (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Full name = Brisbane Roar Football Club. Aren't they still a "football club"? QuackGuru (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, then football must mean Aussie Rules. See Essendon Football Club and Collingwood Football Club. - Nick Thorne talk 02:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the text should be sourced according to WP:V. The previous RfC did not address unsourced text. Now the text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that every word needs to be from a source? I think not, that would be plagiarism. Of course as I said in my previous post using your own logic, with sources, that "football" means Aussie rules. Do you really want to go there? - Nick Thorne talk 03:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a requirement for the text to be sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me to the policy that says every word needs to be sourced. - Nick Thorne talk 03:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V. We don't quote every word verbatim, but we do need to source all our material. The best sources we have for this article say it's a Football club. --Pete (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: What does the F in Brisbane Roar FC stand for?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) should be followed, in this case the club is to be described as a "soccer" club. Kraxler (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we call Brisbane Roar Football Club:

  1. a Football club,
  2. an Association Football club, or
  3. a soccer club? --Pete (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, soccer starts with an s and not an f so it definitely doesn't stand for soccer. Simione001 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept away from this conversation for a few months now, mainly because I think a decision has been made on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and there is no real reason to contest it other than because I don't agree with it. I've said everything I could or needed to say on the subject, but I still have the opinion that the sport should be refereed to as 'association football' on Australian wiki articles. If there is a swell of opinion toward change then I will support it, but otherwise I don't think we should be edit waring on sing articles. We should respect the process taken place even if we don't agree with it.--2nyte (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That process was so rancorous, and so many interested editors were unable to participate, that there was nothing like a consensus. With the departure of the most dogged and problematic campaigner, we may resume polite discussion, and here is as good a place to begin, starting with the question just raised about sourcing our text, something understood to be a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst 2nyte and I sit on opposite sides on the substantive question here, I agree that this is not the place to be discussing it. Naming conventions (Football in Australia) still applies. Whether individual editors like it or not, that is what the current state of play is. The decision was arrived at after a long period of discussion and IMHO it is way too soon to be revisiting this issue. Time to abide by the referee's decision. For what it's worth, I believe that this proposed RFC should be shut down as an abuse of process. Oh, and just because an editor has chosen to not participate for whatever reason, does not exempt you from NPA, be vary careful, do not comment on other editors. - Nick Thorne talk 06:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we are talking personal opinions, i disagree with you, Nick, most respectfully. You are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine. I think the point made about verifiability is a pertinent one, and I'm interested in your comments on this point. --Pete (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is beyond ridiculous. Are you seriously suggesting that the word soccer is not used to refer to this sport in this country? Sources supporting that have been supplied in the appropriate forum, which is not here. Here we should abide by the rules which include following the agreed consensus on the relevant naming convention. Don't pretend you don't know about those, you have already commented on them. The whole point of having a convention is precisely so that we dont have to go through the same process article by article till we are all blue in the face. Trying to overcome the established consensus by attacking it piece-meal on individual articles is disruptive. Cease and desist. - Nick Thorne talk 06:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Nick, the best sources we have for this football club don't say that it is a soccer club. If we say it is a soccer club, and we don't have a source for it, but rather some sort of chain of logic, then that is WP:SYNTHESIS. I refer you to the club's home page and that of Football Federation Australia. "Soccer" is not a word used in either place to describe the club. We need a source, and we need a source external to Wikipedia. Do you have a source that we can use to support our text? --Pete (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant nonsense. This issue is exactly what the naming convention is for. Get over it. - Nick Thorne talk 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you don't have a source for the statement. Fair enough. Any other views? --Pete (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I just refuse to dance to your tune. This talk page is not the correct forum to be discussing this issue. The decision to use the word soccer in the Australian context was (correctly) made elsewhere. That decision still applies. - Nick Thorne talk 00:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would call the Brisbane Roar Football Club an association football club or simply football club.[2] A possible compromise can be an association football (soccer) club or a football (soccer) club but we need a source that says it is also a "soccer" club. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with what you are trying to say QuackGuru, but I think you're going about it the wrong way. This evidence would be better used as a part of trying to change the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) policy... but good luck with that. Consensus has been settled on association football in the past but if you aren't careful it will changed back again when you aren't paying attention - which is why I haven't bothered. -- Chuq (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not for a second do I agree that association football should be referred to as 'soccer', but as has been said above, you are going about it the wrong way. I think this is ridiculous - for every source you find saying Brisbane Roar is a "football club" you'll find one say it's a "soccer club". Like it or not, in an Austrlian context the word 'soccer' or 'football' is acceptable to refer to association football. However, may I remind you that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The change not to use 'soccer' on Australian wiki articles is a valid one but this is not the way and here is not the place to do so.--2nyte (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I was vaguely aware of the previous RfC (and other discussions) on the football/soccer terminology debate, but had no desire to participate in them. Without actually reading any of the points made in the previous RfC, I see that it ran to a grand total of 14,000 words, so I imagine every possible argument has been presented. There aren't generally many circumstances where a closed RfC can or should be resurrected after less than two months, and I don't think this is one of them – consensus isn't going to change in that amount of time, so I think this RfC is at best pointless and at worst disruptive. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - 14,000 words, plus however many in the two threads here now, plus however much time in reverting and re-reverting those who dare change the phrasing! Imagine how much better australian football / spccer articles would be if all the editors involved had used that time and all those words to improve and expand existing articles or create new one. It's this sort of pointless bickering that means I no longer bother to edit any articles relating to Australian football / soccer. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:IgnorantArmies, I'm not seeing this recentlyclosed RfC you mention. Could you post a link to it, please? --Pete (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the various responses, I'm seeing advice to move this to a more appropriate forum. Nick, I've read your comments carefully, I'm seeing a desire to evade any further discussion because you're happy with the status quo, because it's your favoured position. I'm seeing others saying we have a better place for it, and I'm seeing others weary of the discussion. I think, that with the apparent departure of one of the most dogged campaigners, further discussion would be more focussed on the issue and not on personalities. This isn't an issue that's going to go away. Because it hasn't, and the reason for that is that there hasn't been any real consensus. I think that this discussion should be continued at a higher level. Comments? --Pete (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a very strong consensus in August 2013 to use soccer for the 'Soccer in Australia' article and consensus in March 2014 to standardise to soccer.Spinrad (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call either result consensus, and certainly not "very strong". Counting noses, perhaps. The noses have changed now. And the "soccer" tide continues to recede, looking at media usage. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus: a general agreement"Spinrad (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I certainly wasn't seeing that in the discussions mentioned! --Pete (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, don't you dare to presume to know what my desire are. Whatever they may be is entirely irrelevant to this discussion and from where I sit your words come across as a subtle ad-hominem. Please refrain from commenting on editors and instead confine your comments to content issues. As for the subject of this RFC, as I have said before more than once, this is not the correct time nor place for such a discussion. - Nick Thorne talk 04:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick! My perception of your motives may, of course, be different from yours. That's fine. Just letting you know that I haven't been ignoring your contributions. If you read mine, you'd have seen I'm intending to move this to a different page. Giving a bit of time to let others contribute before closing off. --Pete (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears editors are having a difficult time following V policy. Following the source should matter. What is the argument for keeping unsourced text? QuackGuru (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For every reliable source saying Brisbane Roar is a 'football' club, you can find one saying it is a 'soccer' club. Without doubt, both terms are commonly used in Australian. As has been said above, you don't need to cite that the sky is blue.--2nyte (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is not applicable when we do have a source for the claim football club rather than soccer club. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, official names of organisations are not affected by the current naming conventions. No-one suggests that BR's full name is anything other than Brisbane Roar Football Club, just as we don't call other organisations Football (soccer) Federation Australia or Australian Australian rules football League. -- Chuq (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Soccer? Nope. Football would be what I would vote for, but a lot of people will kick up a stink about ambiguity issues. Association football is the best compromise. Perhaps "wogball"?
In all seriousness, imagine someone referring to Johnny Warren as "Mister Soccer". It's pretty offensive. Yes, back in the NSL days, he was known as Captain Socceroo, but I think the tide has certainly changed. The national body calls itself football, betting websites differentiate the two as "football" and "Australian rules".
I think surely if Wikipedia can call Adelaide Crows an "Australian rules football club", then a team like Adelaide United should surely be called an "Association football club" at very least. - J man708 (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Breaking news

[edit]

See.[3][4] QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great example of the sort of problem we have... even each media outlet can't be self-consistent. [5] -- Chuq (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brisbane Roar FC. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brisbane Roar FC. 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) 23:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting discussion for List of Brisbane Roar FC players

[edit]

An article that you have been involved with ( List of Brisbane Roar FC players ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( List of Brisbane Roar FC players (1–24 appearances) ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:List of Brisbane Roar FC players . Thank you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved with ( List of Brisbane Roar FC players ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( List of Brisbane Roar FC players (25–99 appearances) ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:List of Brisbane Roar FC players . Thank you. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demise of the Roar

[edit]

From Suncorp to Redcliffe. Train on tje Gold Coast, play in Redcliffe. From Berisha to Lescano. From Broich to ???. So dismal i cant enjoy to even watch on TV...i mean paramount. Shambles. 139.216.214.237 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brisbane_Roar_FC&oldid=1206435683"