Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (football in Australia)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

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

User:Macktheknifeau, whose User talk page shows how much trouble he's got into for this kind of behaviour before, has just gone on a campaign of eliminating all mention of the Socceroos in A-League club articles, and probably a few other places. He seems to have tried to replace every mention of "Socceroos" with "Australia national association football team player", or similar.

This means that wording such as "...former Socceroo and youth coach John Aloisi, had signed as head coach for 3 years" now reads "...former Australia national association football team player and youth coach John Aloisi, had signed as head coach for 3 years.". I regard the latter as very stilted and clumsy wording. It would never be spoken or written by anybody other than here. This example is here. His Edit summary reads "using proper article title not nickname".

There are many other similar changes over many articles.

Macktheknifeau has been very firm in his opposition to any use of the word "soccer", anywhere, ever. (I have never understood why.) Here he appears to be playing around on the edge of policy - official name rather than "nickname" - all to push his particular view into many articles at once.

On the matter of "Socceroos" being a nickname, a look at the Football Federation Australia website makes it clear that that body regards it as a lot more than that. The name "Socceroos" appears 19 times on the front page! "Australia national association football team" doesn't appear at all.

None of Macktheknifeeau's changes were discussed before he made them. They're very pointy. And they leave us with very clumsy text.

I think all the changes should be reverted, but I'm interested in others' views. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The relevant FFA page for the men's national team is www.socceroos.com.au. Hack (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I had already opened a discussion for this at the proper page: Australia national association football team so people could discuss the changes and look to fix any wording issues. Oh well. I guess this will have to do. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
From that page: "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." Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Other derogatory nicknames to add to your arsenal are Greatest Waste of Space & Inner Western Sydney. Sadly for you, these can't be used in articles as they are a violation of NPOV and are (unlike Socceroos) non-official. Official names can be cumbersome and rarely used - "Cronulla Sharks" is much more common than "Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks", let alone "Cronulla Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club". Indeed, the Sharks' article uses "Cronulla" much more frequently than "Cronulla-Sutherland". Other teams are referred to as "Sea Eagles", "Cowboys" and "Roosters" 124.168.146.12 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
As for your specific "charges": Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I laugh at your claim that I have got into "much trouble". How long is your block log? How many times have you been taken to ANI for bad behaviour compared to me?. How many topic and interaction bans have you acquired? How many people showed up to talk about you at your RFC? Kettle calling pot, over. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
"Pointy". It is not 'pointy' to use wikipedia's official article title instead of a nickname that many people using the Wiki will have absolutely zero understanding of. Using Australia national association football team makes it completely and utterly clear as to anyone what is being discussed. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
"Sweeping". I made 8 edits to 6 pages. Hardly 'sweeping' changes.
"Wording". If you think wording is inadequate, try fixing it, instead of sooking about changes like you always do. I've gone and done what you should have done, which was fix the wording. And all you could find was one example which I easily fixed. Not much of a problem then is it. Instead of immediately reverting changes and gleefully running off to try and start another fight. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
"FFA Website". You don't see any hint of irony in using what the FFA call the team as a nickname on their website as evidence it should be Socceroos, after spending months refusing to accept that Football Federation Australia having "Football" in the name is relevant evidence the sport should be named Football on Wikipedia (when the other three major sports have their own specific names that aren't simply "Football")? If the FFA changed the name to "Footballroos" and stuck it all over the website you'd claim it was a "marketing gimmick" and want it to stay "Socceroos". You know full well that "Australia national association football team" is the name of the article on Wikipedia, and thus what we should be calling the topic throughout the wiki. Just another example of your obvious anti-football pro-AFL bias and selective comprehension. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
"Nickname > Official Wikipedia Article". Makoto Hasebe. Go tell me if you see Japan national football team or "Blue Samurai" on his page. Does Brett Morris have St George Illawarra or "Red V" in his article? Does Zinedine Zidane have "Les Bleus" on his page? Or Los Merengues? Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
In summary, the changes are perfectly legitimate, go find someone else to bother. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
If the other three major sports have their own specific names that aren't simply "Football", shouldn't yours as well? Oh, wait - it does. In fact, the article on football states Unqualified, the word football applies to whichever form of football is the most popular in the regional context in which the word appears. The switch from "Soccer Australia" to "Football Federation Australia" was like "Coles" rebranding as "Supermarket". The deliberate omission of the distinctive part of the sport's official name - namely the word "association" - from the names of the sport's official governing bodies in Australia is blatant astroturfing. On your main point, "Dragons" - not "Red V" - is St George Illawarra's official nickname and it appears many times in Brett Morris's article - which rather undermines your already trivial argument.124.168.146.12 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I apologise for not having seen your comment at Talk:Australia national association football team. This is a clumsy area for knowing where to discuss things, and you didn't actually make any changes at that article, so there was no reason for me to look there.
Your changes are pointy becasue all along your goal has been to not have the name "soccer" used for the game in Australia. However, the discussions above concluded with a consensus that the game WOULD be called Soccer in Australia in Wikipedia's Australian articles. Your changes here have replaced usages of "soccer" with "association football", and a few other clumsy words in Austraian articles. That IS pointy.
Now, this has absolutely nothing to do with the AFL. That comment is wrong, and irrelevant. Speculating on what I would do "If the FFA changed the name to Footballroos...", or on anything else, is not a response to what I posted above. I have never heard of the "Red V", or the "Chocolate Soldiers", nor "AFL's Vietnam" or the "Canberra Giants". I'm guessing they're terms more common in Sydney (with some intended to be derogatory?) But all Australians, and many non-Australians, know what the Socceroos are. As I said, and as User:Hack confirmed, it is obviously the preferred name of the team at the FFA. Very few people would immediately know what the Australia national association football team is. That's really my point. That article's name was left as Australia national association football team in good faith by me and others who had sought the name change to soccer for Australian articles, to allow peace to exist for future editing. That it's the name of our article for the national team is actually a bad argument. Many of us still think it's a bad name. (It's also ungrammatical. Surely it should be "Australian...", rather than "Australia...") IMHO, using the name Association football is clumsy, and unhelpful to at least most Australian readers, hardly any of whom even know what it means. Using that name as an argument to get rid of the mention of the simple and obvious, comfortable and common name of "Socceroos", seems to be unnecessarily confrontational. Can you see my point about the clumsiness of the wording you have created? HiLo48 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and really, you shouldn't have reverted my revert at Sydney FC. You made bold changes. I reverted and asked you to discuss. Obviously that discussion is still underway. Your revert is actually edit warring. I won't touch it again at this stage, but I will put a comment on the Talk page there. HiLo48 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Macktheknifeau, is HiLo48's claim that you tried to replace every mention of "Socceroos" with "Australia national association football team player", or similar true? If so, then this is not only controversial but bad prose. If it's clear from the context that soccer is the only sport being discussed, then Australian national team would clearly be a better option. You've either overlooked the option of piped links or you are on a pointy mission to push the term "(association) football" over "soccer" even if it's at the expense of articles' prose quality.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

Take a look for yourself 124.168.146.12 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that most additions to Wikipedia articles are made by people interested in the topic - therefore it is reasonable to assume that most of the purged references to "Socceroos" were added by Association football fans - so even Soccer flogs don't agree with Macktheknifeau!124.168.146.12 (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. So HiLo48's claim not only appears to be true, but Macktheknifeau also seems to be guilty of WP:Overlinking. This begs the question: is article quality really Macktheknifeau's main concern? Or is he/she more concerned with something else? This is what HiLo48's getting at when he/she refers to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Macktheknifeau's response to this point is needed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Adelaide: 1 edit. Three changes to Australia national association football team to make it perfectly clear who the "Socceroos" are by linking correctly to the proper article title on Wikipedia. Brisbane: 1 edit. One change. Mariners: 1 edit. One change. Heart: 2 edits. Two changes. A well as improving the wording of the article for clarity. Victory: 1 edit. Three changes. Two of the changes were also done to improve clarity in the wording of the article. Newcastle: 1 edit. One change. Sydney FC: 1 edit. Three changes. So in total, 8 edits with a total of 14 changes, some of which helped improve wording clarity, and others which have been revised again to improve clarity even further. Hardly a case of "sweeping changes". While I do not be there was much if any 'overlinking' issue, I have taken on board that viewpoint and have made some more edits to avoid overlinking. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I have responded to the specifics further above. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is garbage and should be removed from the site entirely, because people apply it selectively, while also misusing it to make their own points. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is the last refuge of people who know an editor is making perfectly legitimate edits, yet have to find a reason to oppose them on ideological grounds. Not to mention that your use of "Pointy" is completely against what the actual text of the guideline says, "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently". In no way am I 'frustrated' with the fact that we use the official wikipedia article title as the first choice for wikilinks. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
To directly answer you, I do not believe it is in anyway 'disruptive' for an editor with a long-term history of editing football & A-League articles to make changes across a set of those pages (in this case, the main articles for the teams in the league), to remove a nickname and replace it with the perfectly clear official Wikipedia article title. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know Macktheknifeau's motives (and I don't think we should speculate them), but I have no problem with the changes. I would actually encourage them. Formal, academic writing is something we should be aiming for for all articles; slang, nicknames should have no place outside specifying specifically that they are exactly that. For example, on Arsenal F.C., "The Gunners", a widely known nickname for the club, is only mentioned when specifically referring to the nickname, not the club. Similarly, when referring to the Australia national association football team, we should refer to it as that, as Australia national team or Australia, whatever is best fit in the context.--2nyte (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I can only wonder about your motives in ignoring almost everything that has been said above. You have never shown any concern about this matter before, and only raise your head when you see a disagreement between me and someone who took your side in the argument against ever using the name "soccer" anywhere in Australia. To respond to your specific point, "Arsenal" and "Arsenal F.C." are both far more commonly used and a lot less clumsy than "Australia national association football team", which nobody EVER says. HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, I have actually strongly supported this change from nickname to formal name in various contexts/articles. Again, it can be "Australia national association football team", "Australia national team", ""national team", or simply "Australia" - whatever best works in the context. Furthermore, I don't think it looks clumsy, maybe you just might be used to hearing "Socceroos", either way a formal, academic approach should be preferred in any case. I think the only time "Socceroos" should be used is when saying "The team's official nickname is the 'Socceroos'".--2nyte (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Rather than answering for Macktheknifeau, how about answering this simple yes/no question for yourself? Do you think that easily fixed problems such as repetition of the same term over and over (thus ruining articles' prose) and WP:OVERLINKING are somehow less damaging to an article's quality than the inclusion of nicknames that are both official and in common usage such as 'Wallabies', 'All Blacks' or 'Socceroos'?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Gibson Flying V, I would have to look at specific examples of repetition and over-linking but as I mentioned above, I think a formal, academic approach should be preferred in any case. Slang or nicknames such as 'Wallabies', 'All Blacks' or 'Socceroos' (however popular they may be) should not take the place of "Australia national rugby union team", "Australia national team", ""national team", or simply "Australia" - whatever is best fit. In conversation, slang/nicknames can definitely be used, but on Wikipedia we should be aiming for a formal, academic approach.--2nyte (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
An anonymous editor provided a diff of the edit you're defending for us just above. Hopefully that'll help you come up with an answer to my question. I think you might find some opposition if you want to make this proposed "article titles only to refer to sports teams" change. New Zealand national rugby union team, which is a featured article, contains well over 100 instances of the term 'All Blacks'.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a strawman, changing the discussion here from "Is it okay to replace a non-title nickname with the official wikipedia article link on related articles" to "Are you going to remove all examples of nicknames directly from the original topic article". Which is patently ridiculous, I didn't go to remove "Socceroos" from the Australia national association football team article, because if you are at Australia national association football team, you can see for yourself what "Socceroo" means and that it refers to the topic of the article. If you are on another part of the website, you don't get any explanation as to what a "Socceroo" is, especially when it hasn't been linked. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
It would appear that you think usage of the term 'All Blacks' is restricted to the All Blacks article. Duid you bother to check if that's the case? Your claim that my argument is a straw man seems to depend quite a bit on it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Where did I say 'All Blacks' is restricted to one page? That's an entirely different sport, from an entirely difference country. If another editor wants to go to rugby union related pages and change examples outside the All Blacks article to "New Zealand national rugby union team" if they feel that would make the subject clear, they can go for it, or not. I don't care about the All Blacks. I'm not getting involved in strawman arguments built from topics completely unrelated to the topic we are supposed to be discussing. Speaking of New Zealand teams, New Zealand national football team only contains "All whites" (their nickname) four times, three of which are directly referring to the use of "All whites" as a nickname, with the fourth being an arguably un-necessary use of it along side "Socceroos" (Australia). Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so if I bring up another example of a national football team being referred to on Wikipedia by its nickname but it's from a different code, it's a "straw man", but if it's from the same code, it's fine. I have to admit: I don't think I can keep up with these exacting standards. I'm out.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Like I said at the start, you're comparing two different uses. The Australian example is removing nicknames from related articles for clarity, while your example is using a nickname inside the article itself. My point re All whites was showing an example where the only uses of the nickname are to directly refer to the fact it's the nickname. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Gibson Flying V, in this diff, I would suggest "Socceroo" be replaced with "Australia national team player"/"Australian international" (note the mention of "English international", not "The Three Lions" in the same paragraph). Also, New Zealand national rugby union team has only around 50 mentions of All Blacks in the article text and I would encourage the editors to change the wording.--2nyte (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. You can understand my confusion given that a few minutes ago it was "... I have no problem with the changes. I would actually encourage them." So there are problems with the changes, and you are not unreservedly defending them. It would appear then, that the answer to my question above is 'no'. That's good news for you. It seems then that we only differ on the following: you believe that from the litany of alternatives to "Australia national association football team" you've previously listed, 'Socceroos' should be excluded. Others amongst us do not. Is this a fair representation of the issue here?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes Gibson Flying V, I think what you have said sums up the issue. Again, I bring back that my opinion is only to preserve formal and academic writing on Wikipedia. Note another featured article, Michael Jackson, does not refer to the singer as "MJ", "the King of Pop" or "Jacko", it uses "Michael Jackson", "Michael", "Jackson", "the singer"; the article has good use of formal and academic writing and that is something I wish utilise on the articles I edit. Doing so does not change the context in any way, it is only being formal and academic.--2nyte (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I know that you are familiar with WP:Common name. In good faith, I didn't push that point for the appallingly clumsy and ungrammatically titled Australia national association football team during our recent extensive discussions on the naming of Soccer in Australia. I am now having second thoughts. By far the most common name is obviously "Socceroos". Now, if that was the case, where would this conversation be going? HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
You should also stop by to change Manchester United F.C. to "Man United". I personally might drop by to rename Australian rules football to "AFL", considering that the only truly common name for that sport in Australia is AFL. But of course, you'd consider that 'pointy' behaviour. I guess only people who disagree with you can ever make 'pointy' edits now can they? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so I just want to make my intentions clear. I have taken the liberty of re-writing a small section from Sydney FC, the first using slang/nicknames and the second using formal/academic writing. For general clarity and for use on an encyclopedia I think the latter should be used:

Sydney went on to sign former Three Lions Terry Butcher as the 2006–07 season coach, Little Canary's Juninho Paulista in the 2007–08 season, Socceroos John Aloisi and Brett Emerton in the 2008–09 and 2011–12 seasons respectively, and former Blues player Alessandro Del Piero in the 2012–13 season, with each as the highest paid footballer in Australia in their respective seasons. Socceroos captain Lucas Neill, Little Blues striker Benito Carbone, and Blue Samurai Kazuyoshi Miura have also made appearances in the sky blue jersey.

Sydney went on to sign former English international Terry Butcher as the 2006–07 season coach, Brazilian international Juninho Paulista in the 2007–08 season, Australian international players John Aloisi and Brett Emerton in the 2008–09 and 2011–12 seasons respectively, and former Italian international Alessandro Del Piero in the 2012–13 season, with each as the highest paid footballer in Australia in their respective seasons. Australia national team captain Lucas Neill, striker Benito Carbone of Italy, and Japanese international Kazuyoshi Miura have also made appearances in the sky blue jersey.

Can anyone disagree on the later being used over the first?--2nyte (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What a great post. It perfectly illustrates why we don't use nicknames in encyclopaedic articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
What a pointless post! I have already responded to such nonsense in my post above at 02:52, 22 May 2014. You chose to ignore my comment. HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Creating artificial examples is not helpful. What needs to be considered are actual examples, such as the following three recent edits by Macktheknifeau:
Don't lie by editing them to make them look better for you. The actual line of your third example is "Australia national association football team player Lucas Neill". You are a disgrace, if I were more like you I'd be asking an admin for a block for your attempts to disgracefully subvert the process by lying about what I've done. And there is nothing wrong with those edits. They perfectly and clearly describe that those players were involved with the Australia national association football team, which is what we call the subject on Wikipedia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A typical edit summary is "using proper article title, not a nickname", and more examples can be found by searching Special:Contributions/Macktheknifeau for "nickname". Given all the arguments that have occurred (see "Option 2 Standardise on soccer on all articles pertaining to the sport in an Australian context" Mark 2014 above), dismissing "Socceroos" as a nickname seems out of step. Johnuniq (talk) 07:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Johnuniq. The whole point of the consensus on using the name Soccer in Australia is that the name "soccer" is to be used rather than "football" when describing the game within Australia and in Australian articles. These edits seem to me to be a manipulative and particularly pointy way of replacing some uses of the word "soccer" with the word "football", or at least getting rid of the word "soccer". That breaches both the letter and spirit of the consensus we have. As I'm writing this I'm actually seeing less and less problem with reverting the lot immediately on that basis. They simply breach consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
You have yet to explain how replacing a nickname, that in many cases was unlinked, with the title of the wikipedia article Australia national association football team is 'pointy'. Consensus already exists, we use Australia national association football team. There is no 'consensus' for using a nickname to describe a topic which has a perfectly acceptable title already and one that conforms to global consensus. The real pointy behaviour here is your constant lying and attempts to create edit wars instead of simply dropping the stick and accepting changes on articles for a sport you care nothing about and where your only interest is protecting your archaic language from being updated to modern standards. If you revert these legitimate changes I will immediately revert your changes and contact the admins to open up another ANI for your edit warring, deliberately lying about changes I've made and your overall bad faith behaviour. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Macktheknifeau indefinitely, as he was already on a last warning. If anyone else feels like making changes like this, I suggest discussing it here first. I take no pleasure whatsoever in making this block, but we are not going to go back to the drama we had a few months ago, and having worked so hard to generate a consensus and a mechanism for discussion, I am not going to allow a return to guerilla warfare in this area. --John (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Further to the above, I want to explain at more length why I blocked Macktheknifeau.
  • Let's think back a few months; we were at AN/I several times a month, people being blocked all over the place, loads of wasted time and energy. What's changed since then? We've established a venue where we can discuss naming conventions, and had reasonable discussions, and come to a couple of consensuses which (I believe) have helped to keep the peace. Part of that has been establishing a (relatively) collegial environment for people to discuss in.
  • Why am I posting this here? Well, I wanted to underline that my, and I believe our, understanding is that changes are discussed and agreed here (and not necessarily by me; there are 1408 other admins you can ask to determine consensus if you like) before being implemented across articles, and that we avoid personalising disputes. I'll continue to enforce this understanding where necessary with warnings and blocks, but it's also a reminder that as I no longer post admin actions automatically at AN/I for review, the onus would be on anybody here who thinks I am acting unfairly, in a biased way, or whatever, to seek review there if you wish. I'd only ask that you discuss it with me first at my talk page if you have any such qualms. I do welcome review of my actions here. Likewise, if there are other admins who are looking in and feel like chipping in, please don't hesitate. --John (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I have reverted Macktheknifeau's changes. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If any editors still wish to restrict use within Wikipedia articles of one or more sporting teams' nicknames solely to explanations that nicknames are what they are (i.e. a single sentence in the lead of the team's main article), it should be fairly easy to set up a discussion in the appropriate forum to gauge the community's support for such a restriction (before unilaterally implementing it).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Football/Soccer: too late to comment?

Hi all - I'm really new at this and so I'm not entirely sure that I'm going about this the right way. I've tried to read through as much as possible of what's been written (both here, above, and on other talk pages, etc) but there's points which I haven't seen made as clearly as perhaps they should have been, and I really just want someone to fill me in on the issue. I didn't realise that the naming conventions were such a contentious issue, and that it has apparently been resolved, but anyway, here goes:

It seems to me that the main point being argued here is how the average person on the the street refers to association football, and their understanding of the term 'football'. This is something that can't just be solved by arguing about it, and as far as I can tell nobody has yet conducted a study into these questions.

So I have a question: if Wikipedia is to be encyclopaedic, why is the (defacto?) official term for the sport - as used by it's governing bodies at both national and state level, the participants (i.e. such-and-such FC), the majority of mainstream media outlets (both News corp and Fairfax media refer to the sport as 'Football', as do the ABC and SBS) and the government (department of health > sport) - NOT to be used for the naming of wikipedia articles? Why is it up to us, as users, to determine how "we" shall call the sport? This is complicated by the fact that there are differences in opinion. Given that these differences in opinion exist, why isn't the official terminology used by default?

Corporal29 (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you might like to read through the archives of this talk page as this point has been raised before more than once. If the word football was unambiguous in Australia then your point would be well made, but it is not. Soccer, is however unambiguous and universally understood in this country and is in common use except for some enclaves especially in Western Sydney and I some parts of the press that have drunk the FFA Kool Aid. - Nick Thorne talk 10:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
my point isn't anything to do with what any term is understood to mean. my point is, again, that the term football is used by the official governing bodies of the sport in question, the vast majority of sources in the media, the government and the participants and that (considering that this is supposed to be as an encyclopaedia) this FACT should not be ignored simply because there's a perception that the term 'soccer' is somehow less ambiguous, whatever that's actually supposed to mean. there's nothing ambiguous about calling it 'football (soccer)', for example. In fact, expressing it that way actually encompasses both views and even helps to show that FOOTBALL (official name) is also known as SOCCER (colloquially) - doesn't it?
i myself grew up calling this sport soccer and, except when talking about the game in an international context, I still call it soccer - this isn't something I want to change because I think it's cool - i don't think it's cool, i just KNOW that it's the name of this sport in this country as used by the official governing bodies, the vast majority of the media... etc.
Until someone comes up with evidence that clearly illustrates that the use of the term football (with qualifications) is any more confusing than saying that "FOOTBALL Federation Australia is the governing body of SOCCER in Australia" (or something to that effect), then surely the most factual, most appropriate term to use is "football". I know that my saying this isn't going to change anything, and that any editing I did would just be reverted, so I'm not going to bother. But when a decision is made by a group of 11 voters as to how the sport - the name of which IS officially, at all levels, football - should be referred to otherwise on ALL relevant wikipedia articles... I just don't get why that decision can then be apparently binding for what's supposed to be 'the free encyclopedia'. it's not factual, it's not free - it's just seems petty.
the burden of proof lies with those who claim - contrary to the officially used name of the sport in this country for the past decade - that the game is actually, in fact, called soccer in Australia. it just looks ridiculous to see an article that "such-and-such F[ootball]C[lub]" is a "soccer club", especially when ALL of the teams at the top level of the competition in this country, and almost all of those in the tier below, refer to themselves as an FC, and not as an SC. Corporal29 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
A vital point is that Wikipedia relies on a community of volunteers, and sometimes the best outcome is that we stop arguing, even if the decision is "wrong". The facts are pretty clear—the football/soccer question has been argued and argued and argued. The best thing is that we find something else to do because there are good-faith and high-quality arguments for each side, and digging up contentious issues is ultimately disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Wellington Phoenix - an unacceptable edit?

A seemingly angry IP editor has just changed the game Wellington Phoenix plays from "soccer" to "association football". Now, I'm open to discussion on that one. (I tried above.) But the Edit is somewhat questionable.

Firstly, the Edit summary says "The league this team plays for is irrelevant." Well, that's just silly. Of course it's relevant. It's perhaps arguable whether it should be the deciding factor, but it's definitely relevant.

Then we have the Edit summary saying "The Phoenix are a NZ based team - in NZ we call this game by it's correct name. The RfC around the naming convention on Australian articles does not apply here." OK, it may seem reasonable for a fan from New Zealand to say that, but the funny thing is, the IP editor's address geolocates to Ryde, NSW, back across the ditch in Sydney, Australia. Now, one of the regular IP editors campaigning for the game to be called anything but "soccer" comes from Ryde.

Why on earth can't those who don't like the name "soccer" be more honest? This dishonesty takes that whole name changing right out of the good faith arena.

So, two issues here. What DO we do about Wellington Phoenix? And what do we do about dishonest edits?

(I just checked this IP editors past contributions. Back on 17 February he vandalised my Talk page!)

John, are you still watching? HiLo48 (talk) 06:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an Australian league even though this team is in New Zealand. Just change it and cite this page here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Well that is abit complicated. The argument here is that they do not use Association Football in Australia. He says they do mainly there in NZ.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
But do they? They might, but the credibility of the IP editor in question is shot. I'd like to hear from some real New Zealanders happy to make good faith, honest contributions. HiLo48 (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No one but the sources are credible. My personal knowledge is they have a split usage similar to Australia. When using football they generally add a code qualifier such as Association football. You should probably request the IP to verify what he has said.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There would be no point in doing that. I don't believe he has anything constructive to offer. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
He said, "in NZ we call this game by it's correct name." A conversation about this is meaningless. A reliable source however is as constructive as can be. He gave you a resonable basis for his change. Now is his reasonable basis true? The only way you can answer that is with a reliable source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I say a conversation with him is pointless. He's not even in New Zealand. He's in Sydney Australia! So when he said "we", he was playing a somewhat tricky game. I'm not wasting my time going down that path, but I do wish some real New Zealanders could join us here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello HiLo48. Not sure a conversation about this is pointless, as you put it, but I'm happy to have a discussion - are you? In terms of your geo-location investigation, unfortunately your methods are flawed and your outcome incorrect. I live, and work in New Zealand. The company I work for (who's internet I was using at the time of the edit, and I am using now) has it's headquarters in Sydney, Australia. I'm afraid you've geo-located a corporate proxy server, located in a data centre in Sydney. Well done, but don't quit your day job. There's around 10,000 other people who sit behind the same firewall. Before anyone jumps to conclusions as John has done twice recently, I am not Osteres, and I am not Macktheknife, nor am I affiliated with these editors in any way - I will happily and vehemently defend any suggestion to the contrary. OK .. Now that we're all friends - on to business. The Phoenix - yep, they play in the A-League competition, and this fact is obviously important in the context of the content of the article (we wouldn't have much in the article if this weren't the bulk of it would we?). It is irrelevant however, in the context of naming of the sport the team play given that this is a NZ based team, a NZ based article and the consensus reached in the RfC is specific to articles pertaining to Australian sporting teams where there may be ambiguity surrounding the term football which could mean association football, Aussie rules, NRL or Rugy union. You refer to the Barassi Line fairly regularly in support of your view for the naming convention - this line obviously does not apply here in New Zealand. In New Zealand the most popular game by far, is Rugby Union - I think you'll struggle to find a Kiwi who is not a supporter of the All Blacks. We don't call this game football - we call it Rugby or simply 'Union'. Football means Association Football (what you're referring to as soccer). 61.88.183.109 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think any foreign branches of Australian companies would use Australian IPs.. The internet doesn't really work that way. Spinrad (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually I'll take that comment back. Spinrad (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
New Zealand Herlad article containing usage of the word "football".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the more polite contribution 61... And thank you to Gibson Flying V for pointing out the obvious exception, where "rugby" is referred to as "football". I also note that when I hover my mouse over the heading "Sport" on that page to see what other sports are covered, up comes the magic word "Soccer"! 61..., you may mean well, but your absolute statements about what New Zealanders call their various sports are just plain wrong. Just as in Australia, I'm sure every New Zealander knows what soccer is. How many ever call the round ball game "Association football"? And the fact that Phoenix plays in the A-League HAS to be relevant. It would be silly to describe a game involving two teams in that competition and have them playing differently named sports. So, can we continue this conversation a little more honestly, firstly acknowledging that the name "football" IS used for "rugby", secondly, that "soccer" is a perfectly sensible name for the round ball game, that will confuse absolutely nobody, thirdly, that the league the team plays in IS relevant, and fourthly, nobody EVER actually calls the game "Association football"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
In response to the four points/questions - 1. There would be occasion, but for the most part we don't refer to Rugby as football - the game is played with your hands. The ball typically connects with the foot only once every 5-10 mins. 2. Perhaps in Australia where there is the ambiguity you've discussed above, we don't suffer from that over here. 3. Disagree. It's relevant but not in the context of what's being discussed here. 4. Some call it Association football, but the majority just call it football, adding the 'Association' is just a more formal / official way of naming the sport. 61.88.183.109 (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I note that 61.... has again reverted the name of the game played by Wellington to "football", making that three reverts in less than 24 hours. I won't edit war, or play that game, but I don't think much of an editor who makes a statement here, then reverts. That's not good faith editing. Nor is it discussing. It's obvious that 61... is wrong about several points in his earlier claim, but he's saying now "it's just a little bit" or similar. His contributions do not help here. Can any New Zealanders provide us with rational discussion and behaviour please? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It is my understanding that the original reason for the name "football" is not because the ball is kicked by feet but because the game is played by running about ~ "on foot" in other words. Afterwriting (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest edit to the article by 61.88.183.109 as it appears to almost certainly be an IP edit by the indefinitely blocked Orestes. The arguments, personal style and terminology are very similar if not identical ~ such as the claim of "universal consensus". The IP's editing history also suggests that this person is in Australia and not from New Zealand as claimed. Afterwriting (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I certainly see very similar confrontational and bad faith behaviour. I would love to unearth some soccer fans who don't behave that way. I'm sure they exist, but we don't seem to see them here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I have checked the IP address 61.88.183.109 and, unsurprisingly, it resolves to Optus, Australia's second largest telco. I think we can take it as read that this is not someone posting from New Zealand and we should not take at face value any representations made by that editor as to common usage in New Zealand. I also note that one of the socks Orestes used after he was indeffed, also was an Optus one. This is not proof, of course, but given Afterwriting's perceptive observations above I think this is a case for the application of the duck principle and there certainly seems to be a fair amount of quacking going on. - Nick Thorne talk 07:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Late to the party but I'm here. I think this is very simple. Wellington Phoenix is a New Zealand based club, so the article should refer to the sport as what is standard by NZ articles of the sport, i.e. using "association football".--2nyte (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

2nyte, you're smart enough to have seen that arguments against that have been presented above. You may not agree with them, but if you ignore them in your comments, your post counts for little. It will just lead to more repetition and going around in circles. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, I have read the argument but Wellington competing in the A-League does not make it an Australian club. It is administered by the NZ FA, it is in all forms a New Zealand club, just as Perth Kangaroos IFC is an Australian club.--2nyte (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Nobody claimed that Wellington is an Australian club. Try again. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not be rude HiLo48. You brought this topic up and my opinion on it is that as a New Zealand based club, Wellington Phoenix should follow whatever guideline the NZ community has set on wikipedia - that is to referrer to the sport as "association football".--2nyte (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That may well be. You do of course have reliable sources that back up your apparent positions that: a. "association football" is the commmon term in NZ for the round ball game; b. that "football" does not usually mean rugby in NZ; and (presumably), c. that the word "soccer" is not commonly used in NZ. Awaiting for you to provide your references with bated breath, because surely you would not make unsupported assertions here. - Nick Thorne talk 10:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not making any assertions, I am simply stating that as a New Zealand club, Wellington has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Wellington Phoenix FC is a business, owned and operated from New Zealand.--2nyte (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
...and operates under a franchise from Sydney, Australia! Stop being so silly. Of course Australian conventions, and laws, must have SOME influence. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, I think you are going a little to far out of your comfort zone. This is a very political issue, more so then you may know. The AFC, OFC and FIFA recognize Wellington Phoenix as a New Zealand based club, with no connections to Australia. Unlike non-English clubs competing in the Premier League (which must be accepted into the FA), the non-Australian club in the A-League cannot join FFA, it must operate under NZF. The A-League license is given to NZF for them to do with it as they will - to elect a NZ based club to compete in the A-League. Wellington Phoenix is essentially an international invitee in the A-League; this, evident in the squad formation of the club (which must be made up by New Zealand citizens).--2nyte (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No connections to Australia? ROTFLMAO! What a stupid comment. The club exists only to play in an Australian league! HiLo48 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Just because you do not understand something HiLo48, it doesn't mean you should claim it to be stupid. It looks very different for this side. I did say that the AFC, OFC and FIFA recognize Wellington Phoenix as having no connections to Australia, which is why the club cannot compete in the ACL.--2nyte (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I only recognise one of those abbreviations, but it's irrelevant anyway, apart from perhaps showing that it's you who cannot see things from outside the perspective of being obsessed with just this one sport and being unable to see and describe things from a broader perspective. It's simply idiotic to say the club has no connections to Australia. Wellington's sole reason for existing is to play in an Australian soccer competition (obviously a connection to Australia), where we have agreed to describe every other club as a soccer club. The name "soccer" is universally recognised in New Zealand. It seems very pointy to argue that we shouldn't do the same for Wellington. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
AFC OFC FIFA ACL? - Nick Thorne talk 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL. As a fan of many sports, several of which are called football, your clarification of the fourth one is certainly the first thing I thought of. Don't they do their ACLs in soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
So 2nyte, that would be a "no", you do not have any reliable sources to back up your claims, right? Fair enough, just wanted to be sure where we stand. - Nick Thorne talk 22:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure of the point of this argument but the Wellington Phoenix are owned by the FFA with franchise/licence/operating rights held by a consortium of NZ businessmen. Hack (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And every other one of those franchises is known as a soccer club in Wikipedia. I wonder what those NZ businessmen call the game? The point here really is that all the opposition to the name "soccer club" being used has come from an IP editor whose credentials as a New Zealander and overall credibility are seriously in doubt, and our friend 2nyte, who, while generally a good editor, has opposed any and all use of the name "soccer" in every circumstance possible for as long as I have known him here. He has also insisted that Phoenix has no connection to Australia, which is just silly. It's disappointing, because he does some great work here, but for some inexplicable reason has never been able to accept that "soccer" is a valid name for this game, and this time that absolute opposition to the word "soccer", ever, anywhere, any time, has forced him to come up with a quite illogical argument. Overall, the case against Wellington being a "soccer club" is pretty weak. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, you fail to understand the situation and even worse, I don't think you want to. You are happy to sit back as long as the decision goes you way.--2nyte (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. I do usually respect your editing efforts. But put the word "soccer" out there in front of you, and you lose all rationality. I was seriously keen to learn what the situation is in New Zealand. Unlike most of Australia, I've spent very little time in NZ, and don't know the full situation myself. But your contributions haven't helped. Nobody on the "I hate the word soccer" side has. It's all been silly stuff. One thing I'd be confident of is that all New Zealanders would at least know what "soccer" is. All the Kiwis in my neighbourhood (and there's plenty of them!) comfortably call the round ball game that. Never heard 'em call the game "Association football". But that's here, in outer Melbourne. What's the real story in NZ? Do you know? Have you been there? HiLo48 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
So did you bring this topic up to address what New Zealand calls the round ball game or to address if the Australian decision on naming should apply specifically to Wellington Phoenix FC?--2nyte (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be good to resolve the latter question. Knowing the answer to the former would assist in that process. HiLo48 (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Right, to summarise where we've got to... No credible evidence has been presented that the name "Association football" is actually used at all in New Zealand. Local media in Wellington calls the game "soccer", and uses the name "football" for "rugby union". The team plays in the A-League, where very other club is to be called a "soccer club". I believe we can safely and sensibly call Wellington Phoenix a soccer club. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. Sorry to butt in so late but I've just found this while trying to track down the reason for some shenanigans at a NZ soccer article. OK. Basically, in normal NZ terminology, 'football' is rugby union. 'Rugby' is rugby union. 'League' is rugby league. 'Soccer' is the round ball game. 'Aussie rules' is Australian football (and the only context where you'll hear those two words spoken by a New Zealander in that order without heavy irony). American football is only vaguely known here, sometimes are 'gridiron'. 'Association football' is normally understood and generally gets a reaction of 'oh, you mean soccer'. Calling soccer 'football' is often confusing and marks the speaker out as a British immigrant. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I reckon that would be "recent British immigrant". I learnt the name "soccer" in Australia in the 1950s and 60s from British immigrants, who were a big portion of the population where I lived. It seems it was the common name in the UK then, but the British have since decided it's an Americanism, and hence don't like it now. See here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Full names of soccer clubs

We have a new strategy being used by soccer fans to get the word "football" into their clubs' articles. They have begun to use the parameter in the Football club template called fullname. I'm aware of two instances of this so far.

This first happened when Melbourne Heart turned into Melbourne City. The renamed club turned up with a logo that says "Melbourne City Football Club". Given earlier legal disputes with the AFL and its clubs over the names Melbourne and Football Club (which the AFL won), I'm surprised they have gotten away with it, but it's still there in all its glory on the article page. (I have wondered if we have a right to use it here.) Everywhere else on the website they appear to still be using the FC suffix, or no suffix at all.

The second appearance was today at Central Coast Mariners FC. After a brief Edit skirmish, an editor has found one page of the club's quite extensive website that uses the words "Central Coast Mariners Football Club". It's a page on Sponsorship, and even those mentions come in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of a page that begins by using the name accepted here - "Central Coast Mariners FC". He must have dug hard to find it because everywhere else I can see on the website the club calls itself the latter name, or the further abbreviated "Central Coast Mariners".

The template's documentation says that "fullname" is to be populated with "The club's complete name". The problem is, what does that mean in the Australian context? In both the cases above, the officially registered name is still the one with FC on the end. The clubs don't market themselves as "XXXXX Football Club". It's always "XXXXX FC", or just "XXXXX"

I content that "fullname" cannot simply be populated by what some enthusiast puts somewhere on a club website, and that appeals to someone pushing the "football" barrow. Given the naming dramas over Soccer in Australia, it can surely only be the officially registered name, or the most common name used formally on the website, or just leave it blank as it has been up until now. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be whatever name is registered. It's no different to any other company. Hack (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, the full name should be whatever is most dominantly used by the club themselves in a formal setting (eg. press releases, legal documents etc.). Happy to concede that it should be referred to as "soccer" (the sport) in the body, but I feel pretty strongly that however the club styles itself should be what is in the box. Daniel (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
With regards to Central Coast Mariners, a couple of points...i) it's up at FAR (and about to pass) so an edit war would be less than ideal given one of the FA Criteria is stability; and ii) I really wouldn't care for "Central Coast Mariners FC" vs "Central Coast Mariners Football Club", provided it's one of the two. I can see points either way, but my personal opinion would lean to "FC" to be honest. Definitely has to have one of the "FC" or "Football Club" though.
Then you really need to talk to User:Macosal, who created today's instability by deciding to fight the "soccer must be called football" war there. And, of course, led me to create this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to boldly change it back to "FC", it's clearly the most used 'full name' by the club. There is a link on the talk page of the article to this discussion so if Macosal (or anyone else) has any dramas with this, I ask them to come here. Daniel (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Good move. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This again. What exactly do you mean by "the officially registered name, or the most common name used formally on the website"?
  • The club's business name registration? What if they don't have a business name registered, as with Melbourne Victory and Sydney FC? What if they have multiple business names registered?
  • The club's registered trade mark? What if they have multiple trade marks registered? What if they don't have any trade marks registered, since this is not a legal requirement?
  • When do we decide to use "the most common name" instead of either of the above? What does "used formally" mean? Does this mean used in the club's logo or crest? Is it the name in the title bar? Is it the name used on the "about" page of their website? The name in their copyright statements? The name used in a press release announcing the club's name (if there is one)?
  • If a club uses multiple variations of its name, such as "Hypothetical Rovers Football Club", "Hypothetical Rovers FC" and "Hypothetical Rovers", shouldn't the longest one obviously be the "full name" and the others short forms or abbreviations?
By all logic and evidence, the "full name" of the first-mentioned club is Melbourne Heart City Football Club – it's the full name on their press release announcing the name, it's in their logo, it's their pending trade mark application, and it's unambiguously what the "FC" in the shorter form stands for. There's no reason to abbreviate it to "FC" unless the consensus on Wikipedia is to do this for the "full name" of all clubs regardless (and I don't know why you would).
As an aside, the name of the club (i.e., the name the club calls itself) is an entirely different issue from what Wikipedia calls the sport. It is entirely acceptable to say: "Melbourne City Football Club is a professional soccer club..." —sroc 💬 12:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC) [edited 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)]
(ec) I'd like to point out that I think these two cases (CCMFC and MCFC) need to be discussed separately. This isn't a one-glove-fits-all issue. With MCFC, one can make the case that a) their logo uses the full name & b) a fair whack of what they've put out uses their full name. With the Mariners, a) their logo doesn't include "Football Club" (or FC at all for that matter) and b) the overwhelming majority of formal and semi-formal club communication references "FC", not "Football Club". I say this as someone who wrote the CCM article and have been a member since day dot, travelling around Australia and Asia to watch them play.
I don't have a horse in the MCFC/MC Football Club race at all, and don't want to. I just wanted to point out that each club's situation needs to be taken separately, and in the case of CCM "FC" is preferable (in my opinion) over "Football Club". That shouldn't be a precedent to say that MC should use it; that discussion needs to happen totally independently of the CCM one. Daniel (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I would encourage discussion at Template talk:Infobox football club#Fullname parameter description to clarify the vague description for the fullname parameter in the infobox. —sroc 💬 13:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Next door to Melbourne City's home ground is the headquarters of "the Collingwood Football Club", also known as "the Magpies", and "the Collingwood Magpies" and "the Collingwood Magpies Football Club". What is the club's full name? HiLo48 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't seem appropriate to include an abbreviation in what is described as a "full name", regardless of the correct definition of the parameter. The convention across wikipedia is to expand "FC" to football club (which is (a) clearly what FC stands for and (b) easily backed up by sources) Macosal (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

But it's not a normal abbreviation in Australia. Otherwise the clubs would not have universally chosen FC, rather than "Football Club", when they began. The common name of the game, and the Wikipedia name, is not football. Australia is different in this regard. There are NOT many sources that call the clubs football clubs. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
By "not a normal abbreviation in Australia", I assume you mean because the sport is traditionally called "soccer" here, not "football". This discussion is NOT about the name of the sport; it's about the name of the club. We really should be able to assume that "FC" stands for "Football Club" in the name of a football club in an English-speaking country where other football clubs are named as "football club" and there is no indication that that's not what it means – that just common sense – but I'm not going to push that point. However, where the club itself uses "Football Club" in its name (even if it also uses "FC" for the sake of brevity most of the time), the full name of the club is obviously with these words spelt out and should be recorded as such in the fullname parameter of the infobox – in the same way that "William Bradley Pitt" is his full name and recorded as such on his infobox even though he's usually simply called Brad Pitt. Just because it's not the most commonly used form of the name doesn't mean it's not the full name. To make this clear, I have proposed a revision at Template talk:Infobox football club#Fullname parameter description to clarify that "Football Club" should be spelt out in whole words if it is used by the club in this way at least some of the time. —sroc 💬 01:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. In addition (although common sense is more than good enough justification for this) a google search reveals that the titles of several of the clubs official pages contain "Central Coast Mariners Football Club". Macosal (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Careful. Some of those references are in the metadata for SEO to catch people who search for "football club", but not in the content of the pages. —sroc 💬 02:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
They also appear regardless of whether you include "Football Club" in the search (eg here). Macosal (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Go past the search results and click onto the page, however... —sroc 💬 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
True (but still more evidence for the somewhat obvious proposition that "FC" stands for "Football Club"). Macosal (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't doubt that "FC" stands for "Football Club". I also agree that the words "full name" imply without abbreviation. The question is which form to use in the fullname parameter of the infobox if "Football Club" is used in only a few limited cases and "FC" the rest of the time. Do the words need to appear in any particular way (e.g., in a logo, press release, trade mark application, business name registration, etc.) in order to justify spelling them out in the "full name", or does it even matter if the club uses the words at all? That's a discussion for the infobox talk page to clarify the definition of fullname, so can we keep it there and keep the discussion on-point, please? —sroc 💬 18:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Why did every single A-League club publicly use a name with FC on the end, rather than "football club", up until now? HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Abbreviation. And it's not an Australian thing. The FC suffix is a common abbreviation on the majority of football clubs. Reliable sources can show the (commonsense) assumption that FC = Football Club to be true. Do you have any reliable sources that state that the FC is a meaningless suffix? Macosal (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
You know what's sad here? The loss of real history. I know the reason for the FC on A-League clubs was more complex than that. I have read many words on this for individual clubs and for the league itself, over many years, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. I don't have them at hand right now, and don't have to time to go hunting for them. That you want the simple and simplistic explanation to be true, both because it's simple, and because it suits your preferred view of the world for your favourite club, does not help. I can assure you it wasn't that simple. I hate seeing history lost, but as a currently lone voice here, against editors who aren't interested in anything more than simple guesswork, it looks like it will be. That's sad. My inability to prove what I am saying at this moment in time does not make it false.
And deeper accusations of bad faith on my part are wrong, and also sad. I am not anti-soccer. As a teacher I manage soccer teams for schools quite often. I call the game "soccer" for many reasons. That's what I was taught as the name of the game by British immigrants in the 1950s and 60s. (See my User page for an article on this part of history.) The schools I have been at call the game soccer, because "football" means "Aussie Rules" at those schools, and it would be silly and quite impractical to use the name "football" for two different sports. My position is not one of bad faith. It's one of truth and good sense for the part of Australia I live in.
So, there are more complex reasons for all the A-League clubs using the suffix FC. I wish more people were interested in finding them out. Wilful ignorance is never a good thing for human knowledge. And Wikipedia is about knowledge. HiLo48 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I can believe the unreferenced claim that there are complex reasons for A-League clubs using FC (although believability is obviously not the same as being truth), but even that is (a) insufficient for its inclusion in Wikipedia and (b) does not prove that FC doesn't stand for anything (I would be interested in finding out, sure, but that certainly seems easier said than done - how would such sources be found? I had a pretty significant search just now and couldn't find anything relevant). Almost every sports club in the world uses some suffix - were A-League clubs going to use SC for Soccer Club when that was not the name of the sport as recognised by their own governing body? The explanation may well be as simple as that. Also I never accused you of being anti-soccer (I'm not sure if you meant me or not). I agree that history being lost is far from ideal, but we cannot source information from memory or anecdotes (especially in contradiction of reliable sources which can be accessed). I'm not clear what sort of source you are looking for? I can't believe an A-League club would ever have come out and said "FC doesn't stand for anything" and any other source would seem to be mere speculation. That being said, if you/anyone can find a source on this topic, would be interested in seeing it (and would clearly be relevant to this discussion). Until that occurs, however, it is not sufficient to claim this as a reason for obstructing referenced information. Macosal (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
What about a situation in which an A-League team has only ever referred to itself with an 'FC' and never as 'Football Club'? This would be an indication that 'FC' has been incorporated into the name for branding purposes only. If situations like this really exist, I would be concerned if Wikipedia were referring to that team as 'Football Club'. That's the whole crux here, isn't it? Is the total absence of anything from the team referring to itself as 'Football Club' a good reason for us to also decline referring to it as such? I tend to think so.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's my view. Editors here saying "FC obviously stands for football club", without any other supporting evidence, is actually unacceptable original research. HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree. There must be reliable sources which can confirm that FC does stand for Football Club. Where these do exist, however, I think it is clearly appropriate to recognise this. Macosal (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I don't dispute the position that there needs to be a reliable source to verify that a club's name has the words "Football Club" rather than "FC", and I have not insisted that the words "Football Club" must be used even when the club never refers to itself as such. My concern is that there is no specific guideline on what qualifies as sufficient use by the club in order to justify including "Football Club" in its name, which has led to debate. In particular:

In an effort to avoid such disputes, I attempted to seek clarification on the definition of the fullname parameter in the {{infobox football club}} template, sadly without success. —sroc 💬 14:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the concern of "what qualifies as sufficient use" is a major one. For that reason I'd be inclined to think that "full name" should expand any abbreviation which can be supported by any reliable source. If not, the discussion gets into questions of degree/extent which could potentially undermine what has up till now been a very stable system. It's also consistent with the common English meaning of a "full name" to expand abbreviations as such. Macosal (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

So assuming a clubs full name is "Central Coast Mariners Football Club" is unacceptable original research, though assuming it is "Central Coast Mariners FC" is not unacceptable original research? How so? Also, would assuming "Port Melbourne SC" is an abbreviation of "Port Melbourne Soccer Club" be considered unacceptable original research?--2nyte (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised the latter isn't listed on Wikipedia as the Port Melbourne Soccer Club, or at least have that as a redirect. It would have had that name publicly from its founding in 1968, when "soccer" definitely was the almost exclusive name of the game in Australia. This is a case where the situation on the south-west side of the Barassi Line, along with the age of the club, is relevant. The Port Melbourne Football Club has existed since 1874. It plays Australian Football and, although it's not in the AFL, it has always been a major club in Melbourne. That meant that the round ball club, when it was founded nearly 100 years later, could not be a football club, and nobody from the soccer world objected to is being called a soccer club. In fact it was natural to do so. And it was a soccer club, not an SC. This is definitely a case where the SC is a modern affectation by the club. Unfortunately the club's history, both in our article and in their own website, is sadly lacking, and doesn't give us much about the early days at all. Have you seen this article about history of the use of the name "soccer"? (Don't reject it immediately because of the American slant. It's just as relevant to Australia.) HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't quite see how that's different to the "unacceptable original research" you described earlier re "FC". It's hardly surprising that SC/soccer club was used for a number of reasons but chiefly amongst them the fact that the official name of the sport in Australia was "soccer" until early last decade. I don't think a situation in which clubs do or don't require citations for their "full names" depending on their context in the opinion of an editor is ideal at all - opens up potential for a lot of inconsistency. Macosal (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Hence my comment about the quality of both our article and the club's website. A decent history of the club would tell us that the club was originally known as a "Soccer Club". I lived in Melbourne while that club was young, and that was the case for every such club. There were no such things as SCs then. It should be in the club's history and be easily citable. But it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Easily fixed: Port Melbourne Soccer Club now redirects to Port Melbourne SC. Redirects are cheap and some people are likely to use the longer name whether it's an "official" name or not (and it is named as such in the infobox). —sroc 💬 01:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Naming conventions (sportspeople)

Does the consensus regarding the situation with the word 'soccer' in Australia being roughly in line with that of Canada and the United States have implications for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer), which states the following:

  1. When there are multiple people with the same name, and one of them is a footballer:
    a. If the person is neither American nor Canadian, use (footballer)
    b. If the person is American or Canadian, use (soccer)

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like Australia can be added to that list. (New Zealand, too, maybe?) Perhaps reorganise thusly:
  1. When there are multiple people with the same name, and one of them is a footballer:
    a. If the person is American, Australian or Canadian, use (soccer)
    b. Otherwise, use (footballer)
—sroc 💬 10:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that this is accurate, there is no evidence that supports the notion that the word soccer is used in Australia the same way it is in the United States, in fact theres quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. I will put together a few things for people to read soon with my main points outlined. Lajamibr (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

More edit wars

I'm seeing edit wars breaking out over the terminology, and consequent abuse directed against other editors. The tide is flowing strongly towards "football" rather than "soccer" in regard to the common name of the sport and we are going to be seeing more and more disruption as those accepting the new terminology run into those defending the old. I'm all for minimising conflict and using facts, rather than emotion or opinion to direct policy here. --Pete (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As are we all. The most critical fact is that after a long, agonising and very destructive process, a consensus was established less than eight months ago that we would use the name Soccer in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
And we're going to revisit the matter with some solid facts and editors who didn't participate in that flawed process. The terminology is changing and burying heads in sand doesn't help us write a useful and relevant encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
That comment is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Those supporting the encyclopedia welcome the fact that the issue has been disruption-free for some months, and phrases like "burying heads in sand" (translation: HiLo48 and others are idiots) is unhelpful. The only thing we know for sure is that fighting over which word to use is a complete waste of time and energy. Anyone wanting to restart that fight needs to take the time to find and digest the previous discussions, then write a calm statement that due to evidence such-and-such, and in accordance with the previous agreement [if it is in accordance], it may be time to propose a change [what change?]. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not disruption-free. That's why I raised the topic. Ignoring reality won't help. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A small amount of edit warring occurred two days ago. It appears to have stopped. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, It has stopped because it successfully got peoples attention and got them talking again, I would be glad to keep going if you would like? I'm sorry but I'm not going to be dropping the matter, I can only say that I am sorry I wasn't involved in the process earlier. Would you like me to organise another consensus vote soon and turn the tide in my favour or are you willing to drop your life long biases and accept that just because you were taught by British immigrants 60 years ago to use the term soccer you are not some sort of authority on the matter, you represent an old and dying majority my friend you have become the minority. Only acceptable resolution is to have the term soccer only acceptable in articles that discuss multiple codes of football at once and in those instances no code will be referred to as football. In all other cases football should be used in the acceptable context because nobody reading about Football Federation Australia is going to be confused by the term football if anything soccer will throw them off its just ridiculous. Lajamibr (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
What you mean, I trust, is that we're going to keep discussion going, rather than edit-warring? I wasn't included in the earlier process either, and I feel that my fact-based contributions will have a useful impact in a discussion that seems to have been unduly influenced by emotion.
The point you raise is valid. When an article is concerned with association football only - such as Football Federation Australia - then using "soccer" strikes a jarring note. I am sure that aficionados of the game, on seeing this, reach for the "edit" button to correct the term.
Looking at that article, one sentence stands out: On 1 January 2005, ASA renamed itself to Football Federation Australia (FFA), aligning with the general international usage of the word "football", in preference to "soccer", and to also distance itself from the failings of the old Soccer Australia. It coined the phrase "old soccer, new football" to emphasise this. That was nine years ago, and the name now used by the government, the media, and the sport itself is "football". Why are we still using a deprecated term? --Pete (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Precisely my point, I dont think anyone would deny that the term football is now widely used to refer to association football/soccer and that there is no need to use a secondary term like soccer unless talking about multiple codes of football at once. I have read the previous discussions and have not found any real evidence for why the term soccer should be used. The idea that it will confuse people is irrelevant because even if that statement was true it would be cleared up by a simple link or half a sentence at the beginning. It would be nice to engage with the other side of this argument but I'm afraid I don't share the same optimism that you do for the process as it has continuously failed to put an end to the argument and the consensus vote is extremely flawed. However I welcome any one to discuss this further. Lajamibr (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Merits of Football

I will begin by suggesting that we put a stop to people using anecdotal evidence as a basis for argument on this matter. Nobody can say what the majority of Australian citizens use to refer to soccer/football I have already spoken to one editor about this and they have said that the people they know use soccer and I have said the people I know use football, it is not evidence of anything and proves nothing.

Secondly, in regards to the use of WP:COMMONNAME as a basis for argument, In every example given in that article the common names are almost exclusively used in relation to the topic i.e. nobody, including the media, calls lady gaga or bono by their real name because nobody, not just a few, would know what you are talking about. You would be hard pressed to find a single person in Australia that wouldn't accept that football was the most common name for soccer throughout the world. At the absolute most all you could argue is that most Australians know the game as both football and soccer.

Another major point was that the term football was ambiguous in an Australian context, I agree with this to a certain degree. Football is certainly somewhat of an ambiguous term when discussing multiple codes of football at once. However, on articles that only discuss soccer/football there is nothing ambiguous about it, if you insist on arguing that there will be people confused by this it will only be momentarily as they click the link of 'Football' that reveals the topic is association football. This is no different to the current situation in which people who will be confused by the term soccer can click the link or hover over the link to clarify.

Also we must stop comparing Australia to the United States in terms of the use of soccer/football they are very different circumstances, for example their competition is officially named Major League Soccer and teams participating in the competition use either no suffix, FC, or SC. Below is a list of evidence of the wide spread use of the term football in Australia including the sports governing body, the confederation we play under, the teams that play in this country, and the use of the term football by the media in Australia. This is further evidence that the situation in Australia is very different to that in the United States


Sports governing body and confederation uses the term Football

Football Federation Australia

Asian Football Confederation


Teams playing in the country use the term Football

Melbourne Victory

Sydney FC

Melbourne City

Western Sydney

Perth Glory


The term Football is wide spread in the Australian media, Of all the media I sourced only The Age used the term soccer (on their main website while using Football on its mobile site)

Herald Sun

The Australian

Fox Sports

Sydney Morning Herald

News.com.au

Daily Telegraph

Nine msn

Yahoo7

Lajamibr (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Heard it all before. I think you better get agreement to re-open this particular can of worms, before proceeding. If you do get agreement, then cut out the walls of text, keep your comments short and to the point. Rambling rants do nothing to help your cause. - Nick Thorne talk 09:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is herewith re-opened as it has been underway for some days. Thanks, Lajamibr, for the links. --Pete (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Nick. John actually suggested opening a discussion here rather than where it was happening in my talk section and it was suggested above that someone read the previous discussion and provide reasons for re-opening the debate along with evidence supporting my view. Please refrain from littering this new discussion with the same predictable and dismissive statements from the previous discussion that are not backed up by facts or reason. They do not contribute anything or help in anyway. My opening post is intended for everyone to read and use as the basis of the discussion, if you wish to participate in the discussion you are welcome but please contribute helpful statements. I will not be posting with emotive or bias language so please do the same. Lajamibr (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
But it deserves to be dismissed, because there is nothing new there. Refutations of all you have said have been made before. I agree with "Yawn". HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please enlighten me to these refutations explain what is flawed about my opening post because I don't see it. Lajamibr (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
No. This really was all discussed before, extremely extensively and painfully, with a conclusion less than eight months ago. It will do Wikipedia no good at all to repeat everything. Please do your own research. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Just adding on to what I wrote below may I please direct you to WP:STANDING and insist you stop using that same line to try end this discussion Lajamibr (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, I'm at a loss to find where these arguments have been refuted, are you referring to a discussion different to the one you referred me to on my talk page. The evidence and argument presented there is quite weak, for example Gibson Flying V's point that Australian news websites use month/day/year formats so they are not reliable sources of evidence. Grasping at straws is the most generous I can be with that argument. He then went on to cite the names of two autobiography titles with the word football in them relating to Rugby. Another piece of "evidence" was the title of a tv program called 'Monday Night Football', weak again but if anything it proves that the term football is an acceptable term when used in an exclusive context.
Perhaps you are referring to Nick Thorntons body of "evidence" that soccer is the common name, again this is a very weak argument and even some of his sources must have changed their minds because I now find football written on a number of them and are not reliable sources of information in many cases i.e. an opinion piece written on the roar is a very poor piece of evidence to show soccer is the common usage.
For the life of me I just can't see this glorious argument you are referring to. Not one piece of evidence to prove that soccer is the most common usage. I have provided you with evidence showing that almost every major news source uses the term Football. I'm sorry but your stance on this is just far too convenient for me to take you seriously. Is Wikipedia not a dynamic and evolving source of information by nature, should we not return to issues to discuss them. I'm sorry for the "walls of text" but I'm asked to talk about the previous discussions then told not to do it with text so I'm not sure how I can win. Please somebody refer me to the discussion that refutes my statements in anyway. I'll end by quoting HiLo48 "I am NOT on a campaign to remove "football" entirely as a word for "soccer" in Australia", this is exactly what has happened though. Lajamibr (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please don't relocate whole threads on the page. The newest thread belongs at the bottom of the page. And please learn to use Edit summaries. You may have had a valid reason to have made that move, but without an Edit summary, we cannot tell why you did it.
I can assure that this has all been discussed before. It was done in a very long and exhaustive process where several editors in favour of using the name "football" continued to make rude and disparaging comments about those with whom they disagreed, and got themselves blocked. Note that there are several archives of this discussion page. There was also discussion at Soccer in Australia, and in other places such as on editors' Talk pages. (That's really inappropriate and ineffective, hence my rapid removal of your arguments on my Talk page.)
I must also ask that you stick to discussing the topic, and not other editors. You are getting into dangerous territory with emotional language, disparaging remarks, and put-downs such as "I'm at a loss to find where...", "Grasping at straws is the most generous I can be", "For the life of me I just can't see this glorious argument you are referring to", "Not one piece of evidence...", and "your stance on this is just far too convenient for me to take you seriously".
As for WP:STANDING, we would need evidence that something significant has changed in the past eight months for that to carry any weight. A lot of us put a huge amount of effort into the earlier discussions. Try to put yourself into our shoes, and think about how you would feel about having to repeat all that effort only eight months later.
I will now reluctantly address some of your points, but cannot promise to keep doing so.
Citing examples of usage that match your preference will never prove that it is common usage. That is original research anyway, and unacceptable.
National sources prove little, because what most Australians actually see and read are local sources. People in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne read newspapers printed in those cities, and watch TV programs and news/sport reports created in those cities. The print version of Melbourne's Herald-Sun, for example, is very different from what the Sydney based website shows. In that newspaper, "football" simply means Aussie Rules. The ideal source would be an independent one that actually says that "Football" is now the most commonly used term across all of Australia. Not sure where you would find such a source. To be independent too would require no commercial arrangement between the media outlet and a sport. If a network has paid a lot of money to a sporting body to cover a sport (e.g. Fox), its approach will naturally match what that sporting body wants, rather than common language usage among all Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 has a point when he talks about editors making "rude and disparaging comments about those with whom they disagreed, and got themselves blocked.". Let us all play the ball and not the man. It's generally not a matter of anybody "getting" themselves blocked. It's more like being goaded into making a heated comment and then being gleefully complained about on AN/I. Let us have light rather than heat. Please.
Lajamibr has a point when he talks about "Not one piece of evidence to prove that soccer is the most common usage." Can we have solid evidence, please. Not personal opinions. HiLo, you're waving your hands around a lot, but those big slabs of discourse are visibly free from any external links. Could you help us out a bit and provide the external sources which illuminate your opinions? Please. --Pete (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
As for WP:STANDING, we would need evidence that something significant has changed in the past eight months for that to carry any weight. WP:STANDING doesn't say that. In fact it pushes the opposite conclusion: Fact is, consensus can change. Many factors both inside of Wikipedia and in the outside world can cause members of the Wikipedia to change their minds on an issue. Subjects that at one time were not notable can become notable, and those once thought to be notable can later be found not to be. A certain behavior among editors can be allowed one day, then disallowed the next. There is always room for change.
What's changed is that we have new editors participating in the discussion and we have a whole season's worth of football commentary to review. My take on what has changed is that "football" has increased in popular speech and "soccer" has declined. That's my opinion, formed by reading, viewing and listening to media reports. When you set your mind to observing it, the steady change is quite apparent. --Pete (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
After telling the world how bad rude and disparaging comments are, you write "HiLo, you're waving your hands around a lot..." You are not here for rational discussion. You are here to attack. Go away. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Telling another editor what they are doing wrong in a discussion is not an attack HiLo48 and I think it's ok to talk about individual editors when I'm talking about the points they have made in relation to this topic. I don't think I have made any personal attacks but I will try to be more careful with my comments, you could say I was attacking the arguments not the editors though. As for my citing sources that match my preference I simply cited every source that I came across I did not leave anything out I even pointed out that The Age uses Soccer on its main website. Now when you make claims that Australians don't get their news from national news sources but local printed paper you really need to provide evidence for this, I'm not saying that it isn't a good point but it's unsubstantiated if anything I would think that most Australians get their news digitally from national sources but I will seek to find evidence now. There is nothing bias about my list I assure you Lajamibr (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is a source from 2010 on where Australians are getting their news from showing in favour of online, I think we can naturally assume those numbers have increased towards online sources rather than back to print but I will endeavour to find more evidence.Lajamibr (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Given the huge sales of tablets and smartphones, I think it's a reasonable assumption. The "two-screen" effect is also a factor - people watching TV with a smart device on their lap. Alternate "news" sources such as social media or sites such as Zite or Sway or Flipbook also need to be considered. Australians are still consuming news and sports, but not so much from traditional print sources. The packed commuter carriage full of people reading newspapers is now packed with commuters on their devices. --Pete (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
After establishing that Australians primary source of news is online and not print media here is a reliable source showing the top online news sources for Australians and the amount of unique users to the sites in the month of September 2014, which are quite high, for example in top spot the Sydney Morning Herald had 3,852,000 unique viewers that month. Every online news source on that list uses the term Football except for The Age, which again uses Soccer on its main website and Football on its mobile site. If you believe this argument is irrelevant as has been said in the past please provide sourced evidence that is not anecdotal, simply stating that you don't believe it matter what is used in the media does not help the discussion in anyway Lajamibr (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
That post contains far too much original research and does not establish that Australians' primary source of news is online. If I saw an independent, reliable source that says that "football" is now the common name for soccer across all of Australia, I could very well be convinced, but I have seen no such source. Please stop rehashing arguments that were refuted only eight months ago. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me what you mean by the source containing too much original research, my understanding of it is that original research does not have a reliable source attributed to it. I provided reliable sources and evidence to all my claims, in 2010 it was found that more Australians get their news online than in print, since then a bigger gap would no doubt have grown. I also provided a reliable source showing the extent that Australians are using online news sources. Please clarify your issue with my post Lajamibr (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not say the source contained too much original research. I said the post did. Please stop misrepresenting me. To draw a conclusion about what people call a sport from what news sources they use is original research, and does not count as evidence of any kind here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I know you were talking about my post I was saying my post has reliable sources so why is it original research, I understand now that you think I was using media sources as proof that Australians predominantly use the term football and that is not correct at all. I have repeatedly stated that neither of us can prove what most Australians use, my point is to prove that the term football is atleast commonly used Lajamibr (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Nobody has ever argued that it wasn't. The argument is over which is the most common name, and only eight months ago a decision was made. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes but that decision was not based off of discussion or logic it was based off a vote between 11 people and it was not the correct way to reach a decision in this matter since their is so much dispute between which is the most common name, might I add that a number who voted in favour of soccer stipulated they did not want to see football disappear as a term in the Australian context and it certainly has. There is no evidence that soccer is the most common term simply nine editors perceptions hence why I do not consider the matter closed Lajamibr (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
But it was closed. To reopen discussion really demands more than saying the previous heavily moderated discussion was illogical. That's quite insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Let me rephrase then, the previous decision involving a vote was the best way to resolve the dispute at the time, that does not however mean that a conclusion was reached or that the discussion should not be allowed to be reopened. I have done much more than merely claim the previous discussion was illogical I have refuted all of the main points from the discussion proving why there is still a need to talk. Again I will say the previous decision was not based on the evidence presented but rather the perceptions of the attending editors and their personal views on the matter, that does not mean the appropriate outcome was reached. Lajamibr (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course a conclusion was reached. You have refuted nothing. You are still being insulting the the editors who participated inn the previous discussion when you say "the previous decision was not based on the evidence presented but rather the perceptions of the attending editors and their personal views on the matter". Please drop the insults. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If you cannot look at the evidence and arguments I have presented and see that your arguments have been refuted then you should not be contributing to wikipedia, these are not insults they are observations. There is no evidence to suggest soccer is the most common term used, therefore the decision was based off of each editors perception and personal views on which is most common. Please try to remain impartial when editing wikipedia for everyones sake Lajamibr (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
So, "you should not be contributing to wikipedia" is not an insult? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any way of proving that soccer is still the most common term, which seems most likely, given that it's only soccer fans who use it, I think it's time to just give up and let them have it.

Can you clarify who you believe should give up and what does "given that it's only soccer fans who use it" mean exactly Lajamibr (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a bit confused by that too. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 please do not provide incomplete quotes by me to change the context of what I am saying. I said if you cannot look at the evidence and arguments as proof that previous arguments have been refuted then you should not be editing wikipedia. Lajamibr (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe you have refuted anything. HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately that doesn't mean that I haven't Lajamibr (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(football_in_Australia)/Archive_5&oldid=1256305165"