Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (football in Australia)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Looking for official sources

Thanks to Nick Thorne for finding a government document entitled "Football in Australia". Dated 2008, so not terribly current. I looked at the website of the Australian Sports Commission - Ausport.gov.au - and did a search of their event calendar:

• Year from today: Keyword "Football": 6 results all for FIFA or World Cup events.
• Year from today: Keyword "Soccer": 0 results

Just like the media, what was once called soccer is now called football. --Pete (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Looking at the annual report for 2012/13, I find 8 hits for "football" (including one for "Australian Rules football" and another for "touch football") and zero hits for "soccer". "Football" is used without any qualification to identify the sport previously known as soccer. So that's the official Commonwealth sports agency firmly on the "football" side of the argument. --Pete (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're doing original research again, finding examples and drawing your own convenient conclusions, rather than finding descriptions of language usage, as Nick did. That counts for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OR refers to carrying out your own research and publishing it in the content of an article. What Pete has done is fine. In any case, I don't think any amount of evidence is going to change your view. -- Chuq (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Geographically cherry-picked examples certainly won't. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Australian Sports Commission is not geographically affiliated with anywhere (in fact, as the name suggests, it is representative of the nation). I think it cannot be in question that the majority of reliable sources will use football rather than soccer:

• Official releases from the A-League, clubs and the FFA will all use football as it is the official term (a substantial amount of reliable sources on the game in Australia).
• Australian sites which are part of global affiliations (goal.com.au, au.fourfourtwo.com etc) do use "football" in keeping with international convention and/or in line with official naming convention in Australia.
• The newspapers, as the list of sources established elsewhere shows, appear to favour football over soccer.

The counter-argument is that individual people, not reliable sources, use "soccer" rather than football. Common sense suggests this is true to some degree. Quantification of this is impossible or near-impossible. I don't think that this is justification for the exclusive use of "soccer" on all Australian football pages. The addition of a single word (i.e. football (soccer)) is unambiguous, reflects the mixed usage of the word, and is much more consistent with reliable sources. I really cannot see a strong argument against this. Macosal (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with much of that post, and have done so in the past, so there is no need to repeat the obvious. But I have a question. Why should "football" be the main part of your preferred choice, rather than "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As answered above. The term being clarified should be outside the brackets (it's a grammatical issue). Macosal (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Which raises the obvious question, why use a term that needs to be qualified, when "soccer" is universally understood and, when used on its own, needs no qualification? HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hate to keep going around in circles, but to reflect the usage of the term by people and reliable sources! The reason this debate keeps appearing is because there is a large number of people who use football rather than soccer to refer to that sport in this country. Football is used generally on Wikipedia despite any potential ambiguity because that is how it is generally referred to. Wikipedia terminology reflects usage. Macosal (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Football" is used where there is no ambiguity. In Australia, there is ambiguity. "Soccer" is unambiguous and universally understood. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And also where it is the commonly used term (these often co-incide; although it does seem to me that the term is still ambiguous for someone who calls the sport "soccer" regardless of the context) Football (soccer) as I see it has 3 advantages:

1. More accurately represents the usage of terms in the Australian context

2. Is in no way ambiguous

3. Puts an end to the back and forth vandalism/conflict which has resulted from a number of editors who feel that the current situation is not an accurate reprsentation.

Is there a counter-argument other than that there is one extra word added? Macosal (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No source has been produced, anywhere, any time, telling us that "football (soccer)" more accurately represents the usage of terms in the Australian context. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah sorry, what I meant to convey was that both terms are used in the Australian context, and this solution does more accurately represent that by including both terms, not that the most common term is "football (soccer)" (I'm not sure if anyone is arguing that). Any other reasons? Macosal (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't even have a source telling us that "football" is all that common a name for the round ball game in Australia. The subject of an inexplicable, confrontational marketing campaign, yes, obviously, but common across the whole population? We don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's prevalent in a number of reliable sources, both official and unofficial. The lists established elsewhere show that "football" is being used substantially by a number of independent sources nationwide. Definitely substantial usage. Given the prevalence in reliable sources you really need something to rebut the fact that "football" is widely used in parts of Australia.

So if it were to be accepted that football is substantially used in Australia, you have no other issue with "football (soccer)" other than the addition of a single word? Macosal (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sloppiness. Unnecessary. Pandering to a minority. Playing Orwellian Newspeak games. Untidiness. Assisting a marketing campaign. All things Wikipedia should not be doing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly those read more like opinions than facts and range from unlikely to absurd. Do you have any sources to substantiate any of this?? Macosal (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Silly response. We have consensus. You want to add words? YOU must justify it. I really don't have to explain why you can't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See above (3 reasons why this would be a good move). Macosal (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There are some people for whom "football" means Aussie Rules and nothing else. We cannot put these people ahead of all others. We are not defining the terms to be used by all Australians - that is a matter for individual preference. Our role is to facilitate the provision of information about the various codes and to do it in a way that lets people searching for (say) a particular team or player find their goal. While football is a generic name for several different codes, each of those codes has their own specific official and widely used term - except for Football. The Australian media has - mostly - taken this approach: Rugby league, Rugby union, Australian Rules, and Football. (I have listed the specific words used here.) This works well for outlets with huge audiences and while there may be a few who grumble, it is a system that works. We serve a similarly wide readership and while we cannot satisfy everyone, we shouldn't be out of step with the community. --Pete (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Heard among the headlines on ABC Radio News on 774 Melbourne while driving to work this morning: "Western Sydney's soccer woes continue". HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, let us consider two simple questions.

1. Could somebody misunderstand what sport is referred to by the word soccer within an Australian context?

2. Could somebody misunderstand what sport is referred to by the word football within an Australian context?

The clear answers are no and yes respectively. Regardless of the relative numbers of each usage, because of the relatively large number of sports played in significant numbers that can reasonably be called football, soccer which is unambiguous clearly wins on clarity. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that the editorial boards at the various diverse media outlets serving the nation have all had this conversation before they made their decisions. Most of them decided that confusion wasn't an issue, so long as they called the other codes of football by their official names - or derivatives thereof, such as NRL, League, AFL, Aussie Rules. That is the situation we see in the community and we, as our own kind of media outlet serving the community, need feel no qualms about following suit. If it works for the ABC website, why would it be any different for our website? --Pete (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice dodge. I don't care about "official names", I care about writing in a way that will have the greatest possible understanding. Try actually answering the questions I posed in the post above, eh? - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The answer is that ambiguity is not the only concern. The use of "football" anywhere on Wikipedia raises issues regarding ambiguity, however, it is used to reflect the fact that "football" is the way the sport is referred to, generally speaking. The use of terms in Australia is, obviously, mixed. Why not use "football (soccer)" then? It represents the usage of both terms and is unambiguous. Macosal (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you frame your questions narrowly, then you receive narrow answers. The wider question about ambiguity and confusion and clear communication has already been answered by those who make their living from communication, unlike we amateurs. The media outlets, for whom every reader means rating points, income and power, have overwhelmingly chosen "Football" to refer to the sport previously known as "Soccer". Do you think they all deliberately chose to go down a path of confusion to their readers? I think they had this very same discussion that we are having now and they chose Football. As we can easily see for ourselves. Like you, I speak as one with no great interest in any kind of football - my interest lies in the language and the cultural change, and if anybody thinks that our culture is somehow static or stagnant or preserved changeless and immaculate, then they are fooling themselves - we have long since moved on from the British-based monoculture of the past. As anyone may see by walking down Lygon Street on a Friday night. The world game is steadily rising in popularity and support here, and only those with closed minds would deny it. The big media outlets have considered the question of clear communication, framed their websites accordingly, and this website should follow suit. --Pete (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have much greater faith in the media's commitment to accuracy than I. Everytime I have read meadia reports about anything I had personal knowledge of they manage to get it almost completely wrong. Even when I have been involved in situations where the media representative was provided with a press release they still managed to make such basic errors as getting names (included the press release) wrong or got major facts completely A about T. To speak in one of my main areas of interest/experience, I have read reports of aircraft accidents where reporters speak of AVGAS spilling from jet aircraft, well, if a jet was fuelled with AVGAS, no wonder it crashed since AVGAS is actually aviation gasoline (ie petrol), jets use kerosene based fuels. So because their track record on things I know a lot about is so appalling I have little faith in their reportage of other things and the less clear cut the item is the less faith I have. I would certainly never rely solely on media reportage particulalry from a geographically narrow range of sources and on anything so nebulous as the usage of particular words across Australia. The media plays the PC game and has drunk the FFA's cool-aid, so it's no surprise that they use the term "football". It sounds trendy and cool, a sure magnet for up and coming sports reporters who want to be in with the administrators of the sport However, just listen to a few of these characters on any TV or radio program and it becomes abundantly clear that whatever else they may be, they are not exemplars of English language usage. - No, you need to do much better than provide media reporting to support the claim that ordinary Austrlians overwhelmingly use the word "football" when talking about soccer. Certainly some do, but even they understand exactly what sport is referred to by "soccer". The same cannot be said in reverse. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This whole website is based on the assumption that information published online or elsewhere from reliable sources is reliable. We can't adopt a cynical approach just because some "cool-aid" has allegedly been drunk or because a particular editor doesn't trust the news. The media is itself evidence of usage and it is the basis for this whole site, if you have proof of the cool-aid drinking then it would be highly relevant but I do not expect that there is any. Macosal (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A media organisation with any sort of commercial arrangement with a sporting body is not a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not true (it would jeopardise so much of this encyclopoedia) but that being said, many of the sources noted do not, as I understand it, have any sort of commercial arrangement? Macosal (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick, your point was about clear communication over ambiguity. I accept that. If we talk about "football", then are we talking about league, union, rules, or football? It's something that needs addressing to avoid confusion. I get that. My point is that the media websites serving audiences similar to ours have resolved this difficulty already, and they have overwhelmingly chosen "Football". It seems to be working just fine for them. --20:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You did note, I hope, my description above of the ABC calling the round ball game "soccer" today. Please stop expecting national consistency. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I did, and thank you for bringing it up. We run a website. I invite you to examine the ABC's website. If we ever break down into regional Wikipedias, then we might consider local usages a great deal more than we do now. If we ever break into radio - Radio Wikipedia, the station where you play the songs and read the news! - then we can break it down even further according to the coverage of our transmitter. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to remember what we are trying to do here. We are trying to buld an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is about providing information, not providing language usage guidance, except in those few cases when that is the specific subject of an article. In this case we are supposed to be writing articles about a sport. In order to do that job effectively the language we use in the article should be as clear as possible so as not to get in the way of the main aim - to provide information about the sport. I am not a football follower, of any description. I could not care less what die-hard fans of the sport call it. What I am interested in, is clear communications. Using a word that is ambiguous or potentially ambiguous to a large proportion of the intended audience when a perfectly valid commonly used alternative is available is quite simply perverse. No on will ever mistake "soccer" for anything but the sport it is. I don't care whether the usage of the word football is increasing, decreasing or staying the same - it is irrelevant. What matters is clear communications. Insisting on only using "football" serves simply to obfuscate with one exception, at least in my mind, and that is if those pushing for the usage of "football" are pursuing some other sports political agenda for some reason that I don't pretend to understand. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Australia's media is all about clear communications. Those who write the stories, those who design the websites, those who make the editorial decisions are all professionals who are trained and selected and paid on their ability. As opposed to us. They have overwhelmingly chosen "Football". Any editor here can see it by looking at the websites. Websites just like Wikipedia, available to all for disseminating information as clearly as possible. The media professionals don't see "Football" as confusing or ambiguous to the extent that it is a liability. Why are we even having this discussion? Australia's communication industry has already made the decision for us. We follow the community usage. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The language Sydney outlets use proves nothing about common name and about avoiding ambiguity. You did note, I hope, my description above of the ABC calling the round ball game "soccer" today. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How does your constant referral to national news organisations as "Sydney outlets" help this discussion? -- Chuq (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all been explained before. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Football (soccer)

After yet more apparently unproductive discussion, we appear no closer to solving some of the ongoing issues here. I would suggest that the use of "football (soccer)" solves many of these issues:

1. WP:ENGVAR suggests that the terminology used should mirror the local varieties of English used. Notably, it also suggests that consistency should be encouraged throughout Wikipedia (this being a move in that direction). It is clear that both "soccer" and "football" are both being substantially used (see, for example, this article or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Sources). Therefore this solution has value in that it more accurately represents this.

2. It is entirely unambiguous. Nobody could be confused by this (a concern if the term used was simply "football"). In fact, disambiguation through strategies such as this is recommended at WP:ENGVAR.

3. It would hopefully put an end to the constant back and forth which has included edit wars, persistent vandalism, incivility etc which has too often characterised this discussion. Solutions such as this are recommended by WP:COMPROMISE, which also suggests incorporating multiple points of view.

Any thoughts? Macosal (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Stop throwing Pete's geographically biased list of examples at us. Examples are NOT sources. And obviously Fox has a commercial arrangement with the sport and is not unbiased. An appalling source.

2. "Soccer" is more unambiguous because it's simpler.

3. There is an existing consensus, from only eight months ago. ALL the back and forth, edit warring, vandalism and incivility has been initated by soccer fans refusing to accept that consensus. And you're part of it. Are you proud of that? HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: "And you're part of it. Are you proud of that?" Please be civil and avoid personal comments. —sroc 💬 10:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When someone highlights the disruption caused by the vexatious "soccer must be called football" campaigners", it's only rational to point out that it's caused by "soccer must be called football" campaigners. That is truth, NOT a personal attack. No person or group of people has a right to be constantly disruptive here on already settled matters. If a problem bothers you, don't become part of it. HiLo48 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your views on the underlying issue, personal comments such as "Are you proud of that?" are uncalled for. —sroc 💬 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In the whole history of this discussion, the process has been as important as the content. Much disruption has occurred. I will continue to highlight disruptive editing, especially when it's packaged in an expression of concern about the disruption. "Are you proud of that?" was a way of doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

Making personal comments is unnecessary to make your point and undermines your credibility. Play the ball, not the man. —sroc 💬 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You are taking sides here. Macosal, in expressing concern about "the constant back and forth", created more of it. I pointed out what he was doing. Of course it's personal. It's about him and his attitude. Like far too many of the soccer fans here, his obsession with his game wanting to change its name, in wilful ignorance of the problems surrounding that goal, over-rode any real concern about "the constant back and forth". He, like all the other "soccer MUST be called football" campaigners, IS obsessed. He, like all the other "soccer MUST be called football" campaigners, is creating problems on Wikipedia by ignoring our policies about consensus, and what makes a decent source. You attack me, and say absolutely nothing about his behaviour. That's taking sides. This IS about individuals, their attitudes, their behaviour, and their obsessions. And you're attacking the person trying to make Wikipedia a better place, not the person causing trouble. Attack the real problem, not those doing the right thing. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is straight out of the WP:NPA textbook... Consensus is not a stick to be wielded to beat down discussion. This question has never been discussed before and for the genuine reasons I raise it clearly has some merit - can we discuss that please? Macosal (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You try to make this "about individuals", polarising and judging contributors as "the person trying to make Wikipedia a better place" (about yourself) and "the person causing trouble" (someone who you disagree with). Stop it. Berating others is a horrible way to make your point. Keep to the issue. —sroc 💬 05:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented that anything has changed since the most recent consensus. Stop wasting your time and ours. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

1. You cannot pour cold water on a reliable source without good reason. That source is reporting facts. Are you accusing the author of inventing these facts?

2. Football (soccer) is 100% unambiguous. Nothing can be "more" unambiguous than that.

3. This question was not raised at all in the most recent rfc and as such I feel it is worth asking.

The reason the previous "consensus" has not been accepted by several editors is because it does not mirror their own experience or belief in what the game is named (which also speaks to the idea that there is not a clear "consensus")

And I have never been uncivil. I have never edit warred. I have never vandalised anything (in fact I had not participated in discussion on this topic before this past week). Do not condescend to ask me "If I'm proud". Macosal (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You expressed a concern about "the constant back and forth" at the same time as becoming part of it. We have a consensus from only eight months ago. Discussions were extensive. The ONLY new independent, reliable sources describing language uses have supported that consensus. If the source to which you refer is Fox, then LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to keep on-topic and avoid commenting on other editors. You know, like it says at the top of the editing page. In red, so people won't miss it.

• Complaining about "constant back and forth" and "extensive discussion" is like complaining about a traffic jam while being part of it.
• Consensus from eight months ago. Yeah. And consensus can change. What is abundantly clear is that we do not have a consensus now. We have new editors joining the discussion.
• Only new sources have supported that outcome. In a word, bullshit. New sources support Football, for the simple reason that Football is becoming more extensive within the community.
• I put up a quote from a previous Prime Minister, a renowned AFL fan, speaking in the heart of AFL territory on the top-rating radio station to a wide audience including a great many of her constituents. She used Football, and she specifically ruled out its use in AFL.
• No, she wasn't "independent". She was pushing her own personal POV, her party's POV. Hell, maybe she'd been nobbled by Football Australia or Fox, who knows?
• Get down to it, nothing is independent. The government pushes a party line, the media pushes their own views, the advertisers push their own products.
• Coca-Cola is one of the most widely recognised brands on earth. Right behind Football. Advertising works - as we see every day - and whether it is independent or not, we see its effect in the community in word usage. Football in Australia increasingly means the game previously known as soccer.

I don't have any objection to using Football (soccer) if that's what it takes. Macosal has made some cogent points above and I agree with them. I don't find the counterviews persuasive. Football (soccer) is pretty much what the Commonwealth government has used for the past six years whenever there is any chance of confusion or ambiguity. I think we should follow suit. It's not something that will satisfy the diehards on either end of the spectrum, but then no compromise will. It's their POV or nothing. We work on consensus and compromise because it's less disruptive and more productive than endless discussion, edit-warring and personal attacks. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

ALL the "endless discussion, edit-warring and personal attacks" comes from discussions initiated by those obsessed with calling the game "football" and wanting to fight a very recent consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why, specifically, this idea is not a good one? I have attempted to point out why I disagree with your counterarguments. Your response was to attempt to discredit me (through personal attacks) and discredit sources which are ostensibly reporting fact from a reliable website as well as shut down the discussion entirely... Macosal (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea is unnecessary, and disruptive. (Something you claim to care about.) There's nothing wrong with "soccer". We reached agreement on that after an awful lot of time, and agony, and several obsessed soccer fans being blocked for their disruptive behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This idea better represents the diversity of terminology used by individuals and reliable sources in Australia, would stop vandals and would better represent the views of several editors on this site which are currently being ignored. Your points overlook the benefits this could have. Macosal (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea annoys the crap out of people who see nothing wrong with "soccer". And there IS nothing wrong with "soccer". The idea is unnecessarily confrontational. No views are being ignored. They are being discussed, right here, now, in this time wasting thread. And we don't change our articles simply because some soccer fans are vandals. That's an entirely separate problem. Maybe you need to think about why it really exists. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you need to think about why it exists! Many/most I've seen are one-off IP edits who do so because their view of the "correct" terminology is not being represented. For those "annoyed" by this idea, I would direct them to WP:COMPROMISE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Annoyance is not really justification for opposing a change. Macosal (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have every right to get annoyed at vexatious, persistent arguing against a very recent consensus, achieved in a very thorough and agonising process, with no evidence that anything have changed since that consensus was achieved. Your "new idea" is clumsy, confrontational, and unnecessary. You want Wikipedia to use a name that no normal person actually uses. It's as silly as "Association football", which was rejected in the earlier discussions for just that reason. We sought an unambiguous, universally understood, common name, and found one. It's "soccer"! HiLo48 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a continuing problem and it should be addressed. Well, better than it is now, which consists of someone correcting soccer to football - as they see it - and HiLo changing it back, citing an old discussion and leaving a "welcome" message on their talk page. We can't have everyone happy, but we can find a compromise that reduces the disruption. --Pete (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am perfectly happy to continue welcoming and educating new editors. I find it a pleasure. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That is treating the symptom, not the cause, however. You may well be annoyed but you may not cite annoyance as a reason to implement changes or not (or as a justification for personal attacks). I definitely contest the statement that this idea is clumsy, confrontational or unnecessary... It may well be worth waiting for other opinions on this. Macosal (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a teacher. We don't change textbooks to reflect people's misconceptions. We educate them. I'm fine doing that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the discussion has become more productive and is now leaning far more towards rethinking the current situation i.e. the eradication of the term football. Nick Thorne listed a source earlier which used the term 'football (soccer)' it was pointed out, and I agree, that this would be a good compromise and was acceptable for quite some time. If that source found it necessary to use the term football in reference to soccer then I believe it supports the argument more for including football, I know this was not his intention though. Lajamibr (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Further to this I agree that the compromise would help put a stop to "Vandals" who believe the current situation is wrong. There is a reason it keeps happening and its proof that there is not a real consensus. There is an issue and it needs to be addressed without name calling and accusing people of being obsessed. There is a reason why people are offended by the term soccer and when they see what has happened on wikipedia they recognise the issue and their first instinct is to simply create an account and change it back. Something is wrong and accusing everyone who is on the opposing side as being obsessed agenda pushers is not right. Lajamibr (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on "...people are offended by the term soccer". That has been claimed before, but never been explained effectively, and is obviously not the case west of the Barassi Line, where many clubs and most people call the game soccer. HiLo48 (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No offence, HiLo, but if we could keep personal discussion to a minimum here, that would help keep things on track. Anyone wanting to chit-chat, could you take it to personal talk pages, please? --Pete (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Pete, just piss off. That comment is of no value at all to this discussion. I responded to a comment from another editor about the word "soccer". Doesn't seem like personal discussion to me. If it is, you should condemn that other editor for raising the matter. HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The Barassi Line is of zero relevance here. Zero. This isn't about League or Aussie Rules. Your opinions about it, or indeed anything else are irrelevant. If we don't have reliable sources, we don't have an encyclopaedia. We don't base Wikipedia on opinions, points-of-view, gut feelings or personal preferences. Personal attacks are disruptive. If you, or any other editor (including me) can't accept these basic principles they would be better off chatting on Facebook. So swallow whatever barbed response you have, consider wikipolicy, and either be productive or go play on Facebook. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempting to get this discussion back on point, I think "people are offended" may be a reference to the fact that the term "soccer" has become associated by some with some elements of the game from previous administrations which are now seen as undesirable (for example as expressed here) Macosal (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting article. It seems to suggest that seeing the word "soccer" as offensive is part of the marketing push of the FFA. That's fine where "football" is readily available as a name, so maybe it works in Sydney. But, I work at a long established school in Melbourne that's pretty strong on the soccer front. It has produced a Socceroo, and many other high level players. But this school also, naturally, plays Aussie Rules. Has played that game since the school was founded. That game is called "football", just as it has been for the past 150 years in this part of the world. So the round ball game is called "soccer", because the name "football" isn't really available. Nobody is offended. These sorts of situations exist all over the part of Australia where "football" has meant Aussie Rules for 150 years. So no-one in their right mind is offended by "soccer". If they were, they would be offended many times every day. It simply IS the more common name for the round ball game. So, maybe I can believe that some people in Sydney might be offended by "soccer". (Though it does seem a bit silly. What's in a name? Really?) Can those in Sydney see how silly it would be to offended if they came to Melbourne? People there who love the game call it "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not personally offended by it but it does evidently have connotations in some areas. I too work at a long established school, in Sydney, where the sport is called "football". Worth noting that the change was brought about due to the Crawford Report, an independent survey of a number of individuals (not all involved in the round ball game) which found that "Many are of the opinion that the name ‘soccer’ should be replaced by ‘football’". As to which IS more common (Australia-wide), as I have said I think that is hard (if not impossible) to quantify. Certainly both are substantially used (with reliable sources increasingly using "football") which is why I have made this suggestion. Macosal (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand the changes that have occurred in your part of the world. They were possible there because the word "football" did not already have a single, very common meaning of another sport, as it did, and still does, in Aussie Rules territory. I just wish I could get more people to believe and understand this, to me, obvious reality. As for what is the common name of the round ball game, yes, it's impossible to tell, but the current consensus was based on more than just the common name. It was based on the fact that "soccer" is the only universally understood, unambiguous, common name. 04:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I get that, but not only is this suggestion universally understandable, it better represents the diversity of usage present and the views of a number of editors. Macosal (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But it's not a common name. It's one common name (your preferred one), with another common name in a subsidiary position. You may have to work hard to convince everyone that the latter should be the case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't like at all that this is being portrayed a WP:BATTLE where "supporters" of each side worry about whether their preferred outcome is the result or not (or whether a word is "subsidiary". My suggestion is based only on WP:ENGVAR and grammatical rules. Macosal (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

When even the Prime Minister disagrees with you, I admire your persistence in fighting on. However, what I'm seeing now is a desire to move on, past the circular arguments, the repeated statements and the personal opinions. I'm seeing the beginnings of consensus for a compromise, unambiguous term of "football (soccer)" to describe the game of Football, at least in Australia, and in articles where there is a chance of ambiguity. --Pete (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, To clarify what I meant about some people being offended by the word soccer its not the term itself that offends people its when people like yourself tell them they are not allowed to call it football, this is offensive and is usually accompanied by some derogatory comment about how its an unaustralian sport etc. I personally have no problem with the term soccer I use it all the time along with the football this is not about my personal preference. When I said 'people like yourself' I do not mean to attack you but in reality your opinion is it is not allowed to be called football on Wikipedia (in relation to Australia) hence why I put you in to that group. The previous consensus may have provided a short term solution but it is obviously still an issue that needs to be revisited Lajamibr (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Also HiLo48 you said above that football is a common name used for football/soccer can you explain why it should not be included on wikipedia then, and the idea that it is unambiguous and saves letters has been addressed and is not a compelling argument. Lajamibr (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

You have misrepresented me again. Piss off. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop telling people to piss off and being hostile it's uncalled for. Can you tell me how I have misrepresented you, everything I said is based off of your own posts. Lajamibr (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresenting me repeatedly (I reckon you've done it around ten times since you arrived here) is far more uncivil than a simple "piss off" to you for doing it! Don't personalise things. I haven't told anybody to not call the game "football". There is a community consensus on Wikipedia that, in Australian articles, the game will be called "soccer". That consensus was achieved only eight months ago. Nothing has changed since then. Some more editors have come here, several behaving badly, just like before, insisting that the consensus be changed, but I have seen no good reason for that to happen. A silly sense of offence for a widely used word where no offence exists is not a good reason. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not taking the bait anymore. Nobody is misrepresenting you, you have repeatedly stated that "it's not called football it's soccer in this country" and when I say this to you I'm apparently misrepresenting you. The fact that new editors are not in favour of the previous consensus is reason enough itself to reopen discussion and you know it WP:CCC and before you say it "especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances" does not mean we have to prove something has changed in the last 8 months. Consensus can change and it certainly appears to have done so here. I don't see any bad behavior here and if you feel you are being misrepresented perhaps you need to better explain your position with evidence rather than personal opinion. I'm not going to engage with you anymore unless you contribute constructively and I think other editors should do the same. Lajamibr (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I HAVE NEVER FUCKING SAID "it's not called football it's soccer in this country". NOW FUCK OFF, AND GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't repeat yourself, HiLo. It makes no progress. Seems to me that Lajamibr has a point and you haven't addressed it. How has he misrepresented you? He's made an observation, using your own words, and instead of answering his legitimate question he has been met with personal abuse. I mentioned before that a topic ban might be the way forward, and while dumping this on AN/I with examples of personal attacks might not be the best way forward, it may turn out to be the only way forward if this sort of thing continues. --Pete (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

See above. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at this clearly. Posts are repeatedly being made here accusing me of saying things I haven't said. There is no hope of having a rational conversation with editors who do that, or with those who defend such editors. That is not a personal attack. That is a fact. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 I was paraphrasing, you have repeatedly stated things such as "On this side of the Barassi Line it is called soccer" at the very least I can say that you're opinion is that in atleast half the country its not football its soccer.I apologise but I don't understand why you have become so aggressive I was not attacking you in anyway I was clarifying for you what I mean by people being offended by the term soccer. When they perceive the same thing to be happening on wikipedia whether or not that is the case they do sometimes take it personally as I did at the beginning. I adjusted my behaviour shortly after and I suggest you do the same thing. You are becoming consistently more aggressive and perhaps Pete's suggestion above is necessary I leave it in his hands. Lajamibr (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"the round ball game on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line is soccer" This is the kind of thing I'm talking about, I can provide more examples if needed. Nobody is misrepresenting you. Lajamibr (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The editors allegedly misrepresenting you, Hilo, are not the only ones. Earlier you misrepresented me in a way which was also a personal attack and an attempt to decrease my credibility (note I didn't yell/swear etc). If you feel like you have been misrepresented, explain that and explain what your views really are - that will lead to a far more "rational conversation" than if editors get angry and start yelling at one another etc. For the record I don't agree with the statement "it's not called football it's called soccer" attributed to you either although that seems to have been clarified somewhat by the above post (although the first statement which you claimed to be a misrep seems ok to me) but that cannot be a reason to close discussion or breach WP:CIVIL quite clearly. Macosal (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Macosal I did not mean to claim that Hilo's exact words were "its soccer not football in this country" but I explained why I grouped him with those that do say that and have provided evidence of an exact quote from Hilo saying that its soccer not football in (half) this country. Im not sure what the other misrepresentations are. When I was talking about why people are offended by the term soccer I did not mean to say that he was one of the perpetrators in real life, only that he believes that it should not be allowed to be called football on wikipedia. This has literally been his entire stance from the beginning and I don't understand how that can possibly be misrepresenting him Im honestly baffled Lajamibr (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no hope of having a rational conversation with editors who repeatedly misrepresent me, then say they meant something completely different from what they actually wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Or just maybe its possible that what I said simply came across as something I didn't mean by accident. That is why you should be specific so that other editors can clarify what they mean and we can be civil instead of being hostile to others. Are you denying that you said "the round ball game on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line is soccer" i.e. in atleast half of the country its soccer not football because that seemed to be your biggest issue with me apparently misrepresenting you. Lajamibr (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)