Talk:Australia 2022 FIFA World Cup bid

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

Discussion about the bid[edit]

Some level headed discussion about the bid http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=239 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.234.63 (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a mess.[edit]

This article really hasn't had much attention from people not obsessed with this bid, has it?

Just looked at it for the first time, and have a few questions...

Is "edition" really the right word for an occurrence of the World Cup? I have never seen it used that way before.

When was Kardinia Park in Geelong renamed Geelong Stadium? OK. I'll answer that one. It hasn't been. It's pure marketing garbage. Wikipedia should not be led by salesmen.

During the world cup sponsors naming rights, etc are irrelevant, stadiums are known by a neutral name unless a company decides to buy the naming rights during the cup --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kardinia Park is completely neutral. It's been the non-commercial, neutral name for the place since 1872. No sponsorship involved at all. The Australian Football Club that uses the ground has, in recent years, accepted sponsorship for a different name (currently Skilled Stadium), but that's not what I am proposing the article should say. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Of the Australian stadia that meet FIFA's seating criteria, none are primarily football venues." For an article about Australia, that's a really dumb thing to say. There are four professional games known as football played in Australia. At some stage someone is going to have to confront the reality that says that the most frequent sport played at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (and several of the other venues) is known to the locals as football. It's not the game this article is about. Again, can we drop the marketing hype and sort it out please?

We do not need to get into the whole association football argument hear, for the purpose of the event we all know that the sport being referred to is the round ball game and not the egg ball game --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed Wikipedia and FIFA convention and changed the football references to Association football. No harm has befallen anyone. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will do from me for starters. It would be nice if someone else without round ball blinkers could have a look at this article too.

HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, tiger. The name on the bid website is Geelong Stadium. If that happens to be wrong, fix it, but I dont know if calling the whole FFA bid 'marketing garbage' is very helpful. Four sports called football? OK, I'm stuck at Aussie Rules and soccer. The rugby codes are called rugby union and rugby league, and only colloquially called football. In any case this is a soccer article aimed at a worldwide audience, so I think the expectation that those millions (billions?) of people who call soocer 'football' all change their ways is not realistic. Even soccer fans in Australia call it football, so what do you expect in an Australian soccer article? And what does that (what people call soccer/football) have to do with marketing? Its more sporting culture isnt it? Mdw0 (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
The language thing is a matter of horses for courses. Yes, the World Cup bid can be full of marketing hype. I would not and did not argue otherwise. But this is an encyclopaedia. It should aim for a little more accuracy and rationality. The sport you have referred to as soccer is most commonly known as Association football on Wikipedia. That's what the FA on the end of FIFA stands for, following the French language convention of putting the adjective after the noun. The use of the word football to describe soccer in Australia has only grown since the establishment of FFA in the early 2000s, and its attempts to change the language here. This has clearly stalled in the Aussie Rules states. And in saying the the two rugbies are only know as football colloquially just proves my point. Around the world I can think of seven professional codes that are locally known as football. The extras outside Australia are American football, Canadian football and Gaelic football. There may be more. As one of at least seven, Association football must be better identified in a global encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most people use football to describe the code they are most into, and has been used by hardcore soccer fans in Australia throughout the 20th century. However it is true to say the campaign to use the football term for soccer in the media, and in the face of more popular local codes intensified in the 21st century in Australia. That campaign has been more successful in its use in the rugby playing states because the naming of football for Aussie Rules is much stronger. My argument was also horses for courses. I would suggest it is unrealistic to expect an Australian soccer article aimed at an international audience to not use the term 'football' for its sport simply because there are some Aussie rules fans who want to claim the word for their sport in Australia. Chipping the whole article for such use is unsympathetic and pointless at best. In any case that one sentence hardly constitutes 'a mess.' If you dont like it or doubt its accuracy in this very specific contaxt, then change it. Mdw0 (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Given that the standard across Wikipedia, as I explaned above, is to use the name Association football for the game known generally as soccer in Australia, that's what should be used in the article. As for the Geelong ground (and no doubt others), the name used in the bid is simply wrong. It's obviously used for marketing purposes, but to not even acknowledge that they are renaming it for the event, from something already existing, is both dishonest and potentially confusing for someone who knows a little about stadia in Australia. In another part of the article there is mention of "The development of Kardinia Park (Skilled Stadium) in Geelong..." without even connecting it to the place called Geelong Stadium elsewhere in the article. As I said at the top of this section, what a mess! I shall start trying to make some sense of it all for less well informed readers. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should remember that this is an encyclopedia as such we should follow standard conventions, the game is best known as association football global, the whole AFL > Soccer debate is irrelevant to this article, furthermore it adds subjective bias and your own views may not dictate the views of myself, or anyone else. Furthermore the stadium names follow a FIFA convention that states that all stadiums must be referred to in a sponsor neutral manner during the duration of the world cup therefore for the purposes of the World Cup the stadiums are referred to as such --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See comment above re neutrality of the name. My older but nearest comment just above is about the inconsistency within the article. You seem to have ignored that point. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Orestes1984, please don't put your comments inside those of others. It makes the discussion almost unreadable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The naming of Kardinia Park was wrong because the source was wrong and now its fixed. Fabulous. As for the naming of the sport, using association football might be technically correct, but its a clunky name that no-one uses. Saying the game is 'best known' as association football is not just wrong, its ridiculous. The fact that the other local sports were listed immediately afterwards shed enough clarity and put the popular name of the sport (football) in correct context, but the current edit does remove any controversy or contention at the expense of readability. Why thats not an issue in the text of the article but suddenly now is an issue in the discussion page is a bit strange. The AFl / soccer debate is highly relevant and is clearly mentioned in the article itself. The reason for not using the name Kardinia Park in the bid document has nothing to do with corporate naming rights because Kardinia Park is a place, not a sponsor. Mdw0 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
The name Association football is used extensively in Wikipedia, especially where there is any possibility of confusion, but in many other articles as well. It's not controversial. It is the name used by FIFA. (It's what the FA bit stands for.) In Australia it is a bit clunky. That's because by far the most common name for the round ball game in Australia is soccer, but that's not the global situation. Football is unsuitable because of the multiple codes using that name in the country. (I note that one part of the article spoke of having football at Football Park in Adeliade. Guess what? Totally different footballs!) Association football works. It's non-controversial. It's safe. It's Wikipedia standard. We should use it. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Association football is so not controversial it borders on the overly technical. I never said it was controversial, I said the opposite, that its use removes controversy. The controversy, apparently, is the use of the term 'football.' The A in FIFA most certainly stands for Association, but I have never heard a FIFA official use the term 'association football' in an interview or comment, which shows its a bit clunky everywhere, hence the usage term 'football.' Its use in Australia is opposed in the Aussie Rules states because of the more common use for the term to refer to Aussie Rules, but expecting worldwide soccer fans to not refer to soccer as football is unrealistic. That was my point earlier and still is. 'Soccer' also clarifies against other codes of football too, but some round-ball fans consider its use an insult to a dominant code by sporting heathens, hence the campaign to have the sports media refer use 'football.' Typically, zealots of all types want to use language to entrench their beliefs. I'd prefer tolerance. Note there is NO campaign to have the media refer to 'association football.' Its definitely safe and noncontroversial. And clunky. Any time anyone wants to use it they really should look at rewriting the sentence so they dont have to. Claiming something is Wikipedia standard needs a Wikipedia page that says so, and there isnt one, so its not standard at all. Claiming a standard based on wide use doesnt wash, otherwise the standard would be 'football.' Mdw0 (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Because there are several forms of football, wise and impartial editors avoid the term in articles where more than one code will be mentioned, substituting a non-offensive alternative for EVERY code. Thus we have rugby league, rugby union, American football, Association football, Gaelic football, Australian football, Canadian football, etc. That approach is the neutral one. Using the simple name football to mean one particular code, for games in Australia, is not smart. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was smart, I said that expecting otherwise is unrealistic. Expecting common use of 'association football' is even more unrealistic. I also hinted that only zealots would be offended by the use of 'football' for the 'wrong' code, but of course I'd only ever hint at that and never say it out loud... Mdw0 (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Well, since I'm not offended, I guess it means I'm not one of those evil zealots. And obviously a zealot in support of one code would not be recommending a neutral term for every code. I just want to see a better encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm putting more of my thought into sorting out an article that in one place speaks of Geelong Stadium, and in another mentions Kardinia Park, without any explanation that they are one and the same place. HiLo48 (talk) 08:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate is nonsensical As I have already said it is clear that this article is referring to the round ball game and this is why I detest wikipedia, people can't step outside of their own own subjective bias to edit an article and that is why wikipedia fails at being a relevant academic source. It's also why the majority of you arguing about this would fail if you were put in an academic environment. --124.185.79.106 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that comment. You may "have already said" but we have no idea who YOU are. Apparently you forgot to log on. What do YOU plan to do about the Geelong Stadium/Kardinia Park problem? (Oh, and do be careful what assumptions you make about others here.) HiLo48 (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The topic isn't especially important and the argument is totally semantic, but that doesnt make it nonsense. The words people use for things can be very important. Wikipedia cant be a valid reference for much more important reasons than that. Everyone has biases, academia especially. And fail what exactly? A test of relevance? Of logic? Or of sensible tolerance? I must say I've enjoyed this inane discussion on this silly little topic immensely. Thank you all for your contributions. Mdw0 (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

What a lot of discussion on what is really a minor issue. Does this edit solve the problem? Kardinia Park isn't the first and certainly won't be the last stadium to be known by a different name for the World Cup. Also a question - Perth, Canberra and Blacktown are "new stadiums". Why do they have existing capacities listed? I understand the new Perth and Canberra stadiums are being built on the sites of existing venues, but obviously it is a grey area ... -- Chuq (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find obsessive soccer fans very difficult to have rational discussions with. It could have been a minor issue if the page had been created they way you have now set it up, or if other fanatics had been willing to accept change and stop arguing dumb positions like "no sponsor links" when that was irrelevant. Thank you. It now makes some sense. Until now, an outsider looking for information elsewhere on several of those stadiums would have found nothing, because no stadiums with such names existed. And the article DID NOT make the appropriate links. Now it does. Excellent. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What obsessives are rational? Apart from obsessive rationalists? Mdw0 (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Most of this article appears to have been directly copied from the website www.australiabid.com.au. I have changed some names of stadiums to reflect their non-sponsorship name (eg 'Geelong Stadium'--> Kardinia Park). I have also removed the capacity figures for stadiums yet to be built. RE: the debate on association football vs just 'football', the current naming convention on Wikipedia is for it to be called Association football, just as Aussie rules is called Australian football and Canadian football is called Canadian football. This is done to avoid confusion between names, especially in countries where soccer is not the dominant code (eg Australia). Bozzio (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article still reads like a marketing pamphlet, which clearly the original authors intended. For instance, why is it necessary to mention the bid partners? That's just marketing, in what whay is that important to an encyclopaedic entry? Figghiu Beddu (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? The opening paragraphs mentions dates, the stadiums in the bid are listed and described, and then there's sections about criticisms of the bid. I hope you dont try to market anything like that... Mdw0 (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Training Stadia[edit]

Does anyone know what stadiums have been selected for training purposes and what degree of investment will be going into those stadia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: moved all Kotniski (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian 2022 FIFA World Cup bid → Australia 2022 FIFA World Cup bid — Bids are made by nations (political entries), not by peoples or ethnic groups. Note that the articles Belgium–Netherlands 2018 FIFA World Cup bid, Portugal–Spain 2018 FIFA World Cup bid and United States 2022 FIFA World Cup bid are not named "Belgian–Dutch 2018 FIFA World Cup bid", "Portuguese–Spanish 2018 FIFA World Cup bid" and "American 2022 FIFA World Cup bid". Consistency with the latter three is a rationale for this request too. Theurgist (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Bids are made from countries, not from the people who inhabit them. It also avoids ambiguity when more than one country is bidding. Bozzio (talk) 08:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Agree. Per nom Mhiji (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Zealand[edit]

any talk or suggestion on having some games, be it exhibition or warm up, in New Zealand? I think they should at least give them a little bit, no matter how small.--74.60.232.185 (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because that would imply they were joint hosts and would give the NZ team automatic qualfication. Mdw0 (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
If they made it a joint bod for just one or two games in New Zealand, it really wouldn't be worth it and as Mdw0 said, it would made the whole qualification things be different. JaumeBG 11:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A joint bid Australia-New Zealand would have a lot more chances of success. It's time for having a world cup in countries like Australia, Zew Zealand (toguether) and Canada. Also why wasn't Darwin in the venue list? If matches were played in Manaus, right in the middle of the Brazilian Amazon jungle, why not Darwin, when Australia organizes a world cup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.193.10 (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme a break - how would a couple of games in NZ increase the number of votes from one up to enough to win the bid? And why not Darwin? My first guess would be that Manaus is a city of two million plus people, whereas Darwin is a large country town of less than 150,00. Any World Cup level stadium in Darwin would be a grossly extravangant forever-unfilled white elephant.Mdw0 (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devastation[edit]

I reverted an addition from an IP editor declaring that the news was met with disappointment in Australia, simply on the basis that it's hardly notable. My revert has now been reverted with a rather rude Edit summary.

Don't want an edit war. It's an IP editor, presumably upset, and wants the world to know, but that doesn't make it notable. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption[edit]

Newsweek has uncovered evidence in alleged bribe scandal regarding votes for 2022 and 2018 world cup, Newsweek has reported that it has highly placed source who confirmed that World Cup votes were rigged so as to make that there was a a fair play in voting process when Qatar and Russia won the their subsequent votes, but the truth is quite the opposite, Newsweek alleges that for instance Qatar has bribed 10 Fifa officials = with 10 million US dollar bribe each, Newsweek has also stated that it'll be publishing whole story in due course, Sepp Blatter is among Fifa officials that have been bribed, if allegations prove to be true, Septic Bladder and all other fifa officials involved in vote bribe scandal could face criminal charges and long spell in prison if found guilty. http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2010/12/14/jonathan-alter-qatar-may-have-paid-10-mil-for-each-fifa-vote/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current/proposed stadiums[edit]

Regarding this change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bid&diff=559332896&oldid=549846289 - how should the article be worded when the stadium was proposed at the time of the bid, but has since been completed? -- Chuq (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Australia 2022 FIFA World Cup bid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australia 2022 FIFA World Cup bid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two stadia for the final?[edit]

According to the table, both Melbourne Cricket Ground and Stadium Australia were planned for the final match. Is that correct? (It might not have been decided, so it's not impossible, but it seems strange.) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bid&oldid=1199196947"