Talk:Sport in Australia/Archive 1

first talk

Is there any interest in converting this into prose, or would people prefer it to stay as a list of links to other relevant articles? Ambi 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly informative the way it is now, and looks like quite a nice article, but I think gradually adding bits of prose would be a good idea. -- Chuq 03:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It should eventually be changed to prose. This would help to identify missing articles, as it is currently mostly lists of articles already in Category:Australian sport and its subcategories. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:45, 15 October 2089 (UTC)

Clarification of title

Does this article only talk about sporting events occurring in kattlandet, rather than sport involving Australians? Would this be why Australia at the Summer Olympics and Australia at the Winter Olympics aren't mentioned? If so, could this page in theory cover sporting events in Australia predominantly involving non-Australians? Andjam 03:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It does link to formula 1, motoGP, Indy 300, as well as other international events in australia. --Ballchef 04:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Cricket

... shouldn't a potted history be done for this? Same with rugby (union and league). Not much mention of AFL! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about putting a Cricket in Australia redlink on there.. If you want to expand the articles please do so --- Astrokey44 04:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'd like to, but know next to nothing about sport... I can sadly only give suggestions :-( Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

uni sport

perhaps a section mentioning the role of uni’s in promoting sport in Australia may be a good idea. AdelaideRandel 04:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

ok I started one, perhaps youd like to add to it Astrokey44 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing that's been written is problematic, but it might be better not to single out universities, and note that religious bodies, corporations, registered clubs, schools (primary and secondary, private and public) and federal, state and local governments also play a role. Andjam 03:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

OK well prehaps a section entitled 'Sport promoting organisations in Australia" or something like that

AdelaideRandel 03:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

The page is looking good. Other things that should be discussed in the context of this article include rates of sport participation and the funding of sport by commercial interests and the government of Australia.--nixie 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

One way to measure an interest in a sport may be to look at how much television coverage it gets, and how many people watch it (ie the ratings for that program). I know that watching isn't the same as doing, but at least television ratings are comparitively objective and standardised. I'd be interested in the figures for Winter Olympics coverage, to see if there has been an upward trend in interest in the Winter Olympics over the past few games. Andjam 12:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Television coverage is a fairly biased indicator, though, as it discriminates in favour of male-dominated sports such as football. Probably the best example of this is netball; there's a fair bit of reliable evidence to suggest that netball is the most played sport in the country - or at least in some states - when its television coverage is somewhere down around that of soccer. Pretending that television coverage equals interest in this case would horribly skew the statement. Ambi 14:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Would ratings be any better at gauging interest? I know that it'd be influenced by advertising and time-slot (though many Aussies stay up past their bed-time to watch soccer or the Tour de France), but ratings may be more "democratic" than coverage. Andjam 01:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It's still skewed; some sports are more viewer-friendly than others. The amount of people who *watch* netball is far fewer than those who actually play it; the reverse is true for other sports. Using coverage or ratings is only really useful for the major male-dominated sports (i.e. determining which of the football codes is more popular), although the same exception may apply for soccer as well. Ambi 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't hockey be mentioned? Both Australia men and women have had a lot of success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.143.191 (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the sections (Popular team sports) and (Popular individual sports) where removed. It said that they were removed because it was too specific and the article should focus on broader Australian sport. I think it should be put back because the article is called (Sport in Australia) not (A broad out look on sport in Australia), and the more specific a article can be to someone reading it and wanting to find out about the subject the better. And a broad out look on sport in Australia is covered with the (History of sport in Australia) section.

I also think it should be put back because most other countries have done the same thing with page on sport in their country writing in detail on the main sports played in their country.

I think the (Major sporting venues) should be put back and the name changed to(Sporting Venues).It said it was taken down because it is mentioned in (Spectatorship) but all of the venues that should be mentioned aren't, and there was relevant information in the (Major venues section) that is not mentioned in (Spectatorship). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Uniquely Australian?

I find "Trugo is a uniquely Australian sport" a little disquieting. Does anyone else think uniquely Australian gives the impression that some other sports are less Australian, or worse still, un-Australian? Or am I being paranoid? Would "Trugo is a sport unique to Australia" be better? Andjam 03:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

maybe it does a little. it seems better the way youve worded it here Astrokey44 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It'd be nice if it also mentioned that, while it is uniquely Australian, that the vast majority of Australians haven't heard of it and don't know that it exists. Ambi 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Its difficult to put that sentiment in writing without being disparaging of it, Ive made an attempt Astrokey44 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion makes some good points. Andjam, I don't quite agree with your disquiet, but I do agree that each subsequent edit has improved this sentence. Certainly, no-one could suggest in good conscience that Trugo is mainstream. Colonel Tom 10:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

See also/related links

The further info/related links are crowding up some of the sections. Shouldnt there only be the one main article link at the top of the paragraph, and then the related links be put on that page? ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

379 racecourses ???

I find this hard to believe. That's one for every 53,000 people. In the UK we have 59 racecourses for three times the population and three times the attendance (6 million). Calsicol 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Most racecourses are probably nothing more than a dirt track and a stable. Your figure of one track for every 53,000 people isn't that far fetched as most towns in Australia would have a racecourse of some description, with most towns having a population smaller than 50,000. After some Googling.Industry info --Htra0497 17:00, 8 January 2006 (AEDST)

Every country town has a track and as stated above most are puny. There would not be more than 50 tracks across the country that are noteworthy. At least 2/3 of those attendances would be in Melbourne alone. With similar population to attendance (in a relative sense) it is most interesting that Australia offers around 2.5 times the annual prize money of the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethegeo (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Netball/indoor netball

I believe that the section "indoor netball" should be titled Netball. The Commonwealth Bank Trophy, although played indoors, is played under regular netball rules and is the most popular version of the sport. Indoor netball is played with six rather than seven players and usually has netting around the court preventing the ball from leaving the court. Not all netball that is played indoors is acutally indoor netball. Soundabuser 05:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case I agree "netball" would be the preferred title -- Chuq 01:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Most popular sport??

I believe this article needs figures on sport participation levels perhaps then we can ascertain the most popular sports. Do we base it on TV ratings/sponsorship/participation??

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has figures at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/daaada81176e2f89ca256f7200833023!OpenDocument

If we look at the figures and discount predominately recreational activities rather than organised sports (such as walking,swimming,golf,cycling,tennis,etc) there are a few suprises: Netball is far and away the most popular sport in Australia with 389,400 female participants (not sure about males) followed by cricket with 340,000 and soccer with 318,000. Soundabuser 06:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Australian Government agrees with you! When the government talks about popular sports, they talk about participation in sports - not TV ratings/coverage/attendance. The ABS figures above are a bit dated. The Australian Sports Commission provides the most recent figures through their annual survey: [1] User:snewoc 12:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There's been a recent edit to the intro where someone has added AFL and League as amongst the top participated sports in Australia. As the [2]] show, the top ten sports participated in by Australians in an organised setting are (from highest participants down) golf, tennis, netball, soocer (outdoor), swimming, cricket (outdoor), lawn bowls, AFL, basketball and touch footy. Obviously it's not suitable to list all ten of these sports in the intro. I'd suggest just the first five, which would exclude AFL (and obviously league because it's not even the top 10). I don't dispute that league is an important sport in Australia - but it is only participated in by 134,000 Australians - that's nothing compared to golf, tennis, netball - all over half a million participants each. In fact, all the top 10 have at least 300k participants. So, I'd suggest that the intro focus on participation of the top 5 sports - the very next paragraphs mentions the league and AFL anyway. User:snewoc

Fair enough, but since you've decided to only add four, I've decided to remove soccer and add golf, as its more popular.

I noticed that this article refers to rugby league being "Australia's most popular sport" at least three times. The reference is a link to a NZ(!) article, but a slightly calmer and more comprehensive article can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/rugby-league-claims-viewing-win-over-afl-20091220-l7gc.html. I am not up on this editing lark, or I would edit the reference myself. Cheers,K.121.45.206.70 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Baseball

tonight ive started the Australian Baseball League page, anyone interested in contributing to this or the related Australian Baseball page please do so, ive noticed that baseball on this page only has the link to the main article still. if anyone is interested in helping out in any way please drop me a message on my talk page! cheers --Dan027 13:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Header image

Does anyone else think the womens AFL picture at the top isn't suitable? It is large, poorly framed, doesn't show the ball (so just looks like some women falling over each other), and as it isn't a mainstream sport it isn't really representative of sports in Australia in general - maybe an image of a cricket, AFL (mens) or netball game would be more suitable, or a montage? -- Chuq 23:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely be surprised if we couldn't come up with a better image for a topic this broad. I'd like to see a good image of a local game of cricket, football (any of the more distinctive codes), or netball. JPD (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what specifically in this article would require cleanup? -- Chuq 03:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

References are the main thing. I did a cleanup of the refs based on basic MOS, and added a references section, but they still need to be converted to proper citation format. --Rulesfan 07:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

AFL reserves

I removed this comment entirely, even after Grant's modification, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't think it is fairly representing the situation to refer to the leagues as though they were reserve leauges belonging to the AFL clubs, and secondly because I don't think mentioning reserve teams actually gives any relevant information in that context. If anything more than the national competition shoudl be mentioned, the state/regional leagues should be mentioned in their own right. (By the way, it's not just the Melbourne teams - the Sydney reserves play in AFL Canberra.) JPD (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it looked sort of out of place. However i think that the way the paragraph is written it sounds as though people go straight to the AFL after playing in leagues that have no connections at all to the AFL. Maybe something could go along the lines of "however all AFL clubs are linked to other clubs often called reserves" (Unsigned post December 19, 2006 by User:Krabby me.)

But not all of the AFL are linked to specific reserve clubs. The WA and SA clubs send their players to every club in the WAFL and SANFL. Brisbane (I think) do the same with the Queensland State League clubs. I don't know about SA, but both Freo and Eagles players can be assigned to any club in the WAFL. There was an experiment several years ago whereby Freo players went only to South Fremantle and Eagles players went only to Claremont but this was unpopular for obvious reasons and was scrapped after one or two seasons. Grant65 | Talk 08:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't read it as saying anything about how people get to AFL level, but the links with AFL clubs could be mentioned along with the state leagues in the last sentence if that made it clearer. JPD (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First Picture

I think a more iconic picture representing Australian sport should appear alongside the introductory paragraph. Something more globally recognisable should be the first thing readers see, rather than something regional like a local women's Aussie rules match. How about a picture from the Sydney Olympics? Or a picture of someone like Ian Thorpe, Don Bradman, Kathy Freeman or Greg Norman? What do others think?--Jeff79 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the picture is quite appropriate. It illustrates the most famous sport invented in Australia, and thus it identifies something distinctively Australian about sport. Thus, it tells the reader who may know little or nothing about the topic something new. That the competition pictured is an amateur club competition doesn't bother me either. Why does the first picture have to be of elite spectator sport?--Robert Merkel 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that it is an amateur competition is a great thing. The article is not just about elite sport. This picture may not be the best possible, but it is definitely ok, so there is no point talking about it unless someone has a specific alternative. JPD (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A Sydney Olympics shot would be great, and reasonably neutral to different sports. A picture of famous Australian sportspeople as suggested by Jeff79 - either a group, or a montage - would also be good. A picture of our Cricket World Cup or Rugby World Cup winning teams holding the Cup in the air after one of their wins would be good, as these are probably the two sports Australia has been most successful at in international competition. -- Chuq (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, many Australians dont have the same enthusiasm for AFL and it was hardly anymore invented in Australia than was the train line. I would prefer a montage of Don Bradman, Dally Messenger and Cazaly(???) showing our most famous sports, cricket, AFL and football. --144.132.216.253 15:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to have a montage there are a lot of options for football. Johnny Warren is my first thought. Harry Kewel, Mark Viduka, Tim Cahill are also excellent options. Zelko has just won a UEFA Champions League winners medal, but he does not have that high a profile in Australia. Tancred 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Those are soccer players, would soccer rate a mention in a montage in Australian sport? Apart from 1 month last year, it spends most of its time as fish and chip paper in Australia, and the Australian soccer team has never done anything really notable. What do others think? Personally I would prefer rugby football, as representated by the best player of both codes, Dally Messenger, and Australian football, as represented by whoever AFLers think is most prominent, with Don Bradman being the obvious choice for cricket. --144.132.216.253 09:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual your anti-football bias once again comes up. Football has been played in Australia for many more years than Rugby League has been around. For a sport with participation rates that dwarf Rugby League, with a national interest that continues to climb while the national interest in Rugby league continues to fall (according to Sweeney ), yes I am sure that football does rate a "mention". You're quick to put the boot in to the national side, but I do realise with your rather insular view of sport, trying to explain just what the Australian National Football team has achived would be rather pointless. Instead I would ask you, just what has the Australian Rugby League National Team achived? Your "World Cup" is an unknown event in most of the world, and even for many (perhaps most?) Australians the event is treated as the joke that it is. Perhaps for the next "World Cup" you could find some Brazilians living in Sydney and they could enter as Brazil. It seemed to work so well for Italy, Malta, Portugal etc etc etc. Then again I'm sure most people when hearing about Rugby League probably feel it's a competition in which Rugby is played so it's no wonder the event has such a high profile. BTW it's interesting you suggest Dally Messenger should be included. A quick poll of the Aussies at work confirmed that 7 out of 8 of us had no idea who he is. The 8th knew he had (and I quote) "somthing to do with League, but I have no idea what" It sums up Rubgy League rather well doesn't it.Tancred 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There are just some comments that you cannot let go. This is one of them. Dally Messenger is recognised as one of Australia's great athletes like Don Brandman is. [3]. No opinion from myself on the proposed picture. --Grooveyyoutuber 07:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be joking! You respond to the claim that 7 out of 8 people in one workplace don't know Messenger is by quoting a NSWRU official! It's simple - people who know rugby league/union history would recognise him as a great, but many don't. So it's a bit different to Don Bradman. Anyway, the picture issue seems to have been settled quite well. JPD (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"just what has the Australian Rugby League National Team achived?" Precisely what the Australian Cricket team has achieved: complete global domination of thier sport (but for a much longer period). The level of success that Australians are accustomed to and can be proud of. None of this coming 5th or 6th business. What an absurd question. I think it's clear who has the "rather insular view of sport". Wake up to yourself.--Jeff79 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about Image:Australian World Cup treble.jpg since Australia dominated it for the last 12 years and it's the national sport.--THUGCHILDz 14:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The quality of that pic isn't great. Apart from that, I would prefer an image of non-professional sport, but looks like noone else agrees. JPD (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer athletes. --144.132.216.253 06:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If we have famous sports people, there will be too many arguments about who is included. I agree with JPD, amateur sport is better. I also agree with Chuq that a montage is the best solution in these cases. Grant | Talk 03:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a can of worms I've opened up here. Surely a Sydney Olympics picture would draw the fewest complaints. Thorpe and Freeman are athelets all Aussies would get behind. And the Sydney Olympics is probably the single greatest example of Sport in Australia being in the global spotlight. Perfect for the introductory image.--Jeff79 07:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

AFL team/franchises

I know that it is a small detail, but I think it is significant enough for this page to mention with the least pov that Melbourne clubs were moved interstate to keep their franchises being one of the reasons that AFL is becoming more popular in the footy states of NSW and QLD, as I think that it is significant for sport in Australia. --144.132.216.253 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The article already states that the presence of teams in Sydney and Brisbane are a significant part of the reason popularity is growing. Calling them franchises is questionable, and at the very least not common, and definitely completely irrelevant. Should we describe them as exported? Brisbane is the result of a merger, not simply a club moving interstate, and in either case, I don't think the fact that the clubs have origins in Melbourne has contributed to their popularity in the northern states - it just the fact that the teams are now there. In other words, the article says it all already quite neatly. JPD (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the point I think that needs mentioning is that top notch Melbourne teams were exported to the football states that helped increase their popularity. --144.132.216.253 15:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's simply not true. The Swans were hardly top notch when they were "exported", and the Lions are not an export - they are a merger of team created in Brisbane (the Bears) and Fitzroy, who at the time were as bottom notch as you could get in the AFL, and were virtually swallowed by the newly successful Bears. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. JPD (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They were top notch compared to what was going around in Sydney at the time. "as bottom notch as you could get in the AFL", the key words there being in the AFL. --144.132.216.253 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, all I am suggesting is a simple 7 word sentence noting that those teams have been "exported", "moved", whatever everyone agrees is non-pov. I think it is relevant to sport in Australia. --144.132.216.253 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the key words are "in the AFL", and that key meaning is already in the article. For the third time, the two teams were not both exported, moved, or anything similar. The Brisbane Bears began in Brisbane. It would be fair to say that top-notch teams appeared in those cities as a result of external influences, rather than forces within the cities themselves, but I thought the paragraph already made it reasonably clear that it was the success of the clubs driving the growth of the code, rather than vice versa. Hopefully it is clearer now, anyway. JPD (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

rugby league football

a sockfarm continues inserting 'rugby league football' when 'rugby league' does the job just fine. the latest incidence cites the 'manual of style'. it happens to the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league MOS Naming Conventions, and the edit that inserted that text was made (surprise surprise) by a permanently banned sockpuppet User:Rugby_666 - see here.

as such, I'm showing zero tolerance. Dibo ^{T | C} 06:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Showing zero tolerance because they are banned sockpuppets is fair enough, but in any other circumstance, it would be an extremely lame edit war. Either version is fine. JPD (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear example of regional nationalism, as the ip in question that keep reverting, 203.94.135.134, is from Melbourne, and the other two, User:Dibo and User:Tancred have a well known anti-rugby league football bias and are trying to prove a point by reverting these edits that have been in place for a while now. I am just thinking about the overall quality of wikipedia here. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to think about the overall quality of wikipedia perhaps you could stop changing user names every 4th edit.Tancred 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was reverting this individual, but only for article consistency with the titles of other rugby league articles. And yes again, I am from Melbourne, but my reasons have nothing to do with regional bias. I don't see any need for the section heading on rugby league in this article to be called Rugby League football, as there is no ambiguity. The first line introduces the code as "Rugby league (also known informally as league, football or footy) is ...", now I would have thought that this was enough.
What I can gather from the rugby league MOS is that rugby league is the preferred terminology. These edits Elvisandhismagicpelvis talks about being "in place for a while now", were only there for a month, starting in May 2007, but before May 2007 it seems that it has always been rugby league. And we are ALL thinking of article quality in Wikipedia. --203.94.135.134 00:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I changed it back. My accusation of regional nationalalism was probably assuming bad faith, for which I apologise. However if there is "Australian Rules Football" because it adds clarity, there should also be "Rugby league football" to help with clarity. The preferred terminology from my reading was anything that was concise and unambiguous which could include, "rugby","rugby football", "rugby league", "league", "league football" etc. depending on context. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 07:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Australian Rules Football is called that, because that is what it is called on its article page, while rugby league is called just that on its article page NOT rugby league football, and football (soccer) is called that on its article page NOT association football. Adding "football" does not add any clarity to the heading, it just becomes cumbersome. From what I understand you are going against concensus for the page.
What you or I can do though is add football to the intro, so it reads "Rugby league football (also known informally as league, football or footy) is ...", instead of to the heading. --203.94.135.134 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Rugby league football is redirected to rugby league, and you will notice that the first sentence of the page in bold says rugby league football, which is its name. I am not going against any consensus that I know of. When articles about Australian sport talk about the football codes, they need clarity and concisity. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, you are going against concensus. Yes, I have noticed, but even you have said that "Rugby league football is redirected to rugby league," which is its correct title and hense should be here too, before reverting have a look at my changes. Wrt clarity and consistency, that is what I'm attempting to do, but you are not doing that at all. --203.94.135.134 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not going against consensus. You are by changing it, and your only argument being a rather blind one that does not respect that in certain contexts the name of a football code may change! Your ip is from Melbourne and you are pushing an obvious POV here. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Rugby league is the name of the article, as it is what most people know it as. Regional bias has nothing to do with it - if the Australian rules football article was known as Australian rules and had been, non-controversially, for pretty much Wikipedia's entire existence, then you would have a point. But it doesn't. -- Chuq (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually in NSW, Australian Rules Football is known as Aussie Rules. Different contexts, different names. Regional bias has everything to do with it. In Victoria, they call Aussie Rules as football, in NSW they call rugby league and for the record the name of the sport has uncontroversially been rugby football for the entire existence of wikipedia too. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess what? It gets called Aussie Rules in lots of places, not just NSW, it's just not the standard name used in Wikipedia. Rugby football is much broader than rugby league. Anyone who objects to the phrase "rugby league football" in its own right is obviously being unjustifiably petty, but not as petty as objecting to the universally accepted, simpler term "rugby league". Find something worthwhile to do. JPD (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's Rugby League. Please do everyone a favour and get over it.Tancred 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I obviously dont agree so in this context. Football in its many varieties has a special place on the Australian cultural scene. I would not object to it being presented as rugby football with the sub headings rugby league and rugby union but to not place in its heading a clearly defined reference to its status as football is gross POV and distorts the nature of code to a wider viewing public and thus diminishes wikipedia. A person reading the article may know of references to Australian football codes, but upon looking for information in the article, may believe that they refer to soccer and rules exclusively, which is not the case. As well as the fact that rugby league is known as football in NSW and QLD, to leave the reference of football out of the headings represents a gross amount of POV. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 03:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's "status as football", whatever that means, is not particularly relevant to this article. Putting league and union under one heading can be appropriate when talkign about the history of the codes, but is hardly appropriate when talking about the different sports played in Australia today. At any rate, headings are not the place to communicate these sort of things. The section makes it very clear that league is a type of football and is known as football. The intro to the article mentions the fact that there are four strong codes of football in Australia. All this sort of thing is quite clear in appropriate contexts such as football and football in Australia. If this article really needs anything more, it would be nothing more than making clear in the intro which are the four football codes. This isn't a question of POV - the whole war is incredibly lame. JPD (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do they use the term football(soocer) in the sport in England page. Of cause not, because for different contexts, there are different names for the title are appropriate. I didnt even change this in the first place. I have been willing to compromise here, but others are unwilling to meet me, and most of those others prefer AFL or soccer, what is one supposed to believe when there is an absurd change in the first place? --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 05:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are the same person who made the original edit. You are the same person who has been making similar POV edits and I've personally knocked off a number of your sockpuppets through the SSP or RFCU processes. You know this, and it was essentially acknowledged above when you wrote (in only your 7th post under this identity) "the other two, User:Dibo and User:Tancred have a well known anti-rugby league football bias" - something which would be very sus in any novice editor (on what would the opinion be based in so little time) but rings major alarm bells when it's an edit following on from a known sockpuppeteer. I totally accept the pettiness of the reverts, but there is simply no need for it, and I don't have any desire to give succour to a sockpuppeteer on a POV pushing crusade. Dibo ^{T | C} 06:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Dibo, one has only got to go to your talk page[4] to realise you have been pushing this barrel for far longer than I have been involved on wikipedia. You are the one that followed my edits remember, and it is clear that you have done it before with the aid of Tancred. You need to assume good faith. I am sure that there are means by which you can make formal accusations of sockpuppetry and have them tried, but placing accusations on a talk page as a reason for an edit dispute is the petty thing here. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't be arsed, having done it before [5] [6] [7] [8], not to mention the prior cases against licinius and nswelshman that i had nothing to do with but which resulted in bans, and yet here you are... that's why i can't be arsed putting another case up. but i do want you to stop vandalising WP. Dibo ^{T | C} 07:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dibo in this. This user has been around for a very long time pushing a POV on wikipedia. He/She also loves to create single use accounts. See Metternech (talk · contribs) Senibleconext (talk · contribs) Moretimefor (talk · contribs) Serendipitouscontributor (talk · contribs) Grooveyyoutuber (talk · contribs) Tosserandmasterdebater (talk · contribs) Elvisandhismagicpelvis (talk · contribs) Russellthelovemussell (talk · contribs) Krabby me (talk · contribs)

Even if the latest account is banned, the user will be back in a week or 2 with another large sock farm. Tancred 09:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is just blatant hate. I see nothing that could even be interpreted as linking any of those users with me, let alone each other, and this is why I cant treat the so called "consensus" against the change seriously. Of cause others users may, so if they be wish, they can take it up to a higher place. All this seems to prove is that Dibo perhaps needs a wikibreak until he/she/ gets their senses back. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 09:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

it's not hate. it's exasperation. if you were to just add to and improve rl articles as you have done for large numbers of your edits, i would be perfectly happy. what makes me unhappy is you periodically becoming bored with simply editing and instead choosing to start wars with other editors. i see the wars coming up because you come back to the same pages - sport in australia and football (word) amongst them. i'm not alone in wanting you to stop, as you should plainly see from the number of people who you get into wars with compared to the number of supporters you have (that aren't your own alaises). so maybe it's *you* that needs to give it a rest.

but given your constant re-offending and your wilfil disregard for the rules in spite of being made aware of them over and over and over again, imho you should be banned indefinitely, with your isp notified and the site simply blocked. but then you'd probably re-offend at uni or whatever... hence my exasperation. Dibo ^{T | C} 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Hatred" is also used to describe feelings of prejudice, bigotry or condemnation (see shunning) against a class of people and members of that class. from hate. I have no link in common with any of those editors, I even ask you to do an ip check, and you say you cant be arsed, but you can be arsed to disrupt an edit dispute with no evidence and making accusations. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not 'disrupting an edit dispute' (as if there were such a thing), i'm reverting your disruptive edits. and as i've explained, i can't be arsed taking it through the processes because you'll simply be back in a week or so (in spite of a number of your other SP accounts having indefinite blocks) so it's not worth the effort. you know this as well as i do, which is why you don't care if i get this account blocked - you know you'll be back soon enough and nothing will stop you. Dibo ^{T | C} 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dibo and Tancred here. Elvisandhismagicpelvis, you are not fooling anyone, so why bother? -- Chuq (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) to Association Football

Hi, Re: Talk:Association_football This page has a consensus on it to move the 'Football (soccer)' article to 'Association football' and hence the name change of headings is required as well. This is because the official name of the sport on Wikipedia is now Association football (note the lowercase f)

Is it now possible to revert to Association football or Association football (soccer)? Im fine with both headings. InsteadOf (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest: For introductions of articles not about association football: soccer For introductions of articles about association football: association football For headings in articles about association football: football For headings in articles including other sports: association football (soccer) For text underneath association football headings: association football and football thereafter For article names: association football

That is about all possibilities i think. InsteadOf (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the significance of the lowercase f, I don't believe anyone has been pushing for the term "Association Football" in the past? Yes, renaming to association football sounds reasonable here, seeing as that is now the standard Wikipedia term. However the other suggestions you mention seem to unnecessarily complicate things - how about just calling it "association football", and if that is the only code discussed in the article/section, call it football thereafter. That's the same as all other codes and it seems to work fine for them. -- Chuq (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the little f is just a way to make themselves feel better about the "agreement" as according to some the other "football codes" are global. --203.206.65.176 (talk) 14:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. That sounds good. To change article titles ill start with the major ones, and then go to the smaller ones. InsteadOf (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I can reluctantly accept articles being moved to titles such as "Association football in Australia". However: soccer is the common name in Australian English and as such it should be highlighted in the first sentence of articles relating to the game in Australia. We should certainly not be excising all references to the word soccer, which is what has been happening. Grant | Talk 12:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

..and (yes this old chestnut) there is more than one common name for it - each one may be more or less common depending on who you talk to, so it may not be common to *you* - but it should be mentioned. -- Chuq (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. As I say, I am simply opposed to the excision of all references to soccer in the introductory paragraphs of articles about that code of football in Australia. Grant | Talk 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up

Ive read through a couple of sports on this page, and a lot of them go on about how the governing body was formed, and when the world cups were started and what the best ever team was nicknamed...all stuff that i think doesnt really have a place in this article. People can get more information by clicking "{this sport} in Australia". Ive cleaned up the Australian Football paragraph, although it could do with a bit more editing. And i have deleted alot of stuff from the rugby league article. Im planning to go through most of the sports and try to write them a bit better. I quite like how the soccer section is written, and that is a standard we should aim for at the moment. Im particularly looking for somebody to clean up the union and league sections, as i can handle the rest i think. InsteadOf (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help or information for the Baseball and Softball sections feel free to contact me. --Dan027 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Logic Error in First Sentence.

I don't think this is right.

"Sport in Australia is not very popular or widespread. Levels of both participation and spectating are much lower than in many other countries[citation needed]. Testament to this is the level of achievement in the Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games as well as other international sporting events in comparison to the population of the country.... Etc"

I believe the first sentence should state the opposite to what it currently does. Are there citations supporting that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbsy00 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alpha order of sports listed

This is just ridiculous. Every few weeks/months, someone comes along and alters 'Soccer' (the name by which the sport is known in Australia) to 'Association Football' presumably to make it first on the list. Then - although Athletics is the official name of Athletics (Track and Field) in Australia and the world (US excepted) - someone changes the heading to Track & Field (athletics) presumably so Association Football or AFL are number one on the list. How about we just keep it totally alphabetical in the OFFICIAL AUSTRALIAN NAME for the sports concerned????

Sheesh....--Mongrel Punt (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

ie: to further clarify:

we should use HOCKEY not FIELD HOCKEY we should use ICE HOCKEY not HOCKEY we should use SOCCER not ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL we should use ATHLETICS not TRACK & FIELD we should use AUSTRALIAN RULES not AFL

and if we use FOOTBALL as an official name, the listing should be:

FOOTBALL (Australian Rules) FOOTBALL (Rugby League) FOOTBALL (Rugby Union) FOOTBALL (Soccer) --Mongrel Punt (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reverted whoever changed that. Soccer will remain the conmmon name in the foreseeable future and the rule is WP:UCN.

However Mongrel, please note that Wikipedia uses lower case for names unless the name contains a proper name, e.g. "Australian rules football". Grant | Talk 09:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - have re-ordered some other listings to reflect alpha orderMongrel Punt (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Every few weeks, someone goes and changes it to "Association football", because that is what the article is called - see Association football and Association football in Australia. This has been discussed ad nauseam for years. I appreciate you are new and may not know about this but please don't accuse people of something as petty as renaming sections just to raise their order in the list. -- Chuq (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

use the names that the sports ruling bodies use. Australian Rules Football, Football, Rugby League, and Rugby Union. If you think people are too stupid to work it out then put Football(soccer). But soccer is called football in most parts of the world and that football its its official name so not calling it football is just dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.32.22 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope you realise that you've revived a fairly old thread. (No criticism intend.) And I suggest that you look at Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Barassi Line image

Is this really accurate enough to be using? It certainly should not be portrayed as solid fact. You certainly can't draw a straight line down Australia neatly dividing "rugby states" from "AFL states", if you could do it at all the line would be curved.GordyB (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This Barassi Line image has no place on an article on Sport in Australia. As per the article it's "Imaginary", "Fictional", made up by a Professor in a 1978 lecture and mentioned in a 1983 book. The article about it is entirely unclear whether the line divides where the codes are " most important" ,"most popular", "main code played". The 1st two distinctions can't be proved and are POV . The 3rd could have a proof cited but the article doesn't and if fact doesn't cite any reference that's convincing. Leave the "fictional" drawing where it belongs on a quaint article about a "imaginary" concept.-Sticks66 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hockey

Australia's most successful team sport in Olympic Games , current paticipation around 140000 , needs to be inserted in the major sports area , can't believe there'ss nothing here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.31.133 (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Athletcs

Why was this section deleted? --14:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Franchises?

The article tells us "Professional sport leagues in Australia use a model based on franchises and closed league membership, as is standard in North America."

I don't that can be said to be universally true for the AFL. Perhaps it's the model that applies to Brisbane and Sydney (I note a discussion above on this), but surely not to the established Victorian clubs like Melbourne, Geelong, Collingwood, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. They are membership-based clubs, independent (both in ownership and operation) from the League itself. Foundation clubs are automatically part of the AFL. In most instances clubs that joined later already existed, and were simply granted licences to join the League, and licence is the term used officially and unofficially. The exceptions are the handful of clubs established especially to be part of the AFL (Brisbane Bears, Gold Coast Suns and GWS...can't think of any others). Either way though, franchise is not the correct term. I would also like to know what is actually meant by "closed membership", because if it means what I suspect it means (ie if it means what it means under any other circumstances) then it is definitely incorrect in relation to AFL. The article just doesn't seem to recognise that there are more than two ways to organise a sports league. Cheers,K121.45.205.199 (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Major sports leagues of Australia

I like to read a australian edition of Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada with easy to read and comparable data of

--Feroang (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Rugby League TV ratings doubtful

This article is about Australia. The source for the claim that Rugby League "in 2009 had the highest aggregate television ratings of any sport" is TVNZ, obviously in New Zealand. I'm guessing that they televise League games in NZ. Do the claimed aggregate viewers figures, from a New Zealand source, exclude viewers in NZ? It would seem unlikely. In which case the claim doesn't belong in an article called Sport in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Did the article's title slip past you?--Jeff79 (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You DO write cryptically, don't you? HiLo48 (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. The article that sourced the claim.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Can you please discuss mine? HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything regarding recent ratings from governments sources. ScreenAustralia has data from 1999 to 2009, and it isn't show the NRL Finals at that high as the AFL, with about two million viewers difference. --LauraHale (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Still looking for sources. Could some one go through this source? --LauraHale (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Just another AFL fan is getting annoyed that reliable, published sources aren't saying what suits them.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You really cannot discuss what is said, can you? Personal attacks, both here, and in your Edit summary on the article page, are not helpful. Please read my first post here again, carefully, and respond to the words I have posted, not what you think I am trying to achieve. Oh, and BTW, you have just broken the three revert rule. I think it's because you haven't actually read the actual words in my actual Edit summary. Do try harder and I may not report you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeff, I don't have a preference either way. If I was looking to pick a side, I'd be arguing Gridiron's NFL Superbowl was more highly rated than both. :) The source says Australia so not going to belabour the point, other than to say ratings can only be used to say that the NRL has higher ratings than the AFL. It does nothing to support claims of relative popularity of either league or sport. --LauraHale (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Referring to someone as an AFL fan is a personal attack now? I think you're being a bit hard on yourselves. Well, I couldn't believe it at first and thought if I waited you'd figure it out, but it seems you really do need me to type all this out for you: Your carefully-written first post here seems to centre entirely around how likely or unlikely it is that the TVNZ article is about Australian and New Zealand television viewing figures combined, rather than Australian television viewing figures alone. Let's take a look shall we? The article's title (which I tried drawing your attention to) is "League becomes Australia's top sport". The article's first line reads, "Rugby League has overtaken Australian Rules Football as the most popular sporting code in Australia." It goes on to say, "For the first time ever, league has outrated AFL according to official numbers around the country." No plurals there. Still confused? You like to say in your edit summaries that the Australian source puts AFL ahead. Let's see. ...the same report revealed that the NRL outpaced the AFL in cumulative audience across the entire season by more than 9 million viewers. "Overall, the NRL delivered a total cumulative audience of 120.6 million across all coverage compared to the 111.1 million for the AFL," the report said. I don't know whether you're being unintentionally ignorant. I thought it was too obvious to be possible, so my apologies if you are.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You really are a rude person, aren't you? HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To respond directly to your question - the TVNZ story had picked up what they had thought was suprisings that Rugby League was outrating AFL on television in Australia. It was widely reported in the Australian press at the time, so I have no problem the source being New Zealand based as it was a story they had recycled from Australian sources about Australian content. There is no reason why we could not use an Albanian newspaper as a source if it was reporting the Australian ratings rather than Albanian ratings. So I struggle to see what the problem is apartment from at best a touch of jingoism, but that is an interpretation so if that is not that case then apology in advance. --Falcadore (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If it was recycled from Australian sources, then where are they? HiLo48 (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Australian Newscorp and Fairfax newspapers. --Falcadore (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

After such a meaningless, post, I was leaving it to others to respond, but nobody has, so again, where are these Australian sources? (No smartarse answers please) HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sports media section seems designed to prove Rugby League is the best code

The section is full of cherry picked claims "proving" that League is more successful on TV (mostly pay TV it seems) than the AFL. Each of those claims could be countered with another perspective (just look at the masses of extra information in the sources, the money paid for AFL rights, and find out why VFL finals weren't televised back in the 1960), but I don't want to do that. In a way, League and the AFL don't even compete that much. They each have a separate primary audience, either side of the Barassi line. In fact, that geographic divide should probably be mentioned in the article. League ratings are pretty crap in Adelaide. AFL is hardly booming in Sydney. The dramatic claims are an ugly feature of the article.

We should avoid comparisons. Show some figures that give an indication of the popularity of a sport, but stop the silly competition between sports. They're ALL good.

Oh, and I still have issues with that weird NZ source for Australian ratings. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You really need to learn how to assume good faith. I've added information of relevance to the article, complete with references. If you'd like to "counter" these "points" that you're imagining, be my guest. You see, I've actually read and edit by WP:VERIFIABILITY.--Jeff79 (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

{{WP:SOFIXIT}} It isn't designed that way. Rather, that's what sources are available. It would be perfectly reasonable to put into the section the $$$ value of deals signed by both the AFL and NRL. It would also be perfectly reasonable to put in AFL related ratings information. The sources are out there. If you have a problem with the wording that says "The NRL is higher rated", remove the wording, add the AFL in and just have the raw numbers. Again, {{WP:SOFIXIT}}. --LauraHale (talk) 07:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole article is disgustingly bias to NRL. In no way can in be considered the most popular sport or code in Australia. It loses out by attendance, tv ratings and participation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethegeo (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sports media section recentism?

The current sports media section seem to suffer from a problem of undue weight to recent events. It covers a subject ongoing since 1876 (for 130+ years) and then suddenly we have a screen full of last week's TV ratings data. I'd say, delete the whole table. I did not (yet) because there may be something there worth keeping, though I think it will look outdated fast. - Nabla (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC) PS: talking about undue weight to recent event and related problems: «The current anti-siphoning list came into effect in 2006 and expires 31 December 2010» need updating. - Nabla (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The article has recently been ground up re-written, so of course there will be a recentism slant. That table is a little... selective, and it seems to do little but perpetuate ongoing AFL/NRL fued amongst some editors which is doing little for the article as a whole. While a variation of this could usefully serve a purpose its a bit over-detailed. --Falcadore (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of the tables is unclear. They seem to show a very randomly selected set of events. I think we need to come to some agreement as to what numbers are worth showing. And there is clearly an effort to prove that Rugby League is better than Aussie Rules. Such comparisons are actually quite silly. They have primary audiences in different places, either side of the Barassi Line, and which in League's case also includes New Zealand. They do not directly compete for audience share, so comparisons prove little. I wish we could avoid them completely. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I find the purpose of the table to be completely clear, and it may actually serve a useful purpose, but not in its present form which seems to exclude anything other than the AFL/NRL debate. Your focus on any potential New Zealand TV ratings for Rugby League is just contributing to the AFL/NRL argument, Super Rughy would get reasonable numbers in South Africa as well as New Zealand, but if you move on to actual high rating events, the Australian Tennis Open has overseas ratings that would make the football argument embarrassing and the highest rating telecast, by a large margin would be the Australian Grand Prix, so please if you could pull back your focus a touch to be inclusive of all sports it would be appreciated. --Falcadore (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed the recent overhaul of the article, and I liked it a lot (see my previous comment, above :-) That is why this table kind of saddened me. It raises last week ratings to encyclopaedic value for no good reasons except being the latest (but that will be outdated soon...) Apparently they are also partial in respect to sports. So a table about a random period in time and a subset of sports has little value in here. Maybe there are some data on ratings for the most viewed events over time?... - Nabla (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Falcadore - yes, I've been sucked into the NRL/AFL debate, and I agree it's not helpful. Hence my comment about the reality that the sports don't really compete all that much because of geographic factors. It would be better to avoid all comparisons between them. Claims of aggregate TV audience are there precisely to compare, and gloat. They should go. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The entire page is just a complete mess compared to what it was 2 or 3 years ago. It's almost unreadable as a supposed top-level page about Australian sport. Sports media is MUCH too heavily represented on this page (which should be an overview linking to more detailed pages for each individual Australian sporting topic). And people seem to be inserting very minor sports (with non-existent child wiki pages) such as 'Wheelchair Basketball Leagues' into the category of professional sports, while other sports with long histories (eg athletics and baseball) are grouped as supposedly 'amateur sports'. On a top-level page like this, do we really need the nick-name for the Australian U17 women's ultimate frisbee team to be listed for God's sake?? Perhaps it's time that this page (like some others in wiki) was locked to editing by anybody who feels like big-noting their minor sport or entering into pissing contests with other codes/sports.Mongrel Punt (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It should perhaps be remembered that the title of this page is Sport in Australia, not Assembled Summaries of Individual Sports in Australia. This page should lokk over all sports collectively not summarise the contributions of some sports in their own paragraphs. Monopoly in Australia and Stairclimb Racing in Australia can do the job of summarising their sports in their own article leads.

This article two or three years ago was very poor in actually addressing the topic so Mongrel Punt I would suggest your are missing the point and hold an incorrect view of what the article subject is. --Falcadore (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Roar's "longest unbeaten run". Not a valid claim

It's silly comparing an unbeaten run in soccer, where draws are common, with an unbeaten run in any other football code, where draws are rare. I don't care what sources might say, it's like comparing the biggest orange with the biggest apple. A valid comparison would be strings of wins. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's silly in your opinion. However it has been run in every major news outlet in Australia in the last month. That noteworthiness trumps your opinion. --Falcadore (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Silly or not - I think it is, and I also think comparing wins has no relevence for the exact same reason HiLo48 presented, and there is no need for us to republish every silly thing some newspapper publishes. Well, silly or not... Does it even matter? Should the main article abut sport in xxx include such (minor) stats? I doubt it. - Nabla (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree, but I don't think it's grounds for removal, it's undeniably notable. It has been very widely reported so it isn't a small thing. It could be better written. Wouldn't look so bad if we could whip the rest of the article into shape.

And besides, almost all sports statistics are weighted in some form or another. Even within some sports. In Rugby League for example the claim can be made that South Sydeny is the most successfull club with 20 premierships but is a 100+ year old club, but Brisbane has won six in just 22 years. That's apples and oranges. --Falcadore (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, including this is a nonsense. Being widely reported is irrelevant. We are better than tabloid sports outlets. And think about it, would we include this claim for a team that had drawn all those matches and hadn't actually won any? It would still be true. HiLo48 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not nonsense. It is noteworthy. Wikipedia is driven by the word noteworthy. Haven't you understood that? --Falcadore (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on the matter of draws. (And the other points I have made.) (PS:Rugby League stories don't help.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I did. Re-read. Or do I have to type it twice? --Falcadore (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem so. None of your posts mention the word draw, and it's the critical factor here. In very other sport I can think of, to have an unbeaten record one must win (almost) every game. In soccer, a team could draw every game, winning none at all, and remain unbeaten. That's why it's an inappropriate comparison. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

For you. Almost all sports statistics are weighted in some form or another. If it makes it easier, I'll alter it with unfairly weighted. --Falcadore (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss the point I have made about draws in soccer. Please don't talk about other sports. That really makes it read as if you don't have a response to my point. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I

just

did. --Falcadore (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's be blunt here. You have not yet made a post containing the word draw, the major issue here. Given that you cannot/will not discuss this matter, I will remove the material. HiLo48 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to your opinion, the technicalities of scoring mechanisms are not the primary point. You don't like the statistic, that is not exactly hard to see. Almost all sports statistics are unfairly weighted so your obsession with mechanics of points is not the primary issue. To suggest that I cannot refer to other sports is ridiculous as the entire point is comparing different sports. However the majority of stats even when compared within the same sport are laregly unfairly weighted though too. So unless you are suggesting all sports statistics comparisons of all kinds (for example list of List of Test cricket records#Centuries is unfairly weighted towards modern players as Test cricket is played with much greater frequency). The point is, the statistics more than meets notability requirements. --Falcadore (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The statistic itself is NOT the point. Counting draws, or not, or how, is not the point. Not as I see it. Undue weight is the point. Even if the statistic is WP-notable (and one burst in the news does not prove, nor disprove, it) does it not belong in a article about (all of) sport, since ever, at Australia? I quite doubt it. I tis, OTOH, most likely to be included somewhere in a article about football(s) in Australia, or so. - Nabla (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Participation

Yet again on this page an NRL person trying to propagate the sport has put false facts in the participation section. Where AFL says ~632,000 (which means registered players) the NRL writes 1,500,000. After checking the reference the 1,500,000 refers to a Primary and Secondary school program where students are given a sport lesson in the game. The same article actually mentions registered players which should be the number presented as is with AFL. It has no basis for being up. If that is the case then soccer should have 10,000,000 because every student will play a game during a PE lesson. The correct figure is in the same report as I think 132,000 which correctly signifies the sports participation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethegeo (talk • contribs) 11:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a shame that editors think they can somehow promote their game by lying here. Feel free to correct it. HiLo48 (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Radical article reorganisation

Given the long size of the article and the contentiousness of certain parts of the article because of comparisons to other sports in individual sport sections and in the lead, I'd like to suggest a potential radical rewrite. Remove the individual sport sections. Have the following sections instead:

• History
• Participation
• Professional sport
• Amateur sport
• Sport media
• International competitions
• National teams
• Women's sport
• Disabled sport

Where sports on this article have a section but not an article, new pages can be created. --LauraHale (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - At first glance, that looks attractive, but I'm wondering if it would end up with sections on all the individual sports eventually, thus leading back to its current condition? Looking at other "Sports in..." articles for other countries, it appears they all have major sections on each of the primary sports, so the proposed outline is certainly unorthodox. Is there any other "Sports in..." article that has an organization similar to this proposal? Maybe this RfC would be better off focusing on the "contentious" issues you refer to. What exactly is the problem? Is there some rivalry over the amount of spaced devoted to various sports? Maybe it would best to address that first. --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's obvious that fans of some sports (rugby league is the most recent but certainly not the only example) have used this article to promote their sports, finding creative ways at times to "prove" that their sport is the best. That, to me, is contentious, and a big problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'd suggest that the RfC statement (at the top of this RfC section) be amended to ask "What guidelines should be adopted for this article to ensure that specific sports do not have an excessive amount of representation"? Or something like that. If rugby is the current top offender, then that sport could be named as an example, so that specifics could be considered. I don't think that a drastic overhaul of the article structure is a good solution to this problem, because it would then be inconsistent with every other similar article. --Noleander (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating. I like it. --Falcadore (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Be WP:BOLD and do it - then see if someone objects. If they do, figure out what the objection is. As it stands, the proposal makes sense. Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing. If this turns out to be non-consensus, I apologise. I tried to keep as many citations as possible, make the article much more general… but it could still use some help to be written in summary style. Really, really hard to do on an article with the huge scope of this topic. (I've got about 5 books on this subject, and they are all 200+ pages each.) It may need more daughters and that information on the previous version created into daughters. A lot of it had sourcing problems though. Hopefully this version is better sourced. --LauraHale (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Great job. I'll see what I can do to help. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Still needs a fair amount of work and I felt guilty whacking out large sections about sports… but no sources. The participation rates, spectator totals and television viewing numbers should better allow comparisons between sports and side by side discussion of those things in the article. The lead should now reflect the article, and be easier to patrol in terms of people making edits to it related to the AFL/NRL. I've tried to be as balanced as I could in regards to adding NRL/AFL information in the rewrite. Both are highly popular and it makes sense to give them a fair amount of coverage. The Olympics, in a broad general sense, could probably use more coverage with out getting into the specific details for each sport. The see alsos at the top of each section probably need a good revisit. But yeah, goal is broad general coverage of Australian sport was the goal, with examples that represent sport. (There should probably be a cricket film and Strictly Ballroom should probably be mentioned.) *babbles* --LauraHale (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bodyline TV series springs to mind, Gary Sweet as Bradman and Hugo Weaving as Jardine. --Falcadore (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can I ask if there's any need for a Sport Media section? I don't see how it is particularly relevant to the article and it's certainly bordering on WP:UNDUE, due to the arguments above and below it has has expanded to keep everyone happy. I've looked at other sporting articles, and whilst they're all cumbersome, I've seen nothing of the sort in those articles. I'd personally suggest culling the entire section. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing it would be a positive move. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the articles I've seen are unwieldy and not very summary size. You can't do summary style on a sport by sport basis as you mostly need to hit the high points. I'd argue that you can't understand Australian sport with out understanding the sport media, as they drive many sport stories and dictate what sports get attention. The easiest course of action would be to put the text into a daughter article, summarise and source that, and then put the lead for the daughter article back into this one. That said, some of this information could be moved over to the professional sports section and moved into history sections as another way of dealing with it. --10:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Right. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. By the way, what is the bath water exactly? 'The arguments above and below' that Worm mentions have been proven to be total non-issues.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I could understand pulling it out to a daughter article, the information is encyclopedic, I'm just not certain it should be on the sports page. I agree that the media does influence what sport is popular but I am not persuaded that it should be mentioned when summarising sport in a country - it seems a little too tangential. I agree that the comments above and below have turned out to be non-issues, but they have indirectly increased the size of the section despite my thoughts that it's all irrelevant to the topic at hand. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Coming in (lçate..) from RfC, but well, I have to say it: great job! And if this makes Sport in Australia different from the stanard of Sport in XXX (and apparently it does, from a small sample I took), then it is the other articles that could learn from here (jnstead of being a list of spots in XXX). Very nice! - Nabla (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the information that was added that (England is Australia's mother country) is not true and the sources given are not reliable. One source that the Commonwealth Games committee stated it that statement meant was meant in Jjst, and the other two sources are not reliable as they are just opinion's in articles and not formal proof. The defining and questionable proof that the regarding information is incorrect is that it is not stated in the Constitution of Australia or any other official document's about the Commonwealth of Australia. If it's not in the (Constitution of Australia) or any other official documents it does not exist.--144.132.28.156 (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Popular sport section boldly removed

I boldly removed this. We did the rewrite to get away from it. the whole section was largely uncited. This information belongs on the subpages, and the title for the section was subjective, with no section leading in explaining what sports were included. The article should be broadly focused on the whole of Australian sport, not on narrow small pieces of Australian sport. Big picture, not narrow picture. --LauraHale (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right Laura. On looking at it now, I see that it was POV crap. Good removal. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If athletics matters, it should be integrated into the amateur sport section, the Olympics section, the history section, the Paralympics section, the television ratings section. Ditto for swimming, lacrosse, dragon boat racing and other sports. I also moved the Olympics section back down the page to below the history section. Yes, the Olympics matter but the history should come first. --LauraHale (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the popular team and individual sport sections were removed, It was said it was removed because the article should be more focused on boarder Australian sport. I think it should be put back because the article is called (Sport in Australia) not (A broad over look of sport in Australia) and the more a article is more specific to someone reading it and wanting to find out about the subject the better. And a broad over look of sport in Australia is covered in the history of sport in Australia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.28.156 (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I also think the popular team and individual sport sections should be put back because most other countries page on sport in their country has individual sections on the most popular sports in their country so people who are reading it can find out everything about the main sports on those particular countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.28.156 (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because other countries organise that way does not mean it should be organised that way. The way the article is currently organised better fits the literature that discusses Australian sport. If you want to find out about the popular sports in a country, you can find out about them in the history, the media, the Olympics, the national team, women's sport, etc. Popular sports is rather subjective and allows for multiple non-neutral statements to be introduced in specific sections. This format reduces such PoV pushing. Besides which, the removed sections were completely unsourced. If you want information on the AFL and NRL, integrate them into the history, spectatorship, participation, sport media, etc. with sources. --LauraHale (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree, but I'd go further. Both the AFL and NRL have extensive main articles of their own, with hundreds of subsidiary articles on clubs, seasons, grounds, etc. That content doesn't need to be replicated here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but they are both important to understanding sport in Australia. It just needs to be contextualised inside the larger sport picture, which plenty of sources actually do. The problem with popular sports section is it gives huge undue weight to say underwater hockey, which was the pre-RFC version of the article. Underwater hockey is not a major Australian sport that in any way deserves its own section. --LauraHale (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the popular team and individual sports sections should be re added. Because its more informative to have individual sections for the reader which you couldn't have if you cram all the information into one section, because all the relevant information couldn't all fit into one area. Also It was mentioned that such information about different sports should be put into the (History of sport in Australia) section, I disagree as it doesn't make sense to have information like what role particular sports have in the media, and where particular sports are popular in the country and such things in the history of sport in Australia section.

The article also needs to put back the popular team and individual sport sections because having all that information in the one place makes it difficult for the reader to find. If you have individual sections people can go directly to what they want to read. And like I said it doesn't make sense having a lot the information where it is at the moment, readers may take one glance at the page and think the information there looking isn't there and leave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleigh93 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at your page LauraHale and I found it intresting that your a American, I also found it interesting that you wrote on your page that Wemon's sport country sections needing articles and Netball country sections needing articles. How can you support those categories having their own sections and take away and not support the most popular sports in Australia having their own sections? Why don't you do everyone a favour and keep your biased view's off this Australian page.

To whoever wrote that unsigned comment, please just discuss improvements to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

AFL POV

This is starting to get a bit too much.

Those trying vehemently to propagate AFL please do so on your own pages. Popularity nationally isn't being judged on participation, or else the likes of Football (soccer), Swimming and even Netball would be considered mainstream.

That's an unhelpful post. What we need here is constructive suggestions of what SHOULD be in the article (or not), with sources as appropriate. Please don't attack others and assign motives to other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Afgtnk has now re-added content about TV ratings for Rugby League and threatened to report me if I take it out. This is all after multiple breaches of WP:3RR by him and others today. Please cool it guys. I KNOW League gets high ratings, but what we now have is three sentences in a row ending with the words "high television ratings". I think my preference at the moment is to somehow remove the expression altogether. Obviously popular sports today have high television ratings. Does it really need to be mentioned? Other suggestions to improve this are welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've removed all three sentences. Problem solved, and the article is fine. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've threatened to report you because you're clearly abusing your position by propagating an AFL point of view. Stating that Rugby League "is only popular in QLD and NSW" is utter rubbish and has no basis. If we wanted to head that way, we could state that AFL is only popular in VIC, TAS, WA and SA.

Firstly, please sign your posts, and secondly, let's stop fighting, and just fix the article. What do you think we should do about having three sentences in a row ending with the words "high television ratings"? (See above) HiLo48 (talk)

Rugby League is only really popular in Queensland and New South Wales by proof of participation numbers. So it should be written that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.28.156 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Was about to request page protection, but I see User:MelbourneStar already got there. Editors need to sit back and discuss the article, not continually revert. As it stands, the article is out of date, and poorly written and structured, but edit warring won't help anything. Ignorant Armies (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Both User:Afgtnk and User:144.132.28.156 "have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule". I hope they pay some attention to what others say when they return. HiLo48 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's delete those two TV ratings tables. They only feature three sports, it just encourages AFL/League tribalism and is a year out of date. --Falcadore (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've again removed the venue thing. This belongs in the history section or the spectatorship sections. It is being added by an IP address pushing an AFL point of view, isn't being done neutrally, isn't being well cited. Stadiums really belong under spectatorship, because stadiums are not for sports only; most venues are multi-use. --LauraHale (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Before it gets mentioned that more sections are needed, no. That would give undue weight to stadiums. It makes sense to talk about the venues in the history (such as the AFL Stadium, when the MCG was built, etc) and spectatorship (average attendance at various venues by sport). It does not make sense to give venues undue weight that suggests they deserve more space than the history of Australian sport. --LauraHale (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the (Major sporting venues) section should be put back. It was said it was taken down becasue it is mentioned in the (Spectatorship) section, but relevant information that was the (Major sporting venues) section isn't mentioned.

Also Laura a sporting venue section doesn't belong in a (Histroy) and (Spectatorship) no is going to think to look for it there, it doesn't make sense. It should mentioned under a section that describes what's in it, so people can look at the page and go directly to what they want to read. And there are only 3 stadiums mentioned that is a lot less in size than the (Histroy of sport in Australia) section.

Explain to me why the MCG deserves a section when the Australian Institute of Sport does not have one, and why Australian sporting venues deserve more space than Australians at the Commonwealth Games, Olympics and Paralympics. I've looked through my pile of books on the history of Australian sport and none of them have specific sections called "venues". This suggests this form of grouping is not one that should be used for this page. I've added information on the MCG to the history section and to the spectator sections. Please provide the text with sources that you would like in the article for us to consider that needs its own section and will address the repeated concerns expressed about undue weight and how information is organised. --LauraHale (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an incomplete article, maybe that's why. At this stage of completion, why shouldn't is a much better question than why should. AIS should be in there. --Falcadore (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There is more information in the Olympics section than there is in the MCG section. Information about the major venues is relevant and not putting all the relevant information in just because it took more room to structure than other important information is superficial and silly. Also there is a individual section on (disability) and (amateur sport) but there isn't one for Cricket the national sport and a sport that very important in Australian culture, that goes against your argument. The same can be said for other sports. And I dont know what books your reading but that doesn't mean that its true, a lot of other articles on sport in countries have a venues section.

And also you didn't address my other points like the popular team and individual sports sections should be re added. It doesn't make sense to have information about things like venues and certain information on sports like I mentioned in the (history) and (spectatorship) sections as no one will think to look for it there.

And I agree more information should be added like you suggested, but you shouldn't be taking away important relevant information just because it just happened to take more room to structure than other important information, that's superficial and silly.

The MCG is much more than AFL. It's actually run by the Melbourne Cricket Club, the C in its name stands for Cricket, and the world's biggest Test Cricket crowds appear there every Boxing Day. I can understand that some Rugby League fans could see it as part of an evil AFL push, but it's more just a Melbourne thing. More Melbourne people go to just about any sport than in most cities. It was the main stadium for the 1956 Olympic Games. My dad played a few games of baseball there in the 1940s. (Curtain raisers for the VFL.) The biggest crowd there was for a Billy Graham crusade back in the 1960s. And it was home to thousands of US troops during WWII. I just wish we could escape the NRL vs AFL thing. HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Television ratings

I've updated the television ratings part with more information from 2012 as there were criticisms the section was out of date. I've left 2011 numbers in. If some one wants to improve the formatting and do selective pruning, that would be much appreciated. Things like the NBL did not appear to rate high enough or were not on television enough to make them easy to find. hence, the exclusion was not deliberate. --LauraHale (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

By sports

If you want a by sports section, please comment here to explain it. The established consensus is not to do this, because the number of sports played in Australia is such that you cannot cover it in this general article about sport in Australia. The AIS recognised 90 sport organisations and funds 70 of them. You can thus see the problem about which ones to include. The big ones are already covered in the article in things like spectatorship, television, sport history, etc. --LauraHale (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have discussed this information before Laura and it is totally incorrect to have a lot of information about sport's such as the role they play in the media and the culture in the (History of sport in Australia) and Spectatorship section. And that's why I was just putting in the main sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You have discussed it before. There was no consensus for it. Putting it back in against consensus is not going to work. The way the sources discuss sport is the way it is laid out in this article. Want to explain again why this is incorrect? Why do you want it? We can try to establish consensus for that, but an argument needs to be made for it.--LauraHale (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What kind of explantion is that? the hole of Australia isn't commenting on this page, and from memory there was only (Two) people against it that's not a consenus.

What I want to do it is put in a (Team sports) and (Individual sports) sections with the main sports played in the country. Having just the main sports listed will solve your problem of not listing all 90 sports played. Having information like the role those sports have in the culture, the media, and other such things doesn't not belong in the (History of sport in Australia) or (Spectatorship) sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. What do you think are the main sports? HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the main sports are swimming, tennis, golf, basketball and snowboarding. I base this information based on page views to articles about Australian sport biographies on wiki. Can we agree that these are the sports that should be covered? :) --LauraHale (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a list mentioning all the major sports played in the country, with a small summary about the role they play in the culture. At the moment you can't even find out what all the major sports are in the country, which is what this article is about (Sport in Australia), there differently need's to be a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Er. These are the sports where Australia has the highest level of international visibility too. Hence, their inclusion and leaving off rugby league, rugby union, Aussie rules, football and soccer. --LauraHale (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The title "Sport in Australia suggests, and suggests strongly, a domestic rather than international outlook to content. --Falcadore (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

For the team sports the ones I recently added to the article, for individual sports, Swimming, Tennis, Athletics, Golf, Squash, Olympic indvidual sports, Boxing, Other Combat sports.

I strongly dissagree with a lot of that, using view's to pages on the Internet is one small and poor way to judge a sports popularity. Participation, television rating's, attendance would be some of the main ones. And sports like Australian rules football, Cricket & Rugby league are important in Australian culture, are main stream team sports, and deserve there own sections.

I would also say that Cricket, Rugby league & Rugby union are the main sports with international visibility.

I will added a (Team sports) and (Individual sports) sections in the near future. I think Snow Boarding can be added to the individual sports list. Like I said if any are left out the way it will be set up people can added them to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No, please don't add anything yet. We need to agree here to a fair extent first as to what are the major sports. I'd have come up with a quite different list. Cricket, Rugby league & Rugby Union, while important to plenty of Australians, are not played in all that many countries. Cricket probably has the best claim. And we somehow have to deal with the Barassi Line. It probably means that the two rugbies and Australian Rules all deserve a mention. As for a list, netball needs to be in any list of team sports. Soccer is very popular for participation, especially at junior levels. I believe horse racing gets the best spectator numbers. And lawn bowls is very popular with a not so vocal part of the population. But overall, this is tricky. We don't have clear criteria by which to decide which sports should be mentioned. I can envisage much disagreement. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Barassi line" absolutely does not need a mention let alone a section in this article. Before some Aussie rules fan created that article and went nuts introducing gratuitous links all over Wikipedia to it, no one knew it existed. Its notability is highly debatable. It's far more revevant to Football in Australia and is dealt with there.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Barassi Line is a simple way to explain and describe the very real geographic divide between Rugby League and Aussie Rules. I find it quite useful for that purpose. It would be nice if your objection did not involve an attack on someone. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll simply refer you to Wikipedia:Verifiability: content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Find a good source that mentions the "Brassi line" and I'll have no case. Oh and I'll tell you what would be nice: if your newfound oversensitivity to what you (rather incredibly) call "personal attacks" was applied to your own attempts at discussion/editing (see Julia Gillard's talk page).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree , but I can see there's no point trying to discuss this with you. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Barassi Line references

• John Nauright; Charles Parrish (6 April 2012). Sports Around the World: History, Culture, and Practice. ABC-CLIO. pp. 336–. ISBN 978-1-59884-300-2. Retrieved 3 October 2012.
• Neale Daniher; Terry Daniher; Anthony Daniher (1 September 2010). The Danihers: The Story of Football's Favourite Family. Allen & Unwin. pp. 2–. ISBN 978-1-74237-324-9. Retrieved 3 October 2012. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Stephen Wagg (15 January 2012). Myths and Milestones in the History of Sport. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-0-230-24125-1. Retrieved 3 October 2012.
• Rob Pascoe (September 1996). The winter game: over 100 years of Australian football. Mandarin. ISBN 978-1-86330-597-6. Retrieved 3 October 2012.
• Wray Vamplew; Australian Society for Sports History (31 October 1994). The Oxford companion to Australian sport. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-553568-6. Retrieved 3 October 2012.

These are a few sources. My PhD thesis on Australian sport required research on the background history and the Barassi line was mentioned in both rugby league and Australian rules texts while also getting mentioned in sport management texts. --LauraHale (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

---

You have some strange view's Cricket is the 2nd most popular sport in the world played in over a 120 countries, Rugby Union is the 3rd most popular team sport in the world played in 157 countries, Rugby league is played in more than several countries, that is totally incorrect. And it doesn't matter if sports are played internationally or not, what matter's is what sport's are most popular in Australia. And I find It strange that you said Netball differently needs to mentioned & Cricket, Australian rules football & Rugby league probably do.

I don't see how the Barassi Line would be a problem, all three sports Australian rules football & both Rugby codes deserve to be in the (Team sports) list.

Horse Racing is barely a sport but that's a different argument, & it the most attended sport in the country not the most attended sport's league. Because it's not really a sport but its very important in Australia society I think a another section should be created called (Spectator sports) with Horse Racing & Motor sport's going into to it, with Motor sport's being important to a lot of Australian's and being very popular.

I also don't see anyone arguing with any of the sport's we have mentioned being included as they are all sports that are popular in Australia.

Ok well do you agree with my list of individual sports? And my list of team sport's are Australian rules football, Cricket, Rugby league, Rugby union, Soccer, Basketball, Hockey, Netball, Baseball, Lawn Bowl's?

Could whoever wrote that please get into the habit of signing posts. It's difficult to have a coherent conversation without knowing who said what. And do you understand indenting? And please proofread your posts. That one has some serious grammatical and typing errors (I think) that make it hard to see what you're on about. HiLo48 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the need for any section about individual sports or team sports. I would like to see a rationale first for why we should have a section on Australian rules when there is no section about the Australian Institute of Sport, nothing on the hosting of the Melbourne and Sydney Olympics, etc. This isn't "Individual sports of Australia" but "Sport in Australia" and it should be talked about in a broader sense. Tell me how netball, Australian rules and surfing in Australia would not be given undue weight for the totality of ALL Australian sport in the history of the country by having their own section. Until a rationale that addresses undue wait can be provided, I don't think it should be included. Barassi line can be added to the article using the existing structure of the article. It doesn't justify the existence of a section just for Aussie rules. Please address WP:UNDUE in comments about additional by sport comment. --LauraHale (talk) 09:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hilo: The title Sport in Australia makes no judgement about popularity, structure (team vs individual) or organisation (ie League). You need to be more inclusive in your outlook of content and less obsessed with "Barassi Line" issues. --Falcadore (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

A friendly tip you should as well, what does make it hard mean?

Ok well do you agree with my list of team and individual sports? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleigh93 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with your list. Your list does not address WP:UNDUE. Please provide a rationale for the inclusion of ANY section for specific sports. That is the starting point. The starting point is not which sport. I'd argue the inclusion of an individual sport over, for example, the 1956 Summer Olympics and 2000 Summer Olympics and Australian Institute of Sport, would be WP:UNDUE. This feels especially true because you are seeking specific sport coverage over multi sport events/organisations that better explain the whole of Australian sport. --09:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Australian rules football and the Australian Institute of Sport are as important as each other, but Australian rules football is far more important in Australian society. And why should the Australian Institute of sport have its own section? Yes it's important but what could you say about it apart from it exist's & when it was opened, that's about it. Just because there is only a few things to mention about a important thing like the AIS compared to equally important things that aren't mentioned, that I have already like what sport's are played in the country doesn't mean you should get rid of them. And the AIS is mentioned.

Australia hosting the Olympics was mentioned in the Olympic's section and should Re- added, but there isn't much you could say about them apart from where they were held and when. And I would say what sports the people of Australia like is more important than Australia hosting the Olympics, the name of the article is (Sport in Australia) not (How many times has Australia hosted the Olympics).

Having a team & individual section's give you the opportunity to put in all of the relevant information that is not in the article at the moment, and the small information you have added about such thing's it doesn't make sense were you have put them as no one will think to look for it there, also people who are looking for something specific might take on glance at the page and think what there looking for isn't there and leave. Also there wouldn't be enough room to put the in all of the relevant important information were you have suggested it should go.

The third question you asked me didn't make sense, but I assume you mean why should Australian rules football have it's own section because it's very important in Australian society and its equally the national winter sport, if not on it's own.

And a friendly tip how about we just discuss this like adult's instead of you dictating what's the starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleigh93 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And Laura you just agreed that the should be a team and individual sport sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleigh93 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

@Garyleigh93 , and you just agreed that including team and individual sports sections should not be included in the article because they would give undue to weight to the article in relation to their importance to the overall sport picture in Australia? Yes? Good. :) And a friendly tip, before we discuss which sports to include, let's discuss WP:UNDUE. How will individual sport sections not be WP:UNDUE? Why do you feel a section on rugby league in Australia should have as much weight as Olympic sport in Australia? Why you think a section on Australian rules should have as much weight as the history of Australian sport? Before we go further, please answer this. Once you do and I understand why you think individual sports should have equal weight in coverage to the history of ALL Australian sport, we can move this conversation forward. People are not going to go to this article looking for Netball in Australia because Netball in Australia exists. This is ALL Australian sport. The broad history of sport matters more and other articles cover the topics you mentioned. --LauraHale (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

? I did no such thing and anyone can read that. And I have answered all of this before and I won't answer it again because this does need to move forward. For one there is already a Olympics section and Rugby league is more important that the Olympics in Australia. As regard's to a (Individual sport) & (Team sport) sections like I said they (both) deserve there own sections & are equally important, and information like what role different sports play in the culture & the media and other such things is (far) more important than the date of when sports were first played & other such things. But like I said they both deserve there own sections.

People will go to this page article looking for a certain sport if they looking for information of a variety of sport's in Australia.

Yes this is about all Australian sport, but having individual section's for team & individual sports gives you the opportunity to put in all of the relevant important information which is not there at the moment, which couldn't all fit into the current places, and doesn't make sense were they are at the moment--144.132.28.156 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That last thing that was written was written by Garyleigh93--Garyleigh93 (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining at least that much. Your posts have been very confusing. Are you also the anonymous editor above, and 203.24.110.83? I think it's all one person, who should pause for a bit. Maybe look at and even edit some other articles, until you learn enough about Wikipedia to contribute properly and understand what other editors are talking about (e.g. WP:UNDUE). I'm sure you mean well, but you can actually be blocked here for being an incompetent editor. HiLo48 (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, my post made perfect sense and yes I did mention that I wrote the comment above so I don't know why you are responding to that. And yes I explained my stance on the (WP:UNDUE) weight very clearly with somethings being more important, some equally & less important. You can also be blocked for showing a bias towards Netball as proven when you said Australian rules football, Rugby league and Rugby union probably should get a mention & Netball should differently be mentioned. And I suggest a bias against Male sports not wanting sports like Australian rules football, Rugby league & Rugby union and others mainly male sports not having there own sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyleigh93 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you forgot to sign again, and indent. My advice was meant in good faith. Please accept it. If you want credibility here, it matters. The changes you seek aren't urgent. There is no deadline. Better you present your arguments effectively if you want people to take them seriously. Good luck. HiLo48 (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, my interpretation of WP:UNDUE "a netball section in this article would not be undue" is "it would enable information not currently in the article." Is that correct interpretation? I'm not advocating netball at the expense of rugby union. I think, if you look at the totality of my edits to this article, you'd find I've added more information on men's sport than women's sport. I do not find "it would enable information not currently in the article" a compelling reason to include a separate section for teams sport that repeats historical information, spectator information, media information at the expense information about the history of ALL sport in Australia compelling. Again, please explain why rugby union, rugby league, netball, Australian rules and soccer need their own sections. Explain how separate sections on these sports deserve equal importance to the total history of Australian sport, sport media, general sport participation. How is this not WP:UNDUE coverage for these sports that are randomly picked? --LauraHale (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

LauraHale I was looking at your page and I found it interesting that your American. I never said a Netball section would be Undue weight so I find it strange that you would mention that. I have explained all of those things several times. I also find it interesting that you said on your page that Women's sport country section's needing articles & Netball sport country section's needing articles. How can you support those section's having there own articles and not put them all in broad article on Women's sport? Like your suggesting here. It also can be proven that you have a bias against male sports & I suggest Australian sports to anyone who read's our discussion. Why don't you do everyone a favor LauraHale and keep you bias American and women's sports agenda of this Australian page. If you keep on showing bias against male and Australian sports I will report you.

And HiLo48 if you keep on showing a bias towards Netball and against male sports like have proven earlier in the discussion I will also report you.--Garyleigh93 (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no bias by HiLo48 in favour of netball at the expense of men's sports. If you want to make an argument about that, on the world stage, Australia's best known athletes tend to be female and Australia's record of sporting excellence is often based on female, not male, performance. Internationally, more people are likely to have heard of Torah Bright, Lauren Jackson, Samantha Stosur than comparable male athletes. But that's largely irrelevant as, for the most part, the article gives due weight to male competitors. The team sport structure is being questioned, not based on gender, but because you are insisting based on your desire to put in a separate section for these team sports that these sports have EQUAL weight to the history of ALL Australian sport with out explaining why this should be. --LauraHale (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

@ Garyleigh93, please strike your accusation against HiLo48. There is no basis for this accusation. You have not proven it. The accusation is not a good faith editing accusation. --LauraHale (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally the opening should talk about Sports affect on Australian culture in general terms without mentioning individual sports except for the purposes of highlighting example. It should then go on to differentiate between participation (first), then spectating, then organisational. Professional sport would be its own section and there should not be split of team from individual sports as there are examples, motor racing for example, that is both a team and an individual sport simultaneously. Another important topic is the ability in Australia for athletes to sustain themselves in a professional environment. Sporting careers is of course not limited to athletes, there are coaches, officials, administrators and maintence types (of both equipment and facilities).

Separating sections into Teams vs Individual sports is a step towards the previously deeply flawed format of collecting summaries of each sport one by one. Recognising what constitutes a major or minor sport is entirely subjective and should be avoided. --Falcadore (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that pretty much matches my feelings now too. A fair way to do something about the separate sports would be to have a comprehensive See also section containing links to the pages on every sport that we can find that Australians have anything to do with - even netball ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And end up with a See Also list of over a dozen pages? No. One link to a list of such articles would be prefereable. List of sports in Australia. --Falcadore (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The simple solution is to wikilink say netball and rugby like this: Netball and rugby union. Then create a footer at the bottom for Australian centric sport articles like the ones found on city articles or one similar to the one used for Australian women's sport. The goal should be to use these articles in the text as wikilinks to make it possible to NOT have a see also section. --LauraHale (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I like the idea of List of sports in Australia. I'll look into it when I have nothing to do. (Don't hold your breath.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there need's to be a list of all the major sport's played in the country with a small summary about the role they play in the culture. At them moment you can't even find out what all the major sport's are in the country, which is what this article is about (Sport in Australia). There differently need's to be a list about the major sport's in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a shelf full of books about Australian sport. None of them have that. The role of these sports in Australian culture is addressed in the article already and the format allows for that as it stands, using the same structure that literature about Australian sport uses. There has been no demonstrated need for this beyond your say so. --LauraHale (talk) 05:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, there differently need's to be a list about the major sport's in the country with a small summary. That's is what this aricle is about (Sport in Australia), people need to able to find out what the major sport's in Australia are . And I think there is a lot of imformation about such thing's that could be added. And I don't know what book's your reading, but on any topic you need to address the main topic & that would be the sports played in Australia. And I've read this discussion page and there were a few people who have said the same thing. And nearly all other countries page on (Sport in their country) have that format, I'm not saying just because they have done it that way it's right, but it is a indication.

And I agree with Garyleigh93 you LauraHale have a bias against Australian and male sports, and user HiLo48 has a biased towards Netball and against male sport's. I think it would be best if Australian's edit this Australian page, and not biased American's like your self LauraHale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL. That comment about me is a gem. It's gone straight to the pool room. (Well, my User talk page.) Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

*facepalms* My PhD topic was Australian sport. I spend a fair amount of time covering Australian sport for Wikinews. I talk to people inside the Australian sport sector. This isn't USA bias. This appears to be one of those cases where, paraphrasing Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well-known bias" which is where this is coming from. If I was USA cheerleading and bias pushing, I'd be wanting more basketball, greater emphasis on Australians competing in the USA, greater emphasis on football, insisting it is soccer because football is actually football, women athletes suck, disability sport shouldn't be on the page because people with disabilities can't compete at an elite level, etc. If you seriously want separate sport sections, you need to stop making accusations and start making a case that a section Sport in Australia#Rugby union would not be undue weight on the topic compared to the relative importance of rugby union to the whole of Australian sport. This argument has yet to be advanced in a way that convinces people that such sections are needed.--LauraHale (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow this is ridiculous, this page is poorly structured. I visted this page some time ago and it was much better, I don't know what happened. Absolutely the page need's to have a list of the main sports played in the country, seeing as the article is about in (Sport in Australia), you'd think that would be the first thing you would do. I agree with the other several people that have said the same thing, user LauraHale you are a American who is biased against Australian and male sports and user HiLo48 is biased towards Netball and against male sports.

And LauraHale you keep on saying no one has presented a argument why there should be a section on team & individual sport's played in the country, when there has been more than several argument's made for it and by several different people.

The article need's someone to put in a list of the main sport's played in the country with a short summary about the role they have in the culture and what presents they have in country. The article at the moment is poorly structured, information put in places were it's doesn't make sense to have it and a lot of information missing.

And can we please have only Australian's editing this page.--AusSport (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (Alias Obsessed Netball Fan)

There is a non-Australian editing? ZOMG! Who is it? --LauraHale (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As of now, any editor who adds/inserts uncited content will have it reverted per WP:BURDEN. There is no requirement to have {{Citation needed}} tag added. Suggesting that Australian's only to edit the article, inserting and reinserting uncited as well as disputed content is one quick way to have this page protected and you blocked from editing Wikipedia! Bidgee (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this article might need protecting because there is a lot of people not following the Wikipedia guide lines. User Bidgee how about you follow the rules instead of making up your own ones. I re wrote some of that article because there was some false and un sourced information. At the moment the (International Competitions) article is seriously lacking, so could someone please up date it because I haven't got the time at the moment. By the look's of it LauraHale seem's to causing a lot of trouble here, and so do you Bidgee. If you both keep on being unconstructive and not follow the Wikipedia guide lines you will be blocked from editing.

Oh, the irony. We have someone complaining that "there is a lot of people not following the Wikipedia guide lines" and then failing to sign and indent a post. HiLo48 (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A list of sports played in Australia? Almost all of them are. The list would quickly grow to over 100. It would serve no purpose. If you are going to say well just the major sports then you will have to define what a major sport is, it's a term which defies objective definition and would just become an arguement starter. So listing sports needs to have a context other than they are played here.

Additionally those advocating a return to the old format - the old format of this page was not on topic. The old format could be restarted as a new page titles "List of summaries of an unrepresentative selection of sports in Australia". This article is about Sport collectively. A short version of Australian Rugby Union competition goes in "Rugby Union in Australia", not here. --Falcadore (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep I agree with the more than several people wanting the old system back. The title of the article is (Sport in Australia) not the (History of sport in Australia). For the history of Australian sport here should be a section that is informatative & as much information that can fit into a section on the subect, but that's it. There is far too much Undue weight give to History of Australian sport section. What matter's most is what role the major sport's have in the country & what role they play in the media. There is hardly any of that mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Some more point's about my last comment of team & indidvidual sport section's need to bought back, and far too much WP:UNDUE weight given to the (History of Australian sport) section. Like I said what matter's most is what role the main sport's have in the culture & in the media. Where is information about how Cricket is the national sport? And how 3 Australian Cricketer's have won the (Australian of the year award)? Where is information about how the (AFL) is a huge sport's league in Australia & is the highest attened sport's league in the country and the 3rd highest in the world? Where is information about how State of Orgin Football in Australin rules football was for nearly a 120 year's with out a national competition the highest level of competition in the sport, games used to get sold out & along with State rivarly was a huge event in Australia? Where's information about Rugby League's State of Orign which is hugely important to a lot of Australian's, gets crowd's regularly of over 80,000 & get's some of the highest rating's on T.V yearly? And a lot of other similar information.

Like I said this article need's section's for main sport's in the country. Most other countries have the same system on their page of (Sport in their country), I'm not saying it's right just because they do it, but it is a big indication when nearly every country in the world has that system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to start an article called List of short summaries of individual Australian sports then go right ahead. You want to write about Sport in Australia then that's OK too. --Falcadore (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a perfect, 100% unarguable definition of "major sport" that will generate no arguments whatsoever about what should be in such a category, and what should be excluded? HiLo48 (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

@ 203.24.110.83, if you so desperately want it, you need to explain WP:UNDUE. It does not work with the existing structure. It does not explain the whole of Australian sport. Cricket is repeatedly mentioned. Soccer is repeatedly mentioned. Aussie rules is repeatedly mentioned. Rugby league is repeatedly mentioned. Rugby union is repeatedly mentioned. Netball is repeatedly mentioned. Athletics and swimming are repeatedly mentioned. The way they are mentioned better explains them in the larger context than individual sections on these sports will. --LauraHale (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

@ 203.24.110.83 , If you're so desperate to get this organisational method in the article, I have a challenge for you. Go to Sport in New Zealand. The first section, the lead section which is explained at WP:LEAD? Rewrite the article lead to give a better summary of Sport in New Zealand. From the existing lead, all I know about New Zealand is they play a list of sports. If this format you seek works well, when you finish rewriting the lead for Sport in New Zealand, the article should have a nice little summary of well, Sport in New Zealand. Doing this will make a much better case for your organisation principle. --LauraHale (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Would the IP address editing please stop removing sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information or information that the sources remaining that reference that information do not support? If you do not know how to cite sources, Help:Citing sources is a good place to start. --LauraHale (talk)

Mother country

To the IP address making the edit with the summary of "The UK being Australia's Mother country isn't factual statement as it's not in the Constitution of Australia or any other official documents. Therefore it's a no official opinion & the sources don't say it's the opinion of all Australian's". This statement is supported by multiple sources in the article which use this terminology. Your revisions to the article are not supported by these sources and you are not adding any sources to the article to support your point of view that this information is inappropriate. --LauraHale (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

" I have adequately described in my last statement why its incorrect. The information isn't official, therefore is a non official opinion." is the edit statement. The statement is fully supported by sources. This section is not "The Australian government's position on the history of the country's origins." The section is Australia and why the Commonwealth Games matter. This is supported by MULTIPLE sources that use the phrase mother country. The edit statement is POV pushing. --LauraHale (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Les Darcy

Les Darcy won several major titles. More importantly, he was highly influential in Australian sports. They wrote books about him. He gets paragraphs in books about Australian sports. His death plays a part in the Australian sport equivalent to that of Phar Lap. Please do not remove this information with out talking about it. --LauraHale (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Les Darcy didn't win any international titles, he wasn't highly influential in Australian sport and he is (NO) were near Phar Lap. The only reason he is mentioned in books is because he refused to fight in World War One. He didn't win any major titles therefore he doesn't deserve to be mentioned. User who took down the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.83 (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You were there to know all this. Right? HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Attention IP address editor: Mother country

Your edit summaries alone do not justify this removal as your edits are not supported by sources and this is the terminology used by these sources. You may discuss these sources and their user of the term "mother country" on the reliable sources noticeboard. Until such a time that you do this and consensus is reached, the text in the article is supported by sources that use this phrase. They are reliable. There is no reason to remove it that you have demonstrated. --LauraHale (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I endorse what Laura has written there. And it's more than just the sources. The form of language used says that the idea that the UK is the "Mother country" (note the quote marks) is not one of certainty, but one that is felt by some people some of the time. And that's definitely true. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole "mother country" thing is why the Games matter to some people: Because it is about beating England, the country that the earliest Australians got expelled from, where they came from. It matters to some based on the idea that the son grows up and does better than the father. It isn't a political statement about Australia's origins, but explains Australian sports and why Australians respond this way. The Constitution of Australia speaks nothing to this topic. The sources used in the article do. I do not think the Australian Commonwealth Games Committee are unreliable on this topic. I think the Australian Commonwealth Games Committee are reliable for asserting why the Games matter to Australia. --LauraHale (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeated les darcy removal comment

Dear IP address, while you may have commented on the talk page, there was no consensus developed to remove this information. Furthermore, you removed cited material from the article in doing this. Please do not remove citations from the article. --LauraHale (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Australia at the team sports international competitions

The above link has just been added to this article as a "See also". It links to a new article with that somewhat clumsy name. I'm trying to get attention to that new article. The name bothers me. Its existence bothers me. Anyone else? HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

DMCA Takedown from OzTAM re:Television ratings

Hey all,

The office has received a DMCA takedown demand from OzTAM regarding the television rating tables that are on this article. You can see the edit I made here and we have uploaded the take down to Foundation Wiki. You can learn more about our DMCA Compliance procedure and how you can respond (with a formal counter notice to re add the content) on the Wikipedia:Office actions page. As always please let me know if you have any questions and I will try to answer them as best I can (or get answers from others). Jalexander--WMF 00:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jalexander-WMF Formal counter notice sent to the Foundation's designated agent. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A bit late, but better late than never. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Popular team sports

I removed this section. It is fundamentally non-neutral and the amount of space it occupies gives undue weight. Further, it duplicates existing sections, but is worse because it doesn't situate these sports inside Australian sport. It treats them as if they exist absent a national context. --LauraHale (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I forked this stuff to Popular sports in Australia. --LauraHale (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Professional leagues

A question - why is the W-League and the Baseball League listed as professional sports leagues in Australia in the lead of the article when V8 Supercars is not? --Falcadore (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have never heard V8 Supercars described as a professional sports league. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Which criteria is lacking? Professional, sport or league? --Falcadore (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you know it's not normally described as a league, so how would you propose adding the information? HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Some changes to the article

I was just going through the article and thought some changes could be made, or maybe some of my questions could be answered. First just some minor issues: some of the article is written in present tense and the information is not currently applicable, also many of the references are dead links.

Regarding the references, why are they written at the bottom of the page and not in the article (i.e. why is this show in the article <ref name=badmintonsource/> and not this <ref name=badmintonsource>{{cite web|url=http://www.badminton.org.au/index.php?id=37 |title=Badminton Australia — History of Badminton in Australia |publisher=Badminton.org.au |date= |accessdate=2011-10-30}}</ref>)?

I think the National teams section should be removed as it is just copied from Australian national sports team nicknames which is linked in the article, also Olympic medal history should be removed as it is again just copied from Australia at the Olympics which is linked in the article.

Now on the matter of individual sport sections. I know it has been discussed that it should not be added in the article, but I think the individual articles contain the bulk of the information that readers want and it should be key to this article. I think the content on Popular sports in Australia should be merged here - maybe we can trim down the info to just one/two paragraphs per sport. But I think this article should be the 'main hub' of sport in Australia; linking to other specific/in-depth individual articles.

Lastly, I think we should move the History of sport in Australia section to its own article at History of sport in Australia and just have a brief summary and link to the main page on this article. I think it makes the article look bulky and lop sided with the rest of the content.

I would like to here peoples thoughts/oppinions on these changes and an answer to my question on references.--2nyte (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Any improvement in the currency of information and the updating/removal of dead links would be great. I don't understand your concerns about references, but I don't claim to be an expert in that area anyway. I guess the National teams and Olympic medals sections could go, as long as we retain links. The individual sports don't need their own sections. That would just lead to more, inevitable, POV pushing and heated debate about which ones to include. But I agree with you that History of sport in Australia could become an article in its own right. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I really do think individual sports sections should be added (preferably, as I said above merge Popular sports in Australia here). When editing wikipedia my aim is to make quality content the focus and to give readers the best experience possible. To achieve this I think organisation is key - everything should be where it belongs, streamlined for readers benefit. My point is the content has been organised in such a way that nothing is really gained from reading the article. What I'm trying to do now is simplify the article, organisation the content and bring to focus the most important information - which I think is the individual articles. Otherwise this article is a page of random 'did you knows'. Quality content is key, and that is what we should be pushing the readers to, this article should supplement the individual sport articles, not replace them (which it seems to be doing).--2nyte (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Oi, WTF do you think you're doing? You asked about merging content from Popular sports in Australia, got one negative reply, no agreement, then went ahead and did it. That's very bad faith editing! Please undo it now. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Popular team sports was actually removed because it added WP:UNDUE for certain sports, encouraged WP:NPOV pushing and did not provide information on the history of sport in Australia. Rather, it provided code specific information in a way that scholars writing on Australian sport as a whole did not. Basically, it did not reflect organizational patterns of these sources. There is no reason sport specific content in its own section should be in the article for those reasons. --LauraHale (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If the article could be fully sourced, the history of Australian sport part refined a bit better, I think the article is probably pretty close GA. It is comprehensive, relatively neutral in terms of its treatment of various sports, mentions the major points of Australian sporting greatness that you would expect, etc. The see also section needs removal with those links integrated somewhere into the article. When we did the article reorganizing, I thought we could get to that point rather easily. (But point blank, it is not possible with a by sport section.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article is Sport in Australia, not List of Summaries of Individual Australian Sports. If someone want to read about Cricket they go to Cricket in Australia, not Sport in Australia. Don't clutter this article with small chunks of stuff that belong elsewhere. --Falcadore (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have looked at the articles about sport in other countries. Sport in Spain is one. It doesn't begin to give a clue as to the state of sport in Spain in that form. The by sport part just doesn't work in terms of understanding a country's total sport history. In an article like Sport in Brazil, why are Footvolley and Capoeira given equal weight to tennis, and football? Popular team sports in Australia should really be nuked, but people intent on pushing their footy codes need a place to do that, and the article appears to be good compromise for that. --LauraHale (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I did write a summary of why I added the individual sport sections on this talk page right after I made the edit but I obviously didn't save it. I basically said that I understand there is opposition against adding individual sport sections but I have a general idea of how this article should be orgainsed. I'm not basing this article on other countries Sport articles. Like I did for Australia national association football team; I completely reorganised the article and its content unlike any other, and I think the end result is a benefit to readers. I do think individual sport sections should be added, but the content for each sport should be minimal and supplemented by the rest of the article.--2nyte (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Since your edits to Soccer in Australia involved completely removing women, you're advocating a position that treats women as non-important to Australian sport, made edits that push a fundamentally non-neutral position regarding Australian sports on an individual sporting level, you've removed cited material from articles, added material that has no references, nominated an article for WP:GAN that was clearly not ready and than removed all the fact tags added by the reviewer, I have some doubts regarding your competence in this area. Further to this, you do not appear to have any expertise with the sources. What Australian sport academics, Australian cultural historians and general Australian sporting texts treat Australian sport as exclusively separate sporting histories separated from any sort of national or international context? I'm really genuinely curious about your sources and what academics you're reading. World Cat has a number of sources. I've read a few. What are you reading? --LauraHale (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

What actual benefit is there in writing a one paragraph version of other articles? It completely defeat the point of the Wikilink which takes you straight to the adjoining article. Failing to grasp an important part of how wikipedia works.

An article called Sport in Australia should be about Sport as a whole. The evolution of sport in Australia, it's role in Australian culture, media, politics etc. Details specific to individual sports belong on the pages of those specific sports. --Falcadore (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

2nyte - you're a real puzzle. A lot of the time you do some good editing, then you go and spoil it all by doing something really stupid. You say you "understand there is opposition". It's far worse than that. Absolutely nobody has agreed with you! It doesn't matter what Edit summary you claim you meant to write, NOBODY agrees with you. Do you get it yet? What on earth goes on in your brain? All you have done is create confrontation and a lot of extra work. Not a good way to gain respect around here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The other thing is, we had an RfC specifically on the issue of having separate sections per sport when we abandoned that format for this article. There would need to be some real consensus to change the results of the RfC to go back to that format. The whole of Australian sport is represented in this article. The sport sections in isolation make the article make no sense, and do a tremendous disservice to the user by hiding what sport in Australia is about. Australia has been described as a sporting nation, with sports at the core of national identity. The by sport sections do not do justice to this concept. --LauraHale (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I wrote a reply to Falcadore last night but it's not here and it's not on my contributions. Anyway Falcadore, my replay was that individual sports are not represented in the article and the only links to individual sports are in the bottom template. I suggest we add a section called Popular sports and write about the evolution and sporting trends in terms of the most popular sports.--2nyte (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I managed to fit my suggestion of 'Popular sports' in the history section.--2nyte (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we should not add a section called popular sports until such a time that a definition of a popular sport can be agreed upon. Sport in Australia is NOT about individual sports. --Falcadore (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with Falcadore. Deciding on popular sports is an impossibility. It will only damage the quality of the article. 2nyte should be having a rest from this article until his common sense and cooperative attitude return. HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We should not be doing that. Popular sports is purely subjective. It would need sources. At the moment, if we were looking at trends, the major ones needing additional coverage are the legal ones, the financial ones, and media coverage. This information actually leads away from covering "popular" sports in any promotional sense. I think the article lacks information on how well financially the sporting sector is doing. The legal framework that has allowed Australian sport to become what it has is also missing. Media coverage of sport is also a bit weak. I do not have faith in 2nyte to add this because I have seen no demonstration of familiarity with the sources in this regard, and I think that he would POV push aside the financial problems plaguing the A-League while ignoring the success of the ANZ Championship and the AFL and to a lesser degree the NRL. --LauraHale (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have only had good faith and the best interest for the article, though I can see my effort is wasted. My one paragraph summary of Australia's sporting history was far better than the 15-odd paragraphs LauraHale added. "Sydney was the early hub of sport in the colony" - Sydney was the ONLY hub of sport, no other part of the country had been colonised yet! Quality is far better, far more important than quantity. All the article is, is a pointless amount of quantity, of statistics with no context. I intended to add narrative and actual context to the article, which it's lacking to an extent of nonexistence. LauraHale is too caught up with her POV bible, waving it around in peoples faces. Why did she remove this content? Couldn't you have added a source or a unsourced tag instead or completely removing the content? It seems like no one has any interest in developing the article, in making it a quality article that actually explains Australian sport. Unless the aim of the article is to give uncontextualised, pointless facts, which I doubt, then the article fails. Oh, LauraHale, but at least it is sourced, at least it can be a 'B' article. Copy and paste this edit if you're happy with an uncontextualised, pointless 'B' article.--2nyte (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Your effort was wasted. That it was going to be should have been obvious to you when you went against consensus, no, unanimous opposition, to make the changes. It was your choice to waste that effort. HiLo48 (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This meant that I agreed with consensus and decided to not go forward with adding individual sports. It's called a compromise solution.--2nyte (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Source removal

This article went from being reasonably well sources to missing a huge number of sources. The absence of sources challenges the reliability of the information. Whoever is removing the sources, @2nyte:, please stop doing so and adding them back. I have better things to do than add sources that you've removed. By removing sources, you've taken the article from a B to a C. --LauraHale (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Etihad Stadium Picture

The picture giving an example of Etihad Stadium being a major AFL stadium is showing a picture of rugby league, therefore hardly representing what is being captioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4010:9901:F0CD:CD53:AA18:EC64 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE

Any attempt to add any specific sport section violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This also runs contrary to how Australian sport is discussed by Australian sport historians. An RfC already decided this format did not work. If these sections contrary to the previous RFC, they should be labeled WP:UNDUE until they are properly contextualized against a wider Australian sporting landscape in the way broader Australian sources treat the whole of sport in Australia. --LauraHale (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Individual sport section

Regrading your view on not having sections of individual sports on the Sport in Australia page, it's really the best model. For example there is a lot of information that doesn't belong in the history section, and the way the article is structured now. For example information like

On how Cricket is an important part of the Australian culture.

Already covered. Also cricket shouldn't be capitalised.

On how people think that playing England in Cricket is way of avenging past a perceived wrongs from the former imperial force.

Ashes rivalry can be fleshed out a bit more. Doesn't need its own section.

On how Cricket is that important in Australian culture that it has been described in jest that the captain of the Australian Cricket team is the most important job in Australia after the Prime Minister.

"that ... that ... that" Also nice piece of WP:TRIVIA.

A reflection of these Cricket community perceptions I just mentioned, three Australian cricket captains have been named as Australian of the Year; Allan Border in 1989, Mark Taylor in 1999 and Steve Waugh in 2004.

Another nice piece of WP:TRIVIA.

On how unlike other sports international Cricket is played all year round, not just a few yearly one off games.

This article isn't about international cricket.

On how the State of Origin series is even more popular, and is regarded with more importance than International Rugby league.

SoO popularity covered in sports media section. Also international shouldn't be capitalised.

The Grade structure in sports in Australia.

Already covered.

On how to get drafted to the major sport leagues in the country.

WP:NOTHOWTO.

On how the popularity for Basketball was very high in the 1990s, but in the last decade popularity for the national league has waned. And in recent years the league has come close to folding.

Can easily be covered without its own section.

On how the NBL used to be played in the Australian Winter, but switched to be being played in the Summer so it didn't have to compete with the countries big Winter sports.

Can easily be covered without its own section.

That Australia has been very successful in the Swimming at the Olympics, having won the second most amount of Gold medals and medals.

Already covered. Also swimming and gold medals shouldn't be capitalised.

On how Australia have been very successful in Tennis sport, having the second most amount of Davis Cup wins, and being ranked second in coming Runner Up.

"Australia have been very successful in Tennis sport ... ranked second in coming Runner Up" ??????????

On how the Australian national Cricket team is the most popular national team.

By what measure?

On how the Heartland of Australian rules football is the State of Victoria.

Already covered. Also heartland and state shouldn't be capitalised.

On the biggest rivalries in the major sports.

Already covered.

On how Australian rules football is so popular in Victoria that the game has been described in Victoria as a Religion.

Worth mentioning in sport in Victoria or Australian rules football in Victoria. Also religion shouldn't be capitalised.

On how many players in the AFL have been drafted the unconventionally route through the Rookie Draft, and by playing in secondary level State leagues.

Who cares.

Naming the most notable and famous athletes in history in the major Australian sports.

Already covered without resorting to arbitrary lists WP:USEPROSE.

On how at the start of every season the two Premiers of the National Rugby League & the Super League from the previous year play off in the World Club Challenge, to determine the World Champions.

Can easily be covered without its own section. Also premiers and world champions shouldn't be capitalised.

On how the AFL Grand Final is arguably Australia's biggest sporting event.

By what measure?

On when the seasons are in which sports are played.

Too much detail.

On what days of the week the major sports are played, and what days the biggest games are played.

Too much detail. - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

And more.

These types of information don't belong in a History section, or any other of the sections on the page. Also just having the information that's in the history section now on the sports you have to read through the whole article to find all the information on one sport. This way all the information on every sport is in one place, it's more practicable. The previous structure of the article was not Undue Weight, it gives the platform to describe what the sporting landscape in Australia is, and what the things are that make up the Australian sporting landscape that are important to the Australian people. I think this is a better optionSportsEditor518 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Sport in Australia. It is not a small collection of stubs of other articles that already exist in wikipedia like Cricket in Australia or Rugby League in Australia. Sport in Australia is one topic, not a hundred little ones.

All of the above can be written within the current article but in the current format. For example, while yes the AFL Grand Final may be the biggest domestic sporting event in Australia (Australian Grand Prix and Australian Tennis Open would have a lot to say about being the biggest), it should not be written as being the biggest AFL game, or even the biggest football game. It should be written about in the context of how it compares to the Melbourne Cup, the Australian Open, the Australian Grand Prix.

You want to write specifically about one sport in isolation of other sports then this is not the article you should write it in. --Falcadore (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, something that is argueable has no place in Wikipedia. An arguement is in essense an exchange of opinions and Wikipedia does not do opinions. Refer: WP:NPOV. --Falcadore (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Those points are none of those things, they are not covered in the article, are there is no appropriate place for them in the article. Explain to me an appropriate place in the article where those points, and points like them can be placed? They can't.

And the AFL Grand Final is arguable Australia's biggest sporting event, none of those sports get a bigger T.V audience for one day. It's also supported in many references. Therefore it's appropriate to be written as such.

All of the information I have provided is very important, and vital to describing the nature of Australian sport, and therefore should be in the article. And at the moment there isn't a appropriate place for it in the article, and until someone can prove that there is, it's clearly the best model.SportsEditor518 (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, AFL Final has much smaller ratings than the Grand Prix or the Open, because AFL is virtual unknown outside of Australia. The Open has by far the biggest audience for a single sport event in Australia over the two weeks it is played, where as the Grand Prix is the most watched as F1 ratings globally are eclipsed only by Summer Olympics and Football World Cups. AFL final isn't even the biggest attended as it tops out in the mid-high 90,000s where as attendance at the Melbourne Cup is in the region 130,000.

Again, if the point can be argued, (as I just have) it has no place in wikipedia. Wikipedia is primarily for facts that cannot be argued.

Also again, if the facts you mention is specific to one sport in isolation to others, it has no place in this article. --Falcadore (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Because of SportsEditor518's edit warring (including threatening User:LauraHale with a report) on this topic he has been blocked for 24 hours. So this debate is on hold. --Falcadore (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sport in Australia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061021080815/http://www.rl1908.com/History/rebellion.htm to http://www.rl1908.com/History/rebellion.htm

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

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sport in Australia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929074716/http://www.qrl.com.au/qrl_history/story_of_the_qrl.php to http://www.qrl.com.au/qrl_history/story_of_the_qrl.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217101940/http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibitions/worldcup/timeline.shtml to http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibitions/worldcup/timeline.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160113031111/http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2015/media-releases/88460/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015-gives-economic-boost-to-australia-and-new-zealand to http://www.icc-cricket.com/news/2015/media-releases/88460/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015-gives-economic-boost-to-australia-and-new-zealand
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704061635/http://www.paralympic.org.au/news/pm-launches-2012-australian-paralympic-team to http://www.paralympic.org.au/news/pm-launches-2012-australian-paralympic-team
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228072923/http://culture.gov.au/articles/surflifesaving/ to http://culture.gov.au/articles/surflifesaving/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216054950/http://www.diving.asn.au/default.asp?MenuID=About_Us%2F20002%2F1785%2F%2CHall_of_Fame%2F20011%2F1827%2F to http://www.diving.asn.au/default.asp?MenuID=About_Us%2F20002%2F1785%2F%2CHall_of_Fame%2F20011%2F1827%2F

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 22:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)