Talk:Australia men's national soccer team/Archive 4

World Cup Appearances
In the column on the right it says that Australia has appeared in 3 world cups and 1 Asian cup. Shouldn't it be 2 and 1? Or if qualification for a tournament counts as appearing in it then shouldn't it say 3 world cups and 2 Asian cups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superawesomee (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed WC appearances to 2. Camw (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely 1974, 2006 and 2010 makes three. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment you are replying to is almost 2 years ago, prior to the 2010 World Cup. At the time 2 was correct as the third appearance had not occurred. I believe the article has correctly reflected the 3 appearances for some time. Camw (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Sorry. I was fooled by a seeming new edit to this section (according to the article history), which was really a new section in the wrong place. I've moved that new section to the right place. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No harm done ;) Camw (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just leave it alone for a while!
There seem to be a number of editors of this article obsessed with always being the first with the news about a change in team selection, and slightly modifying the formatting to suit their own preferences. Firslty, it's not really that important to reflect every team change the moment it happens. The logical consequence of current practice is to update the article with substitutions while gamses are on! Secondly, can you all just pause the updates a little and agree on a format that will be used for the next several years?

The frequency and purpose of current changes is just ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Article claims Mark Viduka avabile for selection!
The article claims that Mark Viduka (in the captains) that he s still available for selection! This is clearly not true, I do believe Pim has claimed Viduka's international days to be other, so I removed the bold from his name!

Simba1409 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage
The entry says....

''Games are mostly broadcasted by SBS and Fox Sports Australia. Audience for games has soared since the Socceroos historic victory over Uruguay.''

In the United States, qualifiers are broadcasted by Fox Soccer Channel.

We have bad grammar (broadcasted), obvious POV (soared....historic), and Fox Soccer in the USA (for Australian soccer?)

OK, I can fix the bad grammar, but I think everything after the first sentence should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)


 * The section needs work certainly. As for the Fox Soccer Channel, they do show Asian world cup qualifiers (see here for an example) but it is only borderline relevant, I guess it doesn't cause any harm as long as it gets referenced. Camw (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I expanded the section a small amount with some referenced notes, but it still needs work. Camw (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Better now, certainly. :-) HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why show players' ages?
We list the dates of birth. They don't change. But ages can be wrong by tomorrow. Or today, if the enthusiast who adds a particular player forgets to come back on his birthday and update his age. Just silly. It guarantees that this article will be wrong from time to time. Anyone with half a brain can work out someone's age from his date of birth. How about we drop the ages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
 * The age is actually calculated automatically by the template based on the birthday so there are no concerns about them being out of date. Camw (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Clever! HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Shortening and cleaning up this article
It seems to me that this article is getting very long and has a lot of very detailed information about the last 5 years in the Socceroos history, but that is only a short part of their history. I think the history section needs to be shortened (If you want all the detail about Germany 2006 (and other recent campaigns), maybe that should be a separate page?). Surely the 'player drain' section doesn't need to list all the players in the main article (again I suggest a separate page). All the records in the tables can probably be summarized and some of the details (which I agree really need to be here as they are very interesting) moved to separate pages. IMO This page should really be just a summary of what the Socceroos are, an overview of their history, and some of their important records and other stats - more detailed info should be broken off into other pages. If this page keeps getting updated with heaps of detail about their 2010 WC Campaign and their 2011 Asian Cup campaign it's just going to get more and more messy.

Also, the pages with all the Socceroos results (season 2005, 2006...) need to be linked from this page I think - or maybe just one link to a "Socceroos Results" page, which then links to the other seasons. There should also be a page with all their past shirts - would be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.108.56 (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everything you propose - I had intentions of doing / proposing similar but it is a huge task and never had the time to do so. Good luck. 203.214.145.228 (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Popularity increase in lead
We are told that "World Cup qualification in 2006 has seen Australian association football increase considerably in domestic popularity and in international competitiveness."

Really?

This is precisely the kind of weaselish claim that must have good sources, or it must go.

HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just remove it. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Team Colours
This article is semi-protected, so I can't delete the Swedish away team colours. Someone else take care of that, eh? Humans who have seen an Australian national sport team play in something other than green and gold = 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.16.12 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm yes i have seen the Australian team play in all kinds of kit designs that are not just green and gold... and not royal blue either ;) --203.36.215.153 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The name and redirecting
Why on earth do we have to call it association football when clearly it is football under the same wiki editing as 99% of national teams on here?--203.36.215.153 (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The title is a compromise and corresponds with the main en.wiki article on the sport, Association football. See the talk page and FAQ there for more. Camw (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

is this to appease the aussie rules users on this place? for goodness sake...--124.169.43.115 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's because in Australia there are four distinct professional sports called football by their fans at least some of the time, along with at least two others not played professionally. For any one of these to be called football in Wikipedia would create confusion. As for your slight against Aussie rules fans, it has to be acknowledged that that sport achieved popular use of the word football in the areas where it is popular long before the round ball code was played there. The language used in Wikipedia has to reflect that. It's just a reality. HiLo48 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo
I have removed the claim that Cristiano Ronaldo was eligible for Australian selection. Under the FIFA Statutes he was never eligible as his grandparents, while now Australian citizens, were not born in Australia. Hack (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of caps
I noticed a few things: I've assumed the table is correct to 25 Jan, and have +1 to the three players above. This may need to be confirmed. I haven't touched the "captains" list as it says it was lasted updated in September 2010 and I'm not sure of the exact number. -- Chuq (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Schwarzer (who reached 88 caps and #1 position today) was updated in infobox, but not in "most capped" section below.
 * 2) "Most capped" section header said it was updated 12 Jan 2011, when the individual rows for Schwarzer, Neill and Emerton state last cap was 25 January 2011.

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: pages not moved per lack of consensus below. - GTBacchus(talk) 22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

– Australia has two senior level association football/soccer/football teams. One team is a men's team. The other team is a women's team. The lack of a clear gender identifier makes it difficult for readers to instantly know the topic of the article, because which of the two national teams the article is about is not specified in the article name. This would make it more clear. LauraHale (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 70.24.248.237 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Australia national association football team → Australia men's national association football team
 * List of Australia national football team results → List of men's Australia national football team results
 * Australia national association football team all time record → Australia men's national association football team all time record
 * Australia national under-17 association football team → Australia men's national under-17 association football team
 * Australia national under-20 association football team → Australia men's national under-20 association football team
 * Australia Olympic football team → Australia men's Olympic football team
 * Support, avoiding gender bias requires us to disambiguate national sports teams. Powers T 01:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose use "soccer" instead of "association football". The main article is called Soccer in Australia.
 * Comment that piece of vandalism is "only for now". In any event there is no ambiguity. Silent Billy (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per the recent consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia, these article should all use "soccer" instead of "association football". As to the issue of inserting "men's" into the titles, I'm torn. One could easily argue that the men's teams are the primary topics (e.g. when someone says "the Australian soccer team", they are referring to the men's team at least nine times out of ten), yet on the other hand, it would be a step forward in combatting Wikipedia's systematic bias. I would also note that, looking at Category:National association football teams, no other national soccer/football team article uses "men's" in the title. Perhaps it would be better to discuss this on a larger scale than just Australia (after all, consistency is one of the principle naming criteria)? Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending a topic-wide consensus on this issue. I do have some sympathy with the argument made by LT Powes&mdash;the current arrangement is blatanly gender-biased language. On the other hand, WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that references to the "Australian football soccer team" would overwhelmingly refer to the men's team, so I am not so convinced about the nominator's concerns. On the other issue, clearly given the result at Talk:Soccer in Australia and the subsequent mass renaming of categories that has since taken place, this article should be at Australia national soccer team. Yes, it is a silly and needlessly insulting name, but the decision has already been made and now we need to deal with the inevitable consequences, such as this. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I take a different view. Soccer is the name within Australia, but football is the international name. Association football is really nothing much at all. Nobody uses that name in practice. So, I'd like to see the national team described as a football team (not Association football). As for the gender thing, explictly saying Mens and Womens makes sense to me. But I have an outstanding query, which I posted on the Talk page of someone who has since posted in this thread, so he has chosen to ignore me. Puzzling. It's about this "insulting" claim. I just don't get it. It's the common name of the sport everywhere in Victoria. It's not an insult here. Where and how is it insulting? (This is a genuine question. I am not trying to be provocative. Just trying to understand.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -I haven't ignored you I am just getting some examples together for you. In the meantime how is your point about the alleged usages in Victoria relevant to Wikipedia. Wp is international not provincial. I mean do we have to rename swimsuit to "bathers" because that is in common usage in Victoria? Are folks in the jewel of the Hunter going to be forced to use a flat "a" when telling of their home town instead of a broad one simply because it is anathema to those south of the Barassi line? Silent Billy (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I repeat. This is a genuine question. I am not trying to be provocative. Just trying to understand. Please show some good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: Whether or not the article is called association football team or soccer team, can this particular rename focus on the gender in the article name issue, with the association football/soccer issue being resolved in a separate rename request? -- LauraHale (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The soccer/football issue has already been resolved, so there's not much more to discuss. On the gender issue, I would suggest going with Mattinbgn's suggestion to get a topic-wide consensus on the gender issue. IMHO, it would be better to go top-down, rather than bottom-up arguing every step of the way. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * About half the men's national teams articles already have men in the article name in Category:Men's national sports teams of Australia. I think, with the exception of netball and national teams by gender based events like tennis and golf, women are already gendered. I can do a rename proposal that includes the rest of those articles for men's teams that aren't gendered like their female counterparts. --LauraHale (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I should have been clearer. I meant a discussion involving all articles in the subcats of Category:National association football teams. I don't see how Australia would be any different 99% of other nations. Jenks24 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This change would set a precedent and therefore affect more than just Australian articles; therefore, I believe the discussion ought to take place at a more centralised location (e.g. WT:FOOTY). – PeeJay 00:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As morally commendable as the proposal may be, and IMO it is, this is not the place to promote such a change in English usage. Currently, the Australian Cricket Team is the men, the Australian Women's Cricket Team is the other. The same with soccer. No, this is not right. But it is reality. For better or for worse, Wikipedia's policy is to follow the reality rather than the ideal. Andrewa (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - current title is an accurate reflection of the article's references. As Andrewa said, such is the way of the English language.  On the bright side, it lets us keep a more concise title.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

zullo at everton
why does it say michael zullo plays for everton he does not he plays for utrecht and it says everywhere else he plays for utrecht including his wikipedia page and i cant find anything for him playing at everton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.131.8 (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Player Drain
Is this seriously required? I'm sure many other countries have players born there that have chosen to play for other countries. This is not unique to Australia at all. Or how about make it fair and have a list of non-Australian born players that have played for Australia. The list will more then double this player drain list. Even currently, Nikita Rukavytsya, Archie Thompson and Neil Kilkenny are playing caps for Australia despite being born overseas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.184.150 (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

April 2013 clean-up
Hello, I just wanted to let everyone know that I'm attempting to clean-up this article. This involves moving much of the content to separate articles (history, records, managers, etc) and adding more content (team image). I will also be re-wording much of the article, editing templates and tables, moving sections for better reading and attempting to find references. This is all to my preference, so opinions/suggestion are welcome and help would be greatly appreciated in any of the areas. --2nyte (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Kits
I was hoping to add all the kits, or at least the most notable ones in the Kit section, though I would need some help. I've added a lot in already, but some could probably be removed if they're not that notable. I don't really know much about the national teams kits and I don't know at all how to make kit patterns, so I would need help. Here are some sources for Australia's kits: theworldgame.sbs.com.au, oldfootballshirts.com, australiansocceroos.com, smh.com.au, Template:Football kit, Template:Football kit/pattern list. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --2nyte (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Shirt badge
This was brought up before, though there was no resolution. The logo shown is the logo of the Football Federation, not of the team or any other Australian national football team for that matter. This badge and this badge (the yellow crest with the kangaroo and emu) are both used on the national teams jersey's and I think either one would be a suitable replacement. --2nyte (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The second logo appears only on replica kits. The actual logo used on player shirts is the Australian coat of arms. As far as I can tell from press photos, the FFA logo doesn't appear on the current shirts. Hack (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Home stadium
Has anyone told fans outside Sydney that the team's home stadium is Stadium Australia? That's what the Infobox says. Do we have a source for that, or is it just a Sydney based fans' perspective? HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to have been fixed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Golden era mystery
The text under the heading Golden era begins with "In early 2005, it was thought that FFA had entered into discussions with AFC for Australia to join Asia and leave Oceania." That just reads rather weirdly. I'm not even sure what it's trying to say. Thought by whom? So what? And a few other questions.... It's an odd way to begin a section. What's it really all about? Could we say it better? (I hope so, but I'm not sure what to say.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you're addressing the section as a whole or the specific line you quoted. Never the less, I re-worded the opening line and regarding the section as a whole a added some info on the 'golden generation'.--2nyte (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was primarily that first sentence that concerned me. Your changes are quite an improvement. I have, however, made a change to the format of your revised heading to highlight that it's actually a quote from a reliable source, and not just peacock language from an editor, which would be unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is necessary to have the title in inverted commas and italicize rather than just one of the two.--2nyte (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What? That's written as a statement. Was it meant to be a question? HiLo48 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a question. I forgot to put a question mark.--2nyte (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says on such matters. Maybe it would be better to not use the term at all as a section heading. I'd prefer simple groupings of years for listing the history. We shouldn't be drawn into copying the language styles of sports journalists. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Who cares who supplies the kit?
2nyte has just added the kit supplier's details to the article. I edit articles for lots of sports. Soccer seems the only one where editors are obsessed with doing this. What's the point? HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Soccer? Has it become a non-word?
Are we in complete denial? The only mention of the word soccer in this article is in the contribution of that word to the name of the Socceroos. Now, in line with the resolution of the second most recent attempt to have articles about the sport call the game football rather than soccer, I have no intention of trying to change the name of this article away from "...association football...". That's fine with me. But it seem ridiculous to have an article covering the whole history of the national team, obviously including the time when it was officially known as a soccer team, representing a soccer federation, in a country where many exclusively call the game soccer, and avoid using that word. It's taking the campaign to change the name of the sport in a very Orwellian and dishonest direction. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The official term used according to the FFA and general supporters of the "Socceroos" is Football... Not Association Football, not Soccer, but Football... The term Socceroos is no different to the Trinidad and Tobago National Team that is nicknamed the Soca Warriors, it has nothing to do with the sport actually being played on the ground. The term "Socceroos" is just a nickname. For the intents and purposes of this article the game being played is Football as recognised by the governing body of the code in Australia.


 * Also, frankly there are very few people who follow the sport in this country that even know what the term "Association Football" refers to, soccer is a by gone anachronism and I wish we'd all just grow up about it. On record: I'm stating my point of view, not opening that debate either --124.177.110.163 (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with you about Association football. It's not a good choice of name. I also note that your IP address geolocates to Brisbane or nearby. You really need to spend some time on the other side of the Barassi Line and see how the language works there. One simple example is that every secondary school has a football team and a soccer team. Can you tell what football means in that context? Can you explain how or why it will ever change? For that half of the Australian population the word soccer is not an anachronism. It's simply a part of daily language. Anyway, that was not the point of my previous post. It was primarily about the historical aspects of the article, for the 130 years when soccer WAS the official name of the sport. Why is it not mentioned? But you're right, of course, you're not debating. You ignored almost everything I said in my post, so you didn't debate anything. Soccer fans seem incapable of that. HiLo48 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are discussions on Talk:Soccer in Australia about the use of association football/football/soccer and HiLo48, please do not bite the newcomers.--2nyte (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will bite willful ignorance, incompetence and ideologically driven fanaticism wherever I see it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , not all of us soccer fans are fanatical ideologues about the name. :) I think the article should be renamed to Australia men's national soccer team to bring it into line with the international standards like United States men's national soccer team. (Does  want to discuss the inherent sexism involved in claiming the team as genderless?  All those sources that  points out as calling the game football also point out the gender of the team involved.  Can't have your sourcing both ways. AOC claims there is a men's team and a women's team, not a team and a women's team. --LauraHale (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This move request is part of a wider campaign
I think it is clear that LauraHale is picking on this article because there is a belief that this article could be moved. If that move is achieved, then LauraHale would then move onto New Zealand national football team and try to move it to New Zealand men's national football team. It's clear that LauraHale's arguments are based on trying to move all XYZ national ABC team articles to XYZ men's national ABC team, but this has been consistently opposed by central communities such as WP:FOOTY because it would give a false equivalence between the national teams in countries where the men's team is clearly far more popular. These arguments have failed so instead LauraHale is trying to move countries piecemeal; ie "if Australia is like this, so should New Zealand" and so on. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, someone would only start a page move discussion if they thought they stood a chance of being successful, wouldn't they? It's really not on to post someone elses comments (not from your own talk page by the looks of it) on a different Talk page, is it? At best leave a link to the relevant Talk page.
 * Each country should be taken on its merits shouldn't it? From what I know, New Zealand doesn't have a particularly successful men's football team, so maybe there would be more merit in the suggestion. Sionk (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , Let's be brutally clear here. The issue of "false equivalence" is a WP:NPOV one.  The two teams are equivalent in that they both represent their countries at the national level.  Full stop.  End of story.  This fact is completely verifiable.  It is a neutral statement.  (Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia pillar.) It is clear that you are a POV warrior, promoting the men's game at the expense of Wikipedia's policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV.  This is abundantly clear by  "false equivalence".  There is absolutely NOTHING in the text of this article that supports this statement.  It is not verifiable at all, nor relevant. It is an opinion, your opinion.   --LauraHale (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that you are a POV warrior, pushing the POV that there is full equivalence between men's and women's national teams in all countries and all sports, which is clearly not the case. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I seek PRECISION in naming the articles. Two national teams exist.  They are separated based on gender. Precision in naming, accuracy and verifiability should be striven for.  You are seeking to enshrine in names that a policy that ensures no "false equivalence" between men and women.  If you have an NPOV argument to stand on, make it and make it without referring to gender. If you cannot make an arguement as to why one team should be gender neutral and one team should be genderized in a sport segregated by gender, it proves that you are a gender warrior who believes the men's game is superior to the women's game.  Can you do it? Please.  Do it.  Make an argument that does not involve gender for your position.  I can make an argument for my case.  Can you do the same? Didn't think so.--LauraHale (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV requires articles to be represented fairly, proportionately and without bias. In many cases, your argument would violate those principles because it would give disproportionate status and attention to the teams (too little for one and too much for the other). I would make the same argument if football was primarily known as a female sport and the men's game was a minority interest. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The other national team is not represented fairly or proportionally or without bias in the article about the Australian national association football team. There are two teams. This article only refers to one. If the other national team is represented in the article beyond a hat note, I do not see it. Thus, when it comes to THE Australian national team as it relates to this article, WP:NPOV is violated by highlighting one team to the exclusion of the other. You have to remember: TWO national teams exist. One is not fairly represented here. UNDUE weight is given to one team.  --LauraHale (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the quote. I have spent the better part of a several days working on a lot of men's articles that I take great pride. I take great pride in all my work. And you know what? Despite your doom and gloom suggestions, There is NOTHING wrong about introducing neutrality and verifiability in article titles to Wikipedia. Your suggestion that this pillar and this policy be disregarded is offensive to all Wikipedia editors. --LauraHale (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems clear that some WP:FOOTBALL editors are vehemently, dementedly opposed to women's football. It's obviously quite pitiable but we shouldn't set too much store by it – better that we get opinions from the wider community and leave them behind. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With those nasty chauvinists of WP:FOOTY not involved, I suppose then that moving the Australia national cricket team article (which at present doesn't even give a hatnote to the Australia national women's cricket team) to Australia national men's cricket team should be a doddle, no? Or perhaps it is just a few who are pushing their POV that all national teams, regardless of gender or sport, are created equal. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

At least Jmorrison230582 has taken Laura's name off this attack thread now, but my answer to the new title is, so what? No matter what it might or might not lead to, the move is either the right thing to do, or it's not. Please discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There's already a 7500 word discussion at "Suggested move". Most contributors seem to think it's not.
 * Personally speaking I'm not an activist from WikiProject Football, in fact I was until recently a member of the Gender Bias Task Force (hence being invited to take part here). I'm the only person I know, or my friends and family (male and female) that follows women's football. Mainly the problem is (as Jmorrison has pointed out) it is rarely televised, marginalised by football clubs, sponsors and the media. Manchester United, one of the world's best known clubs, doesn't have a women's team! To say women's football is anywhere near equal in terms of status, profile, finance or support is patently untrue and unsupported by any facts. This is evidently the case with Australian football too. There are some other countries (and several other sports) where this isn't the case, of course, and these can be judged accordingly.
 * On the subject of this being a general initiative, well, evidently it is. The initiators need to be open and honest about this, rather than change policy by stealth. Possibly it is an initiative that will decrease the perception of bias on Wikipedia and encourage a wider cross section of society to become involved. But shouting down every mild disagreement with calls of "biased", "sexist", "nasty chauvinist" etc. will move the initiative backwards. Sionk (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Even though they're true? HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the teams need to be of equal status to have explicitly named titles. This move is either the right thing to do for the reason of having better titles, or it's not. Please discuss. HiLo48 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right about that, at least. And because the teams do not need to be of equal status, this is clearly an issue that needs discussing across the board, not just for one team at a time. – PeeJay 23:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of the above attacks are absolutely laughable, without a shred of evidence, and are paper-thin at best. I doubt there are very many people who are "vehemently, dementedly opposed to women's football" anywhere, let alone as part of WP:FOOTBALL. The only real exceptions to that are likely to be certain groups of religious extremists, who are opposed to women having any freedom generally. The fact that WP:NFOOTBALL is very weak with regards to women's leagues is due to the lack of fully professional leagues out there; almost all discussions that may have changed the guideline have failed, regardless of what they proposed. Let's not forget that NFOOTBALL is very heavily skewed against several nations as well; are we going to now lodge claims of racism? The major issue here is actually nothing to do with gender bias, and I personally don't care whether the title has "men" in the name or not; it's Laura's improper attempts to force her change across. And for all of those claiming that WP:FOOTBALL members, like myself, are being deliberately obstructive and are sexist, reflect on the fact that Australia's national cricket team and rugby union team articles, both of which have a similar gender split in notability when compared to football, lack the gender split in the male article name. Indeed, it's evident that Laura has been pushing this very POV for at least two years, without any success; check out, which was a resounding failure, and the hockey and basketball article moves that have happened since then appear to be in direct violation of that consensus, with no new consensus formed for them.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Luke - THAT'S an attack post. Obfuscation at its finest. It discussed anything but the merits of this individual proposal. It's either the right thing to do for the reason of having better titles, or it's not. Please discuss THAT. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn't a discussion thread about the original proposal and, secondly, you're on weak ground to accuse people of "attack posts", considering you've called WikProject Football a "circle jerk" and numerous other people rude, incompetent, chauvinist and pathetic. Why would anyone want to engage with such troll-like behaviour? Sionk (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And there's another post that avoids the topic. Anyway, "circle jerk" wasn't my contribution. Though I did think it was hilarious. Meanwhile, I'm getting a bit sick of coping with the tunnel vision and POV pushing of soccer fans. Cleaned all their crap off my Talk page today (There were five fucking threads! All started by obsessed soccer nuts.), and might give up here for a bit too. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo, I will speak exactly as I want, and given the pathetic nature of the majority of your posts, you can stop being a kettle calling the pot black. This individual proposal has precisely no merit whatsoever; it needs to be a proper, WikiProject-wide (or perhaps even Wikipedia-wide) naming discussion, NOT a discussion on a single article. Not only that, but I brought up a 100% relevant move request, and that one wasn't disruptive, unlike this one; for someone claiming "obfuscation at its finest", you've done a damn fine job in avoiding any response to something that makes you look even more like a troll... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The contributions of WP:FOOTBALL editors on this page should be considered as one vote for the purposes of the discussion. The individuals concerned speak with one voice, which is the voice of the "average Wikipedian". I suspect that in most cases this shrill, boring voice emanates from the bedrooms of their respective mothers' houses. They need to realise that this is an encyclopedia, not a football fanblog. Stop flooding the encyclopedia with bios of fourth-rate no-marks from your home team and/or country. Stop trying to justify it by making up your own ludicrous notability criteria. Instead of arrogance and aggression, be receptive to opinions from better, more widely-experienced editors, from outside your stuffy gentlemens' club. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we treat the utter bullshit that you, HiLo and Laura have spouted at times as being one voice as well? The ludicrous thing about the utter bollocks you just wrote is, just before you wrote that, I wrote the article on Emma Checker, who happens to be an Australian female footballer. Who played internationally for Australia as well, but rather than improve the encyclopedia, you just spout some of the most inane crap ever. Care to fuck off, or actually improve the encyclopedia for once? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair's fair, I give credit to you for the Checker article. I think my main point holds though. I don't really understand your choice of language here, am I supposed to be intimidated? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Clavdia, just because a group of people share an opinion does not mean their !votes should be considered en bloc. I'm sure if anyone from WP:FOOTBALL had a dissenting point of view, they would express it here as well. – PeeJay 23:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure they would, but I don't think that scenario has ever come up. From now on perhaps WP:FOOTBALL could send a single emissary to deliver their verdict at these discussions? Perhaps GiantSnowman, who seems to have anointed himself as the Sepp Blatter of WP:FOOTBALL? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why should they? Everyone has a right to contribute to a discussion if it concerns them. Why not get some more people from WP:WMNSPORT to contribute to the discussion? I would welcome their input. Just be careful you don't violate WP:CANVAS. – PeeJay 01:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a sign of losing an argument when someone resorts to personal insults. This started quite early on from the proposers. Maybe now the conversation has degenerated to new lows, it needs someone to come along and wrap it up. Sionk (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But you're only one from outside the circle jerk who is in the no camp. Your initial suggestion to move the article to the team's nickname was ridiculous and – with respect – your contributions have gone rapidly downhill from there. While you're obviously entitled to your opinion, even though you only stumbled upon it sometime yesterday afternoon, the vast majority of other neutral participants are in favour of the move. Expressions like "no-brainer" have been bandied about. We've heard the WP:FOOTBALL party line, and had it amplified, in stereo. Let's see what other editors have to say and try for a genuine consensus. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a bit low, like many of your other comments. I joined the discussion 5 days ago. Describing all supporters as "neutral" and all opposers as "circle jerk" is pretty unconstructive too. Sionk (talk) 00:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Clavdia, you need to stop with the aggressive language. By all means feel aggrieved if the discussion doesn't go your way, just don't take it out on us. – PeeJay 01:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight tag
As Australia verifiably has two national teams, I have added WP:UNDUE to the article. The article gives undue weight to the men's team. --LauraHale (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is not how that tag works, and you know it. Stop being disruptive. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

, Please do not remove this taghere like you did until the discussion is concluded. There is an ongoing discussion about the article giving undue weight to the men's team. Australia has two national teams. The teams are separated by gender. Until such a time that the neutrality can be resolved where undue weight is not given to one gender over another. (Did you have a suggestion for percentages of content about the men's team versus the women's team?) Removing it is rather WP:POINTY and WP:NPOV pushing by suggesting this is not an issue despite ongoing discussions.--LauraHale (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake Laura, give it a rest. YOU are the one being pointy, by spamming in pointless tags, and by opening up a very disruptive individual move request when you've been told to take this to a central location. There is no weight being given to one gender over the other; there's a fucking hatnote at the very top telling you about the women's team. The article is about the men's team, and the women's article is about the women's team; should I go and spam that tag in there? The naming of the article is absolutely irrelevant to those tags, and you know it. Grow up. And, as I've said already, I'm not even particularly opposed to your proposed move; just the pathetic way you're going about things. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate your passion about this article and your strong feelings on the topic. The article is not about the men's team.  It is about the Austraia's national association football team.  There is no article on the men's team.  The women's article has been forked off, but in forking off from the main article about the national team, UNDUE weight has been given to the men. Until we can resolve the issue of how to balance two national teams in this article, the tag should stay.  What sort of solutions do you have?  Would a 75% men's national team balance work for you? Both teams represented in the lead and an acknowledgement that Australia has two senior teams be a good starting point for resolving the WP:UNDUE issue?  What other solutions do you propose?  --LauraHale (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is about the men's team, regardless of any mention in the lead about the women's team, or elsewhere. The title may or may not be incorrect, fine; but these tags are certainly irrelevant. The NPOV tag is 100% irrelevant, as the article does offer a neutral point of view; whether it "disregards" the women's team is not relevant. The "undue weight" tag is simply pointy advocacy by yourself, and is precisely why so many people - including myself - are pissed off by you. The women's article wasn't "forked off", it was split out due to being a separate entity, with a completely independant notability. The women's article dates back to 2005, which appears to be roughly the same time the original men's article was started; although it is very hard to find the exact information, as the history is obscured by a lot of moves; the fork argument just isn't backed up by the facts. As for where to take the dispute, several people have already told you; take it to a global location, or, at the very least, WP:FOOTBALL. Your time would be better spent writing articles on Chloe Logarzo, Hayley Raso and Mackenzie Arnold - all of whom pass WP:NFOOTY as it stands right now - than these move requests; that would save everyone a lot of bother, and it would also look far better than this constant advocacy. Alternatively, I can look into it, if you find me some good sources on them. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "::*The article is about the men's team," Good.  We're in agreement.  The title says it is about THE national team, which Australia has two.  Undue weight is being given to the men´s team by treating the article as defacto about the men.  We're got a good starting point.  Now that we've agreed on this point, how do you suggest we move forward to resolving this problem of the article being about the men's team despite the article being about THE national team, of which Australia has two? I look forward to your suggestions.  --LauraHale (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion: read what I actually wrote, and you will see that YET AGAIN, I have a suggestion as to what you are consistently trying to push your POV about. Seriously Laura, I'm not opposed to your general move proposal, nor do I necessarily support it; but your refusal to read what people are saying to you means that you simply won't get any traction this way... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "I have a suggestion: read what I actually wrote" assumes wrongly I did not read it. I did read it.  I noticed that rather than try to address the issue of WP:UNDUE, you instead continued with combative point of view pushing regarding the issue of how the men's team is the only national team that matters in Australia.  This could be read as an indication that you weren't willing to engage in participation with the goal of reaching consensus to remove the tag. I have tried to refocus the topic to address major issue of two national teams existing, and this article needing to reflect that in the text.   I invite you to provide sources that support your point of view that the men's team is the ONLY national team.  I would ask you to provide sources from FIFA, AOC, ASC, FFA, ABC (Australia), and the Sydney Morning Herald that suggest the Australian women's team is a false equivalent, and not co-equal to the men's team in terms of representing Australia at the highest level. Once you've done this, I think we will have a good starting point to determine what the percentages should be given over to discussing which Australia's national association football teams. --LauraHale (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake. You haven't read it; you've read what you wanted to read. And this is precisely why you're getting little support, particularly when you do this to people who may otherwise have been inclined to back you... Claiming that I have said there is only one team, or that only one team matters, completely disregards the lengthy comments I have made, and is a 100% factually incorrect representation of them. This is some of the worst advocacy I have seen. Anywhere. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

, I have read it. I reject your fundamental reasoning. There is not point in addressing point D in a progression of points like A -> B-> C -> D. This suggests the validity of point D.  Point A remains this: Australia has two national teams.  One national team is discussed exclusively in the article to the exclusion of the other. This is the starting point of any conversation about WP:UNDUE. Now, from that starting point, please discuss the issues of WP:UNDUE. If you have a problem with doing so and it would assist you in more rapidly providing sources about the men's team and the relative weight they should be given in the article, I would consent to swearing at you as a motivational tool for providing the requested material. --LauraHale (talk) 08:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you reject the fact that the article is solely about the men's team? You reject a clear fact? Again, if the article was located at "Australia men's national association football team", you wouldn't be whining like this; your issue is with the naming of the article, so focus on that, and stop taking every single avenue you can to push your POV. If you want to reject my points, including the fact that I'm not even particularly opposed to the proposed move, that's your prerogative; but don't deliberately misrepresent them just because they don't fit your view. And don't deliberately make up some of the clearest bullshit I've ever seen, by trying to claim that I said something that is categorically NOT what I said. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "So you reject the fact that the article is solely about the men's team?" No. Let me be clear: The article title says it is about the Australia national association football team.  Australia has TWO national teams.  I fully accept and acknowledge the article text is solely about the men's team.  And hence we have WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.   Australia has two teams.  Now that we've established I have read the article title (neutral to gender) and the article text (exclusive to men), can we move on to how to fix this as opposed to repeatedly questioning my ability to read and my reading comprehension skills?  How do you propose to resolve to fix WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV given the problems described repeatedly to you? --LauraHale (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just fully protected for three days due to the ongoing edit warring. Please try to solve this issue through talk page discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why the strange usage of "Australia" in the name?
Nobody in Australia (and maybe not anywhere else) would ever call the Socceroos the "Australia national association football team". (And I'm not talking about the name of the sport here.) 2nyte has just made the lead consistent with the title (a reasonable thing to do, if the title made sense) and in doing so has drawn my attention to this. Surely "Australian" would be more grammatically correct? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably a bit pedantic but not everyone who has represented Australia has been an Australian. Hack (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not strange at all. All national team articles are named with a noun instead of an adjective. It is the team of the nation, rather than that of the nationality.--2nyte (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with nationality. The team representing Australia is always called the Australian team, by everyone, never the Australia team. Which team is currently playing the Poms in the Ashes? The Australia team, or the Australian team? I'm sure you use the name Australian yourself. I made that point in my first post. Why did you guys ignore it? Is it because you don't like my views on the name of the game? And I don't give a damn what other articles are called. I'm discussing the name of this one. Why are national team articles named with a noun? It's ungrammatical. (I think I made that point earlier too.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Judge jury and executioner, you certainly like to get straight to the point HiLo48. Yes, I would agree that it is grammatically incorrect. Though I think we should conclude the discussion on gender equality above before we start this one. I agree this question should be asked, as it is a valid one, but implementing it would be a mammoth task, so maybe we should hold it for now. As soon as the discussion above finished we should inquire about this one on WP:FOOTBALL.--2nyte (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The discussion is about enforcement of WP:PRECISE], [[WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE.  It is only about gender equality if you are a POV warrior because the abundance of sources showing Australia has two national teams exist is there and that they are co-equal in their representation of Australia. We should really figure out if WP:V is a policy that should apply to Australian sport team articles. --LauraHale (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain why we can't just fix the Australian one? I have no desire to take on a bunch of soccer obsessives from all around the world. There is no need when it's an obvious grammar correction. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is an obvious grammar correction, but for the sake of courtesy and consistency I think it should be discussed on WP:FOOTBALL as a whole. You don't have to "take on a bunch of soccer obsessives", I will do it myself if you want. It would be a very easy point to discuss. But I would at least like to get others opinions from 'all around the world'.--2nyte (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the football Wikiproject has the exclusive domain for all articles about sport national teams? Australia men's national goalball team is the domain of the project how that the soccer Wikiproject should dicate policy in for the title?  And why should a Wikiproject that has members who support flagrantly violating WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:PRECISE  be encouraged to dictate policy?  It would need to be a multi-Wikiproject wide policy where all national Wikiprojects and all sports with national team based competitions would need to be informed. --LauraHale (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Laura and HiLo, again, in your latest attempt to lash out at WP:FOOTBALL in any way possible, you completely ignore the other articles. The cricket team, rugby union team, rugby league team, netball team, etc are all located at "Australia". So it isn't a bunch of "soccer obsessives" to blame; it's a global practice. And it seems to be the same for the vast majority of other nations. Again, this is something you need to take to a global location, and not just blow a lot of hot air over one article. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If it really is some sort of global practice, can you please explain it? I am not good at accepting "everybody else does it" as a reason for doing anything. HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the name of the team is Australia. It's not necessarily an Australian team. The players may only have tenuous qualifications to play for the team and there are many foreign coaches. It is, however, a team that represents Australia. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The FIFA Regulations Governing International Matches limits the naming of an international match to "an appropriate political and geographical description of the countries or territories of the Members whose teams are involved in the match or competition..." This means, for example, the match the Socceroos recently played against Costa Rica was officially "Australia vs Costa Rica". Australia is the name of the team that represented Football Federation Australia. Hack (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly, but that doesn't answer my question. What FIFA says is fine, when one is just using a single word for the team (or more words if the name of the country is longer). It's what we do for every sport that I can think of, for both Australia and for other countries. The team representing Australia is known as Australia or the Australian team. The team representing Germany is known as Germany, or the German team. It's never the Australia team, or the Germany team, for any sport, or any country. But that's effectively what the title of the article is doing. Why? HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's effectively a disambiguator - if this was a non-sports article, it would be something like Australia (national association football team) (or whatever you call the sport). Hack (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand what that post is trying to say. Posts that include the structure "...if it was..., then it would..." aren't helpful, because it isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Australia is the official name of the team. The current title is an attempt to disambiguate between the various uses of Australia. Hack (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Then it's a very poor attempt to do so. Nobody outside Wikipedia talks nor writes that way. Using a word ungrammatically isn't going to help anybody understand anything. Give me a good reason why we can't use correct English? (I'd be careful with use of the word "official" in this context too.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's official in the context of describing the involvement of the team in a match or competition (eg team names on tickets, scoreboards, etc). For most other contexts the team is known as the Socceroos. Hack (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Australia is certainly more formal than Socceroos, but that doesn't justify its ungrammatical use in the title of this article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, if you truly wish to make a good faith edit then I suggest you move the discussion to a wider community (as with the men's/women discussion). Why just change one article name out of 1000's? It seems in poor taste to do so, especially with the article subject in mind and your apparent dislike for it.--2nyte (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Poor taste? Bullshit!!!!! If this article has the wrong title, we fix it, here. We don't run off to certain rejection by tunnel visioned, conservative soccer fans the world over who cannot deal with any aspect of their game being challenged. You are the perfect example of that. If the name is wrong here, we fix it here! Deal with the discussion here. Your post is a copout. You obviously don't have an answer to my questions, and just want me to go away. That strengthens my will. I have been politely awaiting constructive repsonses, have got none, and now get a "Go away" from you. LOL. If no-one can come up with a reason for the ungrammatical name apart from "everyone else does it that way" (Can you see how bad that reason is?), I will change it. No rational answer means consensus is clearly with me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are limiting the discussion and purposely so. That is in poor taste. If you want answers to your questions (which are complete legitimate ones at that) then seek a wider discussion. If this is truly a good faith edit, then this one article name will not matter to you.--2nyte (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no logical reason for your request. If THIS article is incorrectly titled, then THIS article should be corrected. NOW. And please stop acting as if your motives are pure. You may believe they are, but your obsessive year on year fight against the name agreed by consensus says otherwise. YOU are the bad faith editor here. Now, can you tell us of any problem with correcting the title of THIS article to "Australia national association football team"? HiLo48 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The grammatical error isn't specific to this article. Why would you only change this specific article when there are tens of thousands with the exact problem? Wouldn't you rather move to change them all rather than just this one? I can not understand your motive to only change this specific article. There is a large scare problem, why are you not seeking a large scale solution? It is much more comprehensive and in good faith.--2nyte (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've told you why not. There must be something in your psychology that prevents you from accepting my answer. Is this just like your refusal to accept soccer as the name of the sport in Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It falls into the same category of pretending WP:PRECISE doesn't exist and pretending that Australia doesn't have a women's national team. WP:PRECISE actually supports an argument for soccer over football anyway. WP:SOFIXIT doesn't say seek global consensus to fix these problems when identified. No global consensus required to fix this article's naming problems.  (Show me a single policy/pillar on that.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Started discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football.--2nyte (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * (copying my answer from WP:FOOTY) The name is not grammatically incorrect - in the case of sports article titles, Australia is not an adjective but a noun adjunct. It probably looks awkward because this would often be prefaced by a modifier such as "the", but this is not included due to our WP:THE guideline. The title actually has two noun adjuncts (the second one is "association football", which is also not an adjective - the standalone phrase "football team" in itself has two nouns, with "football" being the noun adjunct). I noticed above that there were claims that this form is never used - examples of the use of "Australia team" can be found in the first paragraphs of this and this newspaper articles. Number   5  7  11:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you now going to post my response to the above in that other thread? Geez soccer nuts annoy me. It's pointless having multiple threads on a single matter. But sensible editing skills seem in short supply in that realm. How do you want us to proceed. Copy all posts into both threads? Ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I came here and read a slightly different discussion, so I thought I'd post a slightly different answer here (focussed on Australia, as opposed to the query raised at WP:FOOTY. I'm not sure why that's annoying. Number   5  7  11:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, this is where the discussion began. Can we kill the other bad faith thread, and just continue here please? HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've taken the ongoing discussion from there, and responded to your most recent comments. Number   5  7  11:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [Taken from WP:FOOTY] And this is exactly the kind of problem I predicted when 2nyte proposed bringing this matter here. (With an obvious, bad faith, ulterior motive I believe. He wants this to fail because he hates my success on maintaining soccer as the name for the game in Australia on Wikipedia.) The issue wasn't about the England team. It was about the Australian team, which nobody (except Wikipedia) EVER calls the Australia team. (Even with "the" in front.) That is incorrect. And THAT is the issue. Can the issue I actually raised be discussed here, rather than a manipulative concoction of a bad faith editor? HiLo48 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, would you stop accusing other editors of acting in bad faith. As has been mentioned umpteen times in the last few days, editors are not acting in bad faith simply because they disagree with you, and if you continue to make such horrible accusations, I (or another editor) will have no choice but to report you to an admin. – PeeJay 12:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [Taken from WP:FOOTY] It doesn't matter whether it is Australia or England - both are still noun adjuncts, so it cannot be incorrect. I specifically modelled this answer to England, but on the talk page of the article in question I fitted it to Australia, and also pointed out that your claim is incorrect - examples of the use of "Australia team" can be found in the first paragraphs of this and this newspaper articles. I found plenty more when looking for examples if you would like further proof. Cheers,  Number   5  7  11:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [Taken from WP:FOOTY] LOL. I guess I should have avoided the absolute. I'll rephrase. Hardly anybody ever calls the team the Australia team. Why should Wikipedia use such an uncommon and clumsy construct? HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon or clumsy - it's perfectly good English. As I said above, further proof from a wide range of sources is easily forthcoming - you can find the phrase "Australia team" used for a variety of different sports in all these different media outlets: Fox Sports Australia, Reuters, AFP, Daily Mail, Wales Online, Daily Express, ESPN, Bleacher Report, Evening Standard, the Examiner as well as in common speech (two examples here from Michael Clarke and Glenn McGrath regarding the cricket team). Number   5  7  11:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)