Talk:Australia men's national soccer team/Archive 5

Suggested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. Opinions are split pretty evenly here, I think because two basic facts are evident: (1) the current title assumes male is the default, which probably reflects some sort of WP:BIAS, but (2) the male team is more prominent. To what extent that second point stems from that bias and to what extent it reflects a typical WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is hard to say, thus the split here. The recommendations to take this to a larger venue may be good ones. --BDD (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Australia national association football team → Australia men's national association football team – The name should accurately reflect the topic. There are multiple national teams, and the sources tend to reflect this. 2nyte has consistently cited AOC and other sources to support the use of football in the name. Those selfsame sources clearly define the team as men. It would also bring the article into alignment with other national team articles, including United States men's national soccer team and other Australian national team articles that explicitly mention the gender of the players. LauraHale (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Other national team articles that this aligns with include Australia men's national basketball team, Australia men's national field hockey team, Australia men's national ice hockey team, Australia men's national lacrosse team, Australia men's national softball team, Australia men's national squash team, Australia men's national volleyball team, Australia men's national water polo team, Australia men's national wheelchair basketball team. --LauraHale (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Obviously a correct move. Hopefully one doesn't have to repeat all the equality arguments here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As was said above on : This change would set a precedent and therefore affect more than just Australian articles; therefore, the discussion should to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.--2nyte (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a bad faith post. It totally ignores the fundamental points made by the requester that this article's name is out of line with other Australian and international articles. The precedent obviously exists! Ignoring others' points is something you seem to do a lot. Why on earth should this move just depend just on what soccer fans from other countries on Wikipedia think? Please open your mind to the existence of a much bigger world out there. Soccer is NOT the only sport that people play. Your insularity and tunnel vision seriously dent your credibility. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * List of men's national association football teams and List of women's national association football teams. United States men's national under-20 soccer team, Canada men's national under-20 soccer team demonstrates men is currently used in article names. Slovenia women's national football team, Solomon Islands women's national football team, Somalia women's national football team, South Africa women's national football team, South Sudan women's national football team, Spain women's national football team, Sri Lanka women's national football team, Suriname women's national football team, Swaziland women's national football team, Sweden women's national football team, Switzerland women's national football team, Syria women's national football team, Tahiti women's national football team, Tajikistan women's national football team, Tanzania women's national football team, Thailand women's national football team, Timor-Leste women's national football team demonstrate that gender is currently being used project wide to differentiate one national team from another.  At the same time, the OFFICIAL name for the team based on AOC sources and the Football Federation of Australia say the team is the men's team. We should not ignore the official designation of the team. 2nyte  has made this repeatedly clear that the official designation matters and we should support 2nyte's push for consistency with the AOC and FFA. --LauraHale (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Football Federation of Australia website: The AFC Asian Cup 2015 will be the first ever senior men’s football tournament staged in Australia. Socceroos indicates this is the official name for the team, not "Australia national association football team." Given the common name and official name not being used and the potential for confusion given the existence of two top level national teams competing in elite competitions, there is a compelling reason to rename. When you say national team for soccer, I think Sally Shippard, not Tim Cahill. Female participation in soccer in Australia tops male participation.  It is possible for their to be gender confusion. --LauraHale (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * LauraHale, I don't think there is an official name for the national team, nor any national team. If there is one it would probably just be Australia. Also, I don't think I ever pushed for consistency with the AOC and FFA, I only mentioned their usage of the general term football (on a separate topic). HiLo48, I fully understand the request and its applicability to many other articles, that is why I oppose this specific request and think would be wise to discuss the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.--2nyte (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Further your push for consistency with the AOC and FFA, The Australian Institute of Sport sex differentiates. There is not "Football" and "Football - Women."  There is "Football - Men" and "Football - Women."  This supports the argument put forth by 2nyte elsewhere that we should be following the example of official name and treatment of the sport when determining local project names.~ I would be happy to provide more links to show that official sources genderize the treatment of the national team as a way of differentiating between the two most elite football teams competing internationally for Australia. There is a very legitimate question as to the accuracy of the name.  You're side stepping this problem, and beyond that you re-introduced into the article inaccurate information that suggests this article is about a national team open to people of both gender.  It isn't.  Please provide sources that suggest the team includes women, which the non-genderized name for a single sex competition implies. --LauraHale (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @2nyte - Socceroos is a registered trademark and is used by the FFA in almost all contexts to describe the men's national team where they are not forced to use "Australia" by FIFA or the AFC. Hack (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Agree with 2nyte. Also, i believe "men's" is implied. Doesn't need to be in the title.Simione001 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Men is not implied in the title and the article does not even state this is an exclusively men's team. The sport is gender segregated.  The sources make this clear.  The sport governing bodies in Australia make it clear that this is a men's team.  Wikipedia policies are for WP:NPOV, and the implied men is a non-neutral position that the men's team is THE ONLY national team.  By absenting an important component of the fundamental definition of the team, Wikipedians are engaging in POV pushing and inaccuracies by not stating things clearly.  Precision to avoid confusion and POV pushing should be attempted.  The two teams, men and women, are both the top level national teams in this sport and the current name pushes a POV that one is superior and worth being called THE national team and one is not worth being that by default. --LauraHale (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a hatnote which appears on most national team articles but if the requester wishes to continue with the page move I strongly suggest discussing the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football as this does effect all national team articles.--2nyte (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a NPOV tag. A hat note is not neutral, when both teams are defined by the text of the players and the text makes no mention of the genders of the players.  When the issue of gender has been resolved neutrally, then the tag can be removed. --LauraHale (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - is there a women's national association football team, and do they have an article? If so, I would support the move. If not, it seems silly to differentiate when there is nothing to differentiate from. Also, should it not be "Australian national men's..." rather than "Australia...". Clunky grammar could prompt further attempts to change the title. --Rushton2010 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. This article can be found at Australia women's national association football team.  --LauraHale (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No-brainer then - Support --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose here. I had a look at this list. out of all the national football team pages on Wikipedia only two (Canada and USA) have the word men's in their title. And based on the women's list most of these teams have a women's team as well. Also even the article for the sport has a women equivalent, but only the women's page is the gender mentioned. Therefore, the consensus is only to add a gender to the women's page. I would suppose this is because the men's game has been played for longer and it is most people's intuition (that when you say soccer you think of the game being played by men). Also, I'm pretty sure the men's teams have more coverage. If there is a desire to move all these pages, then as 2nyte and PeeJay have said, the discussion should take place at a more central location, such as WT:FOOTY. --SuperJew (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - User:LauraHale, this is starting to get a little bit POINTy. We told you last time that this discussion needs to take place in a more central location, as it affects more than just articles about the Australian team. At present, if we were to change all articles about national football teams to include the word "men's", we'd need to change (at a guess) about 200 articles, if not more. Take this discussion to WP:FOOTY and see how the community at large feels. – PeeJay 19:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not pointy at all. This discussion is limited to this article and there is no requirement that I create a WP:FOOTY rename notice for all article names.  Given this, as is stands, the article with this title is non-neutral.  There are realistically two options to solving the fundamentally non-neutral position by treating a gender segregated sport with male as the default.  The easiest is to change the name.  The other is to completely rewrite this article so that it is fundamentally about both teams in order to bring about gender neutrality and article accuracy. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , Just for clarification: How would you propose to rewrite the lead and the article text to make it fundamentally neutral with respect to the fact that Australia has two top level national association football teams at the elite level? --LauraHale (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is pretty POINTy. You raised a similar RM a while back, and it was turned down. I'll admit two years might be a decent time for the consensus to change, but many of the same arguments from before still apply. Furthermore, if this article is moved, it stands to reason that we should move all articles about national football teams to include the word "men's". That is why I recommend that you take this discussion to a more central location. Unless, of course, you plan to RM them all separately? – PeeJay 02:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't stand to reason at all. Some articles already say "men's", as do many for non-soccer teams. Changing this one will be no more of a precedent than any other. Why not fix this one? Is it because women are lesser important than men? HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Either it's equality for all or for none, IMO. Why should Australia, Canada and the United States have the distinction of using "men's" while all the other national teams are consigned to the assumption that men are more important than women? Discuss centrally please. – PeeJay 15:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true. As mentioned in the move proposal, a number of men's Australian national teams mention the gender of the team in the article name.  There are a number of men's national team articles that include men in it. Beyond that, the name change is the easiest way to fix the inherent POV problem with the article.  I've tried to think how the lead can be rewritten neutrally in regards to the fact that there are two top level national association football teams for Australia that represent the country in international competitions.


 * And that's just a bit clunky, because what it suggests for neutrality is either than a necessary neutral rationalization for why this article focuses on men, or a merger of Australia women's national association football team into this one in order to achieve neutrality. I'd love to see suggestions for how to fix the neutrality problem. --LauraHale (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The hyperlink at the top of the page: This article is about the men's team - neutrality achieved. ✅--2nyte (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Not neutral. We can replace the article with the text from the Matildas article.  That would make the article about the Australia national association football team.  We can then hat a link to the men's article.  Does that work for you? If not, why not? No, the solution you propose suggests that one team is not equal to another in terms of being THE national association football team that represents Australia internationally.  Please come up with a way to make the article TEXT more neutral vis-a-vis two national teams existing.  Hatting doesn't address the dual nature problem. --LauraHale (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There are 1000+ men's national representative football team articles without men's in the title and this article is following the format. US and Canada are the only exception - they probably just want to be politically correct. But in the same vein, we have FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup, or AFC Asian Cup and AFC Women's Asian Cup - the list continues, so maybe we're just following that format.--2nyte (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hardly being "politically correct" to treat men and women equally. How can you justify not doing so? Saying "all the other articles treat them unequally" is hardly a clever answer. They are simply discriminatory. That there's a lot of them just makes things worse. It makes soccer look chauvinist and backward. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * True beans. And the only way to neutralize the existing article without a name change is to merge Australia women's national association football team into the current article to reflect the fact the country has two national teams that represent Australia at the international level.  That is the ONLY way the neutrality of this article can be restored.  Hatting is not a problem to solve neutrality.  (If it was, the advocates of hatting would be okay with replacing the article text with the Matildas article and hatting the men's team.) Neutrality is a pillar of Wikipedia and the SIMPLEST way to achieve this is a rename and replacing this with a disambiguation. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what Political correctness is. But FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup was a better example to base the names on (i.e. the Australia team in the World Cup, the Australia women's team in the Women's World Cup). Maybe there's a determinant undertone, but like all PC, it's in the eye of the beholder - sorry to be so blunt.--2nyte (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * : No, it is being factually accurate and neutral. I have numerous sources I can show you that Australia has two national teams that represent Australia at the highest level. What sources do you have that say Australia has only one team? I've cited them.  You cite yours about only one team existing that represents Australia at the highest level, which the current title and name suggests is the truth. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 2nyte - equality is not political correctness. Try to justify this position with a better reason than "everyone else does it". If something is wrong, it's wrong no matter how many people do it. Those other articles are wrong, and so are you. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Political correctness, what 2nyte appears to be citing, redirects to WP:NPOV. This arguement about how things shouldn't be done because it is politically correct appears to be an argument for the move.  The people opposing the move have failed to provide a single policy based rationale for keeping the article under its current name. Let's get serious here if people genuinely want to keep the article under its current name and discuss policy based rationalizations for keeping it here.  What are the policy based rationales?  --LauraHale (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am saddened by the male chauvinistic attitude of some soccer fans here. I thought these equality debates were finished thirty years ago, and we were just still cleaning up the loose ends. There is absolutely no logic nor fairness in mentioning the gender for women's teams and not mentioning it for men's teams. Of course it's the right move. There is no logical argument against it. Demanding global agreement for this particular change, especially when there's already a lot of men's teams with that word in their title, is repeating failed, pathetic arguments from fifty years ago. One part of the image of soccer is that it's the sport of the backward, less well educated, less sophisticated, lower classes. That definitely shows here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support as per the other Australian national sporting teams listed above. Notifications have been left at WT:FOOTY and WP:AWNB.  This doesn't have to be a precedent for all nations.  One page at a time, each considered individually based on each teams' profile, status, success etc. The-Pope (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't have a problem with adding the gender to the title, but association football is not the common name for the sport in Australia. Hack (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not the common name anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - For reasons of neutrality, recognizability, naturalness, precision and consistency. HiLo48 hit the nail on the head with chauvinistic and pathetic. Speaking of chauvinistic and pathetic, decisions on these matters should certainly not be devolved to the WP:FOOTY project, which has been likened to a circle jerk. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment being the Australian team, shouldn't this say "soccer", being the Australian word for "association football"? Soccer in Australia -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When it was last agreed to use "soccer" for internal Australian articles it was also agreed to use "football" for international related articles. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment whether this uses soccer or association football, it should include the gender indicator, to counter WP:systematic bias -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * - Is there an official rule (ie. one coming from FFA, AFC or FIFA) that woman are not aloud to play in this team? --RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. This page has more details. Competitions are gender segregated and players may be gender tested. --LauraHale (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggested alternative - the most sensible solution would be to move the article to the primary title Socceroos, with a redirect from Australia men's national association football team. Judging by the numerous sources cited in this article Socceroos is quite clearly the common name for the team - we go by what the reliable sources say, don't we? Anecdotally I sympathise with LauraHale's point of view, but generally men dominate certain sports, while women dominate some others and, as a result, it is often felt unnecessary to add teh word "men's" to sports reporting (the exception being the Olympics where men and women both compete contemporaneously). If the men and women are treated equally in Australia (both teams have a popular nickname) then this page name suggestion should be treated on its merits, rather than slapped down because of its possible affect on other Wikipedia articles. Sionk (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a comment on the equality or increased visibility of the men's team versus the women's team. Any suggestion that this is an issue that should play any role in this move discussion is irrelevant and a red herring. The article is titled "Australia national association football team".  Australia has two such teams representing Australia internationally.  One is men and one is women.  The article places an point of view by suggesting Australia has only one such team and by intentionally favouring the point of view that the only legitimate is the men's team despite the large number of verifiable sources that support the idea that Australia has two national teams.  The current title is misleading and not concise. It violates two of Wikipedia's pillars. I have no preference regarding the use of Socceroos so long as this current title disambiguates to reflect the neutral fact supported by a plurality of verifiable sources that Australia has two national teams, not one. --LauraHale (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly is a comment on equality of you are saying that the men's and women's team are treated equally in the real world, but not on Wikipedia. I don't have enough knowledge of the football status in Australia, but generally Wikipedia goes by what the subject is commonly referred to. If the men's team is commonly referred to as the "Australia men's national association football team" I'd have no problem with the move at all. But everyone seems to call it the Socceroos. The article on the womens team is so poorly sourced it's difficult to comment on them. Sionk (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - no evidence these two have equal weight, and in fact it seems clear the men's team is the PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 18:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV says that there is no equal weight issue.  You are pushing a point of view that a singular national team exists. PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply given the dual existence of two national teams.   The primary topic is that national team.  Your POV is the men's team should be given UNDUE weight.  PRIMARYTOPIC  does not trump NPOV nor WP:V, where WP:V shows an abundance of sources that the there are two national teams that represent Australia at the highest level. (The fact that the first paragraph only needs the word Socceroos changed for it to be about women shows that.)  What is your NPOV rationale? --LauraHale (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who says the men's team isn't the PRIMARYTOPIC? If you asked 100 people on the streets of Sydney what they thought of when you said the words "Australia national soccer team", I have no doubt that the vast majority would assume you were talking about the men's team. In fact, this Google search reveals that you have to get to the second page of results before anything about the women's team emerges, and even then there are only three mentions out of 20, all of which appear because of the women's team's recent match against the United States, hence violating WP:RECENT. It is not non-neutral to use the term "Australia national association football team" to refer specifically to the men's team when most of the reading public would assume you meant the men's team in the first place. As for WP:V, I believe I've satisfied that with the Google search above. I understand your pain that the women's team isn't given equal weighting, but that's the way it is in the real world; unfortunately, we don't live in a world where that type of equality exists... yet. – PeeJay 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So the women are less important than the men? HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. This is a case of factual accuracy, that the team on the article is gender segegated by rule, is not that important to .  He wants enshrined in the article a factual inaccuracy.  The title is not factually accurate. He's make a n Argumentum ad populum and saying popularity trumps factuality. (But yeah, it does read like your interpretation.  Let's make it all about men.  woot woot.  men.) --LauraHale (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Who says the men's team isn't the PRIMARYTOPIC?" Well, that's the crux of it.  The FFA and the AIS and FIFA and any number of verifiable sources say Australia has a men's national association football team and a women's national association football team.  So we start there: Two national teams exist.  Okay.  You can see this right? Verifiable sources say two national teams exist. FFA, Australian Sports Commission and FIFA all say two national teams exist.  (Your google search is not reliable.  FIFA, ASC and FFA are more reliable.)  Therefor, by saying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you violate WP:NPOV by saying despite the official status of both teams as national teams for Australia, you wish to say media attention and other factors mean WP:V should be set aside to favour the men's team in a way that is completely non-neutral.  PRIMARYTOPIC only applies in this case if Australia lacked a women's team or if the women's team was not an official one. Beyond that, PRIMARYTOPIC does not trump WP:V nor WP:NPOV.  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not a pillar.  The other two are. Stop arguing with FIFA and the FFA. Start being neutral.   --LauraHale (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A wise man once said, you can use facts to support whatever position you want; philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as true neutrality. You are ignoring the fact that it does not matter what the official sources say, as they are primary sources, but what the media say, and although a Google search is a pretty crude measure of what the media are saying, it does a pretty good job. By the way, try not to be so condescending in the future; many people would not respond well to that. – PeeJay 20:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , No. I am saying the verifiable sources say Australia has two national teams.  You are ignoring the sources because the facts do not fit your WP:NPOV. Australia has two national teams.  Do you have verifiable, reliable sources that say only ONE national team that is not gender segregated exists?  If not, the pillars of WP:NPOV and WP:V trump "well, everyone knows the men's team is the only team that counts."  --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not put words in my mouth. No one is saying the men's team is the only one that counts; what I am saying is that the men's team is the one most people would take you to mean if you said "Australia national association football team". You accuse me of having an agenda, when you are quite clearly guilty of the same. The only thing it would not be neutral to say right now is that the Australian women's team has parity with the men's; show me evidence of that and you may be able to convince me. – PeeJay 21:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * PeeJay2K3 - Three questions. Do you understand the discriminatory nature of what you are demanding? Are you aware of the women's rights movements of the past 150 years? Do they have to keep fighting for equality? (Please don't answer these with a Google hit count.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , "what I am saying is that the men's team is the one most people would take you to mean". That's nice.  You understand that this is not the issue for this move debate.  The issue is the current article title is not accurate.  You are endeavoring to put inaccurate information into Wikipedia. You are seeking to use decreased precision in a way that pushes a point of view.  The current title is NOT factually accurate.  So  "what I am saying is that the men's team is the one most people would take you to mean" is not relevant. I am glad that you agree with me that Australia has two national teams and that you now favour a move in compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV. --LauraHale (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not favour such a move, and you clearly have a gross misunderstanding of my argument. I have made my position clear, please do not ping me again on this page. – PeeJay 22:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your argument can be summarised as "It's what (almost) everyone else does". I'm a high school teacher. If I am trying to point out to a student that they have done something wrong, just about the worst possible defence students come up with, that I hear far too often, is "But he's doing it too", (while pointing at or naming another student). Something is either the right thing to do, or it's not. The fact that there are lots of other examples of the same thing never makes that thing right. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The rationale provided by does not just rise to the point of trumping WP:NPOV or WP:V.   The name needs to comply with Wikipedia's pillars. If there is an arguement being provided that trumps it, it needs to be articulated more clearly because I do not understand his comments in the context of the pillars. --LauraHale (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In some defence of changing the title, if the sport isn't commonly called 'association football' in Australia then Wikipedians have already agreed to move away from the COMMONNAME. It isn't a tremendous divergence to add the word "men's" while we're at it! But attacking other people for being discriminatory and POV won't get this discussion anywhere. PeeJay (and others) isn't being discriminatory for pointing out that the two teams are by no means equal in terms of coverage and profile. A simple internet search for the phrase "Australia national football team" brings up articles and coverage about the mens team far above anything else. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * PeeJay is either being discriminatory, or just plain rude. The problem with comments such as PeeJay's is that this is supposed to be a discussion page. We are meant to present our own points, and discuss those presented by others. PeeJay is ignoring those made by others, and simply repeating his own, simplistic, "Google hit count" based points. Others ARE commenting on PeeJay's points. He is refusing to even acknowledge the existence of those made by others. He is not discussing. That is not good faith behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see discrimination or rudeness. Peejay, from what I can see, is making an argument based on Wikipedia policy and using actual evidence such as Google searches to find reliable reporting which talks about the football teams. In the case of this particular article, it is the best way to go about it. In the real world "Australia national football team" is generally taken to refer to the Socceroos. For myself, I'd prefer the title of the article to be "Socceroos", but failing that I think I'm moving to a preference to keep it as it is. Sionk (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignoring others' arguments, which is what PeeJay (and some others) are doing, is either rudeness or incompetence. You seem to now be guilty of it yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing does not equate to "ignoring". Personalising things isn't going to win you any friends. Sionk (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He isn't disagreeing with the other arguments at all. He is posting as if they don't exist. He is ignoring them. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article in no way specifies that only one team represents Australia internationally, in fact it makes a point of recognising that Australia has two such teams. The hatnote specifies that both a men's and women's team exists and that this article is about the men's team. In every country (including Australia) the men's team has a higher profile and is more notable. It's simple disambiguation, you could rename the women's team to Australia national association football team (women), but the current name follows the pattern used in the sport (FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup). I think we should only specify "men's" when we are comparing the two - like in the hatnote.--2nyte (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * : I do not understand. What policy are you citing for keeping the name? The current name fails V.  The article is exclusively about the men's team and sources indicate that Australia has TWO national teams.  The article either requires a merge in of the women's article or a rename to reflect the fact it is about the men's team. Using the pillars of Wikipedia including WP:V and WP:NPOV, explain how this fits.  Why are you advocating a position that violates to of Wikipedia's pillars?  Because your solution does just that.  It is not acceptable. --LauraHale (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on being yet another editor to post as if no arguments whatsoever had been presented to support this move. Just telling us what happens now is not a good argument to keep things that way. Any chance you could actually DISCUSS? HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment had valid points which countered the support of the move.--2nyte (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: My bad and my apologies. WP:5PILLARS says only WP:NPOV is a relevant pillar. WP:V is only actually policy, not a pillar. In this case, one flows into the other, which is why I was confused.  --LauraHale (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Australian men's team is clearly the primary topic, unlike the cases of USA and Canada. LauraHale is using arguments that pertain to all nations which have a men's team and a women's team in any sport, rather than Australian football (soccer) specifically. Are you seriously suggesting (for example) that the New Zealand national rugby union team (aka the All Blacks) should be moved to New Zealand men's national rugby union team, because there happens to be a New Zealand women's national rugby union team? This attitude takes no account of the relative prominence of teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply because it is NOT the primary topic. Two teams clearly exist as demonstrated by multiple verifiable sources.  To say it is the primary topic is to violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. Further, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not policy and does not trump a pillar or a policy. Do you have justification for violation WP:NPOV and WP:V in opposing this move? --LauraHale (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Primary topic does not apply because it is not the primary topic". Sorry, but you have not proven that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Do you have justification for violation WP:NPOV and WP:V in opposing this move?" Yes. WP:NPOV says that topic must be represented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias". I don't think it's unfair or biased to have the Australian men's team as the primary topic, based on the relative popularity and history of the two teams. In some cases (USA and Canada being two, there are one or two others that are debatable), it would be unfair or biased to have the men's team as the primary topic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is not fairly and proportionally balanced though. The article is about a men's only team and for the sake of accuracy should be renamed to reflect that.  It makes absolutely zero reference to the existence of a women's national team.  Thus, with two national teams existing, the way to bring balance would be to merge in the women's team article and have it proportionally smaller.  Are your proposing to merge the woman's team into this article to bring balance by representing them in the article as the OTHER equal national team? --LauraHale (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarification, if the primary topic is the men's national team, it needs a rename to state what the primary topic actually is. If the primary focus is THE national team, two national teams exist as per WP:V, and the section about the men's team is given undue weight.  --LauraHale (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a silly suggestion. Men's football and women's football are separate sports and all of the national teams are separate entities. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait. What?  They are not! If they were separate teams, this article would be named MEN's national team.  As there are two national teams, then the article named NATTIONAL TEAM without the gender designation needs to neutered to reflect that.  Anything else is WP:NPOV pushing that one team matters more than another OR suggests one team is not conferred national team status.  If this article is really about the men's team, for the sake of precision, it should be named that.  If it is not about the men's team, it should reflect the dual nature of two national teams.  So is the article about the men's team or is the article about the Australian national team, of which there are two?  You don't get it both ways. --LauraHale (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a day when men's and women's sports are treated with equal status but, unfortunately, at the moment they often are not. Maybe it is because most sports journalists and writers are men! Or maybe men have more spare time to idly watch sport in their millions ;) Either way, when someone refers to (or searches for the phrase) "Australia national football team" they invariably mean the men's team. It is born out by evidence, in the abundant form of reliable news coverage. That's why the article about the men's team here has been given the title "Australia national association football team" because, in the majority of cases, they are synonymous with one another. To suggest otherwise (in the example of Australia) is misrepresenting the evidence. After all, there are two soccer world cups but only one of them uses the title FIFA World Cup. Sionk (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - in the absence of any enthusiasm to move the articles to Socceroos and Matildas I'll have to come down in favour of the status quo. The name "Australia national football team" is commonly used in everyday usage to mean the men's team, judging from media coverage and other reliable sources. This article immediately begins with a hatnote explaining where to find the article on the women's team. This is all a commonly accepted means of disambiguating two articles. Sionk (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I cannot comprehend the opposition. Making it clear that this team is the men's team in its title would do nobody any harm at all. The reasons for opposing are shallow. Why oppose such a fair, equality based move, unless you're really a sexist male chauvinist? The move really won't hurt you. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Was that addressed to me? Those sort of baseless immature taunts and name calling won't move the discussion forward, will they? Sionk (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was addressed to you and all the other opponents of this move. As I said, I cannot comprehend the opposition. It would do nobody any harm and would please those who care about equality, which is obviously not the opponents of the move. Why oppose it? HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what the oppose commenters may think, this is not about equality. This is about precision in naming, accuracy in the title, article neutrality and verifiability.  This whole discussion can take place without mentioning women at all, because the fundamental issue is there are two national teams recognised by FIFA and the FFA, the Australian and global media, and by followers of the game.  The sport is segregated by gender by rule.  The article name is imprecise and non-neutral because it suggests the contrary.  The article title is inaccurate,  and imprecise.  Left the way it is with a lack of gender in the name, the article fails WP:V and WP:NPOV.  We should not be introducing a lack of precision and factual errors into Wikipedia.  (See how this is not an issue of equality?  Those who make it about equality do so in order to create a rationale to follow Wikipedia policies.) There has been no justification, other than playing the gender card, to violate Wikipedia policies. WP:IAR does not apply here because we are still left with the pillar of WP:NPOV. --LauraHale (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this move (and, by logical extension, all the others) would do "harm" because you would be converting every article presently at XYZ national ABC team to XYZ men's national ABC team. This would then result in every XYZ national ABC team becoming a disambiguation page. Every visitor who then enters XYZ national ABC team, reasonably expecting to see an article about the (men's) team with a century or more of history and mass audiences for most of that period, would instead be confronted with a disambiguation page. WP:NPOV applies here because there is no reasonable basis for saying that the two teams are of equal status. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: In most sports national teams have second teams (eg England B national football team) and youth teams (eg England national under-21 football team). By the same logic used by the proponents of these moves, those teams should be granted "equal" status with the full national team because they verifiably exist and represent the nation concerned. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's absolute nonsense. Such irrelevancy does your case no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What said: These teams are not the highest teams nationals teams representing the country.  These teams are development squads for the highest teams.  That aside, the existence of these other national teams makes a further case for renaming this article because it explains that precision is needed.  These teams make the case for the article having men in the name, not a case for excluding men from the name. Remember, the goal here is precision and accuracy in the article name in compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.--LauraHale (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If the goal in every article title was "precision and accuracy", then the UK would be at United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (clue: it's not). That's why we have guidelines like COMMONNAME and PRIMARYTOPIC. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Go on then, explain why it's nonsense. Applying the same logic, all XYZ national ABC team articles would need to be moved to something like XYZ men's full national ABC team, to fully disambiguate from all other representative teams. There are over 300,000 uses of the term "full national team", where writers have sought to distinguish between the primary represenative team and others. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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) 11:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the resulting names are unwieldy and give undue prominence to minority sports. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is the women's name is unweildy. Let's make this article neutral by talking about all the national association football teams the article is about, as the title suggests.  We can content fork out the parts that go to long. And no, women are not a minority.  That is a POV that you are pushing and does not comply with Wikipedia policies.  Stop the gender warrior, non-neutral behavior. --LauraHale (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ditto. "If we make this article precise and the title factual, neutral and in compliance with Wikipedia pillars and policies, we might be required to do it for all sport national team articles!"  Yes.  So?  This is a bad thing how? We should be trying for precision so that is a good thing.  Besides which, the only move being discussed is this one. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is not a reason to oppose here. --LauraHale (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Observation. The "Matildas" played against their counterparts from China today. The match wasn't televised in Australia . Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose on procedural grounds. Laura, if you want to take this view of naming, that's fine; but please start a proper discussion at WP:FOOTBALL, since this affects all related articles, not just this one. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as per the other Australian national sporting teams listed above. "Association football" is not the common name in Australia either, that should be changed as well. So support on both accounts per WP:PRECISE. Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  13:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Encyclopedic and in line with WP:NPOV guideline. Hmlarson (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: It should be noted that the Socceroos officially refer to themselves as "Australia's National Men's Football Team" on their Twitter profile. This is not the case for the Facebook page, but seems to indicate that the team that this article is about has absolutely no issue with being referred to what they are: the men's team. Hmlarson (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment (in opposition to the motion): This is not an issue of neutrality, there is no POV or undue weight as previously stated. The men's team is the PRIMARYTOPIC and there are perfectly acceptable means of disambiguating the women's team, as there is for the women's game.--2nyte (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , Please stop saying there are no NPOV issues. WP:PRECISION trumps WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and even there, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not imply unless you do so by introducing a POV issue, namely that the two teams are not co-equal in terms of representing Australia at the international level. Please start working with your fellow editors to resolve a problem that multiple participants have pointed out exists.  Or find a reliable source from FIFA, AOC, IOC, ASC, etc. that says the men's team is the Australian national team and the women's team represents Australia on a secondary level.  Until then, WP:PRECISE, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV all apply. You haven't made an argument why they do not other than WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--LauraHale (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue of equality. There is no obligation to assign equal weight to each sex's football, only due weight. By you rational we should apply gender and age, renaming the article to Australia men's senior association football team so not to confuse it with the women's team, the under-23 team (Olympic team), the under-20 team, the under-17 team and the under-14 team.--2nyte (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Australia has two national teams.  This is documented repeatedly.  WP:V test it passes.  WP:PRECISE says article titles should be namely precisely.  The article should be named men because the sport is segregated by gender.  Would you support the inclusion of the following text in the article: "While FIFA, Football Federation Australia, the Australian Olympic Committee, the Australian Sports Commission, SBS, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation  all acknowledge the existence of a men's and women's national team who represent Australia at the international level and provide support to both, the level of play of the women's national team is by far subpar to the men's national team and the level of overall media coverage of the women's game to the men's game is so insignificant as render the women's national team as an untrue representative of Australia as a true national team."  Would that sentence work for you in the lead? If not, why not? Please explain in detail.  Sources would be helpful.  Also, what are your problems with WP:PRECISE?  --LauraHale (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again your confusing not listening with not agreeing. Someone who disagrees with you is not deaf. You continue to disagree (or at least put a very different interpretation) with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME but I don't see anyone accuse you of being deaf. Sionk (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment:I would encourage whatever admin closes this to remember that Wikiprojects don't set policy and to thus ignore as non-policy based any !votes predicated on the idea that the move request would have to gain consensus at a specific wikiproject. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which ignores the point that the arguments used for moving this article apply to every other sporting national team, irrespective of the relative coverage and notability of those teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:V the with Wikipedia policy and pillars related to the point you just made. Closing admins should make sure their decision is based on policies and pillars, not on what a few people on the association Wikiproject think.  (Because every other Australian men's national team article includes the gender.) --LauraHale (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "every other Australian men's national team article includes the gender". Apart from Australia national rugby league team, Australia national rugby union team and Australia national cricket team. Apart from the most prominent sports in Australia by far, in other words [insert facepalm]. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jmorrison230582 - whether your point about these arguments affecting all other article is true or not, what do you actually think of them? HiLo48 (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , Why are you selectively chosing teams that are not gendered? You yourself said "irrespective of the relative coverage".  So then you say "apart from the most prominent sports in Australia by far".  You don't get it both ways. In any case, WP:V, WP:PRECISE, WP:NPOV trump your half accurate claims regarding names.  WP:NPOV is a pillar. WP:V shows that Australia has two national teams.  You have not offered a single policy or pillar rationale. Try doing that please. --LauraHale (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV requires articles to be proportionate, not equal. In the instances I cited above, the primary team sports of Australia, the (men's) national teams are not disambiguated by gender because there is little or no ambiguity as to what people mean by the "Australia cricket team". In most other cases (basketball, for example), there is ambiguity because the coverage of the two teams is more or less equal. The logical extension of your argument is that we should ignore the relative coverage of the teams and disambiguate by gender even where there is little or no ambiguity. I disagree with this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LauraHale, how about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which you steadfastly and wrongly refuse to acknowledge? According to sources, the men's team is the primary topic and thus holds the title ahead of the women's team. And as Jmorrison points out above, we require only proportionate coverage be given to each topic, and since the men's team appears far more prominently in the media, they are again given prominence in the encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 23:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, obviously. First, this does not set a precedent because most countries' women's teams are not this far ahead of the men's teams. And second, what if it did? Why would that be bad? Guy (Help!) 16:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Far ahead in what sense? They don't compete with one another. Sionk (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the women's team is more successful. Ranked 10th against the men's ranking of 59th. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - this makes perfect sense to me. I'm really not seeing the issue here - A l is o n  ❤ 21:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't "see the issue", why are you expressing an opinion? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support on this page because it is relevant to this particular article. And I'll be happy to discuss making changes to every other page that needs to address bring gender neutral title schemes to Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Which contradicts WP:NPOV in cases where one team is far more prominent than the other. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Primarily because I haven't seen any evidence that the men's team isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - if there was some kind of evidence (e.g. that women's football in Australia gets similar crowds or there are a similar number of women playing the game), then I would change my mind, but a simple online search for Australia football/soccer team overwhelmingly produces hits for the men's team. However, in the meantime I really can't go along with the claims of the move being needed to comply with WP:NPOV/WP:BIAS/equality - having Everton F.C. at its current title doesn't mean there's bias or inequality against Everton F.C. (Port of Spain), it's simply that one is better known than the other.
 * Off-topic, the tone of much of the debate (framing anyone who opposes the move as a chauvinist) is utterly pathetic, and some people need to have a word with themselves. For disclosure (and before the inevitable accusations), I am a fan of women's football and travelled to Germany to watch the last Women's World Cup (including the Australia–Brazil game at Mönchengladbach), as well as writing several articles on players in the tournament, including getting one featured as a DYK. Number   5  7  23:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
I've filed a Dispute Resolution entry at Dispute resolution noticeboard to try and get some alternative suggestions for how to take the discussion forward. Maybe an RFC would help here, but the heated arguments are now taking place in several different locations! I've named several participants including me - I think there is the opportunity for those involved to comment at the Dispute Resolution page too.

This isn't a cunning plan to stifle the Page Move discussion, so by all means carry on voting! Sionk (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Voting? We don't vote here!


 * I've already eliminated one of the other locations of this and other soccer related debates by deleting five (yes, five!) threads begun by soccer fans on my Talk page apparently aiming to convince me I was wrong. I didn't want MY talk page cluttered up any more. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, HiLo48. We are well aware of how much of a personal inconvenience this has all been to you. I'd hate for your watchlist to be subjected to yet further such injustices. – PeeJay 01:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I knew you were the caring type. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Neutral point of view tag
Please do not remove the tag. At the moment, the neutrality of the article is disputed because of the gender related implications. The article text implies the existence of only one team of undeterminate gender. This is a fundamentally non-neutral position. I have placed the tag to indicate this. Once the issue has been resolved, a discussion can be had about removing it. --LauraHale (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been brought up, Australia has two national teams representing the country at the highest level internationally. Is the way to achieve neutrality to merge parts of the women's team article in here proportional to the media coverage provided by the team? What balance would work? 75% of the content for men and 25% for women? If the article is not moved, I might be amendable to this as a potential solution to resolve the inherent bias of the article masquerading as representing the national team when it only represents one. --LauraHale (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A merger of these two large articles is very unlikely to get agreement, I suspect. As for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you seem to completely and fundamentally disagree with the principles of it. Or maybe you're saying that there need to be alternative PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines for sports teams? As has been pointed out by others, there are some national examples where the women's football team is the primary topic, but I can't see this is the case with Australia (yet). Sionk (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not a merge proposal. There are two teams.  The current article title does not designate a gender for the team, so from a neutrality of view, it fails to wrongly suggests only the existence of a men's team.  If you have an alternative suggestion to resolving this POV problem regarding the sole existence of the men in an article about the national team, I would like to hear it.  The primary topic is NOT the men's team.  If it was about the men's team, it would be named that. The sport is gendered by rule and by media coverage.  This is verifiable.  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply here because it involves violating WP:NPOV to get to that point.--LauraHale (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the reality is we'd then need to create a new article called "Australia men's national association football team" and, hey presto, you'd have your name change via a very circuitous route :D I can see we're going around in circles anyway, so all the best! Sionk (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The choice is to rename this article and disambiguate this article to be gender neutral (as WP:V proves two national teams exist) or you integrate the women's team into this article to reflect theWP:V reality that two national teams exists. Those are the two paths to solve WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:V that the article currently has.  The easiest route is the rename.  Which is the path you wish to pursue? --LauraHale (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. There is another option, which is to leave it as it is, because there is no WP:NPOV issue. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. This is a fact: Australia has TWO national teams that represent Australia internationally.  The scope of this article reflects only men.  Unless you are arguing that Australia has only ONE national team and encompasses BOTH genders and this article accurately reflects that, then there is a WP:NPOV problem because you are making a judgement call as to which gender should be represented. --LauraHale (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're either genuinely not understanding PRIMARYTOPIC or willfully misrepresenting it. It isn't POV to say that one of the teams is much more commonly associated with the phrase "Australia National Football Team". In this instance it is POV for you to say that both teams are equally synonymous with it. That is the reason Wikipedia has methods of disambiguation to differentiate topics which have a claim to the same name.
 * In response to your question directed at me above, I have now come down in favour of keeping the existing name. It is one of the courses of action available. Obviously. Sionk (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're either genuinely not understanding NPOV or you are willfully misrepresenting it. PRIMARYTOPIC is not the issue here.  NPOV is.  Two national teams exist.  By putting the article at men, a non-neutral value judgement is being made. Cries of PRIMARYTOPIC appear to be POV pushing.  Wikipedia needs to be accurate, neutral and verifiable.  The article as it stands pushes a POV that the only legitimate team is the men's team and that the women's team is inferior.  It fails on V because the two national teams exist.   I'm not seeing yet any argument to support the current name other than an agenda pushing that the men's game is superior and more well known, citing PRIMARYTOPIC as a reason to toss the NPOV and V pillar out the window. (And I see no attempt from POV warriors to fix this problem by fixing the article to say that TWO national teams exist, include the word men in the lead, and that both represent Australia in the lead.  The article is factually inaccurate by not stating the team is only open to men.) --LauraHale (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Australia national association football team results and results and results. These are games the Australian national team have played against international competitions while representing the country. The source is talking exclusively about the national team. Without citing primarytopic, please explain how the Australian national team does not belong on the article about the Australian national association football team please. Please do so while referring to this team in a gender neutral way. This would really help me and others in understanding the issues for those opposing the move and in determining how to resolve the neutrality and UNDUE weight and vierifiability issues.--LauraHale (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The pages you link to only list the results of the Matildas (women's team). If there was just one Australian national football (soccer) team then all of the results (men and women) would be on the same page. The history page of the FFA site about the women's team says "Australia women's team" in the first sentence. The history page of the FFA site about the men's team never mentions the fact that it is the men's team. That's the point. When people are talking about the football World Cup, they almost always mean the men's competition, because it is the more popular and better known competition. There are a few countries where the relationship is more ambiguous and so both articles specify their gender. The same is true in other sports where the competitions are more equal, such as tennis or many Olympic events. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please rewrite? The sport is gender segregated BY RULE and the article name in question is not.   Please respond without referring to gender, just like the article title here does not refer to gender. This is very, very, very important.  Australia national association football team results and results and results are results for the Australian national team.  Without referring to the gender of the national, please explain why these results should not be included? Please only refer to the team as the national team. This should not be a problem if this is not a NPOV issue as this is a national team for Australia and the results are contextualized as such.  Gender free.  Gender free response.  I beg that of you.  This article title is gender free and we're talking about an Australian national team without genders.  Please.  A gender free response. --LauraHale (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but all of the links you have posted inherently refer to gender. The FFA link gives all results as being between the "Westfield Matildas" and whichever opponent they were playing. By stating "Matildas" (Westfield must be a sponsor name) they are specifying that the match involved the women's team. The FIFA link gives the option of clicking on "Women's", giving the results of the women's team, or "Men's", giving the results of the men's team. The information given in the SBS link is a bit more ambiguous, but the word "Matildas" (again, directly referring to the women's team rather than the men's) is in the url and is in the title given in the tab. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All the links I post to are about the Australian national team. (There are two.) Try again and try harder without referring to gender. This should not be that hard if you have a truly neutral position. --LauraHale (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

, Please do not remove this tag here like you did until the discussion is concluded. There is an ongoing discussion about the article neutrality. Australia has two national teams. The teams are separated by gender. Until such a time that the neutrality can be resolved where gender is treated neutrally, the tag should remain in place. Removing it is rather WP:POINTY and WP:NPOV pushing by suggesting this is not an issue despite ongoing discussions.--LauraHale (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See below as to my response for your inappropriate and disruptive behaviour, which is bordering on incompetence. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What evidence, beyond statements of "false equivalence" do you have for your point of view? The fact that you support violations WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:V and wrongly use WP:PRIMARYTOPIC indicate greater incompetence. "false equivalence" has been bandied about, supported only by citing google news search results.  It has been proven wrong by FIFA, FFA, ASC links.  So please stop with the personal attacks.  Those are red herrings designed to distract from the issues.  Australia has TWO national teams that are treated equally by FIFA, FFA, ASC and SBS in terms of situating the relative importance of one relative to the other.  The women's team is not part of a inferior gender segregated organization. The IOC recognises FIFA, which in turn recognises the FFA.  The FFA is recognised by the ASC and the AOC.  All of these organizations both claim the teams represent Australia internationally.  These points have repeatedly not been addressed, or been addressed by google news search results.  (And google news search results are not a reliable source, not the least of which are because they are dynamic and change from user to user, country to country.) --LauraHale (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have re-added the information about the other senior national Australian team into the lead. We need to discuss how to neutralize the article given the lack of page move. We cannot exclude the women in order to achieve neutrality. --LauraHale (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would you remove the hatnote? It specifically states This article is about the men's team, not the women's team. Why would we add any information about the women's team if it has no relation to the article? There is no need to do so with the hatnote. The content of the article is completely neutral and unbiased. The page title again is completely neutral and unbiased WITH THE HATNOTE. If you think there is a problem, follow the recommendation and take this to a larger venue.--2nyte (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The oppose move consensus movers specifically rejected limiting the scope to men. Instead, the net effect of failing to limit the article scope to men by supporting a precision, WP:V and WP:NPOV name means the scope is for both men and women.  The hat note is non-neutral because it pushes a WP:NPOV point of view that one team is the national team and one is the gendered team. While you may not see this as discriminatory, it is because it asks Wikipedians to place a value judgement on which team is the national team.  Therefor, the neutrality problem that cannot be solved by hatting because it re-inforces the problem. Another solution needs to be found that does not convey any value judgement regarding one national team over the other in terms of representing Australia.  --LauraHale (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The move proposal was premised on a desire to make the article more neutral. At least 8 different people supported the move for similar reasons. Any good faith attempt at resolving neutrality starts by addressing these concerns. Pretending the neutrality problem doesn't exist is not a good faith solution. A good path forward if you aren't happy with my feedback or attempts to resolve neutrality is to make those changes to address neutrality and then ask those who supported the move if these changes address their concerns that were part of the reason they indicated the article should be moved. That is probably the easiest path forward. --LauraHale (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LauraHale, I accepted your initial proposal of a neutrality problem and as a result, I added a hatnote to the article which specifies that both a men's and women's team exists and that this article is about the men's team, not the women's team. With the hatnote added, there is no need to reword the artilce, the article is now neutral. The only issue to be argued is if the men's team is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which has been argued that it is. What other issues do you have.--2nyte (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My major remaining issue is what it is in your head that really makes you object to adding the single word "men's" to the title. It would do nobody any harm, and would remove the need for the hatnote, thus simplifying things considerably. I cannot understand the opposition. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I think the same thing about you and association football every day; it would do nobody any harm. In regards to this discussion, I would have no objection to the move if was agreed upon by WP:FOOTBALL and carried out through all national team articles. If you feel so strongly about it then start a discussion there. Otherwise, I see no real point on moving the article. As you said, the hatnote does the job, as it does on many thousands of national team articles.--2nyte (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reasonable rationale here. WP:FOOTY is not the appropriate venue. ARBCOM has multiple precedents saying that Wikiprojects cannot do what you think the project should do. No policies support this demand. Continuing to demand consensus from a Wikiproject for any sort of move has at this point become purely disruptive.  --LauraHale (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , As the move proposal indicated, this does not go far enough and the article is not neutral. Please read the comments by people who supported the move and seek to address these comments in the article text.  Bear in mind, many of the people supporting a move contended that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply, so you need to add text to the article that explains WHY the men's team is the primary topic, especially given their piss poor performance internationally.  Until these points are addressed, the tag cannot go.  Move supporters should be consulted prior to the tag removal. --LauraHale (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The hatnote is the addition to the title and the text. The hatnote specifies that every mention of the team is refering to the men's, the hatnote does what a move would do. That is the point of the hatnote.--2nyte (talk) 09:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The hat note doesn't address why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the men's team. It doesn't satisfy concerns raised during the move proposal. Neutrality is still an issue because the concerns brought up during the move proposal were not addressed.  Please address these concerns by offering additional text that explains WHY the men's team is the primary topic.  No such text has yet to be added.  (Example: While Australia's women team is ranked 8th in the world and has a better World Cup performance, the Australian men's team are more well known because of a history of disappointing failures, low international rankings, money wasted on player development that has not seen dividends in the domestic game, and prima donna like behavior by Tim Cahill and Harry Kewell.) If you think your solution works, I encourage you to ping all the people who supported the move to include men in the article name and ask them if their concerns have been resolved.  (The answer will be no.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LauraHale, a primary topic article does not need to explain why it is so in the text.--2nyte (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A six character addition to the title would remove the need for the hatnote, and hurt nobody or anything, including the 23,476,581,201 other articles that are worrying you. Your opposition is irrational. HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how I can make it more clear. The move proposal indicated there is no consensus that the men's team is the primary topic.  In this particular case, why the primarytopic is men's team needs to be established to achieve neutrality.  If you in good faith believe that you have addressed the NPOV concerns raised in the move proposal, go to the talk pages  of the people who supported the move.  Say you have made changes in the article to address neutrality.  Ask for comment in this section to indicate if they support these changes and believe the article is neutral.  If you do this and they say they support the article as now being neutral, I will drop all objections.  (Silence does not equal believe the article is neutral.)--LauraHale (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)