Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 5

Football in Australia
Just seeking to draw a wider range of informed opinion at Talk:Football in Australia regarding that article's future (whether persisting with the attempt at a comprehensive and well-balanced broad-concept article and how best to achieve that, or returning it to a simple disambiguation page). Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggestion under "Split/Merge Proposal" is my viewpoint on the situation. The page is completely non-necessary, and it's parts split into the specific sport articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The term football in Australia should be a disambiguation page with all codes linked to it to end this silly nonsense over which sport in this country is football. While I take the stance that the FFA takes "old soccer, new football," this is clearly an unresolvable matter among rugby league and AFL supporters who refuse to acknowledge the use of the dominant worldwide terminology for the game as well as the terminology accepted in this country by its governing body. As such to remove the nuances of such debates I think we should link all football codes to a disambiguation page under football in Australia --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The only reason there is any debate is because soccer administrators in Sydney decided to tell the half of the country where "football" means one thing,and one thing only, Aussie Rules, and has meant that for 150 years, that it actually means something else. Stupid. There doesn't have to be debate, just acceptance of reality. "Football" has a very definite meaning on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. It won't change just because some ill formed administrators and some soccer fans think it should. Please accept that fact. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The Barassi Line argument that is completely nonsensical, football is a globally acknowledged term, everybody in the world knows that football means football, or some variation of spelling of the world football such as futbal, futbol, etc, every governing orginisation from top to bottom in this country is a football orginisation as has been stated repeatedly. Every football team in this country at a semi-profesional (Australian Premier League) professional level (A-League) has the FC acronym on the end of their team name, not SC, FC, not Sporting Club, not Soccer Club, but Football Club. FC is a well acknowledged acronym. A lot of amateur clubs will soon be playing in the FFA Cup, again this is the Football Federation Australia Cup.... Once again Football not Soccer. The fact that for branding purposes the Qantas Socceroos use the world Soccer in their name doesn't mean anything, Trinidad and Tobago use the word Soca and it doesn't mean anything nor does it have any relevance to the word Soccer despite the fact that it is pronounced the same.

There was a consensus decision made in 2004-5 that the word used by the governing body in this country for the sport would be football NOT soccer, as such the term soccer IS offensive and considering the history of the sport in this country soccer IS offensive. claiming Ignorance or being ignorant of the fact is not, I'm not sure which one it is? is NOT a valid argument.

There is very little argument against the term football being recognised in this country I suggest youdrop the stick. On the personal argument here, I AM NOT FROM SYDNEY --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. You're from Brisbane. Same side of the Barassi Line as Sydney though. If "soccer" is offensive, why do all my soccer playing friends call the game "soccer"? Are you ever planning to travel to the other side of the Barassi Line and learn the truth you won't accept when others tell you? Refusing to believe good faith comments here is far more offensive to the editors who make them than the name "soccer" can ever be to its fans. HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all the Barrasi line has nothing at all to do with football, nor does it effect it, second of all I suggest you go into the football heartland in Melbourne and ask what football supporters actually call football on your side of the barassi line particularly in areas such as south Melbourne. Just because you repeat an argument does not indeed make it a fact --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A tip - When you're talking to someone from Melbourne and use the name "football", the first and obvious meaning will be Aussie Rules. If you don't believe that there is no hope for you. So that post above actually makes little sense in Melburnian English. That's where the Barassi Line comes in. On the Aussie Rules side, the word "football" has meant just one thing, Aussie Rules, for the past 150 years. (Longer than soccer has existed.) The line is more than a divide of what sport is popular. It's a linguistic and cultural one too. I should probably try to get something along those lines into the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A tip - If you actually go into one of these areas and talk to a football supporter about football it is very likely you will get a couple of things... Comments like "Aussie League" in reference to the A-League, Soccah with a h on the end of it to show your ignorance of the fact you call it soccah, or in other circumstances you might just get laughed at for calling it soccer. Given your views I heavily doubt you interact with people who actually follow the sport religiously in the area that you live in --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's possible, at least to some extent, but the suburb I live in has a "...Soccer Club". It also has a "...Football Club" that plays Aussie Rules. The latter club is the older one too. Can you see the problem yet? And anyway, we don't write this encyclopaedia for hard core fans. We write it for everybody, including the roughly half of the Australian population for whom "football" means Aussie Rules, and nothing else. As I've now said many times, "soccer" is the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common names for the game in Australia. All its players that I know don't find it offensive. (That sort of claim just makes your argument look silly.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We are returning to the same sorts of arguments that cost Australia the rights to a World Cup here that "Aussie Rules" is an older and more respected sport than football WHICH when you look at the global statistics on the matter is blatantly ridiculous. But it seems you cannot teach AFL supporters class, understanding, or respect for the game which is the worlds largest sport. As I have said repeatedly, football is the single, universally understood, unambiguous name for the sport in this country. There is not a single governing body in this country that recognises the term soccer and YES all of your local clubs fall under the Football Federative Victoria. Once again football NOT soccer --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Stupid aspects of that post:
 * 1. "These arguments cost Australia the rights to the World Cup here." LOL. That bid was the most incompetent, bungled, dishonest, pie-in-the-sky, taxpayer money wasting attempt at a sports hosting event I have ever seen. Don't blame people who don't support the game.
 * 2. Aussie Rules IS older. It's a fact.
 * 3. Insulting Aussie Rules supporters. Insulting anybody is always a winner.
 * 4. "Football" is used for four professional sports plus a few more amateur ones. It could hardly be more ambiguous. Your statement that "football is the single, universally understood, unambiguous name for the sport in this country" really is just idiotic.
 * 5. The federations can call it what they like. This encyclopaedia does not do soccer's marketing for it. We use common names. "Football" is a common name for many sports. "Soccer" is the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. That statement is unarguable.
 * It's stupid posts like that one of yours above that lose all credibility for the "soccer = football" argument. You are doing more harm than good. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the greatest single debates was with the AFL about the naming rights and availability of football stadiums among many other things in this country, that is an undisputed fact. Football as a sport as we know it has been played by clubs for more than 200 years. Ignorant Aussie Rules supporters are always a winner. Football is the only recognised unambiguous name for the sport as codified by the governing body in this country it is not a marketing name, soccer does not exist as a name for this sport in this country any longer. Your arguments are invalid --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your knowledge and logic appear to have now failed you completely. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's about time you gave up because you are incorrect --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just about everything that Orestes writes is illogical. The opposite is true for HiLo. Afterwriting (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment
User:HiLo48 and others appear to be using ideological arguments such as repeated and continual references to what was a highly biased article barassi line in order to justify their position. Might I remind these users Wikipedia is not a battle ground and furthermore Wikipedia is not about winning. Just drop it... I have been watching this argument idly for a numerous amount of years now that I have forgotten how many its been. It would not have been going on for so very long if this was not a valid issue. Drop the stick get over it let it go. --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A completely nonsensical response exactly the type of response I expected --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a response I tend to use for editors who won't face facts. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You have presented with "facts" on multiple occasions and yet you return to your same personal opinion on the matter --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your facts are not geographically representative of the whole of Australia. I think mine are. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your "facts" are at best regional specific and are related to a concept that does not effect the sport of football. To end this silly debate, there are professional A-League teams in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia, also New Zealand... That is on both side of the line AND outside of it. There are semi-profesional (Australian Premier League) football clubs in most of the other states as well. There is nothing that can be said about football that is geographic, in fact the traditional heartland of football in Australia has been South Australia and Victoria which are again on your side of the line as well as New South Wales on the other side of that line. Your argument about the Barassi line being representive of football in Australia is ridiculous and you are clutching at straws --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stop using ambiguous language. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The term football is not ambiguous --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a stupid post. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your argument violates WP:PA and it seems where there is little else to say this is often the net result --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't violate WP:PA at all. It criticised your post, not you. A judgement can validly be made about your statement about no ambiguity, and mine in response. I think it would come down in my favour. I have no idea why you made such a dumb post. If I speculated, that would get a lot closer to a personal attack, so I won't. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * We can all speculate about which side of the fence is an idiot and I could speculatively presume you were one, note the word speculatively for holding such a grudge which I could speculate was based on a belief that by calling "soccer" football it would be somehow detrimental to the sport of Australian rules Football. The long and the short of that speculation would be that it isn't and it won't be. I'm going to stop now however before I put myself in a situate that is actually a violation of WP:PA


 * You have either completely misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting my position. The former demonstrates incompetence, the latter incivility. Neither is acceptable here. I said absolutely nothing about your proposed change being "detrimental to the sport of Australian rules Football". That WOULD be a POV position, and mine isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am going to drop the stick purely because we have irreconcilably different opinions and it's it's not the end of the world. This does not change my opinion on the matter, I've just had enough of playing this game --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You keep using that word "opinion". My position is based on facts and logic, not opinion. I have no idea what yours is based on. HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * IF your "facts" are indeed "facts" could you please provide a referenced article from a credible source other than a direct link to another wikipedia page or otherwise NOR. I await your submission. As far as civility goes, I suggest you take a good hard look in the mirror --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You back again? I thought you were quitting this discussion. Anyway, which facts do you dispute? And have you read all the preceding discussions on this page? HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not "back again" I'm just responding to your last comment. I've read this talk page in which many of the points I have raised have been raised by others, and substantial evidence from news articles, the government, and the Football Federation Australia as well as subsites representing the state governing bodies of football have been raised. I don't have to go into a long winded reiteration of the evidence that is put forward on this page. Furthermore, the only thing that appears to be raised by yourself consistently is the Barassi Line which has no relevance to the sport of football (soccer) in this country.

As I stated above your opinion is considered original research which is unacceptable under NOR. Please substantiate it with credible references or desist from continuing this line of argument. Your facts need to be verifiable its not a matter of facts or opinions under Verifiability you may also wish to look at The_Truth --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comprehension is the problem here. If you cannot see why the Barassi Line is relevant after all the effort I've put into explaining it, there is no point continuing the discussion. This simply adds to the fact that you stupidly claim that the name "football" is not ambiguous. I see incompetence. Goodnight. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of my competence or otherwise, your use of yet failure to explain why the Barassi line is relevant shows a lack of understanding of NOR please substantiate why the Barassi line is relevant or desist from that line of argument. Please take the time to read V before you comment any further on the matter. You MUST provide credible sources that support your opinion that the barassi line is relevant to "soccer"  --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have explained it. Do you know what I meant when I said it was, among other things, a linguistic divide? HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You have explained it, but you have failed to substantiate it, as far as wikipedia is concerned that is merely an opinion which is original research which goes against NOR. Please substantiate your claims, it's really not that difficult --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're talking bullshit. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not talking bullshit and you have clearly once again shown a lack of civility along with recent claims about my "competence." You're unwilling to substantiate your beliefs certainly has shown a lack of your own credibility however --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your apparent inability to comprehend the significance of the Barassi Line on the use of the word "football" across Australia, combined with your insane claim that "football" is not ambiguous in this country, have convinced me that you are not capable of understanding any more that I say. In this matter you simply ARE incompetent. For that reason there is no point in me communicating with you further on this topic. Goodnight. HiLo48 (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your lack of civility and inability to comprehend the changing nature of the sport of soccer in this country is astounding, it is little wonder why you continue to raise issues with others about civility. You should take a good hard look at yourself before you continue to comment and waste everyones time. Furthermore, you are in no position to judge or not judge my competence. I could draw conclusions that you are a wanker but I won't go that far --Orestes1984

Furthermore,

In 2005 the Australian Soccer Association changed its name to the Football Federation of Australia and was followed by some of the state federations as they embraced football as the name by which the code would officially be known. Since the 1880s the game has been known successively as British football, soccer football, soccer and, more derisively, ‘wogball’ during the period of post‐Second World War migration (Talia Cerritelli, ‘Football: A code divided’, Victorian Soccer Federation website, March 2005. The original link was accessed 23 March 2005, by which time the VSF had become the Football Federation of Victoria, following Western Australia and the Northern Territory. By now all other states have fallen into line. If you have anything else to add please SUBSTANTIATE your claims --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference to the Barassi line is really just to point out that most of the people arguing to use the word football live on the Rugby side of the line. And whilst the two rugby games are sometimes called footy or football, the fans are not really that attached to the word "football", as they have other brief unique names for their sport, "League" or "Union".  Hence, the a lot of the Sydney based national media has happily fallen into line with the FFA's wishes and now calls soccer, football.  However, in Victoria, SA, WA & Tassie (the SW side of the Barassi Line), the word football has been linked with Australian rules football for 150 years.  Not just the last 10.  So we have a problem.  Two sports in Australia are now officially, intricately and intrinsically linked to the same word - Football.  So, on the world wide Wikipedia, the Australian rules football articles have (generally) happily accepted that we can't just use the word football, or even Australian Football (which according to the AFL is the official name of the game), as they are ambiguous terms, so we use Australian rules football.  So, what can the round ball code do.  I am adamant that they can't use Football in Australia, because for a great number of Australians that phrase doesn't refer to soccer. Association Football in Australia is a possibility, but that phrase whilst common on Wikipedia, isn't commonly used here, and in the past often mean Australian rules football played in leagues that were called Associations, such as the Victorian Football Association.  So we are left with either Soccer in Australia, Soccer (football) in Australia or Football (soccer) in Australia or similar.  And all are welcome to read through the pages of discussions above and at Talk:Football in Australia to see why they are or aren't liked by many.  And finally, for most Australians in 2013 and onwards, soccer is not used to deride or denigrate the game.  It is used because it is part of our language and for clarity.  It is the one name that is completely unambiguous. To claim otherwise is just wanting to be offended for the sake of it, or to make this a battleground. The-Pope (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct, we on the rugby side of the line are just as happy to refer to rugby as rugby or league, occasionally rah rah pejoratively thrown at us by those who follow union. Union people also use football or rugby without confusion generally. Being from a migrant background, football intrinsically becomes the round ball game, or the world game and we have an aversion to the term soccer as it generally shows a lack of sporting maturity. Being a representative of a migrant background I can use the terms interchangeably when necessary as do many others. If I were around other migrants we would be more comfortable using the term football, but not soccer. I am in a pretty unique position however it shouldn't be about me I've sourced my opinion on this and simply take the position that the governing bodies of the sport do and that is that sport is considered football.


 * As I said before I'm going to drop the stick because this argument is going nowhere and the other participant simply won't listen to reason about the matter --Orestes1984 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hilo will never accept the obvious solution of every sport being named it's specific, official name. He wants to ensure that Australian Rules, Rugby League and Rugby Union can use their official names, while also denying the same 'official name' standard. He loves the "Barrassi Line" so much, I wonder if that means I can propose AFL be renamed to "GayFL", or maybe "Aerial Ping Pong" or "Seagulls Scrapping Over A Chip" or "Handegg" or "Fumbleball" or maybe even "Boganball", some of those are extremely common names for AFL in NSW & QLD, which as we all know, make up the majority of the population of Australia.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the silly abuse and insults, you seem incapable of comprehending that what you call the "official" name for the round ball game, football, is also by far the by most common name of Aussie Rules on that side of the Barassi Line, and almost uniquely understood to mean Aussie Rules there. Using that name for soccer on Wikipedia would simply create ambiguity where there is no need for any to exist. "Soccer" is the perfect name for the game here. It is the only unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. (Have you planned that big adventure journey to the other side of the line yet?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, can't you put your pride aside and realise that in Australia the game is officially known as football, like Australian rules football is officially known as Australian football. The term soccer was removed, so the specific use of it seems dated and illogical, especially on an encyclopedia which prides itself on being up-to-date and current. It is as if wikipedia is a book written in 2003, with no update since. Everyone associated with the game in Australia knows the sport is now called football; why does it matter what others call the sport when simply shouldn't know because they have no association with the sport. Many Australian call Australian rules football AFL because they don't know any better, because they aren't associated with the sport, though it doesn't change the name of the sport. I bet there are a couple of older fans of Australian rules football who call the sport Victorian rules football. Isn't the change in that sports name just a 'marketing gimmick'?--2nyte (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this really need to be repeated again? Those silly (or ignorant?) soccer administrators in Sydney want to change the name of soccer to a name that has for 150 years uniquely meant something else for the half of the Australian population on the other side of the Barassi Line. To change the name of soccer to football here would create unnecessary ambiguity. The soccer players on that other side of the line from you still call themselves just that, soccer players. You really should take on the big adventure some time and travel there to learn about another culture. (It seems you'll keep talking crap until you do.) "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. (PS: That isn't pride on my part. It's providing facts that you and the soccer administrators seem to want to ignore.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I think the silly (or ignorant?) ones are those who follow Australian football, rugby league or rugby union, but choose to use the ambiguous 'football' even when football is known all around the world as the official name of soccer. Football Federation Australia never forced Australians to ONLY use football, in fact the state federations choose to change their names, as did many clubs, South Melbourne FC being one. Maybe you yourself should go exploring and get out of your comfort zone; your local clubs might be called 'Soccer Club' but that's just for show, to appease the ALF crazies in Victoria. Go talk to the fans, administrators, players, even in your local club; they probably call the game football, as many Australian have done their whole life, they probably follow the Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, as many Australian have done their whole life. (PS: almost 1/4 of all Australians immigrated here after WW2 from countries where football has only one meaning; like it or not, that is modern Australia.)--2nyte (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My local soccer club is called "HiLoSuburb Soccer Club", and its players, of whom I know several, all talk about playing soccer. There's a massive logic to that. There is another club, "HiLoSuburb Football Club" in my suburb, which plays Aussie Rules. The local high school has a football team and a soccer team. It's like that across the half of the country you know nothing directly about. And that's why Aussie Rules supporters this side of the Barassi Line call their game football, and not anything else. Aussie Rules came first! It was codified and got that common name across half of Australia from 1859 onwards, well before soccer was codified. In expecting them to change the common name for their sport you are asking that Aussie Rules fans drop a usage that's 150 years old. Whether they "should" or shouldn't is irrelevant. It's just un-bloody-likely. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, I think you are misunderstanding something very important, that is, by using association football or even football on wikipedia instead of soccer there is no direct or indirect impact on any other sport, whether it be Australian rules football, rugby league, American football, netball or tennis. There is no impact whatsoever, we are just updating wikipedia to reflect the change undergoing the round ball game in Australia. A change that can not be denied, even in Victoria, Tasmania or South Australia. PS: if you don't believe the change is happening and has happened already, read the past few discussions, there is a lot of links and facts from all around Australia supporting that statement.--2nyte (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then you simply don't understand. At no point have I been discussing the impact of the name change on other sports. All through this I thought you must have been confused. That proves it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, then what are you arguing? That Soccer in Australia is the best title and the only title that can be used for this article? One of the biggest events in the history of the sport in Australia was the changing of its title from soccer to football. This must be represented in the article title, there is not reason to argue against it. If football is ambiguous then an alternative must be used and on wikipedia that alternative is association football. It is very simple, again there is not reason to argue against it. Like any other article would, this title must change. If a film changed its title, we would change its article title. If an actor changed his title, we would change his article's title. If the A-League changed its title to the Australian League, we would change its article title. A change in title is needed and Association football in Australia is the best outcome.--2nyte (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I have read right, you are suggesting replacing an unambiguous title with a title virtually nobody in Australia uses. Are you taking the piss? Hack (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, nobody actually calls the game "Association football". It's obviously not a WP:common name, so quite unsuitable. "Football" alone is confusingly ambiguous. "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is need for change. A notable event occurred and we must act accordingly, not ignore it. Association football in Australia is the best title for this article. Wikipedia refers to the sport as association football and the sport is refereed to association football in the Macquarie Dictionary (Australian English).--2nyte (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We have noted that "notable" event in the article. But the notable event was to change the name to "football", so why argue for "Association football". I don't get it. What's wrong with "soccer"? Yes, some people want a different name. one that can't be used here, but an awful lot don't want a new name, or don't care. And it's the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, the changing from soccer to football was a move specifically away from soccer. Therefor it is inappropriate to use in this article title. This does not need to be spelt out. There is not consequence, Association football in Australia is just the best title for this article.--2nyte (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But where does that leave people who either aren't seek or specifically don't want that new name? (There's an awful lot of them, including many soccer players and fans.) With a name that nobody uses? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am specifically talking about changing this articles title.--2nyte (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hilo as I have stated repeatedly, repeatedly , repeatedly , and again and as the point of verifiability originally was. it is about VERIFIABILITY and not "facts." As someone who has two degrees, your consistent contention that there is such a thing as FACTS in academic research gives me a headache... You are perhaps THE single most frustrating editor on Wikipedia I've come across and you deserve a Barnstar for that --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:BLUE? HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * For a significant percentage of Australians it is no longer obvious that the sky is blue... I have provided the reasoning for this in the history of the game which I will expand upon further to include the logistical reasoning behind that as soon as I paraphrase it. --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood, again. There is no doubt at all that the Sydney based administrators of the game want it to be called "football" by everyone everywhere. But that places no pressure at all on Wikipedia to change. I have simply been trying to get you to understand how unlikely it is that the change will succeed among non-fans, any time soon. Since there are more fans of other codes, that means nothing changes for us. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It does not matter what others think about the matter you are pushing a POV agenda, what matters is that for all intents and purposes as per the history of the game which I have just updated, the game is football. I suggest you read the evidence, there's that word again, that I have provided for why this is the case --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is no doubt at all that the Sydney based administrators of the game want it to be called "football" by everyone everywhere. There's plenty of evidence for that. But it doesn't change the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Once again you have pushed a POV agenda about the "Sydney based administrators of the game." The point of the matter which I will reiterate is that the only english language word for the game that is being played outside of park "soccer" is football and that is clearly evidence based. Despite what your local "soccer" club is called, it falls under administration by the Football Federation of Australia and is thus considered a football club, every level of the game in this country is considered football. As far as the governing body of the sport is concerned the term soccer no longer exists with reference to any team playing under it --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That governing body must have conniptions every time it sees those naughty soccer players and clubs who still use that name. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Orestes1984, refer to WP:OFFICIALNAME - just being an official name doesn't make it the most logical name under WP:NAMING. I would suggest you don't accuse others of behaviour that can't be directed back at you. If you are proposing a name change, don't make this personal and stick to Wikipedia policy. Hack (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @User:Hack I find this all blatantly ridiculous and lacking of my main concern, academic integrity when a game of "soccer" can be administered by the Football (key word) Federation of Australia and when furthermore an outsider who reads this article will only find out by reading this article that the sport of "soccer" becomes football. There is no way to disambiguate this evidence, which as I stated only leads to confusion. What the opposing side of the argument is asking us to do is to ignore the successful historical push to have the sport recognised as football at least to it's supporters and the grounds and reasoning why this occured over the last 10 years.


 * I have addressed the matters as they are in the article based on evidence and as such yes I do not believe that name of this page is suitable any longer for the sport of "soccer" in this country, it is more than just an administrative decision as those opposed would have you think, there is far more to it then that which is why hilo should be declared incompetent to edit this page --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it not suitable? For many Australians, football is something else. You need to be able to disambiguate the term football in the article title. This is not about personal preference, this is about avoiding confusion to the reader. Hack (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Watch out Hack. I've been saying that for months, and it apparently makes me incompetent. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It is really not suitable on the grounds I mentioned above, I do not need to repeat myself. Firstly soccer is not the sport that is played by the Football Federation of Australia as it says under the orginisation section which causes confusion. Secondly as I have stated previously and as the peer reviewed article I have used states the term football is one which is culturally significant to "soccer" supporters and finally as I have also stated, circa 2004-2005 the sport becomes football as more than simply an administrative name


 * On those grounds the user above who suggests it is just a name is highly incompetent and should not be editing this page --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Tunnel vision on display there. The world is not what you and the FFA want it to be. Many soccer players and fans still call the game soccer. It's their choice. It's not a problem to them. Why should it be a problem to you?


 * You know, I actually feel a bit sorry for you and others who have been led along by the FFA. The are the administrators of the game you love, so you want them to be perfect. But either through deliberate deception, or incompetence, they took soccer in Australia down a path it could never get to the end of. They have let you down. It's tough on you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Feigned sympathy does not help your cause and further to the point to expand upon what the administrators of the game have said, they know this is just the beginning. Besides the point, when so many people in this country are playing soccer eventually something has to give, it's not a matter of if but when. The A-League in terms of attendance is having another good season on top of the last 2 since it has built a bridge with the former NSL teams and established the Australian Premier League. The FFA has also had actual success in terms of establishing a team in Western Sydney where the AFL has not despite being able to spend more money and bankrolling flop players like Israel Falou. If anything it will be the fact that the sport is not affected by thebarassi line which will see it continue to grow in popularity. --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Orestes1984, what is your opinion on the article title?


 * My opinion is that the title will lead to nothing less than confusion based on the recent history in the sport and the current title is not up to date purely from an academic perspective. This is based on evidence I have found whilst I have shaped the recent history section of this article. The term soccer is problematic because by the end of having read the history section an outside reader will realise that the game is actually football. There is also no simple way to disambiguate the issue in a a way that maintains the thoughts of the people who originally contributed them and for me to change the thoughts of what the FFA said to state it in a way that used the word soccer would lead myself to imputing original research. I have already suggested the alternative football (soccer) in Australia which is available. As I have stated previously and as a trained historian, my interest is in evidence not facts --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Confusion to whom? Even in English-speaking countries where football unambiguously refers to the game administered by FIFA, soccer is clearly understood. For example the likes of Soccer AM and World Soccer Magazine amongst many others. Hack (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If I was alien to this and wanted to come into this article and find out what soccer is in Australia and by the time I read the end of the history section it told me that the sport was football I would be confused and there really is very little way to disambiguate the goings on in the sport over the last 10 years other than to refer to it as the happening of "football" as they've occured. Even as someone who is not alien to the sport I find that a football federation playing soccer is confusing, one or the other not both and the decision was made in terms of cut and dry academics nary 10 year ago to call the sport football and so it is --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh well, looks like more trolling. I'll come back when there is a serious proposal. Hack (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Hack LOL! I must be a funny looking troll for someone who has actually been putting quite a few good faith edits on this page recently. You might want to have a look at Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is that "football" cannot be used in Wikipedia as the name for "soccer" in Australia because of its ambiguity. It is used by far more than half of the Australian population as the common name of something else. HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * HiLo48, that is a very broad statement, that "football" cannot be used on any Australian wikipedia article to refer to the round ball game. Does that apply to every other football code on Australian articles? American football, rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules football, etc.?--2nyte (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would think so, because it's ambiguous everywhere, although I can imagine some Australian football content using the word because it that code was the only meaning the word had on that side of the Barassi Line until soccer's Sydney based administrators started playing their little games with it. Are you going to show me some examples? HiLo48 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But "football" in reference to Australian rules football is ambiguous in New South Wales and Queensland. In those states "football" would refer to soccer or a code of rugby, as it would in every other country in the world, with exception to North America, where "football" would refer to Gridiron football.--2nyte (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm not defending it. Just saying it wouldn't surprise me to see an example of such usage. There are certainly places where soccer articles are written without thought as to possible ambiguity. To me, some of the most amusing are the articles on Australian soccer players. I've seen several where the player is described as "an Australian footballer". (See Tim Cahill and Lucas Neill as examples.) Well, not surprisingly, that's the perfectly valid description given in articles about players of Australian football. (See Stephen Milne (Australian footballer).) Best to avoid just "football" to describe any code in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing the point, I'm just trying to see where you stand on the matter.--2nyte (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. Hope it's clear now. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * right... so it's coming back to this again... "Sydney based administrators" this IS NOT neutral point of view please refrain from using this argument again to justify your edits as it is a clear violation of neutral point of view. As for Tim Cahill in particular his notability to millions of Europeans, and British folk for years at Milwall and Everton was as a Football player because that's what the game IS called in Europe/the UK. You really are incompetent --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not taking sides in any way here. The soccer administrators ARE Sydney based. It's significant. I am 100% certain that if they had been Melbourne based they would never have made the decision to change the code's name to "football". They simply wouldn't have followed that thought process. The cultural background of people is critical here. And doesn't it bother you at all that Cahill is described in exactly the same way as people who play Australian football? As for whether I know what the British folk call the game, of course I do (although the first British folk I met were immigrants here who happily and enthusiastically called it soccer). I just described the identical descriptions as amusing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The location of soccer's administration IS irrelevant, there are other factors involved in why soccer is considered football in Australia. you are pushing an argument that violates NPOV the game is called football in this country for other reasons and has a completely different fan base that doesn't recognise AFL's line in the sand. As we can see through the history of the sport in Australia "soccer" is a game played by outsiders, and if I ever heard a migrant calling the game soccer I would laugh, no matter whether in Melbourne, or in Sydney. At best I can assume you are one of the new soccer football fans who doesn't understand the historical and cultural connection to the word football as noted in the history of the game. At worst you are pushing an argument that is not NPOV and assuming that Australian Rules Football has any sort of notability where Tim Cahill played the majority of his career, or that football as it were outside of Australia should conform to standards about an Australian rules football article. Tim Cahill's main notability is as a football player for Everton, you have nothing to stand on --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Missed both points (and a question) completely, but that seems normal. As for me being a new fan, that's amusing too. I grew up in a country town that won the state soccer championship way back in the 1950s. It was soccer territory because of a massive migrant population. Ten years later I wasn't good enough to get into the school soccer team (the competition was just too hot!) but I still played for fun. It was only ever called soccer back then, precisely by that immigrant population, who called it that with great enthusiasm. Never a negative about the name. The stupid fans, and the bullshit promotional crap and insistence on unnecessarily and confusingly changing the name in recent times, has been pushing me away. But I reckon I probably know a bit more about the history of the game, at least in Victoria, than you. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Your insularity and incompetence astounds me, furthermore it was only ever called soccer as a form of appeasement to the people like yourself that can't understand why the game is called football --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Appeasement? LOL. I can't stop you believing whatever you want, but I was there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand that when I say the word soccer it is a form of appeasement and always has been you're lost. As I have provided in referenced material the word football is highly cultural and significant. I would take evidence over your personal opinion every day of the week and twice on Tuesday --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. You constantly allege that I am expressing opinion. I have gone out of my way in these discussions to not do so. Your certainty is somewhat of a worry. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have verified just about everything I have stated here with evidence, might I remind you as I said on your talk page, it is often easier to substantiate than argue. Might I also remind you of the policy when it comes to matters such as the above as the old rules go but remain largely verbatim verifiability, not truisms --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's nice that you are so certain about what people did 50 years ago 1800 km from where you live. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that's not really what the source says - it doesn't argue that the change to "football" from "soccer" was made because the term "football" was highly cultural, but that the move was made on cultural grounds, as they were attempting a cultural change through rebranding. - Bilby (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the cultural change was the ethic ties that had brought violence to games, the idea was to reduce that issue. As successful as it has been at the top level the lower levels of the game remain bonded to those ethnic ties. Gnangarra 04:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Some searches of Trove, the best source for information relating to Australia; The whole point is it doesnt matter how one pulls footballs usage apart its usage in Australia is ambiguous at the very least, in reality "Australian Rules Football" is the most dominant usage of the term in Australia therefore an argument could be put forth for it being the primary topic. The most logical outcome, least controversial and most likely to remain stable is no one topic uses the term and each use a term thats acceptable to the majority. Given that this argument is circular, unresolvable thru discussion and frequently push WP:NPA, WP:NPOV to respective limits then maybe its time that editors agreed to leaving this discussion as is and move on to more productive activities. Gnangarra 04:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * football NOT soccer |*ignore*&fromdd=&frommm=&fromyyyy=&todd=&tomm=&toyyyy=&l-word=*ignore*|*ignore*&sortby= digitized newspapers 2.2m articles, journals 2.3m articles 20,000 books, 50,000 photos 464 organisations.....
 * soccer NOT football |*ignore*&fromdd=&frommm=&fromyyyy=&todd=&tomm=&toyyyy=&l-word=*ignore*|*ignore*&sortby= 144,000 articles, 8,000 books, 9,000 photo's, 488,000 journals,
 * football no other condition |*ignore*&fromdd=&frommm=&fromyyyy=&todd=&tomm=&toyyyy=&l-word=*ignore*|*ignore*&sortby= digitized newspapers 2.3m articles, 26,000 books, 2.5m journals....
 * football and Victoria |*ignore*&fromdd=&frommm=&fromyyyy=&todd=&tomm=&toyyyy=&l-word=*ignore*|*ignore*&sortby= 300,000 articles, 6000 books, 48,000 journals,


 * What the article clearly says the re-branding is very much cultural. It does not say that this has anything to do with inter-ethnic conflict. It then goes on to state the business reasons why the move were made is because the NSL was dead as a product as a result of a number of issues.


 * Some of these issues are inter-ethnic conflict, other issues include general corruption of the NSL and its inability to continue as a body as it was basically defunct. The NSL threatened to run an opposing season, but in the end basically couldn't getit off the ground. As I have stated, everything I have added here is verifiable. If you think it's too close to the source (as I understand it has to be to close to what the source says) FIX it, don't REVERT it.


 * The biggest issue with this article is the number of editors who are either incompetent to edit it on various grounds or who consistently push a view that either falls under NPA or against NPOV. I have abstained from personal view and verified what I have stated with evidence, I only wish other editors here would do the same --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And that from the editor who wrote five days ago "The term football is not ambiguous". LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To quote myself properly rather than as a misquote above, from my perspective football is not ambiguous KEEP READING this is not Tony Abbott we can do a little better than 3 word slogans. I assume in good faith that the majority of Wikipedia editors are not completely incompetent.


 * Football is not ambiguous it may refer to many different things in different contexts, if I must push a POV it's that the correct word should be used in its context specific linkage to the topic at hand. It is really not that hard to see in the case of this article that football would refer to the round ball game. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That was not a misquote. It was a copy and paste of your entire post at 04:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC). I await your humblest apologies. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48 It still remains a misquote of my thoughts which I have later elaborated upon and am not going to reiterate. I agree with the above, so long as the link is correct, the term in context is not ambiguous and can be disambiguated by a lead statement stating that it is also known as soccer --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow. First time I've ever heard of the concept that directly quoting precisely what someone said, in it's entirety, could be a misquote. Ah well, it's good to learn something new every day. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we have to be realistic of our outcomes and what we want to and should achieve. Firstly, in Australia, in a general context the term "football" is ambiguous, it can mean any of the football codes. Though in a specific context the term "football" is not ambiguous. That is how we should approach this on Australian wikipedia articles, where "football" can be used in a specific context with a hyperlink (i.e. football, football, football). In articles specifically about association football, Australian rules football, ect. the use of "football" is not ambiguous, it is specific and in context. Now to this article: it should be titled Association football in Australia, association football is the default name for the sport on wikipedia, it is in the Australian English dictionary and it is impartial to any bias form "football" or "soccer". While "association football" will be in this articles title, "football" may be used in the article to refer to the sport, as the article has no ambiguity as is specific and in context to one sport. We must also specify in the article that the sport is commonly known as "soccer", as the term is brought up in the article (Soccer Australia, National Soccer League, ect), so we need the context. The only argument against the use of "football" is ambiguity, and this prevents it.--2nyte (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's certainly ambiguous, and I think it's also invalid to argue that "football" is the common name for the sport in Australia. It's certainly not the common name on the Aussie Rules side of the line. Almost everybody there, including soccer fans and players, calls the game soccer, and that's half the Australian population. League fans are unlikely to call it football. The media targets them with a Footy Show. Not sure about Union fans, but that already takes us well over the 50% mark who don't call it "football". HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Except of course when league fans do. There are a number of newspaper articles published on the Rugby league side of the Barassi line that use football to refer to league.  "Then we took the boys to the football grounds for practice.  They returned home dirty and exhausted."  That sort of thing occurs in a lot of columns.  On the younger side, there are often a number of references to touch football as football.  During the season, you also have gridiron football referred to as football.  In almost all contexts, articles have other words surrounding it that make clear what the code is if it is not 100% obvious.  ("Football kicks off this weekend in Sydney's suburbs with the top soccer league in the state starting their competition."  "His experience with rugby in Australia helped him get a scholarship to play football at a university in the United States.")  Football on its own, no matter the code on both sides of the Barassi line, almost always requires some modifier to make clear.  I've been re-visiting academic sources and books on Australian football.  I have yet to find a source that discusses the linguistics of football to support any such claim regarding universal usage.  If there is, cite the sources.  (That's what is frustrating.  Academic and book sources are required here to support these claims, and the soccer pushers have none.  They are not familiar with the body of academic work.) --LauraHale (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets not argue about common name because in Australia none of the main football codes have one and only one distinct common name; they all have many nicknames, common names and official names. For example, in Australian English association football, football, soccer and the world game can refer to the same sport. Let's allow the use of "football" in specific articles where no ambiguity exists, where only one sport is refereed to, articles such as National Rugby League, Geelong Football Club, Western Sydney Wanderers FC, Tim Cahill; there is no ambiguity if we say: Tim Cahill (born 6 December 1979) is an Australian footballer, who plays for the New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer and the Australian national team - "football" has a link to the correct sport (association football), so there is no doubt whatsoever, there is no problem, no ambiguity whatsoever. If you have any doubt then you simply don't know how wikipedia works. So there is no argument necessary.--2nyte (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I support the above statements, and anyway lets not go there anyway, because SBS also runs a show that is unambiguously called Thursday FC (football club) across Australia as does Foxtel and SBS refer to the sport as football across Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 2nyte - that's fine in principle, but is not a magic bullet solution. I still see problems arising because of the incorrect certainty many editors have about how things happen and how the language is used in places they're really not familiar with. You and Orestes are perfect examples.


 * As for your example above, as soon as Tim Cahill is described as an Australian footballer, before following the links, a person on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, who hasn't heard of Cahill, will first think he plays Aussie Rules. You see, because of the strength of meaning of "football" in that area, there is no doubt among such people. An Australian footballer plays Australian football. They wouldn't even think of the alternative. Yes, later text makes it clearer that he probably plays another sport, but it still doesn't say "soccer", the name my hypothetical reader knows the game by. For an Australian subject, we're still ignoring the linguistic habits of half the Australian population. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, firstly, the statement Tim Cahill is an Australian footballer is NOT ambiguous. The link to association football alone removes ambiguity, anyone who known anything about wikipedia knows that. Secondly, using "football" is only being current, as anyone who knows about the sport in Australia (whether they call it soccer or football) knows that it is called football by the official governing bodies. That is the trend going through the round ball game in Australia. Lastly, despite what you might think, half the population do NOT call Australian rules football "football"; half of Australia doesn't follow the sport, the last AFL grand final had 2.7 million views (not half the population) and many hundreds of 'soccer' clubs south of the Barassi Line‎ are named 'Football Club' by choice. Unless you have facts to prove otherwise, don't come up with those remarks.--2nyte (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't been on the other side of the line, and your incorrect comments about how people think and speak in a place you've never been, are simply proving my point. You are just plain wrong. How can you possibly be so arrogant? And I work with schoolkids. They use Wikipedia like a Bible. Most of them have no idea how it works. They just believe the first thing they read there and copy and paste it into essays, thereby losing all the links. Looking at links and sourcing is something I naturally try to teach them, but it's an uphill battle. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That is the stupidest thing I have every heard. Don't use "football" because school kids in Melbourne who plagiaries wikipedia won't get the full context. No Hilo, try again and respond to my three points above. Explain how my three points are incorrect in detail.--2nyte (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You've never been to the other side of the Barassi Line. What is it that makes YOU think you know how and what people there think? HiLo48 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, I never said nor assumed I know what people think. I am just being factual and logical. I made three points above, if you disagree with them explain why.--2nyte (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Simple. You are wrong on all three points. Partly right in some areas, but wrong in total due to tunnel vision. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, you have said three times that my statement is wrong but you have failed to explain why. Please explain why the statement is wrong and do so specifically to the three points so I can understand you reasoning.--2nyte (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no point. You won't accept it. It involves telling you that what you think is the reality somewhere you've never been just isn't the case. Your fanatical loyalty to soccer involves a belief that those Sydney administrators have chosen the perfect path forward. They haven't, but you won't accept that yet either. At an absolute minimum you should try to get all your soccer news from the other side of the Barassi Line for a while. Difficult with broadcast media, so I can understand the difficulties you face, but at least do it with print media. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, stop dodging my questions and answer them. Otherwise, if you don't want to cooperate then leave the discussion. I have three very legitimate points and I want you to respond specifically to them, and them only.


 * Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Point 1: On wikipedia the statement Australian footballer is NOT ambiguous. The link to association football removes ambiguity, anyone who known anything about wikipedia knows that. The hyperlink provides context to the word "football", which without the hyperlink is ambiguous.


 * Of course the statement "Australian footballer" is ambiguous. Do you live in an alternative universe where "ambiguous" means the opposite of what it means in this universe?  And your link for "footballer" is to "association football".  Therefore your argument contradicts itself.  It doesn't "remove" ambiguity at all ~ it only serves to highlight it.  I have rarely read such complete and utter nonsense on Wikipedia as your so-called "point". Afterwriting (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Point 2: Using "football" to refer to the round ball game is only being current, as anyone who knows about the sport in Australia (whether they call it soccer or football) knows that it is called football by the official governing bodies. That is the trend going through the round ball game in Australia. Read this for more info.

Point 3: Despite what you might think, half the population do NOT call Australian rules football "football"; half of Australia doesn't follow the sport, the last AFL grand final had 2.7 million views (not half the population) and many hundreds of 'soccer' clubs south of the Barassi Line‎ are named 'Football Club' by choice. Unless you have facts to prove otherwise, don't come up with those remarks.

Please respond to those three points specifically.--2nyte (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * They have all been responded to, many times. HiLo48 (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, why are you so unwilling to respond to my points. Stop dodging my questions and answer them. I don't care if you already have, I want them clarified.--2nyte (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all I have already stated under Notability Tim Cahill is recognised by a larger population throughout Europe alone as an Australian football player than he is in his native country as a "soccer" player. NB: They play football in the UK, you have even stated that people on your side of the Barassi line may not even recognise Tim Cahill which supports my point. Furthermore Tim Cahill is internationally recognised and every Everton and Milwall fan will be looking for Tim Cahill as a Footballer.

Secondly as for you your conflated oppinion that AFL is football therefore all Australian football players must be soccer players... This makes you incompetent to edit this article alone. Please refrain from inserting your opinion that fails to meet NPOV and furthermore shows a complete lack of understanding of Notability. You are inserting a view that an internationally recognised football player that has more notability outside of the country he represents should be called a soccer player purely because you are an AFL tragic.

As a complete misuse of Google and purely original research purely to prove a point, Tim Cahill and Football returns About 730,000, while Tim Cahill and soccer returns about 467,000 results. This is not notability, however it simply returns which search terms would actually return more results about Tim Cahill --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Worst post you've made yet, I think. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Can both 2nyte and Orestes please plan a trip to the other side of the Barassi Line. You won't believe what others tell you about it. Maybe you'll believe your own ears and eyes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually it is isn't the weight of evidence shows your conflated and incorrect opinion for what it is. It's obvious what your editing agenda is when it comes to this and other soccer related articles. If anyone is agenda pushing it is yourself and your use of Tim Cahill is perhaps the most flagrant example --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that's an excellent point to let this sit for a while. Happy to let the rest of the world judge.


 * Of course I'd like any such judgements of my comments to be based on what I have actually said, not on someone else's interpretation of what they think I meant by what I said. HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. They do not need to visit the other side of the Barassi Line.  Rather, they need to familiarize themselves with academic sources about football in Australia for a multi-code perspective.  WP:V is important here.  There is a lot of WP:OR regarding usage of the name, but very few sources.  The sources out there that do exist say the sport in Australia is called soccer.  I'd be more inclined to believe good faith efforts to resolve issues here, to uphold policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV if instead of turning Wikipedia into a combat sport, they would work to resolve issues.  I notice  still hasn't fixed the problem he introduced into the article of completely removing women from the article.  How about we deal with FULLY CITING this article, and putting women back into the article.  After those huge issues have been resolved, after  and  have started reading lots and lots of sources to deal with these problems, we should be at a point where a trip to the other side of the line is not required. --LauraHale (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you LauraHale One of the key issues here that I've been trying to raise consistently is that you do need to verify. The other issue I've raised with Hilo48 is that consensus is not not always the best way of looking at things as Hilo48 should know given his past encounters. I'm going to leave this with what you've stated above as with full disclosure I am aware that occasionally I can tend to come off as abrasive and/or stubborn.


 * As you are aware I have begun adding citations for large chunks of the history of the game in this country that were missing. So lets stick to that shall we so as we don't get into battleground debates about issues here. I will stick to verifying where I stand so long as others realise we do need to cite that the sky is blue --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This article should be moved to Association football in Australia. Other Australian articles specific to the sport (clubs, players, organisations, etc.) should refer to the sport as "football" with a hyperlink to association football (i.e. football) in the opening paragraph. In other non-specific articles (e.g. Sport in Australia) the sport should be referred to as association football. Although "soccer" is not a dead word in Australia, it's usage is no longer official (as shown here); it is no longer appropriate to refer to the sport as "soccer" on Australian wikipedia articles, the sport has moved on and we must represented this change.--2nyte (talk) 11:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you want my local soccer club, officially referred to in its own name, by all its fans and players, in all its publicity, and in its legally registered name, as a soccer club, to be described as a football club in Wikipedia? That's just plain stupid. Maybe you you come and visit the club and tell them all they're wrong. LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That source makes it clear that the change to football from soccer is not universal, with papers in the AFL states continuing to refer to soccer. - Bilby (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All of this campaign from 2nyte, Orestes, and occasionally others seems built around the fact that they cannot cope with the name "soccer" being used for the sport. That's a very POV position. Huge numbers of Australians, including many soccer players and fans, and big chinks of the media, comfortably use that term as their primary name for the sport. There has been no good reason given for not using soccer, except for things like "the sport is trying to move away from that name". Well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't change what a huge number of people around the country do. A marketing drive by a sport must never be the driver of what we do on Wikipedia. More than half the country's population is completely happy with soccer as the name for the sport. It's the ONLY non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. It's the perfect name for the game in an Australian context in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The campaign for "football" also ignores that fact that article names should use "common names" rather than "official names" for things. The argument for the official name, therefore, is invalid unless "football" is also the common name which, in Australia, it still isn't for the general population as opposed to the sport's supporters.  On this basis alone the article must continue to use "soccer" in the title.  If "football" ever became the common and unambiguous name in Australia then the issue can be reconsidered.  Until then it cannot.  If you don't like Wikipedia's article name policies then challenge them in the appropriate places instead of seeking to invent your own policies. Afterwriting (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Afterwriting, there is no actual facts supporting the claim that "soccer" is currently the common name for the sport in Australia. And in terms of ambiguity, the term "football" is only ambiguous on wikipedia if it is not in context; in the article Western Sydney Wanderers FC for example, referring to the sport as "football", especially with a hyperlink to association football (i.e. football) in the opening is not ambiguous as the word "football" is in context, the reader knows specifically what sport is being referred to, no other meaning would nor could be assumed.--2nyte (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Bilby, yes the source makes it clear that the change to football from soccer is not universal, although would the change ever be considered universal in Australia? Even if all the major newspapers referred to the sport as "football" (if they haven't already, the article was written months 14 ago) people would still argue that the sport should only be referred to as "soccer", as stated in the article. The fact is that one of the biggest events in the history of the round ball game in Australia was the changing of its title from "soccer" to "football"; it can never be considered a universal change, but it is a change nonetheless, one we must represent, as we would for any other topic on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 00:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not? I've told you about schoolkids in Victoria. Your response was a combination of "I don't believe you" and "they must be stupid". Dunno about yours, but the page I'm looking at right now has a link on the left called "Random article". I know people who entertain themselves by clicking on that repeatedly. Nothing they read is "in context". They could hit Western Sydney Wanderers FC, with no idea what sport it's about. And not everybody checks all the links. I know that you classify such people as stupid, but that's not a smart argument. Your world of playing soccer and being a hard core, very loyal fan, based in one part of Sydney, is very insular. The world, even Australia, is very diverse. Most people do not have your perspective. You really have to believe people who tell you what things are like elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, firstly you completely misquoted me on both occasions, I previously said "That is the stupidest thing I have every heard" - in relation to school kids who plagiaries wikipedia not getting the full context. Again, all we should do is make sure what we produce is in context, it is up to the reader to interpret the information as they will.--2nyte (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So let's make it as easy as possible for everyone. "Soccer" is the ONLY non-ambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. Logic tells us that it is more common than "football". A minority's ideological objection to the name "soccer" cannot drive policy here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, I really think you should read this article. A quote: "Of course, a name is only a name. Many will continue to call it "Soccer" wherever they live - and proponents of "Football" should accept that. No-one has the right to dictate which terms should be used on an individual basis. But that courtesy should also be extended to those who prefer "Football", too. It’s no longer enough to say "in Australia, it’s soccer" because for many, it simply isn’t." This is not a war of ideology, this is just you, HiLo48, pushing your opinion of what you think the sport should be called. Call the sport whatever you want, but don't expect others to follow.


 * If we are going to be completely unbiased, if we are going to represent the current state of the sport in Australia we must stop referring to it as "soccer" for the sake it it; ignorance is no longer a reason. The change in name was one of the biggest events in the history of the sport in Australia. We must use "football" (with a hyperlink to the sport) on specific articles, and "association football" on non-specific articles.--2nyte (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems that I need to make it clear again that, regardless of what the official name of something is, article names on Wikipedia use the 'common name. The official "change in name" argument is irrelevant to article names.  Unless you have any evidence that "football" is now also the common name then most article names for the sport in Australia should continue to use "soccer". As for using "football" or "association football" in the body of the article, that is a different issue. Afterwriting (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Afterwriting, what would be considered evidence that "football" is now also the common name? Would the changing of the national and state body names, the changing of hundreds of club names, the changing of the union name and the use by newspapers in the most populous area of the country count as evidence? The term "soccer" may not be dead, but it's usage has dramatically lessened, it is no longer the universal term for the sport as it once was.--2nyte (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Soccer" may no longer be quite as universal in Australia as it once was but it is still almost certainly the name which the vast majority of Australians still call the sport. Unless this changes, which seems highly improbable in the near future, then "soccer" remains its common name and that fact is expected to be recognised in Wikipedia article names. For better or worse that is the way thing work on Wikipedia. Afterwriting (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Afterwriting, how can we know that "soccer" is still the common name of the sport? And even if it still is, doesn't the "official change in name" have an impact? On any other wikipedia article a similar change in name would have seen a change within the article - that is why many can not comprehend the unwillingness of some to follow suit.--2nyte (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You really have just proven my point. That's one of the most blatant, ideologically driven posts in this whole discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, a radical ideology, whereby wikipedia acts on current events, where wikipedia is unbiased and sports are truthfully represented. Now that is dreaming...--2nyte (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Truthfully", eh? Interesting concept. Your version or mine? HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Gee, 2nyte, you really are a dishonest, ideologically driven prick. I've just noticed your edits today to Victorian Premier League. Despite an insistence that we need to include the "FC", being part of the "full name" of A-League clubs, in that article you put in a lot of effort to avoid displaying the full names of clubs. I can only assume it's because some have names with " S C" on the end. Now, what could that  S  possibly stand for? And why did you avoid using the full names there? Very bad faith editing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

To others reading this, this hypocrite has now attacked me on my talk page for raising it here. I won't apologise. The edits I'm condemning just reinforce my view on this POV pusher's philosophy. Even the S for soccer has to be hidden. And all this after telling me I was wrong when I insisted that soccer is still the main name for the game in Victoria. He discovered evidence I was right, and hid it. Didn't come out and say "HiLo, you were right", did he? What do we make of such behaviour? I think it's perfectly valid to mention this behaviour here to show the obsession we are facing. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Out of a quick survey to prove a point of not peddling agenda we've got Dandenong, Richmond and Green Gully which are all SC, what a club name or a team name is however, is frankly irrelevant, the majority of these clubs have long established history which includes the name of the club that dates at least prior to the demise of the NSL some clubs like Green Gully were at one point or another part of the NSL and have almost 60 years of history attached to the club and club name as well as links to the Dutch and Maltese community in Melbourne. Product branding and familiarity is often significant. If you read about the first 5 or 6 years of the A-Leagues history, many supporters disavowed the A-League purely on the fact that A-League clubs were seen as "plastic" franchises.


 * Anyway lets just say a name is a name and just because they are called soccer clubs, as I have repeatedly stated does not mean the fans have to call the sport soccer, or that the main institution that runs the game has to all of a sudden adopt the name of "soccer." I'm over this really, if anyone is agenda peddling its you HiLo48 to state that more than one sport cannot be refereed to by its official name. We do it just fine in here in Queensland either calling  the sport of Australian rules, Australian rules football, or AFL which in the acronym stands for football. No I don't suffer confusion or memory loss when I have to call a sport football in reference to rugby league, or rugby in reference to rugby union and no my brain didn't explode having to think about that sentence --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No. There's a point you still haven't got. I won't try again. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Having read the illuminating link provided above by 2nyte, I liked this line - "Many will continue to call it "Soccer" wherever they live - and proponents of "Football" should accept that. No-one has the right to dictate which terms should be used on an individual basis." In all of the back and forth, red herrings, non sequiturs and other misdirections, the bottom line is that for about half the country, the word football is very ambiguous.  Official, yes, maybe in common use by some, but for many others, it is ambiguous.  And where possible, we avoid ambiguous names for article titles here.  Context and clarification are easy in a sentence, a news report or a conversation, but not so in a title. Soccer on the other hand, is understood, but obviously not liked, by all.  The-Pope (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * unambiguous name yes, also disliked by many yes and there underlies why this article will most likely never have it's disputes resolved BUT we are beginning to sound as bad as some of the Greek/Macedonian and Greek/Turkish disputes that go on in Wikipedia... Yet while we continue to use a name such as soccer this dispute will continue whether it is by myself or any other user on Wikipedia. There MUST be a resolution to this dispute that doesn't involve one side walking away unhappy which is what the current term of soccer is doing --Orestes1984 (talk) 11:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the solution is to stop considering yourself a "side". This isn't a soccer (or football) match, with two sides vying for dominance. It's a place where we seek consensus. I don't think you're doing that. You ardently want everyone to call the sport "football". They don't, and for the foreseeable future, they won't. That's fundamentally what I have been trying to demonstrate to you. I've tried to explain why that is the case. I don't think you wanted to hear the facts I was telling you. Unfortunately too, in your drive to make everyone else use "football" as the name, you've said some very silly things, like saying it's not ambiguous. The name on Wikipedia IS "soccer". Stop letting it hurt you. Promote the game in other ways. The name is less important than many other aspects. Effectively having the name "soccer" in my neighbourhood isn't harming the game at all. It's thriving. Stop thinking that the name is a big problem. It's not. And it's a reality. HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The-Pope, We need to resolve this. Rename the article title to Association football in Australia. Use the term "association football" when ambiguity is present within the article and in article titles. Use the term "football" (with a hyperlink to association football in the lead e.g. football) in articles when there is no ambiguity present. This should be what we follow for the foreseeable future.--2nyte (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Three points:
 * 1. How do YOU know when there is no ambiguity present? You refuse to accept what others tell you about how the language works in places you've never been. Hyperlinks may help to lessen ambiguity, but they alone can never remove it. We should not create ambiguity when there is a very simple way to completely avoid it.
 * 2. Nobody actually uses the term Association football for the game in Australia. It fails absolutely on the criterion of common name.
 * 3. Stop treating "soccer" as a bad word. The sport is doing very well in places where that name is clearly the primary name, and where nobody is offended by it, treating it as the natural name of the sport. (I really wish I could understand what's got into your mind to make you think it's so evil. It's as if you've been brainwashed by the promoters of some form of Newspeak.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48 Adding a hyperlink does remove ambiguity, it gives context to the word like a footnote would; it's basic language skills. Wikipedia refers to the sport as "Association football", it is the default name for the sport on wikipedia, the term is also in the Australian English Macquarie Dictionary - so it is appropriate to use. Now, "soccer" is not a "bad word" though the head body of the sport decided to change the name. The change in name from "soccer" to "football" has the exact same principles as the change from "Victorian Rules" to "Australian rules football". And to this statement: "The sport is doing very well in places where that name (soccer) is clearly the primary name" - well in those placed the sport is organised by "Football Federations" (e.g. Football Federation Australia) and apparently they are "doing very well".--2nyte (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do you ignore my point. In much of the country, the sport is comfortably called "soccer", by its players and fans (and everybody else in those areas). You know that the name of the federation is hardly ever mentioned in daily conversation, but the name of the sport, "soccer", is. And it's not a problem. That is my basic point. You are objecting to the most obvious, unambiguous, common name we have, apparently for reasons that don't carry much weight at all here. And in objecting, you are effecrtivley telling all my soccer playing mates that they are wrong. Sorry, language doesn't work like that. (And that change from "Victorian Rules" to "Aussie Rules", when do you think it happened. My dad taught me the name "Aussie (or Australian) Rules" when I was a kid, and he died of old age ten years ago. So I don't recall the details. Do you?) HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, it doesn't matter what you and your mate calls the sport. My mates and I call Australian rules football "AFL". You might know that is how the sport is marketing in NSW and Queensland - as AFL. I know it's incorrect to call the sport that, but that is what the sport is known by. I've never heard the sport referred to as "football" or "Australian football" in media or in general conversation - the sport is always referred to as AFL. In much of the country, the sport is comfortably called "AFL". Even the governing body for the sport is called AFL NSW/ACT and AFL Queensland. Should we now change "Australian rules football in Australia" to "AFL in Australia" due to common name and refer to the sport as "AFL"?--2nyte (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The important thing about Aussie Rules/AFL is that nobody is campaigning to call it "football" on Wikipedia, even though a lot of its fans call it that too. The current name is unambiguous, so we leave it that way. "Football" is ambiguous, no matter how much you Wikilink/hyperlink it, no matter what you claim. "Association football" is unknown. So we use the perfectly good, unambiguous, universally understood, common name of "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HiLo48 "Soccer" is an old term for the sport, it can not be used on wikipedia if we are to depict the sport in a fair and current manner. "Association football" may be unfamiliar to the general public but it is not unknown; it is in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary and is the default name for the sport on wikipedia, again ON WIKIPEDIA. And any English word can be taken out of context, "football" is no different. If we add context then the word is not ambiguous.--2nyte (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's an irrational post. Soccer is current to an awful lot of Australians, probably well over half the population. It's not "unfair" unless one has been brainwashed to think so. Those I mentioned in my first sentence obviously don't think of it as unfair. They comfortably use it themselves without a second thought. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, you didn't respond to my second and third point. Anyway, to your point: many people may refer to Australian rules football as "football", but how do you know those people don't refer association football as "football" as well? In NSW and Queensland we can refer both association football and rugby as "football" with no confusion, because a little thing called context. You may say that's ambiguous to do so on Wikipedia but context still applies; comprehensive narrative writing, the use of hyperlinks - these are tools of our disposal to add context to articles on Wikipedia. The only people who would be considered "brainwashed" are those who choose not to read the context of the word; those who read a perfectly structured article, with addition of a hyperlinks (e.g. Western Sydney Wanderers FC) and choose not to identify "football" as soccer.--2nyte (talk) 01:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just as a point of reference re: the Barassi line to come back to things here for a second, according to my research the split is actually roughly 62 to 42% in terms of viewing audience. If we take your argument that the term football (soccer) is used on the other side of the line then on that basis using the Barassi line as a point of reference then the dominant use of the word football must be the interchangeable use of the word football to refer to the rugby codes and soccer.


 * of course this is a false logic argument, but I'm just using it to point out the illogical nature of such an argument in the first place. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)