Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 3

RfC on naming
What terminology should be used to describe the sport variously known as football, soccer or Association football, within the Australian context on Wikipedia?

Main arguments used in previous discussions:


 * 1) Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 in August 2013 strongly endorsed keeping the main article at Soccer in Australia.
 * 2) The point has also been made that there is regional variation in the terminology used to describe the Beautiful Game in the Australian context.
 * 3) The Australian association renamed itself Football Federation Australia in 2004.
 * 4) "Football" is highly ambiguous in this context as there also exist American football, Gaelic football, rugby union, rugby league, and Australian rules football, all of which could also be referred to as "football".
 * 5) "Association football" (as used on Wikipedia's main article on the sport) is not a common name in everyday parlance anywhere.
 * 6) "Soccer", while thoroughly unambiguous, seems to strongly offend some editors in some contexts.

Questions
 * 1) Can we agree to postpone further discussion of the title of the article Soccer in Australia until after 31 August 2015? It seems unlikely that any new arguments will be made, but obviously if there were genuine new data before Aug 2015 we could agree to bring this forwards. Saying "Yes" to this will allow editors to get on with more useful endeavours, pending the emergence of genuinely new data, and prevent AN/I from being continually clogged up with this dispute.
 * 2) Is it perhaps unrealistic and unhelpful given the regional variation in terminology of this sport to try at this stage to homogenise the nomenclature on all articles which discuss the sport in the Australian context? Can we agree to allow the current inconsistency to persist in the interest of editor harmony and reader experience, given that there is no suggestion that using 'soccer' or 'association football' will seriously mislead or confuse anybody? Saying "Yes" will allow editors to debate proper terminology on an article-by-article basis without worrying about anybody making sweeping changes and using the August RfC as a justification.

Format
Because this has already been the subject of extensive discussion at my talk page and various other locations, I would like to keep it succinct here. I also propose to run this for only 14 days (unless there are objections or insufficient interest), so I would propose closing on or after 20 March 2014. --John (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Responses
''Please only mark yes or no to the two questions. You can also make a brief comment (no more than twenty words, not counting the signature) explaining your rationale for each answer, making reference to policy or practice. There is a section for threaded debate below but please do not use it to falsify the arguments of others or to comment on their motivations. This may lead to blocks, which I am very keen to avoid.''


 * Q1 Yes too much heat in discussions Q2 Yes -- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes Q2 No "Association football" IS confusing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes nothing new in recent times. Q2 Yes but with reservations: I fear that it may only move the location of the acrimony. No Upon reflection I realise that Association Football is confusing, practically no one understands the term and fewer use it. - Nick Thorne  talk  22:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes assuming that this discussion comes to a consensus-based conclusion Q2 Yes, "association football" is an acceptable compromise for WP:FOOTY, so it's clearly not that confusing. – PeeJay 22:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 No, because the August 2013 discussion was based on a proposed move to Football in Australia, not association football in Australia. Q2 No, because the present inconsistencies are nonsensical. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes leave it now, come back August; new RFC NOT involving move to football in Australia which is a functional article. Q2 Yes association football isn't really confusing. Even if it's confusing that's not Wikipedia's issue… SEE: AMORAL, NTAC Wikipedia ONLY provides information! --Orestes1984 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes Q2 Yes It's best to work out how to live with the genuine disagreement; not winner-takes-all. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 No. Football or Association Football will be title of page someday. Blocking discussion is not helpful to that inevitable change. Q2 Yes Association Football isn't confusing. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes Q2 Yes. Because better. Herostratus (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes, Q2 No - soccer is a more natural disambiguator than association football. Hack (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 No This serves no real purpose but to shut down conversation and this is in no way binding. Q2 Yes.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes Q2 No Unlike soccer, most people would be confused by the term Association football. Jevansen (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes Q2 It depends Some inconsistencies might be acceptable, others wouldn't. The question is too vague to admit of a yes or no answer. Neljack (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Q1 Yes Q2 Yes--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
(User:John, any chance you could rephrase Q2 so it wasn't actually two questions, the first being written in a somewhat confusing, negative form?) HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've bolded the main question in each case; does that help? --John (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the argument that "soccer" strongly offends some users is nonsense and I'm one of the users arguing against the use of "soccer". I think the main argument is really the inconsistency of naming in the real world - within Australia, within the media. We have two common names for the sport, but one of them ("soccer") is the "old term"', it's the one being replaced, it's the name the sport and the media is moving away from. So it only makes sense for Wikipedia to represent this change. The only question we should be asking is should we represent the real world change of name on Wikipedia? If that answer is yes, then the next question is how can we represent the change? This is done by replacing the usage if "soccer" in all content where there is no ambiguity with "football", additionally we use "association football" where there is ambiguity, as is already general practice on Wikipedia outside Australia. The only arguments against the change in name are that "soccer" is the more common name and that "football" is ambiguous. John did mention that WP:COMMONNAME should be avoided if we want a consensual solution. My suggestion above also refers to content being in context - therefore, no ambiguity. Additionally, what constitutes as "genuine new data"? To quote John, "major new real-world evidence ... (i.e. not just somebody on Wikipedia challenging the consensus but an announcement by the Australian government or something of that nature)". We already have real world evidence, genuine data that is being ignored because "'football' is ambiguous". We have the governing body of the sport public announcing that the sport is named "football" in Australia. We have every governing body of the sport changing their name and hundreds of clubs changing their name. Then, to make the change legitimate, we have national media, who formally referred to the sport as "soccer" now using "football" (many exclusively using "football"). We also have local media dropping "soccer" in preference to "football". Again, all this is being ignored because "'soccer' is more common" and "'football' is ambiguous".--2nyte (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This discussion is going nowhere, the plain and simple fact is that Wikipedia is here to provide the most amoral and comprehensive perspective. Association Football does that, it is a neutral term, and it is the most accurate term that could be used. It is the official name of the sport. Wikipedia is here to provide neutrality through accuracy. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Neutrality would only be required if there was a problem with the only unambiguous common name for the sport in Australia today. A majority of Australians, including fans and players at the highest level, happily use the word "soccer" every day. Please explain the problem with the word "soccer" today. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * None of that even begins to answer what I said, go back and try again. --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Then I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If the answer to Q2 becomes 'We will use Association Football', does it not follow that 'Soccer in Australia' should be renamed to Association Football in Australia''? Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Q2 Compromise discussion
As per Question 2, I completely agree with the administrators who can see that Association Football is not confusing. I have opened this discussion about my views for what terms should be used where. To me, I have what I believe is a very simple solution. On articles solely about the sport of Football that the term itself used be Football. Example on Football Federation Australia or Western Sydney Wanderers FC. On pages involving multiple sports, terminology used be Association Football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Australian Rules. As for article titles, Association Football would be used on articles not about specific groups, events, teams or leagues (ie, we wouldn't change Football Federation Australia to "Association Football Federation Australia"). Example, moving Soccer in New South Wales to Association Football in New South Wales to match the other state articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reason Association Football is not confusing is because no one knows what it is, except for a vanishingly small proportion of the population. Actually I take that back, it is confusing because probably half the country would most likely think is an archaic name for the local variety of Aussie Rules played in country Victoria and suburban Melbourne (remember the Victorian Football Association?).  Why use a term that virtually no one understands and even fewer use when there is already a word in use, that has been in use for over a hundred years and which everybody understands and most use? -  Nick Thorne  talk  14:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not about confusion please see AMORAL. Editors reserve the right to be as confusing as they damn well want to be. Whats more a little confusion occasionally is a normal and helpful thing, it's how we learn new things, like what football may otherwise be called. On the issue about association football, everyone who has more than a vague interest in soccer knows the official name of the game is association football. Please note Hull City AFC, Leeds United AFC, Bradford City AFC, AC Milan (Association Calcio Milan) English translation, Association Football Milan, AFC Wimbledon and many more. Some of the oldest and most prestigious clubs like Leeds and AC Milan make a huge note about being association football clubs. It is simply not at all confusing... What type of football is it? It is association football. --Orestes1984 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * None of those clubs are Australian. whatever they call the game is irrelevant to this discussion. -  Nick Thorne  talk  21:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nick's right. This is not about what clubs halfway around the world do. It's about Soccer in Australia. It must be written in language suitable for Australians, who will obviously be the primary audience. And it has to be written for Australians without a long term, passionate interest in the game. Many WILL become passionately (if only temporarily) interested over the next few months because of the World Cup. They will come here for information. Using a name unknown to almost all Australians, when there is a universally understood name available, seems like a form of Newspeak. More Australians will know of the Victorian Football Association (an Australian Rules Football competition established in 1877) than will know of "Association football". And there is absolutely no point looking for a "compromise" when nobody can explain what we're compromising over. Nobody has properly explained the problem with "soccer" today. It's universally understood. It's is aggressively and officially embraced by the FFA as part of the name of the national team. Google will take you there via a weblink called "Official Socceroos | Home - Football Federation Australia". We don't need "Association football". HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I will make this very clear: FFA has made it very clear that "Socceroos" is only an homage to the history of the sport - it is in no way an embracement of "soccer". "Association football" is Wikipedia's title name for the sport, it appears in the Australian English Macquarie dictionary and it is a compromise. Lastly, yes we do need a compromise; many feel that "more common" name should no longer apply in the current situation of the sport - we have solid real world evidence that the sport and the media is moving away from the usage of "soccer" - we have the option to represent this change, to move away from "soccer" to another unambiguous terms for the sport that is widely used on Wikipedia, so we should take that option.--2nyte (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you actually look at that Socceroo link? It's a very strong commitment to the Socceroo name. You can say that the sport HAS internally and partly moved away from "soccer". You cannot say it still is moving. That's effectively predicting the future. And the name change simply cannot go all the way. It's virtually impossible for "football" to become the common name for the game where Aussie Rules is the dominant code and is therefore primarily known as "football". And saying "many feel that more common name should no longer apply" sounds precisely like they don't like it. And I submit that it's really not all that "many". HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A simple redirect will solve all of the problems HiLo48 is complaining about. Soccer is simply an inaccurate descriptor of what the sport was and doesn't flow with NTAC --Orestes1984 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There's nothing inaccurate about "soccer". Every Australian knows precisely what it means. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes HiLo48, I agree 100% that every Australian knows precisely what the term "soccer" means, though that doesn't mean it's the right name we should be using on wikipedia. There is so much more to this equation, so much that can not be ignored simply because "soccer is more common".--2nyte (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. So "soccer" is more common. Everyone understands it. Your "so much more" needs to be pretty persuasive to convince us to not use "soccer" for Australian articles. That a relatively small minority don't like it doesn't work for me.

First of all who said that? Second of all... John clear stated this nonsense shouldn't return to I like it or I don't like it. The fact that this has been going on for so long is indicative of one simple thing. Some editors here like to engage in meaningless intellectual jousting over something that doesn't affect their precious sport of AFL... It really is as simple as that and if it has nothing to do with you, it might be a good time to leave it alone. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why the derogatory and inflammatory "precious sport of AFL"? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. This discussion has gone in the complete opposition direction that I intended. Yes Hilo, we know you don't like the word Association Football, but wikipedia isn't just about what you or Nick Thorne want. Association Football is a dictionary term, and one that is globally recognised as the official name of the sport (International Federation of Association Football). There is in my opinion, a clear majority consensus developing that has the answer to Question 2 being that Yes, Association Football will not mislead anyone. I believe on that basis that we have moved on past the "Soccer" vs "Association Football" argument, that Association Football will be an acceptable term, and I was hoping to find a compromise to create a (probably non-binding) guideline as to what terms should be used where. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To restate that again, my compromise: For Football specific pages, that Football be used. For multi-sport articles, then Association Football. The other sports to be called Rugby League, Rugby Union & Australian Rules. Article titles use Association Football eg: Association Football in New South Wales. Perhaps to appease the AFL community and show that I want to make this compromise in good faith, on articles about AFL that have an incidental mention of football, they can feel free to use their preferred term for football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is this "AFL community" you feel the need to appease? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Macktheknifeau, note the lowercase on "association football" (as in Association football in New South Wales).--2nyte (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lets just be a little smarter here and ignore the attempt to derail the actual discussion by people who are that deeply rooted in their position they would need a stump grinder to extricate themselves. This discussion appears to be going forward despite the lack of helpful and meaningful contributions from those that oppose it. I would simply say, just ignore the nonsense that doesn't help --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my intention with starting this section discussion. If people don't want to participate in discussion except to dismiss the growing consensus to Q2 where Association football is an acceptable word to use, then we will inevitably head to Arbitration or an AN/I discussion, where I think that refusal to engage will tell in the negative for them. I'm happy that we are working through the issue, and believe the compromise I have put forward would be acceptable to any rational person. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this is a compromise - to change almost all mentions to "football", with "association football" in a few cases. - Bilby (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think we'd be better off simply using Association football and leaving discussion of using football to individual pages? Having Association football as the 'default' would make any guideline easier to setup. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am arguing the simple term association football as football generically is simply a bridge too far, that is just my position though based on an understanding of how the rest of Wikipedia works in the majority of cases. --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

With the above in mind, and considering that it appears as if consensus is swinging in Q2 to have Association football as an acceptable, non-confusing term, would this be acceptable? The sports to be called Association football, Rugby League, Rugby Union & Australian Rules. Article titles use Association football eg: Association football in New South Wales. I also offer as an appeasement to the AFL community, in good faith, that single-topic involving AFL that have an incidental mention of football, they can feel free to use their preferred term for football. Am I getting somewhere? Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What is this "AFL community" you feel the need to appease? HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors who are involved with editing AFL articles. We all have our favourite subjects to edit and pointing out that doesn't seem to be a bad faith move by myself. There certainly was no intention of being derogatory on my part. I also don't want to get involved with dictating what an AFL article can call the sport of football, and as such I'd rather have it made clear in any guideline that AFL articles where required, can call incidental links to football by the preferred nomenclature for football of those involved in editing AFL articles. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So what's with the appeasement? And what on earth do you mean by the word "football" in that post. You must know that to "the AFL community" it means that game, Aussie Rules or AFL, and nothing else. Or were you referring to "soccer"? That post is a classic example of a time when you need to use an unambiguous name. "Football" doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What I choose to call the sport of football on this page has nothing to do with what we will call it on the wiki. You know perfectly well which sport I call football. Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Then what happened to the appeasement?) You really must accept that where I come from "football" almost always means only one thing, Aussie Rules. That's the case for probably more Australians than for whom it means "soccer". Then there's the "rugby league" fans who use the name "football" for their game. You will hopefully have noticed that, although "football" is by far the most common name for Aussie Rules where I live, and the name I would automatically use if I didn't think about my audience, I don't use that name here when talking to you. Please try to make your posts as unambiguous as possible, for all readers, rather than being as pointy as possible. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with the first bit, the second bit is a bit more sketchy if we have four football codes referring to themselves as football hence why I offered up the neutral term in the first place. I guess it's workable except in cases where there is more than one type of football in the article we need a clear disambiguation term, in which case the current Australian rules football would suffice if I am to follow my own stance here that the type of football comes first. The same could apply to rugby league, rugby union and American football. So long as we know which page we're on this shouldn't be an issue. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What's not neutral about "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk)


 * Many Australian rules football articles (players, clubs, etc) already use "football" in its content to refer to Australian rules football. I really have no problem with this as the content in in context. The same should apply to association football articles (players, clubs, etc) where "football" can be used when in context. I really hope this is not a "bridge too far" as it does resemble the current Australian sporting landscape. I explained this in the terminology section in the article I created on User:2nyte/sandbox.--2nyte (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Australian football articles use the word "football" because that's been the common name of the game in Australia for the past 150 years. Feel free to return to this issue when that's the case for the round ball game. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Except in New South Wales and Queensland, where it's called a myriad of other derogatory names and where currently the name "AFL" is used and encouraged by the peak body as the word for the sport, AFL as the name for the sport is in common usage and in the media in NSW & QLD, two states which I will repeat again, make up the majority of the country. But like I've said above, I'm not seeking to force a change to the wording in any AFL article or topic. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope we can ignore the derogatory names here. We do for soccer. The use of "AFL" as a name for the game by the Australian Football League is a pretty recent marketing strategy, and is perhaps intended to keep the two words "Australian" and "Football" in the forefront when people think about what it means. Obviously, with the bulk of the fans of Aussie Rules elsewhere, it's only a numerical minority who use that name. It's always intrigued me that the FFA left out the name of the sport entirely when they named the A-League. They used an A, presumably for Australia, but no mention of the sport. Compare that with National Rugby League too. HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has yet satisfactorily explained in this new discussion why we need a compromise at all. A minority of Australians would prefer a different name from "soccer". A large majority are quite comfortable with "soccer". That's what we need to look at. Consensus is NOT achieved by counting votes here. (I do wish John had not made the choice to encourage that.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem that this would have any binding effect except to those that specifically agree to it. I'm not seeing the point.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC).
 * I would hope that coming to an agreement would allow users to 'stick to their own topics' so to speak, and mean people don't have to expend energy and time fighting edit wars on topics they don't ordinarily edit. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Any concept of "their own topics" is a dangerous and foolish one. I'm a sports nut. I have edited articles on scores of different sports on Wikipedia, in many different countries and regions. I also edit articles on many other topics which have nothing to do with sport. I expect both numbers will continue to increase. I also address vandalism, POV pushing and parochial editing on any topic. I think that seeing the multiple diverse approaches to writing articles across all these areas makes me a better editor. HiLo48 (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could be more clear. By 'sticking to their own topics', I mean that by sorting out that we would use Association football, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Australian Rules as per the consensus here, that people can simply 'stick to the topic' of improving the actual articles they edit, without having to worry about getting involved in edit wars, complaints to admins and talk page discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There has still been no reason presented here (in this new discussion) as to why we cannot use "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No matter what you do here it can be disregarded. Consensus can change and this RFC has the authority of a water balloon.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If those involved don't respect the growing consensus that confirms his viewpoint that Association football is not confusing and thus a valid term to use on Australian sport articles, John has already threatened to take this issue beyond an RFC to somewhere that would carry authority. Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. Not confusing? Growing consensus? You have to be kidding. I submit that most readers will not have a clue what it is. The game is never publicly called that in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In can be used on articles, but it can't be the title, because commonname is actual policy, last August's RFC (which had way more editors than this discussion) established a clear consensus soccer is the common name, and there's been no evidence presented that usage has changed significantly in the intervening time. NE Ent 23:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Growing consensus? Don't make me laugh.  The same two or three "soccer" phobic editors posting ever increasing walls of text in complete denial of reality is not consensus.  I am tired of all the hand-waving towards WP:COMMONNAME which is actually POLICY.  None of those who wish to do away with the word soccer have shown the slightest evidence that popular usage has changed in Australia.  Put up or shut up. -  Nick Thorne  talk  00:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Many more Australians will know what the Victorian Football Association (VFA) is than know what association football is. For those who are unaware, the VFA was an Aussie Rules competition formed in 1877. It was renamed the "Victorian Football League" (still playing Aussie Rules, of course) in 1996. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Macktheknifeau - I would be very comfortable seeing this taken to any higher authority, where those responsible would presumably ask for reliable evidence that 1) there is anything wrong with the name "soccer", and 2) that "association football" is not confusing. Do you have any such evidence? HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Has any real compromise been attempted? Football in Australia (Soccer), Soccer in Australia (Football), or anything of the like?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't need a compromise. "Soccer" is unambiguous and universally understood in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol sure thing. This lame fight has been going on wikipedia since at least 2006 but you don't need a compromise.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing that game. Bye. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a consensus for "football (soccer)" until editors started to do their own thing after the football (soccer) article became association football. 08:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

All I see is the same bunch of three or four editors here stating why this debate should be shut down. That doesn't help anyones cause, and surprise fellas but the cat is already out of the bag. How's about you contribute something meaningful rather than attempting to stuff the cat back in? --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not playing your game either. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The compromise I have introduced (and one that was supported by members of WP:FOOTY, the Association football 'global' project) was my attempt at a good faith compromise that doesn't need things like having to include both terms in the same line, at best, on some articles it may require a hat-note. It even lets the anti-football editors continue to use their archaic term for football on AFL articles that have an incidental mention of the sport.Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The core of the anti-football argument is that they don't want football to use just "football" despite that being the official name for the sport, being used commonly across the country, and the other major sports having their own specific names, Rugby League, Rugby Union and Australian Rules. Association football should be an acceptable compromise in my opinion, as the term is already used on wikipedia, and is a dictionary term. Unfortunately we have stalled yet again, because editors on the anti-association football side of the issue refuse to even discuss the possibility of accepting such a compromise. In effect, filibustering this discussion by declaring it invalid. Macktheknifeau (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't need a compromise. All Australians understand "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Football" isn't being used for the sport commonly across the country, that's the problem here. Spinrad (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Q2 Compromise - arbitrary break

 * John has asked me to explain what sort of inconsistencies I would or would not find acceptable, in light of my answer to the second question that "it depends". I'm happy to clarify.


 * My uncertainty essentially stems from not being quite sure what sort of inconsistencies were being referred to. In particular, since articles on this (or indeed any other) sport in Australia are not ones where I have a background in editing, I'm not really familiar with whatever inconsistencies there may be. I have noticed that we have an article on the "Australia national association football team" rather than the "Australia national soccer team"". I have not made any attempt to change that and don't intend to (though I would support changing the title to the "Socceroos", which would sidestep that issue and seems to me to be the COMMONNAME). While I prefer the use of "soccer", I have no interest in going around rooting out uses of "association football" in articles about the sport in Australia; my only involvement has been to oppose the attempt to move this article.


 * What I wouldn't find acceptable is using "football", which is deeply ambiguous in Australia, or using different terms in the same article (unless there's a good reason, e.g. that the terms are being discussed). Relatedly, the proposal at the beginning of this section seems to me to misunderstand what is suggested in question 2. I understand question 2 to suggest that the status quo be left in place, so that articles that currently use "association football" will continue to do so and likewise for articles that use "soccer". That is quite different from a new "compromise" that involves getting rid of all use of "soccer" (and is therefore completely one-sided). Neljack (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why using "football" would be unacceptable. I also don't think ambiguity is that strong of a reason. I agree not to use the term in artticle titles, but in content is a different story.--2nyte (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Having travelled extensively in Australia and observed the obvious ambiguity of "football" everywhere in the country, except perhaps among some very insular groups that ignore every other sporting culture, even in their own neighbourhood, I CAN understand why using "football" would be unacceptable, but I can't understand why using "soccer" would be unacceptable. It's unambiguous, and universally understood. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Neljack (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that those opposing the word soccer simply don't like it. There has been no rational reason why this word should not be used - it meets all the POLICY criteria for article naming on Wikipedia in a way that no other term can.  Pretending that the reality on the ground is not true - which is, that the overwhelming majority of all Australians from all areas of the country use the word soccer without even a second thought when discussing the sport in question - is either grossly disingenuous or deliberately misleading and obstructive.  I leave it to those reading this sorry saga to determine for themselves which is most likely.  I am running short of AGF towards those who continue to push the anti soccer line.  Either they should address the policy issues here, or give valid rational arguments why those policies should not apply (that don't amount to "I don't like it").  Continuing to making up "facts" about the usage of the word in an apparent attempt to fool non-Australian editors who are not particularly familiar with Australian English is dishonest and I will continue to call out any that try it.  Pretending that the word football can be used instead is even worse.  It is time to finish this. -  Nick Thorne  talk  08:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Neljack commented above about the merits of using "Socceroos" to primarily refer to the men's national team. This is now virtually a no-brainer. Anyone looking at Football Federation Australia's home page will be instantly convinced that it has fully embraced that name. Without even moving my mouse, I see "Socceroos" in big, bold, mostly gold letters at least five times. Of course, "Socceroos" is also the common name of the team throughout Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting in to broken record territory but the FFA use "Socceroos" as the primary name for the men's national team except where they're forced to use "Australia" by FIFA. FWIW Socceroos is a registered trademark of Football Federation Australia Limited. As HiLo48 mentions, it is also the common name for the men's team. Hack (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion to take this to a higher Authority
I would like to suggest this be taken to a higher authority. Get impartial mediators. Get a binding decision. How about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/ Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant to go anywhere near ARBCOM because of all the nonsense that is involved in this and what should be the open/shut nature of an encylopeadia article. I am most reluctant because the facts don't add up to the ideological "only soccer is acceptable" position. The facts are that the name of the game has changed and there is a growing number of bodies, orginisations, news and media groups, as well as people who are generally using football to refer to the sport. This should be represent under NTAC and AMORAL not the ongoing ideological nonsense that soccer is the only acceptable name. This is an encyclopeadia and people really need to sit down and think about accuracy and not their own ideological dramas that they are having where everything but soccer is not acceptable. How this has gotten this far is beyond me when it is a simple case that Wikipedia "does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial, verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects." This is purely a suppression of anything to do with the word football by a group of editors who have a trivial interest in the sport.


 * If ARBCOM gets a hold of this they may simply choose to go with what the ideological "anything but football" editors actually think which is represent of no reality in terms of what HAS actually been happening over the last 12 years in the game and I'm pretty certain none of them seem to care about their own incompetence in understanding all of the factors involved. The best good will is for naught if a basic understanding of the facts, their mainstream interpretation and their cultural context are lacking.


 * I've spent a lot of time here simply filling in the blanks in peoples understandings of what HAS gone on in the game in the last 12 years and when there is generally this level of incompetence going on it should render the "anything but football" logic entirely invalid. We really shouldn't even be having this debate. --Orestes1984 (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And that's another unhelpful post. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And so is soccer is the only unambiguous name ding dong nonsense...and so is typing in small --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I win? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what ARBCOM would do. However it can't get any more rediculous than this. While the facts don't add up to this for you it does for others. They might rule for you or against you. It will be a binding decision. Right now this is a Mickey Mouse Club version of a Kangaroo court. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Arbcom rule on editor behaviour, not on content disputes. Their interest is in user conduct, and they would be unlikely to rule on what the proper terminology should be. But either way, before a case is accepted all other avenues need to have been tried, including formal mediation. Arbcom is only used as a last resort in dispute resolution, and it tends to be more of a blunt instrument. - Bilby (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Arbcom rule on content disputes as well. I've seen them choose a Admin to moderate an RFC and 3 nuetral experienced editors mediate. This could be moved to formal mediation before that. Any other avenue as well. I just suggested ARBCOM specifically because someone said a specific name was agreed upon and that agreement was thrown out the window fairly quickly. I'm just suggesting that this is moved to the a higher step on the ladder.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This decision will be binding, as I explained on your talk. --John (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I recall. You will clog up AN/I to insure it. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you do not recall. I will enforce this by blocking those who threaten the process if necessary, then take my actions to AN/I for review. Do you have a point? --John (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have point out the inherent conflict of interest here.


 * The inherent reason that this won't be binding is because consensus can change. The date you threw out is arbitrary and doesn't represent anything. The greatest travesty would be if someone saw this and actually assumed they had to wait until that arbitrary date. They could simply instead open another RFC or go thru the other forms of dispute resolution. An affirmative result on this RFC does not bind it to that date but instead binds it until the consensus changes. Now if there is as suggested a reason to bind this then it should actually be bound. For peace, Harmony, to keep it off AN/I, or insert reason here then do something to make it binding. Otherwise don't misrepresent this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From Q1 above, "Saying "Yes" to this will allow editors to get on with more useful endeavours, pending the emergence of genuinely new data, and prevent AN/I from being continually clogged up with this dispute." You'll have to explain to me what you mean by "the inherent conflict of interest here". --John (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Not the inherent conflict of interest in your RFC question. "I will enforce this by blocking those who threaten the process if necessary, then take my actions to AN/I for review." The inherent conflict of interest there. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, I am still not seeing it. How does that relate to WP:COI? --John (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong policy. WP:INVOLVEDSerialjoepsycho (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I don't agree with you, but if you have a point you are welcome to raise it at AN/I, now if you want to raise it pre-emptively, or in response to the next administrative action I need to take in this area. The community can decide if you are right. --John (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Pre-emptively? It's your power. Go ahead and abuse it. Back to topic. This RFC isn't binding. No one should consider it as such. If this should be used in anyway to supress anyone I would suggest going thru the channels of dispute resolution. Open a new RFC. Formal mediation. Ect ect ect. Go thru the list.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Herostratus's point
I had to trim this because of its length, but it is too good to waste. Discuss, please. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- Emerson. We don't need to be and shouldn't try to be a consistent as an entity such as Britannica where there is a managing editor or editorial board or whatever who hands down the rules. Our glory and our sorrow is our method of governance, and for good or ill it's no good trying to be something we're not. Let the individual editors of the articles that interest them decide. Also, as long as we have plentiful redirects and generous use of "X, also known as Y or Z" type constructs, we should be OK. The point of using a term and by far the main point is to clarify the information to the reader. It's all about the readers. (Finally, I'm puzzled as to why "soccer" is offensive. It's not like it's "fukker" or something.) - User:Herostratus via --John (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this meant to be a satirical appeal to emotion or is it a legitimate proposition that what ever beloved phrase for soccer be used?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems perfectly clear to me. --John (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the final question in brackets. It certainly needs answering. Or have we reached the stage where it is rhetorical? (And unanswerable?) But the earlier part of that post seems like a recipe for hundreds of individual naming battles. (I might be misreading it.) HiLo48 (talk)
 * Discussions do not have to be battles. I am comparing it in my mind with the discussions we have on articles where WP:ENGVAR is a concern. If there is no obvious and overwhelming reason to prefer a particular dialect, we keep the terminology introduced by the original author, or else we debate it at the article talk page if it is felt it should be changed. Why should this area be any different? --John (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I thought it was clear I wouldn't have asked. It's very well written. I applaud the writer. However I was curious if it was meant to be facetious or literal?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes it is meant to be literal.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It'd be nice if there was some consistency here, particularly with the facts... I am consistently reminded that Wikipedia is here to provide a comprehensive and accurate account of what is going on. Soccer is no longer the accurate encyclopaedic term for the sport. Call it whatever you like as the common name between your mates HiLo48, but we are here to edit an encyclopaedia. The only place where soccer should be used is in reference to now defunct governing bodies and orginisations such as the NSL and soccer Australia. This nonsense about Victoria, needs to stop and everyone needs to look here where it says Soccer is now formally known as 'football' in Australia, in line with international usage. and at the governing bodyhere. It doesn't get any more official than that folks, the governments position is that it is football, the governing bodies position is that it is football, that's pretty much checkmate I would say. The official perspective is that the game is football no matter which way you look at it which completely invalidates the archaic term soccer as anything more than an archaic term and where consistency falls here term association football should be used in line with the 2007 consensus on Talk:Association football. --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The print edition of the Herald Sun uses soccer though. Also that is not an offical statement from the government sorry. Spinrad (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's correct about the Herald Sun. The print edition uses "soccer". And that government statement is simply a description of the fact that the FFA calls the game "football", apart from when they mention the Socceroos, which is quite often. Just follow that link and have a look. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder which has more daily readers, the print version or the website? Print circulation has seen double digit year on year circulation drops, with the Herald Sun dropping below 400,000 circulation for the first time from September last year. Relying solely on the print media, in such a global online world (especially for a site on the internet) when it's online arm speaks more modern language isn't something I want to rely on to decide exactly how a term is being used. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do come to Melbourne some time, and see how things actually work, rather than just speculating. It's like this:
 * How the PE teachers organise the balls at my school
 * If you really want to know how the language is being used in Melbourne, you could also rely on the word of editors who live there.
 * HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Language is decided by how it is used, not by the declaration of one commercial organisation. The majority of Australians call the game "soccer". That makes the word common usage. It is not archaic. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the majority of Australians use the term AFL to refer to Australian rules. You aren't going to advocate changing Australian rules to AFL to appease the majority of the population of Australia, who live in NSW & Queensland that use the term AFL exclusively though... Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the population of NSW and QLD use the term AFL exclusively, but whatever, that's not what we're discussing here. There is no controversy about the name of that game. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The population of NSW & QLD, as well as the Media almost exclusively use the term AFL. The sport has no other name. I point it out as an example of how your view of "WP:COMMON" trumping all isn't quite right and has exceptions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nowhere near almost exclusively, a majority sure. Still a lot of people who use "rules" in my experience, not to mention quite a few people from South NSW and the Gold Coast who straight up call the sport "football". Don't really understand why you keep bringing up the AFL though. Spinrad (talk) 08:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You may have a point about using AFL. I would be happy to discuss it at the right place, but not here. (I hope you noticed that nobody ever tried to get AFL/Aussie Rules called "football" on Wikipedia, even though it's at least a very common name for the game among it's fans.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did notice, and it's why I bought it up here. COMMON isn't the be all and end all of naming issues. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you missed my point. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's serious. Use of rhetorical flourishes does not invalidate an argument for goodness' sake. That Churchill said "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender" rather than "Our current military policy is forward defense, with defense in depth as a backup strategy, and negotiations are not on the table at this time" doesn't mean that his speech is invalidated as a appeal to emotion and it certainly doesn't mean that his point (that vigorous defense was appropriate in the situation) was invalidated as being based on emotion. Sheesh.

As to merits, consider this: every time you make an editor do something he doesn't want to do you damage the project because you alienate editors. Very many times this is necessary, of course. But if you can avoid it you should. Some pettifoggers sometime decided that MOS should proscribe "In January of 1941..." and require "In January 1941..." in all text. I prefer the former and it's alienating that I can't do that. And there's no benefit: it's not like readers are all "OMG, it says 'In January of 1941...' here but in another article it said 'In January 1941...', and now I'm confused, do these refer to the same thing?". So since there's not benefit to the reader we shouldn't do that. Consistencies, hobgoblins, and all that.

It's about the reader. Period. "It'd be nice if there was some consistency here..." No it wouldn't. Prove it. You can't, it's just a personal opinion. We do not need to be consistent unless, and only unless, this aids the reader.

It's not about which term gets the "honor" of being our preferred term. That's bullshit and so let's stop thinking like that. If the reader is confused and thinking "Wait, I'm confused, is this passage talking about american football or rugby or soccer/football or what?" then we have a problem and we need to address that problem with proper redirects and prose devices. If it's about what terms were used when you were coming then you have a problem. (And let's admit this: 90%+ of the editors arguing really vigorously for a particular term are (coincidence!) arguing for the term the they themselves personally use and probably learned in youth. Look inside yourselves, you know its true.)

It is true that certain inconsistencies that we have here tend to make us look somewhat loosely governed and amateurish. So what. We are loosely governed and made by amateurs, and readers who are really and truly unable to cope with that should probably save up and get a Britannica subscription or do without. Herostratus (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the discussion around news/media's preference when it comes to naming this game - note what the Herald-Sun have chosen to use in their main headings/links along the top of their sports news site here . It would appear Melbourne's most popular print news source have not deemed this term too 'uncommon'. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Melbourne's most popular print news source" use soccer in print. The same is true of The Australian. Hack (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the naming of an article in a print-based encyclopedia, we're talking about an on-line, globally used encyclopedia. Moreover, the volume of people who refer to print based media for news and current affairs continues to reduce significantly year on year. I'm not sure that an argument based on what's written in the declining print version of the Herald Sun has much merit here. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, two corporations (one of which isn't even Australian) don't represent the population or its linguistic trends. Spinrad (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Then unless there's some scientific evidence such as a study or other published material about the worlds' linguistic trends on the naming of the sport in question, the official name needs to be used in a factual based encyclopedia. Given 'official name' can differ between countries, states and people's own viewpoints the only thing we have to fall back on is the name as determined by the governing body for the sport. It is neutral, unbiased and technically 'correct'. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good faith editors who aren't from Melbourne will accept the word of good faith editors from Melbourne that "soccer" is almost never called "football" here. The reason is obvious. All over the world, the name "football" is used to refer to the dominant sport in any particular area. On the western side of the Barassi Line that sport is Aussie Rules. You will only be wating your time trying to prove otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the issue here is what to call "soccer". The answer is not difficult. That name is perfect. It's the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's just the point HiLo48, the term "soccer" is not the 'universally' understood name for the sport. Universally is more than just Australia, and certainly more than just Victorians. Australian's are not the only people who use Wikipedia, and are not the only users who will read the article. The Barassi Line is irrelevant, it describes the most popular sports either side of a fictional line - Rugby League and Aussie Rules, nothing to do with the code of football you term 'soccer' or how many people call it 'soccer'. I agree, 'soccer' is used to describe this code of football by a lot of Victorian's and probably many Australian's in general, but this is notwithstanding the larger population of the world as well as people in Australia who correctly refer to this game as football. Australian's refer to Flip-Flops as 'thongs' - it's mentioned in the article as an alternate name but is certainly not the article's name - as the majority of the world do not call Flip-Flips, thongs. Consistency - a wonderful thing when it's adhered to. 203.13.128.104 (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's approach has been to use the language of the region that the article refers to. So Flip-flops referring to the footwear from an international perspective, doesn't use an Australian name, but we wouldn't create Flip-flops in Australia if we were discussing it from an Australian perspective - we would create Thongs in Australia. So whatever the international name for association football/football/soccer might be, an article focusing on the sport in Australia would normally use the Australian terminology. It is an ugly fix to the messy problem of how to cope with regional variations in an international encyclopaedia, but it is the approach we use.
 * That said, the question on hand is a bit more narrow. I don't think we need to decide what the language should be here, as we've had that debate at length and got nowhere. Our focus is more on how to approach the situation. - Bilby (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 203...., you have missed my main point. "Soccer" simply IS a universally understood name for the game in Australia. Every Australian knows what it means. It's the name used for the game by a majority of Australians Everyone on the western side of the Barassi Line, plus all rugby fans and a lot of other people in the rest of the country use it. We cannot use the name "football". It's far too ambiguous in Australia. "Soccer" is the perfect choice. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The thing is, this has already been decided by the August RFC which had a much greater participation from the community and showed that the word soccer was overwhelmingly supported in the Australian context. It seems to me that two or three editors who simply don't like that word, for whatever reason, and who have been repetitively arguing their case ever since that RFC are not entitled to overturn an overwhelming consensus of the wider community.  Unless the nay sayers can come up with convincing arguments (ie new evidence, not yet another resdtatement of their already expressed opinions) showing that either the consensus has changed or popular use in Australia has changed, the current consensus should stand.  Continuing to whine about why they do no like it or trying to establish a highly localised consensus of their own is simply disruptive.  So far John's attempt to try an resolve this issue seems to be making some progress.  Perhaps it is time to allow it to move on towards a conclusion. -  Nick Thorne  talk  23:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, this has again been a process of seeing nothing more than the arguments that were presented in last year's RfC. The closer supervision and oversight has meant a discussion with less heat, and now, little activity. I too hope there is a simple way to now reach a conclusion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A conclusion could be easily reached if people could accept that Victoria does not equal Australia, and that what Football is called in some parts of Victoria should not apply to every situation and article for anything related to Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Football"? You know it's ambiguous HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether Macktheknifeau was referring to association football, Australian rules football or both it would not have changed the point of the comment.--2nyte (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no language usage of the word "football", or "soccer", that is exclusive to just "some parts of Victoria", so I really have no idea what his point is. Do you? HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's been established at this point that the use of "soccer" occurs throughout Australia not just parts of Victoria. Spinrad (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In parts of the country that do not count as a majority of the population. The majority of the population consume media and talk about the sports using the terms football, AFL, rugby league & rugby union. But as I remind people constantly, I do not seek to have Australian rules renamed to "AFL" on NSW or QLD related pages, and am happy to accept Association football as a clear and obvious alternative. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So have you dropped your nonsense about "some parts of Vicotria"? I hope so! Despite your repeated, nonsensical statements to the contrary, "soccer" is used as the common name for the round ball game by virtually everyone on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, plus rugby league fans and rugby union fans in the rest of the country. That would be about 80% of the population. "Soccer" is understood by everyone. It is unambiguous. We don't need an alternative. HiLo48 (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Mediation
I have filed a Request for Mediation on behalf of Serialjoepsycho in regard to the important question of whether the binding nature of this RFC is legitimate. Others who wish to participate in that mediation as parties may add their names and consents to participate at the request page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see how this mediation was ever viable, but I gather that John has declined to take part. Thus it seems that it will not proceed. - Bilby (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Theorising
If tomorrow we decided to refer to the sport as "association football" and we put that decision into effect in articles and article titles what would happen? What negative or positive would result? Would readers even notice, would they even care? On the last two, I think no, readers would neither notice nor care. Though I think the benefit would be great. The same questions can apply to the article Association football.--2nyte (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What would those great benefits of which you speak be, exactly? What, exactly, is wrong with the word soccer?  Please show - with references - how "Association football" is a more commonly used term than soccer in Australia.  Please show, exactly, where this term is used.  Your opinions on what readers may or may not do are just that, your opinions. We don't use editors' opinions to determine naming in Wikipedia, we follow policy and guidelines.  Common name is POLICY.  If I ever have to choose between policy and the opinions of an editor with an apparent agenda, I'll go for policy every time. Oh, and while you're explaining those things, perhaps you might like to answer these questions. -  Nick Thorne  talk  14:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)