Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 6

Just a "marketing push"
''Association and club websites prove nothing about the common name. They are all part of a marketing push.'' Well, yes. And a remarkably successful one. Advertising campaigns are intended to have an effect. As we see here. What was once called "soccer" is now called "football" throughout the industry. --Pete (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not everywhere in "the industry". I pointed this out yesterday. And even if it was "throughout the industry", that says nothing about the common name. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not but it speaks to what is the appropriate name Lajamibr (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We use the common name. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have already established that both are common names and there is no evidence to suggest soccer is more common therefore the most appropriate name is what is used by the organisations involved in the game it self Lajamibr (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there's not much concrete evidence either way. But logic says that "soccer" is more common. It's the primary name for the game in half the country, because "football" means Aussie Rules there, and still a very common name among non-soccer fans elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's getting quite exhausting repeatedly asking you to provide substantiated claims in this discussion. What logic do you refer to that says soccer is more common and the primary name in half the country. Lajamibr (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple question. What do you think "football" means in Melbourne? HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Like every where in Australia it could mean a number of different sports, In complete honesty the people I know would be referring to soccer and if a stranger was talking about it I would assume soccer as well since they didn't call it Footy. I don't know why you are trying to debate this particular issue I never denied that many Melbournians call AFL Football (Technically they call it Footy though) that is why I have stressed the importance of context Lajamibr (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you're wrong. In Melbourne, "football" almost exclusively means Aussie Rules. I work in a school that has produced a Socceroo, and where soccer is very popular. It's called "soccer" there. It's called "soccer" in every school.That's because every school has football teams too, playing Aussie Rules. BTW, it's not called AFL in Melbourne. That's the name of the major league, not the game. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the term soccer I don't understand why you think that I do, some contexts call for soccer some for football. My issue is with examples such as "Football Federation Australia is the governing body of soccer in Australia" it's not appropriate neither is "Australia national soccer team" there is no other Australia national football team so theres no confusion and if we are using common names then it should be Socceroos but nobody wants that. So theres an agreement there that the most common name isn't always necessary therefore soccer is not necessary in the title based on your argument. You asked for common names and AFL certainly is a common name for Aussie rules in Australia, I know that AFL is the name of the league but many people refer to the sport as AFL, atleast thats my experience I'm not trying to change the name of Aussie rules Lajamibr (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo, enough with the personal anecdotes. You know very well that they have no validity here in Wikipedia. We need good, reliable, secondary sources, and none of us here meet that level. The sources I'm seeing posted on the subpage contradict and override your personal opinions. If you haven't got anything we can use, perhaps you could observe the instructions at the top of the page to stay on topic? Please? --Pete (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a concept in Wikipedia known as WP:BLUE. We don't need to prove that the sky is blue. We don't need to prove that the common name of the round ball game on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line is soccer. I have told you. Only bad faith would prevent you from accepting that. Common sense is also a major factor in discussions. I have pointed out that your sources are meaningless when all of those that support your view come from the same place, one that has little influence on language usage elsewhere. Your sources prove nothing about that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 that is not relevant to this discussion. Everyone can look up at the sky and see that it is blue where as no one can look out at Australia and see what the common name is of a sport, you can only observe the very limited number of people around you. You have provided no evidence that the common name is soccer, if you could you would have. Its important to note that if you wanted to prove the sky was blue you could, in this case you can't so that should tell you something Lajamibr (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Silly post. Are you saying that I am lying? HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I say that you are out of date in the point of view you are pushing. Please provide a recent reliable source to support your view. Can you do that at all? --Pete (talk) 11:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't live here. I do. I am telling you in good faith how things are here. You are saying, in incredibly bad faith, that I am lying. You will be at AN/I soon. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 we are from the same place and I am in good faith refuting what you are saying, you are in bad faith calling me a liar Lajamibr (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you live in Melbourne now? HiLo48 (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I already told you that I do, not that it should be relevant to the discussion Lajamibr (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So will you please tell Pete that the print version of the Herald Sun calls the game soccer? HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly does and nobody ever said that it didn't? However I must ask are news sources now relevant or irrelevant, does your opinion on that matter sway when it backs up your view? Lajamibr (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will no longer be participating in this discussion until further relevant information is once again introduced that needs to be discussed Lajamibr (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a Sydney plot
All but one of your media websites are based in Sydney. This is like saying that New York is just a regional city and Washington DC a country town. Australia's national media is based in Sydney and Canberra, due to the nature of things. National media organisations have to be headquartered somewhere. --Pete (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No, it's not like saying that New York is just a regional city and Washington DC a country town. Please stop misrepresenting me. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what Pete is saying is that the fact that most media outlets are based in Sydney does not mean that that they should be dismissed, Sydney is a big part of Australia after all. Now HiLo48 I want to address this Barassi Line argument. To me you are saying that on this side of the line it is called soccer and on the other you accept that it is football. Now even though the Barassi Line is an imagined concept and should not be used as evidence of anything it is said that each side represents roughly half the population of Australia. You are there for conceding that atleast half of the population calls it football and the other soccer. Now when you consider also that the governing body, confederation, teams etc as well as the media call it football is that not a compelling argument that football is the most appropriate term to use on wikipedia. Lajamibr (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not dismissing media outlets because they are based in Sydney. I do not accept that on the non-Aussie Rules side of the line the game is called football (not universally, anyway). I am not conceding that at least half the population calls it football. There is no compelling argument. Stop inaccurately paraphrasing me, and pay attention the the actual words I have used. HiLo48 (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to be more clear with your points then, saying things like "on this side of the Barassi Line it is called soccer" does that not imply that on the other side it is called soccer. On what basis are you dismissing the sources then and please tell me how there is no compelling argument despite the evidence presented. Please refrain from POV Pushing. Lajamibr (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Take it to the relevant notice board. HiLo48 (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And Im the insulting one? Funny the way people react when they realise they do not have a valid argument Lajamibr (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did no insulting. I have every right to point out an any stage that this has all been discussed before. Your second sentence is insulting. Probably two out of three of your posts contain insults. It's unfortunately typical of the approach taken in the past by many hard core soccer fans who cannot look beyond the modern dogma of their game. It's very sad. I wish it wasn't so. There is plenty we could politely discuss, but you actually aren't interested in that. How much do you actually know about how things work on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line? Do you actually want to know. I'd be happy to share it with you. My argument is valid enough to have been part of a consensus in the past. You are saying all people with similar views, others who were part of that consensus, have invalid arguments. That is not a sensible approach. HiLo48 (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because you are insulted by something does not make it an insult. Perhaps my second sentence was a little insulting but it was in response to you "yawning" at my opinion, was that not intended to be insulting because I'm not sure what else it can be interpreted as. I am well aware how things work on the "Aussie rules side of the Barassi Line" because I am born and raised in Melbourne it would do you well not to assume things about people based on sports preferences, part of what makes the "Barassi Line" an imaginary concept. I think you will notice that when you are being reasonable there is no conflict. I would say two out of three of your posts contain evidence of bias but i guess I'm just a "typical hard core soccer fan" Lajamibr (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting assumptions. Precisely what do you think my sports preference is? BTW, we are all biased. My goal is to not have mine show too obviously. It's possible to be a soccer fan and not call the game football. It's very common where "football" means Aussie Rules. HiLo48 (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You've completely misunderstood what I've said, I said you were making assumptions about where I live based on my sporting preferences given that you assumed I wasn't from your side of the "Barassi Line", I make no assumptions about your sporting preferences however I safely assume that you are from an AFL culture. Believe it or not but in Melbourne, while AFL is very popular, by no means does that mean the majority of Melbournians are fans, for example I grew up in Melbourne and know plenty of people with the same views as you and many people with the same points as me, the majority however are neither. Making assumptions about what the majority of Australians or even Victorians call a sport based on the culture you are surrounded by does not help this discussion. By the way if you want to get technical I rarely hear Aussie Rules referred to as Football its almost always Footy or AFL. I know its possible to be a soccer fan and not call it football I don't know why you think I was making that claim. Lajamibr (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way there is a difference between being biased yourself and having biased arguments, I am certainly biased towards the use of football but my arguments are not Lajamibr (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Bias" is a noun, not a verb or adjective. I find it difficult to read your post when you cannot write correctly. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that better. Have we resorted to nitpicking grammar already because I have not pointed out any of your mistakes. Lajamibr (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right at the top of this page, in red, are the words, "Please remember to keep on-topic and avoid commenting on other editors.". Word to the wise, eh? I'm seeing a lot of off-topic discussion now, and not a lot of facts or sources. I think we may accept that according to those sources listed on the subpage, the common name of the sport is "football". Other codes are referred to either by their formal name or by the common name of "footy". I've invited others to add to the sources, but not seeing a lot of movement there. Time to move forward. --Pete (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree Lajamibr (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Faulty grammar is a real problem. There's a reason for correct grammar. It makes language comprehensible. I explained that I was finding that post difficult to understand. The language Pete's sources use are not evidence of what the common name is, especially when all those that support his view come from the same place, in a linguistically divided country. I already pointed that out. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 just because the sources bases are predominantly in Sydney does not mean they all come from the same place, they are online sources and therefore have no physical base, they can be operated from anywhere just as wikipedia can, Pete's and my examples are not meant to prove that Football is the common name among all Australians simply that it is A common name Lajamibr (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You ignored half my post. What news sources say proves nothing about common usage. HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats simply not true. If you look at the United States for example, the common usage is definitely soccer and news sources will show this. Lajamibr (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Im sorry but simply saying irrelevant does not make it so. Another example is the use of the term 'Footy' among many media sources to refer to Australian Rules Football Lajamibr (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant too. HiLo48 (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop being disruptive, if you think something is irrelevant explain why. Personal opinion has no place here Lajamibr (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not post in this discussion if you have nothing to contribute please Lajamibr (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL again. How ironic. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to come back when you have something useful to add to the discussion Lajamibr (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My whole point is that you have added nothing to the whole topic. It was decided eight months ago. Nothing has changed in those eight months, and you are simply regurgitating arguments that did not hold sway before. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Once again there certainly has been added information, relevant sources have been cited and previous arguments have been refuted. The decision eight months ago was not based on the evidence provided in the discussion. I will participate in this discussion again only when relevant information is introduced that needs to be discussed, you are welcome to refute any of my points but please provide sources for your arguments this time Lajamibr (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added three articles directly dealing with the name change. Interesting to see some history of the progression over the years. The Guardian initially labelled it as "soccer", but has since changed to "football", for example. Most of the country is happy to accept "football" means soccer (as opposed to league, union and Australian football). --Pete (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Most? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could be more constructive HiLo48 and address the question I have posed to you at the bottom of the page Lajamibr (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Constructive? Do you really endorse Pete's use of the word "Most" as a constructive contribution? I was too busy laughing. Soz. HiLo48 (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Say the word and you'll be free
There's a discussion ongoing at Talk:Football_(word). Looking for sources to back up a statement in the article for which a citation has not been provided. Looking for help to find a source. --Pete (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Pete can you specify which part of that discussion you are referring to Lajamibr (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Football_(word) is the relevant paragraph. Looks like all the links are broken. --Pete (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying unfortunately I can't help with that Lajamibr (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A way forward
Look, we're getting nowhere by just talking about this. Let's move the topic off discussion pages and into mainspace. Let's create an article dealing with the name of the sport in Australia. It's certainly notable, and well-sourced. We can add in all the sources we have on the subpage, nail down events, provide some wikilinks, and just deal with the subject like any other area of knowledge. If there are OR or NPOV or WEIGHT concerns or whatever, then they can be dealt with in the normal wkifashion. Instead of just cooing at each other on various discussion pages, we can do something productive and useful.

Now, what do we call the article? The Inexorable rise of football in Australia? The great football hijack? The footy shift? --Pete (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We already have the article you seek. It's called Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). You're right, you're getting nowhere. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is certainly very difficult getting anywhere when other editors refuse to accept reliable sources and evidence and would rather have editing based on things such as gut feeling and whatever they are most comfortable with. It seems that some should not be editing a fact based site such as Wikipedia and would rather abuse the privilege for their own personal preferences, it is rather disappointing to see and the outcome I was expecting. Is their any way forward Pete? Lajamibr (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. We can create an article on anything notable, and the change in what a sport is called, over the past decade, is notable enough. Just need to work on the title. --Pete (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the most common characteristics displayed by the "soccer MUST be called "Football" campaigners here has been an inability to discuss this matter civilly. It has caused far too many dramas in these discussions. Two posts up we have the latest example. Lajamibr said "''other editors refuse to accept reliable sources and evidence and would rather have editing based on things such as gut feeling and whatever they are most comfortable with. It seems that some should not be editing a fact based site such as Wikipedia and would rather abuse the privilege for their own personal preferences.''" Since I have been the only other editor active here for the past few days, apart from Lajamibr and Pete, that is a direct personal attack on me. Please stop. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo, with all due respect, there are places to complain about user conduct and I suggest that if you feel hard done by, you make use of them. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be much better for Wikipedia (and for Lajamibr) if I don't have to escalate the problem. And please drop language like "if you feel hard done by". This isn't about how I feel. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for jumping on this one a bit late. But I thought of this idly a week or two ago. Great minds think alike. There have been dozens of articles in traditional media and on the internet, etc. discussing not the games themselves, but what they are called. Australian football naming controversy is a real thing and does deserve a namespace article! -- Chuq (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If well sourced, such an article could be valuable, but I think the word "controversy" would narrow the scope too much. It's an interesting and complex topic, even when there aren't controversies. Maybe Australian football naming conventions could work? HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Names_for_association_football could be expanded. NE Ent 12:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've put in a couple of "cite required" notes there. The main source for contemporary usage is the Macquarie Dictionary statement which is now at least four years old. There has been a shift since then, reflected in the names used by more and more media outlets. In 2008, former full forward for the Dogs, Julia Gillard called it football and wasn't voted out at the next election by rabid Footscray supporters. In fact she picked up more than 9 000 votes after making that statement. The terminology is changing and I think a full article is required - linked as appropriate from other articles - to show the timetable of the shift. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your list of Sydney based Internet news outlets proves nothing. This has been mentioned before. Repeating meaningless claims can work on less well informed people. Politicians in my home state are doing it a lot right now. But please stop with that nonsense here. You are lowering Wikipedia's standards. And please stop with you claim that the terminology IS changing. It did change a bit in some places a few years ago. We cannot talk about something changing in the present tense, because that implies that it will continue. We don't predict the future here. Chuq is on the the right track when speaking of articles that discuss what the games are called, not articles that are simply biased examples of calling a game something. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Status
Prior discussion has come to the consensus on the main project page. Editors wishing to change that consensus should be providing links to multiple, and hopefully, recent reliable sources showing either common usage has changed since the last discussion, or show that there were a significant quantity of reliable sources missed in the last discussion. NE Ent 02:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. See the subpage. --Pete (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pete, the links on that subpage show what those sites use. Nothing else. They prove nothing about common usage among Australia's entire population. The killer site would be an independent, reliable source that SAYS that common usage is now "football". Examples don't do that. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. Do you have an independent, reliable source that SAYS that common usage is "soccer"? No, of course you don't. So don't require standards of others that you yourself cannot meet. And no, that's not a personal attack on you. That's common sense. We have to work with what we have in the way of reliable sources, and I'm seeing the majority of sources using "football". --Pete (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have pointed out around twenty times now that your sources prove nothing. In the absence of new, independent, reliable sources that actually say what the common name is among ALL Australians, there is no justification to change consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear not to have grasped what I just wrote, HiLo. As for consensus, consensus can change, and there are new editors in the discussion. Myself, for example. Thanks for noticing. --Pete (talk)
 * Then you need to be willing to look carefully at the exhaustively achieved consensus from last time round, and not dismiss it so lightly. Logic and good faith trust of the observations of other editors played a significant part in achieving it too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you cannot address the points raised in discussion, it is a waste of my time to engage. More fool me. Have a nice day. --Pete (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But all those points were raised - ad nauseum - in the previous iterations of this debate. Until the "football" proponents comes up with something new they simply cannot expect a positive reception to their demand for replies to all the same tired old arguments every time they re-raise them.  So far this has just been a rehash of the previous debates, stirred up by a brand new editor (account created on the 17 Nov 2014) who apparently decided against reading through the extensive archives of the previous versions of this debate and instead jumped right in boots and all.  A more prudent editor might have taken the hints he was given at the beginning of the discussion on this page rather than attempting to beat some life into this decaying horse carcass. . -  Nick Thorne  talk  05:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we even seem to be getting a rehash of the personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Nick. I wasn't part of the previous discussion. I can't see where the points raised above were addressed. If they were, perhaps a diff or two would help? As I say, at the moment the sources we have point towards football rather than soccer, so I'm taking any unsubstantiated claims with a grain or two of salt. --Pete (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources that point towards football rather than soccer are all from the one city. The only source you provided from the other side of the Barassi Line pointed the other way, somewhat disproving your point. None of those sources says that "football" is the common name among all Australians. I think I have now said that around ten times. HiLo48 (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently personal attacks are only allowed if its against editors on the "football" side of the debate. Nick and HiLo48 I don't know how many times Pete and myself can say that we have been through previous discussions and everyone of your arguments is the same, there is by far more evidence to support the use of the term football yet all we get in return is "yawn" "give us something new" etc. No valid argument has been presented here or in previous discussions I don't know how many times this can be pointed out HiLo48 you have not once pointed out why our sources are irrelevant (although it hasn't stopped you from stating that they are). HiLo48 if you want to take what I said as a personal attack then many things you have said are also personal attacks, I simply pointed out what is frustrating this process and I was not referring to only you, its the same behaviours displayed in previous discussions as well. Please stop simply stating that our sources have been refuted when they haven't at that nothing new has been presented. Far less evidence has been presented from your side of the argument but because more people were on your side you won the consensus and now believe it should never be reopened again, its all terribly convenient for you. I'll repeat it again because editors seem to have trouble listening, I have read previous discussions and the one and only argument the "soccer" side has is "I reckon its called soccer in Australia because thats what I grew up with and the people around me use soccer" Lajamibr (talk)  06:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And everytime you say it I say the same thing, they are not from one city they are a national news source that has a base in Sydney, they are online sources and operated from all over Australia. One single source from "This side of the Barassi Line" uses soccer on their main website and football on the mobile site, yet this is enough for you to say soccer is more common? can you not see what might be hypocritical about that Lajamibr (talk) 06:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And for the tenth time they are not supposed to prove that football is the most common usage they prove that soccer is not which, by your own admission, was the basis for the last "consensus". If you're consensus was based off of misrepresented facts that it is not a true consensus. I don't know how many times I can explain my position Lajamibr (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll make it as painfully clear as I can, soccer is A common usage and football is A common usage. No one can prove which one is more common and the preferred term of the sport itself should be used which is football Lajamibr (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Pete, with all due respect, the onus to produce evidence lies not with those supporting the established consensus, but with those proposing to change it. Do not ask others to do your homework for you, you will be disappointed.  Frankly, given the serious and protracted acrimony that accompanied the previous discussions, over months and even years, before John (talk) stepped in and mediated a settlement to the issue, I would suggest that there has to be an overwhelming consensus of parties willing to re-visit the issue before we should even consider holding a discussion about making such a change.  So far we have only two editors, yourself and Lajamibr (talk) who support changing the current consensus.  Lajamibr seems to be a well intentioned but overly empassioned enthusiast who could really benefit from reading and internalising WP:SPA, WP:REHASH and WP:Stick).  I think this discussion should be shut down for now with the only one extant question remaining: does the comuunity wish to re-visit this issue so soon after finally reaching consensus after such a long dispute?  Further, I ask you, what good purpose would be served by reopening old wounds here? -  Nick Thorne  talk  05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Is 220.244.150.128 the same person as Lajamibr. Neither uses Edit summaries. Between they they have only one edit anywhere else but on this page. (The other was by the IP at Soccer in Australia, changing the name to "football" without discussion.) In good faith I encourage both editors to have a look at Single-purpose account. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is the same person I had been logged out without realizing does it make a difference, by no means should you address my points it's much more useful for you to point out petty problems like my account being logged out on two posts in the whole discussion Lajamibr (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing new in your points. You are what's new here, and I've made a constructive suggestion on that front. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The point I made clearly above is a new point as far as I can tell I have read previous discussions and not seen the point made before. I notice you have avoided saying whether or not it's a valid argument and if not why. That is the problem that is most frustrating here. Lajamibr (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If your point has anything to do with Pete's list of sources, it's pointless. Have you checked out SPA yet? HiLo48 (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes HiLo48 I am a new editor here and thus far this topic has taken up all of my time. I have repeatedly told you I am not one of these so called "soccer die hards" you claim want nothing but to have people call the game football. Yes I do prefer the term football but that has nothing to do with my argument, the reason I have passionately adopted this cause is because I saw what I believe to be a flawed process that resulted in the wrong decision being met. Despite what you say I have added fresh arguments and ideas to the argument. You have been nothing but dismissive of me and have refused to engage with me in actually discussing what I have said, so far I have been met with nothing but "yawn" and "you have nothing new" and at times it has made me frustrated, perhaps you could show a little patience with new editors. Lajamibr (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I don't know why but I'll make one more attempt to ask editors here to discuss the point I made above I'll write it again here so there can be no confusion "The sources are not supposed to prove that football is the most common usage they prove that soccer is not which, by your own admission, was the basis for the last "consensus". If your consensus was based off of misrepresented facts that it is not a true consensus. I don't know how many times I can explain my position...I'll make it as painfully clear as I can, soccer is A common usage and football is A common usage. No one can prove which one is more common and the preferred term of the sport itself should be used which is football" Lajamibr (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why should the sport's attempt to change the language count for anything? I suspect the AFL has a view. Does it count for anything? It's a silly area of argument. The sources Pete produced prove nothing about usage across all of Australia. (Actually, they prove that in one city, one usage exists, and in another city, another usage exists.) "Football" is clearly ambiguous. Common sense and logic point out that "Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous name for the sport in Australia. Now, it's all been discussed. Drop it now, and think about WP:SPA. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I explained why the sports name change in this country matters, its the best evidence we have to go by on what is the appropriate name to use. I have already told you that football is not ambiguous in the right context, I have also repeatedly told you that football is not appropriate in articles that address multiple codes at once. Please listen when I say this for atleast the fourth time, the sources are not from one city they are national online news sources with headquarters in Sydney, operated from around Australia. They are evidence that soccer is very far from exclusively used, a big part of the argument for soccer is that we use soccer the same as they do in the US however their news sources use soccer, this is not a coincidence. Do not insult me by saying that I have cherry picked news sources, I provided a source on the biggest online news sources in Australia and showed you that all but one use the term football. What I have proved is that football is one of the common usages for the term. The consensus was clearly not to erase the use of the term football across Australian articles but that has certainly been the case. You previously stated that you agree when I say no one can prove which name is the most common but while I have provided a logical reason to use the term football you repeatedly state that based on your observations soccer is most common and should be the term used this is not the type of argument that should be used on wikipedia. Their is a consistent lack of evidence to suggest that soccer should be the term used, my argument may not be strong in your opinion but atleast their are sources and reasoning. Lajamibr (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And please do not link to articles such as the one above with out evidence, they are insulting and shows a clear lack of willingness to collaborate. Did you ever think why their was an official name change among the organisations of football/soccer in Australia, because it is a widespread and preferred term of people involved in the game including supporters. Lajamibr (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources do not prove what you claim they prove. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that a countries news outlets do not represent the language used in a nation. Why do US news sources use the term soccer, its not a coincidence that soccer is the most common term used their even by the organisations involved in the game. The situation is not the same in Australia. If we can agree that neither side can prove what the common term used to refer to soccer/football why has soccer been adopted when there has been no sources or evidence or even an argument provided for the use of the term soccer. Lajamibr (talk) 10:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am saying that a bunch of Sydney based news outlets prove nothing about language usage among all Australians. This discussion is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've given up trying to engage with HiLo, Lajamibr. If all he relies on is "common sense and logic", then that is synthesis and not something we can do here. We need reliable sources, not gut feelings. I'm not going to wade through pages and pages of this sort of rubbish. NE Ent and Nick Thorne, I'm prepared to be refuted if you can show me some good sources - whatever it was that informed the previous consensus. I appreciate that there has been pre-existing discussion, but as I say, I wasn't part of it. If each of you can pull out just one source you relied upon in previous discussion, I'd appreciate it immensely. --Pete (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We have seen no new, relevant information. It's never the job of editors to repeat evidence from earlier discussions. This discussion is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is certainly new information and arguments here, just because editors on the soccer side of the discussion have dismissed everything that has been said does not mean there is nothing new here, that is insulting and I'm getting very tired of being insulted by you HiLo48 Lajamibr (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have consistently dodged and refused to respond to my question that I have posed to you and that I will once again repeat. If neither side can prove which is the most common term used in Australia why has soccer been adopted without any evidence, sources, or valid arguments. I have been through the previous discussions and have not found this information, if it was there you would have used it to end this discussion a long time ago Lajamibr (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Soccer" was chosen because it is the only universally understood, non-ambiguous name for the game. There is no point having a mixture of names for the one sport. Logic says "soccer" is also the most common name for the game. Hard core fans of the game are not in a good position to see this, because they tend not to mix with people who are not such hard core fans. Soccer is by far the most common name on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, even among fans of the game, and still a very common name on the other side, especially among League fans. I don't need to prove that. It's blue sky. HiLo48 (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How does one respond when another editor categorically refuses to stop providing unsubstantiated claims without even attempting to prove them. It is far from blue sky and I have already explained this to you. "Because it is the only universally understood, non-ambiguous name for the game" according to what research? "Logic says "soccer" is also the most common name for the game" despite what you think this is a statement that needs to be backed up by sources. "Hard core fans of the game are not in a good position to see this, because they tend not to mix with people who are not such hard core fans" I'm surprised the word hooligan wasn't thrown in there, please don't post unsubstantiated inflammatory statements like that. "Soccer is by far the most common name on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, even among fans of the game" again please do not make statements like this with no evidence whatsoever, an editor as experienced as you must have known all of this before you posted so I can only assume you are simply disregarding the rules to your own end Lajamibr (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And can I point out that you have already agreed that neither of us can know which term is most common. You make that statement then immediately after claim that soccer is obviously the most common name, I can't keep up with how often rules change with you depending on which side of the argument they benefit Lajamibr (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * May I point out one more thing, football is actually not ambiguous in the context of wikipedia as no other sport is referred to as football, not even for Australian Rules, where is the ambiguity, is there a single person in Australia who wouldn't know what sport was being referred to when they saw "Rugby League, Rugby Union, Australian Rules, and Football". Lajamibr (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Football" is worse than ambiguous to the vast majority of people on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. It means precisely that game. It's been that way for 155 years. A bunch of businessmen on the other side of the line cannot change that. HiLo48 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could quit with expressing our opinions and talk about the business of this page, hey? HiLo, just quietly but you've been talking about "the Barassi Line" for years and it's meaningless when talking about this football code. In fact, when I see you use that phrase, I just ignore whatever you have to say from that point on, because it's going to be irrelevant. It's evidently something that means a lot to you but nobody else. Maybe you could explain what it means to you on your user page, but please not here. It's getting tedious. Thanks.
 * Lajamibr, HiLo48 is just filling up this page with irrelevancies and you're encouraging him. Nothing anybody can say is going to change his mind, and nothing anybody can say is going to convince him that he needs to use external sources rather than whatever he finds in his mind. Neither of you need to try to write that killer post that will change the other guy's mind, because it's not going to happen. The repeated attempts just clutter up the page.
 * NE Ent and Nick Thorne, you are about the only current participants in this discussion doing anything much about staying on topic. We need to move forward from eight months ago and that needs something solid, rather than a bunch of single-minded editors yammering at each other and going round in circles. I've set up a subpage here, which I'm using to list sources to inform substantive discussion. My intention is to use this as a basis for an article on the change in terminology initiated by Football Federation Australia succeeding National Soccer League in 2004. We can argue about how much an effect it's had, but the change from soccer to football at an official organisational level is something tangible that we can source and describe in an encyclopaedic fashion, thereby adding something useful to the Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't have to explain this again, and really, I'm sure you do understand. On the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line the primary and almost exclusive name for Aussie Rules is simply "football". It has been for 155 years. That has a huge bearing on this discussion. Denying it makes your argument look very silly. As for your sub-page, I have explained why it proves nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please remember to keep on-topic and avoid commenting on other editors. If you cannot do this, I'm going to suggest a topic ban for you. You have been warned. --Pete (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous post. Everything I wrote was in response to things you had said. That's completely on-topic. The only comment I made about you was "I'm sure you do understand". If I need to apologise for saying that, so be it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please listen to me, you cannot make those claims without evidence. Traditionally yes soccer was no doubt the almost exclusively used term but a lot has change in the last 10+ years and there has been a shift no one can deny it. Before the game was rebranded as football 10 years ago a study was undertaken to find the most appropriate term to use i.e. Stay as soccer or change to football and the overwhelming response was for football. I'm not saying every Australian was surveyed but it's enough to show you soccer is not exclusive. I really wish you wouldn't rely on the Barassi Line argument so much as it is severely flawed, it assumes that everyone on this side is an Aussie rules fan and that certainly isn't the case, it's very popular but far more people are not fans than are. I have no problem saying that soccer is the common usage among AFL/Aussie rules fans but I will not say they are even close to a majority in this state or country Lajamibr (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are representing me as having made absolute statements that I have not made. Misrepresentation has historically been a major problem in these discussions. It's very uncivil behaviour. You are displaying all the major characteristics of a single purpose account, and really need to move on. HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree Pete I apologise but I always try to make people see reason when they refuse. I need to learn to recognize a lost cause I just can't seem to let it go sometimes when I see misrepresented information I don't want anyone to read it without seeing why it's wrong just incase they believe it. I will refrain from clogging this up anymore Lajamibr (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo's claims about the Barassi Line are simply untrue and not found in our detailed article about it. I cannot find a single source sharing his oft-repeated statement. It is rubbish and a waste of time in discussion. --Pete (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As you have been told many times, this whole discussion is a waste of time. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wouldn't say that. Sifting out the falsehoods and the unsourced opinions clears the air. We've got a page of good reliable sources and I've found a useful way forward. --Pete (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Only one editor, an obsessed SPA, has agreed with you. Not a strong position to work from. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will take this further HiLo48 regardless of the consequences for myself you don't get to make continuous insults towards editors with no consequence Lajamibr (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems you don't understand the issues mentioned at WP:SPA. They actually do matter. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You have no right to accuse me of anything I am a new editor and thus far have been working on this one topic I don't need to be harassed by you. Are you sure you want to continue Lajamibr (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not worth engaging. You're doing fine, and we'll get our ducks in a line before making any serious move. This is just his way of avoiding scrutiny over areas where he is weak. Attack another editor and hope to provoke a response. Let's stick to finding sources. --Pete (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And I guess that's your attempt to provoke me. Sorry. No bite. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We have editing against consensus
Pete/Skyring has removed the word "soccer" from Brisbane Roar FC and South Melbourne FC, using an Edit summary of "Use the right name" for the former article, and no Edit summary at all for the latter. This is in direct contravention of the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 4.

Having only recently had an Interaction ban between me and Pete lifted, I really don't want to get into an Edit war. Help please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't see how this is against consensus, HiLo. The club is a football club, it says so right there in the title. The sport is called football. Again, that's the official name. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Before I wrote the above, I had reverted Pete's change at Brisbane Roar FC. He has now reverted me, with an Edit summary of "That's two...". This is a reference to the fact that last night I reverted an identical change at the same article from a newly registered editor for whom that was his only edit. Pete is perhaps warning me about WP:3RR. Hence my request for help here. I see no way in which Pete's edits are not a breach of a consensus of which he is very aware. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To make the problem here quite clear, the consensus is "Standardise on soccer on all articles pertaining to the sport in an Australian context". That is a direct quote from the proposal that was agreed upon. The bolding is NOT mine. The articles mentioned above which have been changed obviously fit that definition. HiLo48 (talk)
 * Two points are now apparent. When it suits you:
 * You can be very perceptive, and
 * You can find accurate quotes and links.
 * So why, in all the discussion above do you miss repeated points and find yourself unable to come up with reliable sources when repeatedly pressed. Again, you are not stupid, and you would do better if you accepted that other editors are awake up to your tactics.
 * Responding to your points above, I don't accept that the consensus continues to hold. We have new editors who were not part of the earlier discussion and have demonstrated an ability to research the topic. Looking at the words you quoted, Standardise on soccer on all articles pertaining to the sport in an Australian context. it is apparent that you omitted the remainder: This would be somewhat like the existing situation regarding soccer in the United States. Well, it's not. In the US, it's soccer. In Australia, the official name of the sport is football as we see at all levels, and the national media and the majority of the regional media call it football. As has been demonstrated recently with quotes. The situation here is very different to that in the United States. --Pete (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is simple. The consensus is clear. It hasn't changed. You know what it is. Your edits breach it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the discussion above and the list of sources, all favouring the "football" side of the question, no, I wouldn't call it "simple". --Pete (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with a consensus is not a valid reason to ignore it. Imagine if that went on all over Wikipedia... HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo, do you understand the concept of irony at all? I sometimes wonder at the disconnect between what you say and what you do. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we really want to continue with this?
So, we have two editors who want to overturn the established consensus. That consensus was arrived at through the participation of a lot more editors than are involved here and indeed after a protracted period of at times bitter dispute resulting in the blocking of a number of editors. Therefore, I put it that before we revisit this subject again a separate clear consensus needs to be established that we even want to have this conversation. Therefore I ask the following question:

Does the community wish to re-open the question of the naming of the sport known as soccer within Australian Wikipedia articles with a view to changing the consensus arrived at in this RFC in March 2014? - Nick Thorne  talk  12:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that, as a general rule, there needs to be a consensus to have a discussion or not anywhere on Wikipedia. The previous discussion seemed too often to divide on the basis of what sport participants themselves were interested and with only eleven participants was hardly numerous, nor was the discussion always of a high standard. That being said, this may be a special case given the repetitive, heated and sometimes personal discussions which have resulted from this debate. Additionally, RfCs do have to mean something (it can't just be a meaningless conclusion with those who disagree arguing against consensus relatively soon - though there are now new participants, evidently).
 * ...Which leads me to an unfortunate "I don't know". It has been some (moderate) time (there are new participants), and there are very strong policy reasons that discussion should be allowed (or even encouraged) but some issues do need relative closure. Given certain less-than-ideal components of previous discussions it could certainly be beneficial to keep the discussion going (it is worth noting that Wikipedia policy has not featured extensively in this debate), however, as before, parties seem partisan before the discussion begins (and quite set in these views).
 * I definitely think, however, that the community would have to show consensus to not re-open the question rather than have a need for consensus before the question is re-opened (with the de facto position being that people may discuss whatever they would like to), in line with the strong policy reasons for doing so. Macosal (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As noted above by Nick, previous discussion has been marked by at times bitter dispute resulting in the blocking of a number of editors. I'd lay the problems with this topic at the feet of one editor, who appears to have an intense personal attachment to one side of the question. Other editors here, regardless of their personal views, stick to debating the topic, finding and presenting sources and following wikiprocedure.


 * Why on earth is this ongoing disruption tolerated? Determining policy on what the name of a sport should be, shouldn't be such a drama. We look at the sources we have, we evaluate them, we discuss them, we come to a conclusion.


 * I didn't participate in the previous discussion and I think that we should revisit the matter, this time looking at reliable sources to find the true situation. The personal opinions of individual editors should not be the determining factor, no matter how strongly and deeply held.


 * Personal statements, anecdotal evidence, attacks on other editors, unsourced declamations - these tactics are not how we do things here.


 * The situation is pretty straightforward, to my mind. I quote from Football Federation Australia: On 1 January 2005 ASA renamed itself to Football Federation Australia (FFA), aligning with the general international usage of the word "football", in preference to "soccer", and to also distance itself from the failings of the old Soccer Australia. It coined the phrase "old soccer, new football" to emphasise this. Since then, we have seen the name of the sport change throughout the community, first of all through the adoption of "football" over "soccer" at all levels of competition and organisation throughout Australia, secondly through media terminology, where all but a few regional outlets use "football" to describe the sport. And thirdly through the consequent flow-on. The real kicker is that Julia Gillard in 2010, a Victorian, the then Prime Minister, and a well-known supporter of Australian Rules, publicly and repeatedly called the sport "football". She saw it as a plus. While I don't see her as being the defining authority on terminology, I am strongly persuaded that she was reacting to community feeling, especially amongst her constituents.


 * We should't be making editorial decisions on what middle-aged editors called the sport as children. We shouldn't be attacking and insulting each other like kids in a schoolyard. We should look at the sources we have. The official name of the sport changed nine years ago. Do we accept that? Do we acknowledge that there has been an effect on the community in response to the strong and ongoing campaign? If so, then how much? This isn't something we can vote on, based on personal feelings. This is a topic where there are good sources available and we can look at them. --Pete (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(Outsider input) Perhaps a moritorium on when to discuss 'football' vs 'soccer' again, is required. It could be set for 3-months, 6-months, 9-months, 1-year etc ec. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Five years, unless something can be proven to have clearly and dramatically changed since the most recent consensus, which is now today. HiLo48 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * HiLo, would you like to comment on any of the points expressed by other editors above? I'm particularly interested to hear how you perceive the Prime Minister's contribution. --Pete (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Five years is a long time (and definitely needs some level of justification), however, I think that the caveat "unless something can be proven to have clearly and dramatically changed since the most recent consensus" would lead to a number of debates on its own in any case. I have not seen any consensus established today? Macosal (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In the past week we have had two (new to this topic) editors turn up, and fail to achieve a change in consensus. As usual, it has been very disruptive. So, we have a reinforced consensus, and even stronger reasons to avoid further such demands to change. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that that is the definition of "a new consensus", particularly when only 3 people really participated. In any case I think this measure (shutting down all discussion for 5 years) is so extreme and novel to be of use - are there any analogous situations, anywhere on Wikipedia? Additionally, this whole conversation has been characterised by an extreme lack of identification of WP policy. The main (only?) policy discussed has been WP:COMMONNAME (which is meant to be viewed in relation to article titles). The more relevant WP:ENGVAR has been brought up only rarely. The result has often been a back and forth of people saying "no, this is more common" and going nowhere. I think this is a debate which is worth having and worth having well. No point in silencing editors who want to contribute to the discourse in a positive way. Macosal (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally - I'm not happy with the current naming convention - but there are other parts of Wikipedia that I would much rather be putting my time towards than discussing this, again. I think making a main-namespace article about the naming conflict would be beneficial though. -- Chuq (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And so it continues
Pete/Skyring has now gone a forum shopping spree by taking this issue to Talk:Football (word). His persistence is remarkable. HiLo48 (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that 2 places = a "spree". At this point it seems like you have been the only person to really participate in the discussion other than him and Lajamibr; definitely worth getting some other opinions in one place or the other. Macosal (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree. Pete is offering nothing new, despite claiming that he is. Previous discussions (only eight months ago) have been so extensive, it's hard to imagine anything new being raised now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue seems to be that people are seem pretty inclined to stick to their opinions, resulting in back/forth "I'm right, you're wrong" discussions which often fail to consider policy and are going nowhere. No harm in hearing what other people have to say. For what it's worth, it seems to me that both are obviously used to some extent. Using "football" does lead to some potential ambiguities. I'd question whether there needs to be a blanket rule one way or the other (which in itself leads to issues of extent) given that it is clearly not a blanket rule one way or the other in real life. But a search as to which is "more common" seems a bit pointless - is a 51-49% majority either way really grounds to create uniform rules throughout Wikipedia? I don't think so (and no quantification like that is even really possible. Without a blanket rule, the issue becomes that more active editors could conceivably go around changing all mentions one way or the other, having essentially the same effect and potentially causing edit wars (I guess Wikipedia is not good at dealing with inconsistency in that sense). But the upshot is clearly that regardless of which term is "more common" if such a thing exists, it's always going to be pretty hard to define/argue one way or the other. BUT maybe there are people out there with ideas/potential ways forward in mind which could be worth seeing. Macosal (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My best way forward, apart from trying to find good sources, is to acknowledge that there is a divided view and to record the differences in a dedicated article. That way we can get down the sources and the views within the community for both points of view in an NPOV fashion without yelling at each other on talk pages. --Pete (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What's new is yet more changes to terminology in the media. The tide is flowing football's way. I'm not seeing any good source to the contrary. The best I've seen there is the Macquarie Dictionary, and that's now several years old and behind a paywall. The official change was made in 2008 so any source prior to that date is useless. Julia Gillard's use of "football" in 2011, explicitly ruling out its use in regards to Aussie Rules is also strongly convincing. To me, at any rate. I would imagine her to at least be in touch with community feeling within her own electorate, and to be very cautious about public statements. --Pete (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Macquarie is Sydney based, yet again, just like all the other sources you claim support your opinion. Where was Gillard speaking? My position isn't one based on opinion. It's based on observation of facts. Facts that many here don't want to be true. But they are. I'm intrigued by arguments that say "It's like this where I live. It must be like that everywhere." My position isn't like that at all. I simply say that it's different in different parts of Australia, and too many people east of the Barassi Line seem to have no idea how things are on the other side, but claim that they do know. HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm putting together a store of sources. We need sources. That's the guts of it, here on Wikipedia. Good sources are gold, but opinions, well, you know the deal. --Pete (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have opinions. I have knowledge. Knowledge that others would rather wasn't true. You don't have sources. A source in this context means something that TELLS us how language is used across all of Australia. Examples of usage from one city are of no value whatsoever in proving how the language is used elsewhere. In our earlier discussions I listed dozens of examples of usage of "soccer" for the round ball game. IIRC, they were all from west of the Barassi Line. That proves nothing about what happens in Sydney. That wasn't my goal. But it does prove that usage is not uniform across the country. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sure many people believe that their interior knowledge is true and accurate and impermeable. I am not disagreeing with their faith. But faith cannot be used as a basis for writing this encyclopaedia. Our policy requires reliable, checkable sources. Call it wikilawyering if you wish, but that's the bedrock of my position and the foundation of my work on this topic. I am truly sorry if that offends anyone, but that's ow I see things working out best. --Pete (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source that precisely declares the different ways language is used across Australia. Nor do you. Good faith would involve you trusting my observations of the differences I have observed. I am only declaring how language is used now in the areas of Australia I know best. You don't know it as well as I do. It's all very logical too, based on known history. You have no reason to believe that I would lie. In good faith, trust me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that that logic does not work. If an editor with particular knowledge was to leave, what then would become of information based on their knowledge? Subjective experience has some (limited) role to play but certainly cannot be determinative of what is or isn't found on this site. In fact, that's basically a definition of WP:OR. Macosal (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re your earlier question, Gillard was speaking with Neil Mitchell on 3AW, according to the DPMC transcript. 3AW was occupying the number one ratings position in Melbourne at the time (December 2010), and I understand that Mitchell's show is well regarded. I am sure that Gillard was briefed on the station's rating position, market, demographics and so on. --Pete (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It surprises me. But politicians surprise all the time when they try to sound cool. Kevin Rudd had trouble with a sauce bottle. Tony Abbott didn't seem to know what a shirtfront was west of the Barassi Line. Anyway, 3AW knows what football is. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A regular source bottle, you are! I'll add it to the list. Rudd was trying for effect and falling short. Abbott has searching for "buttonhole", I think, and "shirtfront" popped out. But Gillard's words strike me as measured and deliberate. Mitchell's reaction was in line with his station policy and I dare say Gillard surprised him as well, hence the exchange. But, like Rudd and Crean calling the Governor-General the head of state, these things aren't definitive, merely indicative of a divided community --Pete (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC).
 * I prefer diverse to divided. Only those seeking confrontation would see it as divided. HiLo48 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Maginot Line, Mason-Dixon Line, Barassi Line divided? If we regard the Australian community as diverse rather than divided, then we have our answer right there. Choose the term most commonly used, based on whatever good sources we can find. --Pete (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not that simple. (None of this is.) Firstly, useful sources don't seem to exist. Secondly, as has been highlighted on the other page you recently spread this conversation to, ambiguity is a major issue. "Football" is obviously ambiguous to many. Actually, it's not ambiguous to even all of those people. To some it ONLY means Aussie Rules. HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source that directly adresses the issue of football language usage in Australia. It is even a page on a Federal Government web site and is about the usage of the word football in this country. It does not support what Pete claims to be the case, rather is demonstrates beyond any reasonable question that the word "football" is ambiguous in this country. This is the main reason IMHO that "soccer" should be used in the Australian context. Note that in the section about soccer, the article admits that the "official" name of the sport here is "football", but every usage of the word football in that section is accompanied with the word soccer in backets - football (soccer) - why do you think that is?. - Nick Thorne  talk  01:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nick. It matches my observations very closely. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's because, as per the note at the bottom of the page, it hasn't been updated since early 2008. I read your post on an iPad, which was just a gleam in Steve Jobs' eye at that stage. Nobody seriously thought a black man would be elected President of the USA. in 2008, the Australian Government would have laughed at the thought that Julia Gillard would come within an independent's coin-toss of losing to Tony Abbott. Since those days, we've all moved on, and using a document from those days of Bush and Rudd and Nokia is like posting a high school picture of yourself on your Facebook profile. It's of value as an archaeological document, that's for sure, but as a reflection of today's world, not so much. --Pete (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have any evidence that things have changed in the "Football means Aussie Rules" states? HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What was most obvious to me was that they didn't use "football" and didn't use "soccer". They used "football (soccer)". A term which was used here on Wikipedia without an issue several years ago. -- Chuq (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The "football" part is unnecessary. We have no need to waste words like that. And nobody actually calls the game "football (soccer)". "Soccer" is unambiguous and universally understood. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very uncompromising (and not particularly constructive) view. Wikipedia doesn't "need" anything. In fact, WP:ENGVAR actually recommends using brackets to explain "Terms that differ between varieties of English, or that have divergent meanings". This would seem to be a classic case for the application of such a guideline. Macosal (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You're playing games. "Soccer" is not a term that differs between varieties of English. It has only one meaning to all English speakers, inside and outside Australia. It's unambiguous. It's universally understood. Within Australia, "football" is ambiguous. "Soccer" is ideal. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why not apply it to every mention of "football" on Wikipedia? Because Wikipedia reflects how language is used. Soccer/football are both used to some varying extent in different parts of Australia. Surely "football (soccer)" is a way that expresses that mixed usage. Additionally, for policy reasons, it would prevent a heap of discussion, argument, incivility and vandalism. Macosal (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But "football" is ambiguous, and unnecessary. Would you accept "soccer {football}"? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The convention is to put the term which clarifies the other in brackets. As such it seems to me that if football is the term which people have issues with then soccer should be in brackets to clear things up? Macosal (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)