Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:38, 8 December 2014

Australia: Sports / Australian rules football / Soccer / Rugby league Project‑class

Naming conventions (football in Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by WikiProject Australian sports. This page is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football. This page is supported by the Australian soccer task force. This page is supported by WikiProject Rugby league.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Naming conventions (sportspeople)

Does the consensus regarding the situation with the word 'soccer' in Australia being roughly in line with that of Canada and the United States have implications for Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer), which states the following:

1. When there are multiple people with the same name, and one of them is a footballer:

   a. If the person is neither American nor Canadian, use (footballer)

   b. If the person is American or Canadian, use (soccer)

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like Australia can be added to that list. (New Zealand, too, maybe?) Perhaps reorganise thusly:

—sroc 💬 10:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is accurate, there is no evidence that supports the notion that the word soccer is used in Australia the same way it is in the United States, in fact theres quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. I will put together a few things for people to read soon with my main points outlined. Lajamibr (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

More edit wars

I'm seeing edit wars breaking out over the terminology, and consequent abuse directed against other editors. The tide is flowing strongly towards "football" rather than "soccer" in regard to the common name of the sport and we are going to be seeing more and more disruption as those accepting the new terminology run into those defending the old. I'm all for minimising conflict and using facts, rather than emotion or opinion to direct policy here. --Pete (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As are we all. The most critical fact is that after a long, agonising and very destructive process, a consensus was established less than eight months ago that we would use the name Soccer in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

And we're going to revisit the matter with some solid facts and editors who didn't participate in that flawed process. The terminology is changing and burying heads in sand doesn't help us write a useful and relevant encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That comment is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. Those supporting the encyclopedia welcome the fact that the issue has been disruption-free for some months, and phrases like "burying heads in sand" (translation: HiLo48 and others are idiots) is unhelpful. The only thing we know for sure is that fighting over which word to use is a complete waste of time and energy. Anyone wanting to restart that fight needs to take the time to find and digest the previous discussions, then write a calm statement that due to evidence such-and-such, and in accordance with the previous agreement , it may be time to propose a change . Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not disruption-free. That's why I raised the topic. Ignoring reality won't help. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

A small amount of edit warring occurred two days ago. It appears to have stopped. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, It has stopped because it successfully got peoples attention and got them talking again, I would be glad to keep going if you would like? I'm sorry but I'm not going to be dropping the matter, I can only say that I am sorry I wasn't involved in the process earlier. Would you like me to organise another consensus vote soon and turn the tide in my favour or are you willing to drop your life long biases and accept that just because you were taught by British immigrants 60 years ago to use the term soccer you are not some sort of authority on the matter, you represent an old and dying majority my friend you have become the minority. Only acceptable resolution is to have the term soccer only acceptable in articles that discuss multiple codes of football at once and in those instances no code will be referred to as football. In all other cases football should be used in the acceptable context because nobody reading about Football Federation Australia is going to be confused by the term football if anything soccer will throw them off its just ridiculous. Lajamibr (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What you mean, I trust, is that we're going to keep discussion going, rather than edit-warring? I wasn't included in the earlier process either, and I feel that my fact-based contributions will have a useful impact in a discussion that seems to have been unduly influenced by emotion.

The point you raise is valid. When an article is concerned with association football only - such as Football Federation Australia - then using "soccer" strikes a jarring note. I am sure that aficionados of the game, on seeing this, reach for the "edit" button to correct the term.

Looking at that article, one sentence stands out: 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. That was nine years ago, and the name now used by the government, the media, and the sport itself is "football". Why are we still using a deprecated term? --Pete (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point, I dont think anyone would deny that the term football is now widely used to refer to association football/soccer and that there is no need to use a secondary term like soccer unless talking about multiple codes of football at once. I have read the previous discussions and have not found any real evidence for why the term soccer should be used. The idea that it will confuse people is irrelevant because even if that statement was true it would be cleared up by a simple link or half a sentence at the beginning. It would be nice to engage with the other side of this argument but I'm afraid I don't share the same optimism that you do for the process as it has continuously failed to put an end to the argument and the consensus vote is extremely flawed. However I welcome any one to discuss this further. Lajamibr (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Merits of Football

I will begin by suggesting that we put a stop to people using anecdotal evidence as a basis for argument on this matter. Nobody can say what the majority of Australian citizens use to refer to soccer/football I have already spoken to one editor about this and they have said that the people they know use soccer and I have said the people I know use football, it is not evidence of anything and proves nothing.

Secondly, in regards to the use of WP:COMMONNAME as a basis for argument, In every example given in that article the common names are almost exclusively used in relation to the topic i.e. nobody, including the media, calls lady gaga or bono by their real name because nobody, not just a few, would know what you are talking about. You would be hard pressed to find a single person in Australia that wouldn't accept that football was the most common name for soccer throughout the world. At the absolute most all you could argue is that most Australians know the game as both football and soccer.

Another major point was that the term football was ambiguous in an Australian context, I agree with this to a certain degree. Football is certainly somewhat of an ambiguous term when discussing multiple codes of football at once. However, on articles that only discuss soccer/football there is nothing ambiguous about it, if you insist on arguing that there will be people confused by this it will only be momentarily as they click the link of 'Football' that reveals the topic is association football. This is no different to the current situation in which people who will be confused by the term soccer can click the link or hover over the link to clarify.

Also we must stop comparing Australia to the United States in terms of the use of soccer/football they are very different circumstances, for example their competition is officially named Major League Soccer and teams participating in the competition use either no suffix, FC, or SC. Below is a list of evidence of the wide spread use of the term football in Australia including the sports governing body, the confederation we play under, the teams that play in this country, and the use of the term football by the media in Australia. This is further evidence that the situation in Australia is very different to that in the United States

Sports governing body and confederation uses the term Football

Football Federation Australia

Asian Football Confederation

Teams playing in the country use the term Football

Melbourne Victory

Sydney FC

Melbourne City

Western Sydney

Perth Glory

The term Football is wide spread in the Australian media, Of all the media I sourced only The Age used the term soccer (on their main website while using Football on its mobile site)

Herald Sun

The Australian

Fox Sports

Sydney Morning Herald

News.com.au

Daily Telegraph

Nine msn

Yahoo7

Lajamibr (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. Heard it all before. I think you better get agreement to re-open this particular can of worms, before proceeding. If you do get agreement, then cut out the walls of text, keep your comments short and to the point. Rambling rants do nothing to help your cause. - Nick Thorne 09:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion is herewith re-opened as it has been underway for some days. Thanks, Lajamibr, for the links. --Pete (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Nick. John actually suggested opening a discussion here rather than where it was happening in my talk section and it was suggested above that someone read the previous discussion and provide reasons for re-opening the debate along with evidence supporting my view. Please refrain from littering this new discussion with the same predictable and dismissive statements from the previous discussion that are not backed up by facts or reason. They do not contribute anything or help in anyway. My opening post is intended for everyone to read and use as the basis of the discussion, if you wish to participate in the discussion you are welcome but please contribute helpful statements. I will not be posting with emotive or bias language so please do the same. Lajamibr (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

But it deserves to be dismissed, because there is nothing new there. Refutations of all you have said have been made before. I agree with "Yawn". HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please enlighten me to these refutations explain what is flawed about my opening post because I don't see it. Lajamibr (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No. This really was all discussed before, extremely extensively and painfully, with a conclusion less than eight months ago. It will do Misplaced Pages no good at all to repeat everything. Please do your own research. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Just adding on to what I wrote below may I please direct you to WP:STANDING and insist you stop using that same line to try end this discussion Lajamibr (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, I'm at a loss to find where these arguments have been refuted, are you referring to a discussion different to the one you referred me to on my talk page. The evidence and argument presented there is quite weak, for example Gibson Flying V's point that Australian news websites use month/day/year formats so they are not reliable sources of evidence. Grasping at straws is the most generous I can be with that argument. He then went on to cite the names of two autobiography titles with the word football in them relating to Rugby. Another piece of "evidence" was the title of a tv program called 'Monday Night Football', weak again but if anything it proves that the term football is an acceptable term when used in an exclusive context.

Perhaps you are referring to Nick Thorntons body of "evidence" that soccer is the common name, again this is a very weak argument and even some of his sources must have changed their minds because I now find football written on a number of them and are not reliable sources of information in many cases i.e. an opinion piece written on the roar is a very poor piece of evidence to show soccer is the common usage.

For the life of me I just can't see this glorious argument you are referring to. Not one piece of evidence to prove that soccer is the most common usage. I have provided you with evidence showing that almost every major news source uses the term Football. I'm sorry but your stance on this is just far too convenient for me to take you seriously. Is Misplaced Pages not a dynamic and evolving source of information by nature, should we not return to issues to discuss them. I'm sorry for the "walls of text" but I'm asked to talk about the previous discussions then told not to do it with text so I'm not sure how I can win. Please somebody refer me to the discussion that refutes my statements in anyway. I'll end by quoting HiLo48 "I am NOT on a campaign to remove "football" entirely as a word for "soccer" in Australia", this is exactly what has happened though. Lajamibr (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't relocate whole threads on the page. The newest thread belongs at the bottom of the page. And please learn to use Edit summaries. You may have had a valid reason to have made that move, but without an Edit summary, we cannot tell why you did it.

I can assure that this has all been discussed before. It was done in a very long and exhaustive process where several editors in favour of using the name "football" continued to make rude and disparaging comments about those with whom they disagreed, and got themselves blocked. Note that there are several archives of this discussion page. There was also discussion at Soccer in Australia, and in other places such as on editors' Talk pages. (That's really inappropriate and ineffective, hence my rapid removal of your arguments on my Talk page.)

I must also ask that you stick to discussing the topic, and not other editors. You are getting into dangerous territory with emotional language, disparaging remarks, and put-downs such as "I'm at a loss to find where...", "Grasping at straws is the most generous I can be", "For the life of me I just can't see this glorious argument you are referring to", "Not one piece of evidence...", and "your stance on this is just far too convenient for me to take you seriously".

As for WP:STANDING, we would need evidence that something significant has changed in the past eight months for that to carry any weight. A lot of us put a huge amount of effort into the earlier discussions. Try to put yourself into our shoes, and think about how you would feel about having to repeat all that effort only eight months later.

I will now reluctantly address some of your points, but cannot promise to keep doing so.

Citing examples of usage that match your preference will never prove that it is common usage. That is original research anyway, and unacceptable.

National sources prove little, because what most Australians actually see and read are local sources. People in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne read newspapers printed in those cities, and watch TV programs and news/sport reports created in those cities. The print version of Melbourne's Herald-Sun, for example, is very different from what the Sydney based website shows. In that newspaper, "football" simply means Aussie Rules. The ideal source would be an independent one that actually says that "Football" is now the most commonly used term across all of Australia. Not sure where you would find such a source. To be independent too would require no commercial arrangement between the media outlet and a sport. If a network has paid a lot of money to a sporting body to cover a sport (e.g. Fox), its approach will naturally match what that sporting body wants, rather than common language usage among all Australians. HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 has a point when he talks about editors making "rude and disparaging comments about those with whom they disagreed, and got themselves blocked.". Let us all play the ball and not the man. It's generally not a matter of anybody "getting" themselves blocked. It's more like being goaded into making a heated comment and then being gleefully complained about on AN/I. Let us have light rather than heat. Please.

Lajamibr has a point when he talks about "Not one piece of evidence to prove that soccer is the most common usage." Can we have solid evidence, please. Not personal opinions. HiLo, you're waving your hands around a lot, but those big slabs of discourse are visibly free from any external links. Could you help us out a bit and provide the external sources which illuminate your opinions? Please. --Pete (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As for WP:STANDING, we would need evidence that something significant has changed in the past eight months for that to carry any weight. WP:STANDING doesn't say that. In fact it pushes the opposite conclusion: Fact is, consensus can change. Many factors both inside of Misplaced Pages and in the outside world can cause members of the Misplaced Pages to change their minds on an issue. Subjects that at one time were not notable can become notable, and those once thought to be notable can later be found not to be. A certain behavior among editors can be allowed one day, then disallowed the next. There is always room for change.

What's changed is that we have new editors participating in the discussion and we have a whole season's worth of football commentary to review. My take on what has changed is that "football" has increased in popular speech and "soccer" has declined. That's my opinion, formed by reading, viewing and listening to media reports. When you set your mind to observing it, the steady change is quite apparent. --Pete (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

After telling the world how bad rude and disparaging comments are, you write "HiLo, you're waving your hands around a lot..." You are not here for rational discussion. You are here to attack. Go away. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Telling another editor what they are doing wrong in a discussion is not an attack HiLo48 and I think it's ok to talk about individual editors when I'm talking about the points they have made in relation to this topic. I don't think I have made any personal attacks but I will try to be more careful with my comments, you could say I was attacking the arguments not the editors though. As for my citing sources that match my preference I simply cited every source that I came across I did not leave anything out I even pointed out that The Age uses Soccer on its main website. Now when you make claims that Australians don't get their news from national news sources but local printed paper you really need to provide evidence for this, I'm not saying that it isn't a good point but it's unsubstantiated if anything I would think that most Australians get their news digitally from national sources but I will seek to find evidence now. There is nothing bias about my list I assure you Lajamibr (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source from 2010 on where Australians are getting their news from showing in favour of online, I think we can naturally assume those numbers have increased towards online sources rather than back to print but I will endeavour to find more evidence.Lajamibr (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the huge sales of tablets and smartphones, I think it's a reasonable assumption. The "two-screen" effect is also a factor - people watching TV with a smart device on their lap. Alternate "news" sources such as social media or sites such as Zite or Sway or Flipbook also need to be considered. Australians are still consuming news and sports, but not so much from traditional print sources. The packed commuter carriage full of people reading newspapers is now packed with commuters on their devices. --Pete (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

After establishing that Australians primary source of news is online and not print media here is a reliable source showing the top online news sources for Australians and the amount of unique users to the sites in the month of September 2014, which are quite high, for example in top spot the Sydney Morning Herald had 3,852,000 unique viewers that month. Every online news source on that list uses the term Football except for The Age, which again uses Soccer on its main website and Football on its mobile site. If you believe this argument is irrelevant as has been said in the past please provide sourced evidence that is not anecdotal, simply stating that you don't believe it matter what is used in the media does not help the discussion in anyway Lajamibr (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

That post contains far too much original research and does not establish that Australians' primary source of news is online. If I saw an independent, reliable source that says that "football" is now the common name for soccer across all of Australia, I could very well be convinced, but I have seen no such source. Please stop rehashing arguments that were refuted only eight months ago. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me what you mean by the source containing too much original research, my understanding of it is that original research does not have a reliable source attributed to it. I provided reliable sources and evidence to all my claims, in 2010 it was found that more Australians get their news online than in print, since then a bigger gap would no doubt have grown. I also provided a reliable source showing the extent that Australians are using online news sources. Please clarify your issue with my post Lajamibr (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not say the source contained too much original research. I said the post did. Please stop misrepresenting me. To draw a conclusion about what people call a sport from what news sources they use is original research, and does not count as evidence of any kind here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you were talking about my post I was saying my post has reliable sources so why is it original research, I understand now that you think I was using media sources as proof that Australians predominantly use the term football and that is not correct at all. I have repeatedly stated that neither of us can prove what most Australians use, my point is to prove that the term football is atleast commonly used Lajamibr (talk) 02:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody has ever argued that it wasn't. The argument is over which is the most common name, and only eight months ago a decision was made. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes but that decision was not based off of discussion or logic it was based off a vote between 11 people and it was not the correct way to reach a decision in this matter since their is so much dispute between which is the most common name, might I add that a number who voted in favour of soccer stipulated they did not want to see football disappear as a term in the Australian context and it certainly has. There is no evidence that soccer is the most common term simply nine editors perceptions hence why I do not consider the matter closed Lajamibr (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

But it was closed. To reopen discussion really demands more than saying the previous heavily moderated discussion was illogical. That's quite insulting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me rephrase then, the previous decision involving a vote was the best way to resolve the dispute at the time, that does not however mean that a conclusion was reached or that the discussion should not be allowed to be reopened. I have done much more than merely claim the previous discussion was illogical I have refuted all of the main points from the discussion proving why there is still a need to talk. Again I will say the previous decision was not based on the evidence presented but rather the perceptions of the attending editors and their personal views on the matter, that does not mean the appropriate outcome was reached. Lajamibr (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course a conclusion was reached. You have refuted nothing. You are still being insulting the the editors who participated inn the previous discussion when you say "the previous decision was not based on the evidence presented but rather the perceptions of the attending editors and their personal views on the matter". Please drop the insults. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you cannot look at the evidence and arguments I have presented and see that your arguments have been refuted then you should not be contributing to wikipedia, these are not insults they are observations. There is no evidence to suggest soccer is the most common term used, therefore the decision was based off of each editors perception and personal views on which is most common. Please try to remain impartial when editing wikipedia for everyones sake Lajamibr (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

So, "you should not be contributing to wikipedia" is not an insult? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of any way of proving that soccer is still the most common term, which seems most likely, given that it's only soccer fans who use it, I think it's time to just give up and let them have it.

Can you clarify who you believe should give up and what does "given that it's only soccer fans who use it" mean exactly Lajamibr (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a bit confused by that too. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 please do not provide incomplete quotes by me to change the context of what I am saying. I said if you cannot look at the evidence and arguments as proof that previous arguments have been refuted then you should not be editing wikipedia. Lajamibr (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe you have refuted anything. HiLo48 (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately that doesn't mean that I haven't Lajamibr (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Noting the tendency for useful sources to get lost in streams of personal opinions, I have created a sub-page where we may list sources here.

Editors may feel free to add useful sources here, regardless of which personal point of view they are pushing or - like me - they have an open mind on the subject. --Pete (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I try very hard these days to avoid discussing other editors, but you are showing very bad faith in that list. You have been told what's wrong with it, several times, yet you persist. This is meant to be a polite discussion. Ignoring facts presented to you by others is not polite. It is provocative and confrontational. Please stop. HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

But, HiLo, it is a list of facts. Good, reliable sources. If anyone has a problem with this, perhaps they shouldn't be editing an encyclopaedia. You are invited to add your own links if you feel there is any imbalance. As is anyone. Let's deal in facts. Please. --Pete (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You have been told many times what's wrong with your list. Since you choose to repeatedly ignore that advice and speculate that your view is correct, I shall say it again. Association and club websites prove nothing about the common name. They are all part of a marketing push. All but one of your media websites are based in Sydney. The exception is based in Melbourne, on the other side of the Barassi Line, where the language is different, and it uses "soccer", which rather proves my point. The print version of the Herald Sun uses "soccer". TV, radio and print outlets based on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line all use "soccer". This includes the ABC and all the big networks. Those are facts. This has all been demonstrated before. Please stop ignoring evidence previously presented. On top of this, any judgement you or I might make based on such sources is original research. If I saw an independent, reliable source that says that "football" is now the common name for soccer across all of Australia, I could very well be convinced, but I have seen no such source. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What it seems that you are saying HiLo48 is that the media sources I have presented are irrelevant but the sources you present are evidence that you are right. It also seems that you are saying that in Melbourne it is called soccer and therefore it should be called soccer, can we then say in Sydney its called football so we should call it football. I believe this stance is the reason why editors in the past have believed that you believe Melbourne is the only important aspect in the discussion. Please do not take that as an attack on you I am simply stating what I believe is flawed in your argument. Again I have not simply provided the sources that back up my point of view I have provided every source that I found. I agree completely that AFL centred news sources use the term soccer in many cases but all this proves is my point that soccer is a term predominantly used by AFL supporters and despite anyones perceptions they do not represent all of Australia, many people support both games (please do not compare A-league support to the whole games support) and many support neither. Lajamibr (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not say "in Melbourne it is called soccer and therefore it should be called soccer", nor did I say "Melbourne is the only important aspect in the discussion", or anything like it. Until this post, you mentioned Melbourne more than I did. I only mentioned it as the home of The Age. Misrepresentation was one of the major problems exhibited by those who got blocked in the earlier discussions. Please stop it now. I mentioned the Australian Football side of the Barassi Line. That represents around half of Australia's population. You have no evidence that "soccer is a term predominantly used by AFL supporters". I submit that it's the term used by almost everybody on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, including soccer fans, plus a lot of people on the other side. The truth is, it's very hard to determine, and speculation never helps. HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that you said that I said that it seems like you are saying that i.e. thats how it could be interpreted. You are the one constantly referring to the Barassi Line breaking Australia into two sections, AFL and non AFL, therefore when you say on this side of the Barassi Line it is interpreted as "AFL supporters use soccer", you were the one making it about AFL I was simply continuing that. I am not saying you do not have any valid points I am simply providing my own point of view and evidence to support it. You said media outlets that have aligned themselves with a particular sport have an agenda to push that sports view in a certain way so the same thing can be said for much of the media that you are citing as evidence of the term soccer. My main point that I am trying to prove is that Football is atleast one of the common names for soccer/football their is no denying that soccer is also a name commonly attributed to the sport. You were the one that said the main point used to determine using the name soccer was the common name convention and I am showing you why that was not an appropriate decision. To basically outline for you what I am trying to say is both are common terms, you cannot say which is more common among Australians so why would we use the un-preferred term on wikipedia, it is inappropriate in my view. Lajamibr (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you when you say "you cannot say which is more common among Australians". My belief that it is "soccer" is, however, well founded in observation and logic. A thread here less than eight months ago decided the same thing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we all just quit with the "observation and logic", please? I have created a list of sources on the subpage. My intention is that all sides of the debate add sources there. Opinions from industry commentators, survey results, whatever. If an editor is arguing a position without reliable sources, then no matter what it is, that position cannot end up in Misplaced Pages because of WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Pete (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

My intention is that we stop playing your games. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)#Australia 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages'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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 4#Another RfC on naming.

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:

1. You can be very perceptive, and
2. 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 Misplaced Pages... 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 Misplaced Pages articles with a view to changing the consensus arrived at in this RFC in March 2014? - Nick Thorne 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages? Because Misplaced Pages 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)

Looking for official sources

Thanks to Nick Thorne for finding a government document entitled "Football in Australia". Dated 2008, so not terribly current. I looked at the website of the Australian Sports Commission - Ausport.gov.au - and did a search of their event calendar:

• Year from today: Keyword "Football": 6 results all for FIFA or World Cup events.
• Year from today: Keyword "Soccer": 0 results

Just like the media, what was once called soccer is now called football. --Pete (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Looking at the annual report for 2012/13, I find 8 hits for "football" (including one for "Australian Rules football" and another for "touch football") and zero hits for "soccer". "Football" is used without any qualification to identify the sport previously known as soccer. So that's the official Commonwealth sports agency firmly on the "football" side of the argument. --Pete (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're doing original research again, finding examples and drawing your own convenient conclusions, rather than finding descriptions of language usage, as Nick did. That counts for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OR refers to carrying out your own research and publishing it in the content of an article. What Pete has done is fine. In any case, I don't think any amount of evidence is going to change your view. -- Chuq (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Geographically cherry-picked examples certainly won't. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Australian Sports Commission is not geographically affiliated with anywhere (in fact, as the name suggests, it is representative of the nation). I think it cannot be in question that the majority of reliable sources will use football rather than soccer:

• Official releases from the A-League, clubs and the FFA will all use football as it is the official term (a substantial amount of reliable sources on the game in Australia).
• Australian sites which are part of global affiliations (goal.com.au, au.fourfourtwo.com etc) do use "football" in keeping with international convention and/or in line with official naming convention in Australia.
• The newspapers, as the list of sources established elsewhere shows, appear to favour football over soccer.

The counter-argument is that individual people, not reliable sources, use "soccer" rather than football. Common sense suggests this is true to some degree. Quantification of this is impossible or near-impossible. I don't think that this is justification for the exclusive use of "soccer" on all Australian football pages. The addition of a single word (i.e. football (soccer)) is unambiguous, reflects the mixed usage of the word, and is much more consistent with reliable sources. I really cannot see a strong argument against this. Macosal (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with much of that post, and have done so in the past, so there is no need to repeat the obvious. But I have a question. Why should "football" be the main part of your preferred choice, rather than "soccer"? HiLo48 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

As answered above. The term being clarified should be outside the brackets (it's a grammatical issue). Macosal (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Which raises the obvious question, why use a term that needs to be qualified, when "soccer" is universally understood and, when used on its own, needs no qualification? HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hate to keep going around in circles, but to reflect the usage of the term by people and reliable sources! The reason this debate keeps appearing is because there is a large number of people who use football rather than soccer to refer to that sport in this country. Football is used generally on Misplaced Pages despite any potential ambiguity because that is how it is generally referred to. Misplaced Pages terminology reflects usage. Macosal (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"Football" is used where there is no ambiguity. In Australia, there is ambiguity. "Soccer" is unambiguous and universally understood. HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And also where it is the commonly used term (these often co-incide; although it does seem to me that the term is still ambiguous for someone who calls the sport "soccer" regardless of the context) Football (soccer) as I see it has 3 advantages:

1. More accurately represents the usage of terms in the Australian context

2. Is in no way ambiguous

3. Puts an end to the back and forth vandalism/conflict which has resulted from a number of editors who feel that the current situation is not an accurate reprsentation.

Is there a counter-argument other than that there is one extra word added? Macosal (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

No source has been produced, anywhere, any time, telling us that "football (soccer)" more accurately represents the usage of terms in the Australian context. HiLo48 (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah sorry, what I meant to convey was that both terms are used in the Australian context, and this solution does more accurately represent that by including both terms, not that the most common term is "football (soccer)" (I'm not sure if anyone is arguing that). Any other reasons? Macosal (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't even have a source telling us that "football" is all that common a name for the round ball game in Australia. The subject of an inexplicable, confrontational marketing campaign, yes, obviously, but common across the whole population? We don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It's prevalent in a number of reliable sources, both official and unofficial. The lists established elsewhere show that "football" is being used substantially by a number of independent sources nationwide. Definitely substantial usage. Given the prevalence in reliable sources you really need something to rebut the fact that "football" is widely used in parts of Australia.

So if it were to be accepted that football is substantially used in Australia, you have no other issue with "football (soccer)" other than the addition of a single word? Macosal (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sloppiness. Unnecessary. Pandering to a minority. Playing Orwellian Newspeak games. Untidiness. Assisting a marketing campaign. All things Misplaced Pages should not be doing. HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Frankly those read more like opinions than facts and range from unlikely to absurd. Do you have any sources to substantiate any of this?? Macosal (talk) 08:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Silly response. We have consensus. You want to add words? YOU must justify it. I really don't have to explain why you can't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

See above (3 reasons why this would be a good move). Macosal (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There are some people for whom "football" means Aussie Rules and nothing else. We cannot put these people ahead of all others. We are not defining the terms to be used by all Australians - that is a matter for individual preference. Our role is to facilitate the provision of information about the various codes and to do it in a way that lets people searching for (say) a particular team or player find their goal. While football is a generic name for several different codes, each of those codes has their own specific official and widely used term - except for Football. The Australian media has - mostly - taken this approach: Rugby league, Rugby union, Australian Rules, and Football. (I have listed the specific words used here.) This works well for outlets with huge audiences and while there may be a few who grumble, it is a system that works. We serve a similarly wide readership and while we cannot satisfy everyone, we shouldn't be out of step with the community. --Pete (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Heard among the headlines on ABC Radio News on 774 Melbourne while driving to work this morning: "Western Sydney's soccer woes continue". HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, let us consider two simple questions.

1. Could somebody misunderstand what sport is referred to by the word soccer within an Australian context?

2. Could somebody misunderstand what sport is referred to by the word football within an Australian context?

The clear answers are no and yes respectively. Regardless of the relative numbers of each usage, because of the relatively large number of sports played in significant numbers that can reasonably be called football, soccer which is unambiguous clearly wins on clarity. - Nick Thorne 01:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that the editorial boards at the various diverse media outlets serving the nation have all had this conversation before they made their decisions. Most of them decided that confusion wasn't an issue, so long as they called the other codes of football by their official names - or derivatives thereof, such as NRL, League, AFL, Aussie Rules. That is the situation we see in the community and we, as our own kind of media outlet serving the community, need feel no qualms about following suit. If it works for the ABC website, why would it be any different for our website? --Pete (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice dodge. I don't care about "official names", I care about writing in a way that will have the greatest possible understanding. Try actually answering the questions I posed in the post above, eh? - Nick Thorne 04:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The answer is that ambiguity is not the only concern. The use of "football" anywhere on Misplaced Pages raises issues regarding ambiguity, however, it is used to reflect the fact that "football" is the way the sport is referred to, generally speaking. The use of terms in Australia is, obviously, mixed. Why not use "football (soccer)" then? It represents the usage of both terms and is unambiguous. Macosal (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you frame your questions narrowly, then you receive narrow answers. The wider question about ambiguity and confusion and clear communication has already been answered by those who make their living from communication, unlike we amateurs. The media outlets, for whom every reader means rating points, income and power, have overwhelmingly chosen "Football" to refer to the sport previously known as "Soccer". Do you think they all deliberately chose to go down a path of confusion to their readers? I think they had this very same discussion that we are having now and they chose Football. As we can easily see for ourselves. Like you, I speak as one with no great interest in any kind of football - my interest lies in the language and the cultural change, and if anybody thinks that our culture is somehow static or stagnant or preserved changeless and immaculate, then they are fooling themselves - we have long since moved on from the British-based monoculture of the past. As anyone may see by walking down Lygon Street on a Friday night. The world game is steadily rising in popularity and support here, and only those with closed minds would deny it. The big media outlets have considered the question of clear communication, framed their websites accordingly, and this website should follow suit. --Pete (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have much greater faith in the media's commitment to accuracy than I. Everytime I have read meadia reports about anything I had personal knowledge of they manage to get it almost completely wrong. Even when I have been involved in situations where the media representative was provided with a press release they still managed to make such basic errors as getting names (included the press release) wrong or got major facts completely A about T. To speak in one of my main areas of interest/experience, I have read reports of aircraft accidents where reporters speak of AVGAS spilling from jet aircraft, well, if a jet was fuelled with AVGAS, no wonder it crashed since AVGAS is actually aviation gasoline (ie petrol), jets use kerosene based fuels. So because their track record on things I know a lot about is so appalling I have little faith in their reportage of other things and the less clear cut the item is the less faith I have. I would certainly never rely solely on media reportage particulalry from a geographically narrow range of sources and on anything so nebulous as the usage of particular words across Australia. The media plays the PC game and has drunk the FFA's cool-aid, so it's no surprise that they use the term "football". It sounds trendy and cool, a sure magnet for up and coming sports reporters who want to be in with the administrators of the sport However, just listen to a few of these characters on any TV or radio program and it becomes abundantly clear that whatever else they may be, they are not exemplars of English language usage. - No, you need to do much better than provide media reporting to support the claim that ordinary Austrlians overwhelmingly use the word "football" when talking about soccer. Certainly some do, but even they understand exactly what sport is referred to by "soccer". The same cannot be said in reverse. - Nick Thorne 02:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This whole website is based on the assumption that information published online or elsewhere from reliable sources is reliable. We can't adopt a cynical approach just because some "cool-aid" has allegedly been drunk or because a particular editor doesn't trust the news. The media is itself evidence of usage and it is the basis for this whole site, if you have proof of the cool-aid drinking then it would be highly relevant but I do not expect that there is any. Macosal (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A media organisation with any sort of commercial arrangement with a sporting body is not a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not true (it would jeopardise so much of this encyclopoedia) but that being said, many of the sources noted do not, as I understand it, have any sort of commercial arrangement? Macosal (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nick, your point was about clear communication over ambiguity. I accept that. If we talk about "football", then are we talking about league, union, rules, or football? It's something that needs addressing to avoid confusion. I get that. My point is that the media websites serving audiences similar to ours have resolved this difficulty already, and they have overwhelmingly chosen "Football". It seems to be working just fine for them. --20:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You did note, I hope, my description above of the ABC calling the round ball game "soccer" today. Please stop expecting national consistency. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I did, and thank you for bringing it up. We run a website. I invite you to examine the ABC's website. If we ever break down into regional Wikipedias, then we might consider local usages a great deal more than we do now. If we ever break into radio - Radio Misplaced Pages, the station where you play the songs and read the news! - then we can break it down even further according to the coverage of our transmitter. --Pete (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

We need to remember what we are trying to do here. We are trying to buld an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia is about providing information, not providing language usage guidance, except in those few cases when that is the specific subject of an article. In this case we are supposed to be writing articles about a sport. In order to do that job effectively the language we use in the article should be as clear as possible so as not to get in the way of the main aim - to provide information about the sport. I am not a football follower, of any description. I could not care less what die-hard fans of the sport call it. What I am interested in, is clear communications. Using a word that is ambiguous or potentially ambiguous to a large proportion of the intended audience when a perfectly valid commonly used alternative is available is quite simply perverse. No on will ever mistake "soccer" for anything but the sport it is. I don't care whether the usage of the word football is increasing, decreasing or staying the same - it is irrelevant. What matters is clear communications. Insisting on only using "football" serves simply to obfuscate with one exception, at least in my mind, and that is if those pushing for the usage of "football" are pursuing some other sports political agenda for some reason that I don't pretend to understand. - Nick Thorne 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Australia's media is all about clear communications. Those who write the stories, those who design the websites, those who make the editorial decisions are all professionals who are trained and selected and paid on their ability. As opposed to us. They have overwhelmingly chosen "Football". Any editor here can see it by looking at the websites. Websites just like Misplaced Pages, available to all for disseminating information as clearly as possible. The media professionals don't see "Football" as confusing or ambiguous to the extent that it is a liability. Why are we even having this discussion? Australia's communication industry has already made the decision for us. We follow the community usage. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The language Sydney outlets use proves nothing about common name and about avoiding ambiguity. You did note, I hope, my description above of the ABC calling the round ball game "soccer" today. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

How does your constant referral to national news organisations as "Sydney outlets" help this discussion? -- Chuq (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all been explained before. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. --Pete (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Football (soccer)

After yet more apparently unproductive discussion, we appear no closer to solving some of the ongoing issues here. I would suggest that the use of "football (soccer)" solves many of these issues:

1. WP:ENGVAR suggests that the terminology used should mirror the local varieties of English used. Notably, it also suggests that consistency should be encouraged throughout Misplaced Pages (this being a move in that direction). It is clear that both "soccer" and "football" are both being substantially used (see, for example, this article or Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Sources). Therefore this solution has value in that it more accurately represents this.

2. It is entirely unambiguous. Nobody could be confused by this (a concern if the term used was simply "football"). In fact, disambiguation through strategies such as this is recommended at WP:ENGVAR.

3. It would hopefully put an end to the constant back and forth which has included edit wars, persistent vandalism, incivility etc which has too often characterised this discussion. Solutions such as this are recommended by WP:COMPROMISE, which also suggests incorporating multiple points of view.

Any thoughts? Macosal (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Stop throwing Pete's geographically biased list of examples at us. Examples are NOT sources. And obviously Fox has a commercial arrangement with the sport and is not unbiased. An appalling source.

2. "Soccer" is more unambiguous because it's simpler.

3. There is an existing consensus, from only eight months ago. ALL the back and forth, edit warring, vandalism and incivility has been initated by soccer fans refusing to accept that consensus. And you're part of it. Are you proud of that? HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: "And you're part of it. Are you proud of that?" Please be civil and avoid personal comments. —sroc 💬 10:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

When someone highlights the disruption caused by the vexatious "soccer must be called football" campaigners", it's only rational to point out that it's caused by "soccer must be called football" campaigners. That is truth, NOT a personal attack. No person or group of people has a right to be constantly disruptive here on already settled matters. If a problem bothers you, don't become part of it. HiLo48 (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your views on the underlying issue, personal comments such as "Are you proud of that?" are uncalled for. —sroc 💬 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In the whole history of this discussion, the process has been as important as the content. Much disruption has occurred. I will continue to highlight disruptive editing, especially when it's packaged in an expression of concern about the disruption. "Are you proud of that?" was a way of doing so. HiLo48 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

No evidence has been presented that anything has changed since the most recent consensus. Stop wasting your time and ours. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

1. You cannot pour cold water on a reliable source without good reason. That source is reporting facts. Are you accusing the author of inventing these facts?

2. Football (soccer) is 100% unambiguous. Nothing can be "more" unambiguous than that.

3. This question was not raised at all in the most recent rfc and as such I feel it is worth asking.

The reason the previous "consensus" has not been accepted by several editors is because it does not mirror their own experience or belief in what the game is named (which also speaks to the idea that there is not a clear "consensus")

And I have never been uncivil. I have never edit warred. I have never vandalised anything (in fact I had not participated in discussion on this topic before this past week). Do not condescend to ask me "If I'm proud". Macosal (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You expressed a concern about "the constant back and forth" at the same time as becoming part of it. We have a consensus from only eight months ago. Discussions were extensive. The ONLY new independent, reliable sources describing language uses have supported that consensus. If the source to which you refer is Fox, then LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Project-Class Australia pages
• NA-importance Australia pages
• Project-Class Australian sports pages
• NA-importance Australian sports pages
• WikiProject Australian sports articles
• Project-Class Australian rules football pages
• NA-importance Australian rules football pages
• WikiProject Australian rules football articles
• Project-Class soccer in Australia pages
• NA-importance soccer in Australia pages
• Soccer in Australia task force articles
• Project-Class rugby league pages
• NA-importance rugby league pages
• WikiProject Rugby league articles
• WikiProject Australia articles