Talk:Football Australia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 21:11, 4 April 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Football Australia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: Soccer Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Football Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australian soccer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Football: Australia Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Australian soccer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

add a criticism section

On January 1, 2005 this page should be moved to Football Federation Australia - see [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IVoteTurkey (talk • contribs) 09:48, 19 December 2004 (UTC)

(Editor's note, it is not the governing body for soccer in Australia, although is it the most popular and powerful. Many state soccer organisations are not looked after by Football federation and it certainly does not own Soccer in Australia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs)

The state federations are part of the national structure, and are looked after by Football Australia. Tancred 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll concede on that. But it does not govern THE sport in Australia, it is just the main one. It is A governing body, not THE governing body. There are many leagues who are not associated with them and I personally do not want it to look like they govern my side (which they certainly do not). By saying it is the governing body makes it look like they own soccer in Australia, which they do not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs)

All the state federations come underneath the FFA - the FFA doesn't govern everything about the sport but they are the governing body. Is the Federal Government not the Government of Australia, even though we have state and local governments beneath them? Cursive 14:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

also see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] etc etc etc Cursive 14:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the wording is wrong because you said they are THE govering body for soccer in Ausstralia. There are many soccer organisations that are not affiliated with them, by saying that football federation is THE governing body is saying that if they aren't associated witht them they aren't important. There are a number of people who although they love the a-league (like me) are really unhappy about losing alll their teams because of it they can no longger get enough members. Soccer clubs like Fitzry and carlton are very important and they should not be classified that they are not part of any governing sport just because football federation has a large monopoly at the moment. There is no single governing body for soccer alone in this country, but I will admit (begrudgingly) that is it the largest and most powerful and important (there i said it, happy?) But don't you underestimate the passion people still have for our local soccer clubs.

I'm willing to make a compromise. How about we refer to it as the MAIN governing body for soccer. Does that sound fair? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs)

That's not going to work. The governing body of football, soccer if you must, worldwide is FIFA http://www.fifa.com/ . It is organised into Confederations and within the Asian Football Confederation the body representing Australia and controlling the national team is FFA - http://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/confederations/associationdetails/0,1483,AUS,00.html?select=AUS -- Arwel (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll concurr, because your statements do make a valid arguement. Doen't mean I'm happy with it's meddling with the local clubs, but I am man enough to admit that you make a better statement than me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Founding date

It says that this was founded as a new league. If this is not the same league as National Soccer League, we can't say that it was founded in 1961 on the picutre. Is it the same league?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 March 2006

The league's got nothing to do with it. The A-League, indeed, is completely different from the National Soccer League. However, this is about Football Federation Australia, not the A-League. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But is Football fedration different from the National Soccer league or is it the same one with a name change. If it is the same one, I reccomend the two articles be merged.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 March 2006

Football Federation Australia is indeed different from the National Soccer League.

By the way, are you have trouble working out how to sign your posts? It's not that hard: just use four tildes (that's the squiggly thing that appears when you hold down SHIFT and press the key to the left of the 1 key — ~). Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it is different then the founding date should be 2005 not 1961. And what do you mean coach? Football fereration has plenty of coaches. He's the coach of the socceroos, not coach of the football federation. Football fereration is a league, not a team. That doesn't seem to make any sence. BTW this is sliat_1981. I just can't be bothered to sign. Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The league was the NSL, and is now the A-League. The body that governs football in Australia is Football Federation Australia.Tancred 07:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is the governing body listed as a coach? Gus is the coach of the socceroos. The socceroos isn't the Fedearation, it's IN hte federation unless you mean a coach by some sort of board position. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Because the federation basically owns the socceroos. Say if there was a country called NicCarBeland, and Bobby McPrescott was the coach of the national team, they would have COACH:Bobby McPrescott on the NCBFA page. Nic Car Bel 12:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally you answered. Nearly a year after I posted and now don't care anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the coach is meant to be the national team head coach...--Hack 00:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teams

I'm adding a list of national level teams controlled by the FFA as it came a shock that there wasn't currently one, fell free to add any I forgot!

Simba1409 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

I expaned the section as it was extremely short. In fact it could be expanded further if you want to read the source it has quite alot of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.213.253 (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use Australian English

The article opens with the following.

"Football Federation Australia (FFA) is the governing body for the sport of football (soccer) in Australia."

Per Engvar we ought to be using Australian English so what's with calling the sport football? If the FFA want to use the word, that's up to them, but we don't have to follow suit. If editors here can't cop soccer I'd be okay with association football but the word football generally refers to either rugby or Aussie rules in Australian English. JIMp_talk·cont 03:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian English changes, especially as immigrants bring in new words and values. I have no problem with Association football, because when I look at the media, I see "soccer" being used less and less. Perhaps we should see if we can gauge consensus on this? --Pete (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, it does change. You're also right in saying that the media are using "football" more and more to refer to the sport. Still, I think that the majority of normal Australians would say "soccer". Also "soccer" is unambiguous. Jimp 07:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, POV changes by IP editors

Two IP editors (who I suspect are the same person posting from two places) are repeatedly trying to impose on the article some undicussed changes which significantly alter the perspective of parts of the article describing the creation of the FFA. I reverted, with explanatory Edit summaries and after posting on the editor's Talk page, to no avail. No Edit summaries and no Discussion have been forthcoming from our IP editor(s). I've possibly already technically gone too far on the WP:3RR front, so I really need some backup here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer Australia redirects here

It should not, while the two orginisations are pertinent to each other they are not the same orginisation, I suggest we create a new article for the discussion of Soccer Australia and that all content related to soccer Australia be forked to that article rather than having the current redirect page --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's normal for most sports on Wikipedia to have the article on a single peak national body incorporate the record of its historical precursors. Most readers simply want to read about the peak national body, and should not be forced to look at different articles. The article content will make it clear that the two that concern you are not the same body. HiLo48 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HiLo48, there's no need to split the content up, there has been 6 organisations in various forms and they should all be detailed fully on this article.--2nyte (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use of File:Socceraustralia.png

There is a discussion at WP:NFCR#File:Socceraustralia.png regarding the non-free use of File:Socceraustralia.png in the article. All interested editors are welcome to participate. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Football Federation Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://vff.org.vn/news/pdf/fifa-approves-australia-move-650.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Football Federation Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acescolombia.com.co to http://web.archive.org/web/*/http:/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Football Federation Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205172915/http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23259207-5006068,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23259207-5006068,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not up to date

Seems to me that this article is not up to date re the FFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.211.33 (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Football Federation Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217101940/http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibitions/worldcup/timeline.shtml to http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibitions/worldcup/timeline.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it soccer?

Clearly there is some dissatisfaction with the way Wikipedia deals with the name of the sport. I have commenced discussion at Naming_conventions (Football in Australia) and I invite contributions. --Pete (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mate the late great Les Murray called it football so it is, I reckon wogball is as legit as soccer. The dicussion on the wikidpedidias is everyonone should have to distinguish which code they are talking about- footy can refer to league or aussie rules but neither are rarely called football- the only two codes which are refered to as football are association and american, maybe some kiwis call unionn football? Australian rules is definatly footy or aussie rules- and more recently by people out side-AFl, but AFL is the peak governing body and major professional league not the game of footy. 124.170.107.64 (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Football Australia (Sporting Association) → Football Federation Australia – The organisation hasn't changed name yet, per their official website, their Twitter and their Facebook.~~ When/if it does change, it should be to Football Australia without disambiguation Hack (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Hack's explanation. This move was done too early. --SuperJew (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 12:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. You could have just reverted the move as being undiscussed... Giant Snowman 12:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish I knew what this discussion was actually about. Insufficient context is presented. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:Comment the article has a name that isn't the common name or current trading name of the organisation. Hack (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- :Comment Then why is this even an issue? It should just be fixed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they've gone ahead and changed the name today . So I'm withdrawing the request. Hack (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to be amused by this from that page? "Football Australia requests that media utilise the name ‘Football Australia’ from today onwards, and that the company name not be abbreviated or manipulated when used." I thought about how one would abbreviate the name, got to FA, and laughed. Sorry to soccer fans, but this is surely not a smart move for the sport's image. Anyway, I guess we should try to avoid the abbreviation. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious marker for cost of rebrand to FA from FFA

Thanks HiLo48 for inviting me to talk about this. I understand your points you have raised. I think this comes down to what your intent about the dubious claim is. I mean I don't think it is dubiouis in regards to the FA CEO saying it would not cost anything, he did say that. That was then reported by the Australian Associated Press (AAP) and picked up by numerous realisable media sources. The sentence used is pre-empted with "Football Australia Chief Executive, James Johnson, told the media" so the reader knows this is in context to what this person said. As for what he said, I think it was done in good faith, but it probably just needs additional context around it. It was made in reference to costs associated with obtaining company and domain names. The FA had previously obtained these at an earlier time. So the immediate cost to the organisation at the time the change was voted on and agreed to at the AGM in November 2020 would have been nil. I agree there would have been associated flow-on costs to the organisation post the change being agreed to, such as stationary and graphic design costs. Perhaps it would have been better for him to have told the media 'there is no immediate upfront costs to the organisation as the FA already owns the website domain and company names'. We could of course update the text to provide this additional context but then it would need the first part removed as the CEO did not say that. Of course this sentence could be removed all together. Does not bother me. Thoughts? Volrath2002 (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it might be best. It's really pretty trivial stuff in the broader scheme of things. Alternatively, we could go a little bit tabloid in our writing (common enough in sports articles anyway) and write "claimed" instead of "told the media". HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triviality of the statement is on the money. How about this: 'Football Australia Chief Executive, James Johnson, advised the media the organisation already owned the domain and company names for Football Australia and the change would help unify the branding with the state member federations.'Volrath2002 (talk) 01:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian english?

In Australian english both League and Australian Rules are coloquialy refered to as Footy and rarely football- the world game has been refered to as football throughout many differeent governing bodies. What I'm wonerering is if socca or wog-ball is more 'Australian' than soccer. I don't care but there's historical precedence for Associatian Football being refered to as football, while league and aussie rules are footy. On a side note aussies rules should never be refered to as AFL, or should we call Association Football FIFA. 124.170.107.64 (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been extensive discussions on this. Have a read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) to see the results, and its Talk page if you would like to review the discussions yourself. (You will need several hours for the latter exercise.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australian English?

Now that it seems everyone calls Australisan Rules- AFL, can we we not just call Association- FIFA? 124.170.107.64 (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call Australian Rules AFL. So no. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every national media oputlet in Australia thinks different to you, HiLo. The ABC, for example. Check it out! --Pete (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in response to the IP's use of the word "everyone". It obviously still stands. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. If we find one exception - you - then their argument falls in a heap. Can I ask if you personally have any difficulty with the national media calling it AFL? They have been doing it for some years now, I understand. It's a matter of finding reliable sources to use for our content, rather than individual editors running their opinions as fact. --Pete (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the IP editor's proposal? To call Association football FIFA? HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got to read between the lines, mate. I don't think their spelling hits a high mark, so nitpicking probably isn't a productive strategy. Right now I'm more interested in why you don't like the ABC as a reliable source. Perhaps we could ask at WP:RSN? --Pete (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't expressed an opinion here on whether the ABC is a reliable source. Also, this is not the place for that discussion. It belongs at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's test it out The ABC recognises football, NRL, and AFL as three distinct sports. Is the Australian national broadcaster a more reliable source than User:HiLo48? YES/NO--Pete (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for that discussion. It belongs at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know that you reveal exactly what is in your heart with that evasive answer? You think the ABC - and every other national media outlet - is wrong in their headings of "Football, NRL, and AFL" because you have a contrary opinion. Perhaps you should accept that the facts are no longer on your side. As a fellow Victorian I once shared your view but on checking that times had indeed changed, I likewise changed my mind. --Pete (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with User:Skyring. I also shared the same view growing up in NSW, then QLD, but I've not heard much use of soccer as the word in some years now.

Whenever the sport comes up I'm the only one who still asks "soccer?" among people I know.

That's my anecdote, but I don't think it matters much compared to what's clearly common use among reliable sources, our personal feelings and experiences shouldn't be driving discussions on this issue.

If I was to let my personal bias take over here I'd say call it soccer because that's what I call it out of habit growing up with that word in an AFL family. Sometimes it frustrates me when I say football/footy and people think I mean soccer, but times have changed, that was pretty evident from the coverage of the Women's World Cup last year.

I would argue that soccer as a word gets used more as a disambiguate when people (like myself) use football to refer to a different sport, but I don't think it's the primary word for the sport anymore.

User:HiLo48 I've seen you on multiple talk pages arguing this but your arguments are usually just stating your personal use of it, statements that it isn't consensus & a general hostility toward proposals for change that I don't feel is warranted.

For a page like this it places too much emphasis on Australian naming convention that doesn't line up with other countries football teams articles. By this I mean that it's confusing to have a special convention to use soccer in the article, because while this team is Australian that doesn't mean that the readers of the article are, it's a team in an international competition, it's weird that it doesn't use football like the other articles.

I've just checked the Asian Football Confederation's other 46 members organisations and Football Australia is the only one that uses soccer, every other article uses football or association football. Ignoring the question of soccer/football being used more in Australia, this is still an issue, the purpose of the convention is to maintain consistency & clarity, so I don't see it being appropriate to use here when it appears to be the only national association football organisation in English Wikipedia to do a different naming system. Cbrfield (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The right place for that discussion is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). And I'll point out that when that policy was created, I wasn't active as a Wikipedia editor. HiLo48 (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't want the topic discussed. Wikipedia is always open to discussion.

The problem is that in some areas, and some age segments, football as a word means some local sports code. In Australia as a whole, and the wider world, football means the round ball game.

Easy enough to check out. Every national media outlet uses football in this way. The ABC, for example, lists sports on its landing page: "Tennis, Cricket, AFL, Rugby League, Netball, Football"

The only media outlets going against the tide are regional. If we are talking Football in Australia, Football means the world game. If we are, instead talking Football in Melbourne, it might mean something else. Check out the local Melbourne paper The Age.

I see a disconnect with a parochial attitude and what the reality is Australia-wide. If the ABC doesn't use "soccer", why should we? Is there maybe some better, more respected, more reliable source than the national broadcaster? --Pete (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming competitions

BRD time, I think. Looking at this edit a couple of upcoming competitions in 2024 - a few days time - and 2025 were added. I'd like to see some sourcing for these but I doubt that they are imaginary.

National sports typically have upcoming seasons and events years into the future, and football is no exception, so I'm wondering just why this useful edit needs to be reverted? --Pete (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that we need sources, but you didn't provide any. Oh, and I know you know about WP:NCFIA, so why call the sport football? HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We use reliable sources here, not personal opinions. You got something against the ABC???

As for sources, I don't follow football, but presumably the newbie who you savaged does, otherwise why did they try to improve the article?

My point is that sports typically look into the future, often years ahead. If you don't like future comps being added to existing, why not work with a new editor and create a new section? I just don't understand why you want to dump useful information added in good faith. If it's accurate, what's the problem? We're hardly going to run out of space on Wikipedia, and may I suggest that adding information about 2024 fixtures in the declining days of 2023 is some sort of leap into the unknown. --Pete (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing complicated here. The problem is simply an absence of sources. Find some sourcing, and I'll be happy. HiLo48 (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]