Talk:Football in Australia

Split/Merge Proposal

Is this done in an official way like a move proposal? This article is a mess, it targets so many different sports and leagues that it is practically worthless, and creates problems as discussed previous because of various sports all wanting to be named "football" instead of the actual names we already use on Wikipedia (not to mention AFL v NRL code-warring that apparently existed between Mattdocbrown and other editors). I propose that this page have the contents split off into the following pages:

Soccer in Australia

Australian rules football in Australia

Rugby union in Australia

Rugby league in Australia

American Football in Australia

Futsal in Australia

Gaelic Football (this might need a redirect or merge with Australasia GAA

Every sport bar Gaelic Football has it's own 'in australia' page. I just don't see the point of having this page at all. Anything that can't go into a specific topic should be moved over into the Sport in Australia page. Once the merges are complete all wikilinks for Football in Australia could be edited by a bot to point directly to Sport in Australia, and any incorrect changes edited to point at the correct specific sport. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Pointless proposal. It's virtually a repeat of the section up above called "Replace article with disambiguation page". Everything that could be said here was said in that thread. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see, this needs an independent, non-Australian admin to decide that. Getting into arguments is the exact reason why this page should be split off and merged into it's constituent parts. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

An admin, independent non-Australian or otherwise, can't make the decision that you're seeking. consensus amongst involved editors here will determine the ultimate fate of the article. The discussion closer, who doesn't have to be an admin by the way, just has to close the discussion with a "ruling" based on that consensus. Based on the discussion above, that consensus is likely to be that this page is not split. "Getting into arguments" is not a valid reason for splitting an article. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as "soccer" supporters go "soccer" is a non-word or at best an American anachronism, the key footballing federations in every state and territory and federally all refer to the sport as football. The football fraternity has already had this debate and the term for the sport in this country is football. I suggest all the cave dwellers from other codes get used to it as any other terminology is nothing short of denigration. --60.228.201.23 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

How can it possibly be denigration? All the players of the game that I know call it soccer. All schools in my state call it soccer. All the local clubs in my area are called soccer clubs. Australia's biggest selling daily newspaper calls it soccer. To explain, I live in Victoria. I can accept that things may be a little different among soccer fans in Brisbane, where your IP address tells me you probably come from. Can you accept the possibility that the reverse is true in other parts of Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The simple facts of the matter is no, no and no, and no we call it football at every level of the game. It's simply denigration and nothing more. If you take a look at every team that plays in the A-Leauge and the abbreviation on the end of every clubs name it is FC which stands for football club, not SC, which would stand for Soccer Club. Brisbane Roar FC, Melbourne Victory FC, Western Wanderers FC, Perth Glory FC, Sydney FC.

The obvious point of the matter is that the league calls it football, every governing body in this country calls it football from top to bottom, we had a consensus decision in 2005 to call the game football. So what you and your mate Bruce decide to call it is frankly irrelevant, the accepted name by the governing body in this country from top to bottom and at every club in this country above amateure level including the newly formed national premier league is football. To call it anything else is a denigration of the sport. --60.228.201.23 (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You're simply wrong, but you'll never admit it, so I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we drop the time wasting "soccer = football" crap once and for all please?

We now have two active threads above where a number of editors known for their enthusiasm to change all uses of the word soccer to football are trying there best to kill this article. Let's be blunt about this. They would like Football in Australia to be an article purely about the round ball game. If they can't achieve that, they don't want it to be about other sports. The ulterior motives behind the above time wasting threads have become clear to me. The fact that the most ardent pushers of the proposals come from one small sector of Australian sports fans is very revealing. At Soccer in Australia we've now had two exhaustive threads in two years trying to get the name changed from soccer to football. Both failed. But these guys won't give up. No accepting of the umpires/referees decision for them. It's very poor faith editing. So, see the title of this thread again please. Please accept that the word football means many different things to many different people in Australia, and cannot be used on its own for a single sport. And go and do some useful editing somewhere else. (Improving the quality of the bulk of the soccer articles here, not just your own favourite teams, would be a good start. I seem to do more of that than any of you.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Wikipedia is not your own personal pet project, you do not get to decide who can and cannot edit, or discuss here. Perhaps you should open your own personal wikipedia if you want to dictate to everyone how we should behave and edit. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good faith? With you lot? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And you want to be treated seriously (you started this discussion) and respond by laughing at people. Pot, meet kettle. Close this discussion immediately it does not add anything to the discourse. --Falcadore (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This section was created to distract editors from Talk:Football_in_Australia#Replace_article_with_disambiguation_page where the real discussion continues.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this section was created in response to the section immediately above this one that effectively and unnecessarily duplicates #Replace article with disambiguation page. Had that section not been created, HiLo48 would not have had to express his frustration at what really has become a ridiculous discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

AussieLegend, if this is a response to the section immediately above this one as you say, it is either a very poor one or a complete misunderstanding by HiLo48. If there is something we must "drop", it should be the assumption of "ulterior motives". There is only intention to improve this article, nothing more.--2nyte (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A bit dishonest there 2nyte. Up above you actually began a thread aiming to REPLACE this article with a disambiguation page. That's not quite the same as improving the article.

Yes, I will rephrase: There is only intention to improve Wikipedia and the readers experience, not to diminish it as some may assume.--2nyte (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

God yes. It is a complete attempt at a distraction. Gibson Flying V, the discussion continues because a few people are pushing a point of view that football is the common name for soccer in Australia. They cite sport section headings in one or two newspapers, and then selectively ignore the large amounts of evidence that contradict their world view. They have yet to understand that several thousand Australian newspaper references to soccer make their argument less valid, and that academic and book sources used in the article itself that say the soccer is the common name for the roundball code also undermine their point. Their single minded determination to promote their code over other codes is even more annoying and obnoxious than the cricket field using football versus professional hug each other football which also infested this page and Sport in Australia article. --LauraHale (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

All the promoters of the view that "soccer" must be called "football" seem to be Sydney based. (Apologies if I'm wrong. The case would be much stronger coming from someone on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line with the same view.) I ask those Sydney based folk if they have ever spent time on the other side of the Barassi Line, watching and listening to the sports news, or just the news in many cases, especially at this time of year, reading the locally published papers, noting the names of the clubs playing the various footballing codes, listening to the locals' conversations, seeing how schools inevitably classify their sports teams. If they had, they would know that for that half of the Australian population, football means Aussie Rules, and nothing else. I'm guessing that none of them have spent such time away from home, or their proclaimed good faith editing approach would be very different. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@HiLo48 , Even being in Sydney is not a good enough rationale here. I was in Sydney last week and watching local news. In the same local newscasts where they talked about a Real Madrid player, the onscreen news anchor used soccer and football interchangeably. It happened on two different Sydney television stations. From what I've seen having poked around Murdoch owned Sydney based media, there is a strong tendency for newspapers in article text to use soccer when referring to the roundball game played in Australia and football when referring to the roundball game played internationally: Real Madrid plays football, the Matildas play soccer. --LauraHale (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And we hardly need to ask what the Socceroos play, do we? HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been thorough discussions between FFA and the fans of the naming of the national team, with the conclusion that "Socceroos" is only a nickname, "Australia", "Australia national team" or "Australia football team" is regarded as the official name.--2nyte (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

So what? Seriously? This "official" bit means nothing to Wikipedia. Unlike the French Australia doesn't have a body formally defining its language. And Wikipedia uses common names. The name Socceroos is by far the most common name of the national team. And what's wrong with it? HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, you are reading too far into things. I meant official by FFA's recognition, not by an official Australian language.--2nyte (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "Socceroos" is a registered trademark owned by the FFA, it's more than just a nickname. It is used in almost all official communications. Hack (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Even were it just a nickname, the overwhelming use of it by the media and other sources goes to support the idea of soccer as the common name in Australia. FFA names do not trump common usage. If official name trumped common use, we would not have Ivory Coast national football team. We would use the French name. Other football clubs would have their official name with the sponsor in it as the article. There is no University of Canberra Brumbies. (Also, please note 2nyte once again fails to provide a single academic source to support their arguement about football meaning the roundball game in Australia. No sources. No sources. No sources.) --LauraHale (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My comment was a response to 2nyte's suggestion that Socceroos was just a nickname. I don't really have anything to add that hasn't already been said except to reiterate that there is no consensus to use football for soccer and that the energy wasted on this debate would be better placed in article improvement. Hack (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The major Australian conference on football doesn't use football to refer to soccer. Football is used by academic to refer to all codes. Most Australian sport academics are not using football in that way. These would be the ones who are providing some of the better and more reliable historical references about sport in the country. See Rob Hess, Matthew Klugman, and Bob Stewart at VU. There are other academics who are the same way. -LauraHale (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

My little question got buried without response. I'll repeat it in summary. Have those wanting soccer to be called football ever spent significant time on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, paying genuine attention to the names used for the "footballing" sports there?

Or watched television on their side of the line? Read general topic newspapers on their side of the line? These sources still use the word soccer. They do not exclusively use football. I am somewhat concerned the Sydney Morning Herald is being cited to rationalize WP:COMMON but they are not reading articles to see that soccer appears in article titles and article text. --LauraHale (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago uses the name Soca Warriors which has no relevance to the sport of "soccer." The inherent problem here is people with little knowledge of the sport in Australia or otherwise who are fixated by nicknames when they are often of little or no relevance to the teams or the sport being played on the field. The term adopted by the governing body federally and in every state and territory in this country is football and that is the terminology that should be respected unless and until there is a change from the governing body of the sport in this country.

Furthermore the official name for the national team representing the sport of football in Australia is the Australian national football team which by sponsors name is the Qantas Socceroos. And to answer your questions referring to it otherwise is like referring to any other team by their primary sponsors name, which for arguments sake you might as well call the Brisbane Broncos the AAMI's or the Wallabies Qantas, no one knows what you're on about.

I wish the immature prats here would grow up and realise that the football fraternity has come to a consensus discussion that the term for the sport in this country is football --60.228.201.23 (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As one of those immature prats (I really should maintain a collection of the insults thrown at me by soccer fans), I must point out that Wikipedia is written for everyone, and doesn't actually care what "the football fraternity" thinks. (Which football fraternity anyway?) Wikipedia uses the single, unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the sport in Australia. That cannot ever be "football" in a country where four professional sports and a few others are, at least at times, called football by their fans. And I do suggest that one day you tackle a really big adventure and travel all the way to the other side of the Barassi Line. (You can still be in Australia, so it shouldn't be too scary.) Observe how soccer is discussed there, by everybody, not just its fans. HiLo48 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The consensus decision by the governing body made in 2004 Football Federation Australia was that the sport be referred to as football. The decision made was that "soccer" was dead when the newly formed body came into being, as I've said per above, this is the case at every level of the sport above arm chair level from which you are making your complaints. This includes the Australian Premier League, the A-League and the Australian national team as well as every state, territory and the national governing body. What you and your mate call football in the park is irrelevant.

Need I really refer to the wiki page of every premier league and A-Leauge club as well as every governing body? Your views are simply inconsistent with the views which were taken by the FFA way back in 2004 when the new governing body was founded as the FFA page states "old soccer, new football" ] --60.228.201.23 (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's quite amazing how irrelevant your own accusations of irrelevance are. The simple fact is that in Australia the word "football" is used to refer to a number of sports. As mentioned below many of the AFL clubs' official names include "football club" and they sure aren't "soccer" clubs. So get over it ~ it's silly and very boring! Afterwriting (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesnt self reference, the same can be said for every football club as well(Carlton Football Club, Perth Football Club) Perth Glory FC implies but the FC is just 2 two letters with no meaning as Perth Football Club is over 100 years old. Therfore in WA football is now ambigious though for the 100 years plus before 2004 football had been used to describe only one sport with rugby(very rare distinguished between league and Union) and soccer being other sports though most people can understand and recognise its occassional conflicting use. what ever way its put forward while the FFA prefers football from an encyclopeadic sense(Wikipedia perspective) its an ambigious term to describe multiple sports, very legal implications of that history prevent their use no matter how much the FFA wants everyone to only use football in relation to its sports that is not possible, which also means that this can be argued infinitum but football will always be ambigious in Australia. Gnangarra 07:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The FC in Perth Glory FC means Football Club. Just pointing that out. And it means Football Club with our without your incorrect viewpoint that FC means nothing. FC is short for Football Club. I always find it amusing that people are that bereft of understanding of our language that they can somehow believe that FC at the end of all these teams means nothing, when it has and always will mean "Football Club", as the end description a club that plays football. Of course, the people who I have seen spout this nonsense are being deliberately ignorant because of their boganball handegg biases. I suppose the "MC" on the badges of various motorcycle clubs is 'meaningless' unless they are an official club or have a registered business name? Ridiculous. I find it ironic that they push for the non-official name of Football (unlike the other three major codes who all use their official names here) because they believe that it isn't 'common', but then ignore the extremely common use of FC = Football Club, but only when it applies to Football Clubs, not ALF, League or Union clubs. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, FC sort of, kind of means "football club". The problem is that in many cases it can't officially stand for "football club" in those clubs' registered names for legal reasons. That's because Aussie Rules clubs either already legally own such names, or ASIC has said that the soccer clubs' proposed names were too close to already existing (usually Aussie Rules) club names. Remember that Aussie Rules has been around for over 150 years. Soccer hasn't, not even in the UK, so in around half of Australia the word "football" has had a unique meaning for a very long time. And that meaning isn't the round ball game. Sadly, adding the FC is also too often a silly attempt by an Australian soccer club to copy the naming style of some non-Australian clubs, much like the use of the word "united" in soccer clubs' names, even when they're not a "uniting" of other clubs. It's silly. It's derivative, not original, not Australian, and is not a good marketing ploy if soccer wants to grow its customer base here among other Australians. It keeps making the game look like a foreign one. It might seem cool to those already addicted to the game to copy some foreign style of a non-Australian club they barrack for, but it won't impress those who aren't fans yet. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't 'sort of' mean Football club. It does mean football club. I must however agree with you on the over use of the word "united". If it were up to me I'd ban "United" from team names across the country forever. Football is growing just fine in this country without trying to pander to boganball supporters. Football is now back on free to air television (without the channel who purchased the rights deliberately squashing the sport to please the AFL), the TV rights deal just signed is much improved on the last one, participation rates are soaring, the Wanderers have totally annihilated any chance GWS had of gaining anything other than small, niche support for ALF in Sydney (not to mention their xenophobic leader denigrating football supporters as refugees). Football is not a foreign game, no matter how much you try to claim that. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

2nyte anti-consensus disruptive editing

Will 2nyte please explain this edit? This is highly disruptive. There is no consensus for your position. This is disruptive. It is good that you self reverted given that. Still, please explain? --LauraHale (talk)

Mistake, though I will use it as a preview. Other questions addressed to me can be made on my talk page. Thankyou.--2nyte (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

2nyte is clearly obsessed. He really wants an article called "Football in Australia" to be only about soccer. He has failed in all of his multifarious attempts to achieve any progress towards that goal, and is now throwing tanties, mud and insults in every direction. Refuses to accept the umpire's/referee's decision. Would have been red-carded off any soccer ground by now if this was a proper game. We should be looking at similar action here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, it is quite obvious that you misunderstand my intentions. And from what you have just said, your and LauraHale fictional conclusions are quite clear. Understand this: I, do not want this article to be "only about soccer". How would you come up with that conclusion from this edit? I DO NOT have any ulterior motives. Please look at my recent edit here and respond as such.--2nyte (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been a very unethical and uncivil editor at Talk:Soccer in Australia in your desperation to have 'soccer' called 'football' in Australia, something that would inevitably impact on this article. Your motives aren't ulterior. They're obvious and blatant. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@2nyte , I am going to assume nothing about your intentions. You have been repeatedly told that you need sources to back up your point of view. You have been repeatedly requested to provide sources. You have been repeatedly told that there is no consensus for your actions. You repeatedly then sought alternative methods of achieving an article that goes against what the sources and multiple editors have said. There is zero need to judge your on your intentions. I am commenting on your actions, which are highly disruptive. --LauraHale (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

LauraHale, did you even look at this edit? IT IS NOT "anti-soccer, pro-football" IT IS "pro-disambiguation".--2nyte (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for a disambiguation. In fact, there is consensus against a disambiguation. If your point here is: "Please judge me by my actions of editing against consensus", then yes. I see it. Point well made. Your intentions for acting against consensus are still irrelevant. --LauraHale (talk) 06:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I claimed it to be a mistake, which I reverted instantly. I have since used it as a preview of what I wish the disambiguation page to look like. No ill will intended, therefor I see no more discussion necessary on this subjest. So please, look at my recent edit here and respond as such.--2nyte (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V soccer and women's content removal

I am concerned about Gibson Flying V's edits. He has removed a lot of information about soccer from the article, including women's participation numbers, a woman earning an award never earned by a female footballer, and when the Australia played their first international soccer game. Can the editorial thought process behind the decision to remove women and soccer references be explained?? --LauraHale (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The removal of information appears to be an attempt at trying push an anti-consensus disambiguation point of view by purging all information that does not refer to all codes in their entirety. This is extremely frustrating because the involved editors have not demonstrated through use of sources any understanding of football in Australia. Can they please stop their editing on the page and explain what they are doing?--LauraHale (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the reason for disambiguation of the article. The majority of the information is either specific to one code or needlessly copied and pasted from one of the football specific articles. This has been repeated in #Disambiguation, #Replace article with disambiguation page and #Split/Merge Proposal, and still you ask to "explain what they are doing".--2nyte (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason is not important. What matters is there was no consensus for this. Rather than try to develop consensus for changes, a battle axe was taken to it in order to force a point of view that was rejected on the talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're both way off. I'm removing needlessly duplicated content so that the much-touted broad topic article can actually be achieved, i.e. an article restricted to content that relates to multiple codes of football, or firsts/records for any code of football. Pretty uncontroversial stuff. Feel free to pick particular edits to contest. I've done it bit by bit rather than one big sweeping change just for this purpose. Where are the bad faith accusations now, Laura?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus to do this. You removed information wholesale and indistrictimately. You claim it was uncontroversial but the removals were clearly controversial given the talk page and the requests that you discuss any such action before taking it. The actions here, not the motivation behind it, clearly demonstrate acting against consensus. Your good faith motivation which led you to taking controversial actions are not the issue. It is the actions against consensus that are the problem. Your motivations are irrelavation. --LauraHale (talk)

There is no consensus for these changes. Hardly anybody has agreed with your proposals here on the Talk page. Continue, and I will treat it as vandalism. HiLo48 (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Prove to me that you actually looked at what you reverted by telling me which specific changes you mean.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You spend days arguing for massive changes to the article, they weren't agreed to, then you began making massive changes! Why the hell should anybody assume good faith? If you have accepted the arguments against the massive changes you first wanted, then a statement to that effect would have been appropriate. If you have new ideas, discuss them! (I know there is now some discussion attempted below, but it's a little late, isn't it?) Your editing has not been in good faith. (If it has, your competence to edit here must be in doubt.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Doubtless you don't need me to point out that I raised my concerns and ideas for improvement above in no uncertain terms and both you and LauraHale were eerily silent on them, instead choosing to go on a wild goose chase and make personal attacks clearly intended for some other user. I gave you time to respond properly but you both declined. But please, do continue with the ad-hominem remarks. I'm really not bothered. Any grown-ups visiting this talk page now know where to voice their thoughts.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOLD does not apply as a way of circuvnting consensus. You were repeatedly responded to. I can show you the diffs where I responded to you. --LauraHale (talk) 12:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I once again will make it clear that I believe there is little hope for this article, and the constituent parts be split as per my "Split/Merge Proposal" post. There is zero reason this article should exist. If a specific code is being referred to, it should be linked to a specific page (such as "Rugby League in Australia" or "Australian Rules Football in Australia") and not a generic page like this. If it refers to multiple codes, it can be linked to the Sport in Australia page. Every sport has it's own official name, and it's own specific 'in Australia' page that should be used for these 'xyz in Australia' pages, and then Sport in Australia in the event it refers to multiple codes. This article is just cruft and duplicated busywork. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, I will once again will make it clear that with respect to all arguments made against this, I wholeheartedly agree with Macktheknifeau and feel his is the best approach for this article.--2nyte (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I see such a post made by an editor who it's clear would want an article called Football in Australia to be all about soccer, I drop all thoughts that it is good faith editing. Your POV is blatantly and nonsensically on display. HiLo48 (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I guarantee that is not my intention. I did not write that with a smirk on my face nor an ulterior thought in my head. All I can ask is for you to trust that I have good faith. If you cannot trust that then understand that this "Split/Merge Proposal" will have no effect in focusing Football in Australia solely on soccer. There is no outcome where what you say comes true, so why must you prevent this?--2nyte (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone editing in good faith does NOT change another editor's posts. If your not pushing a POV, you're certainly displaying incompetence and/or bad manners. Now, please don't change my post again. I cannot in all good faith contemplate the contents of your post when you stuff around with mine. HiLo48 (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realise I had changed you post. It was an accident.--2nyte (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, apology accepted. The basic problem here though is the history of the behaviour of both you and Macktheknifeau on the matter of using the name football for soccer in Australia. It is one of quite irrational argument, combined with utter denial and failure to accept obvious facts presented to you by editors with different knowledge and views. Neither of you has yet acknowledged the reality of the different perspective of those who live on the opposite side of the Barrassi Line from you. You have presented alleged "facts" to support your views, which have then been disproven, with no subsequent change in your position. That's irrational. Both of you have failed to respond to questions about whether you have ever actually spent meaningful time on the other side of that line, to see the way the language of football is used there. Failure to respond can only lead me to guess that the answer is "No", which places both of you in no position at all to argue about how the word football should be used in the Australian context in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, my opinion on soccer/football is completely irrelevant to my opinion on the Split/Merge Proposal of Football in Australia. There is not relation between the two. Also, I cannot see how the Split/Merge Proposal of this article will further my opinion on soccer/football. Again, there is not relation between the two, so why is my opinion on another matter such an issue for you to overcome?--2nyte (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

For someone irrationally obsessed with using the name football to describe the game exclusively known by half the population as soccer to claim that such a view is irrelevant to his views on the name of an article with football in its name is just plain ridiculous. You will simply never convince me of that while your base position on the use of the word football is so rigid. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, the Split/Merge Proposal for Football in Australia will have no effect on focusing the article solely on soccer. I guarantee that. Yes, my 'obsessive views' are irrelevant, they have no effect on the proposal. If I do choose to go down that path you have every right to argue it, but currently that is not my intention.--2nyte (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 please cease your personal attacks on myself. I do not appreciate being called "irrational" and in "denial" simply because you disagree with my viewpoint, which I recently gave a thorough and in my view, very legitimate argument reasoning why I believe what I believe. I do not believe that you have 'disproven' anything, merely stalled the inevitable. The so called 'facts' are merely small points in a much wider discussion, and I do not hold them in any major weight. Right now the situation on the naming issue is that the name Football is increasingly popular (as well as being the official name of the sport like all the other major codes are called on Wikipedia, as well as being used by Government agencies) and as such, I find it extremely likely that in the future my viewpoint will find legitimate consensus. If you cannot refrain from attacking people for a differing opinion, I suggest you create your own personal wiki where you can control who can and cannot edit. Where I have or have not spent my life is no business of yours, and has no impact whatsoever on the situation or the truth behind my viewpoint. Wikipedia is not your personal "Victorian Wikipedia". Your uncivil conduct is not helpful, especially when you bring up issues that have nothing to do with the topic at hand in an attempt to derail discussion to cause it to grind to a halt. Editors outside Victoria are not lesser editors because of their origin or current location. I request you withdraw your claim that I am 'irrational' and that I am in 'denial'. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You admit you got facts wrong, finally, after having it pointed out many times. THAT'S irrational. You virtually admit you have no idea how the language of sport is used on the other side of the Barrassi Line (not just Victoria - it's HALF of Australia's population!), yet still insist that you know best. THAT'S denial. You are fortune telling. That doesn't work anywhere. It's your contributions to an inevitably failed and vexatiously repeated campaign that have caused trouble for Wikipedia. It's your persistent ignoring of the solid and FACT based arguments of others that is disruptive and uncivil. Now, open your mind and open your eyes. Learn from others who may know something you don't. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Improvements

The following edits were all (blindly, I presume) reverted by LauraHale and then HiLo48. And here is my response. If I have wrongly assumed that content was copied & pasted from elsewhere, by all means use these edit summaries to retrieve the content and move it into the relevant "[Specific code] in Australia", or "[Specific code] in [specific state]" article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are too extensive to comment on fairly yet. Some refinement will obviously be required. Your interpersonal and communication skills are appalling. HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

His edits included adding unsourced information, changing information so it did not agree with the source, and adding sourced information that did not agree with the source. It also included a fair amount of information about regional popularity being removed while he was on the side trying to argue that AFL is only popular in Melbourne. It is incredibly controversial. Consensus should be arrived at before going back to his version. --LauraHale (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"...while he was on the side trying to argue that AFL is only popular in Melbourne." I've tried more than once to correct you on this and you wonder why I concluded that you continue to edit/comment without reading and understanding the thing you're editing/commenting on. My edits, if you care to discuss them, are all on display below. By all means if I omitted any, feel free to point them out as well.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You omitted your manners. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

He should also admit to doing original research and synthesis to push a point of view in this article. Despite repeated requests, Gibson Flying V has still not provided any sources to support a point of view that says only events that go towards a unified view of football sharing the same history, influences and things having implications for one code are the same thing that have implications for other codes. We cannot move forward until this is addressed. What sources is Gibson Flying V using that suggest this is true of football in Australia? I have been repeatedly accused by Gibson Flying V of not reading. Gibson Flying V has failed to provide a single diff to support this accusation that I am not reading. Gibson Flying V has failed to retract it. It appears that Gibson Flying V is the one not reading because Gibson Flying V has been unable to provide any sources to support their POV. Retracted comment on his actions regarding the Melbourne thing being associated with that arguement. --LauraHale (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

You certainly (still!) have a lot to say about me, don't you? (even though my edit history -as well as yours- is all right here for everyone to see).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

1

Here I took out the sentence: "In Australia the use of football to describe codes outside of soccer predates the 1930s." Actually in the 1800s the unqualified use of 'Football' was used to mean rugby football in Sydney (see point 29 below). And why does soccer need to be mentioned?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

This is an unsourced comment. Removing sourced material to support to support an unsourced claim is problematic. I challenge this as a controversial removal. Please put it back until consensus to change the text has been established. --LauraHale (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Umm... what can I say other than "please re-read it" (especially the part about point 25 below). That "football" has been used to refer to more than one code since the 1800s does not need to mention any specific code (why do I need to type this out for you???)--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not going to read point 25. It is unsourced. It needs to be sourced. You stated your edits were non-controversial. Because sources used in the article disagree with you and your unsourced ones.--LauraHale (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

But that's the thing. If you're going to discuss it, you're going to have to read it. Otherwise you're just wasting our time. Please read it, and not just for my sake, but also your own.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please retract or please provide proof that I am failing to read. I eagerly await your proof or retraction as a demonstration of good faith. --LauraHale (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Every time you say "retract" it reminds me of when you said to me above: "I would hazard a guess that you will now ignore this comment to further push your personal, non-neutral, anti-consensus, anti-common name agenda" in response to me rather mildly voicing my concerns about this article's scope. You know very well that the only reason this discussion about specifics of the article's content is now able to finally take place is because I have set it up that way. You also know that I made one mini-edit per change of specific content, rather than a single sweeping edit that changed multiple areas of content at once, for this very purpose. Then you have the nerve to say to the admin who reverted your rollback that you "had repeatedly tried to discuss edits with the person and they were not willing to discuss their contributions". For shame. That you're in no position to lecture me about good faith is obvious to any editor who cares to poke their nose in here. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Please retract or please provide proof that I am failing to read. I eagerly await your proof or retraction as a demonstration of good faith. --LauraHale (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

2

Here I rearranged the lead paragraph so that it flows more coherently from overview to history to participation, rather than jumping randomly from code-specific details, to history, to professional leagues, to national teams.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

This is a controversial change. The lead summarized the article. Your changes did not reflect this. The lead should accurately summarize the article. As multiple controversial changes were made to the article, these all need to be addressed before this is fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're doing that thing where you just type and don't read again aren't you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Retract. Personal attacks are not acceptable. I commented on your changes. I did not comment on you personally. --LauraHale (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I was impressed that you managed to leave another attack out of this one. You should be commended. But you only commented on my changes in as far as you saw that I made some sort of changes and went instantly to condemning them: This is a controversial change. (No it wasn't) The lead summarized the article. (I know it did) Your changes did not reflect this. (My changes did not reflect what?) The lead should accurately summarize the article. (Who's arguing?) As multiple controversial changes were made to the article, these all need to be addressed before this is fixed. (Removing needlessly duplicated content that makes no attempt to fit itself into a broad-concept article is not controversial, but re-inserting it is). I'm well aware of WP:LEAD, but not only that, I have a vague idea of how to write paragraphs of prose that flow properly (i.e. dealing with one theme t a time). I'm sorry that making that happen involved changing some stuff that you wrote, but you do not WP:OWN this article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please either provide a diff where I said I did not read or please retract the comment. Please retract your new accusation of WP:OWN. Once these retractions or diffs are made, we can start discussing the text. Improving the text should be a shared goal. --LauraHale (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

3

Here I changed the opening sentence of the "Participation" section from "Among the other three football codes, there was historically a regional variation:" (which is clearly cut & pasted thoughtlessly from elsewhere) to "There was historically a regional variation in the spread of Australian football and rugby football:"--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

This change is controversial and inaccurate. There were three football codes mentioned and it was taken down to one. Rugby league and rugby union are not the same. --LauraHale (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How can you have the first sentence of a new section start with "Among the other three..." Use of the word 'other' must be preceded by something so that readers know what you're not referring to. Why are you making my type this?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your edit made the statement factually inaccurate because it says only two football codes, not three. Surrounding text made it obvious. I am making you do nothing. Please keep your actions to referencing the text, and not about me personally or me making you do anything. This is unacceptable. --LauraHale (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The word 'the' (as in "the other three") is a definite article. I'm sure you're familiar with their use. If not, have a read.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We are talking past each other. If I am willing to concede the problem with other, will you concede that you introduced a factual error with your controversial edit? --LauraHale (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to my reduction of three (Aussie rules, rugby league and rugby union) to two (Aussie rules and rugby football)?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This was a factually inaccurate change. You have not explained why you made a change that was factually inaccurate, and then reverted my removal of your factually inaccurate modification. What is the purpose of re-doing your revisions of your controversial edits to re-introduce this factually incorrect statement? League and union are not the same code. --LauraHale (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

4

Here I changed the name of a subsection of "Participation" from "Indigenous participation" which needlessly repeats the word participation, to "Indigineous Australians".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

5

Here I removed content needlessly copied and pasted from Women's soccer in Australia because it is not only specific to a single code, but also to a single gender.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

This is controversial because it eliminates women from the article. It was not needlessly copied and it is important for contextualizing women in Australian football. This should not be (Men's) Football in Australia which eliminating women that way assists in doing. --LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It does no such thing. That's the same as saying indigenous Australians are excluded. You created a section for women under "Participation" and I have no objection. Your argument above would stand if I'd tried to remove it. This article clearly needs to be restricted to content that touches in some way on more than a single code of football or it belongs elsewhere, don't you agree?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no "football" in Australia. There are multiple codes in Australia. It is completely reasonable to expect content to be specific to specific codes. There are few sources that exists that treat football as one thing in Australia. Almost all the academic and newspaper sources acknowledge and discuss football in Australia as a plurality of codes. You appear to be POV pushing and are not supposed by sources. --LauraHale (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a very convincing argument for a disambiguation page. But I'm saying we can make this broad concept thing work, dammit! You seem desperate for this article to be of a particular length, and even if that means copying and pasting content directly from '[Specific code] in Australia' articles to bulk it up, regardless of whether it has any relation to the broader concept, then by Jove you'll do it. I'd like to say you import from all these other articles indiscriminately, but you don't. you're particularly fond of Aussie rules content and women's soccer content. You can see how plain that is to any user here right? Making this a genuine broad-concept article has to mean boiling it down to content that deals with the topic as a whole, whether you like it or not. All the stuff about specific codes in specific states is still all right there for people to access and read in the relevant articles. By all means introduce more WP:Wikilinks to them. But you cannot keep reproducing it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, because the same arguement could be made to disambiguate Sport in Australia. And I disagree: We should not doing original research and synthesis by creating new meaning not implicitly found in the sources. Also, please retract "you're particularly fond of Aussie rules content and women's soccer content". This is an untrue statement that is contradicted by my stated comments. --LauraHale (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

6

Here I removed content detailing someone once winning an award in a specific code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

This was a controversial removal. It mischaracterizes the some specific code, and demonstrates a lack of broader understanding of the topic by Gibson Flying V and Gibson Flying V failing to read the sources. This was the first time this award was one by a woman and is important for understanding the role of women in Australian football. The source actually explains why this award is significant beyond an individual level. --LauraHale (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in how this article reads, not how the sources used for it read (and so should you be). If you're able to word it in such a way that it is in alignment with the uncontroversial stipulation that it relates in some way to more than one code of football then how could I possible object?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I´m interested in an accurate, factual and neutral article. You removed it "removed content detailing someone once winning an award in a specific code of football". Your controversial removal was not "improving flow". If you are interested in improving flow, you read the sources and understand them. When you remove, you say why. You said "removed content detailing someone once winning an award in a specific code of football" for which I based my judgement on. This removal was controversial. Please read the source and propose alternative wording that has better flow. --LauraHale (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think if you could manage to repeat that you think it was controversial a few more times it might actually work and people will start believing it! If I deleted that sentence from Australian rules football you might have the ghost of a point. But I didn't. I deleted it from this article, which as you've already agreed, is a broad concept article not intended to be a repository for content copied & pasted from other articles. I have got that right don't I? We are in agreement about that right?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You said your edits were non-controversial. They clearly are given that it should have been clear from the talk page that your rewriting efforts would be met with friction and opposition. I have not agreed with " a broad concept article not intended to be a repository for content copied & pasted from other articles." Please retract. I have explicitly stated otherwise. --LauraHale (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

7

Here I removed content that appears to have been thoughtlessly cut & pasted directly from Rugby union in Australia. The information can actually probably stay, because it does relate to some firsts for any code of football in Australia, but it needs to be re-worded to reflect this.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

This is a controversial removal because it is important for understanding international Australian football, Australian football at the Olympics, and where a team nickname came from. This team is arguably one of the two most well known Australian national football teams internationally. --LauraHale (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, the removal by Gibson Flying V appears to indicate Gibson Flying V's lack of understanding of the topic and lack of familiarity with the sources. In the whole of this discussion, Gibson has provided few sources outside of Sydney based newspapers and FFA links exclusively about soccer or to support a pro-soccer position. --LauraHale (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to make all the ad-hominem remarks you want. No one cares. I'm restricting my comments to the content in the article and so should you. Feel free to accept my invitation to re-word it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

As a controversial removal, it should absolutely be put back into the article. The impetus is on you to reword it if you want to progress with the controversial change. I will assume that you are fine with the text as it is situated and written in the article given your lack of desire to fix the wording. Is this an acceptable assumption? --LauraHale (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Was the addition of these two sentences about the Wallabies your attempt at comprehensively dealing with the topics of early internationals played, tours embarked on, and nicknames earned by Australian national football teams in a way that's appropriate for a broad-concept article entitled simply "Football in Australia"? If so, it was not recognizable as such.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

8

Here I removed mention of an instance where one particular code of football was played outside Australia.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

This is controversial because it culturally situates Australian football in a way that is still felt today. The AFL has big celebrations on ANZAC day that tie into this sort of thing and there are numerous references to Australian sport in war time. (Oddly, none about Aussies playing soccer, but there are ones about cricket and rugby league and rugby union.) --LauraHale (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Again: relevant to a single code of football so suitable for that code's article (where it no doubt already appears). I continue to wait for an argument against restricting this article to content that is relevant to more than a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The body of sources that discuss football in Australia do not treat all codes as one. Do you have sources that suggest all codes are treated as one code? Most sources, when discussing them, do not discuss football in the way that you are demanding the article do. This is the argument being put forth. The rationale for the inclusion of the material has been put forth. You have provided no argument that supports the controversial removal. You were the one who claimed none of your edits were controversial. --LauraHale (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if I should refuse to discuss this any further until you "retract" your accusation that I'm "demanding" that "all codes are treated as one code"? No, that would be silly! So, was the inclusion of one sentence ("During The Great War, Australian rules was played on the fields of Gallipolli.") an attempt at comprehensively covering the topics of a) Australians and the football codes in wartime, and b) ANZAC Day celebrations and the football codes, in a way that's appropriate for a broad-concept article entitled simply "Football in Australia"? If so, it was just not recognizable as such. Even if sources treat these two topics one code at a time, what's stopping us from bringing the separate pieces of information together, grouped by their common theme, under the title of this article?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

9

Here I removed a sentence that was cut & pasted from Rugby league in Victoria (where I added it, by the way).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial removal. It furthers understanding of regional popularity of various football codes in Australia. This is important given the Sydney versus Melbourne rivalries still present in the national sporting landscape. --LauraHale (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. It furthers understanding of popularity of a single football code in a single state. What you're describing is the sentence I added (with a reference from a source outside Australia) about the reversal of the footy landscape so to speak in the 2006 grand finals (which, by the way, you removed).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your response highlights the controversial nature of your removal, and why all your edits should have consensus before being done. Sources about football in Australia do not talk about football as a universal way. Football codes in Australia are understood either in isolation or by comparing them other codes. This is how the academic sources and to a degree many of the newspaper sources treat football. You have offered no evidence to support your position that every instance of a specific could should be understood in a more universal football Australian way. I am just baffled by this. Can you provide me with the sources YOU are using to arrive at your conclusions? Perhaps we are reading completely different academic texts about football. --LauraHale (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How this sentence ("The Victorian Rugby League was running a rugby league premiership by the 1920s and also selected a representative Victorian XIII to tour domestically.") furthers understanding of regional popularity of various football codes in Australia is what I find baffling. These Sydney versus Melbourne rivalries still present in the national sporting landscape you speak of are simply not "given". In fact, nothing "Sydney vs Melbourne"-related post 1900s was even alluded to in this article until I added "Also in 2006, both Sydney's and Melbourne's grand finals featured teams from interstate, reflecting the shift in professional football in Australia." Your statement, "Football codes in Australia are understood either in isolation or by comparing them other [sic] codes" is interesting. I would put it like this however: On Wikipedia, football codes in Australia are described either in isolation (at code-specific articles such as Soccer in Australia, Rugby union in Australia, etc.) or by comparing and contrasting them with other codes (at an article entitled Football in Australia).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your statement, "Football codes in Australia are understood either in isolation or by comparing them other [sic] codes" is interesting. Interesting how? What sources are you reading that have led you to arrive at an alternative interpretation? We cannot move further with this as you appear to me to have decided WP:V is not important in this discussion. Whether my interpretation of your intent and beliefs is accurate or not, I have reached an impasse in my ability to communicate with you because I do not understand where you are coming from. What sources are informing your point of view? What have you read that have led you to arrive at your current interpretation regarding the history and current nature of Australian football? --LauraHale (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

10

Here I removed content specific to one code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial removal. That it is specific to one code is completely irrelevant. It is incredibly important information for understanding football in Australia at that time and as it stands now. --LauraHale (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again. It is important information for understanding Australian rules football in Australia at that time and as it stands now. No doubt it already appears elsewhere as well. Don't you agree that for content to be duplicated amongst different articles there needs to be a good reason for doing so?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Content can and should be duplicated in many situations. If you are writing Soccer in Australia, I assume you would have a fair amount of duplication from all the various articles about states. In many ways, this is a daughter article of Sport in Australia and should be more comprehensive than the article as it pertains to football. Parts of this article could be summarized for Sport in Australia. This is a parent article for various articles like Soccer in Australia, Rugby league in Australia and Rugby union in Australia. Those articles should have more depth and could/should be summarized here in relevant parts. See Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Formatting_and_Illustrating_Articles/Article_Sections_and_Tables_of_Contents#Creating_a_daughter_article and Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Building_a_Stronger_Encyclopedia/Better_Articles:_A_Systematic_Approach#Don.27t_Take_Article_Scope_as_a_Given. --LauraHale (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to this article's title. A title that is, I'm sure you'll agree, very much open to interpretation. My own interpretation, upon discovering that it is not a disambiguation page, is that of an article that treats all the football codes with regard to the commonwealth in a non-specific, balanced and neutral way. Given that articles already exist not only for each of the codes in Australia, but for each of the codes in each of the states of Australia, I'd expect this to be a place for comparing, contrasting and detailing overlaps on a national level in these different footballs which all have a claim to the name. Now, since you're so well resourced with this wealth of academic texts on the subject, you appear to be better positioned than anyone to achieve something resembling this. Yet you manage to contrive six consecutive sentences that detail the minutiae of a single code's early history. If it's minutiae of individual codes that you want, then you should be careful what you wish for because (as we've already witnessed) once fans of particular codes take notice of this, that's what you'll get. And the next thing you know this article has spiraled out of control into a puzzling and verbose patchwork of needlessly duplicated content from a multitude of other articles whose existence (unlike this article's) is never questioned. If the information I removed can be, as you yourself say, "summarized here in relevant parts" I'm sure everyone will feel a lot better about it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I refer you to this article's title. Yes, let us discuss the article title. The article is about football in Australia. The early history of the code is very important for understanding the present situation. The game of football is regional and code based. The details are not as you characterized minutiae. (Again, I would repeat the request for sources that you have read and are familiar with the led you to this conclusion. What are your sources? WP:V is one of the core content policies you seem keen to miss.) If you are arguing that once the fans of a particular code take notice that their code is not being given special attention and the point of view that their code is the most awesome is not being presented, that is a problem with WP:NPOV pushing. At the present, I think it would be better to blow out a particular section, make it larger, spin it off to its own daughter article, take the lead from the article and put it back into the article here. I am not seeing a reason to cave to WP:NPOV warriors, which is my interpretation of your words. --LauraHale (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

11

Here I removed content specific to a single code of football, and added a "Clarification needed" tag to the unqualified use of the term "football".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial removal. The reference is to Australian rules football and goes to explain regional patterns again. Clarification needed tag is not necessary in this context because it refers to all football codes. --LauraHale (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Therefore it belongs in the Australian rules football article and not this one, don't you agree? If you're referring to all football codes, then say so and then no one can possibly require clarification, can they?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. Regional patterns of Australian football are one of the keys to understanding the football situation in Australia. There are a number of academic and newspaper sources that talk about regional issues related to football in Australia. What sources do you have about the nationalization of football in Australia?

On the other issue, if you have a suggestion for the text, please suggest a reword because the use of football in the article to refer to all codes is rather clear to me. -LauraHale (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How does the following assist a reader in understanding the football codes in a national context? "In September 1921, a game was played at the Brisbane Cricket Ground between a team from North Brisbane and a team from South Brisbane. The match had over 10,000 people in attendance. The North Brisbane team wore red and the South Brisbane team wore blue. The game was won by North Brisbane with a score of two to zero."
In addition to the above question, also ask yourself how, in an article that stands as testament to the very ambiguity of the term "football" in Australia, is the following sentence helpful? "Early football outfits for women were not that different than outfits worn today: long socks, long-sleeved football jerseys, baggy shorts, and purpose worn football shoes." It's very simple: If, for example, you're writing about Australian rules and soccer, put "Australian rules and soccer". Or, if you're writing something about all codes of football, put "all codes of football". Just putting "football" and leaving it up to readers to then click on the reference to find out which code is being referred to is, in my humble opinion, inexcusably poor editing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

12

Here I removed content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial. Once again, Gibson Flying V removed Australian rules football information that is very, very important for understanding the regional patterns of the sport in the country. Gibson Flying V and 2nyte have both been arguing that AFL is only popular in Melbourne. This sort of edit appears to be revisionism to hide the fact that the indigenous football code has been played more widely and has more national popularity than outside Melbourne. --LauraHale (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You make my point for me: "the sport" (singular). Everyone waits with bated for the evidence of my having "been arguing that AFL is only popular in Melbourne." And by all means, keep the baseless personal attacks coming. But might I suggest not mixing your editors up first?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If I confused you with 2nyte, then I apologize. But the point stands: This is a controversial removal for the reasons stated. Also, the use of singular is grammatically correct. It refers to all sport in Australia. Regional patterns for football are very important, more important based on the volume of sources, than for other sports in Australia like bat and ball sports, and water sports. --LauraHale (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I've made an error. I've only just now noticed that this is the same diff already being discussed above (which is very is surprising since you read my diffs so carefully before discussing them). Anyway, I believe here I intended to discuss my removal of: The first international soccer match played by Australia was against New Zealand in 1922. In 1923, a soccer team from Southern China toured Tasmania. Now, the first sentence would have been fine if mentions of every other code's first internationals were also included to comply with WP:UNDUE. The second sentence would be OK if it was contextualized properly. Why is this particular tour mentioned and not the multitude of tours for all the other codes? If it was in some way the first or only such tour, this would be worthy of mentioning as it would clearly show its relation to the other codes, i.e. such a thing has never happened for any other code, or not until after this instance.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

13

Here and here I removed content specific to one code of football, and reworded other content so that its relation to all codes of football was made clear.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant." Now we're getting somewhere. I'd like to know what your test for inclusion here would be. Why stop at only copying & pasting your personal favourite bits? Why not import even larger swathes of content directly from the '[Sepcific code] in Australia' articles? Better rationale is required from you for wanting to change a sentence that says "[Code X] was the first of any football code in Australia to do something" to "[Code X] did something".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

" Why stop at only copying & pasting your personal favourite bits?" Please retract this statement. It ascribes to me things that you cannot prove. If you have evidence that these are my favourite bits, please provide the diffs. Beyond that, we deal with topics like sources deal with sources. We do not create our own meaning and do synthesis work. --LauraHale (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I just can't see any reason for you wanting to include this sentence ("In 1924, the Australian Rugby League Board of Control, later to be known as the Australian Rugby League, was formed to administer the national team (the Kangaroos), and later as the national governing body for the sport of Rugby League.") in the history section, other than it being a sentence that you personally favour in some way. What about the formation of the Australian Rugby Union, New South Wales Rugby Union, Queensland Rugby Union, Queensland Rugby League, Western Australian Rugby League, South Australia Rugby Union, etc.? What about the New South Wales Rugby Football League's first Kangaroo tour or the fact that rugby league is not mentioned in the "History" section until the formation of the Victorian Rugby League in 1922? What about the "National teams" section? Is the version you're so vigorously defending really as well thought out as you appear to think it is, or was it just a very clumsy, lazy attempt? Regarding the green & gold: it's my POV that we can get away with limiting this article's scope to the football codes. Otherwise more content regarding more different sports must also be allowed to creep in.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

14

Here I removed content specific to one code of football in one specific state that was no doubt copied & pasted from the relevant article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

15

Here Here I removed content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing the point that "individual codes will be mentioned". I've even made a few mentions myself. But I word them in such a way that their implications for more than a single code of football in Australia are obvious to readers. This prevents them from scratching their heads wondering why this isn't a disambiguation page. Better rationale is required for why the sentence, "Soccer was used a cultural [sic] gateway to introduce new European arrivals during the 1940s to Australian culture" has implications for football (as a broad concept, not solely the association code) in Australia. Its copying and pasting from Soccer in Australia in its current state is not justified by any attempt at contextualization.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing the point that "individual codes will be mentioned" is what you just said. Please explain in the context of Here I removed content specific to a single code of football. I am confused as this appears to be a contradiction. Your rationale of But I word them in such a way that their implications for more than a single code of football in Australia are obvious to readers. is original research and synthesis because this is not how sources treat football in Australia, where codes are compared and contrasted with each other, and their histories and fan bases treated as separate. Perhaps I am wrong. Could you tell me which sources you are reading that treat the suggest the implications of an event in one code widely have implications for other codes? This would better assist in understanding why the point of view you are advocating (shared history where events on one code have implications for other codes) should be the dominant one in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

To clarify my point and avoid confusion. The following are a few of the sources I have read and have physical access to that talk about football in Australia. These texts compare and contrast, talk about how the sports are occassionally influenced by eachother, and talk about how these codes compete with each other. These sources do not at any time suggest a unified history of football in Australia implying one event had implications for multiple codes.

• A National Game, The history of Australian rules footballb y Rob Hess, Matthew Nicholson, Bob Stewart and Gregory de Moore.
• A Game of Our Own by Geoffrey Blainey.
• The Sportsmen of Changi by Kevin Blackburn.
• Sport in Australian History edited by Daryl Adair and Wray Vamplow.
• Our Footy, Real fans vs big bucks by Cherl Critchley.
• The Makers of Australia's Sporting Traditions selected and edited by Michael McKernan.
• Good Sports, Australian sport and the myth of the fair go by Peter Kell.
• Passion Play by Matthew Klugman.
• Urge to Merge by Ian Ridley with John Ridley.
• Up There, Calazy by Leonie Sandercock and Ian Turner.
• Sport Management in Australia, An organizational overview by David Shilbury and John Deane.
• No Pain, No Gain? Sport and Australian Culture' by Jim McKay.
• Bulletin of Sport and Culture, volumes 33 to 39.
• Half the Race by Marion K. Stell.
• Football's women, the forgotten heroes by Kevin Sheedy and Carolyn Brown.

To clarify, what sources do you have that treat all football in Australia as a monolithic thing where what happens in one code has implications for another code and influences other codes? Treating all football in Australia as a monolithic thing? A better case for this arguement could be made for Sport in Australia than for this specific article based on the sources, but I am might not have read, nor have access to the sources you have that you are using to support your POV regarding the selection criteria for content in this article. I would like to understand this better. (Hence the repeated requests for sources.) This understanding is fundamental towards moving forward. --LauraHale (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Pinging @Gibson Flying V here. This is the most important point at this point in time regarding your controversial edits. This part here goes to the very heart of why your edits are controversial from my point of view and why your material should not be included in the article and why your removals were inappropriate. Until this is addressed, we will not be able to move forward. --LauraHale (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Pinging @Gibson Flying V again. We need to discuss WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues. Please assist in moving forward by citing sources that support "But I word them in such a way that their implications for more than a single code of football in Australia are obvious to readers." as the way sources treat football in Australia. The aforementioned sources do not. The sources in the article do not. What sources are you looking at that can be cited to support the POV in your statement. --LauraHale (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If the inclusion of the sentence I removed constitutes an attempt at dealing comprehensively with the topic of immigrants/demographics and the football codes in Australia, then it was simply not recognizable as such. We don't need to first find a sole source that deals with this topic before we can do so here. You take the information pertaining to the individual codes (which should ideally be located at the "[Specific code] in Australia" articles) and you group it together here in a balanced way as per WP:UNDUE. I'm not sure why you want to bring up WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If giving the topic of Australia's immigrants/demographics and the football codes proper treatment is your intention, perhaps a section entitled "Demographics" is a better option.
Now, regarding your question about the existence of sources that discuss more than one code of football at a time (not that we need them in order to do so in this article):
"The progress of football in Australia". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2 June 1950. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Susskind, Anne (23 April 1987). "Dear teacher, Billy may play Rugby". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
David Campese, Peter Jenkins, Mal Meninga, Peter Frilingos (1994). My game, your game. Ironbark. ISBN 0-330-35616-X, 9780330356169. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Reuter (12 January 1995). "Aussie coach says game damaged". New Straits Times. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
AP (15 August 2002). "Cash-strapped Australian league shedding top players". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Masters, Roy (28 September 2002). "It's Broncos v Pies in the battle of the box". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Richards, Huw (25 October 2004). "Australian dynasty that's hard to topple". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 June 2012.
Richards, Huw (27 September 2006). "International Herald Tribune". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 September 2013.
Lutton, Phil (12 August 2007). "ARC could outpace league: coach". Brisbane Times. Retrieved 25 June 2012.
Baum, Greg (2 May 2008). "How soccer learned to dress up and catch its man". The Age. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Linnell, Garry (28 October 2008). "Time for a hybrid game?". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
Stevenson, Andrew (28 March 2009). "AFL's failure to tackle league head-on just doesn't add up". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Philip, Derriman (6 June 2009). "Rugby would like league fans to be in state of union". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 11 July 2012.
The New Zealand Herald (29 July 2009). "Hunt in shock switch to Aussie Rules". The Independent. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Foster, Craig (23 August 2009). "Tim's army is winning code war". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Masters, Roy (30 November 2009). "League chief punts on close encounters". Business Day. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Read, Brent (26 March 2010). "NRL fends off union's challenge". The Australian. Retrieved 30 June 2012.
Powell, Kim (20 May 2010). "Jason Akermanis wrong about football and gay players, says Gay and Lesbian Rights group". news.com.au. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Sheehan, Paul (4 October 2010). "Fast and furious, a league apart". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 11 September 2013.
Lynch, Michael (14 October 2010). "Later start for A-League to lessen clash with rival codes". The Age. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Rothfield, Phil (28 November 2010). "Demetriou claims Titans are blueprint for fledgling Suns". The Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Morton, Jim (3 December 2010). "Little sympathy from rival codes". 9's Wide World of Sports. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Ballantyne, Adrian (21 February 2011). "AFL- NRL code war heats up". Herald Sun. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Kogoy, Peter (14 May 2011). "Football codes winning war on drugs". The Australian. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Wilson, Rebecca (21 May 2011). "Rugby falls behind NRL in code war". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Xinhua (29 May 2011). "Australia gambling reform receive support from major football codes: Sports Ministers". People Daily. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Smith, Patrick (9 June 2011). "Football codes back $5000 sports betting register". The Australian. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Nick Tabakoff and Karina Barrymore (30 June 2011). "Melbourne Storm's rorts put spotlight on football codes". Herald Sun. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Smith, Patrick (2 July 2011). "Sport spins on axis of achievable objectives". The Australian. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
Staff writers (21 August 2011). "Debate: is Harry Kewell's transfer to Melbourne Victory the biggest move in Australian sporting history?". Fox Sports. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
AP (1 October 2011). "Australia gears up for finals action in Aussie rules, NRL". Taipei Times. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
"Fans suffer from football code wars". The Daily Advertiser. 2 December 2011. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
This is by no means exhaustive.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

16

Here I removed content specific not only to a single code of football but to a single gender.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How this sentence: "During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, women's Australian rules football saw a large expansion in the number of competitors" has any relevance for the broader concept of football in Australia (i.e. what implications it has for more than just a single code) is what needs better rationale. As it is now, it will make any reader wonder why its appearance in Women's Australian rules football and/or History of Australian rules football and/or Australian rules football and/or Women's sport in Australia is not sufficient.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

17

Here I removed content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The following has zero relevance for any code of football in Australia except one: In 1974, the Australian team qualified for the 1974 FIFA World Cup, the first successful qualification to the FIFA World Cup in the country's history after failing to qualify to the 1966 and 1970 tournaments. It would prove to be the only appearance for the Australian team for more than three decades. Better rationale is required for its inclusion as it is in this broad-concept article. Or if it can be worded in such a way as to make its presence in this article less confusing that would also be nice.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it has implications for soccer, the development of the sport and its visibility. This implication is covered in a wide variety of sources about the game in Australia. Its inclusion is thus very important. May I ask what books, journal articles and sources you have read about football in Australia and soccer in specific that led you to arrive at a conclusion that this is not important to the development of soccer in Australia? --LauraHale (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So that I'm not accused once more of making a personal attack (amusing though it is), I'll frame this as a question: Did you miss the words "except one" in the first sentence of my previous reply? If not, why did you open your response with "Yes, it has implications for soccer..."?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

18

Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If the following could be re-worded or contextualized in such a way as to make it relevant to more than a single code of football in Australia its inclusion may approach being justified: In 1995, rugby union became professional in Australia following an agreement between SANZAR countries and Rupert Murdoch regarding pay television rights for the game.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues again. You have failed to provide sources that suggest the implications for one code impact all football codes. Please provide sources for this point of view so that a determination if this is an acceptable approach to determining the inclusive value of material in the article, rather than including the most important events in an individual code's history and culture. --LauraHale (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If I ever did say that content added to this article regarding one code must always have implications for "all football codes", then that is not exactly right and I apologise for the misunderstanding. My POV is that code-specific content must have implications for at least one other code, and these implications should be made apparent. If not, then it can go straight into the "[Specific code] in Australia" article. Rugby union's professionalism obviously had implications for at least one other code (as did rugby league's), and if you're unable/unwilling to find sources for this and comprehensively deal with it in a well-balanced way in this article, then I have to wonder why you're here spending so much time on it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

19

Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football and also addressed an WP:OVERLINK issue.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

So that readers who happen upon this article don't continue wondering why it isn't a disambiguation page that provides a link to Soccer in Australia, where the following paragraph no doubt belongs, it will need to be re-worded or contextualized so that its relevance to more than a single code of football in Australia is made clear:

"By 2001, Australian soccer players were plying their trade around the globe with 150 of them playing over seas. In 2002, the Australian government again intervened in sport when Senator Rod Kemp, the Minister for Arts and Sport, announced that Soccer Australia was to be restructured by the Australian Sports Commission. At the time, the organisation had A$2.6 million in [sic] debt. National organisational problems were mirrored on the state level at the time of the take over. The Australian Sports Commission delivered back a report that recommended 53 changes to be made in four key areas. One suggestion involved separating the management of the national governing body from that of the national league. Former Australian Rugby Union CEO John O'Neil [sic] was brought in to make these changes and the organisation changes [sic] its name in 2005 to Football Federation Australia as part of an effort to reposition the sport in the country."

Hint: include for the purpose of comparison mentions of Government involvement in other codes of football and details of other multi-code football administrators, wording them in such a way that they tie in together as one would expect in a broad-concept article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

20

Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If the following has any relevance to the broader concept of football in Australia, it is extremely difficult to divine: A U17 Youth Girls Competition was established by Football Victoria in 2004. This was following legal action taken against them in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal following a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Commission by Penny Cula-Reid, Emily Stayner, and Helen Taylor. Let's also agree right here and now, that the unqualified use of the term 'football' be prohibited in this article whose very existence stands as testament to how bewilderingly ambiguous such usage is.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

21

Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

22

Here I removed content specific to a single code of football in a single state.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Details specific to Australian rules football in Queensland (and no other code) belong in Australian rules football in Queensland (and no other code's article), don't they? Or are you suggesting a merge of all the codes and all the states into this one article? Or rather than a merge, just straight up duplication? I'm trying my best to understand.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Details about Australian rules football in Queensland may be relevant to this article given the correct context. Facts from one article are not the exclusive domain of that article. I am not suggesting a merge. See Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Formatting_and_Illustrating_Articles/Article_Sections_and_Tables_of_Contents#Creating_a_daughter_article. Parent and daughter articles frequently borrow text from each other. --LauraHale (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

We're in perfect agreement that details about Australian rules football in Queensland may be relevant to this article given the correct context. How were the details in question (Popularity of Australian rules in Queensland was evident in the 2006 AFL Draft with a record 11 recruits, including 8 of the first 32 picks. The majority of the movement was in the regional areas, with some picks from previously undrafted regional areas such as Townsville, Toowoomba and Mackay providing AFL talent.) given the correct context, sandwiched as they were within the "History" section between details of soccer playing youth's ethnicity in the 1990s and the Melbourne Storm 2010 salary cap breach? To avoid questions regarding WP:UNDUE, where were the details of other professional leagues' non-heartland talent?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

23

Here I went to merge content that was relevant to any sport in Australia to Sport in Australia only to find (surprise, surprise) that that's where it had been copied & pasted from.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

"...a record Australian sporting fine..." Pretty clear cut case for Sport in Australia (where it already is) don't you think?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. That it is copy and pasted from Sport in Australia is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it should be included in this article. Better rationale required. --LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That it is copied and pasted from Sport in Australia could hardly be more relevant, as this is the very reason returning to a disambiguation page keeps being brought up. If it was actually your intention to deal with the topic of salary caps as they relate to Australia's football codes in a way that's appropriate to a broad concept article, then that attempt was simply unrecognizable as such. To strengthen the case for this article's existence I suggest giving the topic of salary caps in relation to football in Australia proper treatment by adding (preferably to the section dealing with professional football) details about when each code's was introduced (in chronological order), then each code's record breaches (in order of scale). I want to emphasize (not that I need to since we're all so big on assuming good faith around here) that this is merely one editor's suggestion and naturally subject to input from others.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

24

Here I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial despite claim above that your edits were non-controversial. That they are specific to one football code is irrelevant. The purpose of the article is to discuss football in Australia. Football in Australia includes multiple codes. This means individual codes will be mentioned. Better rationale required.--LauraHale (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Further controversial: This section is one of the best places to discuss national teams as opposed to a straight list. Also, annoying that once again, Gibson Flying V is removing information about women. Given the massive participation of women in soccer in Australia and the existence of the W-League while no comparable exists for any other football code, it is especially troubling to see these women and soccer references removed. --LauraHale (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Under a section entitled "National teams" you had the grand total of two sub-sections: "Australian rules" and "Soccer". This, I think, speaks volumes.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume the volumes it speaks are this: LauraHale could not find adequately sourced existing material for rugby league, rugby union and other national teams and was too lazy to research the topic to create separate sections for those teams to the point where she felt comfortable creating sections? (Go look at most of those articles and the sourcing. Look at the lead and see if you can fully source them from the body, and then easily include them in this article. Bet you cannot.) If this was not the volume you were speaking of, or if you were in anyway implying something else, please retract the statement or provide diffs that support your implied negative comment. --LauraHale (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Not that I should have to type this out, but the volumes it speaks, in light of

a) your vigorous defense of a "National teams" section containing sub-sections only for "Australian rules" and "Soccer" more than three weeks after similar concerns were raised,

b) your own admission that your additions were sourced mainly from Women's Australian rules football and Women's soccer in Australia, and

c) that you were "too lazy to research the topic" whilst asserting above that the Australian rugby union team "is arguably one of the two most well known Australian national football teams",

are that you have no concept of undue weight, are pushing a particular POV, lack the necessary competence to edit or discuss this article, or any combination of the above. Take your pick. As I say: Volumes. Why you insist on this discussion being about you rather than restricting it to the article's content is truly puzzling.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

25: Inclusion of unsourced information

Here I added content on Australia's first participation in and winning of a football World Cup tournament of any code.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial. Introduction of unsourced material. --LauraHale (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing more about the ones that came before these. Then I'll happily remove them myself.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You should not have re-introduced your controversial, unsourced statement. I look forward to hearing more about why you introduced unsourced controversial content. --LauraHale (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Australia's first appearance in:

1. the Rugby League World Cup was in 1954,
2. the FIFA World Cup was in 1974,
3. the Rugby Union World Cup was in 1987,
4. the Touch Football World Cup was in 1988,
5. the Futsal World Cup was in 1989, and
6. the American football World Cup was in 1999.

Have I missed something? If I did, I assure you it was an honest error. I also assume you've heard of these tags?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

26

Here I reworded a sentence so that it was clear that it related to the broad topic of all codes of football in Australia, and also added a (deliberately?) neglected WP:Wikilink.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial. Changed meaning not supported by the sources. The AFL and the NRL were not the first professional football leagues in Australia. --LauraHale (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Were they not? Do you have a source for that? Seems like something that should be mentioned in the article (noticing this common theme about firsts for any code yet?).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

They were not the first professional leagues. You said they were and you said the sources supported that with your edits. Hence, the controversial nature of the edit. This was mentioned in the article, but oddly it appeared some one tried to remove this information. The history of the leagues in general, rather than organizational structure, profits, spectatorship, television viewing, should be in the history section and not the professional football section. --LauraHale (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

27

Here I added another first for any code of football in Australia.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial and unverifiable. Given the removal of the earlier text about the first international tour for this team and of other teams playing in Australia, the inclusion of a bit about a French team touring Australia is weird. --LauraHale (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a first for any code, therefore relevant to an article about all codes. Simple. I invited you to re-word the other bit above so that it actually said it was a first for any code. Bizarrely you'd rather make paper-thin and confusingly worded arguments like this instead.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You removed similar information about firsts for codes. The information was patently unsourced. The french touring is not inherently important. Why the French? Why not the Spanish? The Portuguese? The Irish? The Welsh? Also, why did you fail to source it? You took a full sourced article and included several unsourced pieces of information. --LauraHale (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

28

Here I added content related to multiple codes of football.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial. Not supported by the source. --LauraHale (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to explain exactly how it's not supported by the source.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The source says it will be trialed, not that it was trialed. Beyond that, there are much better and more reliable sources on the topic. This trial was generally viewed as a failure. Have you read Hess and Stewart who have discussed this in some depth? --LauraHale (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

29

Here I added relevant and referenced content to the "Etymology" section.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Discuss:

Controversial edit. Not supported by the source. --LauraHale (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Prove to me that you read the source and understood it by explaining clearly how that sentence is not supported by the source (this should be good).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Source says:

"A meeting of the Mercantile Football Club was held on Monday night at Hodge's Commercial Hotel, King-street. Mr. J. Bush occupied the chair. The following office-bearers were elected for the ensuing year: - President, Mr. R.A. Price; captain, Mr. Heeiler; vice-captain, Mr. T. Coghlan; secretary, Mr. Anderson; treasurer, Mr. L. Forstor; general committe, Messrs. Chalmers, Hellyer, Coghlan, Wallace and Busg: selecition committee, Messrs. Chalmers and Thame, to act with the captain; caps of honour - all-round play, Mr. Thame; back-play, Mr. Wallace, forward play, Mr. Hellyer; special cap of honour, Mr. Chalmers Messrs. R.A. Price and R. Brannnon were elected delegates to the Southern Rugby Football Union, and the meeting the adjourned."

Your text, "In Sydney in the late 1880s the term unqualified term football was used to refer to Rugby football." The quoted text from your source does not say that at all. Please retract the accusation that I failed to read the source text and your text addition. --LauraHale (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Please retract your accusation of me having made an accusation (oh no now you've got ME saying it!). The accidental duplication of the word "term" in my sentence was corrected but repeatedly re-instated by your careless rollbacks by the way. Now, that paragraph's heading is "FOOTBALL". I took the fact that the Mercantile Football Club was electing delegates to the Southern Rugby Football Union as evidence for it being a rugby football club. Anyway, I've found this. Another section of a sports page from the same year entitled "FOOTBALL". It opens with, "A meeting of the Southern Rugby Football Union was held...". Further down in the same section a paragraph opens with, "A meeting of the Southern British Football Association was held...". I think we can use this as a source for a sentence that says something along the lines of, "In Sydney in the late 1880s the term "football" was used without qualification to refer to more than one code." This removes the need for mentioning any specific code, which I always felt was less than ideal. Are you still going to argue that this would not represent an improvement on your "In Australia the use of football to describe codes outside of soccer predates the 1930s."?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Prove to me that you read the source and understood" is the text you made. This clearly implies I did not read the diff in question before making the comment. The text I clearly read does not support your textual addition. Before 29 goes any further, please in good faith retract your implied accusation that I did not read the text OR provide a diff where I said I did not read this. Once you have done this, we can get back to the point where "In Sydney in the late 1880s the term unqualified term football was used to refer to Rugby football." is not supported by the cited text. --LauraHale (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Football_in_Australia&diff=573000655&oldid=572587545

@Gibson Flying V:@LauraHale: Please clean up the references section. --Frze (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "anothermalform" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "malformed1" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Stell-12" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Stell-16" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Stell-34" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Stell-35" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "youngmats" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "fifathing" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Done. Thanks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reworked article

I have reworked the article so it properly clarifies the state of football in Australia. I think this is what would best serve readers in understanding the football landscape in the country, as it is really a divide of regions and of culture. The article is located on my User:2nyte/sandbox. Thoughts and opinions are very welcome. I did spend a couple of hours doing this so constructive criticism would be the best kind, if any. Thanks.--2nyte (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just began looking at this, and have been immediately turned off by your irrational hatred of the word "soccer" being blatantly on display, yet again. "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the round ball game in Australia, and you choose to use a name that most readers will have never heard of. You have used this "rewrite" as just another platform to promote your obsession. It really is sad. I can't be bothered reading any further. HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The following was taken from User talk:HiLo48: we have to cater for people who know nothing about sport in Australia. In an article that specifically goes into "soccer" now being referred to as "football" and the dropping of "soccer" by the governing body, it is confusing if we continue to use "soccer". Readers may not know the word "association football" at first glance, but the article explains that the term is a synonym for "soccer" - there is also a hyperlink to the sport. Similarly, many people reading the article may not know what Australian rules football, rugby league or rugby union is; that is why the sports have hyperlinks. We have to cater for everyone, especially on an article as important is Football in Australia. The football codes in Australia and the cultural/regional divide is a very hard thing to explain - we have to be very clear and very precise when explaining it. Using a term like "soccer" may add unnecessary confusion. Wording is very important to me - how we communicate information, how we explain something; the intricacies of a word can result in someone understanding the concept or not.--2nyte (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above; I understand that the use of "association football" is controversial for some, though its use is purely academic, as is its usage on Association football and various wikipedia articles. I would greatly appreciate if users would rather comment on the main content of the proposed article rather than the usage of "association football".--2nyte (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I see a concern where the source(ABS[1]) states Soccer that the data should be represented consistantly with the sources usage. Gnangarra 03:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

2nyte, you say "Using a term like "soccer" may add unnecessary confusion." Convince me. HiLo48 (talk) 05:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple of notes from a quick read. Soccer should be used in the first mention "association football (soccer)". The parenthesis = subset argument against this style for article titles doesn't apply in text. Ok to use just association football after that. A good idea to get away from the pissing contest of my code is bigger than yours by making the main sections regional and cultural based. The cultural section should also cover the socio-economic divide between traditional rugby league and union support (if sources can be found, would be very surprised if there aren't plenty). The-Pope (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The-Pope, I didn't know there was/is social divide between rugby league and rugby union. - I just looked online about this though I couldn't find anything solid about it, only some opinion pieces and references to the game in England. - Links to articles/sources would be helpful. Also, is it necessary to specify "association football (soccer)" in the opening? Why is this clarification needed? A hyperlink takes readers directly to the sports page (as with the other sports in the opening), and it is sated in the Terminology section that "Association football has been typically referred to as "soccer" in Australia".--2nyte (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So, use the word "soccer" alone in the lead. I know you have an issue with it, but do you recognise that very few other people do? HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, the issue I have with the use of "soccer" on wikipedia is that its usage does not represent the sports current situation in Australia; the majority of national media has dropped the usage of "soccer" in preference to "football", as have all governing bodies of the sport and hundreds of clubs all across the country. There is no reason not to represent this change, to drop "soccer" and use the unbiased alternative, "association football" - which is in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary. The use of "soccer" is no longer fitting for an academic purpose. "Soccer" should not be used by default on wikipedia when "association football" or even "football" can be used in its stead.--2nyte (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

When you are quoting a source, then you should be using the sources terminology especially when its data, if the ABS is using Soccer then it is fit for use for academic purposes Gnangarra 12:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no loss in merit from the source by referring to the sport as "association football", it is just a better fit in the context of the article and in the current situation of the sport. Furthermore, the relevance of the source in this circumstance is in its data and not its terminology.--2nytetalk) 12:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually there is a lot of relevance in ABS using Soccer as that show the term isnt considered offensive... The point is the source doesnt use the term association football and therefore a person checking would need to make some connection between the two or question the contents verfiability. Gnangarra 12:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I made no accusation of "soccer" being offensive. And to your second point, the article clearly states in the Terminology section that "Association football has been typically referred to as "soccer" in Australia".--2nyte (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Association football (soccer) should be used in the lead of THIS article (no opinion about what you use in dedicated round ball articles) because the term 'association football' is not universally used or understood in Australia - nor in many parts of the world (this article isn't going to be read by Australians only) and it clarifies without any doubt to people all over the world (especially in the US) what game we are talking about. A link is good, but inline clarification is better, in this case, IMO - and it with a single word paraphrases the opening line from the Association football article: Association football, commonly known as football or soccer,. And as Gnangarra said, it matches the reference document, which actually uses the exact phrase "association football (soccer)" in it's lead, and just "soccer" in the tables. The terminology section is too far away from the lead to be useful for this explanation. The-Pope (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand the point made, though I still question the necessity of clarifying "association football". Even though the term is not universally used, it is the term for the sport on wikipedia (also in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary). Do we really need to specify to readers in the opening line that "association football" is "soccer"? Will they not come to that conclusion on their own (through further research on wikipedia if need be)? The only reason we would need to add it is if readers cannot connect the two themselves (which is made quite easy by they hyperlink).--2nyte (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Why hide "soccer" at all? If it would be easier for some readers if we use that word openly, we should use it. You really are showing an irrational attitude towards the word. We are not here to do the FFA's marketing. HiLo48 (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

2nyte said above "There is no loss in merit from the source by referring to the sport as association football." My point is that there is no loss of merit in referring to the sport as "soccer". It's far and away the most common name in Australia. It will be understood by everybody, anywhere in the world. "Association football" won't. 2nyte clearly DOES have some psychological problem with it. Most Australians don't. NONE of my soccer playing friends do. Please recognise that your view is not universal. It's a niche view of those with strong commitment to a campaign by the administrators of the sport. It's not a view of those who love the sport, just a small minority of them. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That is where I disagree, I do believe there is loss in merit. In general public referring to the sport as "soccer" continues to be perfectly acceptable, though in an academic environment, when the history of the sport is emphasised then the usage of "soccer" becomes redundant. An example would be a news reporter saying "From now on asylum seekers will only be known as illegals... in other news asylum seekers have just arrived in Australia" - the second reference of "asylum seekers" becomes redundant, because it has been established the term has been replaced by another. With this in mind the common use of "soccer" in Victoria becomes redundant in an academic environment. Although the use of "soccer" in general public may not have changed (again, that is perfectly acceptable), it is unnecessary on wikipedia when "association football" or 'football" can be used in its stead. "Soccer" should only be used on Australian wikipedia articles when quoting or referencing a specific text (which can be argued in this case).--2nyte (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Association football" or 'football" cannot be used instead of "soccer"! Well, "football" definitely can't. It's ambiguous in the Australian context, especially in this article. "Association football" could be used, but nobody know what it means, and you would only do so if you desperately trying to avoid using "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, just humour me for a minute and answer this: why doesn't the general public/media in the Australian rules side of the Barassi Line refer to the round ball game as "football". Why have these people resisted the change, as it were, a change that the rest of the country has accepted.--2nyte (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Because "football" means "Aussie Rules". And it's by far the most common name for Aussie Rules. It's meant Aussie Rules, and only Aussie Rules, for 150 years. The round ball game is called "soccer", and nobody has a problem with it. Change is unlikely in the foreseeable future. The ball used in Aussie Rules is called a football. The round ball is called a soccer ball. In Aussie Rules the tactic of kicking the ball when it's on the ground without picking it up first, usually because of pressure from opponents, is called "soccering the ball". Towns and suburbs have football grounds and soccer grounds. One can tell the shape and purpose from the name. Towns and suburbs have football clubs and soccer clubs. Schools have football teams and soccer teams. (I linked to some soccer oriented school websites a week or so ago to demonstrate that.) The words have simple, single, clear, distinct meanings. The language works very well. Why should anything change? (Obviously, every time I've said "football" above, it means Aussie Rules, because that's how we think, and it demonstrates the usage.)HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, so from you answer you are saying that there is a bias in the Australian rules side of the Barassi Line towards Aussie Rules (in calling it "football") and against the round ball game (in resisting to call it "football"). Like it or not by calling the game "soccer" on wikipedia we are being biased. This bias goes against WP:NPOV. Though by referring to the sport as "association football" there is no bias.--2nyte (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You're heading down a dangerous path there, declaring that people on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line are biased and displaying a non-neutral POV in Wikipedia terms. For goodness sake, they're using a form of the language that's been theirs for longer than soccer has existed! When do you plan to try this line at Talk: Soccer in the United States‎? HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, that doesn't make it any less biased. "Soccer" is the definitive term for the round ball game in the United States, though in Australia it is not; here "soccer" is just a preference to many people because they are biased towards Australian rules football. On wikipedia, in an academic environment, we must remain impartial to bias, that means we must refer to the round ball game as "association football" or "football" - the unbiased terms for the sport; otherwise we are showing bias towards the other codes.--2nyte (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolute bullshit. It got nothing to do with a bias towards Australian football. The way I described the language, when you asked me to, is how virtually all people use it on that other side of the Barassi Line. Soccer fans talk that way too! People who hate Aussie Rules call it football! Will you please stop blaming the AFL and it's allegedly biased fans for all this. Perhaps you can blame the bunch of blokes who first codified Aussie Rules back in 1859. HiLo48 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you explain it, it's still considered bias against the round ball game. The state governing bodies of the round ball game and hundreds of clubs in Victoria, South Australia, WA, Tasmania use "football", though many other people are resisting to call it "football" because of the bias towards Australian rules football. It doesn't matter if it's been that way for 150 year, it's still bias. And we must have neutral POV, therefor we must use either "association football" or "football" when referring to the round ball game on Australian wikipedia articles.--2nyte (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. People who hate Aussie Rules call it football! You cannot, by any stretch of language or the imagination, call that a bias towards Australian football. You're talking utter nonsense, and doing your case no good at all. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, let me make this clear. In Australia if you call Australian rules football "football" and call the round ball game "soccer" knowing that round ball game has been renamed to "football" then that is bias towards Australian rules football and bias against round ball game. The same applies on wikipedia.--2nyte (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier, bullshit. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that football and footy are also used in the "northern" states to refer to rugby league. Hack (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 2nyte's claim that using football for the round ball game is "a change that the rest of the country has accepted" is questionable at best. The two Australian sports that have a Footy Show in their respective parts of the country are Aussie Rules and Rugby League. 2nyte's experience seems to be as a very strong and loyal fan of the round ball game. I wonder if he spends any time in rugby league circles? HiLo48 (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Rugby union supporters also refer to their sport as football, but that usage outside rugby circles is uncommon. Hack (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I would say that referring to either code of rugby as "football" has become uncommon outside rugby circles, though "footy" is still common in general public. This is shown through its reference in media, where "rugby league", "rugby union" or "footy" is used when referring to either code of rugby, and "football" is used when referring to association football.--2nyte (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't let this one go. I wonder if the judge who said to the court, "It may merely be a reflection of the people who go to the football..." and "Mr Holmwood is not the first person to streak at a football match..." was in "rugby league circles".--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How many people who are not fans of the game, or media outlets without a financial interest in the game, refer to association football as football? Hack (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And even if 2nyte is scratching his head in confusion about the naming of Friday Night Football, the rest of the country isn't.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Both rugby league and rugby union are still referred as "football" in general public, though its usage has lessened. As shown in both sources Gibson Flying V provided above, the sport is referred to as "rugby league" in the articles, and both The Daily Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald use "football" when referring to association football if you look at their recent articles.

Also, I'm not scratching my head in confusion, I do understand the linguistics of Australia-English and our use of "football" in the various codes. I myself have referred to more than one code as "football" when speaking to different people who support different codes, its part of our culture. And don't think the name Friday Night Football has changed in the last 20 years; no reason to as the program is targeted to people in rugby league circles.--2nyte (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed more parochial ignorance on display there. Please look at Friday Night Football (Australia). HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I love how 2nyte says things like "Both rugby league and rugby union are still referred as "football" in general public, though its usage has lessened." as though it's a fact.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. What I see is that there was a campaign to change the name of "soccer" to "football", that had some success, but that has now effectively stalled. The reality of language usage (among those horribly biased people) on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line means that it really can't go much further. I wonder if the Sydney based FFA bosses realised this would happen? Their acolytes here certainly can't believe it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you lot still arguing over code naming and associated issues? This ongoing arguing without resolution is not acceptable.

It is plain to me that this article should revert immediately to a disambiguation page pointing to the various Code in Australia articles. If not, then we begin formal Wikipedia arbitration - at the very least beginning with an RFC. --Falcadore (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, back to the article itself. Does anyone have any more input on the proposed article. The input so far has been on including the social divide between rugby league and rugby union (which I can't find information on), and the opposition of using "association football" rather than "soccer". But is there any other major issue or inclusions for the proposed article? Are there any opinions on the basic structure of the article, or does anyone not like the general idea?--2nyte (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a solution in search of a problem? Why are we changing anything? HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason I wanted the article to be a disambiguation page is because I thought the article did nothing to explain football codes in Australia. The article (and its current form) serves no purpose; the History section has no context, as does the Terminology and Participation sections. The Professional football, Media coverage and National teams sections should just be removed as they are just pointless dribble adding no context to the general football codes in Australia issue. My proposed article has context and direction; it gives readers a general understanding of the football landscape in Australia - the division between regions and cultures, and how popularity sways from the professional game to the amateur game. With this information readers can then take the knowledge and context to the respective code in Australia articles. I think my proposed article simplifies the important information and puts it all into context.--2nyte (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

And that's where we have a problem. You don't want the article to exist at all. You want it to be a disambiguation page. You also really want an article discussing "Football (anywhere)" to be about "soccer". I don't see the problems you claim about the current article. I don't think your POV on the basic existence and purpose of the article allow you to take a purely objective view. Any argument you present is really hiding other, stronger views. You haven't made a case for change. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I said I wanted (previously) for the article to be a disambiguation page as it had no value. The current one also has no value, that is why I am proposing a reworked version of it. I think I made a quite legitimate case for change in my previous comment.--2nyte (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah well, I guess we disagree on that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree on what? Do you think the article should remain as is? Don't you think it should be reworked as proposed?--2nyte (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the article as is. It could do with some refinement, but not a major rewrite. HiLo48 (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, the article is a copy and paste of different wikipedia article; some sections do not have any context, other are clearly unnecessary random facts. Every bit of information on this article can be found on the individual *Football code* in Australia articles, there is no purpose of this current one, that is why I proposed a new one that give further explanation to the football culture and the divisions it creates; that should be the purpose of this article. If you disagree, can you explain what purpose this current article serves, as well as that of the History section, the Terminology, Participation, Professional football, Media coverage and the National teams sections. I think readers gain nothing from it (as I specifically said above).--2nyte (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for "Football codes in Australia" article name

Why can't we simply call this article "Football codes in Australia"? This should be able to satisfy just about everyone except, perhaps, those with a diehard POV on the issue. This is also consistent with an already existing article name of Football codes which redirects to the Football (not only "soccer") article. Afterwriting (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That name would still allow debate on the name for the round ball code. Not sure that it solves the major problem here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The Football article does, however, provide some guidance on this issue and acts as something of a "model" for terminology on other articles. Afterwriting (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

What gets me about "association football", a seemingly preferred name, is that it's actually a name nobody uses. I want to see a GOOD reason for using a name that nobody uses here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, although the round ball game does not have an official name, the officially recognised term for the round ball game is "association football" (as "Australian football" is regarded the official name of Australian rules football); this is due to its usage in the Laws of the Game (along with "football"), and its reference in the highest governing bodies name - FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association). In a local scope, the term "association football" appears in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary (generally regarded as the authoritative source of Australian English).--2nyte (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. That bit about the laws of the game and about FIFA actually makes some sense. But the dictionary definition doesn't help. The Macquarie has a definition for "wogball" too, and we won't be using that. "Association football" still has the problem though that, unlike "Australian football", it's not a commonly recognised and instantly understood name for the game. "Soccer" is. HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And is that what wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) requires? A commonly recognised and instantly understood name? That is not necessarily the case. United States and Canada are the only countries that "soccer" is undoubtably, without question the name for the round ball game; any other say is just POV bias. That was also the case for Australia pre-2005, but since then there has been a case to drop the usage of "soccer" on Australian wikipedia articles. That case has only grown stronger, with major media organisations from all around the country dropping the term "soccer". Even the usage of "Real Footy" by The Age [2] (in reference to Aussie Rules) is a reminder that "football" now means something else to the general public, with The Age notable for taking a strong stance against the use of "football" for the round ball game, which is POV bias.--2nyte (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

What the...? That's the weirdest interpretation of that name for "Real Footy" that I've ever heard of. The case has NOT grown stronger. I think the change has stalled. You asked me about the use of "football" on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line. I gave you a comprehensive answer (with help from others) that highlighted why "soccer" isn't going to become "football" for that half of the Australian population any time soon. You declared that the whole 11 million of us are just biased, and tried to ignore the facts. "Football" does NOT now mean something else to the general public in that area. It's wishful thinking on your part to think otherwise. Please explain how the language will change. Wikipedia uses common names. "Soccer" is the ONLY unambiguous, universally understood, common name for the game in Australia. 04:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

1) How would you interpret the use of "Real Footy" by The Age?

2) If people refer to Australian rules football as "football" and not soccer as "football" they have POV bias. That is fact.

3) It doesn't matter if the language will or will not change, that is irrelevant. What does matter is the change that has happened, and that is a move towards the use of "football" and a dropping of "soccer" (not universally, but it has happened all through the country to some extent). That is also fact.--2nyte (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's just work on this claim of yours: If people refer to Australian rules football as "football" and not soccer as "football" they have POV bias. That is fact. If that's a bias, then every language usage difference throughout the world is a bias. Those who call the round ball game "football" just have a different bias. I'm not sure this is a helpful direction to be going. A linguistic custom based on 150 years of usage cannot be seen as a right or wrong thing. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a very long "bias" in Australia. The Melbourne Football Club was founded in 1859. The Victorian Football Association (now the Victorian Football League) was founded in 1877 and the Victorian Football League (renamed as the Australian Football League in 1990) was founded in 1897. And how long ago was Soccer Australia renamed to Football Federation Australia? And which code has the greatest following in Australia? On any unbiased observance the word "football" in Australia is both historically and overwhemingly commonly associated with Australian rules football. Arguments to the contrary are nonsensical. Afterwriting (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving the comments below, which I made yesterday in the section above, to this section as they are more relevant here:

A few days ago on ABC Radio in Melbourne there was a discussion about the relative occurence of violence and hooliganism by supporters at various sports. It was impossible not to note that all of the callers without exception referred to "association football" as "soccer". All of the soccer / association football supporters called the game "soccer" instead of "football" and some of them even referred to Australian rules football just as "football". Whatever the situation in New South Wales and Queensland may be, this just reinforced the fact that in Melbourne and Victoria ~ and, no doubt, in most of the rest of Australia ~ "football" nearly always means "Aussie rules". Afterwriting (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2014

I don't think the article's title needs to change. Admittedly some users don't seem to get the point but consensus is pretty clear that it's fine as it is.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, we always seem to go off topic. As I said from the beginning I think the title Football in Australia is ambiguous for any one code in Australia, so the page should either be a disambiguation page or a copy and paste of this article I made. The only reason to have the title Football codes in Australia is if Football in Australia is a disambiguation page. But besides that a page move would not serve any purpose--2nyte (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just as Football describes the global situation of many football codes around the world, this article describes the Australian situation. It seems a perfect regional article under that global umbrella. HiLo48 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Just like if the discussion was held on SBS radio it would revert to the commonly understood term for its listeners football. All of these claims are a bit rich, my Italian lecturer at the university I attended without adding names so as not to bring anyone unnecessarily into this debate refers to the game primarily as football, but is quite prominent in the discussion of linguistics and has also been on ABC Radio National about it. Anyway, to come back to the point, listener audience doesn't really mean much on one channel a person interviewed may say soccer and on another channel they may say football. This does not resolve what their personal opinion is on the matter of word usage. It just means for common usage within that particular studio at the time of the discussion they use the term "soccer" to be on the same page. More broadly, the ABC's style guide would appear to be to use the word football rather than soccer in reference to the round ball game in the majority of their online, television and radio content. This cannot really be questioned.

Further to the point I did here someone in this thread bring up the weight of numbers, my loose research would suggest there is at least 3.4 million second generation "migrants" in this country who are specifically caught between two cultures here which is causing this issue we are seeing flaring up constantly here. That is fairly significant if you ask me and nothing to "snore" about. We are a people with our cultural influences which is simply being ignored by those who purport the Barassi Line as the be all and end all of social divides in Australia. As I have suggested to HiLo48 he really needs to do some further reading on the matter. --Orestes1984 (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Right... this is why it's impossible to have a sensible discussion with the above editor and why this articles and others like it will continue to be marred by drive by editing, meat puppetry, and weasel words.--Orestes1984 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)