Talk:Australia national football team

Edit war on soccer/football

I can't make head or tail of the discussion below, and previous discussion have been removed. So here's my summary:

There's been an edit war going on about whether this should be Soccer or Football. The page has been protected by User:Woohookitty at 06:33, February 22, 2006.

There are competing arguments in favour of football and soccer being used. To me there appear to be four options:

1. Australia National Football Team with Australia National Soccer Team and Socceroos redirecting to it.
2. Australia National Soccer Team with Australia National Football Team and Socceroos redirecting to it.
3. Socceroos with Australia National Football Team and Socceroos redirecting to it.
4. Australia National Soccer Team with Socceroos redirecting to it. Australia National Football Team as a disambiguation page including links to national teams in other football codes.

So can we just put this up for a simple vote? Shermozle 17:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There has already been a vote. The previous vote/discussion, from a few months ago, is at Talk:Australia national soccer team/Archive 1. "Australian national soccer team" won. I can't remember if Australian national football (soccer) team was an option, but it should have been. Grant65 | Talk 10:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's the vote? It was suggested several times, esp. here, but there was never a poll taken. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Polls suck, anyway. What's the page? m:Voting is evil, I think? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to have a fair poll when there is attempted "concerted action" to stop the page being called football anyway. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I was wrong about the vote; I guess it was so obviously unecessary that it wasn't held.

It's "unfair" to mention the matter to people who might be interested? And I don't see anything wrong with concerted action against arrogant recalcitrants who insist on wasting our time with article names and content which flies in the face of accepted Australian English usage. Cheers. Grant65 | Talk 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make to the people who contribute to rugby league and Vic rules articles? The fact that All Australian Team and Australian Int. Rules team are listed on Australian national football team (disambiguation) but there is no disambig page for Australian national Australian rules football team shows that it is in fact the stubborn Vic Rules contributors who are spending to much time trying to protect "their" word from usage by other sports. Honestly, how does the name changing from soccer to football to reflect official and growing common usage affect the quality of the article or that of NRL and AFL articles? We are writing an encyclopedia here, I for one do not feel the need to alert people who may have the same viewpoint as me to take "concerted action" against those meddling with something outside their apparent preferred subject area. You did not "mention" the matter, you posted notices on several selected pages in an attempt to draw people towards your argument. If they were interested, it'd be on their watchlist, or they'd at least have seen the page some time whilst this argument has been going on. Cheers. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What is Vic rules? And you claim to be annoyed that we want to use the term the vast majority of Australians use which is soccer. Xtra 04:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

In what way does it help Wikipedia to insist the page be called soccer? The page was at football for almost a full year until Grant65 decided to move it Nov 29 2005, incredibly marking the move as "minor". There was no problem previously, and anyone strange enough to lookup 'football' when searching for the Kangaroos, Wallabies, the Vic Rules "team" or the Int Rules team was easily redirected using the disambig page. I don't see the reason you are so threatened that sokkah is "hijacking" the word football. Again, Australian national Australian rules football team does not exist, which seems to indicate what the agenda behind your constant arguments is - and quite simply, it's not helping Wikipedia in any way, or the people that use it. The team is called the Australian national football team and that's where the majority of people searching an encyclopedia would expect to find it. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not exist heh? I don't have any hidden agenda and i cannot understand why you are resorting to put downs and calling australian rules football vic rules. I played soccer for three years and just like over 90% of Australians, I know the game as soccer. I do not know what your problem is. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Xtra 06:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't know anyone who calls it the "Australia" national football or soccer team". :o) Using the noun rather than the adjectival form of the name is a rather strange Wikipedia convention, and not one this little bunfight is going to make any difference to. As for what way it helps Wikipedia to call the page soccer — it stops Australians from doing a double-take at the page title. Most of us call the round-ball game "soccer", whatever the FFA would like — if we didn't, there'd've been no bloody point to all those "Football, but not as you know it" ads, would there? "Australia national football team" redirects to the soccer page right now anyway, so overseas fans of what SBS calls the World Game aren't going to get confused. Oh, and Australia national Australian rules football team does exist, it's just that people use the official name All Australian Team because it's shorter. Redirects have been created. ～J.K. 06:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Australia national football team belongs here

Why do you move it so much? --193.251.72.171 04:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not. This has already been canvased and rejected. Xtra 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

By who? the Ozzie Rulez boyz? --202.47.49.74 05:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Il se comporte bizarrement. T'es bon pour t'appeller xelory. Sors de là! --193.251.72.171 05:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

193.251, at least you have the excuse that you aren't Australian.

Le jeu s'appelle le "soccer" en Australie, juste comme il est au Québec également. Australian rules football et le Jeu de Treize sont le "football" en Australie. Grant65 | Talk 10:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mais naturellement, l'"football" est seulement un surnom pour ces sports et le peuple qui l'emploient sait cela. s'il recherchait l'information dans une encyclopédie, ils rechercheraient l'expression correcte. AlbinoMonkey^{(in association with babelfish) (Talk)} 12:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No, "football" was the original name for all these games. It was only when rules started getting written down and disambiguation from other codes was needed that the different names sprang up — notice that most of them are geographic (Aussie rules, American football, Rugby is a town in England, etc etc etc). ～J.K. 08:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Non, « football » fut le nom original de tous ces jeux. C'était plus tard seulement, quand des réglements ont été écrits et il a fallu distinguer chaque réglement des autres, que les noms plus spécifiques ont apparu : remarquez que la plupart d'entre eux sont géographiques — Aussie rules ( « réglement australien » ), America(i)n football, Rugby est une ville anglaise, et ainsi de suite. ～J.K. 09:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read that football meant a game played on foot, as opposed to on horseback, if that makes any difference. It does explain why games like rugby where the ball is mostly not kicked are still called football. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ben, see football (word). Grant65 | Talk 09:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you were to go to an encyclopedia (even one printed in Victoria or WA) trying to find information about Aussie Rules, would you seriously look up football? 02:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

When I was, oooh, six or so? Yes. ～J.K. 03:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

stupid arguments. please stop. --203.206.42.176 19:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

RFD result

I have resolved the discussion at RFD of this redirect (suggested 2005-12-03) as no consensus; the suggestion was out-of-process as no {{rfd}} tag was added to the article. Here is an archive of the discussion:

• Australia national football team → Australia national soccer team — See talk page. Soccer is the common name of the sport in Australia, and the word "football" usually refers to either Australian rules football or rugby league, depending on region. See football (word) and football (soccer) names for more details/support. The articles United States men's national soccer team, Canada men's national soccer team and New Zealand national soccer team have the names that they do for similar reasons. However one user insists on moving the page back to Australian national football team. Grant65 | Talk 04:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there’s an alternative meaning for this phrase, make it a disambiguation, don’t come here. Susvolans ⇔ 12:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is, I am not able to move the article without cutting 'n' pasting. I don't know how this particular user is managing to overcome the bar on moving pages back to redirects, but he/she has. This is in spite of a clear consensus at Talk:Australia national football team that the article should not have the present name. Grant65 | Talk 21:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless there's a national Aussie rules or rugby league team. NSLE _{(讨论+extra CVU)} 06:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentThis is not really the right place for this--deleting the redirect wouldn't accomplish anything. You need to bring it up at WP:RM, and if the user in question ignores concensus created by that, discuss with administrators whether you can have it protected against moves. Chick Bowen 16:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed entry from RFD. Demi ^T/_C 19:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why this page is about soccer

I've reverted to redirect to soccer, because the expression "national football team" is mainly used to refer to the soccer team. Even though football can mean any code, "national football team" almost always means the soccer team. Even if we ignored that, we already have a perfectly good disambig page which we could redirect to. This page should not be a copy of it. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we don't need a separate disambig page. I'm sure both rugby league and Australian rules supporters refer to their respective "national team" or "Australian team". If they don't say "national football team" it's because they are generally talking to people who know which game they're referring to. Another reason for this to be a disambig page is to educate non-Australians about usage of the word "football" in Australia. Grant65 | Talk 11:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Put it another way: if you're up for fixing all the links here that refer to the soccer team (and there are more than 100), and keeping a frequent eye on the Whatlinkshere page for the foreseeable future — which would be necessary to catch all the soccer-fan editors from overseas putting links to the Socceroos' page in the usual Wikipedia format without checking — then go ahead and put the disambig here. I don't think it's worth the bother when we can put one disambig link on top of Australia national soccer team, getting most people where they want to go in one click and everyone else in two or three. ～J.K. 08:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Even if someone is good enough to volunteer to do that work, the fact that it would need to be done is evidence that common usage is that "national football team" means Socceroos. This doesn't mean we shouldn't use the word Soccer in Australian articles about soccer, even including articles about the Socceroos, just that the expression "national football team" means soccer. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, It's evidence that people writing soccer articles are unaware of Australian usage of "football" and are using the standard format for the names of articles about national soccer teams. Grant65 | Talk 09:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I get the impression that most people writing soccer articles here are either Brits, Irish, or non-native English speakers. ～J.K. 13:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets see, I was born in Sydney, as were my parents and grandparents, but I write football articles. Does that make me British?Tancred 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it makes you exceptional. I do apologise, it was late and I left out the word "most" from the last sentence. ～J.K. 23:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

*Sigh* again..

I trust that the people who insist on pointing this to a disambiguation page are going to fix all these ? -- Chuq 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, fixing the redirects with a bot is a relatively simple technical matter. This is not going to go away. I have tried to point out to the "soccer = football" fraternity how this is at odds with normal usage in Australian English, and how controversial and provocative it is to redirect this to the Socceroos article. Eventually, I think, weight of numbers from the other football codes will take their course. Grant | Talk 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So 99%+ plus of those links will be pointing to Australia national football (soccer) team - yet you don't think it should be redirected there? I have no issue with general articles with "football" in the name being a disambiguation page. However when talking about a "national football team" there is no question that Australia national football (soccer) team is going to be the intended target for 99%+ of links. (And if you disagree, then that implies the redirects can not be fixed with a bot, in which case my original point still stands.) -- Chuq 06:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk about circular logic. It is beside the point which articles point here at the moment, because (1) those links relating to the Socceroos have been created by people who don't know and/or don't care about the normal/popular/common usage of "football" in Australia and; (2) you are presuming that internal linkage is all that counts, when many peple will come to this page as a result of Google searches. You cannot verify that the Socceroos are going to be the intended target for people using search terms like "Australia football national team", and it is logical that followers of rugby league or Australian rules would also search for their respective national teams using terms like "Australiian national football team". If the problem can't be solved with a bot, then it shows that the Socceroos are not the only possible objective of someone coming to this page. Grant | Talk 07:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at a Google search for 'Australia football national team'? Apart from Wikipedia pages and their mirrors, 5 of the remaining 6 entries on the first page are referring to the football (soccer) team. The results for Google search for 'Australia national football team' are even more definite - not a single hit on the first three pages refers to any other sport. -- Chuq 08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How can we have more than one Australia national football team? Rugby league and rugby union never call their Australian team the national football team and Aussie Rules doesn't have a national team. --202.47.49.216 11:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Chuq, Google shows what people will find, not what they search for. We can help to fix that :-)

202.47, put it this way, "football + national + team" = ARL Kangaroos to most people in NSW and Queensland. And to the rest of us, it means All Australian team (they are so clear about what they are, they don't even bother using the word football ;-) and/or the Australia international rules football team (and if you think that's not an Aussie rules team...well they ain't playing soccer). Grant | Talk 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to not let people find what they are most likely looking for, going by both internal and external statistics? The All Australian team and International rules football in general are nothing more than marketing gimmicks to make it look like Australian has a national AFL team (which it clearly doesn't)? And as far as rugby union/rugby league goes, it would be rugby, or rugby league, or rugby union, or Wallabies, or Kangaroos, or Bledisloe Cup match, or Tri-Series match or anything like that before you would ever hear it be called "football" on the news or in a newspaper.

This has been gone over again and again (I'm sure you (Grant) have read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and its talk page) and whenever it comes up it is some anon IP out of nowhere or one of Rugby 666's socks causing trouble. -- Chuq 12:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste time arguing with your bald and toothless contradictions, because I think the history of Australian English will have the final say. We do have "national AFL [sic] teams", however much you want to deny it, and most rugby league fans call their game "football". As for marketing gimmicks, what else is the futile attempt by the soccercrats to hijack the word "football"? Grant | Talk 15:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Kangaroos are never called the national football team and there is no national AussiBall Rules team. What Grant65 wants to exist in Australia isn't what really exists. Stop making it up. --202.47.52.134 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

202.47, the same goes for you. I'm not going to make your ignorance into my problem. Goodbye. Grant | Talk 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tagging

I've tagged the article as POV title for the same reason Australia national football team is tagged. Australia has two national soccer teams, and by redirecting to one national team over another, a NPOV judgement call is being made. Please do not remove without discussion regarding how to resolve the the fact of Australia having two national soccer teams segregated based on gender. --LauraHale (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)