| Revision as of 15:32, 25 September 2013 edit2nyte (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,702 edits →Gibson Flying V soccer and women's content removal: Add.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:32, 26 November 2024 edit undoHarleycat89 (talk | contribs)1 edit →Wheelchair national teams: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic | ||
| (160 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{WP Australia|sports=yes|class=C|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Australia|sports=yes|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Football|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Rugby league}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Rugby union|importance=Low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject American football}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{tan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 5 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Football in Australia/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == Outdated references == | |||
| == Mattdocbrown's obsession with proving Rugby League to be the best == | |||
| I just saw an editor on the basis that it was not sustained by the sourcing. On checking the sourcing I find that we are relying on documents published in 1913 and 1930! | |||
| Look, liking a sport is great. Trying to prove that it's better than another with trivial observations only makes it look trivial itself. | |||
| Perhaps we should take a look at changes made over the past few decades? | |||
| The attempt to score points with attendance at SOE is misguided. DO read the reference carefully. It says "The 2010...State of Origin series was the most viewed ever across the five capital cities." That does NOT compare SOE with any other event. It compares it with other SOEs. I had already mentioned in my Edit summary that you had this wrong, but you kept adding it. Did you not think to look? I did! | |||
| Here's a little more up to date. Oddly enough we don't seem to recognise in our article that Football is the most widely played team sport in the nation. | |||
| Because you kept re-adding that crap, I couldn't be bothered checking all your other stuff. Much of it really is trivial. If equivalent content was added for every other code we would have the biggest load of rubbish in Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Perhaps we can discuss the currency and accuracy of the stuff we are feeding the readers? --] (]) 03:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :What is SOE?--] (]) 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry. The NSW vs Qld ''State of Origin'' series. ] (]) 05:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nowhere do I claim rugby league is better than AFL. I've provided valid links to the 2010 ratings that include both regional and metropolitan ratings that list the 40 games that rated higher than 1 million and the 9.7 million who watched state of origin. It's as valid as listing the attendance figure or ratings for an AFL grand final. As for internationals, I find it interesting that you are happy to allow the Socceroos, Wallabies and even the International AFL rules teams to be listed, yet you deleted a valid reference to the Kangaroos. Clearly you have an anti-Rugby League obsession HiLo. You don't see me deleting information about AFL.] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 06:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::No. TV ratings for cherry picked events are NOT comparable with Grand Final attendances. And you're right, I did delete some stuff that may have been significant, but, as I already explained, it was buried among heaps of trivial rubbish that had never been discussed here before adding it. THAT'S the way to avoid upsetting people on WIkipedia. I am sure if I looked I could find all sorts of exciting ratings figures for various AFL events, but I don't think they're important. And they are meaningless without some sort of comparison. How significant is it for a game to rate higher than 1 million? Doesn't ''Home and Away'' do that every day? I get the impression that you see TV ratings as having major significance, but you will have to convince the rest of the world of that. ] (]) 06:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC) ] (]) 06:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I think you may have made an error with the link behind your "something". I suspect you meant to place a potential source there, rather than a link back to a diff for this article. ] (]) 03:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| BROUGHT OVER FROM MY TALK PAGE AFTER FINALLY GETTING Mattdocbrown's ATTENTION: | |||
| ::Well spotted! I screwed up. Now fixed. Thanks. --] (]) 06:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think that source is all that helpful for this particular issue. The part of the edit I particularly saw needing a source was the claim that "the term football is becoming more popular". In fact, that article calls the sport soccer. To support what you want the article to say, you would need a source that effectively says "the term football is becoming more popular". ] (]) 06:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :This event isn't cherry picked. It's a representative football series - just like International/Gaelic Rules AFL and International Union. Every code has these matches so it's comparable. Representative football is different to domestic club competition - even the AFL page lists it seperately. If a state match outrates an international, clearly it's of significance. As for explaining to you what ''Oztam and RegionalTam'' are, you're clearly admitting that you don't know how ratings are measured? Yet you still somehow KNOW it's wrong to automatically delete it. Clearly you're uninformed. The ratings section already has a link to explain what Oztam is. As for the comparable AFL ratings over 1,000,000 nationally, there have only been 10 AFL matches to achieve that this year. If you want to put that on the article as a further direct comparison, feel free. As to how significant is it for a game to rate higher than 1 million - the EXISTING article clearly states that Rugby league and Australian rules football directly compete for the largest overall Audience measurement and Media marketshare, PRIMARILY MEASURED IN TERMS OF TELEVISION RATINGS. In the context of the article, the fact that Rugby League has 73 of the top 100 pay TV matches and 40 of the 53 million+ rating free to air football games is significant. Would you like to add that to the article? Now that you're aware of this, I guess it's your choice if you want to omit this information in order to make the AFL appear better than what the truth is. I don't want to upset you, but just because you dislike the information doesn't mean it's not real.(] (]) 07:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| ::::Perhaps you could address the point being made? Are you actually reverting edits because your preferred source for a statement on current events predates the First World War???? --] (]) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have made my point here for now. We don't have a source for the claim "the term football is becoming more popular". ] (]) 08:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::My point concerns your behaviour. You support century-old references to refer to current events, to the point of edit-warring over them. That's not a good way to provide useful information to our readers. As you must know, having spent the past two decades gritting your teeth, the use of the term Football to refer to the sport previously known as Soccer is steadily increasing. It surprised me too, and I speak as a Victorian of a similar antiquity to yourself, but when I looked into the facts, I found things had changed since the salad days of youth. Here are a few sources for you to grit your teeth over: | |||
| ::::::*''Australia is eagerly embracing football precisely because we are hungrily embracing the rest of the world, are more outward-looking than ever before, are maturing in our acceptance of what modern Australia looks like and of what an Australian actually is.'' | |||
| ::::::*''more and more Australians refer to the game as football and not soccer.'' -- | |||
| ::::::*''Harking back to 2006 is relevant as that was a time when football, or soccer as it was more commonly called in that era, reinvented itself in Australia.'' | |||
| ::::::*''The survey stated that more than a million men, women, boys and girls are playing football, a statistic which continues to dwarf the numbers achieved by all other sports in Australia.'' | |||
| ::::::As has been pointed out several times, all national media outlets refer to "Football" alongside "AFL", "NRL" etc on their sports pages. Twenty years ago it was "Soccer". Times are changing: , , , , and so on and on. --] (]) 11:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Please stop talking about me. That will not solve the issue here. ] (]) 11:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As I noted, the issue is ''your'' editing behaviour. Edit-warring to preserve statements about current events based on references dating to before the First World War. I'm sorry that you don't see this bizarre behaviour as appropriate for editors to discuss, and I don't want to hurt your feelings as a human being, but we are engaged in writing an encyclopaedia for people to refer to and having accurate information on the 21st Century is generally seen as being a positive factor in Misplaced Pages's coverage. I honestly don't know how to discuss your editing behaviour without referring to you. Whether you agree or not, "Football" is becoming more common in Australia to refer to the sport previously and almost universally known here as "Soccer". Times are changing. The world moves on. Can we accept this, even if we oldies don't particulary like it? --] (]) 11:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Please stop talking about me. ] (]) 11:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Wheelchair national teams == | |||
| :I'm happy for anyone to list an annual Australian representative football tournament that rates higher. (] (]) 07:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| A question on the national teams: wheelchair rugby is designated in this table as ‘rugby league’, but the listed national team (Steelers) play the version of wheelchair rugby formerly known as ]. In Australia, it’s (union). The NRL now facilitates a wheelchair rugby league competition that has different rules and a different national team (). | |||
| ::Yep, you ARE trying to prove that League is better! And yes, I AM uninformed. TV ratings are a mystery to most people. I'm glad you understand it, but their significance needs to be explained with your claims, along with the comparisons, IN THE ARTICLE. I believe AFL TV rights are worth a lot more than League TV rights. Given your claims above, why would that be? ] (]) 07:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Should the Steelers therefore be moved to rugby union and the Wheelaroos added to rugby league? I ask because I’m only 90% sure it’s the right move, but open to arguments otherwise. ] (]) 14:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::So when The Pope puts in AFL Grand Final outrates the NRL Grand Final, he's not trying to prove AFL is better? You seem to have no problem with him, yet you have a problem with rugby league. In no way did I say that Rugby League is better than AFL. If you want to ignore or delete the very real ratings that I've mentioned, it says more about yourself than it does about me. As for explaining how TV ratings work within the article, I can easily copy across the Oztam explanation. However most well informed people are aware of people-meters. The article already states that these ratings are important, yet you seem to not want to give specific numbers. As for TV rights, it has only been in the past 3 to 4 years that NRL ratings have start to match and surpass AFL ratings - well after the last TV deal was sign. The ratings for AFL in Melbourne are down 10% this year which were down 6% from the year before that, with Melbourne constituting the major core base of AFL ratings. I have links to this also if you'd like me to put it in the article. As for speculating why rights are worth more, perhaps it has something to do with Kerry Packer forcing his 7 & 10 rivals to pay through the roof as his last deathbed act. Who knows for sure? Both the AFL and NRL rights are in a massive tier above both Soccer and Union. Recent speculation by media analysts have estimated that the next rights deal will be much closer, depending on coverage areas, anti-siphoning changes and expansion teams. But as I've said - all of this is pure speculation - and doesn't belong in the article. Five years ago AFL had 16 one million national matches a year. As for why AFL ratings are in decline, I don't know fully, because the coverage has been the same for some time. Perhaps the same teams monopolosing the schedule may have something to do with it. Any thoughts as to why AFL ratings have declined? (] (]) 07:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| ::: Fair comments on the ratings. As I said, I'm no expert. that's why I sought more information. You are good at explaining it here. Why not try to explain it in the article so you don't have to assume such a well informed readership? After all, it's a global encyclopaedia. But I'm still concerned about the State of Origin claim. I haven't read it cover to cover, but I don;t think your source is saying what you think it is saying. It doesn't compare the audience figure with anything but other SoOs. Other sports are not mentioned, or included. ] (]) 08:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :We have to remember that, at the moment, we are talking about the lead paragraphs of the article - which is pretty minimal at the moment And the article is Football in Australia. It is not Football Television Ratings in Australia. Make up a separate article about that if you want - or at best make it a section, but if you do that there probably should be more detailed sections on participation, attendance, media coverage, history etc. This article was a dab page until May last year, so it has evolved from that and hasn't really been laid out fully to cover all of the issues yet. | |||
| :The lede should only contain the '''most''' important facts. Above I'm <s>accused</s> queried about an AFL bias because I put the AFL GF as being the #1 show last year ahead of the NRL GF. If the result was the other way round, I would have put that. #1 watched sports event for a recent year is notable. You could argue why not 2010, why not for the whole of the 2000s, why not of all time, and I'd say go for it...but only if you can find a reliable independent reference and put it in. I happened to find a ref for 2009. But don't put in too much info, not in the lede. Don't put NRL was the most watched in 1997-2001, AFL for the next 2, then NRL for 3, then AFL and NRL for a year each etc. Keep it simple. Unless you do the sectioning thing and reference everything. | |||
| :Most games above 1 million viewers is an arbitrary figure, why not 750k? Why not 1.5 mill? 500k? Either way it doesn't belong in the lead. Popularity of SoO could be suitable for the lede, but not the way it's currently written, as there is no regular equivalent representative series in any other code. Saying that they are the next most watched football games after the grand finals is better than claiming a crown against virtually noone. Soccer internationals are ad hoc, not a regular series, rugby tri-nations could only just be considered similar. | |||
| : And Matt, AFL tv ratings might be down recently, probably because we actually ] the ], and not just watch them on tv.] (]) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Well there's a paragraph for AFL attendances so having a paragraph for TV ratings is equally valid. As for total season ratings for the games covered by the broadcast deals, the NRL's total viewership for 2010 is 129 million for 210 games (192 H&A, 9 finals, 1 CvC, 3 SOO, 1 AS, 4 4N's) (614,250 per game) compared to 115 million for the AFL's 188 (176 H&A, 10 finals, 2 IRS) (611,700 per game). The reason it averages out so close is because AFL has 4 to 5 F2A games a week but NRL games rate better than AFL on Pay-TV - that's why the NRL is slightly ahead - despite only getting primetime coverage in half the country. As for 1 million viewers - it's the minimum cut off for the top programs list of the year and used by the networks as bragging rights. That same list is then used by advertisers to choose which programs to sponsor. As for equivalent representative games, there are: 4 Nations, Tri-Nations, International Rules. The three game State of Origin outrates the entire 9 game Union tri-nations series. There are 6-10 regular international soccer games played. However these are on Fox so attract comparitevly lower ratings. (] (]) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| ::It's silly throwing the ''International Rules'' series into that mix. Most AFL fans don't take it very seriously at all, and technically it's a different sport, so there's really little point in even mentioning it. I'd still like to see an exact source for your claim about the SoO being "the most viewed representative series of any sporting code". I found wording that looks a lot like that in one of your sources, but not quite the same, and meaning something very different, not quite so grand. So can you give us a precise link? If it's that pdf file, a page number could help. ] (]) 05:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :As for AFL attendances, yes they're bigger. You don't see me debating that. I've heard AFL fans tell me that the game is worse on TV than at the ground - but - as a fan you're either watching the game live at the ground or on TV. You can't be in two places at once. The % of fans in both codes who watch multiple games is almost equal, with a slight edge to the AFL, primarily given their larger coverage on F2A (as pay TV only covers 30% of the population) (] (]) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| ::How about a general statement that says the two are closely matched for TV ratings? Surely not too difficult to find a source for. Is there a need to go into such detail?--] (]) 04:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I have a source that lists the ratings up to the AFL Grand Final#2 and the NRL Grand Final. It doesn't include those games or the games after. (] (]) 07:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)) | |||
| ==Introductions== | |||
| This article all looks very competitive. It's the four codes against each other from different aspects. Perhaps it could have a basic introduction to each of the four say a paragraph on each including major competitions, clubs, events, representative teams, history?? | |||
| ] (]) 04:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, the article has been captured by the "my code is the best" brigade. I would endorse your proposal, but don't have much time to help. ] (]) 17:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Football as soccer == | |||
| Edits were recently made to this article which stated soccer = Football. All references to soccer were changed to Football, emphasis on the capital F. This absolutely cannot be done because it makes the article impossible to read and understand in a country where football can refer to any one of seven different codes. It makes the meaning incredibly difficult to understand. ] in Australia is what is required to make this article make sense. --] (]) 06:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :There is only one Football!! --] (]) 08:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :This article shows extreme bias against Football! Why is so much of it dedicated to aussie rules. No one knows about aussie rules outside of Victoria. For example, why is there just an aussie rules table, and no other table for Football. The fact that International rules is mentioned is an affront to all true Football lovers and should be deleted immediately. It is a national embarassment. What are you people thinking?? --] (]) 08:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Right. When I tune into the footy show, which code will I get? Sadly, there is multi-code reality in Australia. Contributions appreciated, but if ] is being discussed, it needs to use soccer. If you want to add additional information, you can and should... but not at the expense of using it to booster your preferred code. --] (]) 08:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Well you will either get a show about ARF or Rugby I think you will find. Though how that is relevent to football (soccer) isn't redily apparent as it is not referred to as footy. ] (]) 07:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Please see the article ] and its Talk page. Extensive discussion there led to the consensus that '''Soccer''' is the practical and sensible name for the round ball game in Australia. ] (]) 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. --] (]) 04:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| That 'discussion' does in no way settle anything regarding the usage of the word soccer in isolation to football. Football and soccer are interchangeable words in the same way that league and football, and rugby and football, and Australian Rules Football and football are. There should be no issue with the term football (soccer) being used as it is entirely unambiguous and correct both within Australia and globally. To clarify I have no problems with the term soccer at all, but I do have an issue with the unsustainable reasoning behind the alteration from football (soccer) to soccer. I would also want it made apparant that if you can provide a sound and logical reason for this change to be maintained I will accept it, so far though this has not been able to be done. ] (]) 07:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : the whole article is about football, so writing football (soccer) is a very clumsy, verbose and harder to read wikispecific style that is entirely unnecessary in this article. ] (]) 09:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::In normal conversation nobody ever actually calls the round ball code ''football (soccer)''. They simply call it ''soccer'' if they aren't fans, or if they are and are trying to communicate with the the wider community. If they are fans, they may use just ''football'', or just ''soccer''. But just ''football'' won't work in this article. ''Football (soccer)'' seems to me to be some sort of clumsy, artificial compromise which isn't going to please many people at all. ] (]) 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation== | |||
| Why is ] and all the other states disambiguations pages and this is not? If it is to compare one football code to another why not do it state by state as well? Alternatively why exclude sports not called football from the comparision. The arbitrary term football is not a good reason. --] (]) 08:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, this is a very clumsy article which inevitably attracts those wanting to prove that their favoured form of football is better than the others. Better to just point readers at the articles on the individual codes and let them draw their own conclusions. ] (]) 08:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed.--] (]) 12:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == A new, valuable looking source == | |||
| What do you all think? ] (]) 06:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Something is missing == | |||
| The first sentence in the National teams section starts with "National football teams include ])..."; obviously something has been lost, but I have no clue what. --] (]) 02:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Replace article with disambiguation page == | |||
| Reading through the article I see no real need for it. Most of the specific (and more useful) content can be found on the respecting individual sporting articles (that is, of rugby league, rugby union, Australian rules football, association football). I think it would be best to just replace article with a disambiguation page instead. Something like this: | |||
| '''] in Australia''' may refer to several popular sports played in the country. These include: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| It may also include: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Thoughts?--] (]) 08:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Oh FFS, soccer fans <big>ARE</big> problem editors. 2nyte has just modified the above post, three and a half days after people began to comment on it. His change unsurprisingly makes several of the comments made over that period look rather strange, referring as they do to his original text. To clarify, the second block of text in brackets in the second sentence originally read "(''that is, of league, union, ALF, football'')". I hope this helps later arriving editors understand what was going on before yet another soccer fan stuffed up this discussion, yet again. ] (]) 07:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)''' | |||
| ::::The change that was made, is poor Wikiquette. ] is something everyone needs to be familiar with. --] (]) 08:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Also, the change that was made by ], is poor Wikiquette. ] is something everyone needs to be familiar with. The change unsurprisingly makes several of the comments below look rather strange, referring as they do to the original text.--] (]) 04:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)''' | |||
| :::::Thanks for that AussieLegend. The sad thing is that after I and others criticised his wording, in several places below, 2nyte vigorously and aggressively defended it, and accused me and the others of possessing all sorts of evil characteristics. He has obviously realised the error of his ways, which is a good thing, but in trying to do something about it he has stuffed things up even more. A simple apology later in the thread would have been a lot more effective, constructive and diplomatic. Right now we just have a bigger mess. ] (]) 08:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :'''<big>NO!</big>''' And just piss off with your constant efforts to try to make everyone use the name ''football'' for ''soccer'' in Australia, as you've given away in your second sentence. (And ALF! LOL.) You're losing the argument at ], and are now forum shopping to keep wasting everyone's time. Nobody should have to keep repeating arguments all over the place just because you're obsessed, and clearly have nothing better to do. ] (]) 08:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't understand how you have come to that conclusion, I am not trying to be cryptic. Though, regarding the topic are you saying no to replacing this article with a disambiguation page? What usefulness do you find in the current article that cannot be found on the on the individual footballing articles?--] (]) 08:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The usefulness is it provides an overview of football in Australia. Individual articles do not. We moved ] away from that by sport method of thinking because it is entirely inaccurate in its depiction of sport in Australia, by giving equal weight to underwater hockey and Australian football. What rationale do you have that explains greater use for that disambiguation than the current article text? --] (]) 08:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: No. The article talking about the various football codes is better than a disambiguation as it most accurately reflects the history of football in Australia. I am not seeing why a result article should be replaced with a disambiguation. I also do not see why it should have soccer placed above alphabetically above the other two codes, especially when soccer is the least profitable code domestically. You're also missing Touch football and seven-a-side football. --] (]) 08:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did intend for the list to be in alphabetical order. That was a mistake on my part. Though as for other sports, I only looked as far as ], so I didn't see Touch football or seven-a-side football, but I don't mind them being added. Maybe something on Gaelic football as well. As for the reason why, well as ] said on ]: ''"this is a very clumsy article which inevitably attracts those wanting to prove that their favoured form of football is better than the others. '''Better to just point readers at the articles on the individual codes''' and let them draw their own conclusions"''. Also I think this article is very general and could easily be summarised into a few lines (or even better, a disambiguation page).--] (]) 09:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why did you use the word ''football'' to describe ''soccer'' in your post, defying a consensus you're extremely well aware of? I know why, though other readers may not. It's your pig-headed, stubborn, forum shopping, ignorance based immaturity on display. As for this article, it's better now if we improve it, maybe adding detail that crosses the boundaries of the different games called football in Australia. The obvious crossover is between league and union, but in over 150 years of games called ''football'' being played there's obviously a lot more. ] (]) 10:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's not like you, HiLo48, to be quite so intemperate. I do take issue with your contention that the consensus here is that Association football be referred to as "soccer". I cannot understand why you are so dedicated to not using the code's proper name ie. "Association football". What would be your reaction if we tried to change the references to Australian Rules football as "footie" - the diminutive used in the southern states. ] (]) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It is footy. Even there, your point gets lost. There is a footy show for Aussie rules, rugby league, rugby union and soccer. If you're talking about an unofficial nickname for the sport, you'd have the same problem. Association football is the official name of Australian rules in parts of the country where the sport is not professional. I assume you are referring to that particular code in Australia when talking about association football? I do not understand why a few people want to defy ] for Australia in order to push a pro-soccer agenda at the expense of Australian sport. The FFA name does not imply common usage. The A-League does not have soccer in its name. The Melbourne Football Club, one of the oldest and most well known football clubs in Australia, is not soccer. There is no demonstration of other codes no longer being referred to as football, while at the same time a demonstration of common usage of soccer being football. If you HAD that, if you could argue with evidence, your faction would have presented it as opposed to engaging in these sort of attacks. --] (]) 16:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This should be converted into a disamibuation page. An article titled '''Football in Australia''' should be about one topic, not four. If there was a direct relationship between the codes there would be something to write about. If the only thing in common is an '''unofficial nickname''' then that pretty much is the definition of unencyclopedic isn't it? ] (]) 12:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree. All football codes in Australia have grown independently of one another, besides a name there's no real relationship.--] (]) 14:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again, massive ignorance on display. Are you aware how easily and frequently players now move between the highest levels of ''rugby league'' and ''union'', especially now that both are professional? Plus the much smaller but real number of players who have added ''Aussie Rules'' to the rugby entries on their CVs? And please explain the obsession with avoiding the name ''soccer''? It's unambiguous. It's NOT offensive. It can't be, or nobody would have joined my local ''soccer club'', would they? And it's a quite successful club. And Billy, I'm not aggressively opposed to ''Association football'' as a name, it's just that nobody actually uses it in normal discourse. Many won't know what it means. I didn't until I discovered it here. It's a foolish choice of name. But if we must follow Misplaced Pages convention, it's no problem to me. I just think it SHOULD be a problem to the soccer fans. ] (]) 02:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This page is about one topic - "Football in Australia", which almost uniquely to Australia means different things to different people. The advantage of this page over a standard disambiguation page and the individual sport pages is that it gives an opportunity to explain the unique mix of football codes that exist in Australia, and how they each have some prevalence depending on geography, era (probably could do with expanding historically, not just the current situation), participation, television, attendance or other factors. It doesn't have to be a "my sport's better than yours" pissing match. Reverting to just a dab page would be a huge step backwards, when what we need is to keep working forwards on this page. For instance, the "Soccer" to "Football" transition officially and in the media should be mentioned. I'm sure that there are plenty of academic studies out there into the multiple codes in Australia. ] (]) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do agree it would be good to have an article depicting how the various football codes associate and rival one another in Australia. Although, this article has little analysis on the matter, rather it simply lists various "Did you knows?" on the various football codes. At the moment this article does little to nothing and would benefit form a disambiguation.--] (]) 16:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Better that we improve it rather than eliminate it. ] (]) 03:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: @ ] , You are absolutely correct. You can neutrally present all the football codes in Australia without resorting to any neutrality problems. You can talk about participation rates, both current and historical. You can talk about the history of professionalization for all codes. You can talk about national teams. You can talk about government funding of various codes. You can talk about the participation of women, Australia's indigenous people and people with disabilities. You can talk about safety for various codes. You can write a history of the various codes. You can explain geographic popularity of various codes both in commercial terms and participation terms. This can and should all go into a rewritten article. And yes, it can be done neutrally. It should be done. The ] article manages to do that relatively well, and there are even more complex issues involved there. The sources already exist for much of this content for this page, and much of it could likely be culled from Sport in Australia as a starting point. (Oh and for the record, my favourite code is gridiron, and I watch a few Australian based gridiron teams on Facebook. I wrote about a gridiron player for Wikinews. I think the ] article actually needs a rename more back to ] because that is the more common name.) --] (]) 16:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : While at it, because I suspect @2nyte will again bemoan his POV not dominating by accusing people of being AFL stooges, I have a fair number of articles about association football/football at GA. Many are ones I created and created with those names in the title. It would have been extremely inappropiate to have soccer in the name given the relative geography. --] (]) 16:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Are you aware how easily and frequently players now move between the highest levels of ''rugby league'' and ''union'', especially now that both are professional?'' That suggests '''Rugby in Australia''' is an appropriate topic, not '''Football in Australia'''. | |||
| :::'''Plus the much smaller but real number of players who have added ''Aussie Rules'' to the rugby entries on their CVs?''' I think what three players? Statistically insignificant, nowhere near enough to justify an article. There is no article titled '''Stickball sports in Australia''' despite the much greater numbers of athletes who have moved amongst Cricket, Baseball and Field Hockey. Additionally I said ''nothing'' about the usage of the word Soccer so I'll thank you for not putting words into my mouth/keyboard. Far from being ignorant it seems you are being selective in which arguments you choose to use. And since you seem to want to be offensive in your delivery, perhaps you should move to politics where ignorance and selectivity is the norm rather than the exception. Anytime you want to be civil I'm perfectly willing to listen to you. You don't get to have a louder voice in an argument because you're willing to use terms like ''bemoan'' describing other editors. You're just one voice and can be dismissed in just the same way you dismiss others, so grow up and learn to taalk to others like an adult. ] (]) 03:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@ ], Challenge accepted. Please name at least 10 players who have moved between top grade cricket, top grade field hockey and top grade baseball. Ideally, given the top grade nature involved here with baseball, I would be wanting a player who went to the USA and played professionally there. I bet I can name more Australians who went from a domestic football code like Aussie rules or Rugby League or Rugby Union to university or professional gridiron team in the USA than you can. Besides which, you have not made a case, nor does history support you, about the regional nature of these codes, their historical domestic development, etc. (Because you would have cited softball, which is more popular on many levels than baseball in Australia.) --] (]) 08:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wasn't addressing you (this is your first post in this thread!), so I didn't put any words in your mouth/keyboard. I wasn't suggesting individual articles. You seem to have completely misunderstood my post. ] (]) 03:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Really? Far as I could see your justification for having a common article was that athletes transition from one code to the other which only happens in two cases and in which case could be covered by Rugby in Australia without including AFL or Soccer. Those that do are insignificant in number. | |||
| :::::Personally I think involving the Soccer vs Association Football debate is tremendously unhelpful is it derails debate into an unrelated topic. A disambiguation page would link to whichever name the article is called whether it is Soccer, Association Football or Football (soccer) or the Round-Ball-Game-Lots-of-People-Play-Overseas in Australia. Enraging that debate here when it has no relevance towards the concept of Article vs Disambiguation Page has no place. Please limit discussion to the topic at hand. | |||
| :::::You've stated ''Better that we improve it rather than eliminate it.'' That assumes it can be improved. Much of this article is currently ] and should be deleted as such. Once comparisons of one code against the other is removed, what is left? | |||
| :::::The article is titled '''Football in Australia''' so the article should be written about Football collectively. Analysing the merits of one code against the other is strictly outside Misplaced Pages's remit. We don't interpret or analyse, we state what '''is'''. So a Football in Australia article should write about what the all the codes collectively has in common, and I fail to see how the present article establishes any of that. As an alternatively concept a compilation of short articles on each code achieves ''nothing'' a disambiguation page does not. | |||
| :::::If the only thing uniting the various codes is the word ''football'' then that simply is not enough to sustain an article. A short sentence stating that five or six codes, four of which are major national leagues are called "football" with varying degrees of formality, and following up with links to '''Code A in Australia''' etc., achieves perfectly the aim of '''Football in Australia'''. | |||
| :::::If there is anything apart from comparitive analysis to discuss under the banner of '''Football in Australia''' (and player movement is not acceptable as it only realistically involves the two rugbies) then please inform me now. --] (]) 07:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Australia probably leads the world in having so many games called ''football'' by at least some of their fans. I know it's confusing to foreigners. I've had Americans ask me questions on my Talk page about what I realised was Rugby League, thinking it had some relationship to Aussie Rules, and I'm from Melbourne, so my League knowledge isn't great! I think that deserves an article, maybe only a small one, rather than a simple disambiguation page. And I didn't suggest a comparative analysis. I think we can write a lot of facts without getting into who has the biggest... Although facts seem to be at a bit of a premium with some of the soccer fans, when I see stupid claims like "Aussie Rules is only called football in Melbourne". Unfortunately 2nyte began this thread writing about "''league, union, ALF, football''". Ignoring the unfortunate typo in the third item, it was his choice to bring the ''soccer'' vs ''football'' debate to this thread. He was playing smart-arse, silly bugger politics by using that term. And as long as we have obsessed editors pushing that non-consensus view, we have a problem with the name ''football''. ] (]) 08:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: He clearly was not involved in the massive re-write of ], which had to deal with the AFL vs Rugby League drama, including every imaginable hurdle to make it appear like the NRL had better television ratings and the AFL, and creating whole sections dedicated just to rugby league instead of trying to neutrally contextualize the sport like the sources generally can. (This whole debate would make an interesting paper for the . --] (]) 08:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ignoring for the moment LauraHale's confusion of the issue (nothing personal I just do not want to create any additional tangents) by bring up another article, what could such an article contain the would not be achieved by a disambiguation page as originally proposed at the top of the article? --] (]) 08:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::This is where editing Misplaced Pages becomes incredibly frustrating, and potentially confrontational. At 08:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC), just three posts above, I made what I thought was a constructive post about what this article could contain to make it useful. Then, in the post immediately above you ask "''what could such an article contain the would not be achieved by a disambiguation page''"? Your question was clearly answered before you asked it. Others have also tackled the issue. For you to post as if those other posts didn't exist is, at a minimum, ], perhaps more seriously, a demonstration of ] or, worst of all, ] and deliberately making trouble. If you cannot behave better than that I will need to report you for at least one of the above. Which should I choose? <small>(An apology could overcome the problem.)</small> ] (]) 00:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I can't help how you read a question, but the question was intended to be honest. I'll rephrase if you like, what do you see as content uniting these codes such as a ''Football in Australia'' could be written. You've said you have a belief it could be written, but you've not said what that content would be, so I'd like to know. | |||
| ::::::::::As for Ms. Hale's point, this debate has been sidetracked several times and I was trying to short-circuit a further side-track, to get to the core issue, what could a FiA article contain? --] (]) 01:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::What should this article contain? . Anything that is more detailed than what is appropriate in the ] article and more generic or comparative than the specific sport articles.] (]) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::All this article needs (or should) be is an explanation that ''Football in Australia may refer to several popular sports played in the country.'' From there readers can take that knowledge to the various (in depth) footballing articles. If need be, we could also state that ''the various sports have differing prevalence across the country''. Besides that I seen no need of an article full of generic, comparative information. --] (]) 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::]: It means different things to different people? That's one sentence I personally believe. I had already acknoeldged that. What else? --] (]) 05:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Some people are obsessed about the name being the only correct one for the round ball game. Others cannot comprehend the obsession. That's the issue that consumes the most of our time here. ] (]) 06:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::There is no need for the topic to be brought up here, as you have already done 4 time before. If you wish to discuss that go to ], otherwise stay on topic and discuss the disambiguation of this article.--] (]) 06:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::You, not I, brought up the topic in the second sentence of your post that began this thread. It's obviously a fundamental issue and, I suspect, part of the reason the soccer fans want this article to disappear. I think the complex naming issue is actually essential content for the article. You, obviously, don't want to talk about it any more. Sad. ] (]) 06:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::I do want to talk about the issue and I am, but this is not the place to start (or continue) the discussion. You are simply being cynical.--] (]) 07:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::Fuck off with the "''start''". <big>'''YOU'''</big> started it you moron. It's fucking near impossible to have a coherent discussion with soccer fans. ] (]) 07:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::: Has @] apologized and retracted his false comments regarding me being an anti-soccer, pro-AFL partisian? I didn't start off making personal attacks against me, and I see that they continue. --] (]) 07:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Took a day off and what happens, every post here is editor vs editor. You wondered why I was concerned about being sidetracked? I'm going to make a space where anyone who wants to carry on about soccer/football, who said what/when or code bias and you can make those comment there. How about ] Go at it. | |||
| :In the meantime, everyone else who wants to talk on topic, what can be be placed in the article which suggests that football can be four codes together and seperate from stickball, hoop sports and all forms of racing be it human or human-assisted (ie athletics, swimming, cycling, equestrian and motorsports) | |||
| :So far we have football means different things for different people and disambiguation to '''<insert-code-here> in Australia'''. --] (]) 08:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can't be bothered. The incompetence and appalling manners on display from soccer fans makes this an impossible discussion. Even when one sees the error of his ways, as has happened this evening, he still screws things up. No point trying any more. ] (]) 09:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I really wish you hadn't said that. I provided for you a special place where you could post that sort of thing, and it was not here. I was trying to reboot without any personal shots but right out of the box you posted that. Poor form. --] (]) 09:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Have you looked at the beginning of the thread tonight? How can anyone assume competence and good faith when garbage like that continues to appear, TONIGHT!!!!! I'm serious. There is not enough intelligence, comprehension and good faith being shown by any of the ''soccer=football'' pushers for a sensible, coherent discussion to occur. I have tried many times to simply point out relevant facts, without bias, and had bullshit thrown back at me. I cannot see it stopping. I'm amazed that you think it possibly could. ] (]) 10:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh, and please don't write as if the blame for the poor level of discussion is equally shared. It's not. Such a presumption just alienates people like me who have been trying, right from the start. Condemn those who have actually been doing the poor editing, not everybody! ] (]) 10:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I have spent most of yesterday trying to improve the article to give a better idea as to what football in Australia actually looks like. The article has an actual lead. It is almost entirely sourced. It should provide better context for football in the country. It isn't perfect, but it is much, much, much better than it was now. Further reflection by soccer advocates would be appreciated. -] (]) 10:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I do agree the article is a great improvement. Many thanks go to ] for the hard work put into building it. Though again I ÷question the need for it, or maybe the length of it with (what I feel to be) a large amount of unnecessary content. I would like to hear others opinions.--] (]) 12:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: Most of the articles about soccer, rugby league, rugby union, australian rules in the in Australia articles and by state articles are pure rubbish. They are filled with provisional point of view pushing, battles between one code and another, and are not cited. This article would be much improve if what fed into it was better. That said, what would you remove to fix the length problem? What content is unnecessary? Please articulate and provide examples, because your comments are not useful for taking action. They are so vague as to imply you have not actually read the content. (But I will assume in good faith you have.) --] (]) 13:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Main problems are: Much of the statistics, specifically in Participation and Spectatorship sections; it's like comparing 1/4 of an apple with 3/5 of an orange, it reads badly and it just looks messy. It would be good to have a consistent to compare to, but I wouldn't know where to get the facts from. The History section is quite general; I don't know if that was the point, or if you just had little to work with, but like in ], the history section just gives bite size pieces of info which could be elaborated in paragraphs; the Media coverage section is similar. I don't think thats good for an encyclopedia to be so brief, if there is so much to mention. Also National teams, are we going to elaborate on all of them separately from the table or just the current two? And are we going to expand a bit further on the current two? Besides that, I could (and have, above) summaries the Terminology and Participation sections (which I feel are the most important to this article) in two lines and a disambiguation page. Lastly, is this article supposed to cover the whole footballing landscape in Australia? If so, what's the point of the individual articles? If not, what's the point of this article?--] (]) 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Then remove the statistics. If the statistics do not support any part of the narrative then the should not be there anyway. --] (]) 07:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| It seems Australia is the odd one out here. In other 'football-ambiguous' countries such as ], ] and ] (just to name the first three i checked) a disambiguation page is used. Debate does's appear to be raging over them either so this doesn't strike me as an overly bad way to go. This article resembles an 'Australian rules football in Australia' far too much. If it has to stay, people need to get serious about having guidelines for what should be included so that content from ' in Australia' articles is not duplicated (e.g. Australian records or firsts for ''any code'' of football in Australia, not just one). LauraHale's bleating above about the ' in Australia articles' is an extremely weak argument for persisting with this one. Until editors get real about its content, this issue will continue to be raised. I vote disambiguation.--] (]) 08:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :We never decide things here by voting. ] (]) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I had your reasoning powers I'd focus solely on my last sentence too.--] (]) 08:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Personal attacks never help. Piss off. ] (]) 08:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't need to attack you. You manage to self-destruct just fine. Here, let me help you: To address the points I raise above, you need to explain why Australia's case is so special and what makes it different to New Zealand, the United States or Ireland. If you manage to do that, you then need to explain why editors should bother focusing on this controversial article, rather than on ' in Australia' articles whose existence will never be questioned (so therefore are more deserving of improvement). Also, it would be nice if you could manage an explanation about why content clearly meant for 'Australian rules football in Australia' should appear here instead of there, and why only information that is relevant to all codes should not be what this article is restricted to. I suspect that will be difficult because 'Football in Australia' is a non-topic. Not many sentences can be written that won't end up being about a specific code of football in Australia. Some could be conjured up for pre-codification football in Australia, and as mentioned above any records or firsts for any code of football could be relevant too. But it'll never amount to what this bloated piece currently is. I look forward to hearing more.--] (]) 08:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There is no point trying to convince you of anything here. You seem to be one of several editors with a particular obsession about ''soccer'' being the only sport entitled to the name ''football'' in any formal sense. You and your colleagues choose to ignore inconvenient evidence from others. Everything that could be sensibly said in this thread has been said. A lot of crap has also been said. This is a pointless proposal. Good night. ] (]) 08:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::And true to form, you once again appear to not have a clue what you're talking about. No one will find a single edit that even hints at my having "a particular obsession about ''soccer'' being the only sport entitled to the name ''football''", because I simply don't. Truth be told, my views are in perfect alignment with this of the '']'' whose sports section has all codes treated as equals with a sub-section entitled "FOOTBALL" divided into sub-headings "Rugby League", "Australian Rules", "Association Rules" and "Rugby Union" (before you mention the order, it changes from edition to edition depending on the news that day). You are right about one thing though: "Alot of crap has also been said." Anyone else care to have a run at the points I've made?--] (]) 09:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: @], Yes. I will comment on it: The section heading of one newspaper alone does not justify the change you request. To do so would require ignoring all other evidence that suggests soccer is the common name for the sport in Australia. Selectively ignoring several thousand uses of soccer by the media this year, selectively ignoring the fact that the most profitable professional sport league in the country includes football in its name, selectively ignoring that multiple codes use football in their name... well, that would explain why your points are being ignored. <s> 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. </S> Find some football historians and football academics that say "The common name for the roundball game in Australia is football." at the VERY least. Why are you ignoring this point too and not producing an academic source that says this? -- ] (]). | |||
| ::::::I wouldn't consider improving an article pointless, nor should you. All disambiguation will do is point readers to valuable, in-depth information, something which this article is lacking.--] (]) 09:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Unfortunately for you ], like ] you've somehow managed to confuse me with some other editor. I suggest re-reading what I said above more carefully. Failing that, I refer you back to (even though the most superficial glance at my user page or edit history should have made this asinine accusation impossible in the first place). Now, the next person to even hint at me of having a bias towards soccer embarrasses themselves ''wittingly'' (please don't take that as a challenge to be accepted). When I invited someone to address the points I'd made, I thought it was fairly clear that I was referring to the ones I made (twice) in the preceding two paragraphs and not my ancillary remarks which were intended only to put to bed ]'s hysterical claim. But enough about editors (amusing as it's been) and back to this article's future. It seems to me that the people who are trying to justify this article's current state still have all their work ahead of them. I understand, ], that you would be protective, having edited it so extensively. But if it is reduced to a disambiguation page, nothing will be lost since, by ], it is mostly made up of content already existing in other articles. And this is my point. It can only ever made made up of content duplicated from other articles. And it is in cases like this that we use disambiguation pages. Now, I don't think I should have to type out what I've already said above a third time, so please, if someone wants to reply, do go to the trouble of reading from where I began a few paragraphs up before doing so.--] (]) 08:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::@] : Stop being disruptive. Please provide academic sources that support a claim that football in Australia is the commonly used word to refer to the roundball game. You and ] have repeatedly asked for this material. You have not provided it. Please have your next edit to this talk page include an academic reference to football in Australia is the commonly used word to refer to the roundball game. Thanks. I await your non-disruptive response. --] (]) 09:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::], this discussion is regarding the disambiguation of ]. I do not see how the answer to your question will help with '''this discussion'''. The only question that needs be asked in this discussion is the necessity of the current article, nothing more. So, please do not again bring up topics in this discussion that do not specifically relate to this discussion.--] (]) 09:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::She doesn't appear to have read a single word I typed. Anyone else want to try?--] (]) 09:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| === Another attempt at getting consensus to dismantle the article=== | |||
| <del>*Ok, I will make it plain and simple. Do you either support or oppose the disambiguation of ]. The disambiguation page WILL specify to readers that football refers to several sports played in the country, each with varying popularity. It will direct reader to several specific articles. From there the individual articles will speak for themselves. They will be specific and in-depth on each of the respected codes. So do you support or oppose this? | |||
| *'''Support'''--] (]) 12:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)</del> | |||
| * '''Oppose:''' This article does a much better job at explaining '''Football in Australia''' than a disambiguation ever would. Beyond that, the articles ] wants to have this disambiguate to are rubbish and ] has made zero good faith efforts to improve them to support the that. --] (]) 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *Ok, what about a new proposal to converted this article into a ] such as ]. Strip this article to its bare minimum and put all the bulk information on the separate articles which we can further improve and build.--] (]) 12:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ** This article is a ]. Go draft a fully sourced article in your user space if you have an idea beyond this article that you feel addresses the inadequacies you have addressed. You are free to create ] and ] or ] as broad concept articles if you are trying to find a way do something broader geographically. (Which the connection to the British Isles suggests.) --] (]) 13:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::] and ], there is not reason to duplicate the information on this article and the individual football code articles. is the best outcome for this article. To duplicate the information is nonsensical. It really is such an easy decision, I don't see why the discussion should continue. Just agree on and we can put this behind us and continue to better the individual football code articles.--] (]) 03:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Move proposal == | |||
| There is a proposal to move ] to ]. The discussion may be found at ]. --] (]) 04:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :This proposal has now closed as "not moved". --] (]) 10:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==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 Misplaced Pages (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: | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] (this might need a redirect or merge with ] | |||
| 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 ] page. Once the merges are complete all wikilinks for ] could be edited by a bot to point directly to ], and any incorrect changes edited to point at the correct specific sport. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::An admin, independent non-Australian or otherwise, can't make the decision that you're seeking. ] 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. --] (]) 11:53, 9 September 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 ] 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 ] 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.) ] (]) 09:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Perhaps you should read ]. Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 11:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Good faith? With you lot? LOL. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 12:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::This section was created to distract editors from ] where the real discussion continues.--] (]) 19:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Actually, this section was created in response to the ] that effectively and unnecessarily duplicates ]. Had that section not been created, HiLo48 would not have had to express his frustration at what really has become a ridiculous discussion. --] (]) 22:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::], if this is a response to the ] as you say, it is either a very poor one or a complete misunderstanding by ]. 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.--] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages and the readers experience, not to diminish it as some may assume.--] (]) 08:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| God yes. It is a complete attempt at a distraction. ], 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 ] article. --] (]) 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 ] with the same view.) I ask those Sydney based folk if they have ever spent time on the other side of the ], 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. ] (]) 22:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] , 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. --] (]) 05:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::And we hardly need to ask what the '''<big>Soccer</big>'''oos play, do we? ] (]) 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.--] (]) 08:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So what? Seriously? This "official" bit means nothing to Misplaced Pages. Unlike ] Australia doesn't have a body formally defining its language. And Misplaced Pages uses common names. The name ''Socceroos'' is by far the most common name of the national team. And what's wrong with it? ] (]) 08:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::], you are reading too far into things. I meant official by FFA's recognition, not by an official Australian language.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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 ]. (Also, please note ] 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.) --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 , , and at VU. There are other academics who are the same way. -] (]) 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 ], 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 is being cited to rationalize ] but they are not reading articles to see that soccer appears in article titles and article text. --] (]) 12:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] anti-consensus disruptive editing == | |||
| Will ? 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? --] (]) | |||
| :Mistake, though I will use it as a preview. Other questions addressed to me can be made on my ]. Thankyou.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::], it is quite obvious that you misunderstand my intentions. And from what you have just said, your and ] 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 ? I DO NOT have any ulterior motives. Please look at and respond as such.--] (]) 06:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You have been a very unethical and uncivil editor at ] 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. ] (]) 06:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: @] , 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. --] (]) 06:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::], did you even look at ? '''IT IS NOT''' "anti-soccer, pro-football" '''IT IS''' "pro-disambiguation".--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 and respond as such.--] (]) 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?? --] (]) 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?--] (]) 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 ], ] and ], and still you ask to "explain what they are doing".--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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?--] (]) 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. --] (]) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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 ] to edit here must be in doubt.) ] (]) 08:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]. 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 ] 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.--] (]) 09:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: ] 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. --] (]) 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 (]). ] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] and feel his is the best approach for this article.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::], 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 ] solely on soccer. There is no outcome where what you say comes true, so why must you prevent this?--] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Apologies, I didn't realise I had changed you post. It was an accident.--] (]) 15:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Improvements== | |||
| The following edits were all (blindly, I presume) reverted by and then . 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 " in Australia", or " in " article.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 <del>while he was on the side trying to argue that AFL is only popular in Melbourne.</del> It is incredibly controversial. Consensus should be arrived at before going back to his version. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 21:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You omitted your manners. ] (]) 22:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: He should also admit to doing ] and ] to push a ] in this article. Despite repeated requests, ] 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 ] using that suggest this is true of football in Australia? I have been repeatedly accused by ] of not reading. ] has failed to provide a single diff to support this accusation that I am not reading. ] has failed to retract it. It appears that ] is the one not reading because ] 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. --] (]) 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).--] (]) 12:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===1=== | |||
| 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?--] (]) 07:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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. --] (]) 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???)--] (]) 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.--] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 12:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Every time you say "retract" it reminds me of when you said to me above: 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 . 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. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 12:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===2=== | |||
| 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.--] (]) 07:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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. --] (]) 10:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're doing that thing where you just type and don't read again aren't you?--] (]) 11:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Retract. Personal attacks are not acceptable. I commented on your changes. I did not comment on you personally. --] (]) 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 ], 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 ] this article.--] (]) 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 ]. Once these retractions or diffs are made, we can start discussing the text. Improving the text should be a shared goal. --] (]) 12:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===3=== | |||
| 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:"--] (]) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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. --] (]) 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?--] (]) 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. --] (]) 11:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The word 'the' (as in "the other three") is a ]. I'm sure you're familiar with their use. If not, have a read.--] (]) 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? --] (]) 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)?--] (]) 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. --] (]) 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===4=== | |||
| I changed the name of a subsection of "Participation" from "Indigenous participation" which needlessly repeats the word participation, to "Indigineous Australians".--] (]) 07:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''Discuss'': | |||
| ===5=== | |||
| I removed content needlessly copied and pasted from ] because it is not only specific to a single code, but also to a single gender.--] (]) 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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 ] which eliminating women that way assists in doing. --] (]) 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?--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ' 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 ] to them. But you cannot keep reproducing it.--] (]) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: No, because the same arguement could be made to disambiguate ]. 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. --] (]) 12:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===6=== | |||
| I removed content detailing someone once winning an award in a specific code of football.--] (]) 07:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''Discuss'': | |||
| :This was a controversial removal. It mischaracterizes the some specific code, and demonstrates a lack of broader understanding of the topic by ] and ] 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. --] (]) 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?--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ] 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?--] (]) 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. --] (]) 12:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===7=== | |||
| I removed content that appears to have been thoughtlessly cut & pasted directly from ]. 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.--] (]) 07:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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. --] (]) 10:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Further, the removal by ] appears to indicate ]'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. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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? --] (]) 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.--] (]) 10:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===8=== | |||
| I removed mention of an instance where ''one particular code'' of football was played ''outside Australia''.--] (]) 07:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.) --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ].") 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?--] (]) 11:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===9=== | |||
| I removed a sentence that was cut & pasted from ] (where I added it, by the way).--] (]) 08:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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. --] (]) 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).--] (]) 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. --] (]) 12:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How this sentence ("The ] 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 codes" is interesting. I would put it like this however: On Misplaced Pages, football codes in Australia are described either in isolation (at code-specific articles such as ], ], etc.) or by comparing and contrasting them with other codes (at an article entitled ]).--] (]) 12:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: '' Your statement, "Football codes in Australia are understood either in isolation or by comparing them other 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 ] 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? --] (]) 20:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===10=== | |||
| I removed content specific to one code of football.--] (]) 08:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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. --] (]) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wrong again. It is important information for understanding ] 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?--] (]) 11:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Content can and should be duplicated in many situations. If you are writing ], 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 ] and should be more comprehensive than the article as it pertains to football. Parts of this article could be summarized for ]. This is a parent article for various articles like ], ] and ]. Those articles should have more depth and could/should be summarized here in relevant parts. See ] and ]. --] (]) 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 ]s 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.--] (]) 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? ] 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 ] 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 ] warriors, which is my interpretation of your words. --] (]) 20:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===11=== | |||
| I removed content specific to a single code of football, and added a "Clarification needed" tag to the unqualified use of the term "football".--] (]) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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. --] (]) 11:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Therefore it belongs in the ] 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?--] (]) 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? <br/><br/>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. -] (]) 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."<br/>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.--] (]) 05:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===12=== | |||
| I removed content specific to a single code of football.--] (]) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''Discuss'': | |||
| :Controversial. Once again, ] removed Australian rules football information that is very, very important for understanding the regional patterns of the sport in the country. ] 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. --] (]) 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?--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 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 ]. 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.--] (]) 08:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===13=== | |||
| and 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.--] (]) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 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 ' in Australia' articles? Better rationale is required from you for wanting to change a sentence that says " was the first of any football code in Australia to do something" to " did something".--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ], was formed to administer the ] (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 ], ], ], ], ], ], etc.? What about the ]'s first Kangaroo tour or the fact that rugby league is not mentioned in the "History" section until the formation of the ] 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.--] (]) 10:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===14=== | |||
| I removed content specific to one code of football in one specific state that was no doubt copied & pasted from the relevant article.--] (]) 08:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''Discuss'': | |||
| ===15=== | |||
| Here I removed content specific to a single code of football.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 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 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 ] in its current state is not justified by any attempt at contextualization.--] (]) 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 ] and ] 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. --] (]) 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 football''b 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 ] 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. --] (]) 14:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Pinging @] 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. --] (]) 16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Pinging @] again. We need to discuss ] and ] 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. --] (]) 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 " in Australia" articles) and you group it together here in a balanced way as per ]. I'm not sure why you want to bring up ] and ]. 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.<br />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):<br>{{cite news|title=The progress of football in Australia|url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=HvdUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=D5MDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2752,152378|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=2 June 1950}}<br>{{cite news|last=Susskind|first=Anne|title=Dear teacher, Billy may play Rugby|url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PXZWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tOQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2433,4573191|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=23 April 1987}}<br>{{Cite book | |||
| | last = ], ], ], ] | |||
| | first = | |||
| | authorlink = | |||
| | coauthors = | |||
| | title = My game, your game | |||
| | publisher = Ironbark | |||
| | year = 1994 | |||
| | location = | |||
| | pages = | |||
| | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qannPQAACAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s | |||
| | doi = | |||
| | id = | |||
| | isbn = 0-330-35616-X, 9780330356169}}<br>{{cite news|last=Reuter|title=Aussie coach says game damaged|url=http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=z85OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ahMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6968,672860|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=12 January 1995}}<br>{{cite news|last=AP|title=Cash-strapped Australian league shedding top players|url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2002/08/14/china_2014_ap/|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=15 August 2002}}<br>{{cite news|last=Masters|first=Roy|title=It's Broncos v Pies in the battle of the box|url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734328602.html|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=28 September 2002}}<br>{{cite news|last=Richards|first=Huw|title=Australian dynasty that's hard to topple|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/25/sports/25iht-rugby_ed3__0.html?_r=1|accessdate=24 June 2012|newspaper=]|date=25 October 2004}}<br>{{cite news|last=Richards|first=Huw|title=International Herald Tribune|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/sports/27iht-AUSSIE.2947201.html?_r=0|accessdate=8 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=27 September 2006}}<br>{{cite news|last=Lutton|first=Phil|title=ARC could outpace league: coach|url=http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/sport/arc-could-outpace-league/2007/08/10/1186530597964.html|accessdate=25 June 2012|newspaper=]|date=12 August 2007}}<br>{{cite news|last=Baum|first=Greg|title=How soccer learned to dress up and catch its man|url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/soccer/how-soccer-learned-to-dress-up-and-catch-its-man/2008/05/01/1209235061451.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=2 May 2008}}<br>{{cite news|last=Linnell|first=Garry|title=Time for a hybrid game?|url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/time-for-a-hybrid-game/story-e6frfgh6-1111117870258|accessdate=26 June 2012|newspaper=]|date=28 October 2008}}<br>{{cite news|last=Stevenson|first=Andrew|title=AFL's failure to tackle league head-on just doesn't add up|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/afls-failure-to-tackle-league-headon-just-doesnt-add-up/2009/03/27/1237657146797.html|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=28 March 2009}}<br>{{cite news|last=Philip|first=Derriman|title=Rugby would like league fans to be in state of union|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/rugby-would-like-league-fans-to-be-in-state-of-union/2009/06/05/1243708626720.html|accessdate=11 July 2012|newspaper=]|date=6 June 2009}}<br>{{cite news|last=]|title=Hunt in shock switch to Aussie Rules|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/rugby-league/hunt-in-shock-switch-to-aussie-rules-1764313.html|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=29 July 2009}}<br>{{cite news|last=Foster|first=Craig|title=Tim's army is winning code war|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/tims-army-is-winning-code-war/2009/08/22/1250362255869.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=23 August 2009}}<br>{{cite news|last=Masters|first=Roy|title=League chief punts on close encounters|url=http://www.businessday.com.au/business/league-chief-punts-on-close-encounters-20091129-jyso.html|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=30 November 2009}}<br>{{cite news|last=Read|first=Brent|title=NRL fends off union's challenge|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/nrl-fends-off-unions-challenge/story-e6frg7mf-1225845519436|accessdate=30 June 2012|newspaper=]|date=26 March 2010}}<br>{{cite news|last=Powell|first=Kim|title=Jason Akermanis wrong about football and gay players, says Gay and Lesbian Rights group|url=http://www.news.com.au/national-news/jason-akermanis-wrong-about-football-codes-and-gay-players-says-gay-and-lesbian-rights-group/story-e6frfkw0-1225869112311|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=news.com.au|date=20 May 2010}}<br>{{cite news|last=Sheehan|first=Paul|title=Fast and furious, a league apart|url=http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/fast-and-furious-a-league-apart-20101003-162kf.html|accessdate=11 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=4 October 2010}}<br>{{cite news|last=Lynch|first=Michael|title=Later start for A-League to lessen clash with rival codes|url=http://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/later-start-for-aleague-to-lessen-clash-with-rival-codes-20101013-16k26.html?skin=text-only|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=14 October 2010}}<br>{{cite news|last=Rothfield|first=Phil|title=Demetriou claims Titans are blueprint for fledgling Suns|url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/demetriou-claims-titans-are-blueprint-for-fledgling-suns/story-e6frfgbo-1225961954730|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=28 November 2010}}<br>{{cite news|last=Morton|first=Jim|title=Little sympathy from rival codes|url=http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8175389|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=3 December 2010}}<br>{{cite news|last=Ballantyne|first=Adrian|title=AFL- NRL code war heats up|url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/saturday-sports-fix/story-e6frf9if-1226004834115|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=21 February 2011}}<br>{{cite news|last=Kogoy|first=Peter|title=Football codes winning war on drugs|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football-codes-winning-war-on-drugs/story-e6frg7mf-1226055629383|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=14 May 2011}}<br>{{cite news|last=Wilson|first=Rebecca|title=Rugby falls behind NRL in code war|url=http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl/rugby-falls-behind-nrl-in-code-war/story-e6frep5x-1226059830499|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=21 May 2011}}<br>{{cite news|last=Xinhua|title=Australia gambling reform receive support from major football codes: Sports Ministers|url=http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90779/90867/7393984.html|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=29 May 2011}}<br>{{cite news|last=Smith|first=Patrick|title=Football codes back $5000 sports betting register|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/football-codes-back-5000-sports-betting-register/story-e6frg7mf-1226072027498|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=9 June 2011}}<br>{{cite news|last=Nick Tabakoff and Karina Barrymore|title=Melbourne Storm's rorts put spotlight on football codes|url=http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/melbourne-storms-rorts-put-spotlight-on-football-codes/story-fn7x8me2-1226084415953|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=30 June 2011}}<br>{{cite news|last=Smith|first=Patrick|title=Sport spins on axis of achievable objectives|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/opinion/sport-spins-on-axis-of-achievable-objectives/story-e6frg7t6-1226085930828|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=2 July 2011}}<br>{{cite news|last=Staff writers|title=Debate: is Harry Kewell's transfer to Melbourne Victory the biggest move in Australian sporting history?|url=http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/debate-is-harry-kewells-transfer-to-melbourne-victory-the-biggest-move-in-australian-sporting-history/story-e6frf4gl-1226118963231#.UjTwJsZmiSo|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=21 August 2011}}<br>{{cite news|last=AP|title=Australia gears up for finals action in Aussie rules, NRL|url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/sport/archives/2011/10/01/2003514645|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=1 October 2011}}<br>{{cite news|title=Fans suffer from football code wars|url=http://www.dailyadvertiser.com.au/story/745338/fans-suffer-from-football-code-wars/|accessdate=15 September 2013|newspaper=]|date=2 December 2011}}<br>This is by no means exhaustive.--] (]) 08:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===16=== | |||
| I removed content specific not only to a single code of football but to a single gender.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 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 ] and/or ] and/or ] and/or ] is not sufficient.--] (]) 11:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===17=== | |||
| I removed content specific to a single code of football.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The following has zero relevance for any code of football in Australia except one: ''In 1974, the ] qualified for the ], the first successful qualification to the ] 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.--] (]) 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? --] (]) 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..."?--] (]) 20:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===18=== | |||
| I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 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 ] its inclusion may approach being justified: ''In 1995, ] became professional in Australia following an agreement between SANZAR countries and Rupert Murdoch regarding pay television rights for the game.''--] (]) 11:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ] and ] 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. --] (]) 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 " 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.--] (]) 10:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===19=== | |||
| I removed content content specific to a single code of football and also addressed an ] issue.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 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 ], 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 ], the Minister for Arts and Sport, announced that ] was to be restructured by the ]. At the time, the organisation had ]2.6 million in 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 ] CEO ] was brought in to make these changes and the organisation changes its name in 2005 to ] 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.--] (]) 11:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===20=== | |||
| I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 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 ] was established by ] in 2004. This was following legal action taken against them in the ] following a complaint to the ] by ], 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.--] (]) 11:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===21=== | |||
| I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''Discuss'': | |||
| ===22=== | |||
| I removed content specific to a single code of football in a single state.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Details specific to Australian rules football in Queensland (and no other code) belong in ] (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.--] (]) 11:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Details about ] 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 ]. Parent and daughter articles frequently borrow text from each other. --] (]) 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 ] 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 ], ] and ] 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 ], where were the details of other professional leagues' non-heartland talent?--] (]) 10:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===23=== | |||
| I went to merge content that was relevant to any sport in Australia to ] only to find (surprise, surprise) that that's where it had been copied & pasted from.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::"...a record Australian sporting fine..." Pretty clear cut case for ] (where it already is) don't you think?--] (]) 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 ] is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it should be included in this article. Better rationale required. --] (]) 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That it is copied and pasted from ] 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.--] (]) 10:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===24=== | |||
| I removed content content specific to a single code of football.--] (]) 08:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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.--] (]) 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, ] 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. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 12:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Not that I should have to type this out, but the volumes it speaks, in light of<br /> | |||
| :::::a) your vigorous defense of a "National teams" section containing sub-sections only for "Australian rules" and "Soccer" more than three weeks after ,<br /> | |||
| :::::b) ] that your additions were sourced mainly from ] and ], and | |||
| :::::c) that you were "too lazy to research the topic" whilst asserting ] that the Australian rugby union team "is arguably one of the two most well known Australian national football teams",<br /> | |||
| :::::are that you have no concept of ], are ], lack the necessary ] 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.--] (]) 00:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===25: Inclusion of unsourced information === | |||
| I added content on Australia's first participation in and winning of a football World Cup tournament of any code.--] (]) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC) <br /> | |||
| ''Discuss'': | |||
| :Controversial. Introduction of unsourced material. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 12:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Australia's first appearance in: | |||
| ::::#the ] was in ], | |||
| ::::#the ] was in ], | |||
| ::::#the ] was in ], | |||
| ::::#the ] was in 1988, | |||
| ::::#the ] was in ], and | |||
| ::::#the ] was in ]. | |||
| ::::Have I missed something? If I did, I assure you it was an honest error. I also assume you've heard of these tags{{citation needed}}?--] (]) 01:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===26=== | |||
| 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 ].--] (]) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''Discuss'': | |||
| :Controversial. Changed meaning not supported by the sources. The AFL and the NRL were not the first professional football leagues in Australia. --] (]) 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?).--] (]) 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. --] (]) 12:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===27=== | |||
| I added another first for any code of football in Australia.--] (]) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''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. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. --] (]) 13:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===28=== | |||
| I added content related to multiple codes of football.--] (]) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''Discuss'': | |||
| :Controversial. Not supported by the source. --] (]) 11:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::You'll need to explain exactly how it's not supported by the source.--] (]) 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? --] (]) 12:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ===29=== | |||
| I added relevant and referenced content to the "Etymology" section.--] (]) 08:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)<br /> | |||
| ''Discuss'': | |||
| :Controversial edit. Not supported by the source. --] (]) 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).--] (]) 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 ]." 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. --] (]) 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 ] as evidence for it being a rugby football club. Anyway, I've found . 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."?--] (]) 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 ]." is not supported by the cited text. --] (]) 12:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Football_in_Australia&diff=573000655&oldid=572587545 == | |||
| {{ping|Gibson Flying V}}{{ping|LauraHale}} Please clean up the references section. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 06:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:32, 26 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Football in Australia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
.jpg){kind=small}
Outdated references
I just saw an editor deleting an edit on the basis that it was not sustained by the sourcing. On checking the sourcing I find that we are relying on documents published in 1913 and 1930!
Perhaps we should take a look at changes made over the past few decades?
Here's something a little more up to date. Oddly enough we don't seem to recognise in our article that Football is the most widely played team sport in the nation.
Perhaps we can discuss the currency and accuracy of the stuff we are feeding the readers? --Pete (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think you may have made an error with the link behind your "something". I suspect you meant to place a potential source there, rather than a link back to a diff for this article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well spotted! I screwed up. Now fixed. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think that source is all that helpful for this particular issue. The part of the edit I particularly saw needing a source was the claim that "the term football is becoming more popular". In fact, that article calls the sport soccer. To support what you want the article to say, you would need a source that effectively says "the term football is becoming more popular". HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could address the point being made? Are you actually reverting edits because your preferred source for a statement on current events predates the First World War???? --Pete (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I have made my point here for now. We don't have a source for the claim "the term football is becoming more popular". HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- My point concerns your behaviour. You support century-old references to refer to current events, to the point of edit-warring over them. That's not a good way to provide useful information to our readers. As you must know, having spent the past two decades gritting your teeth, the use of the term Football to refer to the sport previously known as Soccer is steadily increasing. It surprised me too, and I speak as a Victorian of a similar antiquity to yourself, but when I looked into the facts, I found things had changed since the salad days of youth. Here are a few sources for you to grit your teeth over:
- Australia is eagerly embracing football precisely because we are hungrily embracing the rest of the world, are more outward-looking than ever before, are maturing in our acceptance of what modern Australia looks like and of what an Australian actually is. SMH
- more and more Australians refer to the game as football and not soccer. -- The Sporting News
- Harking back to 2006 is relevant as that was a time when football, or soccer as it was more commonly called in that era, reinvented itself in Australia. Guardian Australia
- The survey stated that more than a million men, women, boys and girls are playing football, a statistic which continues to dwarf the numbers achieved by all other sports in Australia. The Roar
- As has been pointed out several times, all national media outlets refer to "Football" alongside "AFL", "NRL" etc on their sports pages. Twenty years ago it was "Soccer". Times are changing: ABC, Nine, Ten, SBS, The Australian and so on and on. --Pete (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop talking about me. That will not solve the issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- As I noted, the issue is your editing behaviour. Edit-warring to preserve statements about current events based on references dating to before the First World War. I'm sorry that you don't see this bizarre behaviour as appropriate for editors to discuss, and I don't want to hurt your feelings as a human being, but we are engaged in writing an encyclopaedia for people to refer to and having accurate information on the 21st Century is generally seen as being a positive factor in Misplaced Pages's coverage. I honestly don't know how to discuss your editing behaviour without referring to you. Whether you agree or not, "Football" is becoming more common in Australia to refer to the sport previously and almost universally known here as "Soccer". Times are changing. The world moves on. Can we accept this, even if we oldies don't particulary like it? --Pete (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop talking about me. HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- As I noted, the issue is your editing behaviour. Edit-warring to preserve statements about current events based on references dating to before the First World War. I'm sorry that you don't see this bizarre behaviour as appropriate for editors to discuss, and I don't want to hurt your feelings as a human being, but we are engaged in writing an encyclopaedia for people to refer to and having accurate information on the 21st Century is generally seen as being a positive factor in Misplaced Pages's coverage. I honestly don't know how to discuss your editing behaviour without referring to you. Whether you agree or not, "Football" is becoming more common in Australia to refer to the sport previously and almost universally known here as "Soccer". Times are changing. The world moves on. Can we accept this, even if we oldies don't particulary like it? --Pete (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please stop talking about me. That will not solve the issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- My point concerns your behaviour. You support century-old references to refer to current events, to the point of edit-warring over them. That's not a good way to provide useful information to our readers. As you must know, having spent the past two decades gritting your teeth, the use of the term Football to refer to the sport previously known as Soccer is steadily increasing. It surprised me too, and I speak as a Victorian of a similar antiquity to yourself, but when I looked into the facts, I found things had changed since the salad days of youth. Here are a few sources for you to grit your teeth over:
- I have made my point here for now. We don't have a source for the claim "the term football is becoming more popular". HiLo48 (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could address the point being made? Are you actually reverting edits because your preferred source for a statement on current events predates the First World War???? --Pete (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think that source is all that helpful for this particular issue. The part of the edit I particularly saw needing a source was the claim that "the term football is becoming more popular". In fact, that article calls the sport soccer. To support what you want the article to say, you would need a source that effectively says "the term football is becoming more popular". HiLo48 (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Wheelchair national teams
A question on the national teams: wheelchair rugby is designated in this table as ‘rugby league’, but the listed national team (Steelers) play the version of wheelchair rugby formerly known as murderball. In Australia, it’s affiliated with Rugby Australia (union). The NRL now facilitates a wheelchair rugby league competition that has different rules and a different national team (Wheelaroos).
Should the Steelers therefore be moved to rugby union and the Wheelaroos added to rugby league? I ask because I’m only 90% sure it’s the right move, but open to arguments otherwise. Harleycat89 (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class Australia articles
- Mid-importance Australia articles
- C-Class Australian sports articles
- Mid-importance Australian sports articles
- WikiProject Australian sports articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- C-Class football articles
- Mid-importance football articles
- WikiProject Football articles
- C-Class rugby league articles
- Unknown-importance rugby league articles
- WikiProject Rugby league articles
- C-Class rugby union articles
- Low-importance rugby union articles
- WikiProject Rugby union articles
- C-Class American football articles
- Unknown-importance American football articles
- WikiProject American football articles