Jump to content

Talk:Football in Australia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Mattdocbrown's obsession with proving Rugby League to be the best

Look, liking a sport is great. Trying to prove that it's better than another with trivial observations only makes it look trivial itself.

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!

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 Wikipedia.

From now on I recommend that you discuss your proposed changes here before adding. That's how things are meant to work. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What is SOE?--Jeff79 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. The NSW vs Qld State of Origin series. HiLo48 (talk) 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.Mattdocbrown —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC).
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. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC) HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BROUGHT OVER FROM MY TALK PAGE AFTER FINALLY GETTING Mattdocbrown's ATTENTION:

What on earth are Oztam and RegionalTam? I'll bet 99% of readers don't know. IF it's significant, you MUST explain that significance in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2010 (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.(Mattdocbrown (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC))
I'm happy for anyone to list an annual Australian representative football tournament that rates higher. (Mattdocbrown (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC))
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? HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2010 (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? (Mattdocbrown (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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 accused 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 attend the games, and not just watch them on tv.The-Pope (talk) 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. (Mattdocbrown (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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) (Mattdocbrown (talk) 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?--Jeff79 (talk) 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. (Mattdocbrown (talk) 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?? TinTin (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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. WP:COMMONNAME in Australia is what is required to make this article make sense. --LauraHale (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is only one Football!! --Happy Winger (talk) 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?? --Happy Winger (talk) 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 association football 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. --LauraHale (talk) 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. 203.122.229.124 (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the article Soccer in Australia 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. HiLo48 (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Happy Winger (talk) 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. 203.122.229.124 (talk) 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. The-Pope (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Why is Football in New South Wales 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. --Falcadore (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A new, valuable looking source

Here.

What do you all think? HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Something is missing

The first sentence in the National teams section starts with "National football teams include Socceroos)..."; obviously something has been lost, but I have no clue what. --Khajidha (talk) 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:

Football in Australia may refer to several popular sports played in the country. These include:

It may also include:

Thoughts?--2nyte (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh FFS, soccer fans ARE 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. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The change that was made,[1] is poor Wikiquette. WP:REDACT is something everyone needs to be familiar with. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Also, the change that was made by LauraHale, [2] is poor Wikiquette. WP:REDACT 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.--2nyte (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
NO! 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 Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move again, 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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?--2nyte (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The usefulness is it provides an overview of football in Australia. Individual articles do not. We moved Sport in Australia 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? --LauraHale (talk) 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. --LauraHale (talk) 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 Template:Australian sport, 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 HiLo48 said on Talk:Football_in_Australia#Disambiguation: "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).--2nyte (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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. Silent Billy (talk) 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 WP:COMMONNAME 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. --LauraHale (talk) 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? 124.185.17.231 (talk) 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.--2nyte (talk) 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 Wikipedia convention, it's no problem to me. I just think it SHOULD be a problem to the soccer fans. HiLo48 (talk) 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. The-Pope (talk) 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.--2nyte (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Better that we improve it rather than eliminate it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@ The-Pope , 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 Sport in Australia 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 American football in Australia article actually needs a rename more back to Gridiron football in Australia because that is the more common name.) --LauraHale (talk) 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. --LauraHale (talk) 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. Falcadore (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Falcadore, 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.) --LauraHale (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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 original research 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 Wikipedia'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. --Falcadore (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
He clearly was not involved in the massive re-write of Sport in Australia, 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 World of Football Conference. --LauraHale (talk) 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? --Falcadore (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This is where editing Wikipedia 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, bad manners and confrontational, perhaps more seriously, a demonstration of incompetence or, worst of all, trolling 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? (An apology could overcome the problem.) HiLo48 (talk) 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? --Falcadore (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
What should this article contain? Read above. Anything that is more detailed than what is appropriate in the Sport in Australia article and more generic or comparative than the specific sport articles.The-Pope (talk) 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. --2nyte (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The-Pope: It means different things to different people? That's one sentence I personally believe. I had already acknoeldged that. What else? --Falcadore (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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 Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move again, otherwise stay on topic and discuss the disambiguation of this article.--2nyte (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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.--2nyte (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Fuck off with the "start". YOU started it you moron. It's fucking near impossible to have a coherent discussion with soccer fans. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Has @2nyte 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. --LauraHale (talk) 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 here? 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. --Falcadore (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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. --Falcadore (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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! HiLo48 (talk) 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. -LauraHale (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I do agree the article is a great improvement. Many thanks go to LauraHale 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.--2nyte (talk) 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.) --LauraHale (talk) 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 Sport in Australia, 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?--2nyte (talk) 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. --Falcadore (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems Australia is the odd one out here. In other 'football-ambiguous' countries such as Ireland, New Zealand and the United States (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 '[Specific code] 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 '[Specific code] 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.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

We never decide things here by voting. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
If I had your reasoning powers I'd focus solely on my last sentence too.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Personal attacks never help. Piss off. HiLo48 (talk) 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 '[Specific code] 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.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 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. HiLo48 (talk) 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 1930 edition of the Sydney Morning Herald 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?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@Gibson Flying V, 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. 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. 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? -- LauraHale (talk).
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.--2nyte (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you LauraHale, like HiLo48 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 here (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 HiLo48'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, LauraHale, 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 your own admission, 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.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
@Gibson Flying V : 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 2nyte 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. --LauraHale (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
LauraHale, this discussion is regarding the disambiguation of Football in Australia. 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.--2nyte (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
She doesn't appear to have read a single word I typed. Anyone else want to try?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Another attempt at getting consensus to dismantle the article

  • Ok, I will make it plain and simple. Do you either support or oppose the disambiguation of Football in Australia. 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--2nyte (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This article does a much better job at explaining Football in Australia than a disambiguation ever would. Beyond that, the articles 2nyte wants to have this disambiguate to are rubbish and 2nyte has made zero good faith efforts to improve them to support the that. --LauraHale (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
LauraHale and HiLo48, there is not reason to duplicate the information on this article and the individual football code articles. This 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 this and we can put this behind us and continue to better the individual football code articles.--2nyte (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Move proposal

There is a proposal to move Soccer in Australia to Football in Australia. The discussion may be found at Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move again. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This proposal has now closed as "not moved". --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Football_in_Australia/Archive_1&oldid=1247576627"