Talk:Football in Australia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Split/Merge Proposal

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

Soccer in Australia

Australian rules football in Australia

Rugby union in Australia

Rugby league in Australia

American Football in Australia

Futsal in Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2nyte anti-consensus disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gibson Flying V soccer and women's content removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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