Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr (talk | contribs) |
Vanished user llkdfkj4isw4 (talk | contribs) →User LauraHale: oh dear |
||
Line 336: | Line 336: | ||
I have removed the quote. I have spent the better part of a several days working on a lot of men's articles that I take great pride. I take great pride in all my work. And you know what? Despite your doom and gloom suggestions, '''There is NOTHING wrong about introducing neutrality and verifiability in article titles to Wikipedia'''. Your suggestion that this pillar and this policy be disregarded is offensive to all Wikipedia editors. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC) |
I have removed the quote. I have spent the better part of a several days working on a lot of men's articles that I take great pride. I take great pride in all my work. And you know what? Despite your doom and gloom suggestions, '''There is NOTHING wrong about introducing neutrality and verifiability in article titles to Wikipedia'''. Your suggestion that this pillar and this policy be disregarded is offensive to all Wikipedia editors. --[[User:LauraHale|LauraHale]] ([[User talk:LauraHale|talk]]) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
:It seems clear that some WP:FOOTBALL editors are vehemently, dementedly opposed to women's football. It's obviously quite pitiable but we shouldn't set too much store by it – better that we get opinions from the wider community and leave them behind. [[User:Clavdia chauchat|Clavdia chauchat]] ([[User talk:Clavdia chauchat|talk]]) 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:02, 26 November 2013
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
World Cup Appearances
In the column on the right it says that Australia has appeared in 3 world cups and 1 Asian cup. Shouldn't it be 2 and 1? Or if qualification for a tournament counts as appearing in it then shouldn't it say 3 world cups and 2 Asian cups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superawesomee (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed WC appearances to 2. Camw (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Surely 1974, 2006 and 2010 makes three. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Just leave it alone for a while!
There seem to be a number of editors of this article obsessed with always being the first with the news about a change in team selection, and slightly modifying the formatting to suit their own preferences. Firslty, it's not really that important to reflect every team change the moment it happens. The logical consequence of current practice is to update the article with substitutions while gamses are on! Secondly, can you all just pause the updates a little and agree on a format that will be used for the next several years?
The frequency and purpose of current changes is just ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Article claims Mark Viduka avabile for selection!
The article claims that Mark Viduka (in the captains) that he s still available for selection! This is clearly not true, I do believe Pim has claimed Viduka's international days to be other, so I removed the bold from his name!
Simba1409 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Media coverage
The entry says....
Games are mostly broadcasted by SBS and Fox Sports Australia. Audience for games has soared since the Socceroos historic victory over Uruguay.
In the United States, qualifiers are broadcasted by Fox Soccer Channel.
We have bad grammar (broadcasted), obvious POV (soared....historic), and Fox Soccer in the USA (for Australian soccer?)
OK, I can fix the bad grammar, but I think everything after the first sentence should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
- The section needs work certainly. As for the Fox Soccer Channel, they do show Asian world cup qualifiers (see here for an example) but it is only borderline relevant, I guess it doesn't cause any harm as long as it gets referenced. Camw (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I expanded the section a small amount with some referenced notes, but it still needs work. Camw (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Better now, certainly. :-) HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Why show players' ages?
We list the dates of birth. They don't change. But ages can be wrong by tomorrow. Or today, if the enthusiast who adds a particular player forgets to come back on his birthday and update his age. Just silly. It guarantees that this article will be wrong from time to time. Anyone with half a brain can work out someone's age from his date of birth. How about we drop the ages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)
- The age is actually calculated automatically by the template based on the birthday so there are no concerns about them being out of date. Camw (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Shortening and cleaning up this article
It seems to me that this article is getting very long and has a lot of very detailed information about the last 5 years in the Socceroos history, but that is only a short part of their history. I think the history section needs to be shortened (If you want all the detail about Germany 2006 (and other recent campaigns), maybe that should be a separate page?). Surely the 'player drain' section doesn't need to list all the players in the main article (again I suggest a separate page). All the records in the tables can probably be summarized and some of the details (which I agree really need to be here as they are very interesting) moved to separate pages. IMO This page should really be just a summary of what the Socceroos are, an overview of their history, and some of their important records and other stats - more detailed info should be broken off into other pages. If this page keeps getting updated with heaps of detail about their 2010 WC Campaign and their 2011 Asian Cup campaign it's just going to get more and more messy.
Also, the pages with all the Socceroos results (season 2005, 2006...) need to be linked from this page I think - or maybe just one link to a "Socceroos Results" page, which then links to the other seasons. There should also be a page with all their past shirts - would be interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.108.56 (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with everything you propose - I had intentions of doing / proposing similar but it is a huge task and never had the time to do so. Good luck. 203.214.145.228 (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Popularity increase in lead
We are told that "World Cup qualification in 2006 has seen Australian association football increase considerably in domestic popularity and in international competitiveness."
Really?
This is precisely the kind of weaselish claim that must have good sources, or it must go.
HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just remove it. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Team Colours
This article is semi-protected, so I can't delete the Swedish away team colours. Someone else take care of that, eh? Humans who have seen an Australian national sport team play in something other than green and gold = 0. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.16.12 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Erm yes i have seen the Australian team play in all kinds of kit designs that are not just green and gold... and not royal blue either ;) --203.36.215.153 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The name and redirecting
Why on earth do we have to call it association football when clearly it is football under the same wiki editing as 99% of national teams on here?--203.36.215.153 (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The title is a compromise and corresponds with the main en.wiki article on the sport, Association football. See the talk page and FAQ there for more. Camw (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
is this to appease the aussie rules users on this place? for goodness sake...--124.169.43.115 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's because in Australia there are four distinct professional sports called football by their fans at least some of the time, along with at least two others not played professionally. For any one of these to be called football in Wikipedia would create confusion. As for your slight against Aussie rules fans, it has to be acknowledged that that sport achieved popular use of the word football in the areas where it is popular long before the round ball code was played there. The language used in Wikipedia has to reflect that. It's just a reality. HiLo48 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Cristiano Ronaldo
I have removed the claim that Cristiano Ronaldo was eligible for Australian selection. Under the FIFA Statutes he was never eligible as his grandparents, while now Australian citizens, were not born in Australia. Hack (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Number of caps
I noticed a few things:
- Schwarzer (who reached 88 caps and #1 position today) was updated in infobox, but not in "most capped" section below.
- "Most capped" section header said it was updated 12 Jan 2011, when the individual rows for Schwarzer, Neill and Emerton state last cap was 25 January 2011.
I've assumed the table is correct to 25 Jan, and have +1 to the three players above. This may need to be confirmed. I haven't touched the "captains" list as it says it was lasted updated in September 2010 and I'm not sure of the exact number. -- Chuq (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: pages not moved per lack of consensus below. - GTBacchus(talk) 22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Australia national association football team → Australia men's national association football team
- List of Australia national football team results → List of men's Australia national football team results
- Australia national association football team all time record → Australia men's national association football team all time record
- Australia national under-17 association football team → Australia men's national under-17 association football team
- Australia national under-20 association football team → Australia men's national under-20 association football team
- Australia Olympic football team → Australia men's Olympic football team
– Australia has two senior level association football/soccer/football teams. One team is a men's team. The other team is a women's team. The lack of a clear gender identifier makes it difficult for readers to instantly know the topic of the article, because which of the two national teams the article is about is not specified in the article name. This would make it more clear. LauraHale (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support, avoiding gender bias requires us to disambiguate national sports teams. Powers T 01:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose use "soccer" instead of "association football". The main article is called Soccer in Australia.
70.24.248.237 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment that piece of vandalism is "only for now". In any event there is no ambiguity. Silent Billy (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Per the recent consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move, these article should all use "soccer" instead of "association football". As to the issue of inserting "men's" into the titles, I'm torn. One could easily argue that the men's teams are the primary topics (e.g. when someone says "the Australian soccer team", they are referring to the men's team at least nine times out of ten), yet on the other hand, it would be a step forward in combatting Wikipedia's systematic bias. I would also note that, looking at Category:National association football teams, no other national soccer/football team article uses "men's" in the title. Perhaps it would be better to discuss this on a larger scale than just Australia (after all, consistency is one of the principle naming criteria)? Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose pending a topic-wide consensus on this issue. I do have some sympathy with the argument made by LT Powes—the current arrangement is blatanly gender-biased language. On the other hand, WP:COMMONNAME would suggest that references to the "Australian
footballsoccer team" would overwhelmingly refer to the men's team, so I am not so convinced about the nominator's concerns. On the other issue, clearly given the result at Talk:Soccer in Australia#Requested move and the subsequent mass renaming of categories that has since taken place, this article should be at Australia national soccer team. Yes, it is a silly and needlessly insulting name, but the decision has already been made and now we need to deal with the inevitable consequences, such as this. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)- I take a different view. Soccer is the name within Australia, but football is the international name. Association football is really nothing much at all. Nobody uses that name in practice. So, I'd like to see the national team described as a football team (not Association football). As for the gender thing, explictly saying Mens and Womens makes sense to me. But I have an outstanding query, which I posted on the Talk page of someone who has since posted in this thread, so he has chosen to ignore me. Puzzling. It's about this "insulting" claim. I just don't get it. It's the common name of the sport everywhere in Victoria. It's not an insult here. Where and how is it insulting? (This is a genuine question. I am not trying to be provocative. Just trying to understand.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment -I haven't ignored you I am just getting some examples together for you. In the meantime how is your point about the alleged usages in Victoria relevant to Wikipedia. Wp is international not provincial. I mean do we have to rename swimsuit to "bathers" because that is in common usage in Victoria? Are folks in the jewel of the Hunter going to be forced to use a flat "a" when telling of their home town instead of a broad one simply because it is anathema to those south of the Barassi line? Silent Billy (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Question: Whether or not the article is called association football team or soccer team, can this particular rename focus on the gender in the article name issue, with the association football/soccer issue being resolved in a separate rename request? -- LauraHale (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- The soccer/football issue has already been resolved, so there's not much more to discuss. On the gender issue, I would suggest going with Mattinbgn's suggestion to get a topic-wide consensus on the gender issue. IMHO, it would be better to go top-down, rather than bottom-up arguing every step of the way. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- About half the men's national teams articles already have men in the article name in Category:Men's national sports teams of Australia. I think, with the exception of netball and national teams by gender based events like tennis and golf, women are already gendered. I can do a rename proposal that includes the rest of those articles for men's teams that aren't gendered like their female counterparts. --LauraHale (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies, I should have been clearer. I meant a discussion involving all articles in the subcats of Category:National association football teams. I don't see how Australia would be any different 99% of other nations. Jenks24 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- About half the men's national teams articles already have men in the article name in Category:Men's national sports teams of Australia. I think, with the exception of netball and national teams by gender based events like tennis and golf, women are already gendered. I can do a rename proposal that includes the rest of those articles for men's teams that aren't gendered like their female counterparts. --LauraHale (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- The soccer/football issue has already been resolved, so there's not much more to discuss. On the gender issue, I would suggest going with Mattinbgn's suggestion to get a topic-wide consensus on the gender issue. IMHO, it would be better to go top-down, rather than bottom-up arguing every step of the way. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - This change would set a precedent and therefore affect more than just Australian articles; therefore, I believe the discussion ought to take place at a more centralised location (e.g. WT:FOOTY). – PeeJay 00:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. As morally commendable as the proposal may be, and IMO it is, this is not the place to promote such a change in English usage. Currently, the Australian Cricket Team is the men, the Australian Women's Cricket Team is the other. The same with soccer. No, this is not right. But it is reality. For better or for worse, Wikipedia's policy is to follow the reality rather than the ideal. Andrewa (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - current title is an accurate reflection of the article's references. As Andrewa said, such is the way of the English language. On the bright side, it lets us keep a more concise title. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
zullo at everton
why does it say michael zullo plays for everton he does not he plays for utrecht and it says everywhere else he plays for utrecht including his wikipedia page and i cant find anything for him playing at everton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.131.8 (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Player Drain
Is this seriously required? I'm sure many other countries have players born there that have chosen to play for other countries. This is not unique to Australia at all. Or how about make it fair and have a list of non-Australian born players that have played for Australia. The list will more then double this player drain list. Even currently, Nikita Rukavytsya, Archie Thompson and Neil Kilkenny are playing caps for Australia despite being born overseas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.184.150 (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
April 2013 clean-up
Hello, I just wanted to let everyone know that I'm attempting to clean-up this article. This involves moving much of the content to separate articles (history, records, managers, etc) and adding more content (team image). I will also be re-wording much of the article, editing templates and tables, moving sections for better reading and attempting to find references. This is all to my preference, so opinions/suggestion are welcome and help would be greatly appreciated in any of the areas. --2nyte (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Kits
I was hoping to add all the kits, or at least the most notable ones in the Kit section, though I would need some help. I've added a lot in already, but some could probably be removed if they're not that notable. I don't really know much about the national teams kits and I don't know at all how to make kit patterns, so I would need help. Here are some sources for Australia's kits: theworldgame.sbs.com.au, oldfootballshirts.com, australiansocceroos.com, smh.com.au, Template:Football kit, Template:Football kit/pattern list. Any help would be greatly appreciated. --2nyte (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Shirt badge
This was brought up before, though there was no resolution. The logo shown is the logo of the Football Federation, not of the team or any other Australian national football team for that matter. This badge and this badge (the yellow crest with the kangaroo and emu) are both used on the national teams jersey's and I think either one would be a suitable replacement. --2nyte (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- The second logo appears only on replica kits. The actual logo used on player shirts is the Australian coat of arms. As far as I can tell from press photos, the FFA logo doesn't appear on the current shirts. Hack (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Home stadium
Has anyone told fans outside Sydney that the team's home stadium is Stadium Australia? That's what the Infobox says. Do we have a source for that, or is it just a Sydney based fans' perspective? HiLo48 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Golden era mystery
The text under the heading Golden era begins with "In early 2005, it was thought that FFA had entered into discussions with AFC for Australia to join Asia and leave Oceania." That just reads rather weirdly. I'm not even sure what it's trying to say. Thought by whom? So what? And a few other questions.... It's an odd way to begin a section. What's it really all about? Could we say it better? (I hope so, but I'm not sure what to say.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if you're addressing the section as a whole or the specific line you quoted. Never the less, I re-worded the opening line and regarding the section as a whole a added some info on the 'golden generation'.--2nyte (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- It was primarily that first sentence that concerned me. Your changes are quite an improvement. I have, however, made a change to the format of your revised heading to highlight that it's actually a quote from a reliable source, and not just peacock language from an editor, which would be unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is necessary to have the title in inverted commas and italicize rather than just one of the two.--2nyte (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- What? That's written as a statement. Was it meant to be a question? HiLo48 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a question. I forgot to put a question mark.--2nyte (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure what the Wikipedia Manual of Style says on such matters. Maybe it would be better to not use the term at all as a section heading. I'd prefer simple groupings of years for listing the history. We shouldn't be drawn into copying the language styles of sports journalists. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a question. I forgot to put a question mark.--2nyte (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- What? That's written as a statement. Was it meant to be a question? HiLo48 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is necessary to have the title in inverted commas and italicize rather than just one of the two.--2nyte (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- It was primarily that first sentence that concerned me. Your changes are quite an improvement. I have, however, made a change to the format of your revised heading to highlight that it's actually a quote from a reliable source, and not just peacock language from an editor, which would be unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Soccer? Has it become a non-word?
Are we in complete denial? The only mention of the word soccer in this article is in the contribution of that word to the name of the Socceroos. Now, in line with the resolution of the second most recent attempt to have articles about the sport call the game football rather than soccer, I have no intention of trying to change the name of this article away from "...association football...". That's fine with me. But it seem ridiculous to have an article covering the whole history of the national team, obviously including the time when it was officially known as a soccer team, representing a soccer federation, in a country where many exclusively call the game soccer, and avoid using that word. It's taking the campaign to change the name of the sport in a very Orwellian and dishonest direction. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- The official term used according to the FFA and general supporters of the "Socceroos" is Football... Not Association Football, not Soccer, but Football... The term Socceroos is no different to the Trinidad and Tobago National Team that is nicknamed the Soca Warriors, it has nothing to do with the sport actually being played on the ground. The term "Socceroos" is just a nickname. For the intents and purposes of this article the game being played is Football as recognised by the governing body of the code in Australia.
- Also, frankly there are very few people who follow the sport in this country that even know what the term "Association Football" refers to, soccer is a by gone anachronism and I wish we'd all just grow up about it. On record: I'm stating my point of view, not opening that debate either --124.177.110.163 (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you about Association football. It's not a good choice of name. I also note that your IP address geolocates to Brisbane or nearby. You really need to spend some time on the other side of the Barassi Line and see how the language works there. One simple example is that every secondary school has a football team and a soccer team. Can you tell what football means in that context? Can you explain how or why it will ever change? For that half of the Australian population the word soccer is not an anachronism. It's simply a part of daily language. Anyway, that was not the point of my previous post. It was primarily about the historical aspects of the article, for the 130 years when soccer WAS the official name of the sport. Why is it not mentioned? But you're right, of course, you're not debating. You ignored almost everything I said in my post, so you didn't debate anything. Soccer fans seem incapable of that. HiLo48 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are discussions on Talk:Soccer in Australia about the use of association football/football/soccer and HiLo48, please do not bite the newcomers.--2nyte (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- I will bite willful ignorance, incompetence and ideologically driven fanaticism wherever I see it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- @HiLo48:, not all of us soccer fans are fanatical ideologues about the name. :) I think the article should be renamed to Australia men's national soccer team to bring it into line with the international standards like United States men's national soccer team. (Does @2nyte: want to discuss the inherent sexism involved in claiming the team as genderless? All those sources that @2nyte: points out as calling the game football also point out the gender of the team involved. Can't have your sourcing both ways. AOC claims there is a men's team and a women's team, not a team and a women's team. --LauraHale (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are discussions on Talk:Soccer in Australia about the use of association football/football/soccer and HiLo48, please do not bite the newcomers.--2nyte (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you about Association football. It's not a good choice of name. I also note that your IP address geolocates to Brisbane or nearby. You really need to spend some time on the other side of the Barassi Line and see how the language works there. One simple example is that every secondary school has a football team and a soccer team. Can you tell what football means in that context? Can you explain how or why it will ever change? For that half of the Australian population the word soccer is not an anachronism. It's simply a part of daily language. Anyway, that was not the point of my previous post. It was primarily about the historical aspects of the article, for the 130 years when soccer WAS the official name of the sport. Why is it not mentioned? But you're right, of course, you're not debating. You ignored almost everything I said in my post, so you didn't debate anything. Soccer fans seem incapable of that. HiLo48 (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Who cares who supplies the kit?
2nyte has just added the kit supplier's details to the article. I edit articles for lots of sports. Soccer seems the only one where editors are obsessed with doing this. What's the point? HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Australia national association football team/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Royroydeb (talk · contribs) 04:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Hi,I will be doing the review of this article.First and foremostly you work on the [citation needed] tags put in place by me.RRD13 (talk) 04:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Suggested move
Australia national association football team → Australia men's national association football team – The name should accurately reflect the topic. There are multiple national teams, and the sources tend to reflect this. 2nyte has consistently cited AOC and other sources to support the use of football in the name. Those selfsame sources clearly define the team as men. It would also bring the article into alignment with other national team articles, including United States men's national soccer team and other Australian national team articles that explicitly mention the gender of the players. LauraHale (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Other national team articles that this aligns with include Australia men's national basketball team, Australia men's national field hockey team, Australia men's national ice hockey team, Australia men's national lacrosse team, Australia men's national softball team , Australia national men's squash team, Australia men's national volleyball team, Australia men's national water polo team, Australia men's national wheelchair basketball team. --LauraHale (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Obviously a correct move. Hopefully one doesn't have to repeat all the equality arguments here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - As was said above on #Requested move: This change would set a precedent and therefore affect more than just Australian articles; therefore, the discussion should to take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.--2nyte (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's a bad faith post. It totally ignores the fundamental points made by the requester that this article's name is out of line with other Australian and international articles. The precedent obviously exists! Ignoring others' points is something you seem to do a lot. Why on earth should this move just depend just on what soccer fans from other countries on Wikipedia think? Please open your mind to the existence of a much bigger world out there. Soccer is NOT the only sport that people play. Your insularity and tunnel vision seriously dent your credibility. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- List of men's national association football teams and List of women's national association football teams. United States men's national under-20 soccer team, Canada men's national under-20 soccer team demonstrates men is currently used in article names. Slovenia women's national football team, Solomon Islands women's national football team, Somalia women's national football team, South Africa women's national football team, South Sudan women's national football team, Spain women's national football team, Sri Lanka women's national football team, Suriname women's national football team, Swaziland women's national football team, Sweden women's national football team, Switzerland women's national football team, Syria women's national football team, Tahiti women's national football team, Tajikistan women's national football team, Tanzania women's national football team, Thailand women's national football team, Timor-Leste women's national football team demonstrate that gender is currently being used project wide to differentiate one national team from another. At the same time, the OFFICIAL name for the team based on AOC sources and the Football Federation of Australia say the team is the men's team. We should not ignore the official designation of the team. 2nyte has made this repeatedly clear that the official designation matters and we should support 2nyte's push for consistency with the AOC and FFA. --LauraHale (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Football Federation of Australia website: The AFC Asian Cup 2015 will be the first ever senior men’s football tournament staged in Australia. Socceroos indicates this is the official name for the team, not "Australia national association football team." Given the common name and official name not being used and the potential for confusion given the existence of two top level national teams competing in elite competitions, there is a compelling reason to rename. When you say national team for soccer, I think Sally Shippard, not Tim Cahill. Female participation in soccer in Australia tops male participation. It is possible for their to be gender confusion. --LauraHale (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- LauraHale, I don't think there is an official name for the national team, nor any national team. If there is one it would probably just be Australia. Also, I don't think I ever pushed for consistency with the AOC and FFA, I only mentioned their usage of the general term football (on a separate topic). HiLo48, I fully understand the request and its applicability to many other articles, that is why I oppose this specific request and think would be wise to discuss the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.--2nyte (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Further your push for consistency with the AOC and FFA, The Australian Institute of Sport sex differentiates. There is not "Football" and "Football - Women." There is "Football - Men" and "Football - Women." This supports the argument put forth by 2nyte elsewhere that we should be following the example of official name and treatment of the sport when determining local project names.~ I would be happy to provide more links to show that official sources genderize the treatment of the national team as a way of differentiating between the two most elite football teams competing internationally for Australia. There is a very legitimate question as to the accuracy of the name. You're side stepping this problem, and beyond that you re-introduced into the article inaccurate information that suggests this article is about a national team open to people of both gender. It isn't. Please provide sources that suggest the team includes women, which the non-genderized name for a single sex competition implies. --LauraHale (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Football Federation of Australia website: The AFC Asian Cup 2015 will be the first ever senior men’s football tournament staged in Australia. Socceroos indicates this is the official name for the team, not "Australia national association football team." Given the common name and official name not being used and the potential for confusion given the existence of two top level national teams competing in elite competitions, there is a compelling reason to rename. When you say national team for soccer, I think Sally Shippard, not Tim Cahill. Female participation in soccer in Australia tops male participation. It is possible for their to be gender confusion. --LauraHale (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- List of men's national association football teams and List of women's national association football teams. United States men's national under-20 soccer team, Canada men's national under-20 soccer team demonstrates men is currently used in article names. Slovenia women's national football team, Solomon Islands women's national football team, Somalia women's national football team, South Africa women's national football team, South Sudan women's national football team, Spain women's national football team, Sri Lanka women's national football team, Suriname women's national football team, Swaziland women's national football team, Sweden women's national football team, Switzerland women's national football team, Syria women's national football team, Tahiti women's national football team, Tajikistan women's national football team, Tanzania women's national football team, Thailand women's national football team, Timor-Leste women's national football team demonstrate that gender is currently being used project wide to differentiate one national team from another. At the same time, the OFFICIAL name for the team based on AOC sources and the Football Federation of Australia say the team is the men's team. We should not ignore the official designation of the team. 2nyte has made this repeatedly clear that the official designation matters and we should support 2nyte's push for consistency with the AOC and FFA. --LauraHale (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's a bad faith post. It totally ignores the fundamental points made by the requester that this article's name is out of line with other Australian and international articles. The precedent obviously exists! Ignoring others' points is something you seem to do a lot. Why on earth should this move just depend just on what soccer fans from other countries on Wikipedia think? Please open your mind to the existence of a much bigger world out there. Soccer is NOT the only sport that people play. Your insularity and tunnel vision seriously dent your credibility. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with 2nyte. Also, i believe "men's" is implied. Doesn't need to be in the title.Simione001 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Men is not implied in the title and the article does not even state this is an exclusively men's team. The sport is gender segregated. The sources make this clear. The sport governing bodies in Australia make it clear that this is a men's team. Wikipedia policies are for WP:NPOV, and the implied men is a non-neutral position that the men's team is THE ONLY national team. By absenting an important component of the fundamental definition of the team, Wikipedians are engaging in POV pushing and inaccuracies by not stating things clearly. Precision to avoid confusion and POV pushing should be attempted. The two teams, men and women, are both the top level national teams in this sport and the current name pushes a POV that one is superior and worth being called THE national team and one is not worth being that by default. --LauraHale (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have added a hatnote which appears on most national team articles but if the requester wishes to continue with the page move I strongly suggest discussing the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football as this does effect all national team articles.--2nyte (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Men is not implied in the title and the article does not even state this is an exclusively men's team. The sport is gender segregated. The sources make this clear. The sport governing bodies in Australia make it clear that this is a men's team. Wikipedia policies are for WP:NPOV, and the implied men is a non-neutral position that the men's team is THE ONLY national team. By absenting an important component of the fundamental definition of the team, Wikipedians are engaging in POV pushing and inaccuracies by not stating things clearly. Precision to avoid confusion and POV pushing should be attempted. The two teams, men and women, are both the top level national teams in this sport and the current name pushes a POV that one is superior and worth being called THE national team and one is not worth being that by default. --LauraHale (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - is there a women's national association football team, and do they have an article? If so, I would support the move. If not, it seems silly to differentiate when there is nothing to differentiate from. Also, should it not be "Australian national men's..." rather than "Australia...". Clunky grammar could prompt further attempts to change the title. --Rushton2010 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. This article can be found at Australia women's national association football team. --LauraHale (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- No-brainer then - Support --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. This article can be found at Australia women's national association football team. --LauraHale (talk) 14:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose here. I had a look at this list. out of all the national football team pages on Wikipedia only two (Canada and USA) have the word men's in their title. And based on the women's list most of these teams have a women's team as well. Also even the article for the sport has a women equivalent, but only the women's page is the gender mentioned. Therefore, the consensus is only to add a gender to the women's page. I would suppose this is because the men's game has been played for longer and it is most people's intuition (that when you say soccer you think of the game being played by men). Also, I'm pretty sure the men's teams have more coverage. If there is a desire to move all these pages, then as 2nyte and PeeJay have said, the discussion should take place at a more central location, such as WT:FOOTY. --SuperJew (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - User:LauraHale, this is starting to get a little bit POINTy. We told you last time that this discussion needs to take place in a more central location, as it affects more than just articles about the Australian team. At present, if we were to change all articles about national football teams to include the word "men's", we'd need to change (at a guess) about 200 articles, if not more. Take this discussion to WP:FOOTY and see how the community at large feels. – PeeJay 19:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is not pointy at all. This discussion is limited to this article and there is no requirement that I create a WP:FOOTY rename notice for all article names. Given this, as is stands, the article with this title is non-neutral. There are realistically two options to solving the fundamentally non-neutral position by treating a gender segregated sport with male as the default. The easiest is to change the name. The other is to completely rewrite this article so that it is fundamentally about both teams in order to bring about gender neutrality and article accuracy. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- @PeeJay2K3:, Just for clarification: How would you propose to rewrite the lead and the article text to make it fundamentally neutral with respect to the fact that Australia has two top level national association football teams at the elite level? --LauraHale (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is pretty POINTy. You raised a similar RM a while back, and it was turned down. I'll admit two years might be a decent time for the consensus to change, but many of the same arguments from before still apply. Furthermore, if this article is moved, it stands to reason that we should move all articles about national football teams to include the word "men's". That is why I recommend that you take this discussion to a more central location. Unless, of course, you plan to RM them all separately? – PeeJay 02:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't stand to reason at all. Some articles already say "men's", as do many for non-soccer teams. Changing this one will be no more of a precedent than any other. Why not fix this one? Is it because women are lesser important than men? HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Either it's equality for all or for none, IMO. Why should Australia, Canada and the United States have the distinction of using "men's" while all the other national teams are consigned to the assumption that men are more important than women? Discuss centrally please. – PeeJay 15:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Very true. As mentioned in the move proposal, a number of men's Australian national teams mention the gender of the team in the article name. There are a number of men's national team articles that include men in it. Beyond that, the name change is the easiest way to fix the inherent POV problem with the article. I've tried to think how the lead can be rewritten neutrally in regards to the fact that there are two top level national association football teams for Australia that represent the country in international competitions.
- No, it doesn't stand to reason at all. Some articles already say "men's", as do many for non-soccer teams. Changing this one will be no more of a precedent than any other. Why not fix this one? Is it because women are lesser important than men? HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is pretty POINTy. You raised a similar RM a while back, and it was turned down. I'll admit two years might be a decent time for the consensus to change, but many of the same arguments from before still apply. Furthermore, if this article is moved, it stands to reason that we should move all articles about national football teams to include the word "men's". That is why I recommend that you take this discussion to a more central location. Unless, of course, you plan to RM them all separately? – PeeJay 02:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- @PeeJay2K3:, Just for clarification: How would you propose to rewrite the lead and the article text to make it fundamentally neutral with respect to the fact that Australia has two top level national association football teams at the elite level? --LauraHale (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is not pointy at all. This discussion is limited to this article and there is no requirement that I create a WP:FOOTY rename notice for all article names. Given this, as is stands, the article with this title is non-neutral. There are realistically two options to solving the fundamentally non-neutral position by treating a gender segregated sport with male as the default. The easiest is to change the name. The other is to completely rewrite this article so that it is fundamentally about both teams in order to bring about gender neutrality and article accuracy. --LauraHale (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Two Australian national association football team represents Australia in international association football, the Australian men's national association football teams and Australia women's national association football team. Both team are controlled by the governing body for association football in Australia, Football Federation Australia (FFA), which is currently a member of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) and the regional ASEAN Football Federation (AFF) since leaving the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) in 2006. The men's team's official nickname is the Socceroos. The women's team's official nickname is the Matilidas.
- And that's just a bit clunky, because what it suggests for neutrality is either than a necessary neutral rationalization for why this article focuses on men, or a merger of Australia women's national association football team into this one in order to achieve neutrality. I'd love to see suggestions for how to fix the neutrality problem. --LauraHale (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- The hyperlink at the top of the page: This article is about the men's team - neutrality achieved.
Done--2nyte (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. Not neutral. We can replace the article with the text from the Matildas article. That would make the article about the Australia national association football team. We can then hat a link to the men's article. Does that work for you? If not, why not? No, the solution you propose suggests that one team is not equal to another in terms of being THE national association football team that represents Australia internationally. Please come up with a way to make the article TEXT more neutral vis-a-vis two national teams existing. Hatting doesn't address the dual nature problem. --LauraHale (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are 1000+ men's national representative football team articles without men's in the title and this article is following the format. US and Canada are the only exception - they probably just want to be politically correct. But in the same vein, we have FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup, or AFC Asian Cup and AFC Women's Asian Cup - the list continues, so maybe we're just following that format.--2nyte (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's hardly being "politically correct" to treat men and women equally. How can you justify not doing so? Saying "all the other articles treat them unequally" is hardly a clever answer. They are simply discriminatory. That there's a lot of them just makes things worse. It makes soccer look chauvinist and backward. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- True beans. And the only way to neutralize the existing article without a name change is to merge Australia women's national association football team into the current article to reflect the fact the country has two national teams that represent Australia at the international level. That is the ONLY way the neutrality of this article can be restored. Hatting is not a problem to solve neutrality. (If it was, the advocates of hatting would be okay with replacing the article text with the Matildas article and hatting the men's team.) Neutrality is a pillar of Wikipedia and the SIMPLEST way to achieve this is a rename and replacing this with a disambiguation. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's exactly what Political correctness is. But FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup was a better example to base the names on (i.e. the Australia team in the World Cup, the Australia women's team in the Women's World Cup). Maybe there's a determinant undertone, but like all PC, it's in the eye of the beholder - sorry to be so blunt.--2nyte (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @2nyte:: No, it is being factually accurate and neutral. I have numerous sources I can show you that Australia has two national teams that represent Australia at the highest level. What sources do you have that say Australia has only one team? I've cited them. You cite yours about only one team existing that represents Australia at the highest level, which the current title and name suggests is the truth. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- 2nyte - equality is not political correctness. Try to justify this position with a better reason than "everyone else does it". If something is wrong, it's wrong no matter how many people do it. Those other articles are wrong, and so are you. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Political correctness, what 2nyte appears to be citing, redirects to WP:NPOV. This arguement about how things shouldn't be done because it is politically correct appears to be an argument for the move. The people opposing the move have failed to provide a single policy based rationale for keeping the article under its current name. Let's get serious here if people genuinely want to keep the article under its current name and discuss policy based rationalizations for keeping it here. What are the policy based rationales? --LauraHale (talk) 07:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- 2nyte - equality is not political correctness. Try to justify this position with a better reason than "everyone else does it". If something is wrong, it's wrong no matter how many people do it. Those other articles are wrong, and so are you. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @2nyte:: No, it is being factually accurate and neutral. I have numerous sources I can show you that Australia has two national teams that represent Australia at the highest level. What sources do you have that say Australia has only one team? I've cited them. You cite yours about only one team existing that represents Australia at the highest level, which the current title and name suggests is the truth. --LauraHale (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's hardly being "politically correct" to treat men and women equally. How can you justify not doing so? Saying "all the other articles treat them unequally" is hardly a clever answer. They are simply discriminatory. That there's a lot of them just makes things worse. It makes soccer look chauvinist and backward. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are 1000+ men's national representative football team articles without men's in the title and this article is following the format. US and Canada are the only exception - they probably just want to be politically correct. But in the same vein, we have FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup, or AFC Asian Cup and AFC Women's Asian Cup - the list continues, so maybe we're just following that format.--2nyte (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. Not neutral. We can replace the article with the text from the Matildas article. That would make the article about the Australia national association football team. We can then hat a link to the men's article. Does that work for you? If not, why not? No, the solution you propose suggests that one team is not equal to another in terms of being THE national association football team that represents Australia internationally. Please come up with a way to make the article TEXT more neutral vis-a-vis two national teams existing. Hatting doesn't address the dual nature problem. --LauraHale (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- The hyperlink at the top of the page: This article is about the men's team - neutrality achieved.
- And that's just a bit clunky, because what it suggests for neutrality is either than a necessary neutral rationalization for why this article focuses on men, or a merger of Australia women's national association football team into this one in order to achieve neutrality. I'd love to see suggestions for how to fix the neutrality problem. --LauraHale (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am saddened by the male chauvinistic attitude of some soccer fans here. I thought these equality debates were finished thirty years ago, and we were just still cleaning up the loose ends. There is absolutely no logic nor fairness in mentioning the gender for women's teams and not mentioning it for men's teams. Of course it's the right move. There is no logical argument against it. Demanding global agreement for this particular change, especially when there's already a lot of men's teams with that word in their title, is repeating failed, pathetic arguments from fifty years ago. One part of the image of soccer is that it's the sport of the backward, less well educated, less sophisticated, lower classes. That definitely shows here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support as per the other Australian national sporting teams listed above. Notifications have been left at WT:FOOTY and WP:AWNB. This doesn't have to be a precedent for all nations. One page at a time, each considered individually based on each teams' profile, status, success etc. The-Pope (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't have a problem with adding the gender to the title, but association football is not the common name for the sport in Australia. Hack (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Support - For reasons of neutrality, recognizability, naturalness, precision and consistency. HiLo48 hit the nail on the head with chauvinistic and pathetic. Speaking of chauvinistic and pathetic, decisions on these matters should certainly not be devolved to the WP:FOOTY project, which has been likened to a circle jerk. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment being the Australian team, shouldn't this say "soccer", being the Australian word for "association football"? Soccer in Australia -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment whether this uses soccer or association football, it should include the gender indicator, to counter WP:systematic bias -- 65.94.78.70 (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Question: - Is there an official rule (ie. one coming from FFA, AFC or FIFA) that woman are not aloud to play in this team? --RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Suggested alternative - the most sensible solution would be to move the article to the primary title Socceroos, with a redirect from Australia men's national association football team. Judging by the numerous sources cited in this article Socceroos is quite clearly the common name for the team - we go by what the reliable sources say, don't we? Anecdotally I sympathise with LauraHale's point of view, but generally men dominate certain sports, while women dominate some others and, as a result, it is often felt unnecessary to add teh word "men's" to sports reporting (the exception being the Olympics where men and women both compete contemporaneously). If the men and women are treated equally in Australia (both teams have a popular nickname) then this page name suggestion should be treated on its merits, rather than slapped down because of its possible affect on other Wikipedia articles. Sionk (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a comment on the equality or increased visibility of the men's team versus the women's team. Any suggestion that this is an issue that should play any role in this move discussion is irrelevant and a red herring. The article is titled "Australia national association football team". Australia has two such teams representing Australia internationally. One is men and one is women. The article places an point of view by suggesting Australia has only one such team and by intentionally favouring the point of view that the only legitimate is the men's team despite the large number of verifiable sources that support the idea that Australia has two national teams. The current title is misleading and not concise. It violates two of Wikipedia's pillars. I have no preference regarding the use of Socceroos so long as this current title disambiguates to reflect the neutral fact supported by a plurality of verifiable sources that Australia has two national teams, not one. --LauraHale (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it certainly is a comment on equality of you are saying that the men's and women's team are treated equally in the real world, but not on Wikipedia. I don't have enough knowledge of the football status in Australia, but generally Wikipedia goes by what the subject is commonly referred to. If the men's team is commonly referred to as the "Australia men's national association football team" I'd have no problem with the move at all. But everyone seems to call it the Socceroos. The article on the womens team is so poorly sourced it's difficult to comment on them. Sionk (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a comment on the equality or increased visibility of the men's team versus the women's team. Any suggestion that this is an issue that should play any role in this move discussion is irrelevant and a red herring. The article is titled "Australia national association football team". Australia has two such teams representing Australia internationally. One is men and one is women. The article places an point of view by suggesting Australia has only one such team and by intentionally favouring the point of view that the only legitimate is the men's team despite the large number of verifiable sources that support the idea that Australia has two national teams. The current title is misleading and not concise. It violates two of Wikipedia's pillars. I have no preference regarding the use of Socceroos so long as this current title disambiguates to reflect the neutral fact supported by a plurality of verifiable sources that Australia has two national teams, not one. --LauraHale (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - no evidence these two have equal weight, and in fact it seems clear the men's team is the PRIMARYTOPIC. GiantSnowman 18:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV says that there is no equal weight issue. You are pushing a point of view that a singular national team exists. PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply given the dual existence of two national teams. The primary topic is that national team. Your POV is the men's team should be given UNDUE weight. PRIMARYTOPIC does not trump NPOV nor WP:V, where WP:V shows an abundance of sources that the there are two national teams that represent Australia at the highest level. (The fact that the first paragraph only needs the word Socceroos changed for it to be about women shows that.) What is your NPOV rationale? --LauraHale (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Who says the men's team isn't the PRIMARYTOPIC? If you asked 100 people on the streets of Sydney what they thought of when you said the words "Australia national soccer team", I have no doubt that the vast majority would assume you were talking about the men's team. In fact, this Google search reveals that you have to get to the second page of results before anything about the women's team emerges, and even then there are only three mentions out of 20, all of which appear because of the women's team's recent match against the United States, hence violating WP:RECENT. It is not non-neutral to use the term "Australia national association football team" to refer specifically to the men's team when most of the reading public would assume you meant the men's team in the first place. As for WP:V, I believe I've satisfied that with the Google search above. I understand your pain that the women's team isn't given equal weighting, but that's the way it is in the real world; unfortunately, we don't live in a world where that type of equality exists... yet. – PeeJay 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- So the women are less important than the men? HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- No. This is a case of factual accuracy, that the team on the article is gender segegated by rule, is not that important to @PeeJay2K3:. He wants enshrined in the article a factual inaccuracy. The title is not factually accurate. He's make a n Argumentum ad populum and saying popularity trumps factuality. (But yeah, it does read like your interpretation. Let's make it all about men. woot woot. men.) --LauraHale (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- So the women are less important than the men? HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Who says the men's team isn't the PRIMARYTOPIC? If you asked 100 people on the streets of Sydney what they thought of when you said the words "Australia national soccer team", I have no doubt that the vast majority would assume you were talking about the men's team. In fact, this Google search reveals that you have to get to the second page of results before anything about the women's team emerges, and even then there are only three mentions out of 20, all of which appear because of the women's team's recent match against the United States, hence violating WP:RECENT. It is not non-neutral to use the term "Australia national association football team" to refer specifically to the men's team when most of the reading public would assume you meant the men's team in the first place. As for WP:V, I believe I've satisfied that with the Google search above. I understand your pain that the women's team isn't given equal weighting, but that's the way it is in the real world; unfortunately, we don't live in a world where that type of equality exists... yet. – PeeJay 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @PeeJay2K3: "Who says the men's team isn't the PRIMARYTOPIC?" Well, that's the crux of it. The FFA and the AIS and FIFA and any number of verifiable sources say Australia has a men's national association football team and a women's national association football team. So we start there: Two national teams exist. Okay. You can see this right? Verifiable sources say two national teams exist. FFA, Australian Sports Commission and FIFA all say two national teams exist. (Your google search is not reliable. FIFA, ASC and FFA are more reliable.) Therefor, by saying WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you violate WP:NPOV by saying despite the official status of both teams as national teams for Australia, you wish to say media attention and other factors mean WP:V should be set aside to favour the men's team in a way that is completely non-neutral. PRIMARYTOPIC only applies in this case if Australia lacked a women's team or if the women's team was not an official one. Beyond that, PRIMARYTOPIC does not trump WP:V nor WP:NPOV. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not a pillar. The other two are. Stop arguing with FIFA and the FFA. Start being neutral. --LauraHale (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- A wise man once said, you can use facts to support whatever position you want; philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as true neutrality. You are ignoring the fact that it does not matter what the official sources say, as they are primary sources, but what the media say, and although a Google search is a pretty crude measure of what the media are saying, it does a pretty good job. By the way, try not to be so condescending in the future; many people would not respond well to that. – PeeJay 20:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @PeeJay2K3:, No. I am saying the verifiable sources say Australia has two national teams. You are ignoring the sources because the facts do not fit your WP:NPOV. Australia has two national teams. Do you have verifiable, reliable sources that say only ONE national team that is not gender segregated exists? If not, the pillars of WP:NPOV and WP:V trump "well, everyone knows the men's team is the only team that counts." --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Do not put words in my mouth. No one is saying the men's team is the only one that counts; what I am saying is that the men's team is the one most people would take you to mean if you said "Australia national association football team". You accuse me of having an agenda, when you are quite clearly guilty of the same. The only thing it would not be neutral to say right now is that the Australian women's team has parity with the men's; show me evidence of that and you may be able to convince me. – PeeJay 21:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @PeeJay2K3:, No. I am saying the verifiable sources say Australia has two national teams. You are ignoring the sources because the facts do not fit your WP:NPOV. Australia has two national teams. Do you have verifiable, reliable sources that say only ONE national team that is not gender segregated exists? If not, the pillars of WP:NPOV and WP:V trump "well, everyone knows the men's team is the only team that counts." --LauraHale (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- A wise man once said, you can use facts to support whatever position you want; philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as true neutrality. You are ignoring the fact that it does not matter what the official sources say, as they are primary sources, but what the media say, and although a Google search is a pretty crude measure of what the media are saying, it does a pretty good job. By the way, try not to be so condescending in the future; many people would not respond well to that. – PeeJay 20:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV says that there is no equal weight issue. You are pushing a point of view that a singular national team exists. PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply given the dual existence of two national teams. The primary topic is that national team. Your POV is the men's team should be given UNDUE weight. PRIMARYTOPIC does not trump NPOV nor WP:V, where WP:V shows an abundance of sources that the there are two national teams that represent Australia at the highest level. (The fact that the first paragraph only needs the word Socceroos changed for it to be about women shows that.) What is your NPOV rationale? --LauraHale (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- PeeJay2K3 - Three questions. Do you understand the discriminatory nature of what you are demanding? Are you aware of the women's rights movements of the past 150 years? Do they have to keep fighting for equality? (Please don't answer these with a Google hit count.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @PeeJay2K3:, "what I am saying is that the men's team is the one most people would take you to mean". That's nice. You understand that this is not the issue for this move debate. The issue is the current article title is not accurate. You are endeavoring to put inaccurate information into Wikipedia. You are seeking to use decreased precision in a way that pushes a point of view. The current title is NOT factually accurate. So "what I am saying is that the men's team is the one most people would take you to mean" is not relevant. I am glad that you agree with me that Australia has two national teams and that you now favour a move in compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV. --LauraHale (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I do not favour such a move, and you clearly have a gross misunderstanding of my argument. I have made my position clear, please do not ping me again on this page. – PeeJay 22:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think your argument can be summarised as "It's what (almost) everyone else does". I'm a high school teacher. If I am trying to point out to a student that they have done something wrong, just about the worst possible defence students come up with, that I hear far too often, is "But he's doing it too", (while pointing at or naming another student). Something is either the right thing to do, or it's not. The fact that there are lots of other examples of the same thing never makes that thing right. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- The rationale provided by @PeeJay2K3: does not just rise to the point of trumping WP:NPOV or WP:V. The name needs to comply with Wikipedia's pillars. If there is an arguement being provided that trumps it, it needs to be articulated more clearly because I do not understand his comments in the context of the pillars. --LauraHale (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think your argument can be summarised as "It's what (almost) everyone else does". I'm a high school teacher. If I am trying to point out to a student that they have done something wrong, just about the worst possible defence students come up with, that I hear far too often, is "But he's doing it too", (while pointing at or naming another student). Something is either the right thing to do, or it's not. The fact that there are lots of other examples of the same thing never makes that thing right. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I do not favour such a move, and you clearly have a gross misunderstanding of my argument. I have made my position clear, please do not ping me again on this page. – PeeJay 22:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- @PeeJay2K3:, "what I am saying is that the men's team is the one most people would take you to mean". That's nice. You understand that this is not the issue for this move debate. The issue is the current article title is not accurate. You are endeavoring to put inaccurate information into Wikipedia. You are seeking to use decreased precision in a way that pushes a point of view. The current title is NOT factually accurate. So "what I am saying is that the men's team is the one most people would take you to mean" is not relevant. I am glad that you agree with me that Australia has two national teams and that you now favour a move in compliance with WP:V and WP:NPOV. --LauraHale (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- In some defence of changing the title, if the sport isn't commonly called 'association football' in Australia then Wikipedians have already agreed to move away from the COMMONNAME. It isn't a tremendous divergence to add the word "men's" while we're at it! But attacking other people for being discriminatory and POV won't get this discussion anywhere. PeeJay (and others) isn't being discriminatory for pointing out that the two teams are by no means equal in terms of coverage and profile. A simple internet search for the phrase "Australia national football team" brings up articles and coverage about the mens team far above anything else. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- PeeJay is either being discriminatory, or just plain rude. The problem with comments such as PeeJay's is that this is supposed to be a discussion page. We are meant to present our own points, and discuss those presented by others. PeeJay is ignoring those made by others, and simply repeating his own, simplistic, "Google hit count" based points. Others ARE commenting on PeeJay's points. He is refusing to even acknowledge the existence of those made by others. He is not discussing. That is not good faith behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see discrimination or rudeness. Peejay, from what I can see, is making an argument based on Wikipedia policy and using actual evidence such as Google searches to find reliable reporting which talks about the football teams. In the case of this particular article, it is the best way to go about it. In the real world "Australia national football team" is generally taken to refer to the Socceroos. For myself, I'd prefer the title of the article to be "Socceroos", but failing that I think I'm moving to a preference to keep it as it is. Sionk (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ignoring others' arguments, which is what PeeJay (and some others) are doing, is either rudeness or incompetence. You seem to now be guilty of it yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see discrimination or rudeness. Peejay, from what I can see, is making an argument based on Wikipedia policy and using actual evidence such as Google searches to find reliable reporting which talks about the football teams. In the case of this particular article, it is the best way to go about it. In the real world "Australia national football team" is generally taken to refer to the Socceroos. For myself, I'd prefer the title of the article to be "Socceroos", but failing that I think I'm moving to a preference to keep it as it is. Sionk (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- PeeJay is either being discriminatory, or just plain rude. The problem with comments such as PeeJay's is that this is supposed to be a discussion page. We are meant to present our own points, and discuss those presented by others. PeeJay is ignoring those made by others, and simply repeating his own, simplistic, "Google hit count" based points. Others ARE commenting on PeeJay's points. He is refusing to even acknowledge the existence of those made by others. He is not discussing. That is not good faith behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - The article in no way specifies that only one team represents Australia internationally, in fact it makes a point of recognising that Australia has two such teams. The hatnote specifies that both a men's and women's team exists and that this article is about the men's team. In every country (including Australia) the men's team has a higher profile and is more notable. It's simple disambiguation, you could rename the women's team to Australia national association football team (women), but the current name follows the pattern used in the sport (FIFA World Cup and FIFA Women's World Cup). I think we should only specify "men's" when we are comparing the two - like in the hatnote.--2nyte (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- @2nyte:: I do not understand. What policy are you citing for keeping the name? The current name fails W:V. The article is exclusively about the men's team and sources indicate that Australia has TWO national teams. The article either requires a merge in of the women's article or a rename to reflect the fact it is about the men's team. Using the pillars of Wikipedia including WP:V and WP:NPOV, explain how this fits. Why are you advocating a position that violates to of Wikipedia's pillars? Because your solution does just that. It is not acceptable. --LauraHale (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations on being yet another editor to post as if no arguments whatsoever had been presented to support this move. Just telling us what happens now is not a good argument to keep things that way. Any chance you could actually DISCUSS? HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: My bad and my apologies. WP:5PILLARS says only WP:NPOV is a relevant pillar. WP:V is only actually policy, not a pillar. In this case, one flows into the other, which is why I was confused. --LauraHale (talk) 07:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. The Australian men's team is clearly the primary topic, unlike the cases of USA and Canada. LauraHale is using arguments that pertain to all nations which have a men's team and a women's team in any sport, rather than Australian football (soccer) specifically. Are you seriously suggesting (for example) that the New Zealand national rugby union team (aka the All Blacks) should be moved to New Zealand men's national rugby union team, because there happens to be a New Zealand women's national rugby union team? This attitude takes no account of the relative prominence of teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Jmorrison230582:, PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply because it is NOT the primary topic. Two teams clearly exist as demonstrated by multiple verifiable sources. To say it is the primary topic is to violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. Further, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not policy and does not trump a pillar or a policy. Do you have justification for violation WP:NPOV and WP:V in opposing this move? --LauraHale (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Primary topic does not apply because it is not the primary topic". Sorry, but you have not proven that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Do you have justification for violation WP:NPOV and WP:V in opposing this move?" Yes. WP:NPOV says that topic must be represented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias". I don't think it's unfair or biased to have the Australian men's team as the primary topic, based on the relative popularity and history of the two teams. In some cases (USA and Canada being two, there are one or two others that are debatable), it would be unfair or biased to have the men's team as the primary topic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- The article is not fairly and proportionally balanced though. The article is about a men's only team and for the sake of accuracy should be renamed to reflect that. It makes absolutely zero reference to the existence of a women's national team. Thus, with two national teams existing, the way to bring balance would be to merge in the women's team article and have it proportionally smaller. Are your proposing to merge the woman's team into this article to bring balance by representing them in the article as the OTHER equal national team? --LauraHale (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- For clarification, if the primary topic is the men's national team, it needs a rename to state what the primary topic actually is. If the primary focus is THE national team, two national teams exist as per WP:V, and the section about the men's team is given undue weight. --LauraHale (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's a silly suggestion. Men's football and women's football are separate sports and all of the national teams are separate entities. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wait. What? They are not! If they were separate teams, this article would be named MEN's national team. As there are two national teams, then the article named NATTIONAL TEAM without the gender designation needs to neutered to reflect that. Anything else is WP:NPOV pushing that one team matters more than another OR suggests one team is not conferred national team status. If this article is really about the men's team, for the sake of precision, it should be named that. If it is not about the men's team, it should reflect the dual nature of two national teams. So is the article about the men's team or is the article about the Australian national team, of which there are two? You don't get it both ways. --LauraHale (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a day when men's and women's sports are treated with equal status but, unfortunately, at the moment they often are not. Maybe it is because most sports journalists and writers are men! Or maybe men have more spare time to idly watch sport in their millions ;) Either way, when someone refers to (or searches for the phrase) "Australia national football team" they invariably mean the men's team. It is born out by evidence, in the abundant form of reliable news coverage. That's why the article about the men's team here has been given the title "Australia national association football team" because, in the majority of cases, they are synonymous with one another. To suggest otherwise (in the example of Australia) is misrepresenting the evidence. After all, there are two soccer world cups but only one of them uses the title FIFA World Cup. Sionk (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Jmorrison230582:, PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply because it is NOT the primary topic. Two teams clearly exist as demonstrated by multiple verifiable sources. To say it is the primary topic is to violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. Further, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not policy and does not trump a pillar or a policy. Do you have justification for violation WP:NPOV and WP:V in opposing this move? --LauraHale (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - in the absence of any enthusiasm to move the articles to Socceroos and Matildas I'll have to come down in favour of the status quo. The name "Australia national football team" is commonly used in everyday usage to mean the men's team, judging from media coverage and other reliable sources. This article immediately begins with a hatnote explaining where to find the article on the women's team. This is all a commonly accepted means of disambiguating two articles. Sionk (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Neutral point of view tag
Please do not remove the tag. At the moment, the neutrality of the article is disputed because of the gender related implications. The article text implies the existence of only one team of undeterminate gender. This is a fundamentally non-neutral position. I have placed the tag to indicate this. Once the issue has been resolved, a discussion can be had about removing it. --LauraHale (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- As WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been brought up, Australia has two national teams representing the country at the highest level internationally. Is the way to achieve neutrality to merge parts of the women's team article in here proportional to the media coverage provided by the team? What balance would work? 75% of the content for men and 25% for women? If the article is not moved, I might be amendable to this as a potential solution to resolve the inherent bias of the article masquerading as representing the national team when it only represents one. --LauraHale (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- A merger of these two large articles is very unlikely to get agreement, I suspect. As for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, you seem to completely and fundamentally disagree with the principles of it. Or maybe you're saying that there need to be alternative PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines for sports teams? As has been pointed out by others, there are some national examples where the women's football team is the primary topic, but I can't see this is the case with Australia (yet). Sionk (talk) 12:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is not a merge proposal. There are two teams. The current article title does not designate a gender for the team, so from a neutrality of view, it fails to wrongly suggests only the existence of a men's team. If you have an alternative suggestion to resolving this POV problem regarding the sole existence of the men in an article about the national team, I would like to hear it. The primary topic is NOT the men's team. If it was about the men's team, it would be named that. The sport is gendered by rule and by media coverage. This is verifiable. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply here because it involves violating WP:NPOV to get to that point.--LauraHale (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the reality is we'd then need to create a new article called "Australia men's national association football team" and, hey presto, you'd have your name change via a very circuitous route :D I can see we're going around in circles anyway, so all the best! Sionk (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- The choice is to rename this article and disambiguate this article to be gender neutral (as WP:V proves two national teams exist) or you integrate the women's team into this article to reflect theWP:V reality that two national teams exists. Those are the two paths to solve WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:V that the article currently has. The easiest route is the rename. Which is the path you wish to pursue? --LauraHale (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- In your opinion. There is another option, which is to leave it as it is, because there is no WP:NPOV issue. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- No. This is a fact: Australia has TWO national teams that represent Australia internationally. The scope of this article reflects only men. Unless you are arguing that Australia has only ONE national team and encompasses BOTH genders and this article accurately reflects that, then there is a WP:NPOV problem because you are making a judgement call as to which gender should be represented. --LauraHale (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're either genuinely not understanding PRIMARYTOPIC or willfully misrepresenting it. It isn't POV to say that one of the teams is much more commonly associated with the phrase "Australia National Football Team". In this instance it is POV for you to say that both teams are equally synonymous with it. That is the reason Wikipedia has methods of disambiguation to differentiate topics which have a claim to the same name.
- In response to your question directed at me above, I have now come down in favour of keeping the existing name. It is one of the courses of action available. Obviously. Sionk (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- You're either genuinely not understanding NPOV or you are willfully misrepresenting it. PRIMARYTOPIC is not the issue here. NPOV is. Two national teams exist. By putting the article at men, a non-neutral value judgement is being made. Cries of PRIMARYTOPIC appear to be POV pushing. Wikipedia needs to be accurate, neutral and verifiable. The article as it stands pushes a POV that the only legitimate team is the men's team and that the women's team is inferior. It fails on V because the two national teams exist. I'm not seeing yet any argument to support the current name other than an agenda pushing that the men's game is superior and more well known, citing PRIMARYTOPIC as a reason to toss the NPOV and V pillar out the window. (And I see no attempt from POV warriors to fix this problem by fixing the article to say that TWO national teams exist, include the word men in the lead, and that both represent Australia in the lead. The article is factually inaccurate by not stating the team is only open to men.) --LauraHale (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- The choice is to rename this article and disambiguate this article to be gender neutral (as WP:V proves two national teams exist) or you integrate the women's team into this article to reflect theWP:V reality that two national teams exists. Those are the two paths to solve WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:V that the article currently has. The easiest route is the rename. Which is the path you wish to pursue? --LauraHale (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the reality is we'd then need to create a new article called "Australia men's national association football team" and, hey presto, you'd have your name change via a very circuitous route :D I can see we're going around in circles anyway, so all the best! Sionk (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Australia national association football team results and results and results. These are games the Australian national team have played against international competitions while representing the country. The source is talking exclusively about the national team. Without citing primarytopic, please explain how the Australian national team does not belong on the article about the Australian national association football team please. Please do so while referring to this team in a gender neutral way. This would really help me and others in understanding the issues for those opposing the move and in determining how to resolve the neutrality and UNDUE weight and vierifiability issues.--LauraHale (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- The pages you link to only list the results of the Matildas (women's team). If there was just one Australian national football (soccer) team then all of the results (men and women) would be on the same page. The history page of the FFA site about the women's team says "Australia women's team" in the first sentence. The history page of the FFA site about the men's team never mentions the fact that it is the men's team. That's the point. When people are talking about the football World Cup, they almost always mean the men's competition, because it is the more popular and better known competition. There are a few countries where the relationship is more ambiguous and so both articles specify their gender. The same is true in other sports where the competitions are more equal, such as tennis or many Olympic events. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please rewrite? The sport is gender segregated BY RULE and the article name in question is not. Please respond without referring to gender, just like the article title here does not refer to gender. This is very, very, very important. Australia national association football team results and results and results are results for the Australian national team. Without referring to the gender of the national, please explain why these results should not be included? Please only refer to the team as the national team. This should not be a problem if this is not a NPOV issue as this is a national team for Australia and the results are contextualized as such. Gender free. Gender free response. I beg that of you. This article title is gender free and we're talking about an Australian national team without genders. Please. A gender free response. --LauraHale (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but all of the links you have posted inherently refer to gender. The FFA link gives all results as being between the "Westfield Matildas" and whichever opponent they were playing. By stating "Matildas" (Westfield must be a sponsor name) they are specifying that the match involved the women's team. The FIFA link gives the option of clicking on "Women's", giving the results of the women's team, or "Men's", giving the results of the men's team. The information given in the SBS link is a bit more ambiguous, but the word "Matildas" (again, directly referring to the women's team rather than the men's) is in the url and is in the title given in the tab. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please rewrite? The sport is gender segregated BY RULE and the article name in question is not. Please respond without referring to gender, just like the article title here does not refer to gender. This is very, very, very important. Australia national association football team results and results and results are results for the Australian national team. Without referring to the gender of the national, please explain why these results should not be included? Please only refer to the team as the national team. This should not be a problem if this is not a NPOV issue as this is a national team for Australia and the results are contextualized as such. Gender free. Gender free response. I beg that of you. This article title is gender free and we're talking about an Australian national team without genders. Please. A gender free response. --LauraHale (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Undue weight tag
As Australia verifiably has two national teams, I have added WP:UNDUE to the article. The article gives undue weight to the men's team. --LauraHale (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
User LauraHale
I think it is clear that LauraHale is picking on this article because there is a belief that this article could be moved. If that move is achieved, then LauraHale would then move onto New Zealand national football team and try to move it to New Zeland men's national football team. It's clear that LauraHale's arguments are based on trying to move all XYZ national ABC team articles to XYZ men's national ABC team, but this has been consistently opposed by central communities such as WP:FOOTY because it would give a false equivalence between the national teams in countries where the men's team is clearly far more popular. These arguments have failed so instead LauraHale is trying to move countries piecemeal; ie "if Australia is like this, so should New Zealand" and so on. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- @Jmorrison230582:, Let's be brutally clear here. The issue of "false equivalence" is a WP:NPOV one. The two teams are equivalent in that they both represent their countries at the national level. Full stop. End of story. This fact is completely verifiable. It is a neutral statement. (Wikipedia policy and Wikipedia pillar.) It is clear that you are a POV warrior, promoting the men's game at the expense of Wikipedia's policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. This is abundantly clear by "false equivalence". There is absolutely NOTHING in the text of this article that supports this statement. It is not verifiable at all, nor relevant. It is an opinion, your opinion. --LauraHale (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's clear that you are a POV warrior, pushing the POV that there is full equivalence between men's and women's national teams in all countries and all sports, which is clearly not the case. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. I seek PRECISION in naming the articles. Two national teams exist. They are separated based on gender. Precision in naming, accuracy and verifiability should be striven for. You are seeking to enshrine in names that a policy that ensures no "false equivalence" between men and women. If you have an NPOV argument to stand on, make it and make it without referring to gender. If you cannot make an arguement as to why one team should be gender neutral and one team should be genderized in a sport segregated by gender, it proves that you are a gender warrior who believes the men's game is superior to the women's game. Can you do it? Please. Do it. Make an argument that does not involve gender for your position. I can make an argument for my case. Can you do the same? Didn't think so.--LauraHale (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV requires articles to be represented fairly, proportionately and without bias. In many cases, your argument would violate those principles because it would give disproportionate status and attention to the teams (too little for one and too much for the other). I would make the same argument if football was primarily known as a female sport and the men's game was a minority interest. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- The other national team is not represented fairly or proportionally or without bias in the article about the Australian national association football team. There are two teams. This article only refers to one. If the other national team is represented in the article beyond a hat note, I do not see it. Thus, when it comes to THE Australian national team as it relates to this article, WP:NPOV is violated by highlighting one team to the exclusion of the other. You have to remember: TWO national teams exist. One is not fairly represented here. UNDUE weight is given to one team. --LauraHale (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV requires articles to be represented fairly, proportionately and without bias. In many cases, your argument would violate those principles because it would give disproportionate status and attention to the teams (too little for one and too much for the other). I would make the same argument if football was primarily known as a female sport and the men's game was a minority interest. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. I seek PRECISION in naming the articles. Two national teams exist. They are separated based on gender. Precision in naming, accuracy and verifiability should be striven for. You are seeking to enshrine in names that a policy that ensures no "false equivalence" between men and women. If you have an NPOV argument to stand on, make it and make it without referring to gender. If you cannot make an arguement as to why one team should be gender neutral and one team should be genderized in a sport segregated by gender, it proves that you are a gender warrior who believes the men's game is superior to the women's game. Can you do it? Please. Do it. Make an argument that does not involve gender for your position. I can make an argument for my case. Can you do the same? Didn't think so.--LauraHale (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's clear that you are a POV warrior, pushing the POV that there is full equivalence between men's and women's national teams in all countries and all sports, which is clearly not the case. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, someone would only start a page move discussion if they thought they stood a chance of being successful, wouldn't they? It's really not on to post someone elses comments (not from your own talk page by the looks of it) on a different Talk page, is it? At best leave a link to the relevant Talk page.
- Each country should be taken on its merits shouldn't it? From what I know, New Zealand doesn't have a particularly successful men's football team, so maybe there would be more merit in the suggestion. Sionk (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the quote. I have spent the better part of a several days working on a lot of men's articles that I take great pride. I take great pride in all my work. And you know what? Despite your doom and gloom suggestions, There is NOTHING wrong about introducing neutrality and verifiability in article titles to Wikipedia. Your suggestion that this pillar and this policy be disregarded is offensive to all Wikipedia editors. --LauraHale (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- It seems clear that some WP:FOOTBALL editors are vehemently, dementedly opposed to women's football. It's obviously quite pitiable but we shouldn't set too much store by it – better that we get opinions from the wider community and leave them behind. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)