Talk:Australia men's national soccer team

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HiLo48 (talk | contribs) at 10:51, 3 December 2022 (→‎Requested move 1 December 2022: Two comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Requested move 24 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED as proposed. For whatever reason, it appears we are doing moves like this piecemeal, which is bizarre; the suggestion to launch a humungous move request to tackle (haha) all of them at once is well-taken. It's possible that such a move will fail, of course. However, the consensus here is clear. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 22:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia national soccer team → Australia men's national soccer team – this page is for the men's team. the current title implies that it is 'the' national team with no regard to the existence of the women's team Clifton9 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • From browsing Category:National association football teams it appears that out of the ~200 Wikipedia articles on men's national association football teams, only United States men's national soccer team and Canada men's national soccer team specify men's in the title, presumably because the women's teams in those countries are significantly more distinguished than the men's teams, although that logic would seem to apply to China national football team too. The Australian women's team has been somewhat more successful than the men's, but I'm not sure it meets whatever standard is being applied to all the other articles. Rublov (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your comment. I don't think it should matter whether a women's team or men's team is more or less established or successful in a specific nation. The standard should be that all men's teams articles should be titled as such as per the women's teams. The current format implies that all the men's teams are the primary national football team and that the women's teams are secondary. The titling of articles shouldn't be about popularity or success, it should be about equality. Clifton9 (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this move in principle, but think the discussion should be expanded to all men's national teams (probably via WT:FOOTY). Suspect this has been raised there before possibly too. Macosal (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Macosal - this discussion should be in general for all men's national teams and brought up at WT:FOOTY. --SuperJew (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - no evidence that the women's team is of equal stature to the men's (as is the case with US and Canada). GiantSnowman 12:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - For obvious logical reasons. Both teams are of equal status. (The women's' team is obviously more successful) There will come a time when people will wonder how we could ever differentiate the way we do today. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - for gender equality reasons, not for metrics of relative success, and not for second guessing the format and standards of Wikipedia in the future. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Whether the men's and women's teams are of equal stature or not, the move will help improve title precision. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socceroos-Uruguay rivarly

Hi,

I was wondering if you can make a page about the rivarly between socceroos and Uruguay, which the media and fans consider this a rivalry due to the 2002 and 2006 wcq play off's. 203.185.244.55 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rivalry parts of the articles on soccer are mostly marketing nonsense, and make those articles look bloated and silly. You don't get a rivalry after two games in 20 years. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4 games. But your point in solid nevertheless. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sorry. Four games. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ray Baartz probably reckons they're worthy of being our rivals... - J man708 (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Australia's macho national soccer team" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Australia's macho national soccer team and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 11#Australia's macho national soccer team until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 1 December 2022

Australia men's national soccer team → Australia men's national football team – Per WP:OFFICIAL. Although the term soccer is used a lot more commonly in Australia, I do think the name of this page should be changed to the official name of the team - the Australia men's national football team. Sources: www.socceroos.com.au/our-history and official twitter page twitter.com/Socceroos. The term soccer should continue to be used in the content, as "football" would be confusing. Only the title needs to be changed. Purin128AL (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: The current consensus is to use the "soccer" term per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:OFFICIAL states that "Official English names (...) should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used." OP offers no evidence that this is the case here. 162 etc. (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:TIES. We should use the term that is most commonly used in Australia for this article. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all of above and WP:NCFA --SuperJew (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current consensus is old but if anyone tries to re-visit it, people that are blockers to change continue to shoot it down. Evidence gets provided and ignored based simply on the argument that soccer is the common term. People involved in football in this country refer to it as football, as does most media, and almost all of the sporting bodies itself. The on-going Wikipedia blockage to calling this page football, is in itself contributing to slowing the progress. Clifton9 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a read of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), including its eight archived pages. I'm sure you will find all your points addressed there. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your response has proven my point. Refer to old conversations. Ignore the progression. Build a brick wall. Same old, same old. Clifton9 (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCFIA has a talk page. The most recent discussions were earlier this year. NOT old! And what is this progression you refer to? The OFFICIAL name of the national team is still the SOCCERoos. Nobody in Australia who calls their own (non-soccer) favourite code of football by that name has changed their behaviour and begun to call it something else. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the lamest of arguments. Socceroos is just a nickname. It was created in the 70s. You do realise the players aren't actual Roos? Hardly a discussion earlier this year was it. Some people suggest changing it, you said no. Same old, same old. Clifton9 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already pointed out, there has been extensive (exhaustive?) discussion on this matter in the past. To justify change now would require you to bring something entirely new to the discussion. Calling my arguments lame isn't new. I'm pretty sure that's been said before. Same goes for the other insults you are hurling. So, anything new? HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's right here, on this page - https://www.footballaustralia.com.au/history - it literally says "Australian Men's National Football team". That's all you need. Clifton9 (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. That would have also been the case when the current policy was established, so it's not new evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:NCFIA and its Talk page, including the eight pages of archives, show the reasons why. HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nickname of the national team, in addition to certain evidence that Australia mostly refer to the sport as soccer suggest that the title should not be subject to such change. Australian rules football is often what is referred to as football in Australia. RavenRTC (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...and has been since 1858. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia_men%27s_national_soccer_team&oldid=1125316168"