Talk:Sport in Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Sport in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight (16 - 30 October 2005). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
Assessment comments
To-do list for Sport in Australia: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Write good intro
  • Rewrite each section from bulletted list of links to existing articles to a prose story about that sport.
  • Create any articles corresponding to new red links introduced (propose them to ACOTF if you like)
  • Create daughter articles for any sections that get too big.
  • Add things I've missed to this list
  • Reference here and article on Ausport Awards[1] and recipients

Contents

[edit] first talk

Is there any interest in converting this into prose, or would people prefer it to stay as a list of links to other relevant articles? Ambi 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly informative the way it is now, and looks like quite a nice article, but I think gradually adding bits of prose would be a good idea. -- Chuq 03:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It should eventually be changed to prose. This would help to identify missing articles, as it is currently mostly lists of articles already in [[Category:Australian sport]] and its subcategories. --Scott Davis Talk 05:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of title

Does this article only talk about sporting events occurring in Australia, rather than sport involving Australians? Would this be why Australia at the Summer Olympics and Australia at the Winter Olympics aren't mentioned? If so, could this page in theory cover sporting events in Australia predominantly involving non-Australians? Andjam 03:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It does link to formula 1, motoGP, Indy 300, as well as other international events in australia. --Ballchef 04:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket

... shouldn't a potted history be done for this? Same with rugby (union and league). Not much mention of AFL! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about putting a Cricket in Australia redlink on there.. If you want to expand the articles please do so --- Astrokey44 04:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'd like to, but know next to nothing about sport... I can sadly only give suggestions :-( Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] uni sport

perhaps a section mentioning the role of uni’s in promoting sport in Australia may be a good idea. AdelaideRandel 04:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

ok I started one, perhaps youd like to add to it Astrokey44 01:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Nothing that's been written is problematic, but it might be better not to single out universities, and note that religious bodies, corporations, registered clubs, schools (primary and secondary, private and public) and federal, state and local governments also play a role. Andjam 03:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
OK well prehaps a section entitled 'Sport promoting organisations in Australia" or something like that

AdelaideRandel 03:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

The page is looking good. Other things that should be discussed in the context of this article include rates of sport participation and the funding of sport by commercial interests and the government of Australia.--nixie 04:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

One way to measure an interest in a sport may be to look at how much television coverage it gets, and how many people watch it (ie the ratings for that program). I know that watching isn't the same as doing, but at least television ratings are comparitively objective and standardised. I'd be interested in the figures for Winter Olympics coverage, to see if there has been an upward trend in interest in the Winter Olympics over the past few games. Andjam 12:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Television coverage is a fairly biased indicator, though, as it discriminates in favour of male-dominated sports such as football. Probably the best example of this is netball; there's a fair bit of reliable evidence to suggest that netball is the most played sport in the country - or at least in some states - when its television coverage is somewhere down around that of soccer. Pretending that television coverage equals interest in this case would horribly skew the statement. Ambi 14:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Would ratings be any better at gauging interest? I know that it'd be influenced by advertising and time-slot (though many Aussies stay up past their bed-time to watch soccer or the Tour de France), but ratings may be more "democratic" than coverage. Andjam 01:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
It's still skewed; some sports are more viewer-friendly than others. The amount of people who *watch* netball is far fewer than those who actually play it; the reverse is true for other sports. Using coverage or ratings is only really useful for the major male-dominated sports (i.e. determining which of the football codes is more popular), although the same exception may apply for soccer as well. Ambi 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uniquely Australian?

I find "Trugo is a uniquely Australian sport" a little disquieting. Does anyone else think uniquely Australian gives the impression that some other sports are less Australian, or worse still, un-Australian? Or am I being paranoid? Would "Trugo is a sport unique to Australia" be better? Andjam 03:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

maybe it does a little. it seems better the way youve worded it here Astrokey44 04:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It'd be nice if it also mentioned that, while it is uniquely Australian, that the vast majority of Australians haven't heard of it and don't know that it exists. Ambi 05:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Its difficult to put that sentiment in writing without being disparaging of it, Ive made an attempt Astrokey44 13:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion makes some good points. Andjam, I don't quite agree with your disquiet, but I do agree that each subsequent edit has improved this sentence. Certainly, no-one could suggest in good conscience that Trugo is mainstream. Colonel Tom 10:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] See also/related links

The further info/related links are crowding up some of the sections. Shouldnt there only be the one main article link at the top of the paragraph, and then the related links be put on that page? ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 379 racecourses ???

I find this hard to believe. That's one for every 53,000 people. In the UK we have 59 racecourses for three times the population and three times the attendance (6 million). Calsicol 21:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Most racecourses are probably nothing more than a dirt track and a stable. Your figure of one track for every 53,000 people isn't that far fetched as most towns in Australia would have a racecourse of some description, with most towns having a population smaller than 50,000. After some Googling.Industry info --Htra0497 17:00, 8 January 2006 (AEDST)

[edit] Netball/indoor netball

I believe that the section "indoor netball" should be titled Netball. The Commonwealth Bank Trophy, although played indoors, is played under regular netball rules and is the most popular version of the sport. Indoor netball is played with six rather than seven players and usually has netting around the court preventing the ball from leaving the court. Not all netball that is played indoors is acutally indoor netball. Soundabuser 05:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case I agree "netball" would be the preferred title -- Chuq 01:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most popular sport??

I believe this article needs figures on sport participation levels perhaps then we can ascertain the most popular sports. Do we base it on TV ratings/sponsorship/participation??

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has figures at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/daaada81176e2f89ca256f7200833023!OpenDocument

If we look at the figures and discount predominately recreational activities rather than organised sports (such as walking,swimming,golf,cycling,tennis,etc) there are a few suprises: Netball is far and away the most popular sport in Australia with 389,400 female participants (not sure about males) followed by cricket with 340,000 and soccer with 318,000. Soundabuser 06:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Australian Government agrees with you! When the government talks about popular sports, they talk about participation in sports - not TV ratings/coverage/attendance. The ABS figures above are a bit dated. The Australian Sports Commission provides the most recent figures through their annual survey: [2] User:snewoc 12:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

There's been a recent edit to the intro where someone has added AFL and League as amongst the top participated sports in Australia. As the [3]] show, the top ten sports participated in by Australians in an organised setting are (from highest participants down) golf, tennis, netball, soocer (outdoor), swimming, cricket (outdoor), lawn bowls, AFL, basketball and touch footy. Obviously it's not suitable to list all ten of these sports in the intro. I'd suggest just the first five, which would exclude AFL (and obviously league because it's not even the top 10). I don't dispute that league is an important sport in Australia - but it is only participated in by 134,000 Australians - that's nothing compared to golf, tennis, netball - all over half a million participants each. In fact, all the top 10 have at least 300k participants. So, I'd suggest that the intro focus on participation of the top 5 sports - the very next paragraphs mentions the league and AFL anyway. User:snewoc

Fair enough, but since you've decided to only add four, I've decided to remove soccer and add golf, as its more popular.

[edit] Baseball

tonight ive started the Australian Baseball League page, anyone interested in contributing to this or the related Australian Baseball page please do so, ive noticed that baseball on this page only has the link to the main article still. if anyone is interested in helping out in any way please drop me a message on my talk page! cheers --Dan027 13:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Header image

Does anyone else think the womens AFL picture at the top isn't suitable? It is large, poorly framed, doesn't show the ball (so just looks like some women falling over each other), and as it isn't a mainstream sport it isn't really representative of sports in Australia in general - maybe an image of a cricket, AFL (mens) or netball game would be more suitable, or a montage? -- Chuq 23:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd definitely be surprised if we couldn't come up with a better image for a topic this broad. I'd like to see a good image of a local game of cricket, football (any of the more distinctive codes), or netball. JPD (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what specifically in this article would require cleanup? -- Chuq 03:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

References are the main thing. I did a cleanup of the refs based on basic MOS, and added a references section, but they still need to be converted to proper citation format. --Rulesfan 07:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFL reserves

I removed this comment entirely, even after Grant's modification, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I don't think it is fairly representing the situation to refer to the leagues as though they were reserve leauges belonging to the AFL clubs, and secondly because I don't think mentioning reserve teams actually gives any relevant information in that context. If anything more than the national competition shoudl be mentioned, the state/regional leagues should be mentioned in their own right. (By the way, it's not just the Melbourne teams - the Sydney reserves play in AFL Canberra.) JPD (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought it looked sort of out of place. However i think that the way the paragraph is written it sounds as though people go straight to the AFL after playing in leagues that have no connections at all to the AFL. Maybe something could go along the lines of "however all AFL clubs are linked to other clubs often called reserves" (Unsigned post December 19, 2006 by User:Krabby me.)

But not all of the AFL are linked to specific reserve clubs. The WA and SA clubs send their players to every club in the WAFL and SANFL. Brisbane (I think) do the same with the Queensland State League clubs. I don't know about SA, but both Freo and Eagles players can be assigned to any club in the WAFL. There was an experiment several years ago whereby Freo players went only to South Fremantle and Eagles players went only to Claremont but this was unpopular for obvious reasons and was scrapped after one or two seasons. Grant65 | Talk 08:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't read it as saying anything about how people get to AFL level, but the links with AFL clubs could be mentioned along with the state leagues in the last sentence if that made it clearer. JPD (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Picture

I think a more iconic picture representing Australian sport should appear alongside the introductory paragraph. Something more globally recognisable should be the first thing readers see, rather than something regional like a local women's Aussie rules match. How about a picture from the Sydney Olympics? Or a picture of someone like Ian Thorpe, Don Bradman, Kathy Freeman or Greg Norman? What do others think?--Jeff79 03:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the picture is quite appropriate. It illustrates the most famous sport invented in Australia, and thus it identifies something distinctively Australian about sport. Thus, it tells the reader who may know little or nothing about the topic something new. That the competition pictured is an amateur club competition doesn't bother me either. Why does the first picture have to be of elite spectator sport?--Robert Merkel 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that it is an amateur competition is a great thing. The article is not just about elite sport. This picture may not be the best possible, but it is definitely ok, so there is no point talking about it unless someone has a specific alternative. JPD (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A Sydney Olympics shot would be great, and reasonably neutral to different sports. A picture of famous Australian sportspeople as suggested by Jeff79 - either a group, or a montage - would also be good. A picture of our Cricket World Cup or Rugby World Cup winning teams holding the Cup in the air after one of their wins would be good, as these are probably the two sports Australia has been most successful at in international competition. -- Chuq (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, many Australians dont have the same enthusiasm for AFL and it was hardly anymore invented in Australia than was the train line. I would prefer a montage of Don Bradman, Dally Messenger and Cazaly(???) showing our most famous sports, cricket, AFL and football. --144.132.216.253 15:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to have a montage there are a lot of options for football. Johnny Warren is my first thought. Harry Kewel, Mark Viduka, Tim Cahill are also excellent options. Zelko has just won a UEFA Champions League winners medal, but he does not have that high a profile in Australia. Tancred 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Those are soccer players, would soccer rate a mention in a montage in Australian sport? Apart from 1 month last year, it spends most of its time as fish and chip paper in Australia, and the Australian soccer team has never done anything really notable. What do others think? Personally I would prefer rugby football, as representated by the best player of both codes, Dally Messenger, and Australian football, as represented by whoever AFLers think is most prominent, with Don Bradman being the obvious choice for cricket. --144.132.216.253 09:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
As usual your anti-football bias once again comes up. Football has been played in Australia for many more years than Rugby League has been around. For a sport with participation rates that dwarf Rugby League, with a national interest that continues to climb while the national interest in Rugby league continues to fall (according to Sweeney ), yes I am sure that football does rate a "mention". You're quick to put the boot in to the national side, but I do realise with your rather insular view of sport, trying to explain just what the Australian National Football team has achived would be rather pointless. Instead I would ask you, just what has the Australian Rugby League National Team achived? Your "World Cup" is an unknown event in most of the world, and even for many (perhaps most?) Australians the event is treated as the joke that it is. Perhaps for the next "World Cup" you could find some Brazilians living in Sydney and they could enter as Brazil. It seemed to work so well for Italy, Malta, Portugal etc etc etc. Then again I'm sure most people when hearing about Rugby League probably feel it's a competition in which Rugby is played so it's no wonder the event has such a high profile. BTW it's interesting you suggest Dally Messenger should be included. A quick poll of the Aussies at work confirmed that 7 out of 8 of us had no idea who he is. The 8th knew he had (and I quote) "somthing to do with League, but I have no idea what" It sums up Rubgy League rather well doesn't it.Tancred 15:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There are just some comments that you cannot let go. This is one of them. Dally Messenger is recognised as one of Australia's great athletes like Don Brandman is. [4]. No opinion from myself on the proposed picture. --Grooveyyoutuber 07:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be joking! You respond to the claim that 7 out of 8 people in one workplace don't know Messenger is by quoting a NSWRU official! It's simple - people who know rugby league/union history would recognise him as a great, but many don't. So it's a bit different to Don Bradman. Anyway, the picture issue seems to have been settled quite well. JPD (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"just what has the Australian Rugby League National Team achived?" Precisely what the Australian Cricket team has achieved: complete global domination of thier sport (but for a much longer period). The level of success that Australians are accustomed to and can be proud of. None of this coming 5th or 6th business. What an absurd question. I think it's clear who has the "rather insular view of sport". Wake up to yourself.--Jeff79 07:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How about Image:Australian World Cup treble.jpg since Australia dominated it for the last 12 years and it's the national sport.--THUGCHILDz 14:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The quality of that pic isn't great. Apart from that, I would prefer an image of non-professional sport, but looks like noone else agrees. JPD (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer athletes. --144.132.216.253 06:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If we have famous sports people, there will be too many arguments about who is included. I agree with JPD, amateur sport is better. I also agree with Chuq that a montage is the best solution in these cases. Grant | Talk 03:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a can of worms I've opened up here. Surely a Sydney Olympics picture would draw the fewest complaints. Thorpe and Freeman are athelets all Aussies would get behind. And the Sydney Olympics is probably the single greatest example of Sport in Australia being in the global spotlight. Perfect for the introductory image.--Jeff79 07:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFL team/franchises

I know that it is a small detail, but I think it is significant enough for this page to mention with the least pov that Melbourne clubs were moved interstate to keep their franchises being one of the reasons that AFL is becoming more popular in the footy states of NSW and QLD, as I think that it is significant for sport in Australia. --144.132.216.253 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The article already states that the presence of teams in Sydney and Brisbane are a significant part of the reason popularity is growing. Calling them franchises is questionable, and at the very least not common, and definitely completely irrelevant. Should we describe them as exported? Brisbane is the result of a merger, not simply a club moving interstate, and in either case, I don't think the fact that the clubs have origins in Melbourne has contributed to their popularity in the northern states - it just the fact that the teams are now there. In other words, the article says it all already quite neatly. JPD (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the point I think that needs mentioning is that top notch Melbourne teams were exported to the football states that helped increase their popularity. --144.132.216.253 15:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
But that's simply not true. The Swans were hardly top notch when they were "exported", and the Lions are not an export - they are a merger of team created in Brisbane (the Bears) and Fitzroy, who at the time were as bottom notch as you could get in the AFL, and were virtually swallowed by the newly successful Bears. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. JPD (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
They were top notch compared to what was going around in Sydney at the time. "as bottom notch as you could get in the AFL", the key words there being in the AFL. --144.132.216.253 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, all I am suggesting is a simple 7 word sentence noting that those teams have been "exported", "moved", whatever everyone agrees is non-pov. I think it is relevant to sport in Australia. --144.132.216.253 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the key words are "in the AFL", and that key meaning is already in the article. For the third time, the two teams were not both exported, moved, or anything similar. The Brisbane Bears began in Brisbane. It would be fair to say that top-notch teams appeared in those cities as a result of external influences, rather than forces within the cities themselves, but I thought the paragraph already made it reasonably clear that it was the success of the clubs driving the growth of the code, rather than vice versa. Hopefully it is clearer now, anyway. JPD (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rugby league football

a sockfarm continues inserting 'rugby league football' when 'rugby league' does the job just fine. the latest incidence cites the 'manual of style'. it happens to the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league MOS Naming Conventions, and the edit that inserted that text was made (surprise surprise) by a permanently banned sockpuppet User:Rugby_666 - see here.

as such, I'm showing zero tolerance. Dibo T | C 06:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Showing zero tolerance because they are banned sockpuppets is fair enough, but in any other circumstance, it would be an extremely lame edit war. Either version is fine. JPD (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a clear example of regional nationalism, as the ip in question that keep reverting, 203.94.135.134, is from Melbourne, and the other two, User:Dibo and User:Tancred have a well known anti-rugby league football bias and are trying to prove a point by reverting these edits that have been in place for a while now. I am just thinking about the overall quality of wikipedia here. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 13:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are going to think about the overall quality of wikipedia perhaps you could stop changing user names every 4th edit.Tancred 14:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was reverting this individual, but only for article consistency with the titles of other rugby league articles. And yes again, I am from Melbourne, but my reasons have nothing to do with regional bias. I don't see any need for the section heading on rugby league in this article to be called Rugby League football, as there is no ambiguity. The first line introduces the code as "Rugby league (also known informally as league, football or footy) is ...", now I would have thought that this was enough.
What I can gather from the rugby league MOS is that rugby league is the preferred terminology. These edits Elvisandhismagicpelvis talks about being "in place for a while now", were only there for a month, starting in May 2007, but before May 2007 it seems that it has always been rugby league. And we are ALL thinking of article quality in Wikipedia. --203.94.135.134 00:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I changed it back. My accusation of regional nationalalism was probably assuming bad faith, for which I apologise. However if there is "Australian Rules Football" because it adds clarity, there should also be "Rugby league football" to help with clarity. The preferred terminology from my reading was anything that was concise and unambiguous which could include, "rugby","rugby football", "rugby league", "league", "league football" etc. depending on context. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 07:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Australian Rules Football is called that, because that is what it is called on its article page, while rugby league is called just that on its article page NOT rugby league football, and football (soccer) is called that on its article page NOT association football. Adding "football" does not add any clarity to the heading, it just becomes cumbersome. From what I understand you are going against concensus for the page.
What you or I can do though is add football to the intro, so it reads "Rugby league football (also known informally as league, football or footy) is ...", instead of to the heading. --203.94.135.134 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Rugby league football is redirected to rugby league, and you will notice that the first sentence of the page in bold says rugby league football, which is its name. I am not going against any consensus that I know of. When articles about Australian sport talk about the football codes, they need clarity and concisity. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, you are going against concensus. Yes, I have noticed, but even you have said that "Rugby league football is redirected to rugby league," which is its correct title and hense should be here too, before reverting have a look at my changes. Wrt clarity and consistency, that is what I'm attempting to do, but you are not doing that at all. --203.94.135.134 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not going against consensus. You are by changing it, and your only argument being a rather blind one that does not respect that in certain contexts the name of a football code may change! Your ip is from Melbourne and you are pushing an obvious POV here. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are. Rugby league is the name of the article, as it is what most people know it as. Regional bias has nothing to do with it - if the Australian rules football article was known as Australian rules and had been, non-controversially, for pretty much Wikipedia's entire existence, then you would have a point. But it doesn't. -- Chuq (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually in NSW, Australian Rules Football is known as Aussie Rules. Different contexts, different names. Regional bias has everything to do with it. In Victoria, they call Aussie Rules as football, in NSW they call rugby league and for the record the name of the sport has uncontroversially been rugby football for the entire existence of wikipedia too. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Guess what? It gets called Aussie Rules in lots of places, not just NSW, it's just not the standard name used in Wikipedia. Rugby football is much broader than rugby league. Anyone who objects to the phrase "rugby league football" in its own right is obviously being unjustifiably petty, but not as petty as objecting to the universally accepted, simpler term "rugby league". Find something worthwhile to do. JPD (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's Rugby League. Please do everyone a favour and get over it.Tancred 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I obviously dont agree so in this context. Football in its many varieties has a special place on the Australian cultural scene. I would not object to it being presented as rugby football with the sub headings rugby league and rugby union but to not place in its heading a clearly defined reference to its status as football is gross POV and distorts the nature of code to a wider viewing public and thus diminishes wikipedia. A person reading the article may know of references to Australian football codes, but upon looking for information in the article, may believe that they refer to soccer and rules exclusively, which is not the case. As well as the fact that rugby league is known as football in NSW and QLD, to leave the reference of football out of the headings represents a gross amount of POV. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 03:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's "status as football", whatever that means, is not particularly relevant to this article. Putting league and union under one heading can be appropriate when talkign about the history of the codes, but is hardly appropriate when talking about the different sports played in Australia today. At any rate, headings are not the place to communicate these sort of things. The section makes it very clear that league is a type of football and is known as football. The intro to the article mentions the fact that there are four strong codes of football in Australia. All this sort of thing is quite clear in appropriate contexts such as football and football in Australia. If this article really needs anything more, it would be nothing more than making clear in the intro which are the four football codes. This isn't a question of POV - the whole war is incredibly lame. JPD (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Do they use the term football(soocer) in the sport in England page. Of cause not, because for different contexts, there are different names for the title are appropriate. I didnt even change this in the first place. I have been willing to compromise here, but others are unwilling to meet me, and most of those others prefer AFL or soccer, what is one supposed to believe when there is an absurd change in the first place? --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 05:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You are the same person who made the original edit. You are the same person who has been making similar POV edits and I've personally knocked off a number of your sockpuppets through the SSP or RFCU processes. You know this, and it was essentially acknowledged above when you wrote (in only your 7th post under this identity) "the other two, User:Dibo and User:Tancred have a well known anti-rugby league football bias" - something which would be very sus in any novice editor (on what would the opinion be based in so little time) but rings major alarm bells when it's an edit following on from a known sockpuppeteer. I totally accept the pettiness of the reverts, but there is simply no need for it, and I don't have any desire to give succour to a sockpuppeteer on a POV pushing crusade. Dibo T | C 06:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually Dibo, one has only got to go to your talk page[5] to realise you have been pushing this barrel for far longer than I have been involved on wikipedia. You are the one that followed my edits remember, and it is clear that you have done it before with the aid of Tancred. You need to assume good faith. I am sure that there are means by which you can make formal accusations of sockpuppetry and have them tried, but placing accusations on a talk page as a reason for an edit dispute is the petty thing here. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't be arsed, having done it before [6] [7] [8] [9], not to mention the prior cases against licinius and nswelshman that i had nothing to do with but which resulted in bans, and yet here you are... that's why i can't be arsed putting another case up. but i do want you to stop vandalising WP. Dibo T | C 07:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dibo in this. This user has been around for a very long time pushing a POV on wikipedia. He/She also loves to create single use accounts. See Metternech (talk · contribs) Senibleconext (talk · contribs) Moretimefor (talk · contribs) Serendipitouscontributor (talk · contribs) Grooveyyoutuber (talk · contribs) Tosserandmasterdebater (talk · contribs) Elvisandhismagicpelvis (talk · contribs) Russellthelovemussell (talk · contribs) Krabby me (talk · contribs)

Even if the latest account is banned, the user will be back in a week or 2 with another large sock farm. Tancred 09:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is just blatant hate. I see nothing that could even be interpreted as linking any of those users with me, let alone each other, and this is why I cant treat the so called "consensus" against the change seriously. Of cause others users may, so if they be wish, they can take it up to a higher place. All this seems to prove is that Dibo perhaps needs a wikibreak until he/she/ gets their senses back. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 09:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
it's not hate. it's exasperation. if you were to just add to and improve rl articles as you have done for large numbers of your edits, i would be perfectly happy. what makes me unhappy is you periodically becoming bored with simply editing and instead choosing to start wars with other editors. i see the wars coming up because you come back to the same pages - sport in australia and football (word) amongst them. i'm not alone in wanting you to stop, as you should plainly see from the number of people who you get into wars with compared to the number of supporters you have (that aren't your own alaises). so maybe it's *you* that needs to give it a rest.
but given your constant re-offending and your wilfil disregard for the rules in spite of being made aware of them over and over and over again, imho you should be banned indefinitely, with your isp notified and the site simply blocked. but then you'd probably re-offend at uni or whatever... hence my exasperation. Dibo T | C 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
"Hatred" is also used to describe feelings of prejudice, bigotry or condemnation (see shunning) against a class of people and members of that class. from hate. I have no link in common with any of those editors, I even ask you to do an ip check, and you say you cant be arsed, but you can be arsed to disrupt an edit dispute with no evidence and making accusations. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 12:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
i'm not 'disrupting an edit dispute' (as if there were such a thing), i'm reverting your disruptive edits. and as i've explained, i can't be arsed taking it through the processes because you'll simply be back in a week or so (in spite of a number of your other SP accounts having indefinite blocks) so it's not worth the effort. you know this as well as i do, which is why you don't care if i get this account blocked - you know you'll be back soon enough and nothing will stop you. Dibo T | C 01:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Dibo and Tancred here. Elvisandhismagicpelvis, you are not fooling anyone, so why bother? -- Chuq (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Football (soccer) to Association Football

Hi, Re: Talk:Association_football This page has a consensus on it to move the 'Football (soccer)' article to 'Association football' and hence the name change of headings is required as well. This is because the official name of the sport on Wikipedia is now Association football (note the lowercase f)

Is it now possible to revert to Association football or Association football (soccer)? Im fine with both headings. InsteadOf (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest: For introductions of articles not about association football: soccer For introductions of articles about association football: association football For headings in articles about association football: football For headings in articles including other sports: association football (soccer) For text underneath association football headings: association football and football thereafter For article names: association football

That is about all possibilities i think. InsteadOf (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the significance of the lowercase f, I don't believe anyone has been pushing for the term "Association Football" in the past? Yes, renaming to association football sounds reasonable here, seeing as that is now the standard Wikipedia term. However the other suggestions you mention seem to unnecessarily complicate things - how about just calling it "association football", and if that is the only code discussed in the article/section, call it football thereafter. That's the same as all other codes and it seems to work fine for them. -- Chuq (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok. That sounds good. To change article titles ill start with the major ones, and then go to the smaller ones. InsteadOf (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. I can reluctantly accept articles being moved to titles such as "Association football in Australia". However: soccer is the common name in Australian English and as such it should be highlighted in the first sentence of articles relating to the game in Australia. We should certainly not be excising all references to the word soccer, which is what has been happening. Grant | Talk 12:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

..and (yes this old chestnut) there is more than one common name for it - each one may be more or less common depending on who you talk to, so it may not be common to *you* - but it should be mentioned. -- Chuq (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course. As I say, I am simply opposed to the excision of all references to soccer in the introductory paragraphs of articles about that code of football in Australia. Grant | Talk 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

Ive read through a couple of sports on this page, and a lot of them go on about how the governing body was formed, and when the world cups were started and what the best ever team was nicknamed...all stuff that i think doesnt really have a place in this article. People can get more information by clicking "{this sport} in Australia". Ive cleaned up the Australian Football paragraph, although it could do with a bit more editing. And i have deleted alot of stuff from the rugby league article. Im planning to go through most of the sports and try to write them a bit better. I quite like how the soccer section is written, and that is a standard we should aim for at the moment. Im particularly looking for somebody to clean up the union and league sections, as i can handle the rest i think. InsteadOf (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help or information for the Baseball and Softball sections feel free to contact me. --Dan027 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Closed

After trying at this for over a month, I am of the opinion that we have exhausted all possible options. Every conceivable wording has been put forward, and still there is dissent over which version should be used on the various pages. Therefore, I am declaring this mediation at an impasse and have closed it. Parties should continue to discuss it and may seek out other forms of dispute resolution. I would advise all parties involved to remain civil and to follow proper policies in handling the matter further. Thank you. MBisanz talk 05:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logic Error in First Sentence.

I don't think this is right.

"Sport in Australia is not very popular or widespread. Levels of both participation and spectating are much lower than in many other countries[citation needed]. Testament to this is the level of achievement in the Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games as well as other international sporting events in comparison to the population of the country.... Etc"

I believe the first sentence should state the opposite to what it currently does. Are there citations supporting that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbsy00 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha order of sports listed

This is just ridiculous. Every few weeks/months, someone comes along and alters 'Soccer' (the name by which the sport is known in Australia) to 'Association Football' presumably to make it first on the list. Then - although Athletics is the official name of Athletics (Track and Field) in Australia and the world (US excepted) - someone changes the heading to Track & Field (athletics) presumably so Association Football or AFL are number one on the list. How about we just keep it totally alphabetical in the OFFICIAL AUSTRALIAN NAME for the sports concerned????

Sheesh....--Mongrel Punt (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

ie: to further clarify:

we should use HOCKEY not FIELD HOCKEY we should use ICE HOCKEY not HOCKEY we should use SOCCER not ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL we should use ATHLETICS not TRACK & FIELD we should use AUSTRALIAN RULES not AFL

and if we use FOOTBALL as an official name, the listing should be:

FOOTBALL (Australian Rules) FOOTBALL (Rugby League) FOOTBALL (Rugby Union) FOOTBALL (Soccer) --Mongrel Punt (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reverted whoever changed that. Soccer will remain the conmmon name in the foreseeable future and the rule is WP:UCN.
However Mongrel, please note that Wikipedia uses lower case for names unless the name contains a proper name, e.g. "Australian rules football". Grant | Talk 09:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - have re-ordered some other listings to reflect alpha orderMongrel Punt (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Every few weeks, someone goes and changes it to "Association football", because that is what the article is called - see Association football and Association football in Australia. This has been discussed ad nauseam for years. I appreciate you are new and may not know about this but please don't accuse people of something as petty as renaming sections just to raise their order in the list. -- Chuq (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)