Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Australia task force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Suggestion

The WikiProject football page has a great way of listing members as club preference could be important eg I'll take most care of AUFC's page - shall i implement it ? Oliyoung 02:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Go for it (list me as Sydney while you're at it :-) ). AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores ^Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oceania stubs

Should these {{Oceania-footybio-stub}.} be replaced with these {{Asia-footybio-stub}.} for Australian players given these represent the Football Confederations rather than the geographic regions?--Hack 07:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Since it's for a Wikiproject, perhaps we could propose an A-League specific stub? It might not succeed, but it would make it easier to organise the project. Veila 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Are there enough players to justify that?--Hack 01:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Australian football (soccer) clubs

Somehow I don't think that the div1 state league clubs meet the notability threshold on sporting merit. Also, I think the 2nd division state league clubs are definitely not at all sportingly notable.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! 06:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What I think

Cristiano Ronaldo

File:Cristiano Ronaldo 240905.jpg © http://soccer-europe.com
Personal information
Full name	Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro
Date of birth	5 February 1985
Place of birth	Funchal, Madeira
Height	6 ft 2 in (1.88 m)
Position(s)	Attacking Midfielder
Team information
Current team	Manchester United
Youth career
1999?–2003	Sporting Lisbon
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
1999–2003	Sporting Lisbon	29	(9)
2003–present	Manchester United
International career‡
2003–present	Portugal	30	(11)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals, correct as of 12 Feb 06 ‡ National team caps and goals, correct as of 12 Feb 06

OK, I think that we have to get started on building on the players. Someone (not me, coz im not good with computers) has to make a infobox, eg. the one used on players of higher status, like the Christiano Ronaldo one here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasrocks (talk • contribs)

I think the plain template itself is fine for any players – we don't need a specific A-League one, since people will be interested in other clubs they've played for, or have a method to add clubs A-league players play for in the future. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 05:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Football in Australia box

{{fb start}}

{{AUS fb general}}

{{AUS fb natteams}}

{{AUS fb A-League}}

{{AUS fb states}}

{{Fb end}}

What do people think of this as a new layout?

Note that one of the lists of A-League clubs (the row at the top, or the column at the right) will be going, of course - I'm not sure which one looks better.

User:Chuq/Sandbox/FootballAus

Note: When I try and include it like a template, it doesn't format, and when I add {{Fb start}} and {{Fb end}} before and after it, it is a lot thinner than it should be.

-- Chuq 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I quite like it. What do you mean by "it doesn't format"? – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly covers the required fields. I like it. Normy132 12:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

AlbinoMonkey - I mean it looks like this

[example removed for space reasons]

and when I put the Fb start and Fb end boxes above and below, it squashes it, like this:

[example removed for space reasons]

-- Chuq 13:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. It was because of the "noinclude" tags you had around the table start and ends. When you include it as a template, it doesn't include those bits and thus doesn't know it's a table, so just puts all that rubbish there. The {{Fb start}} standardises the width to 47em, so squashes it up. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was pretty obvious in hindsight :) Thanks for that - anyone have opinion on whether the A-League clubs should be across the top or down the side? -- Chuq 02:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to ask a pretty daft question, but where is it going to be used? ⁂veila# 10:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's okay. It will be used at the bottom of pages about football in Australia. It's basically just a box to show where to find more information on a directly related topic, if that makes sense. Normy132 10:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've re-arranged the table a little to make it thinner, I think it is worthy of adding to articles now - again unless there are any other comments/suggestions? -- Chuq 07:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Round summary box

I have followed the lead of the 2006 AFL season article, and I have updated the A-League 2005-06 article with a summary of round 1 as a test - check it out at A-League 2005-06#Home and away season.

This has included the creation of the following templates:

• {{ALeague PG}}
• {{ALeague CCM}}
• {{ALeague NUJ}}
• {{ALeague AU}}
• {{ALeague QR}}
• {{ALeague NZK}}
• {{ALeague SFC}}
• {{ALeague MV}}
• {{ALeagueMatchSummaryLine}}

The first eight are shortcuts for listing the teams (may be useful in other articles as well). The last allows me to write the "rows" of the table with minimum effort and a standard layout. If people like it, I will complete the rest of the season in this manner. -- Chuq 15:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Tournament tables

I have used/modified some existing tournament templates on A-League 2005-06 for the Club championship qualifier, the Pre-season cup, and the finals series. The only one which is new is {{PagePlayoffBracket-2LegQF}} which has had minor additions to allow for the 2 legged semi-finals. -- Chuq 22:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it, good work! – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

2005-06_Season_Adelaide_United

What should we do with this lonely article? Unless we do an article on every team for every season, I think it should be merged with either Adelaide United or A-League 2005-06. -- Chuq 07:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I want to make an article for every season for the Central Coast Mariners, but mine was going to follow the pattern of naming as:

(Club Name) Season (Year)

eg. Central Coast Mariners FC Season 2005-06

Imagine in 5 years time how crowded the articles are going to be if we leave the seasons in there, and how lacking in detailed information they will be if they're not archived somewhere. I made this to make it easier:

(Template now deleted as redundant)

I'll make one for each team, if you like.  Killfest2  09:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Made one for 6/8 teams - see User:Daniel.Bryant/A-LeagueSeasonTemplate.

Update - made them for all teams.

(Templates now deleted as redundant)

I don't want to be a spoilsport, but is there much point of these when there are only two seasons? i suggest writing sections and adding them to the team's articles, and then splitting them off when they get large. -- Chuq 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would reccomend splitting them off at the commencement of the following season. The CCM article would be well over the size if they left the 05-06 season in there, but now it appears more concise. That's just my opinion... Killfest2 ^(Talk) 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll put something together for Sydney FC once my trials are over next week. Would those pages be the sort of place where you include all the matches, results and so on? -[dM] 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See the Central Coast Mariners FC 2006-07 page for the sort of stuff to add. Daniel.Bryant 12:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

rename 2005-06 players project?

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposal that was implemented. Please do not modify it.

Support - I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe we can have a separate page, like Wikipedia:WikiProject A-League/Player Project/2005-06 for all the players who didn't return to the A-League after the 2005-06 season. Daniel.Bryant 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good to me. Or, just to be different, keep the 2005-06 project, but move the continuing players on to the 2006-07 player project? No, that'd be too annoying :P -- Chuq 09:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - Yeah, definitely. So we just dump players into Wikipedia:WikiProject A-League/Player Project/their-last-year-in-the-league??? -[dM] 11:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, the ones who don't come back. Maybe once they all reach green status we could archive it or something :D Daniel.Bryant 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean just two player articles: current players and ex-players? This would be easier (for me) to follow. Fedgin 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject A-League/Player Project/Current and Wikipedia:WikiProject A-League/Player Project/Previous could work. I'd say players should only be moved to the Previous page once they are definitely out of the picture - retired, or haven't played for an A-League club for 2 seasons, or something. There are so many short term contracts happening to cover injury etc that it would be a lot of overhead otherwise. -- Wantok 01:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I suppose as the "creator" of the player project I'll stick in my 2c + GST. When I started it, I was hoping that WP:A-L would be able to get all of the 2005–06 players done before the start of the 06–07 season, but it was not as successful/popular as I thought it would be and that's obviously not going to happen now, so we will have to expand it to add the new players. However, if we want to be comprehensive as a WikiProject, I think that we should strive to get even those players who played only in 05–06 and have since left to have full articles. Personally, I think splitting it up into "current players" and "old players" will mean that a huge proportion of ex-players are missed out as people concentrate mainly on the current crop. As the above straw poll is just general supporting the expansion, which will inevitably occur (it would be a bit silly to have a 05–06 player project and then ignore every other year), I have a few proposals as to how it will happen. A "support" vote is fine for the one you want (don't bother with "oppose" votes), or feel free to add others if your idea isn't covered. Cheers. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Change to "players project", continuously update only to include current players

Any retiring/leaving players are removed from the main list as they leave, and new players added as they make their debuts. Former players are put into a big archive list.

Proposal 2

Change to "players project", list all past and present players on the same page

There are a couple of ways this could be done, they could be ordered by the season in which they made their debut (thus the 2005–06 list would stay the same and new players would be added on the same page to a 2006–07 list) or ordered by the last season they played in the league (so all current players will be on one list, former players on the same page, ordered 'chronologically'). The second way would be harder to maintain, but more useful if people are looking only to update current players. (Please indicate which system you support).

• Support – The second option. Maybe when all players from a season are completed that list could be archived to save clutter. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support – This will be best for the ex-player articles. I propose to sort them via season finished. Daniel.Bryant 08:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support – We could create 2 "side-tables" next to the original one with one being for incoming players and the other for outgoing players (Please if you like ignore this idea if you want as my ideas arn't going the best at the moment) Boltonfan22

• Support – I'll go for this one as well - with the suggestion that players retired in 2005-06 are in a separate list, and should be made a priority, if possible - information about them is readily available now, but may be harder to find in the future. -- Chuq 13:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support – For now a single page should be quite workable. In future years we may have to archive some off. -- Wantok 14:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Keep seasons separate

A new page would be created for 2006–07, with work still ongoing on the 2005–06 project. Similarly to Proposal 2, also indicate whether you think all 2006–07 players should be added on the new page, or just debutants.

John O'Neill

If anyone has some time the John O'Neill (sport administrator) page really needs fixing. I will be working on it over the weekend but could use some help Tancred 11:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done some formatting, reference formatting, categorising and cleanup - there's still some items that sound slightly POV though. -- Chuq 16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Team article names

There doesn't seem to be much standarisation on the team names. The actual articles themselves are at:

• Queensland Roar FC
• Newcastle United Jets
• Central Coast Mariners FC
• Sydney FC
• New Zealand Knights FC
• Melbourne Victory
• Adelaide United FC
• Perth Glory F.C.

I personally use the names minus the "FC" (except for Sydney), and I use "Newcastle United Jets" for Newcastle (as opposed to "Newcastle Jets"). When abbreviations are used, I use: QR, NUJ, CCM, SFC, NZK, MV, AU and PG. Does anyone have any other preferences for articles names and abbreviation names? -- Chuq 13:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I will always use Newcastle Jets, Central Coast Mariners, Queensland Roar, Sydney FC, New Zealand Knights, Melbourne Victory, Adelaide United and Perth Glory. Every other team has their loaction then a distinguishing factor (except for Sydney FC, who don't have a mascot, and instead use FC), so I don't see why Newcastle should be called Newcastle United Jets instead of Newcastle Jets. Also, why aren't Adelaide United called Adelaide United Reds? I think we should make the NJ drop the United in their usage on pages, except for their own page (where the United takes the spot of the FC in other teams). Daniel.Bryant 03:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, all of the teams should have "FC" as the name of their page, whether it is used in general writing is probably optional apart from SFC. Secondly, Newcastle are called the Newcastle United Jets and I don't see what the problem with having the "United" there is... And no, "The Reds" is just a nickname for Adelaide, much like Liverpool F.C.. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 03:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

600px Daniel.Bryant 07:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it you've seen their logo, and read the second paragraph of our article on them? Not every team has to follow the same <Location> <"Mascot"> pattern... (ps what happened to the edit section links on this page?) – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thought I would point out that WikiProject Football is currently having this discussion as well - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#F.C. or FC?. -- Chuq 04:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Section breaks

Has the orange formatting on this page done something to the section breaks? It doesn't appear to allow editing by section, or linking to the headings directly? -- Chuq 04:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on fixing it. Daniel.Bryant 11:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Daniel.Bryant 11:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perth Glory FC Squad Template

Something is going on with the PG Squad template. For example, see Leo Bertos, and note the stub position. It's happening with every PG article with the stub tag. Can someone fix it please? Daniel.Bryant 11:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Player project updated

As requested, I've updated the 2005-06 project up to just the general player project. All current squad members are listed in 2006–07, and as you can see there is a load of stubs everywhere, hopefully we can get stuck in to some of it. I think I made all the necessary changes/page moves - there may be a few loose ends so just fix them if you see them. Cheers. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Crowd figures

Hi guys,

Just a suggestion - now the season has started, when updating game details, don't forget to add crowd details to 2006 Australian football code crowds - both updating the average for the home team (first, smaller table) and adding the game to the list (the second, very large table) -- Chuq 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Chuq. Daniel.Bryant 03:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

News:

Wow, some breaking news here. I think a paragraph has to be added to Sydney FC, A-League 2005-06 and maybe even A-League 2006-07 as well. Daniel.Bryant 06:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

External source 1, 2 (NZ) and 3. Should we make a separate article for this incident, as it is very large, and has at least 4 references. Daniel.Bryant 06:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha settle down... as a Sydney fan of course I will defend them but this fine is diddly-squat. It deserves perhaps a sentence in each article. As the first "external source" you provided explains, Sydney did not breach the salary cap, they paid players money for tasks they were unable to complete because they did not have as much spare time as originally scheduled. And Sydney were the ones who reported it to the league anyway, wondering what the situation was. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Daniel.Bryant 06:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

CCM A-League strip

Can someone who knows what they're doing with the "strip" fucntion in the team's userboxes please update the Central Coast Mariners FC away strip - it can be seen here, at the bottom of the page. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Transfers in team articles

I can sort of understand having them during the off-season. But now that we're two rounds into the season, I honestly don't see the point. I thought Wikipedia wasn't a news service.... surely the squad list adequately outlines who is in each team. Is it time that we remove the transfer section? (I'm asking instead of just going ahead and doing it because it was a part of the whole project thing) -[dM] 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, please do not remove them, until we have a 2006-07 season page for every team. I'm working on this as an editing project, and I should have all of the season pages done by the end of November at the latest. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. That's why I put it here first. -[dM] 12:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for putting it here first :D Daniel.Bryant 06:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Club article template

Hi all. The eight team articles are kind of all over the place in terms of similarity. Can we reorganise them to look like the template stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs? I'm happy to have a go at them. I managed to get Dundee United F.C. to Good Article status by sticking to the template, so there's no reason why we can't at least get close with these. Fedgin 14:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We to need to make the pages organised because some have the season templates and some don't. Perth Glory is completly different to any other page, Newcastle have next to no written information. we NEED to make history areas and club records on all pages. this should be put under To-Do-List on wikiproject A-League. User:Boltonfan22

I'm doing a lot of work, starting about 30mins ago. Someone to complete the table for the A-League season in the Queensland Roar FC Season 2006-07 article would be great. Daniel.Bryant 08:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restructured New Zealand Knights FC and Perth Glory FC, as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs guidelines. Some content regarding 'supporters' could do with being added; I'm in Scotland, and while I try to follow action from websites, I just don't have the local knowledge to fill in the blanks. Fedgin 10:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Considering the A-League is all of two years old, maybe the "Notable players" and "Notable managers" can be excluded for a while. Thoughts?

That's a fair point. Perhaps the players could be used to show former players and the less-famous of these can be phased out once seasons go by? Managers can just be an exhaustive list, rather than 'Noted managers'. Fedgin 11:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. So far, most A-League clubs have only had one, at the most two, managers. For the present, we could probably still have the title "Managers". With the "noted players", most clubs by now have had a marquee/other large-name signing or two (or four if it's Sydney FC :P), so maybe something like Central Coast Mariners FC#Noted players could be used. Your thoughts again would be welcomed greatly. Daniel.Bryant 11:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, a good point. I think 'Noted players' is supposed to refer to former players; however, as you say, one-and-a-bit seasons doesn't lend much weight to ex-players. OK - how about the bigger-named players (past and present)? A small number can be added and contributors can discuss who should be added/removed on tha appropriate talk page. This is good: we could have all eight team pages sorted quite quickly. If we can get them all to 'B'-class (as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Assessment_FAQ#Quality_scale), it would be an achievement. Btw, I've done Queensland Roar FC too. Fedgin 12:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'll FOOTBALLMOS the CCMFC article. Daniel.Bryant 10:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to expand WikiProject A-League

Spiel

In starting this project, one thing I didn't realise at the time was the relatively poor coverage of football in Australia before/outside the A-League. User:Blackmissionary mentioned a while ago that it would be good if WP:A-L was to include the NSL, and I would like to expand this idea to the whole of football in Australia. Whilst the same aim would be achieved by simply starting a new project, I think that ultimately a large proportion of people who would contribute to a new project would be the same as the current members of WP:A-L. It would also save the hassle of spreading discussion that apply to both projects so that all members could have their say. Everything currently included in WP:A-L would be included in the new project, and those members who wish to continue focusing solely on A-League articles could easily do so. Please note that the "Australia" reference is 100% not against any New Zealand Knights, Football Kingz, etc information being involved in the project – but tacking "and some New Zealand stuff" on the end of the project name would be a bit messy. I have created a more formal proposed project page here, and if the members here choose to support this idea, I will add it to the project proposals list. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Support

1. Support – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Rebecca 01:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Daniel.Bryant 01:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
4. cj | talk 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Chuq 23:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Dibo 04:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Blackmissionary 00:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Kingutd 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Mattythewhite 06:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Hack 07:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Tiefighter 10:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Rakuten06 11:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Fedgin 11:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
14. Rossoneri3 (talk · contribs) Rossoneri3 01:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
15. Boltonfan22 04:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Love the picture! Daniel.Bryant 01:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• I think WikiProject Australian football (soccer) would be a better name for the expanded project (it's less cumbersome).--cj | talk 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • yeh I thought the same thing, but had a feeling AFL fans would not be too happy with us using "Australian football". I'll ask over at WikiProject AFL. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I was thinking Wikipedia:WikiProject football (soccer) in Australia. Daniel.Bryant 01:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well yeh that's what it stands as at the moment, but I agree with cj in that (1) it is a bit cumbersome, and (2) saying 'football in Australia' slightly implies we would be ignoring overseas Australian players. I guess we'll have to have another poll if this goes ahead. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 01:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, my actual preference is for WP:WPJ Australian soccer, but I didn't dare suggest that first off in this forum ;).--cj | talk 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
          • WikiProject World Game :-) -- Chuq 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Wikiproject World Game in Australia :D Daniel.Bryant 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh great I've caused more trouble than I solved. :D WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia it is, unless there are any really serious objections. I'll stick it on the proposed projects list once ten people have supported or a week has passed (general guideline is at least six for a wikiproject I think, which we've got now). – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I think WikiProject Australian football (soccer) is best, simple and uniform. The picture is awesome, bit of oldschool! Thanks AlbinoMonkey for remembering my idea and making it better! :) Blackmissionary 01:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • OK looks like we will need a poll of some kind after all. Tomorrow marks a week since I put this up, so I'll send out messages to those who haven't put in a vote for the project change, put it up on project proposals, then probably get the wheels rolling on the weekend. Cheers. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 05:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry been away for the weekend, and a bit bogged down with work for the next few days. Will get to it within the week, hopefully. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Final steps being put in motion now. Please vote in the poll below also – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Name choice

Seems a name is not immediately obvious, so just sign under which one you think is best (add another if you wish; add your name to more than one if you want). Give it about a week.

WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia

1. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
2. – Hack 04:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
3. – Blackmissionary 07:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
4. – Chuq 08:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
5. – Daniel.Bryant 23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
6. – Fedgin 11:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
7. – Rakuten06 12:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
8. – Rossoneri3 Rossoneri3 01:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
9. – Boltonfan22 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian football (soccer)

1. Kingutd 05:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Australian soccer

1. --cj | talk 08:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Football (soccer) in Australia templates

I have created three four templates, in the format as per the WP Football template standard:

{{AUS fb general}} {{AUS fb natteams}} {{AUS fb A-League}} {{AUS fb states}}

This are shown in use together with {{fb start}} and {{fb end}} here:

Of course it is possible to create more templates like this, for example on A-League you can see two of them in use with a third fb template. If people like them, I expect they will be added to relevant articles, ie. A-League related articles (seasons, clubs, etc) will have {{AUS fb general}} and {{AUS fb A-League}}; state governing bodies and leagues will have {{AUS fb general}} and {{AUS fb states}}. Football (soccer) in Australia will probably be the only article to have all three four.

I'm guessing {{AUS fb A-League}} will replace {{A-League teamlist}}, if there aren't any disagreements. -- Chuq 08:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Two disagreements, The a-league clubs names are not in alphabetical order and the young matildas are not in national teams.

Boltonfan22 07:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• • And mens U23 should have Olyroos next to them. Boltonfan22 07:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Should there be an entry for Northern New South Wales under leagues and state governing bodies? They are separate from Soccer NSW and are a constituent federation of the FFA...--Hack 08:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, fixed, fixed and fixed :P Anything else? I noticed the templates were tested on some other pages but were removed afterwards. Is it because (in the above example) the CCM template didn't fit? Do people agree with modifying the club templates to this format? -- Chuq 11:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• When i was testing the templates, I noticed the "disagreements" and i thought i better get them fixed before i placed the templates back on the CCM pages. The CCM template was fine. Boltonfan22 06:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I think the general one should be split off into a "general" (FFA, SA, A-L, NSL links) and a "national teams" one. All Australian football articles should have {{AUS fb general}}, but articles on state football, state gov bodies, and state leagues do not need links to the Olyroos, Young Matildas, Joeys etc. -- Chuq 01:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Done - what do people think? It would be feasible to also create one for each state, and one for each A-League team. I don't think this would be excess - because most articles would only have 2 or 3. For example:

• Football (soccer) in Victoria would have {{AUS fb general}}, {{AUS fb states}}, {{AUS fb state Vic}}
• Central Coast Mariners would have {{AUS fb general}}, {{AUS fb A-League}}, {{AUS fb A-League CCM}}

In these examples:

• {{AUS fb state Vic}} would have the same links as the "Vic" row of {{AUS fb states}}, plus links to the VPL and VSLD1 teams.
• {{AUS fb A-League CCM}} would link to the existing team-by-season articles, as well as the stadium, coach, captain (and maybe the rest of the squad, is this over the top?). Such a template could also be placed on, say, Lawrie McKinna (coach) or Noel Spencer (captain), although there aren't any other football templates (of the same style) on those pages. -- Chuq 01:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The CC Mariners page already has the squad list and year by year templates (as do most teams) so maybe we could just join them together and make them the same colour and size etc. That may be easier. Boltonfan22 02:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't included the squad yet, but check out the Central Coast Mariners page to see how it looks. -- Chuq 06:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I like it! Daniel.Bryant 12:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think {{AUS fb A-League CCM}} should be yellow. but the rest is great. Good work Chuq Boltonfan22 23:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete old templates?

Glad to see the templates are popular :) The colours look great too. Are people OK with me deleting {{QRSeasonTemplate}} and so on, since they aren't in use anymore? -- Chuq 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Consider them tagged as {{db-author}}, as I'm the creater and sole editor of them :D. For ease of deletion, the links down the side of User:Daniel.Bryant/A-LeagueSeasonTemplate are to the templates. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I made sure there were no transclusions, and had them deleted. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia

I've made the first steps on the expansion to WP:Football in Aus, the new project page is linked above. I'm currently working on the assessment and improving the A-League player project, it would be great if anyone could help with the following:

• Populating the related pages list (nb generally don't list redirect pages - the idea of the list is to watch related changes to actual articles)
• Creating a to-do list, and adding a few tasks to the open tasks template.
• Creating a templates list of all templates related to the project.
• Creating an awards list of all awards related to the project.
• Find some way of archiving WikiProject A-League within the new project. See this for a list of this project's subpages (ignore the ones related to the player project... I'm redoing it a bit).
• Create redirects from here to the new project, also go through what links here and make relevant changes.
• Generally tidy up the new main page.
• Create a userbox for participants?
• Anything else you can think of...

It's a long list at the moment, any help or ideas would be much appreciated. Cheers – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Publicity

I think people should attempt to publicise the project on some forums and the like. I've already done The World Game Forum and the Victory forum. Blackmissionary 22:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation of nationalities

I'm about 90% sure I got them all right, however a number of the coaches had me diving around for refs, or in one case guessing. Anyways, can someone just double-check that all the nationalities are right for the captains and coaches in the following, please:-

Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

they're all right... which one did you guess? – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

I quickly did up a userbox for this project, at User:Blackmissionary/FSIA. If people like it, someone more knowledgable can clean it up a little and add a category or whatever. Or If someone can make a better one, that'd be good too. Blackmissionary 23:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Season article naming

I've been meaning to suggest that the season articles be renamed to take the capital "S" out of season. I just hadn't got round to it because it wasn't that urgent :P Now that I've actually got around to it, are there any other changes to the naming format that people want to suggest? -- Chuq 05:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Move and leave redir, then fix all the templates. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm about to start moving these now. (5 months should be enough warning :) ) -- Chuq (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All done. I've fixed up the links in the team templates. I noticed that some need updating (eg. "Queensland Roar is currently playing in the 2006-07 A-League season..") and some cleanup, but I'll try to do these later today if I get a chance! -- Chuq (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon user changing details

Does anyone know if this changes by User:155.143.126.14 are legit or not? Is there a good, updated external source we can check them against?-- Chuq 05:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know but people who are deleting the height and years technical stuff ( m and –), (Socceroo and User:155.143.126.14) off player templates are really annoying me. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Football_biography there still needed Boltonfan22 09:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Adelaide United infobox question

In pages such as John Kosmina and Richie Alagich the NSL and A League spent years spent at Adelaide United are separated, and i was wondering if this was part of a style guide, or just a someone's personal whim? I can't see why personally, seeing as it's the same team. Any objections if i fix these up? Blackmissionary 08:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They are the same club. Merge, I reckon. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Although they are technically two distinct organisations the public perception is that they are the same club...--Hack 08:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

How are they different organisations? Is this the Matt Carroll-esque 'every team is 2 years old' theory, or something else? Blackmissionary 08:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the first organisation was wound up after the end of the NSL and the second was started at the time of their bidding for a place in the A-League. I will look into the details...--Hack 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, i won't alter the relevant sections until further info comes up, however my preference is to treat them as the same club. Blackmissionary 03:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer that for the purposes of player details that they were counted as the same club. An example would be Perth Glory who for business purposes are a different organisation to that which existed under the NSL. But for all intents and purposes it is the same football team. Similarly in an English context when Millwall (or any number of other clubs) became a PLC it did not mean the history of the club stopped...--Hack 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although slightly different, it'd be like considering two organisations "different" because they were bought out by someone else. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 08:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Queensland Roar / Queensland Lions

Given all of this, are Queensland Roar and Brisbane Lions/Hollandia the same club?--Hack 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do Queensland Roar/Lions still operate senior teams in the Brisbane state leagues? If not, then i would consider them the same club, but if there can be found some evidence that it is a complete break from the previous incarnation(s), then we should follow that stance. Blackmissionary 02:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Qld Lions don't have a team in the senior comp any more. They still operate as a licenced club (ie gaming and entertainment) under that name, as well as a number of junior and women's teams. The Roar operate as Queensland Roar FC, but with essentially the same board composition... --Hack 02:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And they wear the Dutch orange and Bleiberg was coach at Lions as well. I lean heavily to continuity on this one, unless someone calls up the Roar office and asks a few board members and finds out otherwise lol. It all sounds a bit like the way South Melbourne FC is a subsidiary of sorts of the South Melbourne Hellas Soccer Club, but still considered the same club, which is perhaps an indication of how we should treat the continuity issue. Blackmissionary 04:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

So the history of Hollandia/Lions would be put into the Roar article?--Hack 04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would vote yes. Based as i said, on no senior men's team competing in the Brisbane leagues after the Roar's entry into the A League, similar financial backer in the Queensland Lions club, similar personnel at coaching, and perhaps at board level, and usage of Dutch orange when the obvious choice was for at least some maroon, using 'Roar' as a nickname, links from the qldlions site to Queensland Roar site. But let's see what some other people think as well. Blackmissionary 05:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - the use of orange (based from Holland) was only a second choice. For some reason, their application to use maroon was blocked because it was too similar to Adelaide's red. Never mind the fact that there would be no colour clash, due to alternate kits... [My recollection is that the FFA blocked a maroon based jersey.]

Adelaide Sharks

This page currently redirects to the Adelaide 36ers page. There was an AFD where the consensus was that it links to the 36ers. Is there something we can do as the Adelaide Sharks as an NSL team are far more notable than a potential name for a basketball team. --Hack 03:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect - replacing bodgy redirects with more notable articles really isn't much of an issue. Feel free to write a proper article. Rebecca 03:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing the article now. It'll be a basic thing at first, just for a presence at least, and to add relevant redirects. Blackmissionary 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is at West Adelaide Soccer Club. Redirects from West Adelaide Hellas, Adelaide Sharks and West Adelaide SC are online, (thanks to Hack for the last one, even though it was created as an ultra stub) and hopefully i can get round to cleaning it up a little in the not too distant future. Blackmissionary 04:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to find out if there is some sort of link between the Sharks and Adelaide Olympic. Also the Olympic website suggests they were formed 2000 but wikipedia says 1978. A touch confusing.--Hack 06:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it appears from this Ozfootball page that they were founded in 1978 (and other articles have them playing in the SA leagues in the 1990's at least from a quick glance), so i would say from the info at hand, and from some anecdotal evidence, that ex-West Adelaide fans, following the demise of their club, jumped on the Olympic bandwagon, and there or may not have been a formal merger. We'll have to keep looking for a little while longer for the answer. Blackmissionary 06:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

From this link "West Adelaide went into liquidation and are gone, but their juniors merged with Olympians in the local league and are now called Adelaide Olympic. They have been successful being promoted to the premier league after 1 season (going unbeaten), and just recently lost in the premier league grand final in extra time." Hopefully that clears it up a little. Blackmissionary 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Central Coast Mariners FC...

...is the current football (soccer) collab. of the week. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic - I think we should use this opportunity to get it 100% and then use its format as a basis for the other A-League teams. -- Chuq 11:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Did we get anything done during this week. Basically only the 2 usuals added any info to the page (and i only added season-specific info). No one from Wikiproject Football did anything to the page. What did we get out of this collabortion besides some referencing.Boltonfan22 03:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A grand total of 0. I did the referencing, got some pictures with permission (that took all week), and rearranged some stuff. I must say, it was a giant flop. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

More templates

Have a look at Football (soccer) in Victoria, you will see I have created another template for Victoria at {{AUS fb state Vic}} This includes links to FFV, VPL (& teams) and VSLD1 (& teams). Note it doesn't include Melbourne Victory as (AFAIK) MV doesn't come under FFV at all. If people like it I can do similar things for other states. -- Chuq 11:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks great, We can also add these to the governing body pages which have the old template on them.Boltonfan22 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, like them, especially the way in the Vic one where the leagues and teams are all there in one place. Blackmissionary 06:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

National Soccer League history section rewrite

I've done a substantial rewrite of the NSL article's history section. All interested parties are invited to make commments, suggestions etc. on that article's talk page, cheers Blackmissionary 00:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. "One Fantastic Goal" is the only book that covers NSL history that I own at the moment, but I hope to find a few things in the near future. This article should be one of our top priorities IMO. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Given the Socceroos' large part in this article (v Japan; v Croatia; v Italy all mentioned), I feel that it call fall under this Wikiproject's scope. Thoughts? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: v Brazil also has a section. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

agreed, definetily part this project's scope. Blackmissionary 06:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue and white brigade and Australian Ultras

Are supporters groups worthy of an article in their own right? It seems that most football 'ultra' groups do not have their own page. This page is up for deletion so I was wondering what others thought about it... Hack 06:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Merge them into the #Supporters section of the team's article, and redirect. Similar thing happened with the Marinators and the CCMFC article. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded Blackmissionary 08:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Further to this all, it seems the Australian section of the Ultras page keeps getting vandalised - a number of people seem to be continually adding and deleting groups. Might be something to look out for... --Hack 08:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Footballer nationalities

Can someone run thru and check the contribs from this IP (Special:Contributions/144.132.5.112) - as I noted on User talk:144.132.5.112, nationalities aren't determined from where a player was born. I've reverted the change of Wayne O'Sullivan (an Irish international) to being a Cypriot, and I'd like someone to run thru and check the others - the edits from the 15th and 17th of this month specifically. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So we are going by the national team they play for, or the nationality/nationalities they are? Either way this is a pretty controversial issue.Hack 09:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If they have represented a country, then that country is their nationality. If they haven't, it's based on their passport ownership and heritage, which isn't all that easy to work out sometimes. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

On the basis of passport ownership Adrian Caceres, for example, would be Australian, English and Argentine. Also here's a whole bunch of Brazilian and Argentine players that have European passports to allow them to play in Europe. But in the end I agree that your criteria would make most sense... Hack 10:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

499 national team caps

The FFA has released a list of every player to appear for the senior mens' national team (there's 499 at the moment). Obviously there is not going to be a huge amount of info out there for a lot of the players, but there are a few notable names which are red links or stubs at the moment, so if you are looking for something to do, have a browse through this list and see if there are any you want to have a crack at. I hope to put all the names on the related pages list in the near future so we can see what's missing. Cheers. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Football in Australia - naming conventions

I would like to invite all interested editors to have a read of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and offer improvements or suggestions on the talk page. Please do not comment about it on this page - I am hoping to centralise discussion in one place! -- Chuq 10:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

More on templates..

Going on from the discussion half way up the page, I have created state focused templates such as {{AUS fb state Vic}} and {{AUS fb state Tas}}:

The templates are designed to be hierarchical - top-most one (usually {{AUS fb general}}) is the most general, the bottom one (usually the club or state template) being the most specific. I've noticed {{AUS fb states}} ...

... has been moved to the bottom of the templates on some articles, probably because it is big, bulky, and mostly not relevant to the state article (full of other states' governing bodies and leagues) - which is a fair reason. I suggest that once the other individual state templates are created, we can replace the {{AUS fb states}} template with something smaller such as:

.. and put it back above the state-specific template. Make sense? -- Chuq 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

NSL template

For perusal: {{AUS fb NSL}}

• I'll wait until some season articles are actually written before adding them all
• I've only listed teams from the final season
• Since the AU, PG, NUJ and FK links point to the A-League AU, PG, NUJ and NZK articles; we should make sure those articles include details of the NSL era.
• I suggest the red-linked articles are actually written before we use the template anywhere.

-- Chuq 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Some questions though. Is the listing of teams only for the last season for demonstration purposes? For the season articles, where in the A-League version match reports are linked to official sites, how are we going to do the same thing? Just link to OzFootball? Agree with your final point though, but are you talking only about the records and list of champions, or everything including clubs not done yet? Blackmissionary 05:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm opening up suggestions to others on how we include the other teams - the box would be huge if we listed them all! I guess OzFootball is the closest to an official source that we have at the moment. IMO only the records, champions, and maybe the last 2-3 seasons should be written before implementing the template (or we can comment out those rows until they exist.) -- Chuq 06:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, fitting in all the teams neatly would be in the realms of the periodic table, not sure how to do it! But for list of champions, do we need a separate page? The A-League article has a link which leads to a section within the NSL article, and for what it's worth, i think that's good enough. Blackmissionary 09:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Perth Kangaroos and Darwin Cubs

These clubs never played in Australian national or state leagues, so how we do categorise in them in the project's related pages section? Blackmissionary 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

also Australian Cup. Blackmissionary 08:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Reilly article

I need some help from any experienced wikipedians here, as i'm not sure how to go about this. The Jack Reilly page has recently had another article inserted within it (on an american artist of the same name). Attempts to get the responsible editor to make a new, seperate page have failed (i think they are new, and haven't looked at the article talk page, or just ignored it), so could someone who knows how to sort this stuff out do just that? Blackmissionary 08:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I got this one covered. Normy132 08:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think i've got most of the links sorted/fixed as well. Blackmissionary 03:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Supporters Groups of Perth Glory

Somebody has deleted the supporters section of the Perth Glory page. I intended restoring but was just hoping to see what others thought of this first. It is being suggested that the fan groups are not notable. If this was some sort of consensus we should then be deleting reference in the Melbourne Victory page to such non-notable fans as the BWB and the Cove from the Sydney FC page.Hack 04:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In line with this discussion i think it's ok to restore it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blackmissionary (talk • contribs) 09:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Also the WP:Football club MOS lists the Supporters section in it - though Perth's (and other A-League ones) could do with a bit of a cleanup IMO. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A-League 2007-08

Hey. I was just looking at this article and it says that there will be eight clubs in the competition for the season. If the New Zealand Knights have been discarded from the competition, shouldn't the number be seven clubs or an undecided number of clubs? Normy132 10:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As it is, there are still eight licenses and it appears quite likely that another New Zealand-based franchise will replace the Knights ([1]). I'd leave it at eight until they confirm that it won't be. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hyuk-Su Seo / Seo Hyuk-Su

At the moment, there are two articles about this player. As I understand it (I'm no expert), Chinese and Korean names, though spoken as "<Given name> <Surname>" (Hyuk-Su Seo, Ji-Sung Park, Shengqing Qu) are supposed to be written "<Surname> <Given name>". In the A-League we have articles on Gao Leilei (<Surname> <Given name>), Zhang Yuning (<Sn> <Gn>), Qu Shengqing (<Sn> <Gn>), Zhang Xiaobin (<Sn> <Gn>), Tae-Yong Shin (<Gn> <Sn>) and then both versions for the Seo article. Unless anyone has any objections, when I get the chance I'll merge/redirect the Shin and Seo articles to their 'proper' places; just thought I'd mention this for the future. {{Chinese name}} or {{Korean name}} should also be placed at the top of the relevant articles. For the recently-recruited Knights player, I think his surname is Li and given name Yan, but I'm not completely sure (there is no article on him yet). – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

2007-08 season.

For teams who are out of the finals (like CCM, PG etc) should we add the 2007-08 season pages now or wait for the end of the Grand Final? Boltonfan22 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A point that does need to be clarified is how the ACL is classified to a season. I am proposing (and have already done with Sydney FC) that the ACL is part of the same "season" of the A-League competition preceeding it. So that for article naming purposes:

• 2005-06 includes 2005 Preseason cup, A-League season 1, 2005 CWC
• 2006-07 includes 2006 cup, A-League Ver2, AFC Champions League 2007
• 2007-08 includes 2007 cup, A-League Ver3, AFC Champions League 2008

Essentially the new "year" starts about June with the A-League competitions. Unless there's significant concerns for an alternative, I say continue with this structure. Tomperc 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO The details shouldn't be included in the season - they shuold have their own. The ACL comps have their own articles. I do recognise a need to link them though. The obvious way would be to link the ACL seasons with the regular season in which entry to it was "won". A-League 2005-06 -> AFC Champions League 2007. -- Chuq 03:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The best solution seems to be that each article 'refers' to the ACL comp, and then directs readers to the main article for details, particularly as it can relate to many seasons. So for the 2007 ACL, 05-06 would refer to qualification, 06-07 team articles would refer to teams continuing preparations, and should any Aussies get past the group stage, the 07-08 year would refer to the competition continuing (since quarter-finals are in September 07). Tomperc 02:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Just a couple of things to bring to people's attention. People should take care with how they link to Peter Wilson's article as Peter Wilson (footballer) leads to an aussie rules player, whereas Peter Wilson (Australian soccer) is the correct one. Also i have created a redirect for Olyroos, use it or ignore it at your pleasure. Hooray for me. Blackmissionary 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Canberra football

New articles have been created for Football (soccer) in the Australian Capital Territory and Canberra City SC and a major expansion of Canberra Cosmos has been done - ready for review and inputs. Tomperc 04:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been a partial merger of Capital Football into Football (soccer) in the Australian Capital Territory, keeping two articles. Capital Football remains to refer to the organisation alone. The competitions are now included in the ACT article. Tomperc 02:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Football in NSW

i have created the article Football (soccer) in New South Wales single-handely from scratch so i was looking for some reviews, input, critisicm, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Santiago26 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Hey sorry it's taken so long for someone to reply, but firstly I'd say thanks a heap for creating this article to start with; it was definitely a big gap missing in the project. I have a couple of suggestions: at the moment, the article is made up largely of small lists of competitions and clubs etc. It would be nice if this was changed more into sentence form describing the way the hierarchies work. Secondly, I think a history section is a must. The first organised match of football in Australia was played in Sydney, and many clubs from the Hunter/Newcastle region are some of the oldest in Australia. Finally, an overview of participation would be great. I can't find it at the moment, but there was a government study a few years ago with full stats for a whole heap of sports, and there is also the (annual?) Sweeney sports report which looks into interest/participation etc. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 13:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to agree with Albinomonkey - thanks for that! Do you know much about Northern NSW Soccer / Northern NSW Football Federation? That is one of the more confusing things to me - why there are two federations for the state. IMO this shuold be explained in the article as well! -- Chuq 12:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, ill get too it. On the Northern NSW fed. i believe they coordinate all football activities int their region incl.a Premier League + Youth rep. leagues due to the impossible distances those in that region would have to make to play in the rep. leagues of SoccerNSW. i will cjheck this out further. i propose a new article on Northern NSW Fed + anoither article on Football (soccer) in Northern NSW. do you agree/disagree {Santiago26 23:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)}

There is already an article Northern New South Wales Football. I think Football (soccer) in New South Wales should be about exactly that - all football activities over the whole state, both NNSWF and SNSW. By the way, I have created a new template:

.. for all NSW related football articles. -- Chuq 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry for the late reply been bogged down with schoolwork lately... I like the template - it was exactly what i was thinking... its how it should be. i will start incl. some of the northern nsw stuff into the football (soccer) in NSW article soon... I hope!

Team locator map

I'd appreciate it if people could give me their opinions on which of these maps look best? User:Chuq/Sandbox/Sports_maps -- Chuq 00:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I like II. Daniel Bryant 06:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I like I. One problem New Zealand team is in Wellington now.Boltonfan22 06:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The current one in use at A-League#Clubs is kind of a combination of those two - and the Wellington one isn't a problem, as the coloured icons can be relocated by changing co-ordinates. -- Chuq 09:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC FSIA's first ever FA!

As a FYI given we don't have a table like WP:WPF listing going-ons with articles, the Central Coast Mariners FC article is currently a featured candidate. You can view the current status of the nomination, and leave comments, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Central Coast Mariners FC. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Promoted! :) Daniel Bryant 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from my recent contribs, I haven't had much time to work on things recently but I've been lurking and had to extend my congratulations to Daniel and everyone else who worked on this article. Hopefully it is the first of many. Well in. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on achieving Featured Article Status. Blackmissionary 09:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Creation of WikiProject Football task forces

A proposal to reorganise all football related projects has been made here. Input from members of this project is wanted. – Elisson • T • C • 20:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

National Youth League

I can't seem to be able to find anything on the former National Youth League. Should this be a discrete article or part of the NSL page?--Hack 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Tough one. Probably a separate article, but it is a very hard topic to find info on i think. Even OzFootball doesn't seem to have much on it. Blackmissionary 05:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More on templates

Yes this seems to be a never ending project.. not because it takes a long time, but because I'm lazy .. There are now "state" templates for Tas, Vic, NSW and Qld (named {{AUS fb state Qld}} and so on). Rather than modify all the team pages straight away, I have modified {{VPL Clubs}}, {{VSLD1 Clubs}}, {{NSWPL}}, {{NNSWSF SSL Clubs}}, {{BPL Clubs}} and {{BD1 Clubs}} to include the "AUS fb" style templates. This way they all look like the new format but without a lot of work! As you work on the pages for other reasons, please subst the templates (the six ones listed above, that is - not the "AUS fb" ones!) As an example I have done the BPL and BD1 ones. I will do the SA and WA ones next, but I'm not guaranteeing they will be done any time soon!

Also just a note - Football (soccer) in Queensland appears to redirect to Football Queensland. Someone knowledgeable may want to write a separate article! -- Chuq (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Should these state templates also make reference to lower leagues as well?Hack 02:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of them do - as navigational templates they should link to every article we have about a governing body, league or club based in that particular state. Anything that isn't notable enough for an article doesn't have a link, and therefore shouldn't need to be in the template. -- Chuq (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

I've just got this userbox created for this WikiProject.

This user participates in the
Football in Australia
task force.

Mattythewhite 19:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Australia international footballers

Does this need to be here? Surely it isn't necessary... --Hack 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Australia women's national under-20 football team

This team does not seem to compete at the hightest amateur level of competition (that would be the Olympic team) or professionally. Is there some other inclusion criteria I should be looking at before I take this article to AfD?

Thanks, Garrie 04:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a national team. They compete at the highest international level for women's under-20 football teams (i.e. FIFA U-20 Women's World Championship). [2] I can't even begin to imagine why you would think it would be deletion worthy! -- Chuq (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:AUS fb A-League CCM

I decided to merge the squad template into the main CCM template, and have this displayed on player pages who are currently in the squad. Thoughts? Daniel Bryant 04:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! By displaying on all player pages, you mean just the fb A-League CCM template, not the fb general, fb A-League etc, templates? If so, sounds perfect. (Naturally we should aim to do the same for the other clubs) -- Chuq (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, current players pages get {{AUS fb A-League CCM}} and that's it. I'll do the swapover tomorrow if no objections are raised. Daniel Bryant 06:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, current players only. Otherwise Damian Mori would be more template than article! -- Chuq (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...on that note, Mori has enough info on him to possibly become a pretty decent article *adds to list* Daniel Bryant 06:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All Sydney FC now done with Template:AUS fb A-League SFC (from Template:Sydney FC squad) - Tomperc 09:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Another FLC

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Queensland Roar FC players, for List of Queensland Roar FC players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). If anyone has any appropriate pictures (players, groups of players etc.), can they please upload them? Cheers, Daniel 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Frank Farina

Hi, I rebuilt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Farina am about to request for feedback. If anyone has a picture of him (not a picture from a website, but something they have permission to use, even a picture they took themselves), it would add to the article. Thank you. I belive a section on his international playing career should be added, but I don't really have any stats on that.Macktheknifeau 16:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Can i just say well done on an awesome job on one of our most important articles! As for your question, the only stats site is i know of is ozfootball, but i could ask some people i know for particular stats if you need them, just ask and i'll see what i can do. Blackmissionary 23:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Category renaming

I have just noticed that the category "Australian football (soccer) players" has been renamed to "Australian soccer players" is the usual silly wikipedia way. The debate (or total lack of debate) is here. I cannot see any of the football editors commenting there. I strongly feel this renaming should be reversed. Anyone know how to do this?Tancred 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No idea how to change the decision. It's an absolute disgrace. Seems like almost no-one relevant (ie, people working on related articles) even knew it was up for discussion. Blackmissionary 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Further to that, I have left a message on The Wub's Talk Page, urging reopening of the discussion. It also appears that we are not alone in having a category changed without relevant editors knowing about it by this admin. Blackmissionary 23:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disgraceful to say the very least. This should be reversed posthaste, given the amount of trouble we've gone to in the past to even get people to finally accept (or at least live with) the "football (soccer)" thing. A notice should've been placed here - the project banner is on the talk page and I can scarcely believe it could have gone unnoticed by the nominator. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 00:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kbdank71 says he only closed the discussion, and has said that User:Shalom was the one who suggested the change. Blackmissionary 05:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Update on category renaming

After contacting User:Shalom about this I received a prompt reply.

Response to CFD concern

I'm sorry that I failed to get the word out regarding the CFD. I don't do many CFDs, so I'm not familiar with the need to tell everyone. My main line of work is AFD, where this is generally not necessary because users who care about an article will usually see it on their watchlist.

I have no opinion on the debate anymore. Feel free to decide things without me. Best regards. Shalom ^Hello 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to washed his hands of the mess. So what's the next step? Blackmissionary 05:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have started a renaming case here Tancred 10:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

After some administrative debate there is another renaming case. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_27#Category:Australian_soccer_players. Please join in and comment.Tancred 08:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed New Match Tables

I have been looking around, and I saw the National Rugby League season 2007 page and the match tables they have there, I think they look really nice and look better than the current A-League ones. So I modified the table, and brought it here to be dicussed. I hope you all like it, I know the original one is a bit more compact, but I believe this other one is more bright and presents the information nicely, it also includes the clubs logo. Please leave your comments and suggestions below. - Allied45 11:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I think the rugby tables look nicer and more presentable than the present soccer ones. I'd think about using them for a few other sports as well. Rebecca 11:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also agree, new table would brighten up the article. Is there a way to avoid Knights and Mariners wrapping to the next line? - Tomperc 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Table

Home	Score	Away	Match Information
			Date and Time	Venue	Crowd	Reports
Melbourne Victory	2 - 0	Adelaide United	25 August 2006, 7:30pm	Olympic Park Stadium	12,340	Summary Report
Queensland Roar	3 - 0	Perth Glory	26 August 2006, 7:00pm	Suncorp Stadium	20,606	Summary Report
New Zealand Knights	0 - 0	Newcastle Jets	27 August 2006, 5:00pm	North Harbour Stadium	7,304	Summary Report
Sydney FC	1 - 0	Central Coast Mariners	27 August 2006, 5:00pm	Aussie Stadium	19,274	Summary Report

League v Club Season articles

Is there a consensus on what match info belongs in each season article? I'd taken that the League article shows score and crowd for each match in table like above, and further details (scorers, ref, cards, etc) was outlined in each club article (like A-League 2006-07 and Sydney FC season 2006-07). The current season articles seem to be moving in different directions. - Tomperc 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Metric system first

Hi I've noticed that a lot of players have their profiles with the imperial weights and measurements first. As a metirc country the metric system should be first and the imperial system in brackets. I've started re-editing them. Anyone want to help me? 60.230.78.50 07:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been progressively replacing with the height template that shows met(imp) or imp(met) depending on user prefs. I've also noticed a number of other player articles incorrectly use a comma decimal separator instead of decimal point. - Tomperc 00:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

that's very odd... in en.wp surely it should always be a "."? Dibo ^{T | C} 00:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable Players

Guys, just after some input here - what do you think the criterion for "notable players" from A-League clubs should be? There is alot of debate over on the Victory article over whether Kristian Sarkies should be in our notable players section... could develop into something of an editing war. Some consider him to be notable having a Socceroos Cap, being and Olyroo and having scored a goal in the Grand Final win. Others suggest that he hasn't really achieved very little so far, and so inst notable at all. Thoughts?

--ElZilcho 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tough one, even harder perhaps for newer entities like the A League clubs who have yet to produce major players themselves (ie Sydney United/George Cross) or have long serving players (ie, an Alex Tobin), all of which will come in time. Back to the issue at hand though, I don't think that Sarkies himself has achieved enough yet either here, overseas, or internationally to be classified as notable, unlike say from the same side, Archie Thompson or in particular Kevin Muscat. That's from a non-biased South Melbourne fan's point of view, with no emotional connection to Kristian or anyone else. Blackmissionary 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a 'notable' player would have at least a few full internationals (say minimum 5) and made some contribution to the club such as making many appearances or promoting the club/league (ie guest player). Sarkies' 7 minutes as a full Socceroo doesn't really put him into this category (yet). - Tomperc 06:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

At the present, I used "represented country in full international" as the line in CCMFC. Daniel→♦ 11:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO states - Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis. A-League is fully professional, anyone who plays in it is notable and can deserve their own article, but "notable" players inside the club itself would be captains, vice captains, anyone who has any Australian caps against proper opponents, and finally anyone who is a significant part of the team the "star players" if you will. Macktheknifeau 10:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor clubs and players

There recently appears to a lot new articles created on what seem to me to be minor clubs and teams in Victoria such as Altona East Phoenix, North Coburg United and Waverley Wanderers along with others. I was planning to PROD them but then thought that it may be worth asking here first to see if there is a consensus on what clubs and teams are seen to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I have PRODded some recently created player bios where it seems clear to me that they have not played in a fully professional league or at the highest level (i.e. the old NSL) as per WP:BIO but the clubs I am not so sure about. Any advice on the notablility of either the clubs and players would be appreciated. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 23:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the players one is pretty easy. Players who have not played at a fully professional/top tier comp in this country should not have articles about them except in extraordinary circumstances. And i think playing only a couple of NSL games doesn't make you notable. The most notable NSL players in my opinion are players that have won the various medals, were top scorers, national reps, or long time players in that league. Therefore Francis Awaritefe is clearly notable; Paul Donnelly (footballer) is clearly not. I think people see red links and think that's a green light to go create a new article, and therefore create supplementary articles (which is why i personally for instance have not created unnecessary red links for South Melbourne FC players).

As for the clubs... it's a little harder, and unfortunately this being compounded by latent and not so latent nationalism and POV work as well. You have teams that played maybe one season in the NSL but have been in obscurity ever since; i think having been there makes them notable enough. But therein lies the problem: a lot of the ex-nsl teams are in their state comps now, and for some people it kind of looks awkward to have info on some teams and not on others in the top tier of state comps, but the effect trickles down when every team with an article gets relegated and therefore, people start writing articles about clubs that have done nothing notable and really the only people that care are the people that wrote the article; i've probably been guilty of that myself, i reckon it's a common beginners mistake, and actually knowing the guy who has done the recent Altona East article updates in real life, i probably should have sent a message to him much earlier. There was/is an intersting dicussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability.

For what it's worth, i reckon that if a club played at the top tier of a state comp for any amount of time, or won their most notable state cup (ie, in Victoria, the Dockerty Cup), that should be enough. And i don't think the 2nd level of a state system is notable in this country, but they're there now, and we might as well keep them. Everyone else should probably wait their turn. I think this is something we seriously need to reach some sort of consenseus on. Blackmissionary 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. My thoughts are generally along the same line as yours. I am inclined to leave the existing club articles alone much like the country AFL club articles such as Violet Town Football Club , as long as they are not purely social and/or entirely amateur. This does not mean that I would encourage the creation of new articles for marginally notable clubs however. I know very little about the nationalism issue with VPL clubs (other than it exists and is generally overemphasised by the media) but I can see this may be a problem if and when a weeding of non-notable clubs happens unless very specific criteria were put in place, similar to arrangements in the English league system.

However, with player biographies, I would be inclined to delete any and all that 1. Do not meet WP:BIO for professional athletes and 2. do not provide any reliable, independent sources. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 01:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider that English football have clubs and players down to the utter depths on their league system (with full articles for clubs and players far below even the 2 split conference levels), doing the 2nd tier of Australian football should be simple enough of a decision, especially since many of the clubs in these competitions played in the NSL, and some players end up playing for A-League clubs during a season. The NSW final was on TV the other week, so I don't think anyone would be able to scream "Notability!!!" and attempt to have the articles removed. Macktheknifeau 10:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Significant requested move - Newcastle Jets

I have proposed to move the Newcastle United Jets page. See Talk:Newcastle United Jets#Requested move. All input appreciated. Cheers, Daniel 11:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ozfootball, and thankyous

Permission to sound self-important and prattle on a bit... :) As we all know, Wikipedia's greatest virtue and vice is its democratic nature. It lets amatuers and professionals a like have a go at stroing and presenting the worlds knowldege. I have recently gained full access to update the far less democratic but still very important OzFootball archives. This means that my time here, already limited by my uni studies, is now further stymied. I'll still be around doing minor stuff, and reverting vandalism, but it appears my time as a major editor here is over for the forseeable future. Without a year and half spent on Wikipedia, honing my skill, working with and alongside people, and creating content that i could be truly be proud of (and in turn, hoepfully inspiring others to do the same) i doubt that i would have bothered applying for what appeared to be a closed shop. Thank you to all the wonderful people working on this project, you all do a tremendous job, and in particular to AlbinoMonkey, who took my off the cuff and slightly desperate idea of incorporating the past (NSL) into the present (A-League) and made it not just a reality but even better. Keep up the good work everyone! And hopefully one day a lot of this work will be incorporated into OzFootball itself.

http://www.ozfootball.net/ark/Clubs/WIP.html

Blackmissionary 08:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexisim

I find it remarkably sexist that the Australia national football (soccer) team page does not make much mention of the women's team. Either it should merge the information a little more evenly or be renamed Ausrtralia men's national football (soccer) team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliat 1981 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point, but the naming follows the convention established for all national teams across Wikipedia. Even for nations where the women's game is stronger, this convention is followed (ie Germany Men & Women). Note that FIFA don't make the distinction of adding "men's" to any of their naming either. - Tomperc 10:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim Hermiston

I have just added an article on Jim Hermiston as part of my drive to improve the Aberdeen FC "Hall of Fame" section. Since he seems to have been a reasonably popular and even quite well-known player in Australia, I wonder if anyone has a little more concrete information on his Australian career? Specifically, it would be nice to have more details on his Philips Cup (I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the competition, so have no idea how significant it is. It doesn't appear to have an article of its own, but I guess it could have been known by a number of names, presuming that Philips was the sponsor) wins and perhaps some stats on games and goals. Thanks in advance, and apologies if this is not the right place for this request Watty1962 (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help with what I can. The 'Philips Cup' was the National Soccer League Cup, which was the cup competition associated with the National Soccer League, and I think he would have won titles with Brisbane City (winning it was still an achievement, but the Cup never held much prestige in Australian football). The NSL when it began in 1977 was the top flight in Australia. The best resource is OzFootball which has round-by-round summaries for most years, which should supply the raw data to compile stats. - Tomperc (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A-League Manager Template colours

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Australia_national_football_team_templates

Hello everyone! Recently I've gone by and made manager templates for all the a league teams, but I've run into some trouble with the colour of the text. e.g. here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricki_Herbert, the "Wellington Phoenix FC – Managers" text is different from that of the other box. Some help would be greatly appreciated as I'm no so sure about fixing this. Thanks! :) Hectic18 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Harry Brophy

Good day from a cold and damp England. I have created an article about Harry Brophy who was briefly manager of the Australia soccer team in the 1950s. Can someone cast an eye over it and check the facts about his time in Oz, especially the red-linked clubs. e.g. there seem to be several names for the Sydney Prague club - what was its correct name? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Anthony Raso

Anthony Raso (via WP:PROD on 19 December 2007)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This WikiProject deals with football (soccer) in Australia, not Australian rules football. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) has been renamed...

.. to Association football. Was anyone here aware of the change? I'm rather undecided, both names have their pros and cons, but it is a pretty major change, with implications for tens of thousands of articles. A huge number of these articles will be covered by this WikiProject, possibly even the WikiProject name itself. -- Chuq (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have started a discussion about the ramifications of this change in Talk:Sport in Australia.InsteadOf (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There's an aussiball user on here who is always banging on about Australian English usage. Who the hell says Association football? Change it back. --202.47.49.53 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any decision on this? I think either "association football" (first preference, since it is the Wikipedia standard) or "football (soccer)" is appropriate. However there is an anonymous user editing section headings to "Association football (soccer)" which is a huge mouthful, not to mention redundant as there is only one type of "association football". -- Chuq (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Grand Final articles

I just realised that A-League Grand Final 2006 and A-League Grand Final 2007 still exist. I had tagged them for merging into their respective season articles but lost track. It appears no-one else commented on the mergers (probably because the articles get very little traffic). So before someone creates the 2007-08 one, I thought I would get peoples thoughts on these articles. If they are to be kept then I will start cleaning them up. -- Chuq (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 has just been created - any opinions on these? 95% of them seem to be the intro, infobox, navbox and categories, and info duplicated from the season articles or the report/summary link. About the only new thing on there is the image showing the starting line-up, which is unsourced. -- Chuq (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep these, but they need a bit of tidy up and more prose. The GF is a notable single match and its own article is appropriate. - Tomperc (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think maybe keep the 2006 and 2007 ones because they were significant in the sense that 2006 was the first one and 2007 broke all sorts of records. Normy 06:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Youth League

With the suggestion of an A-League youth league starting up soon, I think we need to come to some decision as to how these will be represented on Wikipedia.

• The main article (and season articles, if required) should be separate to the A-League article & season articles.
• The club articles should be merged with the senior club articles, as they will be part of the same club and squad members will be shared.
  • Note: It has been suggested that instead of Wellington, there will be an AIS team based in Canberra. Obviously the AIS team would have its own article.
• All other references should be kept separate (ie. caps and goals for youth teams are completely separate to senior teams).

These are pretty general at the moment, since little is known about the youth league. Any other ideas/comments? -- Chuq (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that details of the NYL are out (see here) this can go a bit further. All these points sound reasonable - a main article just about the youth comp (perhaps National Youth League (A-League) ); all the youth teams are aligned to a senior club, so include a section in each A-League club article on Youth team with the squad, coach and acheivements.

Its worth noting the established rules on notability that apply to youth/academy players (particularly for English clubs). Essentially, a player is not notable enough to have their own article until they have made a first team appearance (so nobody rush ahead and create articles for the whole youth squad). - Tomperc (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

New South Wales Premier League 2008

I have started a new page for New South Wales Premier League 2008 I intend to keep it updated, but help would be greatly appreciated. Can anyone help by writing a summary/introduction etc? --Windsok (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd highly recommend (this is what I do when I get stuck) is find a featured article similar to that you are writing about and basically copy it, replacing anything that's relevant (team names, year etc.) Normy 06:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox stats

Regarding appearances shown in the player infobox on player articles - Is there a consensus for if this includes/excludes finals? In short, the infobox is to include "domestic league" only, so while cup games are out, finals series are unclear. I can't find much on WP:FOOTY to confirm, but being an Australian/American quirk it may not appear to be an issue, however this has a big impact particularly on NSL/A-League players. - Tomperc (talk) 10:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Just noticed on the A-League article that somebody added that the Thunder bid may be pulled because of funds problems and as a result so may be the Galaxy. Anybody got any info for this? Normy 02:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A-league National Youth League

Is this article really needed? There's a section in the main A-League article explaining everything in this article and there's really not going to be much expansion on it either. Normy 07:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, the youth league is sufficiently notable to have its own article (see earlier discussion above). As it stands today, the A-League article provides a short summary, and the main NYL article contains all the details (although needs some improvement), which is a good balance. Over time this article will expand, particularly leading up to the season start in August. - Tomperc (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Further on this - I have given the NYL article a bit of a cleanup. I notice someone has created a separate article for the Newcastle youth team - as per the previous discussion a few sections up, I think youth team details should be part of the main club article for now. -- Chuq (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Newcastle Breakers

Page created at last for this club. Needs work though. Blackmissionary (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You could probably split this page up and merge it into articles for various teams - History of Football (Soccer) in Newcastle Australia -- Chuq (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wollongong United/Macedonia

Article has been created. There are now only three NSL clubs left without pages. These are Western Suburbs Magpies, Canterbury-Marrickville, and Penrith City. Blackmissionary (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

General article structure

With the additional leagues I can see a lot more articles .. I think that before things get to the stage where we have articles such as Adelaide United FC W-League Pre-Season Cup 2009-10, we would set some limits. Note I will use the post-2004 leagues and clubs as examples in my proposal here, but the same "naming rules" would apply to the NSL, etc.

League articles

• A-League
• A-League National Youth League
• W-League (Australia)

It may be better to change the "National Youth League" one to "National Youth League (Australia)"

Club articles

• Adelaide United FC
• Canberra United FC
• Central Coast Mariners FC
• Gold Coast United FC
• Melbourne Victory FC
• Newcastle United Jets FC
• New Zealand Knights FC
• North Queensland FC
• Perth Glory FC
• Queensland Roar FC
• Sydney FC
• Wellington Phoenix FC

ie. any club which has or will have a team in any league in any season. Note Canberra is included since they will have a team in the W-League in 2008-09. Each club should include details about its mens, womens and youth teams/squads in the one article. This is particularly relevant the mens and youth squads as there would be significant overlap.

League/year articles

	A-League	National Youth League	W-League
2005-06	A-League 2005-06	-	-
2006-07	A-League 2006-07	-	-
2007-08	A-League 2007-08	-	-
2008-09	A-League 2008-09	A-League National Youth League 2008-09	W-League (Australia) 2008-09

Personally I believe that the Pre-season, regular season, finals series and grand final of each A-League series can go in the same article. Since there are already separate articles it appears not everyone agrees with this, so this needs further discussion.

Club/season articles

	2005-06	2006-07	2007-08	2008-09
Adelaide	Adelaide United season 2005-06	Adelaide United season 2006-07	Adelaide United season 2007-08	Adelaide United season 2008-09
Canberra	-	-	-	Canberra United season 2008-09
Central Coast	Central Coast Mariners season 2005-06	Central Coast Mariners season 2006-07	Central Coast Mariners season 2007-08	Central Coast Mariners season 2008-09
Melbourne	Melbourne Victory season 2005-06	Melbourne Victory season 2006-07	Melbourne Victory season 2007-08	Melbourne Victory season 2008-09
Newcastle	Newcastle United Jets FC season 2005-06	Newcastle United Jets FC season 2006-07	Newcastle United Jets FC season 2007-08	Newcastle United Jets FC season 2008-09
New Zealand	New Zealand Knights season 2005-06	New Zealand Knights season 2006-07	-	-
Perth	Perth Glory season 2005-06	Perth Glory season 2006-07	Perth Glory season 2007-08	Perth Glory season 2008-09
Queensland	Queensland Roar season 2005-06	Queensland Roar season 2006-07	Queensland Roar season 2007-08	Queensland Roar season 2008-09
Sydney	Sydney FC season 2005-06	Sydney FC season 2006-07	Sydney FC season 2007-08	Sydney FC season 2008-09
Wellington	-	-	Wellington Phoenix season 2007-08	Wellington Phoenix season 2008-09

(NQFC, GCU and 2009-10 omitted from this table for space reasons)

In the case of these articles, the teams in each league are from the same club. (ie. the youth team will be called Melbourne Victory, the women's team will be called Melbourne Victory), so I think it is reasonable to assume that each article would cover the men's, youth AND women's teams activities in that year.

Articles which should not exist

• Pre-season articles - redirect to season article
• Finals series/grand final articles - redirect to season article
• Youth/women's team article - redirect to club article
• Youth/women's season article - redirect to club season article

There is a bit of detail here, but I'd be interested to hear what people think. -- Chuq (talk) 07:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i like this idea should be done.Clarkey234 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Clarkey. I just redirected a few new articles for women's and youth teams to the club article as per the above suggestion. The articles were nothing more than a copy of the main club's infobox, an edited copy of the intro paragraph, and the fb templates from the end of the main club article, so there wasn't anything to merge. I mentioned this discussion in the edit summaries so we may get a few more comments now. -- Chuq (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Vic Bozanić

Can somebody with a greater knowledge of the player create an article for him? It's strange that an international footballer (presumably a fairly recent one, as his son is 20ish, he's probably 50ish, making him an international sometime in the 70's) doesn't have an article, though I appriciate football/soccer is only starting to blossom in Australia. More to the point, there are several links to him, which look unprofessional.86.138.147.45 (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OzFootball - looking for volunteers

Hi peoples. Apologies if you've already read this on other forums. I've been working on the OzFootball club database for about a year now, and am looking to get more people onboard, but especially in my area. So this is a heads up that I'm looking for helpers to compile stats pages for match results and player rosters for A-League teams, as in the examples below:

http://www.ozfootball.net/ark/Clubs/S/SouthMelbournePR2007.html

http://www.ozfootball.net/ark/Clubs/S/SouthMelbournePR2007.html

Of course, any and all help is appreciated, and you needn't limit yourself only to A-League stats, you could do NSL club stats as well, or even get in contact with other people working in other areas and see what you can add to the project. The contact pages have been updated, and so getting touch with people working on OzFootball shouldn't be as hard as it used to be. If you'd like to help out in my area, leave a message on my talk page, or preferably email me, my address is in my user page. Thanks for listenbing and keep up the good work on here. Blackmissionary (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for A-League player

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Football (soccer) in Australia

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Penrith City SC

Recently found out enough information about this club from here which allowed me to create a page for this little known club. This means that there is only one NSL participant who does not have a page, Western Suburbs Magpies. Will try and track down some info, but would rather someone else beat me to it! Blackmissionary (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

NAB Soccer Club - speedy deletion

NAB Soccer Club has been nominated for speedy deletion. This is a second tier state league club in South Australia. Given quite a few similar clubs have pages of their own, should there be something said or done? --Hack (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Can any kind soul please check for this page pf the W-League [3] to see if the time and timezone that I had put in for Round 2 is correct? I'm not quite sure about the time zone. Frankie goh (talk) 08:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New team colours for 2009-10 A-League season

Hey, the two new teams coming into the A-League for the A-League 2009-10 season are North Queensland Fury and Gold Coast United, and Squilibob and I have been working on templates for that season. Template:A-League 2009-10 Position Ladder will be the ladder, and the two new teams require a colour to use for highlighting their rows if needed. These are located at Template:ALeague GCU colour and Template:ALeague NQF colour. What I'm discussing here is if the colour I have set for the Fury is possibly too dark, and the text can't be seen clearly through it. To see for yourself, edit Template:A-League_2009-10_Position_Ladder/doc and preview with passed parameter 'yes' for NQF (explained in more detail under the 'Displaying' heading).

The GCU colour is set as the same for Sydney FC, should it be different? See here. Thanks, timsdad ^(talk) 08:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

NSL medallists - various creations

In the Johnny Warren Medal and Joe Marston Medal articles there were three players without pages. These were, Kresimir Marusic, Brad Maloney and Alan Hunter (footballer). As you can porbably tell, these are now done, but are just stubs. There's probably a stack of information and links to be made, and categories to add, I might get around to them, but as per usual, it's nicer when someone beats you to it. Alan Hunter probably has the most incorrect links to sort out. --Blackmissionary (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Article structure

The structure for articles on the A-League clubs was proposed by Chuq and discussed before (now archived). The structure generally held that each club would have one main article covering A-League, W-League, Youth League, and anything else related in that 'brand'. Separate articles on the seven aligned W-League clubs have now appeared (eg NUJ, MV), which currently duplicates info from the main article.

While the structure had been generally followed until now, a consensus was not really reached at the time. Any views for/against the structure, please share them. A fair bit of work has been done by one user in particular, so I wouldn't want to revert it all if it was only my view. - 16keeper (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Amusingly enough I came to comment on the exact same thing, only a few hours after you posted this. I suggested at Talk:W-League (Australia) that I would 'clean up' a bit after the finals for all leagues (W-League, NYL, A-League) were over. That should give the interested people enough time to comment. -- Chuq (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The W-League club pages look a bit odd. It looks as if each women's team is a league of their own.Hack (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just planning ahead, I think we should look at Central Coast Mariners FC (which is a featured article, or at least it was once, due to a lot of work by User:Daniel) and model the other articles on that. Women's team content should go in the 'Squad' section, obviously, but what about sections like Records, Achievements, etc? -- Chuq (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, CCMFC has gone downhill badly. I probably need to clean it up.

I'll look at devising a base formula (with sections, etc.) which we can discuss and tweak for use on all clubs' articles. Daniel (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Daniel/Sandbox/2 is what I've come up with to date. Feel free to tweak. I agree that W-League Teams and Youth Teams don't need their own articles, and as such ive incorporated them into my new structure. Daniel (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have a preference for keeping separate W-League team articles. This is how it is done with the English Women's Premier League. Also, as I understand it, the Central Coast Mariners W-League team isn't actually run by the Central Coast Mariners, it just shares the branding and is run separately by Football NSW - so I'm not sure it is entirely appropriate that they would be part of the Mariners article? Of course having separate articles comes with its own problems, but that has been covered by others. Camw (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if the individual W-League teams are kept, they still need a summary in the main article - after all, CCMFC is about the club (incl. first team, youth, women, stadium, fans, etc.), not just the first team. All that would change is that it'd get a {{main|WOMENSTEAM}} at the top of the section.

With regards to not being owned by the same mob, I'd suggest that having it in the club's article would still be fine - they play under the same name, crest, colours, etc.

So, regardless of whether we have individual articles on W-League teams, I'm of the opinion they still need a section in the club articles, with a three-paragraph history subsection and a current squad section. Daniel (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, sorry if I misunderstood the intent. Camw (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs. Daniel (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Article structure - results

Creating a new section since it is related but separate to the above issue. Each of the season articles eg A-League 2008-09 currently has a full rundown of each match include teams, venue, goals, cards, ref, crowd, etc. I notice that Premier League 2008-09, La Liga 2008-09, and so on, don't have this - just a grid with the results. If EPL match results aren't deemed notable, would A-League match results be? Should we do the same thing? The fact teams play each other 3 times instead of two could be solved in the same way that Scottish Premier League 2008-09 does it. -- Chuq (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I wonder if the EPL is structured as it is because they would be listing 390 games per season compared to our 84. Might it be practicality rather than notability? Edit: Thinking about it more, I guess I would have a preference for standardization with other league page formats. Camw (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have spotted some odd editing on the Perth Glory youth squad section, but cannoy verify whether the new players added have actually joined them, as the club official website does not have a lot of details. Can any experts check this out, and also see if other squads are right?Frankie goh (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Neill/Grosso 2006 FIFA controversy

Full disclosure: I agree w/ Cantalejo's ruling on the field in the Round of 16 game. That being said, I've edited the Lucas Neill article using NPOV language, after a number of video reviews. Socceroo partisans keep doing POV reverts. I was advised to mention this in this forum. If the pattern continues, the Editors will be notified. If anyone here has any other ideas, they're welcome. Tapered (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Western Suburbs SC (NSW)

Thanks to MelbCro who created this page last month, we now have pages for every single NSL team. The three main goals therefore from this point on should be to beef up these pages where possible, with appropriate citations, start standardising perhaps some of the layout/presentation, as well as remove any and all POV material which may be present. Thanks to all those who've assisted in creating and editing articles in this section of our project. I'm quite proud of the progress made over the last few years, since I first laid eyes on what was the almost utter desolation of NSL related articles. Blackmissionary (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne clubs

Could someone who is more familiar with this topic try to make sense of the varying interlinked clubs -

Whittlesea Zebras FC Box Hill Inter Bulleen Royals Brunswick Juventus and others

I am trying to work out in what years the various entities existed in their own rights and as merged clubs.

User:Hack (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Try this link. Blackmissionary (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles tagged by their banner enter a workflow such as Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, and Peer review (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found at here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features.

The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts".

This is an automated message sent out by Addbot to all wikiprojects per request ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Religious affiliation

A couple of ip editors have been adding Category:Australian Muslims to Turkish-Australian footballers including Ufuk Talay, Selin Kuralay and Tolgay Özbey. No reference to them being Muslim is included in these articles let alone a reference. Could people keep an eye out for this... The Hack 01:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability

At what point does an Australian footballer become notable from a footballing point of view? Is it enough to have played NSL/A-League. The Hack 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Playing an A-League game does confer notability as the league is fully professional. The guidelines for athletes says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" so the A-League qualifies. Was the NSL professional or semi-professional? I think it was semi-pro, so if true players would need to either have played at senior or olympic international level, played in a different professional league or to meet the more stringent notability criteria of having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Camw (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There were pro players and semi-pro players in the NSL, and there were eras where clubs went professional, which complicates this issue greatly. At the very least, award winners, leading goalsscorers and such from the NSL should be included, since even the most obscure A-League player gets a mention. Blackmissionary (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If the broad notability guidelines can be satisfied (and award winners, leading goalscorers etc should be okay as long as the reliable sources can be found) then an article is definitely appropriate. I've been meaning to try to start articles on the large number of NSL players that played for the Socceroos and don't have articles yet, but have been busy with other tasks. Camw (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So a player like Mitchell Johnson (soccer) (assuming he hasn't yet played in the ACL) isn't notable? The Hack 12:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Without looking further for sources and if Newcastle United weren't fully professional during the time he played for them he would be borderline and I'd be leaning toward him not being notable. If more articles like this are around then that would make a strong case for inclusion under the significant coverage criteria. The other sources in the article only contain brief coverage of him. Camw (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your previous comments and looking at the notability guidelines he would have to have played in a fully pro league, which the NSL was at no point. When I created the article I was only able to find three articles where he was the primary focus. I figured that having played NSL, being the highest level in this country, would have sufficed.The Hack 05:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User 60.224.0.121 and football (soccer) edits

Over the past week this user has modified a large number of club and player pages to have the lead line change from either "Australian football player" or "Australian association football player" to "Australian football (soccer) player"

I have no real strong opinion on the name of the sport, but I think having "football (soccer)" looks untidy in the lead sentence and goes against consistency with the rest of the project. "football player" is consistent with the rest of the articles, and the link to the association football article disambiguates the term.

The user claims consensus for all pages based on a three year old conversation by 3 people on the name/title of the Socceroos article so I think having some additional discussion here would be good.

You can see the list of edits by the user here. Camw (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• It has been agreed on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Football_is_more_than_one_game.2Fcode. Why do you insist on trying to change something that was already agreed on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Because that discussion is 3 years old and had input from 3 people. Furthermore the linked page is not discussing the opening sentence on player pages, it is specific to the national team. I insist on discussing the change because it is right to do so. Can you expand on why you think this change should be made? Camw (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Once something has been discussed does not mean it can never be discussed again, it's not like it was a month or even a year ago that it was "agreed on". Consensus can change. You are changing articles and refusing to discuss further which seems pretty disruptive to me. It would be a show of good faith if you would stop making the changes until we have talked about it more? Camw (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this suffice? - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• That depends if we can agree on what it should be called. The head body of the sport in Australia and the head state bodies have football as the main part of their name, the AOC and the AIS for a start call the sport football. 60.224.0.121 doesn't seem willing to discuss which is going to make this difficult. Camw (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• What do people think about "association football player" as a compromise? Association football is the name of the main article on the sport. I'm more concerned about consistency than the actual name and if this editing pattern continues we'll have 45% of the players with "football" and 45% with "football (soccer)" and the others with something else again Camw (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that was tried a few years ago, but it was not agreed on. See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Page_move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more official surveys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Requested_move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.0.121 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• That section is for a proposed title change for the national team article, it doesn't cover descriptions of players or teams within the article, nor can I see that it mentions association football at all. Camw (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So it was tried a couple of years ago, that isn't a good reason not to have another discussion. Camw (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For pete's sake, I said you can discuss it all you want. But try looking at the reasons it was not passed the first time60.224.0.121 (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that if we call australian football players, "australian football players". That we will have to go through every AFL player and change it to australian rules football players. I dont see it like that at all. I dont intend to edit one AFL page. Portillo (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still being incredibly outlandish by following the manual of style. UK-centric articles are being reverted to "footballer"/"football player". I'd like to (not true, really) bend the rules for one user, but, like I said, that's not true. - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.

The decision to use "football (soccer)" was done years ago - when the main article for the sport was football (soccer). It was moved to association football some time ago (maybe 18-24 months?). I wasn't aware the change was under discussion until it happened (neither were other prominent Aus football editors, since they would have posted on WikiProject talk pages, noticeboards, and the like) and as such none of us had any say in it.

I can't speak for the others, but IMO we had just gotten most of the articles into a stable state and I wasn't keen on stirring things up by mass editing them all again. I have generally used "association football" when creating or cleaning up articles - since that is (a) non ambiguous (b) consistent with the name of the main article (c) doesn't call it "soccer" and (d) doesn't call it "football". Football (soccer) is not perfect but acceptable, but should be changed when updating articles. I'm baffled as to how someone would think that Association football (soccer) is a good idea - it is long winded, contains unnecessary disambiguation, repetitive, and looks ugly. It is not a compromise - "Association football" itself is the compromise.

User:60.224.0.121, if you think this is wrong, going and mass editing a heap of articles is NOT the way to do it. Discuss it first. If I sound cynical about your intentions, well, I have had several years of IP's showing up, claiming they know all the naming conventions, making a mess, causing arguments and then leaving. Repeat ad nauseum with another IP. -- Chuq (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Chuq, I think that you are right that "association football" is a good compromise as it is the name of the main article on the sport and it disambiguates the subject sufficiently from other football codes. Camw (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to people calling the game "football" in everyday speech, because that is the name many Australian soccer fans (but not necessarily a majority) are used to calling it, IMO banning the word soccer from articles that relate primarily to Australian is simple/narrow minded and ideological (in the sense that it has nothing to with society as it actually exists). I don't see why speakers of Australian English, whether they are from Manly, Geelong, Darwin or Kalgoorlie, when they use Wikipedia, should be baffled by the name "Association football".

BTW, this is a classic tail wagging the dog issue, in that it results from a campaign by a handful of soccer officials and sports bureaucrats, who are either unaware of the normal usages of Australian English – or don't care. When the word "soccer" is no longer used by most of the population of Australia, then it should be dropped from the name of Australian soccer articles. Grant | Talk 13:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

From Saturday's Herald Sun:

KS: Andrew, how do we stop Frank Lowy and Ben Buckley from calling soccer “football”, [when] they still manage to call the national team the Socceroos?

AD: There were 87,000 people at the MCG on Thursday and a few million watching on television who know what footy is.

Not to mention tens of thousands at Subiaco Oval, Perth or Football Park in Adelaide.

Then there is the second most popular kind of football in Australia, rugby league, played at Sydney Football Stadium, and Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane. Grant | Talk 03:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Those quotes are fine I guess, but I don't really see the relevance to articles about football/soccer as we aren't talking about AFL or Rugby League or any claim to a name. As linked above, the sport is now called football by the governing sports bodies and the AIS and AOC for example as well as some media (SMH is my local example but I'm sure there are others). How exactly do you judge when a term is "no longer used by most of the population of Australia", surely it will be difficult/impossible in a non anecdotal way. Anyway, if football (soccer) is determined to be the best term then I have no problem with that, as long as there is some agreement that it will be consistent across all relevant articles and if we can work out what articles would come under the scope of the term (as an example, Tim Cahill, an article on an Australian player in a foreign league or Charlie Miller a Scottish player who has spent most of his career overseas and played one season so far here) - if we have some guidelines that people can agree on then hopefully editing wars can be avoided. Camw (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose if they are forein players playing the the A-League association football term is ok, but if they are Australian players (regardless where they are playing)they should be refferred to as either football (soccer) players or association football (soccer) players 60.224.4.25 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

All the federations have changed there names to football.

"FFA is a federation of whom the state federations are constituent members. These include a governing body for each state (Football Federation Victoria, Capital Football (Australian Capital Territory), Football Federation Northern Territory, Football Queensland, Football Federation of South Australia, Football West (Western Australia) and Football Federation Tasmania), except New South Wales which has two: Football NSW in the central and southern parts of the state, and Northern New South Wales Football in northern New South Wales. Football NSW is by far the largest football association in Australia." Portillo (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is all very well, Portillo, but it has nothing to do with what the majority of Australians call the game, i.e. "soccer".

Camw asks, "How exactly do you judge when a term is 'no longer used by most of the population of Australia', surely it will be difficult/impossible in a non anecdotal way."

The two major authorities on Australian English are the Macquarie Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of Australian English. The ODAE is irrelevant as it dodges the issue of "football", saying something along the lines of the word referring to several different games. The Macquarie says that "football" refers primarily to Australian rules and rugby league, but this may change as a result of the FFA's policy. As in, it hasn't yet. Grant | Talk 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an Australian-only site. It is an international site. If someone doesn't know what association football means, and can't guess, and the references to A-League/Socceroos/clubs in Europe/whatever don't give it away - they can always click on the name and be taken to the article on Association football and find out in an instant! The "most people don't call it football" argument has be used before and refuted, this search shows that I have done this at least three times before, one of them on your own talk page. I'm sick of wasting time by repeating myself. -- Chuq (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So what was the outcome when you reported it to the Wikipedia admins? Portillo (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no interest/response I believe. I let it go because the IP at least started talking about it. Why the IP wants to spend so much time pushing articles sideways that are of no interest to them I don't know. Camw (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So whats the consensus? Portillo (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The user is still making the changes - Special:Contributions/60.224.2.159. I can't see a clear consensus above, maybe someone else can. If that doesn't work then if someone can bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment then that might have to be the way forward, I just don't have time to do it at the moment. It's aggravating that this editor wastes so much time that could be spent improving areas that they are actually have some interest in. Camw (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time you have done this Camw. You claimed I am making changes, but also fail to mention that I am simply reverting edits by User:timsdad. Why was he not mentioned when he changed them back to what you think they should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You drop out of the conversation when you don't get your specific way, and just go back to doing what you were doing. You haven't contributed to this conversation other than to try to WP:Canvass some known supporters of your viewpoint to discuss it for you. You can see above that not a single person has suggested "association football (soccer)" as a compromise (not even you) and yet you continue to put it into articles over and over. Association football (soccer) is an even worse idea than football (soccer) in terms of clarity, I have to start to wonder if you are just doing this because you know it will annoy other people? If not, tell me the specific reason that what you are doing is of any benefit to the encyclopedia/project? Camw (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed your canvassing at the Wiki Project for Rugby League, what do they have to do with this subject? If I were making trivial and disruptive edits on a large number of articles on Rugby League (and I happened to save a couple of their articles that were up for deletion just the other day, so don't assume I have anything against them or the sport) that their project did not agree with, I would not come running here because this Project isn't related to the problem/discussion at hand. Why not try your hand at improving some articles, it would probably be a better feeling than to be involved in edit warring that accomplishes nothing. Camw (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If it came down to a choice between association football (soccer) and football (soccer) I would go for the latter as it concisely covers the two most common names for the sport. Very few people when they see football (soccer) are still going to be wondering which sport is being referred to. In any case hasn't this already reached some sort of consensus? The Hack 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you outline what you think the consensus is leaning toward as I don't see anything clear above. If we manage to select something we should plan to change all articles under our scope (the suggestion above is to have foreign players in the A-League not changed, but Australian players and articles changed, are people satisfied with this proposal?). Camw (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll just say this has been a war on many fronts.[4] As long as association football (soccer) isn't the result I'll be reasonably happy.The Hack 02:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the compromise is football (soccer). Football doesnt deserve to be the only sport in australia called football ...lol... Portillo (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the anon's dropped out of the discussion again and continued to change it to "association football (soccer)". --timsdad ^(talk) 08:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"association football (soccer)" is the least desirable out of any options in my opinion. It is redundant and clumsy. Nobody has suggested it as a good idea as far as I can see and it really seems to be bordering on bad faith to keep pushing this option. If the editor responsible would actually get involved in the discussion I hope that they would see that. There is absolutely no consensus to use "association football (soccer)". Camw (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You can call it canvassing, but you started this in a soccer discussion. I was making sure all people made got their say not just soccer fans. I agree to compromise with portillo, football (soccer) is much better than association football (soccer). I'm happy with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.2.159 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It is canvassing, and I started the discussion in the area that actually works on improving the articles in question. Nobody has come across to enter the discussion from your canvassing, maybe they are too busy actually working constructively on improving articles in their area of interest. Camw (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No its not. Not one non-soccer fan would ever have come in here if not for my asking ie: Grant. You would have only have had soccer fans in here, and your idea on the subject would have won hands down. From what I have read, football (soccer) is acceptable to me, Portillio and the hack. So that seems fair to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

At least you are somewhat discussing it now, although you seem only willing to read comments that agree with what you want. If I wanted to change the lead line of AFL articles to X is an Australian Rules Football (AFL) player, you could be sure that the people actually interested in discussing the changes would be the AFL project and they would be the best people to decide on a change. Anyway, it looks like that might be as close as we'll get to something people might agree on, instead of changing 5-6 articles at a time, how about helping to compile a list of where it isn't consistent so that it can be done cleanly and in one automated hit? Or would that somehow not suit you and you'd prefer to keep getting blocked for edit warring? Camw (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with using "association football"? The use of descriptive brackets in the first sentence of pretty much all Aus association football articles is unsightly to say the least. Why would association football be confusing? Is there real world Australian consensus on calling this type of footy by the name of soccer? Either way, "association football" represents a decent compromise. Why is "association football" being dismissed as an option? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion about this option above but it didn't really gain momentum. If you want to push for that then I think it is the best option as well. Camw (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of people call the sport either football or soccer. To introduce a third choice identifier confuses the matter even further.The Hack 05:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy with either "football", "association football" and as a last choice "football (soccer)". For foreigners "football". Portillo (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hack:- The problem is that football is considered ambiguous in the Australian variant of English. Personally I wouldn't have a problem calling both Aussie rules and soccer players as "footballers" because I think readers are intelligent enough to notice the difference. However, in lieu of a need for 'specifiers' "association football" is very simplistic and is as easily understood as the equally well established "aussie rules football" and "rugby football". I am not an Australian native so I cannot comment on what is or isn't in use: So my options would be

• (1) if "soccer" is in widespread and current usage, use that
• (2) if not, use the unambiguous "association football".

Beyond that, I really don't see a need for "football (soccer)" as this is hedging our bets (using both terms) in the most ugly of ways. Maybe this is extremely pedantic but you all know that 'soccer' is derived from 'association', right? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This was the reason I brought this discussion up in the first place, I thought that football (soccer) is a clumsy way to introduce the subject. As a guess, soccer is the widely used term among people who don't follow the sport. The links posted above though show a move away from Soccer to Football by the people running the sport (Football Federation Australia, Football NSW, Football Federation Victoria etc) and the other major sporting authorities (Australian Institute of Sport, Australian Olympic Committee). I tried to use the "association football" being the origin of the term soccer argument with the IP early on but was promptly ignored. Camw (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that "Association football"is virtually unknown, whereas "soccer" is well-known and unambiguous. Moreover, no-one objected to the word soccer until about 10 years ago. It was the name used by every single soccer club and federation in Australia. FWIW I think this will actually harm soccer in the long run, because Australians hate pretension, arrogance and being told how to behave (or talk). And they are used to the word soccer. As in Socceroos. Grant | Talk 17:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So do you think "soccer" is the best idea? It's also the choice that creates the least headaches as it's unambiguous and widely understood, even though some Anglo-centric editors may wrongly dismiss it as an "Americanism". Can we get input from another Australian editor about this? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course soccer was used 10 years ago, why would that mean that we have to use soccer here? When the A-League was launched, soccer became football. Portillo (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that the official bodies have been renamed to "football" too. If soccer is a disputed/outdated term then that leaves us with option (2) Association football. Any takers for association football? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My order of preference would be: "association football" then "football (soccer)" - other options I'd be fairly strongly against. Association football is the title of the page describing the game itself on Wikipedia, that was the compromise that people thought would be appropriate in that case and it seems to be working reasonably well. If I find a term that I'm not familiar with on a wikipedia page then I'll click through to the article linked to and from then on I'll know what that term means if I see it again, I'm sure others can do the same if they haven't encountered "association football" previously and can't deduce it from the context of the page itself? Camw (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've played and supported the round ball game since I was a kid and have never encountered anyone seriously calling the game association football - it's either been football or soccer.The Hack 06:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Football" won't be acceptable to those outside this project I'm certain. "Soccer" is likely to generate more edit wars than it solves. Would "football (soccer)" be your preference then? Camw (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcastic smart alec comments mean nothing to me camw60.224.2.159 (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

60.224.2.159:- What comment is "smart alec" here? No offence, but this statement is neither pertinent nor intelligible to the discussion. I recommend that you state your point of view, and your reasons for arrival at this view, or you will simply be interpreted as irrelevant white noise.

The Hack:- I would never suggest that people would say that they had gone to a "association football match", but that is not the point. I'm suggesting using "association football" on its first instance only and "football/footballer" thereafter as a disambiguation compromise. Wikipedia is read by all, some of who will not concur with you regarding with what "football" is (there are numerous codes). Is saying "association football" in the first instance really that disagreeable? (e.g. more so than "soccer" or "football (soccer)"). This discussion hasn't been whipped out of thin air, but rather by the fact that a significant proportion of Australians refer to a different sport in terms of what "football" signifies. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Or would that somehow not suit you and you'd prefer to keep getting blocked for edit warring?" 60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You've shown no willingness to contribute positively to the discussion so you really should not be surprised if people start to get annoyed with you and assume you are here to incite arguments rather than improve anything. It's always the same, you only hear what you want to hear and ignore everything else. So tell me, are you willing to contribute to the discussion in any kind of effort to actually reach a satisfactory conclusion or not? Camw (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

and again, you've gone and continued to make changes to articles that are clearly disputed, saying refer to this discussion. I wasn't being sarcastic when I infered that if you continue then you are likely to face an extended block. Camw (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

60.224.2.159, would you please just stop continuing to go around mass editing before we reach a consensus? I'm not going to revert more of your edits, but you must join this discussion or you will be blocked again, and again, until you're banned. --timsdad ^(talk) 03:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) seems fair to me. It seems unneccesary to add association as long as it is football (soccer). As long as it is stated that it is football (soccer) in the title or either the first line, then it can therefore be referred to soley as football in the rest of the article. I would prefer football (soccer) to association football, so most soccer fans call it soccer or sometimes football. No-one really calls it association football or association football (soccer). I think an exception can be for the national team, where it doesn't need the (soccer) tag. But it should not be football on its own as a lot of Australians call rugby league football and sometimes call it our national football team (wheither they're right or wrong). So call it our national association football team would be best. I say football (soccer) is better as it call the sport football (which is what the soccer fans want) but lets it know what kind of football it is (to avoid confusion). Association football and association football (soccer) are just not used in speech by fans or media. The soccer is in brackets and I think that is better than writing soccer. It lets people know what it it the majourity of people in Australia that call it soccer.Sliat 1981 (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well let's just get it straight first. None of us, even 60.224.2.159, wants it as association football (soccer), that would be just plain silly. Although I firmly believe that if association football is written anywhere and people don't know what it is they should just click on the link, it would be much better in Australian articles to change everything to football (soccer) and, as Sliat said, just use football throughout the rest of the article.

The issue is not whether people are getting confused between association football, Australian rules football or rugby, it is whether we should use association football or football (soccer) in articles. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Our main article on the sport in Australia is titled Association football in Australia - this has been the page location for over a year now and seems like it has been working fine. I think it would be okay to describe the sport as such in articles on players. (A quick note, the same goes for Association football in Victoria, although I notice the NSW article was never changed, we should bring these into line at some point, whatever the consensus ends up as).Camw (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, a point from the FAQ on Talk:Association football;

Q: What about "Football (soccer)"?

A: On Wikipedia, the placing of a word in parentheses in the title of an article is used as a method of disambiguation, with the parenthesised word usually being a set that the article's subject is a part of. Therefore, the title "Football (soccer)" implies that football is a form of soccer, which is not the case.

There are also 42 sections of circular debates, heated arguments and a little bit of reason linked to on the talk page about the naming of the article, with the end result being Association football being the best compromise. We aren't quite there yet, hopefully we can sort it out before it gets to that ;) Camw (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) is much better. No other sport is allowed to have the football (aussie rules, rugby league) etc. It is letting the soccer have the football tag albeit with a little tag to know which football it is. I think that's fair. Would you prefer Soccer (football) then? Association football is ok for countries like UK etc, but it is more coomonly refeered to as soccer in Australia. By putting football, you give it the name that the soccer federation wants it to have, but also give it the name that most aussies call it 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the only clear options are "association football" or "football (soccer)" (as happened at the talk page discussion linked above). I see the arguments for both sides, including: in terms of what exactly the parentheses would mean, and the need to express the mixed usage. I'm still leaning towards "association", for clarity and consistency, but I don't think that having "football (soccer)" would be a disaster; I'm feeling quite neutral about it. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the people who are actually interested in editing soccer/football articles and improving them have leaned toward a first preference of "association football" in this discussion. Those are Sillyfolkboy, Chuq, Portillo and myself. The Hack has said anything except "association football (soccer)" and would prefer not to use "association football". The comments and opinions from others are fine and they add to the discussion, but in the long term they are unlikely to be involved in the maintenance and improvement of articles under this projects scope. If I were to go and involve the wider WikiProject Football in this discussion I'm pretty sure we would see a preference for "association football" (after all, that was the final consensus against football (soccer) on the wider scale of the main article on the sport) as well. I'd prefer that we can come to a decision here rather than involving them as we should be able to sort out our own local project issues. Camw (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I think I've come to my own conclusion that I'd prefer association football, as this was the general consensus in most discussions on this topic. As Australia is making its way towards calling it football everywhere, I think Wikipedia should support that, for Australian articles anyway. --timsdad ^(talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

i.ttf come to my conclusion that football ?robberK. I think that football soccer in brackets is the better option. Football federation australia does not own the sport and has no real authority to saw what we can or can't call it. Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.199.69 00:57, 14 April 2009

How about the governing body FIFA then? "Fédération Internationale de Football Association (French for International Federation of Association Football)" per FIFA. Camw (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start planning the list of articles under our project scope to change to "association football", I believe a consensus has formed regarding the preferred term in terms of consistency and being something that most people involved with the project are happy with. Not everyone can or will be satisfied with the outcome but I ask that rather than disruptive the running of the project and encyclopedia by reverting edits to articles or making changes to further articles against this consensus, you either let the project run its area of interest, or raise the issue at the appropriate dispute resolution venues. Further comments are welcome of course, but the direction the project wants to take these articles has been made clear. Camw (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to this so called 'consensus', when we started this particular project we chose football (soccer) for its title and there didn't seem to be too much angst about it. Later on we had a guy called User:Krabby me changing articles to 'association football' to suit his pro-aussie rules or anti-soccer agenda. At the time, the argument used by the majority of people within this project was that football (soccer) was the best compromise because it indicated to Australian readers that an artcile was about soccer, but to international readers, the majority for whom soccer is football, what we meant. In terms of daily use, as a fan both aussie rules and soccer, I use the terms interchangebly, and depending on audience. I don't even know what some of you people are arguing for anymore. Is this is an issue of clarity, or an issue of ideology. Too often when this issue comes up it's about cultural wars and not about what is in the best interests of clarity etc, and it's only disguised as the latter. You can do what you like because I'm fed up with this stuff. Blackmissionary (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles are all over the place in regards to the term being used, there is no consistency, edit wars were occurring across a set of high profile articles and a decision and direction needed to be discussed. I was willing to be convinced either way and the discussion so far has led me and others to where we are now. Reading the discussion above (and the one on Talk:Association football), it's long and winding but I personally see very little compelling argument for the clumsy football (soccer) option. Camw (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To me, these are the options and issues -

1. Football - Ambiguous in Australia - four professional sports in Australia use this term either as part of an official name or as a short form identifier. Current administration prefers this term.

2. Soccer - Contraction of Association in Association Football. Historically most commmon identifier for the sport in Australia officially and colloquially.

3. Association Football/Association Football (soccer)- semi-official name for the sport, referenced in names of key bodies such as FIFA and IFAB. Rarely used in Australia to refer to round ball game.

4. Football (soccer) - encapsulates the most common international and local names for the sport. The vast majority of readers will know exactly to which sport is being referred.The Hack 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it be preferable at all to prose-ify option 4? (i.e. "Little Johnny (14 April 1999) is a football, or soccer, player who plays for Dingos FC...") In my opinion the first two options have too many issues while the 3rd and 4th also have minor issues. Is there a third (or fifth) way? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The concensious has not been set yet. Grant, me, sliat_1981 and the other annon have not agreed yet. I personally think they DO have compelling arguements for the football (soccer) tag (as does Blackmissionary and the hack). You said you'd be willing to convinced either way, but you've dismissed their views because you don't "personally" see their arguements. Doesn't seem like you want to compromise with anything that is not "association football"60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "other anon" is clearly you. It's the same IP range and ISP that you used to make the exact same edits to the exact same articles that this IP range was making edits to. You accusing others about not making any effort to compromise is interesting. We clearly aren't all going to agree, you can take it to dispute resolution if you don't like it. Camw (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What's this about Australia is making its way to calling it everywhere? Most news shows or tv guides still call it soccer (eg Herald Sun tv guide still calls Aussie rules football and soccer soccer). The FFA has asked them to call it football, but they have not and have showed no indications of changing. Most sport programs call is soccer. Just because one organisation calls it football, doesn't mean it changes our language and what we can or can't call it. They don't decide what we say or what we do. FIFA is different as it controls the sport worldwide. And other countries Canada and US still call it soccer even though they compete in it. A few have changed to calling it football but most have not. FFA doesn't make the final decision on what we call it. What gives them the right to re-name words in the Australian dictionary? What gives them the final say? That is like saying the ARL controlled rugby league. Super league was created and challenged that. There's always a slight chance it would happen in soccer. It proves that FFA does NOT own the sport OR the naming rights to what Australians can or can't call it. 60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Err the other annon was actually a friend of mine who I asked to help. If it was me, then why wouldn't she have edited them back while I was blocked? Offer proof or stop accusations.60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And YOU can take it to the dispute resolution because a concensious has NOT being reached. You don't just decide to end it and say "the discussion is over because I disclaim all of your arguements. 60.224.2.159 (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

People in the UK don't like the word "soccer" because there is an aversion to slang in British English and/or it is (incorrectly) regarded as "American". The same things are not true in in Australia, because Australian English is less formal than UK English and many words that originated as slang have become acceptable in Australia. In other words: soccer is not slang here. It has been the common name of the game for around 100 years. It was also the name used by soccer clubs and federations here until an IMO misguided campaign by Johnny-come-latelys: FFA, sports bureaucrats and a few journalists.

Given the long history of instability and fractiousness within soccer administration in Australia, FFA may well disintegrate once Frank Lowy decides he can no longer support it. The "it isn't soccer" campaign will go the same way. In the meantime, "football (soccer)" is a reasonable compromise. Grant | Talk 04:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave it for now. Can you propose how the problem will be solved. Also, you were already told a number of times that canvassing for support is frowned upon and you are continuing to do it. If you are simply trying to get people involved in the discussion then in fairness you should be letting people know about the discussion that don't necessarily agree with your point of view as well as people who do, it would be a show of good faith to do so. Camw (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless as it goes, it will not end on something we will agree on. I wanted just soccer and I lost. Only thing we all don't want is association football (soccer). And also if you look at my contributions I did invite people who reverted the articles to association football, but they did not respond60.224.2.159 (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not reaching any result would be the worst result. As it stands there is no consistency across the articles looked after by the project. There must be consistency and there must be some result to the discussion, I and the others here have spent too much time talking about this for there to be no end result. Camw (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't just call it Soccer. It's not a derogatory term and it is obvious what sport we are talking about. 'Association Football' is a meaningless name for most Australians and 'Association Football (soccer)' is just ugly and is messing up some templates. Bongomanrae (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Partly because we are not writing only for an Australian or US audience. Blackmissionary (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially in the case of articles/subjects like Tim Cahill, Lucas Neill or foreign players that play in the A-League (but I think we have agreement that we won't try to contest the wording on those), that come under the project scope there would be extremely strong push back in the case of soccer or football (soccer). Camw (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "association football (soccer)" was ever an option. The "Association" part was the disambiguator, so why have "(soccer)" too? I think "association football" has been rejected as it doesn't reflect common usage. In which case, we are left with "football (soccer)" and plain "soccer". Given that we are actually having this discussion it appears that "soccer", although the simplest solution, is not accepted by a number of people. Are we sticking to "football (soccer)" for now then? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Its football but not as you know it. Portillo (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

not really portillo. I would prefer soccer on its own, but I acknowledge that it's not gonna happen. This seem to be leaning more towards football (soccer) than anything else. That's got my vote. It encoporates with FFA want to call it and what most Australians call it. As for forein players in the A-League, you can call them association football or footballers, but Tim Cahil is Australian so he must have the football (soccer) term. True Blackmissionary, we are not catering to just us an US, but by that rational, should we make English articles call them association football, instead of just football? 60.224.2.159 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree with making players such as Tim Cahill have the "football (soccer)" term. I have a strong inkling that the majority of readers of that article are English readers, purely on the basis of the fact that he is in the English news frequently, is a club player at one of the biggest clubs of the biggest sport in England, and the British population outnumbers that of Australia by three to one. Thus, just "football" would suffice given the readership (not that any Aussies would be stupid enough to think he's an Aussie rules player anyway...). Similarly, I would argue that Robbie Fowler maintain the plain "football" term, given the inherent readership/historical connections. Still, I'm in favour of setting all players with strong A-League connections with "football (soccer)". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) for A-League based players then. Portillo (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sillyfolkboy, I understand what you're saying, but you can't have it both ways. If Robbie Fowler has the Football alone tag, then Tim Cahill can't. Fowler is based in the A-League competition. Sure he is English, that's why I agreed not to edit him. But you can't turn around and say that Tim Cahill gets the football alone tag too. He's Australian. The only reason I did not re-edit the Fowler asrticle because as an Englishman he has the right to the football tag. Tim Cahill may play in a forein league, but he is mainly known here as a socceroo. As an Australian he must have the football (soccer) tag. Tim Cahill article is for an AUSTRALIAN player so its an AUSTRALIAN article. Since the current debate on what to call soccer players is still being disputed (here) he can't have the football alone tag. You say that English readers outnumber us one to three. By that rational, the people who call it football other than soccer outnumber us by far more than that. So by your rational, the article Association football should be renamed simply FOOTBALL because that's what more than half the world calls it. 60.224.2.159 (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about "having it both ways" I say that we should make a judgement based upon the prospective readership of the articles on a case by case basis, just as WP:ENGVAR works. This is an extension of that idea. You can put football (soccer) on Tim Cahill if you want but I'm sure you'll have a steady flow of edits removing the word soccer. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why we're here. To decide what is right for Australian articles. Tim Cahil is Australian, not British. Regardless how many British people read his article it's an Australian one, not a British one. Their view on the word does not count for Australian articles. That would be like them going to American football articles and renaming them gridiron. 60.224.2.159 (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't at all. The majority of the readership for those articles is clearly American. Take your strawman arguments elsewhere, or (preferably) nowhere. As I said, I do not object to the Cahill article having that nomenclature, but readership may clash with the article style. I believe the decision is to have football (soccer) in the Aussie articles, no? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 21:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Right and Tim Cahill is an Aussie article. Noone besides you or me is even commentating anymore. Everyone (including the creator) has stopped. As far as I can see, most people here seemed prepared to accept the football (soccer) tag. I say its about time this was resolved, apart from Camw, everyone is agreed on the football (soccer) tag. So can we call this discussion resolved soon? 60.224.5.138 (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop saying (in so many posts above) that I'm not willing to compromise, I've used football (soccer) on all of the 60+ relevant articles I've created prior to and after this discussion. The result here is pretty clearly that there is no consensus for either term, arguing until everyone except a couple of people are too tired of going in circles does not mean everyone agrees. Camw (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop attcking me, its getting real tiresome. You just mentioned that the consencious is leaning towards football (soccer) "I believe the decision is to have football (soccer) in the Aussie articles, no?" Also Tim Cahill if the english wanted to re-edit it to football player, they'd obviously change and but the imperial measurement first as most britons use that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.5.138 (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say what you've attributed to me at all. Camw (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not gonna be association football. Not enough people want it. I say football (soccer) is the best outcome. 203.63.213.33 (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Visiting teams to Tasmania

I notice that the article Association football in Tasmania doesn't refer to matches played by UK professionals in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, or the international visits by teams such as the Chinese tour of 1923. Is it simply that people didn't know the matches took place, or is there some other reason which prevents them being mentioned e.g. not significant enough ? I have some basic details which could be added to the article if acceptable.

RossRSmith (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It's to do with Tassie, so you may never know! Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable reference for it probably be should put it in...The Hack 00:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!. Will sort out the citations for the half dozen or so that I have already and update article by end of the week.

RossRSmith (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

cfd

Referees cfd. Views welcome. Occuli (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Queensland Roar name change

With the Roar's recent name change to Brisbane Roar, what will become of the templates that currently exist using the letters QR?

These are some, I'm not sure if any others exist (apart from the ladder template codes to highlight a team's colour, etc...)

• Template:ALeague QR
• Template:ALeague QR colour
• Template:AUS fb A-League QR

--timsdad ^(talk) 07:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm creating a new template, Template:ALeague BR, so that it can be used for newer articles (i.e. the A-League 2009–10 article) whilst the old season articles keep the same name of Queensland Roar as they were called at the time. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also created Template:ALeague BR colour (Template:ALeague QR colour now redirects there) to allow for the Roar's row highlighting. --timsdad ^(talk) 07:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:AUS fb A-League QR now redirects to Template:AUS fb A-League BR, so unless anybody can add anything here that needs to be addressed...I guess it's all sorted then. Come to think of it, it was a bit silly of me to even start up this discussion in the first place. --timsdad ^(talk) 10:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Telfer

This person is listed as the coach of the 1956 Australian Olympic team.[5] I can find virtually no information on him so I'm wondering whether there had been some sort of mistake with the first name as there is a lot of information on Robert "Bob" Telfer (who is a member of the Australian Football Hall of Fame) at around the same time. The Hack 02:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Haven't been able to find any information on this sorry - might need a trip to the library to investigate further. Camw (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Wilson (English footballer)

For some reason Peter Wilson, captain of the 74 Socceroos, is Peter Wilson (English footballer). Peter Wilson (footballer) redirects to the AFL player of the same name. What would the most appropriate name for this article be? Surely he can't be English in the footballing sense...The Hack 15:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of his football career took place after he migrated to Australia so it should be Peter Wilson (Australian footballer). As long as there's a hatnote linking to Peter Wilson (Australian rules footballer), I don't see any problems. There's also a Peter Wilson (soccer) and Peter Wilson (Scottish footballer), so Peter Wilson (footballer) should perhaps be a disambiguation page as it could refer to either of the four people. Jevansen (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Football West State League clubs - AFD

FYI all of the WA Premier League and Division One teams have been listed for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Knights.The Hack 10:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility of information

Just had a look at List of Australia national football team results. Just wondering if hiding details in this instance is the most efficient way of displaying this information. For a casual reader it would seem like it is really only helpful if you know the specific year you are looking for.The Hack 04:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that it is less than ideal. Do pages for other national teams have a better format we could utilise? Camw (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Theodore

Hi WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia. Is this guy's first name "Matthew" (with 2 't's) or "Mathew" (with one 't')? Google turns up numerous (what appear to me to be reliable) references for both spellings. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

His Melbourne Victory profile [6] his Australia U-20 profile [7] and his former club [8] show his name with one t. I wouldn't think that's an accident.The Hack 14:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've changed it. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Melbourne Heart

The Melbourne Heart Football Club article was very recently created by Mattm859 (previously IP 130.56.87.136). I made it clear at Talk:A-League that we need a reliable source to prove that the Heart has indeed been officially incepted into the A-League before an article is created. I'm not sure if the new article fails WP:CRYSTAL, but there sure isn't anything that proves it's an A-League team yet. It also appears that most of the article has been copied from the only source I could find, from the Fox Sports website: [9], published back in October 2008. --timsdad ^(talk) 08:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

yes but they ARE licenced for the 2010-2011 season, its just not decided what the team name is, plus no harm done with creating this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattm859 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for the licensing for the 2010-11 season? And it is harm done if you can't source the article. It will have to be deleted. I'm going to nominate it for deletion so we can get some more opinions there. --timsdad ^(talk) 09:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

dude, why are you pushing this so much?

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25943080-2883,00.html

Iv'e got a few articles from fourfourtwo magazine that clearly state that it will be in next season. This is the main one. http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/109284,aleague-will-hit-the-bigtime.aspx It says "The FFA has already awarded the 11th spot to a second Melbourne franchise headed by businessman Peter Sidwell.The club, which has the current working title of Melbourne Heart , will kick off in season six and will play at Melbourne's new rectangular stadium at Olympic Park." Other articles that might help include http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/109836,heart-boss-new-victory-sponsor.aspx and http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/109196,victory-skipper-is-all-heart.aspx Chumchum14 (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cheers Chum. Mattinbgn has found a considerable amount of other articles which can be found at the AfD nomination (not that it's really up for AfD anymore, I'm not interested in deleting the article). You might want to check it out. --timsdad ^(talk) 11:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem Timsdad. I'll try to incoporate those fourfourtwo articles into the Melbourne Hearts article Chumchum14 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI - the person who created the article was not me. 130.56.87.136 (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)