Talk:Australia men's national soccer team/Archive 1

message: As far as I can tell, Early World Cup Qualifying Attempts seems to cover 1970 to 1986, and there's a mention of a decision in 1990 (but not about the qualifiers themselves), but then jumps to 1998. Andjam 04:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempts in 1990 and 1994? 

message: * Intro could use some expansion; as with many articles undergoing naming disputes it only includes info directly relevant to the dispute. Do we have a traditional style or strategy? Any players, current or historic, worth name-dropping?
* The article mentions arguments over whether our first World Cup qualifying match against North Korea should have been counted as valid... but not who won.
* Prose could use a general tightening-up (as ever). ～J.K. 04:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article implies that Australia lost. I agree with 1st point and 3rd point. It seems that the "History" part of the article has blown out of all proportion since I first added some body to it. I think separate articles should now deal with each qualifying campaign to lighten the text burden of this article. ViXx 15:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible improvements to the article (whatever we're calling it) 

message: I'm an uninvolved admin. I see that it's been proposed that Australian national football team be made a disam page that links to Socceroos, the national rugby league team and also Australian rules football. If you guys have a consensus on that, I'd be glad to create the disam page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: a disambig page is fine with me (although this Australian national team in Aussie Rules only exists for matches against one other team, and it's not even Aussie Rules that they play!), but I don't think this article should be called Socceroos. I don't think any other national football/soccer team articles are given by the team's nickname, that's why it's mentioned in the infobox on the right... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 10:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Australian rules does have a national team of sorts, see International rules football. There is also a separate All Australian team, although this is purely ceremonial.Grant65 | Talk 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't like the actual page called soccer, but if the disambig page is really needed i guess we have no choice. Can I just suggest the link to football goes to football (word) instead. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A possible disam page

message: Is there any room for formalising the name of the article? I think Socceroos is actually a nickname and therefore should NOT be the formal name of the article. I think it should revert to Australian National Football Team (perhaps with "Socceroos" in brackets) OR (begrudgingly) Australian National Soccer Team. I mean, if there was an article called "McDonald's Family Restaurants in Australia", we wouldn't call it "Maccas" would we? And "Manchester United" is not "The Red Devils". The tone of headings should be consistent with other articles. ViXx 12:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are precedents, I mean New Zealand national rugby union team redirects to All Blacks. The persent dispute started when I tried to move this article to Australia national soccer team. But one person insisted on moving it back. Personally I would be just as happy to have it there, but Socceroos seems to be more popular. Grant65 | Talk 13:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if its more popular. It seems those who won't accept soccer as the common term for the sport are even more bitterly opposed to using the common term for the team. I'd argue the rugby union equivalent should be at "Wallabies", just as New Zealand's team is at All Blacks. However, I think Australian soccer team or Australia soccer team (or whatever other variant) is a reasonable compromise. I'd prefer "national" be left out as a redundant word. We could hold a straw poll to (loosely) determine "consensus".--cj | talk 14:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't think a poll is feasible. Only those actively involved in this thread would find this page and contribute. Could "Australian National Football (Soccer) Team" be a compromise? I think "National" should be retained on the basis that there is potential for confusion. For instance, a "New Zealand" team exists in the A-League, but it is not their National team (and hardly has any New Zealanders in it). Also, there are subnational teams (e.g. state representative teams), and other non-national representative teams (the Australian Institute of Sport team, etc) which when competing overseas (e.g. the annual Singapore U-19 Cup) could end up "representing" Australia. By the way, if you look at the history, I tried adding a disambiguation bit to the intro of the article with Rugby Union/AFL/League some time ago, but it was promptly edited out. ViXx 15:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: While polls may be evil, I think it feasible. Not that I think there is anything wrong with editors of this thread being the only voters, there are means by which to attract a greater survey. If conducted, notices could be placed at the Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, the WikiProject Australian sports and even Wikipedia:Current surveys.--cj | talk 15:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Article Name is Woefully Informal

message: Errm, I hate to be difficult, but....wouldn't it be logical to have the disambig there, rather than a redirect and a separate disambig? I don't see the logic. Grant65 | Talk 10:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the back links.  Most people hitting that link will be looking for the soccer.  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the disambig to using the  template - the wording makes it clearer why the disambig link is there. Cursive 12:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that makes any more sense than this page being called Australia national football team. Grant65 | Talk 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But your argument was that the page should be called "soccer" as that is correct Australian English. The page is called soccer, so as to cater for Australians as per your request (although this POV was disputed somewhere further up the page). Most people (esp those outside Australia) will look for football (as evidenced by the backlinks), and the redirect ensures they end up at the "correct" page. The few who are looking for rugby or AFL should have no problems realising they are not at a page concerning rugby or AFL and can click the disambig link. Causing EVERYONE who searches for football to go through the disambig is just wasting their time when we know what the highest proportion is actually looking for. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Which to alot of people makes a lot of sense.  Anyway this debate is over and consensus has been reached. Cursive 12:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see the logic in having a dead end disambig page, when part of the point of disambigs is education. "Causing EVERYONE who searches for football to go through the disambig is just wasting their time..." Jeez, only if they are too lazy to click one more time. It has an educational effect for the "there is only one kind of football"-type people ;-) I'm only trying to be logical and consistent; that's why I started the Australian football disambig page many months ago. Perhaps that should simply redirect to Australian rules football (?) Grant65 | Talk 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, yes, but part of the point of wikilinks is not to surprise the reader too much. A lot of soccer-fan editors overseas are in the habit of creating country links in the format Country xxx without checking them. Having the redirect straight here ensures that readers go straight to where they were expecting to, and once they're here the disambig link is right at the top of this page to pique their curiosity about other codes. Oh, and I agree with you about the Australian football redirect; the disambig can be moved to football in Australia. ～J.K. 01:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But it doesn't?  It's a disambig.  Though it does say that "Australian football" means "Australian rules football" whereas to me an "Australian football" is a Sherrin.  Perhaps we should merge Australian football (disambiguation) and Australian national football team (disambiguation)?  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was responding to a suggested merger and I also disagree with your suggestion. I think the only good case for mergers is when the content of two pages is almost identical. In this case one disambig is about national teams and the other is about whole codes of football.Grant65 | Talk 10:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is an unusual case where the content is different, but the structure is so almost exactly the same that one disambig page could handle both jobs.  'we have four codes of football:  rugby union, which has a national team; rugby league, which has a national team; soccer, which has a national team; australian rules, which does not have a national team because the rest of the world are wusses.'  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The fate of the "Australia national football team" page 

message: Tancred, it's obvious that the others don't want the article moved. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I for one want the article moved.  But it's clearly unwise for anyone to do so just yet, until we can agree on where to move it.  Thank you for reprotecting the article, and for your continued involvement in this (probably rather dreary, to outsiders) debate. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find it dreary, fuddle, but on the other hand, I hope this ends soon. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion now is close to exceeding the length of the original article. It is obvious that resolution is unlikely to be achieved as the group has become polarised. This article lived under its former name for a very long time, and although there was some debate, it did not threaten the article itself nor result in multiple name changes. To me, it seems that the only way to have a solution is to have one imposed by someone external to this debate. At the end of the day, I hope that a good name is chosen out of respect for our national representative team. I will certainly be cheering the Socceroos/Australia National Football Team/Australia National Soccer Team from the stands in Berlin on July 9... ViXx 11:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh. That's typical. :) I'm involved in one dispute (Price-Anderson Act) where we're up to 600K on the talk page. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (yawns) That's nothing. One word: Gdańzig. ～J.K. 07:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  This is intended used for page protection, not move protection, but I offer it up anyway. :-)   Regards, Ben Aveling 07:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I reprotected the article from moves

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