Talk:Australia men's national soccer team

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


Socceroos-Uruguay rivarly[edit]

Hi,

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

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

Requested move 1 December 2022[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW. Per consensus and WP:NCFA. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Requested move 9 December 2022[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia men's national soccer team → Socceroos – Per WP:COMMONNAME; the current title, and various variations on it, have no recent results in Google News, while Socceroos has many. BilledMammal (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the current Wikipedia consensus requires us to refer every sport team in the world in their officially formal names, not by nicknames or other informal names. Australia men’s national soccer team falls to the same category, while Socceroos is only a nickname. We can redirect but we won’t make a nickname the main article headline. HiddenFace101 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Socceroos is a nickname, not a formal name. Socceroos already redirects to the page, so there is no point. Milkk7 (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Same rationale as per Milkk7. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Milkk7, Matilda Maniac, and HiddenFace101: However, "Australia men's national soccer team" isn't the formal name either; I haven't been able to find a source stating what the official name is, but on the very few occasions the official website uses a name other than Socceroos they use Australian National Men's Football Team. Since Socceroos is the official nickname it is more official than the current title.
In addition, it is policy to use the WP:COMMONNAME, not the WP:OFFICIALNAME; I'm not aware of an SNG that overrides this. BilledMammal (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link the policy where commonname overrides officialname, because if this did apply, teams like Olympique Lyonnais would have their article name changed to Lyon or OL, as most people in English refers to the team with those names. Milkk7 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Milkk7: WP:COMMONNAME, which says Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. BilledMammal (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME#Deciding on an article title also states that the names should be consistent, and having country's men's national soccer team as the standard across the board is a lot more consistent than having the team's nickname Milkk7 (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only four articles use that format. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
all the rest use football instead of socccer Milkk7 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 10:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - what a ridiculous and POINTy nomination. WP:OFFICIALNAME applies. GiantSnowman 10:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: WP:OFFICIALNAME says the opposite of what you think it does, and an argument opposing a move on the basis that we should use the official name makes no sense because the current name is not the official name. BilledMammal (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources. In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria" - your suggestion is none of the above. It is a nickname. This is why we do not have articles called Gazza and Man Utd and Beeb etc. GiantSnowman 12:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is more consistent with those criteria than the current name or any other name? BilledMammal (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Why not sit back and see what the feedback is to your requested move over the next few days – it is only a very recent request < 24 hours old – instead of feeling the need to repeatedly comment as a means to try to reinforce your argument? Matilda Maniac (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's their usual MO to badger commentators who hold a view different to theirs. --SuperJew (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's silly. But if by some miracle it does get passed I can think of a few other candidates in the same vein! Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, to remain consistent with other such article. When/if most official match reports and box scores of international tournaments, along with the international sports media, starting listing the team as "Socceroos" instead of "Australia", then maybe, but not now. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose the current title has ten times as many hits with the same perimeters [1]—blindlynx 20:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blindlynx: Your results include articles that discuss the team but don't use the name, and results that don't discuss the team. The search query needs to be in quotes to address this; when done, it provides only two relevant results. BilledMammal (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case it is less about the specific usage of the current name and more about the wider recognizably of the proposed one, the proposed name doesn't seem to have MOS:COMMONALITY going for it—blindlynx 23:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc., Rreagan007, Purin128AL, Clifton9, HiLo48, and RavenRTC: Ping editors who participated in the most recent move discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after being pinged As an Australian, I can declare that Socceroos is instantly recognizable within Australia, and the very commonly used name of this team by the Australian media, far more common than the mouthful that is the current article title. It's also clearly used as at least a semi-official name on the Football Australia website. I cannot really speak for international media. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Moving this specifically. This is quite a big issue which shouldn't be dealt with at an individual article level. "Socceroos" is indeed a common nickname for the national team in Australia and is instantly known by most Aussies. Would a random reader from Canada or Brazil or France recognise it? I don't know, but I wouldn't bet on it. And I think that is one crux of the matter - is this name well known worldwide? The second issue is the naming and consistency of national soccer/football teams. Almost all teams are named "[Country] national football team" (with small differences of addition of men's or replacing "football" with "soccer" per regional differences). Changing one of them to the nickname used to describe the team should be done on a higher level (would suggest taking the discussion to WT:FOOTY). Should Morocco national football team be moved to Atlas Lions? Should New Zealand national football team be moved to All Whites? Should Cameroon national football team be moved to Indomitable Lions? Etc. etc. etc. --SuperJew (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a random reader from Canada or Brazil or France recognise it? Look at the Google Trend results I provided above; "Socceroos" is the preferred search term in both Brazil and France, and while in Canada "Australia national football team" is more common, it is only slightly so. In addition, media both in Australia and outside prefer "Socceroos"; this can be seen by how few results there are when searching for a name other than "Socceroos", and can also be seen when looking at specific news agencies - for example, France24 has hundreds of results using "Socceroos", compared to no results using the current title. BilledMammal (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure this is a fair check. Hardly any media would use the exact term "Australia men's national soccer team" as they rely on the context of the article and don't need the name to be a unique identifier. Regarding the "Socceroos" results on France24, from a quick sample, it seems almost none of the articles use the term in the title, but rather first use Australia and only later Socceroos. --SuperJew (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that include all Australian sources? HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SuperJew's points. The most obvious candidate of all must be the "All Blacks"? Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with comments that the term Socceroos is just a nickname rather than an official title and hence oppose the proposal. I support the consistent format for all national teams being "[Country] national football team". Clifton9 (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "just a nickname". It's the name used almost exclusively for the team by Football Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian public almost exclusively refer to Jimmy Barnes as "Barnesy". But it is still just a nickname, not his official name. Socceroos is even recorded on this very article as a nickname in the Infobox. Clifton9 (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For all of the reasons listed above not provided by the initial proposer. Felixsv7 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close discussion - per above, seems like 100% of votes above my comment are straightforward opposes, especially the first vote and description. It will be unlikely the support voting will ever be higher than the oppose count here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must point out that we don't vote here, and I have refuted claims made in several of those "straightforward" opposes, but won't object to such a close. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The redirect on Socceroos uses the same principle as the redirect on Die Mannschaft. Storm machine (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - For consistency's sake with every other article about a national sports team on this entire website. – PeeJay 10:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australia_men%27s_national_soccer_team&oldid=1205504527"