Jump to content

Talk:Football/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Victorian Rules picture

Victorian RUles is a relatively minor and small variation of football. I suggest that another image should be used for people trying to understand the bigger international variations like Rugby(both codes), soccer and American football.

06:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

The picture is a generic/iconic one, it could be almost any kind of football being shown and that is why it is there.Grant65 | Talk 06:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that a picture of a world cup final(either code of Rugby or soccer), a champion's league final or a super bowl would be a better image than an Australian's Rules image. Aussie Rules is a relatively minor regional code of football and would be unintelligible for non-Australians. It is also a suggestion that football began in Australia. I am sure there are better images that could be used.

13:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61


I feel the montage is a superlative idea. Maybe NRL/Super League grand-final or state of Origin, AFL grand final, Union world cup final, NFL superbowl, Soccer world cup, FA cup, champion's league final, South American champion's league, futsol world cup, Gaelic all-Irish champions or whatever it is, Canadien football cup,

I think that that would be a good round-up.

04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

--Raresaturn 11:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC) While the compliment is appreciated, it's really not neccasary. Everyone knows that our great game originated in Victoria before spreading to the rest of the continent, so calling it 'Victorian Rules' is a bit redundant and somewhat confusing. At first I thought you were referring to some obscure code that originated in Victorian London, rather than the Australian game.

Victorian rules descent

Australian Rules very obviously comes from Victoria. The variation is a Vicotrian variation. I am not questioning that its name is Aussie Rules, just that it is a game whose rules variation originated from Victoria like the two rugby codes originated from Rugby school, and soccer originated from its annagram association football. All the best.

06:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

What is your point? Rugby league started in Yorkshire, but we don't call it "Yorkshire rugby" or "Yorkshire football". Australian rules football is the common name worldwide. Grant65 | Talk 06:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
But wasn't RL for a time quite commonly in the England as "the Northern game" or "the Nothern Union"? Albatross2147 04:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
The above two comments are irrelevant since nobody is trying to name rugby league after a country that didn't exist at the time of its. The idea of it being a 'victorian' game and not an 'Australian' game becuase the 'country' of Australia didn't exist during the creation of the game is flawed too. Australia was still the name given to the continent of Australia. The british colony of Victoria was located on that continent. He name 'Australia' wasn't invented in 1901, just the self governing country.Factoid Killer 10:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Minor aside - ironically the name 'rugby league' was coined in Australia.GordyB 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste my time with this anti-Aussie rules troll. Take a look at the Australian rules football attendance records and compare them with rugby in Australia and it's no wonder you are jealous of Aussie rules' continued growth and increased standing. Rogerthat Talk 11:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Rugby League started at Rugby school and not at Yorkshire. The split-away governing body than started to make rule changes that differentiated it from the IRB code, but it is inarguable to say that it did not start at Rugby school. I beieve you have the wrong conception of Rugby League. It was just a professional code of the game that over time developed its own distinct rules. Neither Rugby Union or Rugby today really resemble the nature of game when it was first codified.

11:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

I am not arguing that that it does not call itself Aussie Rules, what I am saying is that it is a distinctly Victorian version of the game. To call it an Australian variation as opposed to this would be misleading for non-Australians who do not understand the regional nature of both Rugby and Aussie Rules. Nor am I disputing that it is more popular as you mistakenly concluded and decided to leave on my discussion page. I just feel that to refer to it as a Victorian variety is better for international users who are trying to understand the differences in Australian football sports. All the best

13:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

Whatever. The Australian Football League calls it "Australian Football". The common name of the game is Australian rules football. That is what it is called around the world. No one has called the game "Victorian rules" at an official level for more than 100 years and I doubt that many non-Australian readers of the article would even have heard of the "Victoria" in question. The game has travelled the breadth and width of Australia in the last 150 years and is popular in all States and Territories, to varying degrees. The point about its origins in Melbourne, Victoria is made in the article.
I also think we need a picture at the top of the page. The picture is generic in the sense that it's a group of people in a park with a ball. We don't have any better pictures. Possibly we could have a montage like the one at World War II. Would you care to organise a better picture?
And in future please log in before you edit. Grant65 | Talk 17:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Now please do not be silly, it is hardly played in Sydney etc., to say it has travelled the breadth of Australia is an exaggeration. But my point is that it is a Victorian variation of football, not an Australian variation. As I will reiterate, it is misleading for non-Australians visiting the page to say that it is an Australian variation because it is simply no more an Australian variation of football than Rugby League.

03:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

Silly? You are trying to teach me to suck eggs. Australian rules has been the most popular winter sport in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania, and the Northern Territory for more than 100 years. It has had what might be described as a cult following in New South Wales and Queensland for as long. It is simply untrue to say that Australian rules is "hardly played in Sydney etc." I have researched this extensively when contributing to articles such as Soccer in Australia:
Soccer, known in most countries simply as "football", is less popular in Australia than rival football codes. However support is growing: for example, in November 2005, a national television audience of 2.4 million people watched the match in which the Australian team qualified for the 2006 World Cup, including 924,000 in Sydney and 797,000 in Melbourne[1]. By comparison, the 2005 Australian rules football Grand Final was watched by 3.3 million, including 1.2 million in Melbourne and 991,000 in Sydney [2]; the National Rugby League Grand Final was watched by 2.5 million, including 1.1 million in Sydney and 506,000 in Melbourne[3].
Grant65 | Talk 03:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah Grant65, once again you make sweaping comment that are not factual. Aussie Rules is not "popular" in Sydney, nor in most of NSW. Also the night we qualified for German 2006, thousands of people filled Sydney's streets until the next morning. This has never happened for Aussie Rules or Rugby league in Sydney. And many people in Sydney would totally understand the term "Victorian Rules' Tancred 06:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact remains that the names of the game, to most Australians, are Australian rules football or Australian football. Soccer supporters filled the streets in Sydney on that particular night because many of them had actually been to the game. Of course the supporters of a national team were going to outnumber Wests Tigers and Sydney Swans supporters on the streets, after their respective grand final wins. Nevertheless the AFl and NRL grand finals beat the Socceroos in the TV ratings. It will be interesting to see what how many watch the Soccer World Cup finals matches. Grant65 | Talk 10:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on. Please. One decent t.v. rating does not amount to considerable interest etc., it is hardly played in Sydney. It is not really an Australian game per se, though it is played exclusively by Australians. It is a Victorian variety of football.

All the best

04:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

And rugby league is a British variety of football, at least in its origins. So what? It seems that that you have taken stock of rugby league's poor following outside NSW and Qld and simply assumed that the reverse is also true for Aussie rules, which it is not. The Sydney Swans, Brisbane Lions, West Coast Eagles, Adelaide, Fremantle and Port Adelaide get crowds exceeding 20,000 at every home and away games. But how many NRL teams are even based outside NSW and Qld? Answer: two, and the Melbourne Storm's home ground has a capacity of 18,500, which is miniscule by the standards of Melbourne sporting venues. Grant65 | Talk 10:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

--Raresaturn 11:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I lived in Sydney for 3 years and never once heard the term 'Victorian Rules'. The term simply does not exist.

Protected

I have protected this article because of the edit wars. So use talk page to find a solution. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone agree with Licinius, a.k.a. 60.225.202.61? Grant65 | Talk 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Does anybody agree with Grant65?

05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61


I've looked at a few things, but the whole argument seems stupid. I was born and lived my life in NSW. Does that mean I should stop calling myself Australian, because I have not visited and lived in most parts of Australia? Same goes for Australian Rules. It's rules where formed in Victoria and it is the codes spiritual home. But for those living under a rock, Victoria is a state of Australia. Thus, saying that Australian rules is a distinct Australian form of football is correct. Perhaps for accuracy sake it should say something like 'an distinct Australian form of football invented/codified in Victoria?' POds 07:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
No the idea was that the country/federation we call 'Australia' didn't exist until 1901. This person is trying to claim that australia didn't exist when the game was invented because it was invented prior to 1901. This is flawed because the continent was called 'Australia' and thus before Australia was federated, a person in victoria could still say they were in Australia. Factoid Killer 10:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What is being said is that is a Victorian variety of football like how there were Rugby varieties of football and soccer being the acronym for association rules. It is no more an Australian variety of football than Rugby League. Therefore I think it is misleading for non-Australians, to refer to it as an Australian variety of football because it is both historically and presently a predominately Victorian type of football as opposed to Rugby in the northern states. It has nothing to do with whether Australia was a continent or not, just emphasis that it both originated in Victoria, and is still a regional game in Australia even today. Therefore I feel to refer to it as an Australian variety of football is a little incoherent, factually incorrect, especially when there is a more apt manner to refer to it as, Victorian football.

Therefore I am unreservedly for the change of the name to a Victorian variety of football.

11:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.200.50

I feel that it is a Victorian variety of football and should be referred to as such in the disputed entence "Australian and Irish varieties"

11:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

  • Agree with Grant65:
    • "Rugby" is called "Rugby Union" in this article, despite no official name change to avoid confusion, calling something "Victorian" is bound to be confusing for most people as the main meaning is the Victorian age not place. I watched Italy playing England at "Rugby" yesterday and the pundits at half time talked about "football" and "soccer". In context they meant "Rugby Union Football" and "Association Football". I am imagine that when pundits are talking about a game of "Australian Rules Football" at half time they drop the "Australian Rules" and talk about football. In context the meaning is clear. This is an article about all codes of football so full clear names are needed to distinguish the various codes even if they are not the official names. As they are not the official names common names should be used. As most people involved in a code of football do not need to distinguish it from other "football codes" (see my Italy v. England example), it is the common name used by others which should be used in this article. "Australian (rules) football" is the more common name than "Victorian (rules) football" so lets stick with "Australian (rules) football".
    • Also the removal of "points" in the sentence "In all football games, the winning team is the one that has the most goals when a specified length of time has elapsed." makes the sentence false because games of Rugby football are decided on point not goals.
--Philip Baird Shearer

I was talking very specifically about it being referred to a "Victorian variety" in the sentence disputed. I am not disputing it being called Australian Rules, please don't count me there, I just felt that in that sentence Victorian variety is more apt, as my understanding of the dispute is.

12:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

I think it's unnecessary to seperate Victoria from Australia in such a way. Whilst "Australian rules football" was originally called "Melbourne rules" and "Victorian rules", and undoubtedly was created there, in terms of the scope of the article (a sport played throughout the entire world), it is like saying Pétanque is a Provence variety of lawn bowls. "Irish varieties" is used without issue, whilst Gaelic football was developed in a certain area (from the article, County Kerry) before it spread to the country. Why should Australian rules be any different? If you were writing about football in Australia, you would obviously mention that Aussie rules was a Victorian variant and rugby league was more common in NSW, but in terms of football in the world, Victoria is just another part of Australia. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is largely about weather the game can be referred to as 'Australian'. Perhaps other arguments have been put forward aswell but it has been specifically suggested that the game is victorian because it was invented in the colony of victoria before that colony was part of Austalia. Pointing out that the colony of victoria was part of Australia is more than relevant. Please view the comments left on my talk page Factoid Killer 09:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly untrue to say that there was no conception of "Australia" before federation in 1901. As is often pointed out the Australian cricket team predates Australian federation by 24 years. And Tom Wills, who had strong family ties to both NSW and Queensland, did not set set out to create a "Victorian" code of football. Grant65 | Talk 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand the problem. I agree that Victorian football sounds like a reference to the Victorian era. I don't understand why Australian Rules Football can't be called 'Australian Rules Football'. Even if the federation didn't exist at that time, it does now and the AFL have the right to choose their own name. I'd object to rugby league being called a Yorkshire form of rugby.GordyB 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your confusion Gordy. I think the controversy results from a long history of two codes of football (Australian rules and rugby league) both being dominant, on a regional basis. However, in the last 20 years or so, both codes have made significant attempts to win converts in each other's territory, as have the less-popular codes of soccer and rugby union. For various reasons, the others have had some success, while league has declined somewhat. Understandably some league supporters feel aggrieved about this. One reaction is denial, such as the insistence that Australian rules is a purely "Victorian" game, when in fact it has been the dominant code in most states/territories for more than 100 years. Grant65 | Talk 09:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Similar story in England with union and league.GordyB 21:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Your argument regarding aussie rules being dominant in 'most states/territories' for 100 years means nothing seeing as more than 50% of Australia's population resides in NSW and Queensland. I agree it is the most popular code now and I have no idea for how long this has been the case, but state counting is not evidence of national popularity. Aussie rules Australia's most popular sport because Rugby Leage, as a Working MAN's sport doesn't attract followers such as women and private school boys. Also, Aussie rules is more popular in Qld and NSW than Rugby League is in Vic, SA, WA and Tas Factoid Killer 13:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
It also has something to do with the fact that victorians don't seem to enjoy living in their own state and prefer to live in NSW or Queensland where they spend their days whinging about how much better victoria is. Factoid Killer 13:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead picture

Does anyone apart from Licinius/60.225.202.61 think that the current picture is not the best one available? I have searched, but haven't found anything better in illustrating football games in general, than the current one. As I have said before, a better solution is that we get someone with the technical ability to do a collage like the one at the top of (e.g.) World War II. But until (and if) we have a better pic, I think the current one should stand. Grant65 | Talk 18:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to have an image that better represents the multitude of football codes or at least what the majority of ppl in the world consider to be football. I'd be happy for someone to replace it with a better suited picture however, the current picture is way better than having nothing at all. I am totally against the image being removed without replacement. Factoid Killer 14:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, it may not be better than nothing at all. I think it should be removed, I mean people will say why that sport and not this sport, having a picture of one code in the lead will just piss people off. Forever young 15:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Victorian Rules Football

I did not really make my argument very coherent, so I shall put it here as succintly as possible.

I believe the heading "Australian and Irish variations" should be changed to "games descended from Melbourne club rules and Gaelic rules". This is in line with the previous entries "games descended from rugby school rules" and "games descended from fa rules".

I feel that this is a better representation of not only the Victorian game but also a clearer outline of its support within Australia. I also feel that it is more inline with how the article was presented.

All the best

08:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius 08:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"A clearer outline of its support within Australia"? You need to get out of the Shire a bit more often, mate. I suggest you go to Arnhem Land, the South West region of Western Australia, or Hobart and ask people in those places why they are playing a "Victorian game". Not to mention the 100s of 1,000s who go to see the Sydney Swans and Brisbane Lions every year, or the people playing it at Cazaly's Stadium (named after a Tasmanian, Roy Cazaly), in Cairns. Aussie rules is the most popular spectator sport in Australia, both in terms of bums on seats and in terms of TV audiences. It is also the most popular in a majority of states and territories. This seems to rankle with you, but those are the facts. You might also like to consider the many (and increasing numbers of) great players of the game, including Haydn Bunton Senior, Wayne Carey, Jason Dunstall, Michael Voss and Jason Akermanis, who have been born and bred in NSW and Qld. Next you'll try to tell us that they weren't good enough to play league or union. Grant65 | Talk 10:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Licinus,

That is not what you were saying at all when you sent me this message...

'The Victorian Rules folk ar trying to claim that Aussie Rules is an Australian variety of the game when it is very distinctly a Victorian variation of the football and was codified in Victoria many years before the beginning of Australia. If you share the same opinion I would love for you to come to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Football and give your opinion.

All the best

03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius '

I'm a Queenslander and a Rugby League/Union supporter. In fact I don't care much for aussie rules at all but trying to tamper with a page out of pure hatred for the game makes you no better than those British Rugby fans who were trying to have the Rugby League article removed through claims that it was a minor sport. Aussie rules is more popular in Australia and always will be. That's because of the religious nature of its following. Also because the game transcends gender and socio-economic barriers. Rugby League will always be the greatest game on earth but it will never be the most popular.

Factoid Killer 14:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes there are many reasons I dispute the right of the game to be called "Australian", but that is it. That is the disputed piece. I am not great arguer. haha

and I am not trying to have the AFL removed factoid killer, please be reasonable and thnk about the actually disputed piece. Grant never mentioned it and continually accused me of motives I never had.

Grant I do not care about them or dispute the AFL is the most supported league in Australia. But it is a Victorian game and it is supported in the Southern states.

06:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

Victoria may be dominant, (modulo the latest grandfinal) but the sport is wider than Victoria. Very strong in SA and WA and a reasonable following in QLD, NT. (And Tas, I think.) Some following in NSW, and growing. It's arguable that the AFL is really just the VFL plus a few teams taken from/exported to other states, but the rules of the game are national, not Victorian. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Licinius, this "southern" thing is nonsense. Australian rules has been the dominant code in the NT for generations. The support for rugby league is far more limited, in geographical terms. And since there are no other major football codes that originated in Australia, I can't see the problem with Australian rules being referred to as an "Australian code" etc. Unless you think Victoria is somehow not part of Australia. Grant65 | Talk 05:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The conversation about which code is most supported in various cities/states is a red herring. The game is an Australian game, invented in the continent of Australia, with most of its history and present-day existence in that continent. Describing it as Australian does not in any way imply that it is or isn't popular throughout Australia. It could be understood to imply that it doesn't have much presence outside Australia, but no one is disputing that. If the article suggested that Aussie rules was the only type of football in Australia, it would be a problem, but it doesn't do that. JPD (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The game is called Australian rules, and I don't know why we're arguing about what it should be called. That said, it may be that it was once called Victorian rules, or that Australian rules was derived from something called Victorian rules, so Victorian Rules might be the right label when talking about the origins of the game. That's all dependant on Victorian rules being what the game was actually called, rather than just being a 'more accurate description'. I guess I'd like to see a cite. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC) PS. The Australian Natives Association was founded in 1871. Don't assume the word Australia was invented in 1901.
To be fair, the dispute isn't about what the game should be called, it is about the section heading which categorises the game, and so is describing it. While Licinus has used the very old terminology "Victorian rules" on this talk page, he hasn't suggested that it should be used in any articles. JPD (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but it makes no sense to you use it in a heading, because of the possibility of confusion with the Victorian era and because hardly anyone outside Australia has heard of Victoria, Australia. Grant65 | Talk 23:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Grant, despite your attempts to malign me, you are correct. It should be referred to as a game descended from Melbourne Rules. That is clear enough and in line with the presentation of the article. Though it is debatable that it deserves a mention as a game descended from Rugby rules or miscellaneous due to the fact that it is a relatively minor Southern Australian regional game that was pretty much a copy of rugby and Sheffield Rules, (unlike the international codes of Rugby, the American football and of cause soccer) for the present moment I feel that it should be "Games descended from Melbourne Rules ....".

Please stop trying to attribute sentiments that I do not have, Grant, you have accused me of bad faith from the beginning and it reflects on your bias.

To call it a game descended from Australian variety is as silly to call it a game descended from Oceania variety, Australasian variety or outhern hemisphere variety. It is very distinctly a Victorian game and as such it should be referred to as Melbourne Rules.

12:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

Licinius said: 'To call it a game descended from Australian variety is as silly to call it a game descended from Oceania variety, Australasian variety or outhern hemisphere variety'... Aren't we getting a little petty here? Why leave it at melbourne. Whoever wrote down the rules must have been in a specific suburb of melbourne! Even a suburb is pretty general, why not write down the address in which the original rules were written down. Why not call it 10 launceston dve, St Kilda, Melbourne, Victoria, Australian rules? Why stop there? Lets get the exact GPS coordinates! Factoid Killer 12:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Licinius, are you mixing Grant up with someone else?
Aussie rules is a variety of football. It is Australian, and describing it as Australian is the most informative geographical description to most readers, as well as being the description used in the common name. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to call it an Australian variety of football.
The next question is whether it is the best heading in the context. The context is a list of many different varieties of football, in groups of related or similar codes. The first two groups both originated as distinct codes in England, and so are distinguished by their FA or Rugby school origins. The next group contains codes that originated (and are mostly played) in Australia or Ireland, and so they are described as such. There are obvious reasons to put these codes in one group, yet they are not all clearly descended from a distinct set of rules, so it is best to describe them as Australian and Irish varieties. This is about providing a general categorisation of a group of forms of football, not giving the detailed history, which is in the text earlier in the article.JPD (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Does "Aussie Rules" deserve its own heading in this specific section at all? This whole page is far too Victorian and needs to be completely be re-edited by someone with a clear perspective, good record and proven integrity. AFL has far more prominence that it should rightly have on a page dedicated to "football". In the interests of more coherent descriptions, I feel that this page should be rewritten to put the different codes of football in a better perspective. It is not good enough to say that the "AFL" game is a generic picture of football from the era because modern football was mostly an English creation(all codes). I see plenty of better pictures throughout the page that could be used instead of it.

In the specific line, I personally feel it is indisputable not to refer to it as "Australian" per se because it is simply not an Australian game any more than Rugby. The heading I feel should be a clear indicator of the origins of the networked games just as the others are. Also the games from the AFL are more than superfluous and if it was done with the precedents created in the AFL section, there would be far too many games under both the Rugby and soccer areas.

Also there is far too much on the origins of AFL compared to the games of higher precedence like Rugby, American football and soccer. Remember people this is not just an Australian page, it is for all people who speak English who wish to know about "football".

13:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

I have to admit, I was very surprised to arrive at this page and see it dominated by Aussie Rules. I agree with replacing the image with something more appropriate. I know the victorians have that major inferiority complex to get over but this isn't their page. Factoid Killer 13:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"Aussie rules" doesn't have it's own section. It is in a section with Gaelic football, various compromise rules and Marn Grook. This section is (rightly) after the sections for the more prominent soccer and it's derivatives and the rugby family and before even more obscure varieties. I can see more reason for another section for the north american versions, than for removing this section. If there are articles on rugby derivatives equivalent to the very minor rec footy and so on, then these should be added to the list - the list is meant to include all the variations that have articles.
Aussie rules simply is Australian, regardless of whether rugby also is. In some very obvious senses (origins, geopgraphically concentrated) it is more Australian than union or league. In other senses it isn't (as they are also important parts of Australian sporting culture), but the article doesn't imply anything about Australian sporting culture, etc.
Montage
There is no picture of an AFL game in the article. The picture of the game in Melbourne is, in my opinion, no better or worse than any of the others on the page. As the differences between the codes were less obvious then (and even less obvious in the pictures!), it doesn't really matter which one is used, although as many people have said a montage of modern pics would be better. Apart from the picture, I don't see why you say Aussie rules is given prominence. The article as a whole describes the evolution of english football - soccer and rugby, with short sections on the Australia, American and Irish varieties. Of these, Aussie rules has the shortest section. The only problem I see with that aspect of the article is that two of the sections dealing with the rugby codes should be expanded.
Apart from these sections, the article seems to do a good job of describing the history of many forms of football in the correct perspective. If it were too Australian-focussed, a non-Australian might be best placed to comment. And at the risk of making the Victorians' inferiority complex even worse, I'll point out that Victoria doesn't have a monopoly on Aussie rules anyway. JPD (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Man from Oz, so the many contributors to the page so far do not have a "clear perspective, good record or proven integrity"? Personal attacks are not within the rules or the spirit of Wikipedia.
The article is about the development of football codes in general. Australian rules has an important place in that history, as the second oldest surviving code after rugby union. Next you'll be telling us that Gaelic football and Canadian football get too much space...in fact you would really have to, since neither of them has the number of followers that Aussie rules does. But I wouldn't agree with you.
And I'm sorry, but Australian rules is an Australian game in a way that neither code of rugby will ever be, because it was invented in Australia. It is also the most popular spectator sport in Australia and is the most popular sport in the most States and Territories. Please note that I said sport and not just code of football.
According to the logic employed by you and Lucinius, Ned Kelly was a Victorian, and not an Australian. It is just crap to say that Australia did not exist in 1858 or that Tom Wills set out to create a Melbourne/Victorian game. You seem to think that Qld and NSW (minus those "AFL"-playing infidels in the Riverina and Broken Hill) are the only genuine parts of "Australia". I'm here to tell you that you are wrong.
"The games from the AFL are more than superfluous"? Well, the idea of encyclopedias is to provide full information. Feel free to add some superfluous ones derived from other major codes.
"I see plenty of better pictures throughout the page that could be used instead of it." Such as? In my opinion we need an action picture at the top of the article and it just so happened that the Australian rules pic was the most generic one that I could find. Once again, I challenge the rest of you to find a single picture which captures "football" of all codes in action as well as that picture does. As opposed to one which is clearly of soccer, rugby or whatever and will cause further arguments. But as I have said before, my preferred option would be to have collage of different pictures, representing different codes, such as the one at the top of World War II. If I didn't have to waste so much time on this stupid argument, I might have organised it by now. Grant65 | Talk 16:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Football ( Soccer )

I want to chip in with my opinion on the use of the term football.

English has become an international language, and millions of people, regardless of their mother tongue, speak it for a variety of uses, such as surfing the 'net. In most languages other than english, I assume, football is that sport which is played with the feet. Usually this word is not translated, but rather, adapted phonetically to the speakers' native language; for example, in spanish: futbol. I think that the correct terminology for this sport should be football. However, in my opinion, it should always be qualified with the soccer term in parenthesis to avoid confusion.

Interesting concept, but that's why we have disambiguation pages. The underlying link should indeed point to Football (soccer), but the title should reflect the correct word (ie: "football" in Manchester United, but "soccer" in Los Angeles Galaxy). This particular page, Football, discusses all types of football (including Australian Rules and American), the one that belongs to what is known as "soccer" in the US is located, as you said, in football (soccer). Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
What if someone from the US who isn't aware of british use of the word is reading the article? We already had this problem in the London article where soccer was referred to only as 'football'. If caused some confusion to at least one reader. The reader in question wasn't aware that any sport other than american football was referred to as football and was asking about football in Lodon. Factoid Killer 09:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

JPD's montage

That's a good start JPD. I would like to see a bigger/clearer portion representing American/Canadian football. And given the different colour balances, maybe the whole thing would look better in black and white? Grant65 | Talk 00:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the representation of Australian rules football in that montage is pretty poor - wait till the season comes around (ie, this weekend) and we'll get together some more relevant photographs. Rogerthat Talk 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the best person for making iamges like this. I just wanted to get the balling rolling using the iamges that were already available. The Aussie rules part could definitely do with a better quality image. The American pic is already the second biggest in the montage - does anyone have a clearer image? I'm not that keen on black and white, but I could change my mind if somenoe does a better job of converting it than I just did. I guess the other thing is that it shoudl probably be saved at a lower resolution - that file is quite big. JPD (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Forms of football

The introduction of the article should state, in absolute black and white, the different forms of football. The opening phrase could be a list of all football types, including:

Thoughts on this? Rogerthat Talk 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They are listed in the first paragraph already. The opening sentence is fine as it is I think. That only leaves the fact that prominence is given to soccer, which is probably fair enough. JPD (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
What hapenned to American football and Canadian football? Factoid Killer 12:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
do they count? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
and while I'm at it, I just can't believe that Australians would argue so hard to not refer to our only indigenous code of football as not being Australian. It's simply unbelievable. Why does it deserve some prominence? Try these facts: rules codified in 1859; Melbourne Football Club formed in the same year - older than 99.9% of all clubs the world over of all football codes. The VFA, the precursor to the VFL was formed in 1870 (if my memory serves me well) - do you all think these are trivial facts in the context of this article - get real! The game deserves all the prominence that can be spared, and any Australian who is not proud of that prominence needs to look in the mirror and sort out a few personal issues. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Aussie Rules, Gaelic and International are all relatively small games compared to the NFL, international rugby of both codes and most of all soccer. Should they realistically have more than a minor page dedicated to them?...

I am sorry, I am new to this program. I meant a smaller area of the page as compared to the major sports in order to better certify their relative size compared to the codes I mentioned.

Do the arguments above make sense to anyone?...

13:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)J is me

Surely this montage needs futsol which is much bigger than AFL or Gaelic, a better differentiation between Rugby Union and Rugby League(the scrum is irrelevant in League and their are many differences of style between both forms of Rugby). To be honest, it is a bit much to have AFL or Gaelic in it. What is wrong with the people here? We need more Europeans and Americans to contribute to this. AFL is a joke compared to the major codes. What the hell is going on here?

13:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)J is me

Yes they do. The problem here is that people from Victoria in Australia have major inferiority complex. This is because their capital city, melbourne, is not the largest city in the country and lost its place as the capital. It also doesn't have anywhere near the prominance of Sydney either nationally nor internationally. As a result they are an extremely vocal minority when it comes to talking up their sport, their state and their capital city. That is the only reason Aussie rules has been placed in this article with such prominance and backed up by so many people. Yes everything you are saying makes sense. Australian rules football is a very minor sport on the global scale and the suggestion that American football should be removed is just yet another brainchild of the comunal Inferiority Complex eminating from Victoria, Australia.

The scrum isn't irrelevant in league but Rugby League and Rugby considered as separate sports are also much bigger sports than Aussie Rules.Factoid Killer 13:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, you need a pretty severe bias to think Rugby and League should be grouped as 1 sport and then list Aussie Rules and International rules as separate sports. This is the level of Inferiority Complex we're dealing with here.Factoid Killer 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's be a bit sensible here, and focus on the page rather than each other's motives. The article is quite reasonable, the bias (on both sides) is on the talk page. I agree that leaving out the north american codes and lumping the rugy codes together displays bias, probably in the form of ignorance, but noone has actually suggested removing American football. The main reason that there is only one picture in the montage representing the rugby codes (apart from the fact that they are hard to distinguish by means of a photograph, as opposed to video footage) is that there aren't any pictures at rugby league that could be included! It would be good for all the league fans here to put a bit more effort into improving that article.

There aren't any pictures of Futsal, either, but even if there were it would be harder to justify considering it separately from soccer.

Anyway, the idea is to improve the article. If you have better pictures for the montage - upload them, and ff you have a specific criticism of some other part of the article, bring it up and stick to discussing that issue, rather than responding to whatever silly comments someone on either "side" has said on the talk page. JPD (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, there are barely any contributors to this talk page that are from Melbourne. JPD is in fact from Sydney, I'm from Canberra and I think Grant is from somewhere else again. There are some silly comments here, but JPD, not from me, surely!? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 20:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Factoid killer,

The scrum might not be irrelevant(arguably) but a scrum with breakaways is not Rugby League.

More and more people are seeing that the Victorian football supporters have a strange attitude to this which is not constructive to wikipedia.

"Aussie Rules" is no more an Australian variety of football than Rugby or Union and they seem to refuse to accept it. The montage, as J is me pointed out, is a farce.

Grant seems to be unable to make any sound argument above the AFL is the most popular League in Australia as far as I can understand which is at best only mildly relevant, and now a whole host of contributors are surely just taking the piss. I second fellow shire boy, the man from oz and say that we need to employ the services of a non Australian administrator interested in all forms of football to sort this out reasonably. All the best to all contributors

05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

OK, let me repeat my opening comment: "The opening phrase could be a list of all football types, including:". Including is the key word. Now read the start of this argument again. Rogerthat Talk 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Conduct of the anti-Australian rules fraternity

It's interesting how Licinius, "Man from Oz" and "J is me" all make the very same mistake with their signature. If these "individuals" all try to vote in a poll, I will report it to administrators as a suspected case of sockpuppets. Along with any others I suspect of abusing user registration.

Pippu, you're right, I'm from Perth.

I bet the kids in Bomber or Lions jumpers in strongholds of the game like Hobart, Alice Springs, the Tiwi Islands, Papua New Guinea and Nauru couldn't give a fat rat's clacker where their game originated. And they certainly don't call it "AFL", "Victorian rules", "Melbourne rules" or any such name. Australian rules football is the full name recogised by both those who follow it (who outnumber the followers of any other sport in Australia) and by non-followers in other countries. If the detractors of Australian rules have a coherent argument against the international historical significance of Australian rules, I have yet to hear it. I will argue with them when they come with something other than the fact the game originated in Victoria. Grant65 | Talk-

I have read through your transcripts and you seem to often try to accuse those that disagree with you of acting in bad faith. I suggest you stop it. Yes I know the man from oz and Licinius and I in fact sometimes even share a computer with them, so report me all you like. Your argument seems to lack any substance so I suggest you stop basely insulting me.

07:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)J is me

Well, if the cap fits... Should I get my missus on here to agree with me? How about my cat? I know couples who share one Wikipedia identity, the reverse of what you are doing. Whether you share the same computer, bed or the same body is irrelevant; you technically constitute sockpuppets of Licinius, and if you try to vote, or abuse registration in any other way, I will report you. Grant65 | Talk 09:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is clear on this Grant. I suggest you stop it please. I do not technically constitute anything with Licinius, in fact he protudes a bad smell which I want to entirely disassociate with. Too much protein powder. But seriously stop it. It is silly. Argue the points, and the point is that Aussie Rules is no more an Australian variation of football than either code of rugby but particuarly Rugby League.

05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)J is me

Re: Grant65 You claim that I make comments in bad faith and than you make a comment like that? You seem to have no point and are now trying to attack people who do not agree in an effort to dis-credit them. Stick to the argument please, or do you know that you are wrong? 11:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

A Game of Our Own

For those who doubt that Australian rules football does not deserve a decent mention in this article, allow me to quote from the renowned Australian historian, Geoffrey Blainey: Of the main codes of football played in the world, Australian Rules is one of the oldest. By the normal definition of age, it is older than American football or Gridiron, older than Rugby League, older than the modern version of Gaelic Football from which it is widely said to have been descended, a little older than Association Football or Soccer, but younger than Rugby. Few of the world's famous football clubs, irrespective of the specific code they play, are as old s the senior Australian football clubs such as Melbourne, Geelong and Carlton. Even young clubs in the Victorian Football League such as Fitzroy and Footscray are older than any football club in such celebrated sporting nations as Italy and Germany and Argentina.

I know from personal experience that rugby diehards from either rugby code have trouble with this notion: they have trouble believing that Aussie rules was codified in 1859 and that Melbourne Football Club, formed in the same year, is older than virtually every other football club of any code on Earth. So for an article that is about the origins of the modern football codes, and their early inter-connectedness, Aussie rules has an important place in that. Also, remembering that the initial tension of the early forms of football was between running with the ball and kicking it, Australian and Gaelic football occupy an interesting middle road between these two early footballing philosophies, and thus a discussion on football generally is not complete without them. But don't take my word for it, I encourage you to do your own research. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 09:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute your comment, older than rugby league-It should be older than "the" rugby league. Which is irrelevant anyway. Age is no indicator of prominence otherwise there would be a section dedicated entirely and purely to the Sheffield club. It is no more Austrlaian football than Rugby, though rugby be international and supported.

12:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

Anyway the issue is that AFL is too prominent and needs to be downgraded. It is irrelevant for the most part to the developement of the more popular international codes of football and the NFL, which is what most English speakers associate with the word football and is what this article should be more about. Again I call for a non-Australian person interested in all codes of football to help re-write this.

12:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Licinius

  • Please do some research on the state of football in the 1850s, and then come back and chat here because you will soon understand the prime position Australian rules has in the history of the modern football codes. This is an article about football generally - it is not an article about the world's most popular football (which we all accept is soccer). Association Football has its own article. The genesis of all the modern football codes is in what was happening amongst the English public schools of the 1850s and the tension between the two main philosophies. Aussie rules is a direct child of this period - its founders were all educated in the English public school system so they brought back with them some knowledge of all the various rules, including Rugby, and it shows - that is what makes it of interest in a history on football (generic term). I simply ask you to compare what was happening in 1859 in terms of Aussie rules (codification of the rules and formation of the Melbourne Football Club - events of which original documents survive to the present day) and what was happening anywhere else in the world regarding any football code you care to mention. That's what makes Aussie rules of historical interest. If you can find anything else of interest happening in 1859 - please include it in this article - we will eagerly accept it! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have just had a reread of this article and I do not understand why you think Aussie rules is so prominent - I simply cannot see it. In terms of the history of football, it rightly makes and early appearance after the public school forms I have mentioned - but that is its rightful spot in terms of history. And can you honestly tell me that it is a large section? Please reread the article and tell us which parts are too prominent. As for the picture - it shows a football game from 1866, and as someone else has rightly observed, a representation of any football game from that period would look similar - none of the early versions are anything similar to their modern counterparts. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But it is irrelevant to the developement of the large international codes of footy and of cause the biggest average attendance per game league in the world, the NFL. It should be dramatically downgraded. I agree with Licinius, it is a mostly irrelevant code of football.

07:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)J is me

'Great and noble alien creature, as mayor of the fine planet of Australia, I welcome you to our fine...planet of Australia!' -South Park Factoid Killer 09:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight...an article about the origins and relationship between the different football codes should be rewritten to reflect the following of those games? Well, when Aussie rules was invented the number of fans of soccer and American football fans was...exactly zero, because those codes didn't exist in 1859. Grant65 | Talk 09:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Factoid - I'm just a simple NESBer, could you please run that past me again - who precisely are you having a go at, and if it is me, I at least have had the decency to quote well known history texts and significant recognised events that stand out in any history of football - so either give reasons for dismissing such claims (if that is what you think) or point to where the article is giving undue prominence to aussie rules (if that is what you think) or say something in support of the status quo (if that is what you think). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Not aimed at anybody in particular. It's mostly a suggestion that the Australian world view has too much representation in this article. It can't be healthy for the article. Factoid Killer 13:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Licinius and J is me that in terms of the modern world, on a global scale, Aussie rules is a mostly irrelevant code of football. I'd say the same thing about Gaelic football, rugby league and Candian football. However, an encyclopedia like this is meant to be informative, not just speak about the most common things. It should describe variations in different parts of the world. As Pippu says, it should describe the history of all the codes, giving a bit of perspective even when the codes aren't directly related. Obviously this should be done in reasonable manner, not giving undue prominence to a relatively unknown code, but I find it very hard to see why you say that the article does this, especially since you haven't answered numerous requests to say exactly what the problem is. JPD (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on this article on and off for more than two years, so you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little biased. But the major contributor was Mintguy, a soccer fan from the UK. Many other people from various nationalities, supporting various codes, have also contributed, without complaining about the Australian content. And how ironic is that these (belated and strange) criticisms about the article come only from other Australians!! "Victorians" have been alleged here to have an inferiority complex. Well, on the evidence presented here, and as a proud non-Victorian myself, I'd have to say it appears to be people from points further north who have the personality problems. Grant65 | Talk 13:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more Grant (speaking as a proud Canberran). As an aside, I've only recently noticed this article: Sports attendances. It simply states the most recent attendance statistics of all the major sports in the world. AFL is in 9th position of all leagues in all the footall codes in the world, just a fraction below the Brazilian soccer comp. Where are the rugby codes - don't bother looking them up, it's simply too embarassing. Which reminds me of Factoid's boast on his user page, that he quashed the notion that Aussie rules is the most widely supported of the footy codes in Australia. Of course we all know that he did no such thing, didn't come close. Once he realised that aussie rules attendance is double that of league's (and nothing else comes remotely close) - he gave the lame excuse that that was to do with culture, and therefore we should look at other things like TV ratings. But with the latest bid for TV rights by 7 and 10 making everything else look like the takings from a school fete, I'm not sure if there is much joy to be found there either. Rather than big noting himself, he should correct that statement as soon as possible. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rugby League is not irrelevant internationally. Of cause it's golden international age was perhaps from 1930-1960 but for the past 5 years, the Russian Rugby League has attracted large audiences in Moscow(one game had 30,000 supporters watch the Russians beat the Americans), has got a 4.2 million dollar sponsorship in Jamaica, attracted decent audiences in Lebanon(>10000) for international games, attracted an audience of 5,000 in America for the Kangaroo-Tomahawks game in 2004 etc. and the Catalans in France recieved 11,000 spectators in their first match in the super league in a relatively small French coastal town of Perpignan. Hardly huge but I personally would not deem it irrelevant. That is not to mention the game's growth and organisation of conferences in areas the game did not previously exist(the English south and Home nations as well as in Holland, Serbia, Italy, Germany, etc.)

Furthermore the game is growing Internationally once more throughout its main nations through the Anzac test and the tri-nations tournament.

To pippu, Rugby Union is throughout many countries and its domestic leagues are normally secondary to the International games of which there is not a huge amount of. Rugby League in 1948-49 had more spectators in Northern England than the AFL has ever had in any one year,

Of which this is mostly irrelevant.

05:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)J is me

Pippu, by my count the NRL is the seventeenth most supported football league in the world, but Rugby is played throughout many countries. I feel that the way you present information is irresponsible and borders on a deliberate attempt to manipulate truth in this debate.

05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)J is me

  • But I'm not arguing that there is anything wrong with the article. It terms of what it purports to do, I think it does it very well. I think it is you that is arguing for a change, but I'm still yet to hear a cogent argument. All we have heard to date is (about AFL): it's a meaningless game, it's a pointless game in the scheme of things, or comments of that ilk. We keep highlighting the place Aussie rules has had in the history of football (generic), and it's right up there with the places held by soccer and rugby. That's not to say that it's bigger, or more important, or more popular, or better, or whatever - we are simply saying that its history is a long one and it needs to be mentioned in any discussion about the history of football (generic). Just as in a discussion of the history of rock and roll, you may need to mention a few lesser lights, even if Elvis or whoever else will grab most of the limelight. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC) ps not to mention that 9th place in all the football leagues of the world in any code - that's not bad going for a nation of only 20m, of whom half live in non-traditional aussie rules regions - so early history and current level of spectators at games means it has every right to be mentioned in this article - there is really nothing left to talk about.

Australian varieties of football

The Southern game is no more an Australian variation of football than Rugby. This has already been said and is indeniable. I believe the heading should be changed to rectify this, or else be coherent with the rest of the article and refer to those games as games descended from "Melbourne Rules" specifically. That is the micro of the specific argument.

Also I feel that it needs to be rewritten as their is too much emphasis on AFL when it is an irrelevant game to most speakers of English when they refer to football. This makes the article misleading to people researching football. I feel it should be a small paragraph as compared to the other codes.

11:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

Dude, give it up. Aussie Rules was invented in Australia, is played by Australians and has a strong following in Australia and no other country. If that doesn't make it an Australian sport I don't know what does. Let it go.

I doubt anyone outside this forum has ever even heard of the term "Melbourne Rules". The game is officially called "Australian Rules" so let's just stick with that and be done. Still not convinced? Googlefight has the final word! :) 220.253.50.104 18:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been said and denied, so it is hardly undeniable. You seem to think that the phrase "Australian variety of football" means a variation that is played in and is important in Australia. By that meaning, obviously aussie rules, rugby league and possibly union are no more or less Australian than each other. However, Aussie rules is also Australian in a different sense - it originated in Australia (and is for the most part, hasn't spread). We could argue about whether this means that overall it is more an Australian variety or not, but there would be no point in that discussion, since in the context of this article, the phrase "Australian variety of football" is clearly talking about where the game originated. Describing Aussie rules as an Australian variety does not imply that Australians don't play league/rugby/soccer, anymore than describing Gaelic as an Irish game implies the same about the Irish! I can see how using similar wording to the other headings might be necessary for someone who has trouble understanding context, but your suggestion isn't helpful, as the codes grouped together at the moment are not all descended from on set of rules, and "Melbourne Rules" has never been used as a name for the rules you are referring to anyway.
As for the article as a whole, two points: Firstly, when most English speakers mention football, they are probably thinking of only one variety, so the whole article is irrelevant to them. This article is for people interested in all the forms of football and how they do and don't interact with each other. Secondly, the Australian football section is smaller than the amount written on all the other codes, except perhaps rugby league. Surely it would be better to say more about rugby league, than to remove info about Aussie rules and the other codes? JPD (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well put JPD - strong support - I have previously mentioned that if there is anything of interest relating to any code dating back to, say, 1859, it is noteworthy in an historical sense and must be included. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
"Surely it would be better to say more about rugby league, than to remove info about Aussie rules and the other codes? ". I agree with you there but I feel that it would take a comphrehensive re-write to achieve this. Rugby and the games descended from it as well as soccer are by far the two biggest styles of football in the world. They leave games like AFL and Gaelic into obscurity, in terms of the depth of the history of each. All the best.

07:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

To say that the depth of the history of aussie rules is less than any other code of football is ridiculous and suggests that you haven't actually understood the article, but it is also a sidetrack. You say that the article needs a re-write. So far you have only mentioned one heading in the list at the end, and the fact that you think Aussie rules should have a small section, compared with other codes. Since the Australian football section is already small compared with the text on other codes, what about the article needs changing? In the interests of actaully getting somewhere, perhaps as well as explaining what you think is wrong, you could do the rewrite that you are speaking of. Put your version of the article at User:The man from OZ/Football or something like that, so we can see what you want to do and go from there. JPD (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
any response to this very good (and extremely fair minded) suggestion? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

--Raresaturn 03:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC) "The Southern game is no more an Australian variation of football than Rugby." This is a ridiculous statement and blatantly untrue. Australian Rules football originated in Australia, Rugby League and Union did not. It's that simple.

The Hobbits from The Shire seem to have given up. Is it safe to have the page unprotected? Grant65 | Talk 11:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What?

Personnel insults are superfluous Grant. The term "Rugby League" and most of the modern rule changes to it originated in Australia. Australian Rules did not originate in Australia, but was a combination of different English games including Rugby and was made by foreigners. It is a distinctly Southern game with most of its top League teams being originally Victorian. It is a third rate game in the most populated state and the third most populated states of Australia, played by virtually noone in Sydney. It is hardly an Australian variety, definitely no more than Rugby League.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. Australian rules is a combination of British, Irish and Aboriginal games, not just English games. By your logic Australians of British descent are not Australian at all, we are British. (*Quickly recovers from choking on coffee.*) By your logic Aboriginal Australians with any British ancestry would also be British. You may be surprised to learn that Sydney, great city that it is, is not representative of Australia. Nevertheless 991,000 people in Sydney watched the TV broadcast of the Sydney Swans winning the AFL Grand Final last year.
Let's have a poll on this. It's long overdue. Grant65 | Talk 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Which, for my small impart, still makes it a third rate sport compared to Rugby, Rugby Union and of cause soccer which have all recorded higher audiences, Rugby and Rugby Union on several occasions. By any reasoning that rating was a one off, unlikely to be repeated, many times more people have attended the Sydney AFL team than in fact have watched it on T.V.

Just my small say, you can keep talking crap Grant and Licinius, haha.

12:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

Poll on content relating to Australian rules football/rugby

Propositions:

1. That the name "Australian rules football" be retained wherever it occurs in the article.

What has the picture got to do with the question being asked? (I am still scratching my head wondering why on Earth we would be asking this question at all - that we be allowed to use the official name of the sport?! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The AFL people evidently have no respect. Let a fair vote be fair!!! I am sick of your continual tiresome efforts to try to discredit people, first me and than others, whatever. 12:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ

2. That the section dealing with varieties of Australian rules football and Gaelic football continues to be headed "Irish and Australian varieties of football".

Who is this 60.225.200? He has previously appeared in the article with the identical song and dance routine as Licinius. Personally I'm getting a bit sick of this mucking around - can't the powers that be please see this mucking around for what it is an put an end to it. This has now become quite farcical. I am sure that Licinius is having a great time, but in truth... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
For those who can stomach this comment, I suggest you have a look at the contributions of Pippu to this discussion which have been farcial from the very beginning. 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)The man from OZ
at least I have had the decency to note a very good reference (Geoffrey Blainey no less) - when you can quote as a good a reference as that, we might pay you some respect - but I fear that day may be far, far away... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
An interesting reaction. As I promised, I am now reporting The man from OZ, J is Me and 60.225.200.50 as suspected sockpuppets of Licinius. Have a good one. Grant65 | Talk 02:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Grant you are full of "crap"(for want of a better word) and have been from since the dialogue began. I have read through all your contributions to this discussion and you have contravened Wikipedia policy on several occasions. Also you continually tried to accuse others who do not agree with you of dishonesty which is bordering on bad faith. I suggest you stop it or I will report you to an administrator. 04:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)J is me

Go for it tiger. Grant65 | Talk 04:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Real easy to make allegations without any evidence, Grant. Real integrity to write these allegations under a vote, Grant. Whatever --Licinius 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Good on you Grant, haha, you put anybody down who disagreed with you in the vote as a sockpuppet of me. This may be in contravention of no doubt a number of Wikipedia's policies but more than that, it is surely makes a mockery of wikipedia's policy of consensus. Well done --Licinius 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The vote of 130.130.37.6 is not admissable as it does not come from a registered user. Neither is 60.225.200, and another user suspects that it is also used by The man from OZ (see User talk:60.225.200.50). On 24 February, J is me said: '"Yes I know the man from oz and Licinius and I in fact sometimes even share a computer with them..."' This means that they, at the very least, fit the technical definition of sockpuppets and are disqualified from voting. (I have reported all of the suspected/self-confessed sockpuppets.) Therefore all but one of the "disagree" votes may be disregarded. The vote so far is four to one in favour of the proposition. Grant65 | Talk 03:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All on your say so Grant. To make such comments would normally need a very clear indication of where the basis of them is in Wikipedian policy. Such as "technical sockpuppetry" and disqualifying non users from voting. What proof is there that you and Pippu are not one and the same yourself? Definitely Raresaturn is probably a sockpuppet of yours. You are both obviously saying the same thing. Personally I am surprised that you have not accused 130.130.37.6 of being a sockpuppet as well, seeing that he does not agree with you. --The man from OZ 07:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion re 130.130.37.6. You have even admitted to being User:60.225.200.50 at User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather/Archive06#Good_thinking. Which is proof that you have voted twice at the very least. Naughty, naughty.
And I wonder why 60.225.200.50 let "J is me" blank his/her talk page?[1] Very interesting. Grant65 | Talk 09:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
60.225.200.50 is a community computer used by many more people than contribute here. Haha, you are a joke Grant. I am with Man from Oz and wish for you to show me how that constitutes technical sockpuppetry? I read through the sockpuppet page and there was no reference to it at all, oh and for you to change it to such, after this argument started, would have very little stock if any at all. Keep lying but. Your argument had no basis and it all comes from there. --Licinius 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Lying? Heh. So much for good faith, but totally consistent with the way you conduct yourself. Grant65 | Talk 12:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

3. That the section dealing with varieties of rugby football continues to be headed "Games descended from Rugby School rules".

As an aside, in future, let us be sure that whenever someone queries what is written in this article (to which I have contributed nothing), that they actually do have a thorough understanding of the history of all the football codes before we get into any debates. Anyone who truly understands this history would see nothing out of the ordinary mentioned in this article, and it is as good a summation as you are likely to find anywhere. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is an excellent article, thanks largely to the work of Mintguy. Other users have suggested that it be given featured status. The major obstacles in the past were the lack of details about Gaelic football, a dearth of pictures and references. Only the references remain to be done. Once this spat is over, we can set about putting the finishing touches to it. Grant65 | Talk 03:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
You keep making all these accusations Grant65, so could I suggest that you actually produce some real evidence, instead of idiotic mix-ups. As J is me pointed out ages ago freely and without coercion '"Yes I know the man from oz and Licinius and I in fact sometimes even share a computer with them..."'. Specify how this constitues sockpuppetry under Wikipedian guidelines with references. Personally I have had enough of this bullshit where you accuse anybody that voted against you as my sockpuppets and will not respond any more to your crap. However I will maintain that the vote stands as valid, because it is valid to the best of my knowledge(though I have some suspicion about raresaturn) and so far you have lost. --Licinius 11:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Make up your mind, I thought pippu was supposed to be my sockpuppet. And whoever it was using 60.225.200.50 has tried to portray User:CambridgeBayWeather as my sockpuppet. Grant65 | Talk 12:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Me a sockpuppet? Sicilians prefer to use large marionettes! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"So far you have lost"? Given that normal policy (when a vote is resorted to) is to not count votes from unregistered users or new users such as Raresaturn whether or not there are sockpuppet allegations, the vote is at 3-3 now, even if the votes of the Shire folk are valid. I haven't voted yet, because the issue is so silly we shouldn't need to discuss it, let alone vote. I see that still no-one has answered my request to point out the supposed problems with the article as a whole. JPD (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
User:J is me has now been blocked for a week for a string of offences. Still waiting for action on the other suspected sockpuppets. Grant65 | Talk 12:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I'm unprotecting this because it's been protected for week and weeks and weeks. --Tony Sidaway 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes but nothing has been resolved! I'm reprotecting. We don't have a time limit, Tony. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Woohookitty restored protection, but has since said that he's bowing out of the page protection business for now. I've applied on WP:RFPP for unprotection again. I don't see anything on this article that cannot be resolved by normal editing. --Tony Sidaway 12:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

--Raresaturn 23:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC) It seems vandalism has prevailed, the article has disappeared.

I see no such thing. The level of edits is not excessive. I am going to see how the discussion goes through, and if there is no violent disagreement within the next few days will request unprotection. Calwatch 09:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think unprotecting the page would be unwise until some action is taken with regard to the prima facie use of sockpuppets in the above polls. Grant65 | Talk 11:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that GraNT65 should stop making bullshit accusations not backed up by fact to manipulate the vote.--The man from OZ 07:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you use protection for too long, two things happen:

  • 1. people who could be editing the article drift off and do something else.
  • 2. those who remain become addicted to arguing and treat the protected state as desirable.

I'm going again to unprotect to give editing a chance. The article has been protected for nearly four weeks, which makes it the longest period of protection on the wiki for an article that isn't actually the subject of an arbitration case (and I regard that as a poor excuse for prolonged protections, too).

Be good, I'll be watching and I've got plenty of yellow and red cards for people who can't edit cooperatively. --Tony Sidaway 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The generosity of spirit shown by wikipedia administrators to all "contributors" never ceases to move me so (although I often find that this well spring of generosity dissipates rather quickly when the matters they are most interested in are subject to successive acts of lunacy - and rightly so). Allow me to conclude my small interjection with two insignificant points:
1. referring to your first point above: "people who could be editing the article drift off and do something else" - to that I say: great! that's precisely what we are hoping will happen!
2. referring to Licinius/J is me/Man of oz and associated parties (and I apologise if I have got the names wrong, but we all know about whom I am referring), I wish to provide some gratuitous advice. When organising sock puppets, you should not end up with a situation where all the personae share the same attributes, for example, of someone having just failed HSC English. Try and mix up the attributes a bit, for example, one could sound like a stuffy, pedantic academic; another could sound like a kid who has just left school at age 15 and is semi-literate (although at times you nearly succeeded in imitating that one very well); another could sound like someone accustomed to falling asleep at the back of a lecture hall; another could sound like a deadpan, boring accountant (like me, for instance). If you could have contrived this sort of managerie, you would have increased your chances of not being detected. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

SMH Article

Interesting article in today's SMH on the use of the term "Football" in Australia. Quite pertinent. If I didn't know any better, I would almost swear that the writer has frequented this talk page and other talk pages where this subject has arisen. Also interesting that an article in a Sydney newspaper should essentially be reinforcing many of the points we have made above on the historical significance of aussie rules. What do you all think? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Those of you who did not get a chance to track this article down, allow me to quote one small part (and please recall that this was in a Sydney paper):
The historian Geoffrey Blainey points out in his book A Game of Our Own that the oldest Australian rules football clubs predate any notable soccer club anywhere in the world. (The top six are Melbourne 1858, Geelong 1859, Notts County 1862, Stoke City 1863, Carlton 1864, Nottingham Forest 1865).
"Middle-aged" AFL clubs like Essendon and St Kilda are older than any senior clubs in Germany and Argentina. A "young" club like Collingwood (1892) is older than any Italian soccer club, and Port Adelaide (1870) older than any Brazilian club.
I repeat, in an article that covers the history of football, including (in particular) the history of its organisation, its institutions, its rules, etc. the fact that the Australian football clubs are so old in world terms is certainly of note and should be mentioned in this article. In fact I note that a list of the oldest football clubs in the world is not shown, and I wonder whether it should be squeezed in somewhere (not sure where). Certain contributors to this talk page (and I use that term reservedly) should note the age of the Port Adelaide footy club: 1870, which is extremely old in its own right, and hopefully is another wet blanket on the lie that Australian Football is merely a Victorian game (I know, even it it were, it is still Australian, but don't tell me, tell you know who...). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The article is at Lloyd Swanton, March 7, 2006, "Play by the rules and keep your hands off our football" Grant65 | Talk 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I agree (for the most part) with what you say in previous posts, I would just like to point out that the article from the SMH is from a reguolar feature called "Heckler" in which readers are encouraged to contribute. A little like a Wikipedia section of the paper. Just thought I should point that out before this article is treated as gospel. Keep up the good work and keep Wikipedia free from Hobbit-folk Soundabuser 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking to pages

Just wondering since the official page for soccer is football (soccer), should everything pointing to other codes of football be named in the convention such as football (Australian rules), football (rugby union), football (rugby league) etc, or should we have the pages by their official real-world title - ie, Australian rules football, Association football, Rugby union, Rugby league etc? Seems a case of double standards if the official Wikipedia association football page is located at football (soccer) when that is not the official name of the sport. Rogerthat Talk 10:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the latter suggestion - but there seems to be a general reluctance amongst the soccer community to use Association football as there official name, and thus their crusade to appropriate the term Football as meaning only soccer. I think this is at the heart of the problem. If they were to use only Association football, we would never need to have any of these discussions. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Further to this last point, I just thought I would cite a few references. My Chambers Dictionary (which I believe is British) defines Football as 1 any of several team games played with a large ball... 2 the ball used in the game. Then my 1969 Columbia Encyclopedia refers to Football in terms of what it means in the USA (i.e. Gridiron) with barely a sentence dedicated to other codes. However, it does have an entry for Soccer: outdoor ball and goal game, also called Association Football. So, what do I conclude from this? In an English language wikipedia we are correct in only ever using the term Football as a generic word to describe a variety of related games - the fact that much of the world thinks football is only soccer is irrelevant - this is the English language wikipedia. Secondly, the round ball game has two very good names to describe it, both of which will be found in all the major sources, but adherents don't want to use either of them. Why? It can only be because of a desire to appropriate the broader term completely for their own use. In both historical and contemporary terms (in the English speaking world), this is an incorrect use of the term. Arguing that football = Association football only is a bit like arguing that music = classical music only. Many will try and say it, but it is not correct. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

--202.7.176.133 22:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Agreed. Also the line in the article "In most English-speaking countries, the word "football" usually refers to Association football, also known as soccer (soccer originally being a slang abbreviation of Association)." Is clearly wrong. Most English speaking countries are refering to their own code when the say Football. The UK is the only English speaking country which means soccer when they say football. Australia, NZ, South Africa, USA & Canada all use the term Football to mean something else. I propose that this be amended in the article.

No, and this has come up several times before. See football (word): "Of the 48 national FIFA affiliates in which English is an official or primary language, only five — Canada, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Samoa and the United States — use soccer in their name, while the rest use football. However, even in the countries where "football" is the official name of association football, this name may be at odds with common usage, and this is the case in Australia, for example, where the common name is soccer." Thanks to the British Empire a.k.a. the Commonwealth of Nations, there are a lot of English-speaking countries.
Also, the use of "football" to mean soccer is prevalent in countries which do not have English as a main language, but still have huge numbers of English speakers, such as India and the Philippines. Grant65 | Talk 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Grant65

Due to the manner in which Grant65 has changed what the actual dispute was about, I will reannounce a new poll tomorrow to clearly outline the issue. --Licinius 06:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How have I "changed what the actual dispute was about"? Because you lost the last poll? Grant65 | Talk 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not lose the last poll, it was clearly won, but they were not even what the issue was about and you manipulated them to distort the argument deliberately. In line with a long list of bad faith things you have done. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll

That the section featuring games that are descended from Victorian Rules and Gaelic Rules should be headed "Games descended from Victorian (Australia) and Gaelic Rules" keeping it in line with the other descriptions of games descended from an original set of rules. --Licinius 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree --Licinius 05:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC) - I am still struggling to understand how "Victorian (Australia) rules" is somehow better than "Australian rules" and what the point is that you are trying to make. Do you not like our one and only indigenous football code, our truly national football code, worked out by trial and error in the paddocks surrounding the MCG around 1858-59, the game having spread to South Australia, Tasmania and southern New South Wales within a decade and its father figure being in fact a New South Welshman, retaining the descriptor "Australian"?

The point I am trying to make is that the game is descended from a distinct set of rules and to present it as such would be in line with how the other codes of football are presented. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree Tancred 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. This debate would be like talking to a brick wall or some equally dense object, if a brick wall were capable of harbouring the same hostility to a code of football that Licinius clearly does. Firstly, the word "football" in itself is applied to various codes in Australia, but "Australian Rules Football" is the common name, worldwide. There is no such thing as codes called "Australian Soccer", "Australian Rugby" (etc) which could be confused with Australian Rules Football. Second, Marn Grook is not descended from Australian rules or Gaelic football. Third, neither soccer nor rugby union, no rugby league (in its various forms), or any other major code originated in Australia. Fourth (a minor point), Gaelic football is a descendant of earlier Irish codes, there is not really much that is descended from it. Grant65 | Talk 10:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Marn Crook could go down as an Australian variation of football as this is how the other ancient codes are presented. However although this game might perhaps have inspired the original Melbourne rules to some extent, the other codes are presented as from a distinct code of rules and so should the AFL be presented. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Strongly disagree. Could we please edit this article using common sense, looking for accuracy and readability, not trying to make irrelevant points about various codes of football. JPD (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Factoid Killer 12:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. TimTim 13:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC) As far as I can tell it is quite rare for Australian Rules football to be referred to as Victorian Rules, so that titling the section as Victorian would seem to encourage misunderstanding by the reader. This is especially the case as most readers are likely to assume that it has something to do with football as played at the time of Queen Victoria.

It is also quite rare for American football to be reffered to as a game descended from Rugby Rules, but this is how the article is presented. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess soccer and American football must be Australian as well. And cricket is clearly an Australian variant of baseball. And black is white, and the moon is made of green cheese. Grant65 | Talk 10:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It must be hard for you to fathom Grant, but noone outside Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia really care about AFL. Swans supporters and Brisbane supporters are mostly immigrants from those states, sons of immigrants from those states and rent a crowd type of ignorants. In NSW and QLD, Rugby is the national game, oh and curiously the most supported club in Australia was the Brisbane Broncos according to a poll done 2 years ago. The very term "Rugby League" is Australian, which makes it as Australian as the Victorian game which really did not create any distinct aspect to football diferent to how it was played at the time. But this is irrelevant:

The question only asks that AFL should be presented in line with how the other codes such as American football are presented. --Licinius 04:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and most of those eligible to vote (suspected sockpuppets included; IP numbers excluded) disagree with you.
In fact the term "rugby league" was first used in England in 1901, i.e. the "Northern Rugby League", which was a competition. The NSWRL was merely the first organisation to use the term. I should know, since I wrote a large part of the History of rugby league article. On that subject, why don't you have a look through that article for AFL propaganda?
So it was 991,000 southern immigrants who watched the 2005 AFL grand final on TV in Sydney? That was the official viewing figure. I also don't think you comprehend the lack of interest in rugby league in states other than NSW and Queensland, although 500,000 people did watch the NRL grand final on TV in Melbourne, where they would watch two flies crawling up the wall if it was billed a major sporting event :-). Grant65 | Talk 10:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have never bothered to vote before this poll but it all seems to be a bit of a mute point? AFL is not really an Australian variation of football. The text says it as much that it was based on English varieties of football at the time. Sure it is Australian variation in a way but so is Rugby, and I am not sure why Irish and Australian variations have a heading anyway, seeing some of the variations put forward?(Auskick?). There is far too much Victorian influence from here and the other irrelevant states. --Da Celtic 03:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to draw attention to the fact that Da Celtic added his/her tag to a post by User:130.130.37.6,[2] who is already a suspected sockpuppet of Licinius. *Waits for the howls of outrage from the other suspected sockpuppets.* Grant65 | Talk 10:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And why is user User:130.130.37.6 a suspected sockpuppet of mine? What evidence do you have except that that IP number voted against you in the last poll. The record of that IP is literally huge which probably means that it is also a public computer. I would sincerely like to know the process here of the investigation but, others have asked for it and now I would ike to know it considering that they are all meant to be my sockpuppets, right down to NSWelshman or whatever the name is. Please outline it. --Licinius 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That is what the game is descended from, just like Rugby school Rules and FA rules. It also has after it (Australia) to help clarify it. I hardly think it would be clear to most people that Gridirion descended from Rugby Rules but it is was never disputed. Surely a clear sign of the impartiality of Grant65 and Pippu. --Licinius 13:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree - I don't know what the hell is going on here, but the proposer of this poll seems to be acting like an ass to me. Jooler 00:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - Dude we get it. You don't like Australian Rules Football. Stop using this article as a vehicle for your personal vendetta against the code. The game is known around the world as Australian Rules Football so therefore the article should reflect that. PS - not sure what I can say to convince certain people that I'm not a sockpuppet. Basically I felt so annoyed at what was going on here that I had to put in my two bobs worth. Wilko29 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree - It is on line with how the article is presented. Why are all these AFL people so defensive?

Might I also suggest to the impartial that timtim's vote be deleted and that his comment and the adjoining response by me be either ignored or deleted. Given the accusations of sockpuppeting being thrown around, I would also suggest that no new i.d.s be permitted to vote. Pippu, I am thinking you, or Grant65 --Licinius 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Grant65 - I think you are beginning to lose perspective! You branded me a sockpuppet (and added that accusation to my user page!) without it seems a shred of evidence! What baffles me further is that you thought I was a sockpuppet of Licinius despite the fact that my post was supporting your position. Nevermind. My point is that this discussion would seem to be desperately in need of outside opinion to get it resolvedl; you guys aren't the only ones who care about football, and this while page has been swamped by endless arguments between the two of you (Grant65 and Licinius) about what comes down to a pretty small detail in a pretty small corner of the footballing world. Your inability to come to a consensus or comprimise at all resulted in the whole 'Football' page getting locked, which is how I became interested in this discussion. The page isn't just about Australian football, but to look at this talk page, you'd hardly guess. TimTim 09:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Tim, it was User:62.254.168.102 who added the template to your page — in my name — not me. As for the rest, I couldn't agree more. Licinius doesn't seem that interested in rugby league...or even in a desire to run down Australian rules, so much as by a strange, slightly scary personal animosity to me. Grant65 | Talk 10:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC).
Sorry Grant, you're quite right. I was thrown off by someone signing the change to my page as you. TimTim 10:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Another bad faith comment. Anyway despite this, the issue has nothing to do with a "slightly scary personnel animosity" to you. It clearly puts the heading in perspective with how the other codes are presented as games descended from a set of rules. You have not stated why you object to this yet Grant65, merely put sockpuppet tags on anyone that voted against you. Thanks for reminding me that I have not contributed enough to Rugby so far, which is the reason I got involved. --Licinius 10:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Also add that on the same basis, wilko29's vote be similiarly ignored.

    • Can I ask why??? No wait... I think I know what the answer's gonna be. Whether you like it or not I get a say in this vote. I've been a longtime user of Wikipedia (editing anonymously). It wasn't until I read this ridiculous debate that I felt compelled to actually start an account and log my vote (as I knew any anonymous vote would get ignored). So why should I be penalised for that? I actually want to get involved and help out here. My vote stays. Wilko29 09:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked your vote to be ignored due to the Unwikipedian (in my opinion) conduct of Grant65 who I believe is using your computer as a sockpuppet. This may not be so, but due to the delicate nature of the debate I suggested that no new users be aloowed to vote. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no proof that I am not who I say I am, so I can't see how you can just take away my vote because of what may have been going on before I came to this article. Believe me when I say I am in charge of my own computer here. Also, I find it interesting that throughout this debate you have complained that people are suggesting that those lodging 'Agree' votes are 'sockpuppets', yet here you are protesting 'disagree' votes on the very same basis. Poor form.Wilko29 10:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - This is just ridiculous. Honestly. The name of the sport is Australian Rules Football, or Aussie Rules Football. An encycolpedia entry must use the name of the sport as the header, as users looking for that entry will be searching on that. Absolutely no where and by no one is it known as Victorian Rules Football. It really is that simple.MoZero 00:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to not call it AFL, just to present it as a game descended from Victorian Rules in line with how the other codes are presented. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Initial comment left by Grant65 at my IP number talk page, no not the one that voted "Actually Aussie rules is played in more states and is watched by far more Australians than either of the rugby codes or soccer. Sorry, I know the truth hurts. Grant65 | Talk 18:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)", unwikipedian among other things. Assuming bad faith from the beginning. Since than apart from trying to divert the initial argument, he has accused everybody who voted against him in the last poll of being my sockpuppet? He left the notices on the user talk page of each one. However J_is_me has been banned by a "Western Australian" administrator for doing the same thing? make any sense? I suggest that the administrator snobbygobble or some thing like that, should have his previous bannings examined as well, as the J_is_Me banning does not fit under any Wikipedian policy about sockpuppets or any such thing. That policy states that such accusations should not only be pursued, but that they should be respected. I hope that a serious administrator can take the time to do it properly. --Licinius 13:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith? On that subject, why don't you leave the article alone until the poll is over?
You should be aware that you are under investigation for the suspected use of sockpuppets. The list of suspects now includes User:NSWelshman. Feel free to report me for the same thing, because I have nothing to hide. Grant65 | Talk 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not touched it since JPD made the same suggestion. Although I would remind you that when this second poll began, that it was as I had it. Technically others have touched it, though I agree that for peace's sake, it should be left for the time being. Oh also very easy to say when you have a friend who makes inexplainable decisions which in my opinion bias towards you. As for reporting, I am not sure who to report to, all I have sought is an impartial judge from the beginning. --Licinius 06:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any process to this, or is tagging people as sockpuppeters just something you do in the middle of a vote to try and get your way with this. I notice that they still have not been removed after weeks? --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Licinius - I am active on a lot of wikipedias, and the last thing I need is to start using a sock puppet here or anywhere. I am a bureaucrat in one wikipedia, and I am known by a large chunk of the worldwide wikipedia community - I can promise you, I have neither the inclination or time to muck around with sock puppets (not too mention, I didn't even know what one was until Grant caught you with your hand in the lolly jar). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 01:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe true Pippu, I see you have done alot of good work for the Sicilian version, but I have been accused of it as well and you have never actually engaged this poll seriously. But this is beside the point that new users should not be allowed to vote to avoid the accusations of sockpuppetry. However they have, but I still dispute their right to vote. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Grant65, I'm very surprised to see you accuse me of being a sock puppet. This is partly because i've been part of wikipedia for almost a year but also because we've crossed paths many times in the state of origin article. Is everyone with an opposing view to yours going to have their user page vandalised? You may not be a sock puppet but you're looking more and more like a troll every day. Vandalise my user page again and i'll report you. NSWelshman 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no memory of crossing paths with you previously. If you are not a sockpuppet, you have nothing to fear. I suggest that you do not remove the suspected sockpuppet tag from your user page until the matter is investigated, as that is considered a form of vandalism in itself. Cheers. Grant65 | Talk 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Grant has acted in extreme bad faith from the beginning. That is indisputable. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagree: This surely cannot be in line with Wikipedia policy, if the weight of numbers from the New South Welshman on here get their way, seriously I don't know what is going on. It is called "Australian rules football". We get your point, you're jealous of the success of the game in Victoria which is now getting better crowds at Sydney Swans games than at your pitiful rugby venues. The fact that Tom Wills was from NSW makes it ironic. You rugby people here are as thick as the necks of your players. Rogerthat Talk 23:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would I be jealous, Rugby is a much better game. It is line with how the article is presented. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A touch cruel, but someone had to say it. One could add that if there is any tape left over from taping back their ears, they could redirect it to better uses, but it is not I who should specify what that use should be. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 00:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. Once again certain Aussie Rules loving people resort to abuse on Wikipedia.Tancred 01:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
C'mon Tancred - lighten up - it's a bit of harmless fun - no one is actually taking this poll seriously are they? I mean, do you seriously suggest that Australian rules football should be called Victorian rules football, or that it is inaccurate to refer to aussie rules as an Australian form of football? That is what we are talking about here - or did you simply agree with an idiotic proposal just to get up our noses? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The poll is not suggesting that that AFL should be reffered to as Victorian Rules, but that it should be presented as a game descended from those rules in line with how the other codes are presented. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

ps for those that don't know, Tancred follows the round ball code, and has decided to open up a second front against aussie rules. So the real question isn't why some of us are trying to prevent some idiocy, the real question is why other codes are fighting so hard against aussie rules, to the extent of colluding on something quite baseless. I repeat, we don't have a problem if you wish to report on nil all draws, how good someone can dive etc. but we simply ask that you stick to your area of expertise. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realise you were so sensitive Tancred. Ever heard of a joke? Licinius understands the concept - look at the poll he has started :) Rogerthat Talk 07:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a joke, rogerthat, it merely presents it in line with how the other codes are presented as descended from a distinct set of rules. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

and once again Pippu d'Angelo lets his personal feelings about football come out. I have no idea what you mean about "colluding on something quite baseless". I feel the title of Victorian Rules would be far more accurate, and I have voted that way. Perhaps you could also take part in a Football v Aussie Rules debate without running Football or other sports into the ground. I am sure I am not the only person that finds Aussie Rules somewhat less interesting than watching grass grow, a pointless game played by inbreds with no idea about what happens outside Melbourne, let alone outside Australia, but I don't feel the need to say that in every post. Tancred 08:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit dies hard I see, judging by that effort Tancred. When a code of football other than Australian rules football is the most popular spectator sport in Australia, I will be glad to reconsider the case for calling it "Victorian rules". But that seems unlikely. You and Licinius clearly know nothing about Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania or the Northern Territory...or how much people from those places like Aussie rules and also hate Victoria :-) Grant65 | Talk 09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not calling it Victorian Rules, merely referring it to a game descended from Victorian rules in the manner that the other codes are presented. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration? joke? It is in line with how the other codes are presented though it is arguable that AFL is a game descended from either Rugby School Rules, or Sheffield rules. Do any of you seriously consider that AFL is any more distinctly Australian than the NFL is distinctly American? Do you deny the impact that Australians (born here and abroad) have had on the rules of Rugby League? Which is not any less than the changes that the Victorian Rules were to the manner of football played at the time. Seriously look at the different codes and their rules and the Victorian game as it first was which is not so different? Though those last three points are only slightly relevant and a bit irrelevant to the case in hand, which is that like the different codes of football are presented as games descended from original codes of rules that made them distinct, so should AFL be presented as a game descended in like manner.

The proposed change is in line with how the article is presented, very simply, and most of these comments and accusations are unfair and do not indicate how I feel. Do you think that I am any less disgusted at the cultural cringe that tries to steal the word "football" from it's rightful place. Do you think I am not proud that as an Australian, the code played in the Southern states has a much higher support base per capita and in deed a higher average attendance than the Premier League? Or do not see the day when Rugby League will be the same. Do you think that I do not look in scorn at those that talk in such a manner about football when in fact Sydney is the THIRD BIGGEST FOOTBALL CITY IN THE WORLD and Melbourne the biggest, the second being London which is a vastly bigger population with a much smaller area? I like soccer but it simply cannot arouse support throughout it's heartlands like Rugby and AFL can.

The simple fact is that that is how the article is presented and although I pay AFL out as a relatively minor game, it was only in response to the jest I got orininally. --Licinius 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Licinius, allow me to be perfectly honest with you, no jokes, no smart arse comments - but I really can't follow too much of what you wrote above - why don't we all go back to writing articles for the codes we love and forget all this other bull shit. This article has stood the test of time and we should both be thankful that the world soccer community isn't trying to delete it outright or merge it in with their own article (which they have also tried to do in the past). Let's be honest, that is a real argument worth having, this other stuff just isn't worth it - we could have written dozens of articles by now, and as much fun as all this has been, well, to quote Mr Young, there comes a time... ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Licinius, the more you explain your position, the more I think you're reading something into the current wording that just plain isn't there. Saying Aussie Rules is an Australian variety of football does not say that it is more Australian than "gridiron" (NFL is the competition, not the game!) is American. It doesn't say that Australians haven't had great influence on rugby league. The descriptions of the sections don't need to be, and in fact shouldn't be in the same format, since the different groups are not exactly the same sort of groups. The different codes are grouped into sections based on their history and similarities between the codes. There are two very obvious big groups, both easily characterised by their "ancestry" - the kicking games descended from association rules and the carrying games descended from the rugby rules. The rest of the codes, all relatively minor in global terms, cannot be characterised by a single ancestry, and so shouldn't be. They are a group of games, some influenced by both soccer-type games and rugby school rules, with various influences within the group as well, that are most easily characterised by the fact that they are all Australian or Irish in origin. Saying some of them are Australian varieties of football is not saying the rugby codes are "unAustralian" any more than calling Gaelic football an Irish variety implies that Irish soccer players are not Irish/Gaelic! JPD (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

JPD said ' "gridiron" (NFL is the competition, not the game!) '. Gridiron is the name of the field use to play the sport of American Football. Also, in the USA is it quite common to refer to the league. You wouldn't start a game of NFL in your back yard but you might watch an NFL game on tv. Just a side note, just because aussie rules fans have such a big problem with people referring to the league/governing body doesn't mean normal people do. NSWelshman 21:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair go, JPD's point is valid regardless - the groupings as they are currently described work well and have a logic to them - remembering that they all have much in common and generally share a common ancestory. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know gridiron originally referred to the field, but now it is commonly used in Australia to refer to the game. I deliberately put gridiron in quotes because it is the name I'm used to calling it, not one i would actually use in the article. I, also, might say that I watch an AFL game on the tv (or better still, live), but that doesn't mean I say "AFL" when talking about the sport in general. Here we are talking about playing the backyard or for their local team as well as watching tv, so NFL, AFL, etc are inappropriate. JPD (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Gridiron is the name of the field use to play the sport of American Football. Wait a minute there NSWelshman, shouldn't the game be called "Bostonian Football" (or refer to whichever state in the USA the game was created in), since you consider "Australian Rules Football" an incorrect name? TheRealAntonius 11:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be referred to as a game descended from those rules. But its first code was Rugby Rules and that is how it is presented. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Licinius is clearly geographically-challenged if he thinks that Alice Springs, Darwin, Broome and Port Hedland are in "southern States".
What's more, on Feb 11, he said (above): "Rugby League started at Rugby school and not at Yorkshire. The split-away governing body than started to make rule changes that differentiated it from the IRB code, but it is inarguable to say that it did not start at Rugby school." In that case, it is an English game and not a game which had any significant Australian origins, any more than cricket did. (See: History of rugby league.) Not that I have anything against the English ;-) Grant65 | Talk 12:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to the debate. The poll is whether those games should be referred to as descended from Victorian Rules in line with how the other sports are presented.--Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

League is an English sport but the name 'rugby league' is of Australian origin.GordyB 21:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


The official name of NFL is American football and it is referred to as a game descended from Rugby Rules. --Licinius 05:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


VOTE GOES 8-6 FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE HEADING TO GAMES DESCENDED FROM VICTORIAN RULES IN LINE WITH HOW THE OTHER CODES IN THE ARTICLE ARE PRESENTED.

THIS TALLY IGNORES USERS WHO ARE NEW AND AS SUCH I SAID I WOULD IGNORE. IT INCLUDES BIATCH(WHICH SURELY MAKES A MOCKERY OF JEBUS CHRIST'S BANNING) WHO SEEMS TO HAVE ACCIDENTLY CAST HIS VOTE IN THE LAST POLL. THIS TALLY ALSO INCLUDES JISME WHO WOULD HAVE AGREED BUT HAS BEEN BANNED FOR TRANSGRESSIONS HE OBVIOUSLY DID NOT COMMIT BY SNOOTYGOBBLE.

SO BE IT. THE HEADING REMAINS AS IT IS IN MY OPINION AS THE PIGS SEEM TO HAVE OVERCOME THE FARM :)

HAPPY EDITING. --Licinius 03:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Conduct in this article.

As a user who couldn't make edits (under the blocked username of User:Jebus Christ) I have been watching this debate unfold for some time.

I've been refusing to make contributions here out of sheer protest of my username being blocked. Out of sheer disgust, based on what i've seen here i've decided to swallow my pride and come back.

The conduct from people on both sides of the debate has been absolutely Apauling. While I don't necessarily agree with Licinius', the tactics of the power stoned Aussie Rules fraternity have been far more underhanded than any sock puppeteer could ever hope to be.

Am I correct in noting that every single person who voted against the aussie rules fraternity has been accused of being a sock puppet of licinius? For some of these there may be some sort of reason to suspect this but for others there was no reason other than the way they voted. Grant65, I accuse you of making sockpuppet accusations in BAD FAITH.

And why is it that those who make the same accusation against Grant65 have automatically been accused of bad faith? Is it a mere coincidence that the perpetrator of this is none other than an administrator from Grant65's home state and a member of the Aussie Rules fraternity?

Administrator Snottygobble, I accuse you of looking after your mates, of being biased and of not being fit to be a wikipedia administrator.

To the Aussie Rules fraternity in general, I accuse you of partaking in organised bullying and of using bullying tactics to monopolise this article both now and in the past.

Licinius, I think you've been driven to do much of what you're accused of. Maybe you have sockpuppets, maybe you don't. Maybe you acted in bad faith, maybe you didn't. But one thing is for certain, regardless of whether you are right, you didn't have a fair chance to state your case. You've been bullied, outnumbered and railroaded. You've had your words twisted and your vote hijacked. My advice to you is round up as much support for your cause as you can and then accept the final verdict whatever it is. And please don't run off with your tail between your legs if you lose. Stick around and lets try to build the number of non-afl appolegists contributing to this article.

Jimididit 14:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Bias"? Methinks he doth protest too much. The similarities to Licinius's style of writing are duly noted. (Maybe he has a split personality rather than sockpuppets.) Or it could be another person in denial, from the Australian rugby league fraternity. I'm keeping my options open re a sockpuppet tag.
I see Jimididit has attempted to round up support on talk pages relating to codes other than Aussie rules. Unfortunately for you guys (or guy), its unlikely that non-Australians even understand what we're arguing about, or the so-called point (apparently a personal grudge against me) that Licinius is twisting Wikipedia pages to make. "Power stoned"? Well I'm certainly enjoying being part of majority opinion, that's for sure. Licinius has had his fun, holding up editing on this page for months, a classic case of a tail wagging a dog, so don't make me laugh with attempted gibes about "power trips".
"Am I correct in noting that every single person who voted against the aussie rules fraternity has been accused of being a sock puppet of licinius?" No, you are completely wrong. I haven't accused Tancred or Factoid Killer, among others, largely because I know them from other pages.
Licinius/J is me/Man from Oz have admitted that they use the same computer and sometimes edit under IP numbers. That is prima facie evidence of sockpuppets. Furthermore, J is me has now received an indefinite ban for various transgressions. Don't complain to me about bad faith. Anyone who is innocent of sockpuppetry has nothing to fear from such an accusation.
For the record, Snottygobble and I have never met, and we have barely exchanged a word on Wipipedia pages, except for me complaining about one of his edits. I'd love to see evidence that we are bosom buddies, coz it just ain't there. Grant65 | Talk 16:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Grant65 Said 'Maybe he has a split personality rather than sockpuppets.' So was this comment in good faith?

Grant65 Said 'I see Jimididit has attempted to round up support on talk pages relating to codes other than Aussie rules.' The only support i've attempted to round up is for a general contribution to this article. I believe the contributions are unbalanced and that the article could use some contributions from people from other backgrounds. There are too many aussie rules pundits contributing to this article in comparison to supporters of other codes. I have not participated in this vote and don't intend to.

Grant65 said 'Well I'm certainly enjoying being part of majority opinion' Isn't it funny how everyone else with that opinion is a self confessed AFL fan? Where's the mix of opinions? What hapenned to all of the soccer people? Beaten off with a stick no doubt.

Grant65 Said 'Unfortunately for you guys (or guy), its unlikely that non-Australians even understand what we're arguing about,' Well that's irrelevant since I have no intention of dragging people into this argument.

Grant65 Said 'I haven't accused Tancred or Factoid Killer, among others' What others? And what evidence do you have that NSWelshman is a sockpuppet of licinius? Did you even bother to investigate? Suggest you take a look at his user page User:NSWelshman.

Grant65 Said 'Furthermore, J is me has now received an indefinite ban for various transgressions.' Yeah I noticed that. Apparently he visited a different country this time because the new ip address comes from a completely different country to the old one!

Grant65 Said 'Don't complain to me about bad faith. Anyone who is innocent of sockpuppetry has nothing to fear from such an accusation. ' Right. And anyone accusing you of sock puppetry is accused of bad faith and blocked! Everyone else needs to provide evidence. Basically, everyone other than you has to wear a suspected sockpuppet tag until they're investigated. And they're supposed to be happy to ignore it because they have nothing to fear unless they're guilty? Grant65, I accuse you of accusing NSWelshman of being a sockpuppet in BAD FAITH. He even gave you the means to investigate your claim. He pointed you to the state of origin page where he has made edits.

Grant65 said 'I'd love to see evidence that we are bosom buddies, coz it just ain't there' The evidence stronger than your evidence of sock puppeteering. What lead me to this conclusion are the following events/facts...

  1. Snottygobble is part of the AFL fraternity as are you
  2. Snottygobble is from Western Australia as are you
  3. Snottygobble was very quick to amend your page after an anonymous user accused you of being a sock puppet
  4. Snottygobble was very quick to block J is me even though the ip address used came from a different country
  5. Snottygobble was very quick to amend the pages of his other AFL buddies
  6. Snottygobble stopped short of amending the pages of several users who voted licinius' way. In fairness you undid this today but I don't understand why Snottygobble only corrected the pages of his mates.

Since being unfairly blocked for my own username by some admin on a power trip I am making it my mission to hold such people accountable. I'm sure it won't be difficult to round up support from other mistreated wikipedeans Jimididit 17:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The debate may have been a little rough but I can't see the problem really. Grant65 is correct that a non-Australian can't even understand this issue. Australian rules football is called 'Australian Rules Football', most people in the UK wouldn't have a clue what 'Victorian football' was (Is that something to do with history?) or 'Melbourne football' (Where's that?). Wiki should reflect what reality is not what people think it should be.
I'd also take another look at those protesting if I were you. As has been pointed out they all sign their names incorrectly. I've never seen anybody else sign that way. GordyB 21:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

GordyB that is a fair point we all signed wrongly. Blame Licinius, he showed me how to sign and than I showed J is me. If you do not believe me you can go to Licinius's talk page where I left a message long before this poll began. What is this crap about technical sockpuppetry? It is not mentioned on either the vote page or the sockpuppet page. Grant65 has just made it up IN BAD FAITH to attempt to manipulate the vote. --The man from OZ 07:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


Grant65's point is irrelevant. As I said earlier I am not trying to gather support for licinius' vote. I'm trying to get people from outside of AFL Australia to contribute to this article. Jimididit 22:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
But as Grant has previously pointed out, the original main contributor to this article was an Englishman, Mintguy, who understood the history of football. I repeat again, this article is as good a summation of the history of football as you are likely to find anywhere, and it is impossible to say that aussie rules is somehow favoured or dominates the article - it doesn't come close to doing that. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree this is an excellent article and is not biased towards Australian football. And I'm an Englishman with little interest in AFL.GordyB 23:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah come off it. It's only a matter of weeks since we successfully managed to replace the aussie rules picture as the main image for this article! Input from outside of Australia can only have a positive effect. If the article is so perfect you have nothing to worry about. Factoid Killer 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair go Factoid - we've just said that an Englishman wrote most of the article and you've just replied harshly to the views of another Englishman with no interest in AFL. The picture you refer to was neither here or there - it was an engraving of a football game from 1866 - it could have been any code from that era - because around 1866 the codes would have all looked very similar to the casual observer. For instance, at that time there was still a lot of ball handling allowed in Association Football, and aussie rules was yet to settle on the shape of the ball (basically because balls were not mass produced and you played with whatever you could get your hands on). Also, the aussie rules of that era would have been virtually indistinguishable from the rugby of the era. So when people complain about an engraving of a football game from 1866 as somehow favouring one code or the other, or giving it undue prominence, they are showing a gross ignorance of the general history of football. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, a couple of League fans are jealous that the historical picture heading a fine and balanced article happens to reference Aussie Rules and in retaliation to this affront they have it removed and now want to deface the small Aussie Rules section by replacing the name with a word no-one uses? Its hard to believe anyone could be this petty and childish. MoZero 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It's funny (no, ironic) to think that I wrote a good part of History of rugby league — even though I knew little about that code beforehand — just over a year ago, because none of the Australian Wikipedia editors were interested! I even appealed at the Australian editors' noticeboard for help. Now the Aussie league fundamentalists have come out of the woodwork to attack an article which dares to mention Australian rules by its proper name and accord it the proper historical importance. Grant65 | Talk 12:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If that reasoning helps you sleep at night then you just keep telling yourself that. What I find funny is how defensive everyone is being over the idea of inviting people from other codes to contribute to the article. Factoid Killer 18:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Sleep at night? What crime am I supposed to have committed? I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at, Factoid. If caring about the standard of this article is a crime, then I plead guilty. Grant65 | Talk 01:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd all be happy to have more non-Australian input to the article. It is already good, but that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that an awful lot of non-Australians who see this want to stay well clear because they see a whole load of ridiculous conversations going on on this talk page, mainly about things that aren't worth discussing. I'm not claiming that anyone has been perfect, and it's not worth arguing about who started it, but somehow now most of the discussion seems to be attacking each other rather than discussing the article. There have been, and still are, opportunities for the shire boys to put their points and answer the constructive repsonses that their comments have received, if they want to. However, as I said before, if they and the rest of us keep responding angrily to the more silly statements and accusations (whether they were intended as good faith humour or are the result of users being fed up with the silly arguments), then we're not going to get anywhere. As someone who has been insulted personally or collectively by both "sides" of the argument, can I ask that everyone actually listen to the points other users are making, and not assume that every point made is evidence of a "fraternity" with an agenda - these sort of assumptions are what lead to people taking sides. JPD (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK then. So lets just put this whole argument to rest and leave that section of the page as it currently stands, as the poll dictated (with the Irish/Australian line as the heading).Wilko29 04:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The debate is over. Factoid Killer 18:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope it is. Good luck convincing you know who. Grant65 | Talk 01:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I dispute the result due to the fact that one user has been banned on no real basis. J is me was banned first for doing no more than what Grant65 had done, though admittedly in my opinion acting in bad faith, and now has been banned for logging in "anonymously" with out any evidence. Snottygobble is out of line. Anyhow this has robbed one potential voter and in my opinion was completely deliberate. Also I object to some of the votes on the basis that they have been ids created since the first poll began. I have already objected to this --Licinius 06:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you lost. Build a bridge and get over it. Wilko29 10:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Licinius if you want your opinion to be taken seriously in the future you have to accept the outcome. It's clear that none of the people who voted against you were sockpuppets. I don't agree with the way they or you have conducted yourself in this debate but at the end of the day the votes are in and you did lose. better luck next time Jimididit 11:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear. Several of the voters were new identities and as such contestable. Also judging by the comments, very few actually knew what the poll was about. --Licinius 13:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Grant, You still haven't answered any of my questions. The number 1 question i'd like answered is why NSWelshman was blocked. What evidence do you have of sockpuppetry. Because i've investigated it as much as I can and can't see it. I accept much of what you've said in response but you didn't answer this question Jimididit 11:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't block NSWelshman, if he is blocked. I don't have the power to do it. I have left the matter in the hands of the appropriate authorities. If he isn't a sockpuppet, he has nothing to fear. That's all I want to say about it. Grant65 | Talk 11:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I was never blocked. I merely chose not to edit until cleared. I've been cleared of sockpuppet allegations. Still wouldn't mind knowing exactly why you suspected me Grant. Was there a reason outside of the way I voted? NSWelshman 12:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Age of reason

There have been two articles that have appeared in the sports section of The Age newspaper over the last two days that are of great interest to us. In yesterday's edition, I read that Australia Post is about to release a series of stamps to celebrate the Socceroos' attempt to embark on the impossible dream (not meaning to be disrespectful, simply an honest assessment). This new series of stamps is entitled "Soccer in Australia". When the General Manager of Australia Post was asked why use the term "soccer", he simply said that it was Australia Post's view that that is the name used by the majority of Australians, and that the word football is saved for the more dominant code of a particular area, i.e. aussie rules or league.

In today's edition, there was a great article about the proposal to heritage list the Melbourne Football Club, the oldest football club in Australia (in any code) and the third oldest in the world (in any code). It was formed in 1858, the year in which we have the first recorded game of aussie rules, the game being codified in the following year, making the game older than Association Football. Interestingly, it was once thought that the Geelong Football Club was the second oldest club in Australia (formed in July 1859), but there is now new evidence indicating that the Castlemaine Football Club was in fact formed in June 1859. That makes it the 5th oldest club in the world, and Geelong the 6th oldest club in the world. I can't recall where we list the oldest football clubs in the world, but this is what The Age says:

  1. Guy's Hospital Rugby Club, London, 1843
  2. Sheffield Football Club, Sheffield, 1857
  3. Melbourne Football Club, Melbourne, Australia, 1858
  4. Blackheath Rugby, London, 1858
  5. Castlemaine Football Club, Castlemaine, Australia, June 1859
  6. Geelong Football Club, Geelong, Australia, July 1859
  7. Hallam Football Club, Sheffield, 1860
  8. Notts County, Nottingham, 1862

(although I would have thought that Carlton Football Club was pre 1862). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Football/Archive_7&oldid=1080613903"