Talk:Australia/Archive 8

Are there any images floating around that would be more appropriate for the economy section than the skyline of Melbourne? I'd like one of a big open cut mine, something being harvested, a working port. Make you suggestion here please.--Peta 07:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

From Footscray ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it, Pippu. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this one from Kalgoorlie? --Astrokey44 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this mine one is great.--Peta 01:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Another vote for the Kalgoorlie mine image! -- Chuq 01:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

how about scale all the images (including the skyline) to a similar size then make them into one vertical picture?

Although his wording was messy, Geoff Wing had a point about the current wording regarding the beliefs of indigenous Australians. Maybe this would be better:

The first Australians were the ancestors of the current Indigenous Australians; they arrived via land bridges and short sea-crossings from present-day Southeast Asia. Until recent centuries, most Indigenous Australians were hunter-gatherers, with a complex oral culture and spiritual values based on reverence for the land and a belief in the Dreamtime. The Torres Strait Islanders, ethnically Melanesian, inhabited the Torres Strait Islands and parts of far-north Queensland; they possess distinct cultural practices from the Aborigines.

Can someone do better? JPD (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps instead of the adjective 'first' the use of Pleistocene australians would be more accurate? Melbob 02:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

The ancestors of the current Indigenous Australians arrived via land bridges and short sea-crossings from present-day Southeast Asia.

Someone has just added:

Most common languages other than English: Chinese languages, Italian, Greek, Romanian

Chinese, Italian and Greek I can see - but Romanian? Is that possible? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• There were a lot of untrue and undiscussed changes made to the demographics, I have reverted them.--Peta 00:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted back further: all recent edits were either degenerative, inconsequential or incorrectly sourced and integrated.--cj | talk 07:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Should there be an article on the international rankings, anyone wanna consider doing one? Jackp 04:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• No, relevant inernational ranking are mentioned in the text.--Peta 00:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how to edit the table template, but under 'Independence' the date for the Australian Acts doesn't line up. (It's sitting next to the Statute of Westminster) Fizban 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In the independence table: australia's signing of the treaty of versailes after ww1 is quite important. previous treaties were signed by britain for its domminions and consequently this was the first foreign recognition of australia's independence from britain. do ppl think that this should be included in the table? or am i just wrong on this? (i need more practice with my wikipedia) aussietiger 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Australian music includes classical, jazz, and many popular music genres."

Shouldn't modern music also be mentioned? The summer festival season is such an iconic tradition it looks like a deliberate omission. Surely the BDO is more signicant than Dame Melba.So always come for a nice stay.

According to the article...

• Australian Population: 20,555,300
• Australian Unemployed: 10,034,500
• Australian Unemployment rate: 5.3%

Fix please? What's it supposed to be? -Kinst 15:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be what it says - Employed 10,034,500, not unemployed. Also keep in mind that the unemployment rate isn't a percentage of the total population, as it doesn't include those defined to be not seeking work. JPD (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oooh, I read it wrong, nevermind. --Kinst 16:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

New South Wales was not (despite the wikipedia article) settled as the "Penal Colony" of NSW, it was then and thereafter known simply as the "Colony" of New South Wales. Early colonial rulers were no doubt averse to the idea that a colony should be pidgeon-holed to such an extent that it affected the colony's status. It's important to recognise that free settlers and British Government officials in NSW played an important role in the early years of European settlement. Therefore, we should use the correct official name of "The Colony of New South Wales" in the article. -AI.

Nowhere does the article state "The Penal Colony of New South Wales" was the colony's official name. It states the uncontestable iron-clad fact that New South Wales was settled as a penal colony. As far as "pidgeonholing" goes, before the arrival of Lachlan Macquarie and for a period afterwards, colonial administrators in New South Wales and Great Britain were frequent in asserting the colony's primary purpose was and should remain penal. Slac speak up! 11:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find this anywhere so I thought I might just ask here. In the early 20th century, from about 1900-1920 during WW1, what sort of school system was in place? I mean, were there 12 grades? What grade did most kids reach? What age? I really appreciate this, cheers. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 06:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone has just added soccer to the rugby codes, cricket, etc. as a sport we perform well in. I sort of half agree, but it could be argued that it is a tad premature. Maybe it can stay if we make it through to the second round! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 07:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Even now, the Socceroos are in the finals. The 32 teams in Germany are competing in finals that started with 198 countries competing for a spot! As a proportion, that makes us look pretty good already. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that does suggest that they are reasonably good, but it's not quite "particularly strong", and definitely not at the same level as the other sports mentioned. I don't think it should be there. JPD (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you put the current World Cup performance in the context of even the more recent history, it's an anomaly. Wait a few years until we actually win some competition or a series of important matches. --bainer (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

American makes the soccer world cup very often, but on their site they don't claim to be particularly strong. I don't think any other in the world who has only made the soccer world cup 2 times as 'particularly strong'. I think saying that we do makes us look embarassing.

Is there a reason the "Royal Anthem" is listed on the info box?

I'd gather the majority of Australians wouldn't know it, don't want to know it and wouldn't even mime it if it was played for us.

Our anthem is "Advance Australia Fair" and that's all that should be listed.

Does anyone else agree? --James Pinnell 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• But the fact is that the Queen is our Head of state, therefore, anytime that we are greeting our Head of state publicly, we do indeed play the royal anthem for her. It's unfortunate, and a bit embarassing, but it's a fact. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why unfortunate and a bit embarrassing? I find it unfortunate and a bit embarrassing that many Australians seem to forget that if you don't want to go down the republican cul de sac, and wish to retain the Queen as a common symbol of shared history, traditions, populations, and parliamentary democracy, then you have to bloody well show her some respect as Head of State. And that includes the anthem . . .Sir Andrew de Harcla 11:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/symbols/anthem.cfmThe Australian National Anthem, proclaimed in 1984, identifies Australia at home and overseas. It unites the nation and is a public expression of joy and pride in being Australian.The Australian National Anthem is used at important public ceremonies, sporting and community events.In 1974 ‘Advance Australia Fair’ was adopted as the Australian National Anthem; however in 1976 ‘God Save The Queen’ was reinstated.In 1977 the Australian Electoral Office conducted a poll for the national anthem tune in conjunction with a referendum. The tune ‘Advance Australia Fair’ was the preferred option.In 1981 the National Australia Day Council recommended that the Australian National Anthem consist of two verses of ‘Advance Australia Fair ‘with some modification.In 1984 the Australian National Anthem, consisting of the tune of ‘Advance Australia Fair’ and the verses as drafted by the National Australia Day Council, was proclaimed.

Or put simply, they just took the tune from the birthday tune "Why was he/she born so beautful..." and gave it new words. --Merbabu 00:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm being really picky here, but the word 'penal' is mentioned twice in one paragraph in the introduction. This is enough to put me off the article at large, and I'm sure some other people have noticed it. Can someone please rectify this? Because I CBF. Black-Velvet 12:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's used in two linked phrases which really wouldn't convey the same meaning otherwise. Out of curiosity, why does it put you off? --bainer (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The first three letters, and it sounds like an adjective for something not censored for minors. 124.178.27.241 13:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It does seem a bit odd to say it was a penal colony as well as it was settled through penal transportation, but to object to the word itself because it sounds like something else is completely ridiculous. JPD (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A solution may be to have a dictionary on hand when you read an article. Xtra 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am just imagining someone reading the article and being very confused about Australia's early history with all these "penile colonies" we had. I guess that explains the origins of the Mardi Gras! -- Chuq 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is so going on my quotes page. Rebecca 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the second "penal" to improve the flow of the sentence. Penal colony is still linked from the history section. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You've made me and many other edgy heterosexuals happy men. Many thanks. Black-Velvet 12:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you've obviously got a big problem if you can't hack the word 'penal..' maybe you're kidding yourself about the heterosexuality? --58.160.157.30 07:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Replace that... it's obviously a case of reverting not going back far enough...

I added a few external links to the page yesterday which I believe that are relevant & useful. However, they were deleted today. Is the addition of links or other information here against some sort of policies here or confined to certain individuals? Suisse2007 08:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole Australia page looks unnatractive and its not a very good ad for our country, I think it needs a complete overhaul. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.7.176.131 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a problem, seeing as it is an encyclopedia article and not an ad. What do you think would improve it? -- Chuq 13:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This sentence forces two rather separate ideas together:

The capital city is Canberra, and the current population of around 20.5 million is concentrated mainly in the large coastal cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, and Adelaide.

I've changed "although" to "and", because there was insufficient sense of contradicting the preceding clause. "The current population" might strike the reader at first as being Canberra's current population until reading further on (this was also the case with "although"). Anyone like to suggest a better wording? Tony 14:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "...although the current national population..." to restore the original thrust of the sentence (that although it is the capital, Canberra is not a highly populated city) while making it clear that the current population referred to is not Canberra's. --bainer (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

i believe that the name of Australia actually comes from the spanish, should that be put into the article?

to what im lead to believe is that the name of Australia actually originated with the spanish. I believe that Quiros came with the name of "Austrialia del Espiritu Santo" for an island he landed on which he thought was the great southern continent (present day Australia) in 1606.

Though it is thought that his chief pilot Luis Vaez de Torres sighted Australia when he travelled through the Torres straight - the torres straight is named after him - also in 1606.

see

http://www.namingaustralia.org.au/

http://www.namingaustralia.org.au/Docs/Quirostriptico.pdf

Yes, the island group is now known as Vanuatu, and there is still an island called Espiritu Santo there. He never applied the term "Austrialia del Espiritu Santo" to the landmass that is now occupied by the nation of Australia, so he doesn't get any credit for naming it. JackofOz 01:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Every time I go to create the portal on Sydney, it redirects to Australia's portal, what do I do? I'm willing to create one and wish to be able to do so. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Jackp 09:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There isn't enough quality Sydney-related content to sustain a portal of any substance, hence the redirect. You've been explained this before.--cj | talk 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The amount on information on Sydney is so giantic, it is my belief you are obviously joking. The addition of a Sydney wiki page is envitable and a great idea

Dear contributors

Since you're involved in maintaining a successful FA on a country, your experienced critiqueing would be valued at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cambodia, where another country FA will require serious work if it's to retain its status. Thanks, Tony 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

i am a carpenter that thinking to immigate to Australia, but i am not sure about successfull. i want to work 1-2 years in a workshop then make my own workshop and ... is there any relevant article in WikiPerdia?

• See Immigration to Australia and the external links at the end of the article.--Peta 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

i would recomend asking for information by a professional, not over wikipedia...

As an Australian, I'd recommend you contact the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Their website is http://www.immi.gov.au/ Harryboyles 09:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's minor but I find the gatekeeping here extremely odd. Adding "...and sport" to "Culture" is reverted. Ditto splitting sport to its own section. So the word "sport" doesn't appear in the TOC. Is there an MOS consensus for this that I don't know about? Marskell 13:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Single paragraphs don't need headings, see MoS--Peta 13:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

So make it two. I'm actually surprised it's so short. I came here expecting a good one to use as a template for another article under review (see note on Cambodia above). Is there, to be more specific, a guideline on country TOCs? Marskell 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikproject countries has one, just look at the other featued coutries. Sport is short becuase the concensus was to keep the article, as a summary, under ~45 kb, make sport its own section and it'd blow out of proportion compared to the remainder of the article.--Peta 14:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(after several edit conflicts)There isn't anything in the MOS, but the current structure is that used by many country articles, particularly other featured articles, and roughly described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. A separate section is not necessary for one paragraph, and adding "and sport" to the heading is redundant. The question really is why should "sport" appear in the TOC? JPD (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"Blow out of proportion"—I think not. But perhaps I'll take it up at the Wiki project, which appears to be the de facto guideline on the topic. I certainly don't see how adding "...and sport" does any harm whatsoever (redundant how?). And I would revert the onus of JPD's question: why shouldn't it appear if it's something you could reasonably expect people to browse for? I'd suggest treating it country-by-country. "Culture" on Australia might have a sport sub-section while, say, on France it might have a cuisine sub-section. Standardization is good but it shouldn't be a straight jacket. Marskell 14:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Its arrogant to assume that any one part of a countries culture is more important that another. By using headings and subheadings you are implying that a subject is distinct and more important than another topic. Sport is a part of cutlure, the sport information is there, it is easy to find, it is balanced with the other content.--Peta 14:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I should also add that in my experience articles that have single subheadings within a section get criticised at peer review or FAC for increasing the length of the TOC for little to no gain, take a look at PRC - the sport and recreation heading breaks up the flow of the culture section and increases the TOC for no actual gain in readability.--Peta 14:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Having a sub-section is one thing, although as Peta says there are downsides to that. Adding a redundant item to a heading is another matter. Media does not appear in the TOC either, so should we make it "Culture, sport and media"? Or be less redundant but more detailed and say "Arts, media and sport"? Culture is a perfectly good heading for the section. Standardisation simply means that people are more likely to expect this, so it is even less of a problem. JPD (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing specificity and redundancy. And why the word "arrogant" was just introduced I don't know—of course cultures vary in what they attach importance to. How could it be otherwise? Cheers, Marskell 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was quite clear about the difference between specificity and redundancy. "Arts, media and sport" is specific. "Culture" isn't. "Culture and sport" is redundant, as it includes the general and the specific. It is also not balanced, giving undue emphasis to one topic. JPD (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it time to change soccer to football yet? Thats its official name now, after all. I've become quite accustomed to calling it football after watching so much world cup :) aussietiger 14:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In which context are you asking? In the Australian context it is definitely not time, and may never be, have you ever heard of the Australian Football League? Some papers are now using "Football" to mean soccer - but you will find that all the Southern papers, i.e. Victorian, South Australian, Western Australian and Tasmanian, i.e. representing half of Australia's population, continue to refer to Association Football as soccer (as all of Canada, the USA and New Zealand continues to do). And while Wikipedia continues to contain an article called Football which (quite rightly) refers to the general meaning of the word, and the meaning most understood by the majority of the English speaking world, then one can only conclude that that time has not yet come. Who knows, there may come a time when crowds at regular soccer games nudge 90,000, when club memberships top 50,000, when crowds at games are split almost 50/50 between males and females, when half of Australia watches the grand final on tele, etc. Although if Australian soccer was true to its roots, there would be no grand final! The top team would simply take all, and we could enjoy dozens of nil all draws in the lead up to the exciting finish to the season (when the champion team had been decided 12 weeks earlier). πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This old one again! Tonight, I'm going to write up a page summarising all current football Australia related discussions, so we can just point people to it. Will post a link here when I have done it so it can be reviewed. -- Chuq 06:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Chuq/Football in Australia and see what you think. Sources? Well, I haven't found where they all are, but mostly on talk and archive pages of Australian wikipedian's noticeboard, Talk:Football (soccer) in Australia, Talk:Australia national football (soccer) team, Talk:Australia_national_soccer_team/Archive_1. Oh, and the intent of this page is to summarise past discussion results - not to re-discuss the whole issue again. -- Chuq 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Read the discussion in the australian soccer page after i was on this page. I didnt realise ppl had such strong feelings about it! I'm in Qld and ppl don't seem to have to much difficulty with "football" meaning "soccer". I guess cos we have traditionally called rugby (league) football and now we have afl and rugby union popular and also called football, so one more doesn't add too much to the confusion already existing over the word. when you say you are going to the footbal on weekend here no one really knows where you're going. aussietiger 02:58, 12 August 2006

--Jan Juc 09:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

soccer is called soccer because if it wasn't, people would confuse it with AFLyou may have heard people say that USA and Australia are the only countries in the world that call the sport soccer, but that just supports my claim because Australia and USA are the only countries that have their own version of football (USA-Grid iron, australia-AFL)!

Thanks for your time.

A recent reverting of the Australia article rather than attempting to either discuss or improve the article has been performed. The revert seem to have been performed by someone because they did not understand that the "Commonwealth of Australia" and the "Australian Continent" are two distinct concepts, the first is a government ruling various lands and islands, but the second is an area determined by the geographic term continent.

To clarify the situation, the British isles are part of Europe, Japan is part of Asia, and New Guinea is a continental island of the Australian continent just like the smaller island of Tasmania is because they are both sitting on the Australian continental shelf. Even commonly accepted biological indicator species such as wallabies, kangaroos, echidna, and cassowary are endemic to continental Australia including New Guinea, not to the CoA. Just like Sumatra, Java, and the Lesser Sunda Islands are on the Asian continental shelf. Continental land masses are measured by their amount of land above the current sea level, that includes any parts which have become temporary islands.

The fact that the Commonwealth of Australia occupies almost 90% of the continent is not a large or important issue, but Wikipedia should not be promoting the mistaken mythos of the CoA ruling the entire continent either.58.107.9.159 02:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should be careful in ascribing motivations for the revert. The revert clearly did not think that the "Commonwealth of Australia" and the "Australian Continent" were the same thing, as it says the Commonwealth also includes several islands. There are several definitions of "continent", and that sentence seems to be using one that excludes islands. This was perhaps clearer in earlier versions. It may be better not to use this definition of continent, but if so, we need to find better wording than simply inserting an approximate 90% in the sentence. JPD (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently the text says "comprising the mainland of the world's smallest continent and a number of islands in the Southern, Indian, and Pacific Oceans." This may be pedantically correct, however it suggests that New Guinea, the second largest island in the world, is not a mainland, which is kind of absurd and very counter-intuitive. It seems that the continent of Australia includes at least 2 mainlands. JackofOz 10:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, since "mainland" is always a relative term. Then again, I would welcome a less clunky wording of that sentence. JPD (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Australia Census will be released quite soon, so keep an eye out for it to update infomation.

Well, it's being held tonight. It takes a few months for the stats to start coming out. I'm looking forwards to the new population stats. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 04:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the ABS is plannning a two stage release, first in July 2007 then again in November. Sorry guys you might have to wait quite a while for the new population! Benhonan 18 August 2006

Judging by the history on this page, there is a date war (January 1 vs. 1 January). It seems like native Australians write the former, but perhaps the person who (first) wrote them was not. If indeed they write the former, maybe the date conventions should be set that way. I can tell you an article about the United States written in British English would never stand.

I don't understand the purpose of repeatedly reverting someone's alteration of dates when such an alteration is not vandalizing the article, but altering the convention. 67.185.99.246 07:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The person who was changing the dates was a community banned user (User:Pnatt). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Were the reverts due to the fact that changing the dates was unacceptable, or that it was being done by someone who had been community-banned? 67.185.99.246 07:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Pnatt has admitted in the past that he suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder which goes a long way in explaining why is he so persistent in disrupting Wikipedia by changing all dates and English spellings to his personal preference rather than respecting regional variants. However, it's a bit harder to tell if Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Pnatt are him as well or a copycat intent on causing maximum disruption to Wikipedia. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  07:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like the page is in good hands, and thanks for the message. 67.185.99.246 09:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Am discusted to see there is not one mention of the word 'racism'. You are not advertising Australia, but stating fact. Racism is a major issue in Australia's society and history, like South Africa in a way. 600,000 Aboriginals have died upon white settlement with racism being a major contributor. We cannot forget the Muslim's being attacked at Bondi nor OneNation's 25% share of the vote. I know there are links to the Stolen Generation on there. Please stop hiding the truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.28.145.66 (talk • contribs) 23:20, August 16, 2006 (UTC)

There was no riot at Bondi. it was Cronulla. Anyway its a dumb thing to put in a entry on a country.Australia is racist?.... compared to who? Japan? China? Germany? South Africa? France? the three subnations of the US,With global movement of people, all countries have some level of tension between the old and the new. drop it.

Under "Demographics" there is a statement on racial inequality and human rights - this seems reasonable for an article that summarises a range of matters relating to Australia (if more can be added elsewhere in the article without upsetting its current flow and readability, please offer some ideas below). I know that there was a specific article written on the race riots and I am sure you would find other material on related matters if you look for it. Having said all that, as a general proposition, I would agree that Wikipedia is naturally biased towards an Anglo-American perspective of the world, but I do think a significant proportion of contributors make an effort to balance that tendency. πίππύ δ'Ω∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone know why Australians call football soccer and not football? If you do can you mention it somewhere please, thanks Henry Kricancic 14:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In the paragraph on sport, you might notice that there are three other codes of football listed as popular in Australia (Australian rules football is obvious, rugby league and rugby union less so). Rugby and Australian rules were called football in Australia even before the Football Association was formed, and the association version did not become popular for a long time, so the others have traditionally been called football as a result. If you think that mentioning the other codes doesn't make it clear enough, perhaps you could suggest how an explanation could be put in the paragragh nicely? JPD (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What is called football in most countries is more properly called Association Football, to distinguish it from Rugby Football, Australian Football, American Football, Gaelic Football, and no doubt others. Soccer is a recognised abreviation of Association Football, better to use in the context where the code is the least popular of four codes (although this last point may be changing). --Michael Johnson 00:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

More Properly? Why?

Because it is the form of football adopted by The Football Association in 1863, after the split with those who proposed a scrum, who split off and adopted the rules used by the Rugby School. The Association football rules are based on those of Cambridge University, but deleting such features as the high mark, which of course was adopted by Australian rules football, rules of which date from 1858. Read some of the Wikipedia articles, it is all in there. --Michael Johnson 01:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone inserted a poorly spelled reference to 79% of Aussies being descended from a single male prostitute. I deleted it, but if someone can back it up feel free to put it back.

It is just a piece of vandalism that slipped through the net until you picked it up. --Michael Johnson 23:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

${\displaystyle Insertformulahere}$