Talk:College soccer

Requested move 15 January 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. There seem to be two entirely separate reasons for wanting to move this - one to undo an undiscussed move of the global page to a more specific US one, and the other claiming the US concept is primary for this name. I'd dispute the latter point myself, but it seems immaterial anyway. Given that everyone's agreed (and as far as I can tell the article does already discuss college soccer in other countries too), and we're re-establishing the prior status quo, it's good to go. Discussions on a possible change of scope to be just the US or anything else ,should return to the talk page though.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

---

College soccer in the United States → College soccer – Per discussion at WT:FOOTY, original page at College soccer was copy and pasted to College soccer in the United States without discussion, then a history merge was done so that the entire history is now under College soccer in the United States. This has resulted in the talk pages being misaligned as well, and I am hopeful we can get this returned to the status quo before discussing whether or not a move is needed. Jay eyem (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given association football can be referred to as "soccer" in any country and is played in most colleges around the world, "college football" is clearly a generic title. The current title is clearly the correct one. But obviously the whole history thing needs to be sorted out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  College football already exists and represents a different sport entirely. This request is purely a move about bringing the pages back in line regarding their edit history before separately discussing if they should be split since this initial mess was done without any discussion in the first place. Jay eyem (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant "college soccer". But College football should probably be moved too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 16:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom - 'college soccer' refers exclusively to that sport in the US and is clear PRIMARY. GiantSnowman 16:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Giant Snowman. "Soccer" is pretty much U.S. centric as the name for association football, making the shortened title accurate and concise. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support The article already covers other countries, even though by nature the topic will tend towards the US. The shorter "College soccer" should not be redirecting to a longer "College soccer in the United States". (Disclaimer (?): I'm the author of WP:INUSA.) Closer: please note there's more content at Talk:College soccer than at this talk page, and the talk pages ideally should have been merged too. --BDD (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support I had created the article college association football (see diff) moving non-US content there but that change was then reverted. I'm glad that finally my suggestion has been taken into account so the current title is not accurate according to the topics covered. Fma12 (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  You undertook a horrible copy & paste move that has caused massive disruption. GiantSnowman 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  This is YOUR personal opinion with which I definitely disagree. In fact it was a copy-paste move so the article had the same problems described on this discussion. Fma12 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  It's not a matter of opinion, we already confirmed what happened in the previous discussion where you made all of these changes undiscussed and then a histmerge screwed up the edit history as a result. This is just a move to revert to the status quo. If you want to discuss whether or not the article needs splitting in the future we can do that, preferably after we are back to the status quo. Jay eyem (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.