Talk:San Diego Sockers (2009)

Football Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

San Diego Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject San Diego To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate San Diego related articles from Category:Unassessed San Diego articles and Category:Unknown-importance San Diego articles with the {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner.
Cleanup : A cleanup listing for this project is available: clean-up listing for San_Diego
Expand : San Miguel Mountain, Most articles from Category:Stub-Class San Diego articles.
Photo : Request photos that are needed from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in San Diego County, California to include in each article.
Stubs : Work on articles in Category:San Diego County, California geography stubs.
Other : * Add {{WikiProject San Diego}} project banner to related articles' talk pages and assess.
- Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality.
- Get San Diego into Featured article status.
- Improve groups of articles to meet the standards for a Good or Featured Topic.

On 19 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from San Diego Sockers (2009–) to San Diego Sockers (2009–present). The result of the discussion was moved to San Diego Sockers (2009).

Requested move 17 February 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– The current San Diego Sockers team should have the "San Diego Sockers" title. The page currently holding the "San Diego Sockers" title is a disambiguation page and should be labeled as such to avoid confusion and improve accessibility to the article in question. This would follow the lead of San Diego Gulls and San Diego Gulls (disambiguation) among other examples. Azure1233 (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason we are changing Sockers to Soccers, the request doesn’t give any indication as to why?--65.92.160.124 (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that this correction was by Azure1233 while not logged on, perhaps they would like to verify this. Of course it does disclose one IP address they have used, so they don't need to if they'd prefer not to. Just they might like to. Not that important, but it's a bit confusing as is. Andrewa (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The current team is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 12:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no evidence that the current iteration is the PRIMARYTOPIC. Giant Snowman 12:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence that any of the three teams currently listed is PT, so best to leave all disambiguated and the DAB at the base name. That way, anyone wikilinking to any of the articles gets a warning that the term is ambiguous, and mislinkings are avoided. Andrewa (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requested move 19 April 2021

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 to San Diego Sockers (2009) (technical move requested at WP:RMT) (non-admin closure) Lennart97 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Sockers (2009–) → San Diego Sockers (2009–present) – WP:NCSPORTS was no help on the best title for this article, but the current form violates MOS:DATERANGE, specifically MOS:DATETOPRES, and should be moved. If San Diego Sockers (2009–present) is considered undesirable, and alternative would simply be San Diego Sockers (2009) – i.e. move to titling which just lists the "founding year" as disambiguator. But if the common format here is for a "date range", then the article must be moved as proposed, as per MOS:DATETOPRES. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)—Relisted. 2pou (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting enough views for a primary topic, so move San Diego Sockers (2009–) → San Diego Sockers, and San Diego Sockers → San Diego Sockers (disambiguation). 162.208.168.92 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per nom, 2009-present will be more suitable and expressive. 2009- looks incomplete. Namkongville (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 11:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as proposed; that is not standard naming. Instead simply move to San Diego Sockers (2009) as year of formation, following examples of Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891) etc. Certainly not the PRIMARYTOPIC, as previous discussion 2 months ago found. Giant Snowman 11:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion regarding primary topic only had 4 votes, 2 for and 2 against, so not exactly a strong consensus. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except that that was included as an option in the original proposal – so, in fact you don't actually "oppose", you "support the alternative". And "that is not standard naming" assumes facts not in evidence – if that is true, somebody needs to add this to WP:NCSPORTS to make it clear how to handle these situations. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Would also support GS's alternative. No preference between the two. Either is better than the open ended dash. RedPatch (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support either (2009–present) or (2009), definitely not (2009–). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 17:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. But only for (2009). (2009-present) is too cumbersome. KitHutch (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a move, but only to San Diego Sockers (2009), otherwise oppose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's pretty clear there is consensus to move to San Diego Sockers (2009) (which, to be clear, was an option in the original proposal). But it can't stay at the current title, regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is clear consensus to move to San Diego Sockers (2009). Giant Snowman 18:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was not merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, bear with me if I'm overlooking anything, but it seems clear to me that the current San Diego Sockers franchise (currently the article San Diego Sockers (2009)) is in fact the modern successor of both San Diego Sockers (1978–1996) and San Diego Sockers (2001–2004), whereas all three should merged into one article. A quick look at the current team's website (https://www.sdsockers.com/) shows that the current Sockers claim the full history of both of the former iterations of the club as its own. Records, championships, retired numbers, logos of past iterations, etc. are all on display together in a manner that suggests the current club holds the rights to the previous franchise iterations and considers it all to be the same franchise with a common lineage despite periods of dormancy and tenures in different leagues over time (https://www.sdsockers.com/decades). I realize this is a cumbersome process and there have been discussions about naming recently, including one that I started without knowledge that the current club claims both previous iterations as being the same franchise as the one operating today, but this merger seems to be both the appropriate move and the logical end to any further confusion regarding this topic. Azure1233 (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose New clubs that name themselves get new and separate articles on Wikipedia. Look at Tacoma Stars (1983–92) and Tacoma Stars. There are also multiple examples in MLS with the big one being Vancouver Whitecaps FC, Vancouver Whitecaps (1974–1984), and Vancouver Whitecaps (1986–2010). That is the precedent for Wikipedia. KitHutch (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the current club claims the history of previous iterations as its own, that is not the case in the examples you've listed. The Sockers have also always competed at the same level of play, unlike the Whitecaps. See the examples of the Cleveland Browns of the NFL and the Charlotte Hornets of the NBA. Both of these clubs are second iterations of teams of the same name and both claim the history of the original iterations as their own, just as this club does. The periods of no activity in between the iterations are considered suspended operations, but the clubs on both ends of the timeline are universally considered as one in the same. On the flip side, look at the example of the current Winnipeg Jets of the NHL, who do not have the historical rights to the original iteration of the club with the same name, and consider it separate. I believe that may be an important distinction. Azure1233 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Sounders and Whitecaps do claim the legacies of their NASL predecessors. Both have founded 1974 somewhere on their uniform even though both clubs were established in the 2000s. KitHutch (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It really doesn't matter if the current clubs claim the history of a previous team or not. At most the own the rights to the name. Different leagues, different eras and different ownerships groups. Different teams. --dashiellx (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Same name, different clubs. For a similar case from the other side of the Atlantic, see Accrington Stanley F.C. / Accrington Stanley F.C. (1891). Narky Blert (alt) (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's been almost a year of inaction; I feel like the consensus is oppose which I agree with myself as well. Can we get a discussion closure and merge request take down? –Packerfan213 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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