Talk:Bloodgate

Rugby union Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union 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.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physio

I believe the physio has been struck off, although Dr Williams was merely given a warning.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname vs. name

As far as I can see, Bloodgate is the name of the incident. "Nickname" implies that it has a different, formal name. If it does have a more formal name, then that should be the title of the article. Dbpjmuf (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a coinage cooked up by journalists because it's easier to fit in a banner headline. (Obviously the broadsheets, as the red tops don't like anything with more than one syllable in their headlines). I'm willing to bet that "bloodgate" is the name this scandal is best known by, but I suspect (the RFU/IRB whoever dealt with it) won't have referred to it as such in their investigation.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you could reference an "official" name it would be original research. Dbpjmuf (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the formal name. Plus Bloodgate is definitely the common name ? Gnevin (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is evan's appeal [1]. I can't see a formal name here Gnevin (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a formal name. A formal name would be something like "Harlequins fake blood incident", not something with the ridiculous -gate suffix. It's obviously a nickname.--MacRùsgail (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet we've no evidence of this. Even the ERC report doesn't have a formal title. Can you provide a formal name ? If not then bloodgate is the name as it's the only one we have Gnevin (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, not again. We saw how mono-agenda you were in the Irish flag debate. Any scandal, other than Watergate, with "-gate" on the end is a nickname. I don't have a problem with keeping the article at this title, but it is a nickname, and we should call a spade a spade.--MacRùsgail (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the spade is always called a Shovel and there is no evidence of it being called anything else Gnevin (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the styling suggests journalese. Journalists have had a habit of shoving -gate onto every scandal for years - Lobbygate, being a recent example. Truth be told, a lot of journalists are pretty unoriginal and lazy when it comes to this kind of thing. Personally I'd prefer they called it Draculagate or something like that, lol! -MacRùsgail (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, simply reword it "Bloodgate refers a rugby union scandal..." and get rid of the debate. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that Gnevin (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, but remember the "to". ;) -MacRùsgail (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what are the options regarding names here? Would be good to have options before discussing whether we like the name. Anyone here familiar with Wikipedia:Article titles? - Shudde ^talk 12:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the debate is re the article name, it's about the fourth word in the article itself. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I see. Shame there isn't a better name (mainly for posterity), but I've never heard of it being called anything else. - Shudde ^talk 12:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with it being called "Bloodgate" (well, actually, as I say above, it is lazy journalism...), but it is an obvious informal name. I suppose it's disappearing back into obscurity as we speak, and as professionalism continues to march forward, much worse is in the offing.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]