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 articles
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 articles
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
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
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
Yeah I see. Shame there isn't a better name (mainly for posterity), but I've never heard of it being called anything else. -
Shuddetalk12:23, 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
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 articles
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 articles
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
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
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
Yeah I see. Shame there isn't a better name (mainly for posterity), but I've never heard of it being called anything else. -
Shuddetalk12:23, 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