Talk:Canada Soccer drone spying scandal

Canada: Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Football: American & Canadian Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics 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.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.tsn.ca/canada-s-men-s-and-women-s-soccer-teams-have-relied-on-drones-and-spying-for-years-sources-say-1.2153674

Should this be titled "Dronegate"

In reporting on the last two days - basically since it became exposed as a scandal beyond the Olympics - news media are increasingly using the coinage "Dronegate" (e.g. SF Chronicle, NZ Herald, Sportsnet, CBC, and of course TSN). If this is apparent as the WP:COMMONNAME, the article could (even should) be moved to that as the title. I'm posting this for discussion to see if anyone can think of any other scandals that have been called "Dronegate" (i.e. to abide by WP:PRIMARY), as it doesn't seem like it would be uncommon. If there aren't responses in a few days, I'll move it then. Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I see it's already been added to List of -gate scandals and controversies. Kingsif (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. I admit that I added it without having actually heard anyone call it "dronegate". I just thought to myself, has anyone called this dronegate? And sure enough, it has been used, so I added it to the -gate article. But I don't think it's the common name yet, unlike say Broomgate.-- Earl Andrew - talk 01:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up for a reference to broomgate! Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

long exasperated sigh

If "Dronegate" becomes the common name, then yes, the article should be moved. My personal opinion is that appending "–gate" to the end of any controversy is childish, but I know it has been a thing for many years and I will abide by policy. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I don't believe the sources dictate that this is the common name for the incident. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Commonname" is not the guiding principle for article names; the five criteria are: WP:CRITERIA. Two that are particularly important here are "Recognizability" and "Precision". The precision criterion is particularly helpful in this case, since it requires: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." "Dronegate" fails that, as well as "Recognizability". It doesn't give the who, what, where, when or why. The current article title does all that, quite neatly. As well, the fact that media use "-gate" as their go-to for headlines does not mean that is the best name, due to "Recentism". "Dronegate" works now, for immediate media purposes, because it is on the front pages, so to speak, and media use "-gate" as their go-to for a quick, uninformative, summary of an issue, but does that mean it is the best title, going forward? I don't think so. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, one could argue that if a common name is, well, common, it is both recognisable and doesn't need to contain details because the idea is most people associate details with the common name. That's not to argue against your !vote in this instance (and I would say that when this passes, the next scandal involving a drone will likely get the same media moniker for its own news cycle), just commenting on how COMMONNAME and CRITERIA aren't so mutually exclusive. Kingsif (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as article title: "Dronegate" could mean any scandal involving drones. However, "Dronegate" can be acknowledged as an alternative name with references to support the alternative name, like how Important Conversations is a short name of Conversations about Important Things. --Minoa (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since similar incidents may also have involved drones such as [1] where Leeds United seemed to put a spy to Derby County's Thursday training session while further below the external link, Werder Bremen used a drone to spy on Hoffenheim, so dronegate seems ambiguous especially as future incidents with the use of drone spying may occur. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]