Talk:Essendon Football Club supplements saga

Australia: Australian rules football Start‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Essendon Football Club supplements saga is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian rules football (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

To COMMONNAME or not to COMMONNAME

In two minds about whether or not to move the page from Essendon Football Club supplements controversy to Essendon Football Club supplements saga. The latter is unquestionably the WP:COMMONNAME and it's not really any more or less neutral than the former; but there's something overly colloquial about the latter that has me questioning whether or not it should be the title. Not going to push either side, but it might be worth considering. Aspirex (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support renaming to "saga", though I agree it doesn't overly matter. It's the clear common name and Wikipedia has a tendency to overuse "controversy". Jenks24 (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. In my opinion 'saga' is a more informal word and 'controversy' fits the bill. MasterMind5991 (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference question

Do editors consider THIS REFERENCE to be acceptable for including the names of the allegedly accused players in the article? Afterwriting (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. 2 supports to 1 oppose, and the stats seem to bear out the assertion that "saga" is the WP:COMMONNAME — Amakuru (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essendon Football Club supplements controversy → Essendon Football Club supplements saga – The use of "saga" to refer to this topic is far more common in reliable sources than the generic "controversy", which appears to only be used because it's the Wikipedia default for any current issue. As an example, a Google News search gets 1790 results for "Essendon supplements saga", compared to 0 exact results for "Essendon supplements controversy". Similarly, you get 11,100 results for "Essendon saga", compared to 4 for "Essendon controversy". Jenks24 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep the page with the title as it is; as I said in an above point, "saga" sounds less formal than "controversy" and this article should also keep in line with other articles such as AFL siren controversy and Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks supplements controversy for the sake of consistency. MasterMind5991 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't really understand how "saga" is an informal word. As I said above, Wikipedia defaults to "controversy" for nearly any ongoing issue because we so desperately want to NPOV and people can nearly always agree that something is controversial, no matter what their opinion on the issue. In this case however, there is such a clear common name and it is also one that most people can agree fits, whatever their opinion on the story, because it has dragged on for so long (especially compared to the two examples you've given). Jenks24 (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really argue with Jenks' statistics. I always tried to avoid calling it "the saga" in the text because it was – I think it was borne more out of a concern that the use of 'saga' to describe anything other than a Norse saga might be regional. But I now think I've seen enough examples to be confident that these concerns were unfounded, and for such a wide disparity of Google hits, I'd agree with changing the title. Aspirex (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

PAGE TITLE

There has been some interesting discussion of this page's title already.

However, I think this has missed the real issue.

This is a 'doping' scandal/saga/controversy, not a 'supplements' one.

Health supplements are usually taken orally, as a tablet, capsule, powder, etc. This is the kind of the stuff sold by retailer Supps R Us.

The Essendon players were banned for injections they took over months (and kept secret) that contained a prohibited substance.

A 'supplements' saga is the way the AFL would like to describe it, but as ASADA, WADA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport have made clear, this is about doping.

Also, 'case' is a more neutral term than either 'saga' or 'controversy'.

I think "Essendon doping case" would be a more accurate and neutral title for the page.