Talk:Rubiales affair

Non-free image?
I think there's a strong case that a photo (or even short video) of the kiss would pass WP:NFCC. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Video would be preferable, but there is a link and I think that suffices. While in terms of relevance and interest it would pass NFCC, I think it can be described well enough to not need the illustration. Kingsif (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Title
While I can appreciate you not wanting the title to suggest any (consensual) romantic affair, I think everyone is agreement on that, that's not the intuitive interpretation of "[X] affair" (especially when X is a name) — "[X] affair" has been a standard naming convention for incidents that have wide-ranging impacts for centuries, e.g. XYZ Affair from the 1700s, Dreyfus affair from the 1800s. Not to mention, "affair" by itself is generally only assumed to be of the romantic nature when context is suggesting it — romance is only the #5 sense on Wiktionary after all. There was small (four users?) consensus when splitting to use the "Rubiales affair" title, so I would encourage discussion if you do still think it needs changing; I would also suggest proposing a title that isn't so narrow to only one part of the whole affair. Kingsif (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It was four users.Naraht (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would like to revisit title discussion, based on sources after the immediate reaction. There are now a variety of English language sources that refer to the incident and fallout, everything, as the "Luis Rubiales case" (full name included):, , . Which would warrant moving the article to this title. I bring it to discussion because there are still sources that only use the word 'case' to refer to the legal case in Spanish public prosecution courts , and so it may still be non-indicative. Kingsif (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Main page exposure
This should hit the main page, either through ITN (although whether it would be approved is not certain) or DYK (it would certainly make the cut there). Anyone keen to nominate the article?  Schwede 66  20:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want to nominate Vilda being fired for ITN, go ahead, but since that's hopefully not the conclusion and (despite the very rare circumstances) will probably get written off at ITN as 'coaches get fired all the time', I won't. I assume it's DYK eligible, but it's also still not complete; I'd support that nom, though. Kingsif (talk) 05:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

#SeAcabó
It's over. Now we need to update the article.Naraht (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

New info
Rubiales is now accused of assaulting England players as well. I'm wondering how to go about writing this. A new section? https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/dec/06/luis-rubiales-forcefully-kissed-lucy-bronze-after-world-cup-final-claims-fa-chair Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say that this information is 1. not an accusation, especially given his poor attempt at excusing it (technically not accusations, he admitted it) and because FIFA did not add them as incidents later in the proceedings (spiritually not accusations, as they've been considered equivocal - unlike the England players, the 'peck' of Olga Carmona seen in a photo was added to the FIFA case file), and so 2. are of the level of the fireman carry of Athenea del Castillo and should be mentioned in the same place and with the same level of detail. If there is further news coverage or British/Spanish (since Lucy Bronze is resident in Spain) courts become interested in what the FA president said, and the media coverage means more Wikipedia coverage is appropriate, then it could of course be expanded.
 * In short, it should be added where the other minor incidents are mentioned. Definitely not a new section - a whole section to say "the FA president told FIFA that he also kissed Bronze" would be overkill and be (again) a quickly-reverted creep towards turning the article into a timeline, something which rarely considers encyclopedic value and which is not appropriate structure on English Wikipedia (i.e. not helpful (...) Kingsif (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes accusation is the wrong word sorry. Thank you for the info about how the article shouldn't be a timeline, that makes sense. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)