Talk:Proposed Columbia Gorge casino

Notes for expansion
I'm keeping some notes here. -Pete (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-assessed as Start, but its close to C. Really need the why they want the off-reservation casino, i.e. the current one at Kah-nee-tah (?) is too far/difficult to get to from Portland. Which helps lead into why the Warm Springs Tribe is fighting it. Then for B, why are the other groups fighting the proposal (i.e. scenic/environmental preservation concerns). Aboutmovies (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points, thanks for the feedback. I'll try to work that stuff in. Wanted to be sure to start with the facts, but may have ended up keeping it too dry. -Pete (talk) 08:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Move?
The deletion discussion for this article was closed (to keep) with a note that a move discussion, if wanted, should take place here. I support moving this article to Proposed Columbia Gorge casino or Columbia Gorge casino controversy, either one… I don't really care. Qworty, EncMstr and I originally suggested the latter, but Esprqii and Pete thought the former was more neutral. How about we have the vote discussion for a move? — Jsayre64  (talk)  02:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I favor Columbia Gorge casino controversy. It doesn't really matter to me if few other articles have "controversy" in the title. I think the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also applies to "the same stuff doesn't exist." But if consensus does not concur with this title, then I can live with Proposed Columbia Gorge casino. Qworty (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote for "Proposed" I stand by my original assertion. "Proposed" is less POV-y than "Controversy" in my opinion and better describes what the article is about. To me, "controversy" would imply that the article would be less about the casino itself and more about people organizing for or against it. --Esprqii (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that there is no "casino itself." The casino does not exist. Since it does not exist, it cannot be the subject of an article. What does exist is a controversy regarding whether the casino should be built. That is what the article appears to be about. Qworty (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how having "proposed" in the title violates WP:CRYSTAL, but "controversy" does not. It makes no sense that the title would play a role in determining that. What matters is whether or not the casino is a crystal-ball vision, which it is not. That's exactly why I think either title is fine. But I think we must move to one of them, because the current title is inaccurate. Jsayre64   (talk)  00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The title needs to be changed. I prefer "controversy" over "proposed," but as I said before, I'm willing to live with either of them, so let's see if other editors can help us achieve consensus on one or the other. Qworty (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said in the deletion discussion, I think "proposed" is a better word for the title than controversy. The core of everything the article is about is that a casino has been proposed; if there have been controversies about various aspects of it (and there have), they follow from this more basic fact. -Pete (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we may have consensus now, but let's wait a bit for any additional ideas. Jsayre64   (talk)  00:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Prefer Proposed per oregonlive's consensus. tedder (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)