Talk:Vía Verde project

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Vía Verde Pipeline → Gasoducto del Norte – This page was copy-pasted and directed to Gasoducto del Norte by User:Mercy11. As the copy-paste moves disrupt articles' history, I reverted it back and started this procedure to have a proper move and proper discussion. From my side this is just a technical nomination to start discussion, and it does not reflect my personal view on this topic. Beagel (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose at the moment. The user who made copy-paste move stated that the current title is non-neutral and is a violation of WP:NPOV. However, there is no arguments why the current title is non-neutral and violates NPOV. Although, there is no proof that Gasoducto del Norte is more common name in English than Vía Verde Pipeline. Gasoducto del Norte is also disambiguate title as several pipelines in Latin American countries have the same name. Beagel (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. Titles in Wikipedia should reflect neutrality. This is specialliy true of the title used for this article, which has been scorned at by many as government propaganda.

Also, Beagel, you are making a blanket statement that "copy-paste moves disrupt articles' history". You seem to forget that I informed you here that I encountered difficulty using the Move option. That was my first attempt, but it failed. I have never objected to moving the article to a new title. Also important, I believe, is the aspect of "my personal view on this topic" you alluded to above. Unlike you, I -do- have my personal view on the topic (call it a result of being fairly well informed about it). However, -and hopefully- like you, I do not let it interfere with the development and neutrality of the article. Just for the record. In any event, thanks for using your tools to open up this discussion here.

For references why the title "Via Verde Pipeline" may be non-neutral see these articles or do your own research - there are many: My name is Mercy11 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.
 * A, Green Party USA, "Orwellian name for the pipeline -- the 'Green Way' [Via Verde]."
 * B, Challenged under the Freedom of Information Act
 * C, Note how the opposition ("citizens, PR media, and US Congress") calls it Gasoducto del Norte and avoid the Via Verde name
 * D, US COE Regional Office takes over Gasoducto case from the San Juan office


 * Comment. I agree that there is a controversy around the name of the pipeline and the name is challenged by opponents of the pipeline. At the same time, "Via Verde Pipeline" is a common name by English sources (e.g., , , ). It seems that the name Via Verde is more common in English sources while Gasoducto del Norte is used by sources in Spanish. In English Wikipedia we should look what is the common name in English. Also, this source says: Officially called by the government Va Verde (Green Way). In addition, your source A does not use the name Gasoducto del Norte, it uses once "Gasoducto project" (which is to general to be used as it mean just pipeline), but Via Verde is even given in the title. Same applies to your source C where the name Gasoducto del Norte is not used. Your source D is in Spanish, not in English. Beagel (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Statistics. Google Search for "Gasoducto del Norte" pipeline "Puerto Rico" for English pages gives 79 search results. Google Search for "Via Verde" pipeline "Puerto Rico" for English pages gives 22,000 search results. Beagel (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is not an English vs. some-other-language case, as both names are in Spanish. (BTW, there is an error in the Via Verde title anyway since "pipeline" is not part of the project's name and per policy shouldn't be capital "P" in the title.) The issue in this discussion is whether or not the title should be moved to a less POV title.
 * Whether or not the English Googling returns more results for one than for the other is not the issue either: more or less Google results are insignificant if the title of an article is POV to starts with. Again, what is at issue in the debate is that the current name is POV because it favors one side (the minority favoring the project) over the other (the 70% majority opposing it), and the bottom line is that there is no record that anyone (supporters or opposers of the PROJECT) object to the name Gasoducto del Norte; the objection comes with the name Via Verde. So why not title the article by the name that presents no objection to either of the two groups (Gasoducto)?
 * BTW, polls by PR media indicate that 30% favor the project and 70% oppose it. This is irrelevant to the TITLE of the article. But I do point out that the links Beagel provided above are all from a source that is notorious for unshakable pro-Fortuño position (Puerto Rico Daily Sun). That would in itself be POV.
 * Finally, I point out that by Wikipedia policy, the fact that a certain name is "official" does not automatically imply that will be the title of an article; there are other factors,,, such as whether the title would be POV.
 * Beagal, you have chosen to disect each of my sources (A thru D), looking for weaknesses: from (forgive my language its not meant as insult) playing the language card again to arguing that C does not say Gasoducto, when it's right there in the photo. Maybe your POV-iness blocks you from seen that I provided you the sources to show, precisely, that it is possible to find both names in the same articles - pointing, again, to the objection among the groups between the two names.
 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Oppose It is up to those who want the change to take place to convince the rest of us that their argument is right.  Taking it as a personal affront when someone opposes the move is not a good way to win support!  Telling readers to "do their own research" is guaranteed to result in the move not being approved.  And try not attacking those who oppose you: you'll find you win more converts that way!  A Google search here in the United Kingdom is even more convincing than the one reported by Beagel.  Searching for "Gasducto del Norte" plus "Puerto Rico" excluding "Wikipedia" produces 12,400 hits.  Searching for "Via Verde Pipeline" plus "Puerto Rico" excluding "Wikipedia" produces 56,000 hits.  Searching for the shortened "Via Verde" plus "Puerto Rico" excluding Wikipedia produces 3,300,000 hits.  Those hits certainly include a number of opponents of the scheme in the first couple of pages, and it would appear that, whether opponents like the name or not, many do call the proposal Via Verde.  This includes the campaign stickers reading No a la Via Verde, el gasducto no va!  It might be worth actually seeing what NPOV says about naming articles: "In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal and Jack the Ripper are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed."  On this basis, it would appear that Via Verde would be the appropriate title.  However, Via Verde is already a page about electronic toll collection in Portugal.  That would suggest that this page should be moved to Via Verde, Puerto Rico and that the page on toll collection should be moved to Via Verde, Portugal (I think it's hard to argue that one or the other is the primary use).  It might also make sense in this case to have a disambiguation page at Via Verde, though hatnotes on each of the two articles would suffice.  Skinsmoke (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.