Talk:Proposed Columbia Gorge casino

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Mapes, Jeff (April 23, 2010). "Kitzhaber, opponent of gorge casino, gets $10,000 from rival tribe". The Oregonian blog.

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America 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.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gambling Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling 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.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Notes for expansion[edit]

I'm keeping some notes here. -Pete (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Prefer Proposed per oregonlive's consensus. tedder (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.