Jump to content

Talk:Las Vegas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Correction needed

I don't know the correct numbers... but: In the "City redevelopment" section, 3rd to last paragraph says "8 buildings, with 7.5 MILLION Sq. Ft. of space" - but the last paragraph says "...soon to have... 2 MILLION Sq. Ft." Note: The formats (even though difficult to read) are inline with reguards to WP:Manual of Style. Guy M (Talk) 01:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: The wikicode is difficult to read, but the rendered page is inline with the WP:Style Guide. Guy M (Talk) 01:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Typo the new number is 12 million from the web site. It was fixed. Thanks Vegaswikian 02:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Possibly Main Page Feature Article for May 15?

As you may (or may not) know, May 15, 2005 is it's 100th anniversary. That is about 2½ months away from now. I was hoping to see if there's any interest in making sure the article is up to the higher standard for being a Wikipedia Featured Article specifically on it's anniversary.

I'm not great at authoring, average in editing, and require a spell checker. But I am willing to put forth a significant effort in research, verify and document all references and sources of statements. Why would I be a good candidate?

  1. Resident of Las Vegas since May 1995.
  2. Former fulltime taxicab driver (unrestricted) (1995-2002)
  3. Currently, free time is all I have.
  4. I live one block (about .25 mile) from Las Vegas Blvd. and Tropicana Ave.

So what do you think? Any volunteers for styling/editing? Guy M (talk) 05:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I will help. I can even add some material and pictures as I vacation in Las Vegas frequently. However having the help of an actual resident would be very helpful. I look forward to getting this featured. Apollomelos 23:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some good examples to follow would be Sarajevo and Salt Lake City, Utah. Apollomelos 23:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this climate chart necessary? If so, can someone cut it down so it doesn't spread the page into the right margin? -- Zoe

No it isn't necessary and is prone to get out of date fast so I removed it. --mav

There is a link to a personal web page that is essentially just a journal of someone's trip. Doesn't seem link-worthy to me, as the items covered in that site are well covered by the other links listed. Is that really necessary?

http://www.tutorgig.com/encyclopedia/getdefn.jsp?keywords=Las_Vegas,_Nevada

this seems to be a mirror of wikipedia.

is this allowed? 

Xah P0lyglut 04:04, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

It says "Source: Wikipedia | The above article is available under the GNU FDL". This is acceptable usage. RickK 05:03, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re Misterrick's recent image changes: I made my changes because the images were already screwed on my screen, and your changes have broken the problem I had. I guess this is the problem of lots of different screen resolutions.... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:27, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I know the general rule is to make a Wiki link only for the first occurrence of a term, but here the first occurrence of "Las Vegas Strip" is in a photo caption, where it's easily missed. Shouldn't the first occurrence in text be linked also? JamesMLane 03:05, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I reverted back your changes regarding Mayor Goodman because you took out the link to his official website. There should be no problem having a link to his website then followed by a link to his Wikipage. Misterrick 07:28, 01 May 2004 (UTC)

Your creation of the separate article on Oscar Goodman was a very good idea (it's been on my list for a while but I never got to it). I think it's most appropriate that this article have only the Wiki link to your article on Goodman. This follows the policy of "Don't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia links." The reader who wants more information on Goodman should first be directed to our own article on Goodman (now that we have a fine one, thanks to you). In the Goodman article, I have no problem with listing his site as an external link. I made other changes there but left this link alone. There's no reason to repeat the link here, though, because it has no information about Las Vegas other than the information about Goodman. JamesMLane 09:13, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
How about we do this... I will change all of the links current links for the Mayor and Council to Wiki Links and then put under External Links the list of their official website. Misterrick 19:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
Having external links embedded in text, as they are now, instead of in the "External links" section, seems to me to be against Wikipedia policy. I'm not keen on listing them at the end, though. This article already has too many external links. (The article on New York City has only ten, four of which are just to convey photographs.) Furthermore, all of these individuals' official sites are merely pages within the City's website, which is already the first external link listed. A reader who goes to the City's site selects "Elected Officials" then "Council" then the ward, and reaches the page -- not very tricky. I think it makes more sense to do it this way: Make Goodman a Wiki link; don't bother Wiki linking each Councilmember, because odds are there will never be an article; delete all links to individual pages within the City's website; and insert a sentence, before or after the listing of Councilmembers, along the lines of: Each member of the Council has an individual page within the City's website (see "External links," below). JamesMLane 21:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone have a problem if I made Wiki links on the names of the Las Vegas City Council members? As of right now the only person who has a Wiki link to a Wikipedia article is Mayor Oscar Goodman who is also an At-Large member of the City Council. I figure if I create Wiki links someone would be inspired to actually create an article about that Councilmember which is why were here right to propogate Wikipedia with vast information. Misterrick 03:43, 31 December 2004 (UTC).

City council members are pushing the envelope of "notability", but it's OK with me. Stan 01:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Las Vegas page looks chaotic

The content here is chaotically organized... I don't have much experience with wiki formatting as I'm new, but I hope someone will take the time to fix this up. So far I've been very impressed with the overall wikipedia content quality, and this page does not live up to it.

I agree with you. I think the root cause of the problem is that we are blessed with lots of images on this page. I have several times time to re-arrange images so that the page looked ok for people with lots of different screen resolutions, but because I was trying to cater for a lot of page layouts, the balance was delicate. Other users, who could hardly expected to be aware of such issues, came along very quickly and broke them again. I have taken the slightly more radical approach of putting all the images in a table, thereby forcing it to look ok at all screen resolutions. The only downside is that images are all in a row rather than spread throughout the article. However I do believe it looks better than before (note: if you don't think it looks better - then you were a lucky person with a screen resolution the page was still designed for!). Pcb21| Pete 06:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm one of those who didn't consider the previous setup chaotic. Maybe I have the right browser, or maybe I'm used to more sloppiness in my life.  :) What I don't understand, though, is why this browser problem should be any worse for the Las Vegas article than for any other. Do other articles employ a different solution? Having the pictures all in a row at the beginning certainly isn't optimum. JamesMLane 07:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am convinced that it is a screen res issue, not a browser issue. The previous layout had overlapping images, and hence ugly whitespace, in both Mozilla and IE at my screen resolution. The reason that it affects Las Vegas more than most is that this article has lots of images. Articles with just one or two images can have their images sufficiently spread out that it will look ok at any resolution. There are other articles where there is an issue - London is one, City of New York is hanging on by the skin of its teeth - there are just enough long lists to enable spreading out of the images. I have employed this solution on a few other pages. It is still a relatively scarce issue - over-abudance of images is not something Wikipedia is cursed with :).
If this solution does not suit, the next iteration of sophistication would be to have two or three tables, each containing two or three images, spread out down the page. Pcb21| Pete 08:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't look chaotic to me, Although IMHO it really isn't necessary to have so many pictures in the article. I mean do we really need to have a TERRA satellite picture and a picture of downtown Las Vegas in the daytime and at night? and since this article is specifically about the City of Las Vegas the picture of the Las Vegas Strip should be excluded since the strip (aka Las Vegas Boulevard South) is technically part of Unincorporated Clark County in an area called Paradise. Misterrick 04:55, 02 January 2005.

Misinform in one sentence regarding the Sports section

Las Vegas is the largest city in the United States to have no major-league level professional sports teams. That is not true. El Paso, Texas has a larger population (679,622) and land area (648.9 km² (250.5 mi²). 645.1 km² (249.1 mi²)) than Las Vegas, Nevada. (514,640 - 293.6 km² (113.4 mi²). 293.5 km² (113.3 mi²)) Do you guys know any major-league level professional sports team in El Paso, Texas? Of course, not. There are none. --Anonymous Cow 04:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Las Vegas is the largest such city in sense in which most people would think of Las Vegas, not realizing that much of what's commonly called "Las Vegas" is in unincorporated Clark County. Would it be correct to say that Las Vegas is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. that has no major-league-level professional sports team? JamesMLane 04:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it means that it's the largest city in terms of metropolitan size that does not have a professional sports team. bob rulz
As a Las Vegas resident for 10 years, I don't think I've ever heard any locals term Las Vegas a metropolis. The most frequently used term to encompass more than Las Vegas proper, is (Las) Vegas Valley. Which would cover the three Cities: Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and (sometimes even) Henderson; plus the unincorporated areas (Larger than all three cities combined). For the lack of professional sports? We're trying to get it together! Guy M
Just found out the definition of valley (def.) and it doesn't pertain to the "Las Vegas Valley". Appearently, since our location is surrounded by 4 mountain ranges, we are concidered a bowl(def.). Guy M 21:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Moved some material into Metro article

Since Rama has a strict interpretation of which locations are within the city limits of Las Vegas, I went ahead and created a separate article called Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada to try and save the deleted material from this "city" article.

In the spirit of Rama's most recent edit, I also removed the references to Chinatown (which is no where near the city limits) the monorail (which ends at Sahara, just before the city limits), NASCAR (which is on the south end of the strip) and UNLV (which is also not even close to the city).

Please feel free to download the city map from the official City of Las Vegas web site if you care to verify any of these changes.

Cheers,

— DV 10:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this approach is a mistake. Very few readers will care about the municipal boundaries. Heck, the Postal Service doesn't care; if you live in Paradise, your correct official mailing address is "Las Vegas, Nevada". Readers will come to this article looking for information about the Las Vegas metropolitan area (whether they know it or not). The prior approach was to put all the information here, including the explanation that most of the Strip is outside the municipal boundaries of Las Vegas. I think that worked best. If people insist on separating them, then the article at Las Vegas, Nevada should be about the metropolitan area, with a separate articel for Las Vegas, Nevada (city) or the like that would give details (such as census figures) that are limited to the municipal boundaries. JamesMLane 00:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with JamesMLane; the strict city limits line drawing that's going on here doesn't make sense. Carter 01:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To avoid an edit conflict, I've asked Rama on his user talk page to comment on his edits that started to strip out references to locations outside of the city, but despite the extensive nature of his last edit, and that it was just a day and a half ago, he now states that he "can't remember editing" the article.
I think we should give Rama a chance to clarify his intent.
So, in the interest of avoiding conflict, I've added a follow up note to Rama's user talk page pointing out the entry in the history and his user contributions where he made his recent edits, with the hope that it will refresh his memory enough so he can comment one way or another.
If there is a consensus to go with a single article that covers metro and the city, then we should revert back to the version of the article just prior to Rama's last edit, which included information about the greater metropolitan area, and then delete the new Metropolitan Las Vegas article that I created to try and save the deleted material, as well as its reference on the disambiguation page.
I'm open to either approach (i.e., either one article that covers metro and the city, or separate articles for each) but we should be consistent either way.
— DV 04:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rama now quotes someone named Brion, on the #mediawiki IRC channel, as follows:

rama: we've had a number of seriously fucked up database problems in the last couple of days. some edits may have been based on older versions or been oddly ordered, leading to odd-looking diffs.

If the database is truly being randomly corrupted in this manner, I give up.
If we can't rely on the integrity of the database, I'm not sure how to proceeed.
Unless someone objects, I recommend reverting back to the last version by JamesMLane.
— DV 09:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with rolling back. Our general articles about cities are all about what is commonly understood as "the city", with maybe a section on the technical details of where the boundary actually lies, for the 3-4 readers who actually care. Another reasonable thing to do is to segregate lists of landmarks into "city proper" and "in the area". Rama should have brought the matter up for discussion before scrambling everything. Stan 15:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, since there seems to be agreement, and Rama supports the "database corruption" theory, I went back to the last known good version by JamesMLane. — DV 03:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi David, on a side point, if Rama did get his information from Brion (User:Brion VIBBER) then it is likely to be accurate. Pcb21| Pete 14:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Population

An anon editor changed the population figures. The previous figure for the 2000 census -- 478,434 -- is correct according to the Census Bureau's website, so I changed it back. The other change was to replace the 2002 estimate with a 2003 estimate. I find a different number on the Census Bureau site; the difference may be that the Census Bureau and the city have different estimates, but to preserve comparability, I'm replacing the "city's official estimate" with that of the Census Bureau. JamesMLane 09:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The multiple pages

Yes, this has been discussed, but I feel that what is out there is confusing at best.

Las Vegas is generally the entire valley to most people.

Is there any support for creating a City of Las Vegas, Nevada page for just the city specific information? The demographics and elected officals from the las vegas page could be moved into there. Probably a few other items. A pointer in the current page to the city specific info at the top of the page should suffice to get people there. Also the las vegas disambiguation page would be redone to cover this. This would be a much smaller task then trying to pull out the 'other information'.

This could make it easier to do a better page for the 100th anniversary.

Having a city page keeps the current one, minus items moved to the city page, as the generic Las Vegas page which is what everyone is probably looking for. We just don't list it as a city in Nevada or do we?. The disambiguation page and links would get everyone to the correct place. In fact, this approach would probably not even break any existing links.

The current page could pick up any additional material in the metropolitan page. You might consider it as the resort or destination page. After all, isn't that what Vegas is about? I think his would be cleaner then then putting some information under metropolitan rather then City of. I think that the current Las Vegas page is what people really are looking for. After all, when the LVCVA markets Vegas what is it that they are Marketing?

Vegaswikian 07:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To further support not using the term metropolitan, I offer the following:
  1. The United States Census Bureau has apparently defined Core based statistical area to replace metropolitan;
  2. Here is what one site defining the area it covers [1]; and I believe that' different that what is intended here;
  3. MSN Encarta has a different definition that what is proposed here [2]. Also very different from what is suggested here.
  4. The MSN metrolpolitan Map covers 4 states [3]!
  5. Apparently [4]' says the offical name for the metropolitan Statistical area is "Las Vegas-Paradise, Nevada"; And acording to [5] it lists both Las Vegas and Paradise;
  6. The census bureau apparently lists Las Vegas in TWO metropolitan areas [6], the one listed above and Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump;
  7. The only government agency that I know of that uses metropolitan, METRO covers a vastly different area. And that name was probably a political creation to make the merge between the Las Vegas and Clark County Departments possible.
  8. The LVCVA sells the city and the county under the Las Vegas banner. [7] is one example from Primm through the valley including Henderson;

So, I believe that metropolitan is not well defined and is not what people think of as Las Vegas. Being n lock step with the LVCVA is probably the best choice. Use the area they cover an the name they use.

Vegaswikian 19:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree. It's rather like London vs. City of London; places like Spring Valley, Paradise, and so on are in Las Vegas, though they're not in the City of Las Vegas. But the interaction between county and city is intense; the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police also serve much of, if not most of, the unincorporated townships surrounding the city; the school district is unified; and though Mayor Goodman legally has power only with relation to the City of Las Vegas, he's also the spokesperson for greater Las Vegas. I'd say there should be a special article about the City, that includes information that's mainly relevant to the city; but the Las Vegas article should be about what most people think is Las Vegas. After all, the famous sign, "Welcome to Las Vegas", is seven miles from the actual city. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
People who type in "Las Vegas" should come (via the redirect) to an article that tells them about the Strip, and about the basics of the governmental entity that Goodman heads, and about the basics of the governmental entity that governs the Strip. For that reason, I don't think very much of the information in this article should be removed. Perhaps the listing of the City Council members could be transferred to an article about the municipality, but not much else. The demographic information should remain in this article. (A daughter article just about the municipality could repeat the relevant portions of it.) It would be a good idea if this article covered the Clark County Commission a bit more. I'm not sure I understand what Vegaswikian is suggesting, but I think I'm against it. JamesMLane 21:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Las Vegas article is not about the City of Las Vegas no matter howwe try and cut it. It is about the Las Vegas Area. In particular the major gaming areas. If a city page is created, then the demographics need to be moved to the city page. They simply are not correct for a general vegas area page. I'll wagger that virtually no one who types in "Las Vegas" is looking for the governmental entity that Goodman heads," as you suggest. They want information on the Las Vegas destination. The problem is that Las Vegas means two different things and that needs to be addressed. One is the City of Las Vegas. The other is a much broader area that is universally know as Las Vegas. That latter area is what is on the entry sign as Las Vegas, as was pointed out above, and is advertised as Las Vegas in all of the commericals by the LVCVA. How many of the almost 40,000,000 visitors go to the city? Is following the lead of the LVCVA wrong? By splitting this into City, County and area it makes things clearer for anyone from the outside. They don't care about the county or the city. They just want the area. Those who want the other stuff can get it from links on the area or the disambugation page. Does anyone still think the metropolitan page, given all of the facts I listed above, is the correct way to go?Vegaswikian 22:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there's a distinction between the city (in the legal sense) and the area (what most visitors would think of as the city because they don't know they're in Paradise). The current article notes that distinction, however. It gives the population statistics for people residing within the city limits and for people residing in the area. That's appropriate information to provide to a reader who comes to this article. JamesMLane 23:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Except that the top of the page says city of Las Vegas. That's also on the disambiguation page. Adding the strip there also makes extreme sense. I'll do that shortly.Vegaswikian 01:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I added added the strip to disambiguation. The Strip article could use some work. It is rather lean.
If the concensus is that the las vegas page is both the city and the area, and the metropolitan page gets deleted I would probably be OK. Vegaswikian 01:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that we have 30,000 articles that are set up to be consistent with US census and are updated automatically from time to time; don't want to start fooling with that. It does work to have a "city, state" article include pertinent information about nearby areas, whether within city limits or not. It's overly pedantic to try to make multiple articles that are somehow restricted to within the city limits, or restricted to outside the city limits; readers don't care, it makes other WP editors crazy keeping it all straight, and only the one pedant is ever satisfied. For instance, the edit history of Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada pretty clearly shows that it was a single person's idea with little support, with everybody continuing to work only on this one. The things to split out should be topical, such as Las Vegas Strip, and Clark County Commission, because it's more interesting than the average county commission. Stan 23:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Transportation Picture

Why do we have a smog over the valley from autos picture in the transportation section and no mention of autos in the text? Is that a good picture to use for painting a positive picture of the area?Vegaswikian 07:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that we not paint either a positive or negative picture - we're just painting. Pictures can be striking and/or beautiful, as long as they're faithful to reality. Stan 17:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And you can change which picture of reality you use; or, alternately, insert some info about air quality in the Vegas Valley -- which, I understand, is now more endangered by dust than by vehicle emissions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

“Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” sign

I posted a request in commons for the welcome sign. I'm suprised that one is not already available. I think it belongs on the page. Likewise we could use a picture of the city version that was erected. It could be nice if someone could add the dates and all locations for both signs.

Once this section gets more complete, I think that as a landmark, it should be moved to its own page.

So does anyone have the data or pictures?

Speaking of pictures, does anyone have pictures of other sights? Here is a list of what we could probably use:

  • Mt.Charleston from the valley covered in snow and the mountain or lodge area covered in snow.
  • A better selection of the pedistrian bridges, especially one over the blvd.
  • The largest free standing sign in the world in front of the hilton, maybe before, after and while damaged? Again this is historic
  • Missing casino pictures like the Riv
  • The gates open at Hoover Dam with the water sprays
  • The old and new Fremont Street Light Show
  • The ski and snowboard resort

Please add to this list and add a note if you added a picture to commons so it can be used (or just link it in a page after you create it).

We have Image:Welcome to vegas.jpg, but it's not very good; I've been planning to do a photo shoot of my own. I have some pics of Mt Charleston, but I don't like them much. Stan 05:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That image was in the article for quite a while. In fact, until this comment I didn't even notice it had been removed. I think it's good enough to include, at least until a better one comes along. More generally, there are several good photos that were moved to Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, an article that isn't needed unless this article is to be confined to the Las Vegas city limits. I thought that material removed from this article had been restored, but obviously I made an incorrect assumption. Along with the pictures there may be some text that should be restored. As to the longer list of photo suggestions, I think we have to draw some lines and not have too many photos. "Missing casino pictures like the Riv" -- if that means having a picture of every casino, I'm against it. In particular, I don't think we need a Riv picture. JamesMLane 06:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I compared the text in the two articles. The Metro one looked pretty much like the old Las Vegas one before the edits, corrections and moves to other pages. I did not see any material in metro that was not in Las Vegas. All of the images in metro should now be in other articles.Vegaswikian 08:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: Casino pictures. Would it be reasonable to have pictures for each casino that has a page? It seems that all of the old pages do. Vegaswikian 07:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Re: other stuff. As to the metropolitan page, consider the fact that there is a Las Vegas metropolitan area page besides the metro LV page listed above. I think this one could be better named the Las Vegas Valley, but I'm not sure how to use it. Right now it basically defines the towns in the valley. Since there does not appear to be support for keeping Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, can someone start the process of deleting it? I'm a little busy dealing with a delete vote and trying to get something set up so that we can get spa defined a little better. I'll try and do something with the pictures and see if any text is there that should be in the article. I did search commons, but did not get any hits for the sign picture. I'm also going to remove the city comment on the top unless someone sees a real reason to keep it. Vegaswikian 07:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, I moved the images around and modified a few of their descriptions to better identify what they show. Can someone verify the the US 93 picture is really from that location and which way we are looking? Vegaswikian 08:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It would be easier just to redirect the other article here than to redirect. IMHO this article is already at the best possible title, shouldn't be messed with. Stan 19:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have the original high quality version of that image at home. Must've uploaded it during that period of time when Wikipedia wouldn't allow large file sizes and I didn't know how to compress jpg files well. Pcb21| Pete 10:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not to rag on it too much, but the angle is not so good either - looks like it's attached to Mandalay. One of my goals was to try some different angles - looking down the Strip seems like it would be better, but maybe too visually noisy, won't know till I try it. Stan 19:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Rag away, I just took the photo whilst driving so it was bound to have its problems. Although that particular sign is in the middle of a busy road, plenty of people do get themselves safely positioned to take a decent photo. Pcb21| Pete 23:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I wonder what restrictions Metro has about stopping there. I think that a ten foot ladder would get you high enough to get a 'good' shot straight on to the sign. A shot of the back side could be interesting for the end of The Strip article.Vegaswikian 00:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It should be easy enough. The "middle of the busy road" is a wide median, and frequently there are people parked there to take photos of themselves with the sign. (As often as not, the subjects of the photographs are wearing wedding clothes.) I'll try to convince the family photographer to get a good one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I took a picture with my digital camera over the weekend. Comments?? Kcferret
Oh and for the natives .. yes the power lines have been edited out ... they detracted from what I wanted to picture to convey. Kcferret

The "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" sign does not actually reside in the City of Las Vegas. Has this point been previously addressed? Perhaps a picture of Fremont Street or something to that effect would be more appropriate? brianckeegan

The sign article says it is 4 miles south of the city. The strip article also points out that it is not in the city and the LV Boulvard article describes its location after you have left the city. So I think this is clear. I should have a camera soon and I'll try to get a picture of the city's welcome sign. Vegaswikian 6 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)

Two Dollar Bills?

Hi! I just contributed a few lines to the two dollar bill page, which is, unfortunately, only speculation. I've never been to Vegas, so I don't know how accurate the info is, and I wonder if anyone here might know. (The question is whether or not "gentlemen's clubs" tend to give out two dollar bills as change) If you do know one way or the other, feel free to make the appropriate changes. Thanks!! Randyoo 00:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Culture & Attractions

Is this something that would be better on the Vegas Valley page with a link and reference left here? This is stuff that will grow as more items are added. That would make this page rather large and harder to follow. Or is there a another place that would be better for this data? Vegaswikian 08:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Transportation Section

I was looking at other city pages and they often have the airport in a seperate section using transportation only for auto, bus and train. Should we do something similar or leave things as they are? Vegaswikian 23:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suddenly unorganized, incomplete, bloated, unprofessional & disappointing.

Note: Sorry it's long.  I would edit article page, but it's overwhelming at this point.

This has to be the worst I've ever seen this article, or any other once well groomed article. What happened? I went to edit it a bit, finally canceled out due to the overwhelming lack of facts, (lack of) continuity and style standards. Can we say T.M.I.? (Too Much Info)

  • Pics Why so many? Isn't two, maybe three enough? (about LV even)
  • Law & government - Term: Bloat
  • Climate - Full of Hot Air
  • Economy - Nothing said about LV
  • Transportation - Too congested
    • "... airport .. in the U.S." (not in LV [honorable mention though]) LV Metro
    • "... growth of the Strip to the south..." (Not even towards LV) LV Strip
    • "... Clark County ..." (Not LV) Clark County, Nevada
    • "... LV monorail" (Not in LV [yet]) LV Strip
    • "... light rails / trams" (Not in LV) LV Strip
    • Convention Centers (Not in LV) LV Strip
    • Hoover Dam (Not in LV) Clark County


  • All mentioned: Mirage, TI, MGM, Hilton, Mandalay Bay, Luxor, Excalibur, Sahara, Harrah's, Bellagio, Venetian, CP & Klondike ... Las Vegas Strip


  • No mention of:
    • Summerlin (One of the largest Master Planned communities at 36 mi&sup2)
    • LV Trolley or MAX Light rail that originates in downtown LV.
    • The Spanish Trail
    • Binions Horseshoe (mentioned in passing) home of World Series of Poker & $1 Million on display.
      • SOLD (March 2005) and Renamed: Binions Gambling Hall
    • Stratosphere (highest rides, tower, former Vegas World, Stupak)
    • Plaza (old Union Pacific train station)
    • El Cortez (first hotel/casino by Bugsy)
    • Golden Nugget (Wynn's first hotel/casino he owned/purchased; he even worked there!)
    • Golden Gate (FIRST Casino to open in LV)
    • Lady Luck, Sun Coast, Four Queens, Fitz, Fremont, Main Street, California, LV Club, Showboat


... Which all have great Las Vegas history.


  • Too much talk about things NOT of Las Vegas
  • Too much comparing Las Vegas to anything and everything.


An attempt at focusing on a possible solution (instead of just b!tch!ng). At the bottom of the first paragraph/section:

Additional information covering a larger geographical area, see: The Strip, Las Vegas Metro, Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada
Guy M (talk) 17:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
edit | Guy M (Talk) 02:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • And my latest add about city redevemopment makes it even longer. But it is in the City.

I think the problem you raise is the formal definition of the city vs. the common use of Las Vegas to descibe the area. And where to put what.

The problem is that the city is not what most people think of as the City. Do you realize how many people think they live in the City and do not? Do you know how many CC&RS include properity in the City when it is not? Even Summerlin is not completly in the City. The issue is how to best deal with this real problem. No one commented on my suggestion to move culture & attractions to a new page. That would take a lot of this stuff out and help somewhat.

Max is mentioned on the Cat pages. But isn't that in NLV and not LV for the most part? (I don't know, just asking.) Maybe if transpotation was upgrade to include more about roads and busses and not the airport as was suggeested that would help somewhat. But the buses are not City. They are RTC! I believe that the CIty does own its sewer plant.

I was suprised yeserday when I wanted to mention the Golden Gate as a landmark to not find an article on that hotel. Someone who has the facts needs to document the older hotels! I could see adding them to the history, but they would all be red links. Is that what we need to get someone focused on writing those articles? When the Market Center opens, I would like to move that to its own page. Likewise for the Welcome To Las Vegas sign if we can get somemore data there. Given the strees being added in for other town, Maybe we should create a Freemont Street page. I'll bet there are already a few links to it.

Likewise the Old Morman fort has nothing, and it's downtown!

The Golden Gate article is also an issue. One side wants to keep all of the properities on one page, the other wants them to be seperate since that would allow the individual history to showcased. That needs to be resolved before the hotel can be listed on theVegas page.

Someone suggested the the Clark County Commission have it's own page given the criminal charges. Maybe the same should apply to the City Council with it's corruption charges of late.

It was discussed to move the city to it's own page, but that was shot down because the current name is fixed based on automatic update stuff. And Las Vegas means more to most people then just the City.

No one had a good way to address this. The Vegas Valley seems the best way to describe a lot of this.

Given the number of links to Las Vegas is so large, maybe the solution is to use that entry for the generic Las Vegas and then reduce the Las Vegas, Nevada page to just the city. Is the valley different then the generic las vegas?

Maybe we just need a plan that can get concensus support. I think most people agree that there is a problem, but the solution is not obvious. Would setting up a topic on this page as a list of what should be in the City vs. Las Vegas that everyone can adjust be the simple solution to reach a concensus? Does Clark COunty enter this picture?

As a trial that we can reverse, I'll move media, culture & attractions and education to the valley page. See if that helps any. I'll set up links to the new location. If it does not work, it's easy to move it back.

On the bright side, having too much information is better then having too little, I think. Vegaswikian 20:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the problem is appearent, the solution is evasive. Although, I thought my idea (which can be expanded/improved upon) was a good start. Having articles with topics such as:
  • Las Vegas, Nevada - City of data (following Wikipedia formats).
    • Downtown - Historic, Casinos, Hotels, FSE, and bot data [Census info]. I would leave entertainer information primarily in Las Vegas Strip and government personel in City Of.
    • Simple lines like "McCarren International Airport provides commercial flights into the Las Vegas Valley." and "Las Vegas Motor Speedway (LVMS) hosts NASCAR and other automotive events." and "RTC provides public access transportation via CAT which Las Vegas benefits from." Allow the links to provide other documents for which more detail is provided.
  • Las Vegas Strip' - For information directed to entertainment, Casino, Hotel...
  • Las Vegas Valley - Topics covering more expansive area.
    • Lake Mead, Mountains, Ski Resort, Climate/Flooding (more area to explain why (the shape of) LVValley floods)
Yes?

Guy M (talk) 01:37, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Lord save us from the pedants! Once again, this article does not need to be picky about only mentioning things that are literally inside the city limits. The problem is that each editor wants to add their little tidbit of info, without thinking much about whether it's sufficiently important to be in the main article, or should go into topical articles. One way to solve this problem is to make a "budget". For example, 20K is a good size for a city article; in that space you need to give an overview (1K), history (3K), geography (3K), demographics (2K), culture (3K), economy (3K), sports/recreation (3K), politics (2K). If a section grows past that, split out the full-length version and leave within-budget summary behind. (This is just a sample budget; I neglected transportation, but a section for that means another section has to shrink.) Instead of churning the article randomly, this talk page is perfect for an interested person to put up an outline of what section should contain; that outline will give an idea of how to fine-tune the budget, and also ensure that each section includes its most important topics. Stan 04:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To pull stuff out, it has to be notable and encylopidic on its own. You also need to not have it so short that it is nothing more then a stub. It also needs to be logical. I'd like to see the welcome sign expanded so that it can stand alone and be a seperate article. I'm sure that others would like to see other sections become stand alone articles. Likewise, it is easier to build an article where you talk about Fremont Street and The Golden Gate in a few words and the complete discription is in the link as a page. There is so much that is missing. So, how do we move in the right direction? Do we add rewrite adding broken links in the hope that someone will be able to create complete articles? I spent time today cleaning up the Mojave links. They all pointed to the city when most were about the desert. Not very helpful. I'm afraid that without a plan something like that could happen here. On the plus side, so far no one has said moving culture and attractions to a different page with a link to the data was wrong. And speaking of sports, there is no mention of Boxing which is a major venue here. Vegaswikian 06:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree with Stan about the "city limits" issue. That's been taken up on this page before. People who enter "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada" in the search box aren't concerned to know exactly what's within the city limits; I'd guess that they generally don't care. They want to know about what's popularly considered "Las Vegas". It might make sense, however, to have a separate article on City of Las Vegas or Las Vegas, Nevada (municipality) or whatever it's titled, which could include City Council corruption issues and anything else that's specific to the municipal government.
As for the overall length, while I don't agree with a formal "budget", I do agree that largish topics can be spun out into daughter articles, leaving behind a summary. One tricky part is that we should never delete a subject entirely just because there's a daughter article. For example, we have a separate article on the Las Vegas Monorail, but at least the basic information was still included in this article. I think the same principle should apply to "Culture and attractions" (that's how the heading should read per the MoS, by the way) and to any other section. Vegaswikian, I think your most recent set of edits goes too far in removing information from this article, especially in those instances where not even a summary has been left behind. I call this the "tricky" part because it means crafting a summary, which is usually harder than just providing all the available information.
Instead of making a fetish about the length of the article, I would concentrate on serving the needs of various readers by including the highlights of each subject, with a link right at that point to the more detailed daughter article. I would also prune the lead section (including probably moving one or more photos) so that the reader gets to the table of contents more quickly. Some readers will be able to use the table of contents to jump directly to what they care about. The current third and fourth paragraphs (the third about the UP and the freeway, the fourth about some of the removed material) don't need to be in the lead.
The question about creating a red link has to be decided for each case. A few months ago, Misterrick linked each City Council member, saying, "I figure if I create Wiki links someone would be inspired to actually create an article about that Councilmember ...." So far the inspiration hasn't struck. I think links should be created where you yourself intend to write the article or where there obviously ought to be one. Each major Vegas casino would qualify (I have my doubts about the little hole-in-the-wall joints like Le Bayou, though). A Mormon Fort article would make sense, so linking that now would be OK. On the other hand, given that Fremont Street Experience exists, I don't see much likelihood that we'd need a separate Fremont Street article; a simple redirect to Fremont Street Experience would be better. JamesMLane 08:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll try and put more short summaries into the body for the moved stuff. I can also fix the '&' while I'm in there. The UP and road stuff can be moved into transportation. The Fort is a state park, and there are several pages with a red link calling it a state historic park.
Council members tend not to be interesting enough to justify their own articles (even many members of Congress have thin bios). I think it takes a certain amount of WP experience to develop a sense of what is likely be an article that not only seems worthwhile in the first place, but gets others to improve on it. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any opinions on where the Las Vegas redirect should point? Right now it goes to Las Vegas, Nevada. I'm wondering if the disambig page would be a better choice. Vegaswikian 08:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely it should point here. If we get an irate letter from the Las Vegas, New Mexico Chamber of Commerce, we post it on WP:BJAODN. JamesMLane 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Redir is fine where it is. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should the sign picture be moved down to after the first paragraph? Doing this should make the first screen better balanced. Vegaswikian 09:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the welcome sign is a good welcome to the article. I've tried moving the skyline photo down instead. With the pictures aligned vertically instead of horizontally, the second paragraph doesn't get cramped over toward the left margin, and we have a smaller expanse of blank space to the right of the table of contents. JamesMLane 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
On my display, both paragraphs are using the left 2/3s of the display. There is mostly white space next to the TOC except for that highway 93 picture. If I go full screen, the shorter text length does move the pictures down a little more. Moving the first picture down to below the first paragraph will fill the space to the right of the TOC better with all or most screen sizes and resolutions, I know it does on my when I tried that as a preview. How this appears is dependent on the user display settings. So forcing a position lower allows the pictures to float next to the TOC for pretty much all displays. Vegaswikian 19:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the welcome sign is ideal, could only be outdone by a stunning skyline pic. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Concerning the Economy section. Can you really break out the economic drivers in the city from the rest of the county? Is there one economy for the city and another for the valley or are the all a parts of one economy? Vegaswikian 09:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think they can be completely separated, but development efforts being undertaken by the city government can reasonably be a separate section. JamesMLane 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should the general economy comments be on the metro page or the county page? Given that how much is run by the multi-agency authorities I'm thinking the county. Vegaswikian 19:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interconnectedness of the city and county economy is one of the reasons that a "city limits only" article concept breaks down. As a fast-growing area, the economy is of much interest, and could easily support an Economy of Las Vegas that talks about casino revenue, strip vs downtown vs neighborhood dynamics, diversification initiatives. I'm not much of an economics type myself, but it would be nice to have a succinct description to answer people's questions about how the place works. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Since the concensus seems to be clear, and match what GuyM was suggesting, I'll move the curent text to the metro article. I don't think that it is complete enough to be a stand alone article right now. Maybe if we all add more information to it, it could become standalone. I was listing the state gaming areas in a different place, maybe that is really a part of the economy section? Vegaswikian 19:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that there's a consensus on this. GuyM's fundamental approach was to draw a sharp distinction based on the location of the Las Vegas city limits, but no one else agreed. I'm not sure that any purpose is served by the separate Las Vegas metropolitan area article. For example, the information that many people retire to Las Vegas is worth keeping in the main Las Vegas, Nevada article.
One example of a U.S. city article, a recent selection as a featured article, is Seattle, Washington. If people are concerned about article length, I think the best approach is that used in the Seattle article, with information spun off to topical daughter articles, with the main article having a summary and a reference like "Main article: Education in Seattle." If we do that, why would we need the Las Vegas metropolitan area article at all? JamesMLane 22:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A Las Vegas Wiki anyone? Yes, Seattle has spun off a lot of larger complete articles. But it still seems to be mostly about the City. I would agree that if there was something like a Las Vegas area attractions article, there would not be much of a question about 'is it in the city or the county'. It there was an agreement to split stuff off, who is going to fill in all of the stubs that are created? We have been doing a good job with identifying pages needed and some topics are being developed in other places like The Springs or the welcome sign. I was wondering if we had a topic here to list the pages, generic for things like hotels, that everyone could move around would work to get develop a plan for how things should be layed out. Kind of like the blueprint for what needs to be done. This way the moves will be easier and it would be easier to see the end result. No comments on the section just headings, but maybe a place to explain why you moved something. Vegaswikian 00:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A list of desired missing topics could be here on this page, or make a list of Las Vegas-related topics, or a Las Vegas, Nevada/Temp as a work page. When splitting stuff off, it's only worthwhile if what you're splitting is more than a stub. Splitting off a stub in the hopes that it will grow is usually an overly optimistic strategy; we have thousands of such, they sit around for a couple years, then somebody merges them back in, so kind of a pointless exercise. Personally, I'd like to write a lengthier history by May 15, I have a couple of the standard books on the subject to work from. Stan 02:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The '\temp' sounds like a place to put a trial format. Also, when I was looking into that I ran into the expansion template. The list over there is rather small so maybe that means articles in this catgory get more attention then stubs. Don't know if that can help in getting some of the articles that need work filled in. Vegaswikian 04:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my experience, it's hard to get people to work much on things they're not already interested in; they tend to develop their own task lists, or wander into areas linked to from their interests. One benefit of having f2f meet for Vegas residents is to get some ideas flowing about how to coordinate and expand coverage; there are at least a half-dozen people that I can recall. I'm in California right now, but will be back on Friday and available. Stan 15:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to meeting. Anyone have a place in mind and a time? I'm on the west side, DI and Town Center area. Vegaswikian 02:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(and a month later he responds...) I'm in Red Rock, so hardly a mile away. I see no other people piping up, time to ping them. Stan 13:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Amtrak

I thought we lost Amtrak service about 3 years ago. Anyone know for sure? Vegaswikian 02:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • According to Amtrack's website, trains don't run to Vegas, but there is an Amtrak/Greyhound Thruway bus service that runs through Las Vegas.Carter
    • So the change to the page is technically correct. To make the type of service clear, should we change Amtrak to Amtrak (bus)? Vegaswikian 17:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People

I agree that it's confusing for "Notable natives" to include people born elsewhere, but it seems useful to have a list of links to articles about people who've been important in the development of the area. (Some of the "immigrants" are linked in the body of the article, like Oscar Goodman, but others aren't.) What we did in the Worcester, Massachusetts article was to use the heading "Notable people", with subheadings for "Born in Worcester" and "Other residents". I suggest we do the same here. An article about Vegas should really include links to articles like Steve Wynn (developer) and Liberace, as long as they're not incorrectly called "natives". JamesMLane 07:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. I envision only a list of links, with no more than extremely terse descriptions ("entertainer" and the like). It should be OK unless people start trying to cram in more information about the named notables. We should bear in mind that anyone who wants to read more about Liberace can just click on the link. If need be, though, you're right that we could spin it off, as was done with List of famous New Yorkers. JamesMLane 07:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll create this with the data from the old entries. Entries with links that work probably should have only a 1 or 2 word comment. Other entries should have a bit more. Vegaswikian 18:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Move a block of text from history to redevelopment?

Does it make sense to move the text starting with When The Mirage opened in 1989 to redevelopment? It seems to fit in there better since it was a major driver for the redevelopment effort. Somehow it does not seem like it belongs in history but I'm not sure that it is redevelopment either. Vegaswikian 20:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Missing picture

The old smog picture seems to be missing. Anyone have a suggestion to replace it in transportation? Vegaswikian 18:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

June 19th updates to history

Some major changes to the history section were made today that pretty much wiped out what was in there. Some important information was removed in this process along with the image that was there. I tied to put back in some of the information by weaving it into the new text so that we have a more complete history. However in the end it was not that easy to do, so I just cut and pasted in some of it. This still needs to be cleaned up. The some links still need to be cleaned up to match the style guide.

The article is now giving the size warning when it is being edited. While not a problem in itself, I suppose we need to consider moving the current history to a new article and just keeping the major highlights in the main article. So if there are no objections, that will probably happen in the near future. Vegaswikian 20:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the history was there was no sources to back it up. I am working on 1966+ and will be putting it in. The plan is to make a page for Las Vegas history with 2 more pages for 1800-1966 and then another page for 1966 on.
Major changes which remove what is already there should be discussed here first. Much of the existing information was sourced from various places. So to just throw it away is not the right thing to do. It is not requird that sources be listed, if it was, then almost every article on wiki would need to be deleted. One editor on a dial up line spend a long time cleaning up and verifing much of what was thrown away. When you make your changes, please add to what is already there and don't throw it away since that creates more work when someone has to put the valid information back in. Yes, incorrect infomation should be removed, but everything was not incorrect. Given the work you are talking about, I'd suggest starting the detailed history article now rather then waiting for all of your changes to be completed. Vegaswikian 22:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The majority was incorporated, just worded different to fit the flow of the narrative. The rest was corrected and incorporated. The stuff, I forgot to put in (the beginning with the Spaniard's) was my fault.

Population

Vegaswikian: The census data previously provided is for Clark County; this does not count the entire Las Vegas metropolitan population. The updated data is from a reliable source (I've used it for projects in the past), even though it may seem inflated. Remember that the Las Vegas area is the fastest-growing in the United States, according to the U.S. Census.

Read the earlier heading for this topic. Using different sources apparently causes confusion so sticking with a single source seems to be the accepted way to go. Vegaswikian 23:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While that may seem ideal, it would serve the interest of this article to use a source that is compatible with "metropolitan population" (which in itself is a somewhat ambiguous definition, but most useful in understanding the true size and relevance of a city) rather than "county census." If a more definative and updated source for this data exists, go ahead and replace the current figures.
Since this is the city article, using the LV numbers is correct. If you want a wider area, then you could use the Las Vegas metropolitan area article or the Clark County, Nevada articles which cover the wider area. Vegaswikian 21:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia city articles do seem to usually include the 'metro area' population (at least the ones that have been significantly expanded from the RamBot versions), but the Las Vegas MSA/agglomeration seems WAY too big to mention to me, as it appears to include three counties in NV and part of AZ[8] (Clark Co.'s probably too big, as well--it seems to be equal to LV-Paradise in the new system, and the new system's LV-Paradise-Pahrump is even bigger[9]). The LV UA seems far more appropriate[10] (includes as far out as Henderson, but not Boulder City or Pahrump--more or less the same as Las_Vegas_metropolitan_area#Las_Vegas_Valley). The 2000 LV UA pop was 1,314,357[11], but I haven't found a newer estimate.
  • Besides the 'apples vs oranges' problem with the World Gazetteer data, the general issues I have are: I have noticed places it doesn't agree with US Census Bureau numbers; it doesn't have (or else I haven't found): clear definitions of the geographical entities such as the LV agglomeration or the '2005 calculation' methodology; and the copyright/usage status doesn't seem clearly open--"If you would like to republish the data presented here, please do not change the data and use a copyright note as described as follows: © by Stefan Helders www.world-gazetteer.com"[12]. Niteowlneils 01:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article opens with an ambiguous statement: "Las Vegas is the most populous city in the state of Nevada, United States. The city is the largest to be founded in the 20th century". The largest where? Nevada, the USA, or the world ? I doubt the latter, but perhaps someone could resolve this ambiguity on what is a potentially unique fact about Las Vegas Robma 07:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Emphasizing the remarkable growth rate of the city - the top, or among the top handful, of fastest growing cities in the U.S. for many years - is actually more significant than the absolute population of the city - which, at a bit under 2 million for the metro area, is not particularly notable. I don't have references right now for the growth rate but they should be very easy to find. VisitorTalk 07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

People

Shound this section be merged with List of Las Vegans adding the notable residents to that list? Vegaswikian 05:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. Dr. Cash 16:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Economic history 2005-08-10

The following statement was added: Much of the growth is due to individuals and businesses escaping California's high-tax, high-regulation structure, while still wanting to be near the west coast (Nevada has no personal or corporate income tax). I have a few questions, is this really Las Vegas ecomomic history? Is the reason claimed for much of the growth proven? Is the income tax statement historic for the Las Vegas article? I think this sentence is conjecture and not factual or historic in this contex and should be removed. Comments? Vegaswikian 17:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that is conventional wisdom, but CW isn't Verifiable. There are groups, such as libertarian/conservative thinktank Nevada Policy Research Institute that claim that Nevada is not a low tax state, as the lack of income tax is made up for by other taxes and fees [13]. So, I agree, remove the statement as unverifiable, unless someone knows of specific research that supports it. -Satori 17:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Satori. Information should be backed up by facts. If this statement is factual, there should be sources to the information. TruthInEvidence 00:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I removed this text. Vegaswikian 01:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Satori, can you link to the specific citation within the NPRI site? I wasn't able to locate the information you cited from the home page. VisitorTalk 23:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This struck me as odd upon reading the entry as well, and it is BACK.

The Nevada Development Authority for Clark County (http://www.nevadadevelopment.org/) cites an Inc Magazine article which quotes the Authority as saying that job growth and tax climate are major reasons for the business growth in Clark County; and a Tax Foundation study which quotes a Harvard Business School professor who commented on the significance of taxes in business locations. The NDA also provided a press release dated December 11, 2006 which states, "In the past few years, the NDA has targeted California companies to relocate and expand to Las Vegas and is currently making efforts to recruit life science and biotech businesses from the eastern seaboard.
The NDAís progressive campaigns to recruit business include statistics on the tax structure of Nevada. 'Las Vegas is one of the best places to do business,' said Somer Hollingsworth, President and CEO of the NDA. 'Companies across the country come to Las Vegas because there is a pro-business atmosphere and weíre growing at a rapid pace. On top of that, we don't have corporate or personal income tax.' "
Would you trust the NDA to be a veriable source with an opinion worth hearing about business relocation to southern Nevada? VisitorTalk 03:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

=

I would like to see the economy section include reference to the World Market Center's ambitious plans to replace North Carolina as the center of furniture wholesaling. VisitorTalk 23:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Killers not native

David Keuning, who was originally from Pella, Iowa but moved to Las Vegas in January of 2000

This is from wikipedia itself. I'm sorry if im posting this in the wrong place, I'm new at this. This post is in response to being told be another user that I would be banned for deleting the killers from the notable residents section of the vegas page. It's not vandalism to delete inaccurate posts. Posting all the killers names as native is wrong. They are not native. A native of las vegas was born in las vegas. Let me phrase it another way so that it might be clearer. If someone was...say born in, I don’t know.....Pella, Iowa, and then moved to las vegas 5 years ago I would say that they are not a native of las vegas. Perhaps on other planets or in other dimensions where people are able to exist in two places at once and therefore give birth to David Keuing in Pella, Iowa and Las Vegas simultaneously then he could be a native. But he's not. If you want to change the post you're welcome to. I shouldn't be banned for deleting innacurate information. I didn't even know that was possible.

Demographics

Under Demographics, I added the City of Las Vegas Population by year history from 1930 thru 2000. JeffreyAllen1975 05:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the table, as it was not properly closed Mattman00000 23:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sassy Sally

She's the neon fig @ a casino, & got her name from locals. Except, which casino? Anybody know? Trekphiler 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

fastest growing city?

I don't believe that LV is the fastest growing city in Nevada. I think Mesquite and NLV are growing faster. Anyone know for sure? Vegaswikian 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I know for sure that Las Vegas metro is the fastest growing but not sure just about Las Vegas (city) --Texaswebscout 23:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • While the north west is still enjoying considerable growth, the majority of growth in the area is in the south west. For instance, Mountain's Edge (a master-planned community) is currently in early stages, but there are plenty of smaller communities such as Rhodes Ranch, that are creating some serious traffic problems. That area is growing faster than any other. 68.96.230.33 02:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Stupid History

Will someone please edit the "stupidhistory" section to remove the vandalism? I've gone back several versions of the article and recent edits don't even seem to have noticed it.

10 Fastest-Growing Cities (100,000 or More Population) from April 1, 2000, to July 1, 2002

Rank- Percentage Change 1 Gilbert, Ariz. 22.8% 2 North Las Vegas, Nev. 17.7% 3 Henderson, Nev. 17.3% Boyohio02 01:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Vegas Growth and Development

For anyone who is interested in some of the many large high rise and other developments in Vegas, There are a couple of updated sites providing pretty accurate information. And they have links to their sources of information. I dont know exactly how this kind of information could be interlinked with this page because they are pretty fluid developments.. And where do you draw the line between facts about vegas' growth, and speculation. Anyone from Vegas can appreciate the rapid changes that occur there. http://www.skyscraperpage.com http://www.vegastodayandtomorrow.com

On a side note, Why people insist on placing garbage on the page, random sentences, and perverse language I will never know. I am glad that people have taken the initiative to maintain this page.. Props to all of you for keeping the page clean.

That's what vandels do. Vegaswikian 05:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

I'm probably going to pull this section. If it goes back in, it should be after some discussion here. The current text seems to be very WP:POV and not really an encylopedic overview of the defined neighborhoods. Also including Summerlin, which already has an article, as a neighborhood does not seem correct. Vegaswikian 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion or objection, I'm going to delete the Neighborhoods section. Vegaswikian 22:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think four days is enough to make that decision. I'd like to see that section return. MojaveNC 01:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to have such a section, but that certainly wasn't it. Unsourced facts, POV, etc. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Economic information

I inserted this information (a precis of the report cited) into this entry on the grounds that there should be at least _some_ statistics on the gambling revenues in the entry most people looking for such info would come to first: the Las Vegas entry. Robma 16:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

And that data is, I believe, county wide and not specific to Las Vegas. The city article is suppose to be about the city and the area information is in the Las Vegas metropolitan area article. Also it is reported by the LVCVA so including it there seems to make more sense. A reference to the data would be better in the Las Vegas metropolitan area aticle with a link to the LVCVA and the data so it only needs to be maintained in a single place. Vegaswikian 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I've added a sentence linking directly to all the LVCVA reports in the entry (I'd no idea so much useful LV material was held there).Robma 07:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

land size changes by 67.172.95.197

Anyone know if these are corect? Seems off for that type of a change to correct something. Vegaswikian 18:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I was wondering about that too! But the change from 293.6 to 113.4 is a km2 to sq. mi. conversion, and is notated right; the screwy part is the 182.43 km2. That makes no sense at all -- that's 70.4 sq. mi., which doesn't seem relevant to anything at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, and just to throw another spanner in the works, the LV city website's demographics page says that the area is 131.2 sq mi. Has LV annexed another 18 sq mi recently? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe they added the piece of land by the Kyle Canyon turn off. Vegaswikian 20:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Sounds right; the Planning & Development Q4 2005 piece of PR says, "the city has annexed about 18 sq mi of land". One thing I also wonder about with those numbers -- the amount that's water. Only 0.1? Does artificial water ("The Lakes", and some of the other planed communities) count? Anyway, let's figure out these details and fix the numbers; for the moment, I wouldn't argue against reverting the km -> sq mi changes, or at least what's claiming to be the accurate km numbers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

On a drive back from Mt. Charleston, I noticed that a sign says "Las Vegas" and the elevation very close to the mountain road. Is the Vegas city limit really that far north, in what is now empty desert? VisitorTalk 07:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pics of the Strip?

--If most of of the Las Vegas Strip is actually outside the city limits, then is it really accurate to have pictures of it in this article? Perhaps they belong in the Las Vegas metro area article instead. --Jleon 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • You could make that point. The problem is that Las Vegas is legally one thing but something much larger to the world. My personal opinion is to keep the city article as close to city only as is reasonable and let the other articles, metro and strip, cover most of what the world considers Vegas. However, I'm not sure that there is consensus over this. Vegaswikian 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I live in Las Vegas as defined legaaly, far from the strip. Still, when I think of Las Vegas, the first thing I thin of is the casions and the Strip. It should deserve a good part in this article; even the local news refers to the strip as being in Las Vegas (city). 69.69.88.85 06:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Bellahdoll
Agreed, I've heard local radio news mentions of "Las Vegas companies" when giving updates on casino stocks. VisitorTalk 07:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The night picture of the Strip is a beautiful representation of the city's international reputation. (By the way, there should be a mention of the statistic of 30+ million visitors a year, making the city the most popular tourist destination of the U.S. I don't have the statistic's source in front of me, but it should be easy to find.) I recommend leaving that picture at the top of the sidebar, but add a caption: "Lights of resorts along the famous Las Vegas Strip - most of which is actually outside the city limits." What do people think of this wording? Also, for the Strip sign photo by Mandalay Bay, I'd like to change the caption to "Las Vegas sign at the south end of the Strip - miles south of the actual city limits." I think the sign picture should be relocated to the Economic History section, since welcoming visitors to the Strip is the foundation of the local economic history after Hoover Dam's completion. For the picture box next to the Founding section, a picture of the Springs Preserve would be very appropriate. VisitorTalk 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry User:VisitorTalk I really have to disagree with you and anyone else that feels the picture in the InfoBox is appropriate because in my opinion it is not and should be replaced with something that truly represents the city, Not to do so is very disrespectful to the people who live, work and breath the City of Las Vegas. Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Worst disaster in Nevada history?

The article lists the MGM files as the worst disaster in Nevada history. Perhaps this was the greatest loss of life in an event, but I believe the PEPCON explosion had a far greater impact on the area as whole. Perhaps this belongs instead under Metro area, but I think most "natives" who have lived in the area since the 80s can better recall the vast area of damage. Brianckeegan 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I realized that it said Nevada instead of Las Vegas. I changed the OP accordingly. MGM fire certainly could not have been the worst disaster in state history as mine collapses, native american displacement, and nuclear testing all occupy prominent places in Nevada history.Brianckeegan 18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I lived in Vegas for both the MGM fire and Pepcon, and the fire seemed far worse to me. But that's why we need to avoid general phrases like "Worst Disaster". Maybe "Greatest Loss of Life" would be appropriate. 74.75.0.106 00:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
How about simply having a section labeled "Major disasters"? VisitorTalk 07:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas doesn't have a sister city in Japan?? 24.253.92.226 11:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This should be in its own section, as it doesn't relate to LV disasters. VisitorTalk 07:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Defining the Las Vegas article

I think there needs to be some consensus on what this article should contain.

Las Vegas, as I see it, has four definitions:

1) The City of Las Vegas, a municipal area in central Clark County.

2) The tourist destination Las Vegas, mostly centered around the Las Vegas Strip.

3) Las Vegas, the city, encompassing areas of unincorporated Clark County where people believe they live in Las Vegas but in fact do not live within the technical city.

4) Greater Las Vegas, inc. Henderson, North Las Vegas, and maybe even bedroom communities (Pahrump, Moapa Valley, Coyote Springs, etc.)

If we're going to take a hard line and say, look, nothing in this article should explain the way things work for the county, then we should also remove the Strip explanations and split this article into three topics, and start the Las Vegas search out at a disambiguation page. If you're going to talk about the Strip in the "Las Vegas" article, I think you have to talk about Las Vegas as an entity that includes both the city and urban unicorporated county.

Generally, this would be a no-brainer... county government gets its own article and that's that. But I think there's so much confusion, so much potential for misunderstanding as well as a base fact that 750,000 folks live in the unicorporated part of the Las Vegas Valley but still thinking they live in Las Vegas (not Henderson or Spring Valley or Paradise or anything else) that that should either be folded into this one or the article should be split in four or more.

We should include this in the article--Googleplex5 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, but I would do some minor rewrites. Point two, add another clause so it reads: "... the Las Vegas Strip, most of which is actually outside the city limits." Point 3: change "...where people believe they live" to "where people may say they reside, work or shop in Las Vegas but actually are located outside the city limits." VisitorTalk 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

ArenaBowl

Should ArenaBowl be considered a "major event"?

Whatever stays in Vegas, Stays in Vegas/Vegas fake names

I would like if someone could put an article explaining the origin of this so called 'rule", and so as the one involving why many tourists use fake names in Vegas. This would be interesting. Falconleaf

  • Do you really think many tourists use fake names in Vegas? I guess the ones that drive here and use only cash could pull it off...kinda hard to fly or use credit cards legally with fake name. (And heaven help you if you win a decent jackpot; they card the hell out of you nowadays.) Am I just naive? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah but Also where did the rule of Whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas thing. Explain that the history of that thing and we might put that into the article. Plus, have you seen those commericals of tourism to Vegas? Many of the characters in those commerical use fake names, also in many of the movies I've seen that are about visitng Vegas, they characters use fake names, which give me into detail on a possible Vegas tourist culture on why people use fake names Falconleaf
      • I think you are confusing an advertisement with fact. The two are quite different. There is no such rule. But there is a well received advertising campaign that would have you think otherwise. Vegaswikian 23:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I think FalconLeaf is referring to the practice of using a fake name when you pickup a girl or a guy. It was featured in a tourism ad for Las Vegas, but honestly, that phenomenon is hardly unique to the city. Furthermore, it's hard to remember now (damn advertising!), but I'm pretty sure the phrase "What happens in ___, stays in ____ " was around long before those commercials started and did not always refer to Las Vegas. If someone wants to discuss it in the context of Las Vegas though, it could be put under a "Tourism" or "Advertising" section. But Falcon, I don't think there's much of a "rule" that requires ppl to use fake names -- they just don't want the people with whom they have casual hookups to ever find them again, which may just be to avoid hassles and/or because they're actually cheating on a significant other in order to do it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.249.96.252 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

Image in the Transportation Section

I rescaled the image to a size where it should cover up to 95% of the width of the writing section of a 4:3 screen. The images has not been uploaded by me and I do not want to promote the work (lol). In case the thumb looks too blurry, feel free and replace it or take it off the article. I just think that as long as there is a picture in the article it needs to have a good size where you are able to see what it tries to illustrate. Or else it is worthless. -- Boereck 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Culture?

There's a section on the city called "Culture", when it's just about Sport. Even aside from very personal opinions about the wide gulf between Culture and Sport, why isn't this section just called "Sport"? iPhil 00:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think because over time, there have been edits to remove the other items or the pointers to the information from the article. Given the length of the entire article. I think moving most of the Sports text to Sports in Las Vegas would be justified. Also note that a lot of the culture in the City lacks articles. Remember that much of the culture is in the areas around the city and not in the city proper. Vegaswikian 00:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Casino history

I am considering starting a Las Vegas casino history article. Right now I belive there is more then enought information scattered around to put together a nice article. The scope would be all of Clark County. I'll probably do this soon unless someone points out a good reason not to do this. Filling in this type of history could uncover other articles that need writing. Vegaswikian 18:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see that article and believe it would be interesting. If there is not already an article about Las Vegas Casinos in general, I'd recommend creating such an article and having a history section within it. VisitorTalk 23:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced facts

Such a major and huge article needs some serious referencing (close to 20-30 of them) rather than a mere 6 Steroid Expert 06:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Pronouciation?

In certain occasions, I heard on US radio and TV that the newscasters pronounce Los Vegas, like in Los Angeles. I have heard it so many times that I can no longer refrain from asking what is going on. Since I don't know Spanish, I am guessing two possible explanations. 1. The newscasters are just as ignorant about Spanish as I am and simply mispronouce it repeatedly. 2. Los and Las are pronounced the same way in Spanish, though they sound different when read as English. I am thinking in the same way as the French Le vs. Les, they spelled differently but they are pronounced the same way. Is Spanish done the same way as French? Curious mind needs to know. Thanks in advance. Kowloonese 10:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, 'los' and 'las' are pronunciated as they are. The TV newscasters are making a mistake in such a way that you are right with your #1 hipotesis. I'm Mexican living in Mexico City so i'm 100% sure. --189.135.69.148 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada.

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Las Vegas instead of Las Vegas, Nevada, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't jump to conclusions. A new convention might allow Las Vegas to redirect to Las Vegas Strip or Las Vegas metropolitan area as primary or most common usage. Vegaswikian 00:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with this proposal. For cities with a name that is unique and where the name of the city clearly means that city above all other uses of the word, it would allow that city to use its name as the title for the article. Currently, Las Vegas redirects to Las Vegas, Nevada, which means that Wikipedians have already decided that the city of Las Vegas in Nevada is the most important use of the word Las Vegas. If you disagree with the way the redirect currently functions, then you should take it to Talk:Las Vegas and propose that Las Vegas redirect to something else.--DaveOinSF 02:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that the legal age in Vegas is 16? Why sigh, cutie pie? 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal for what? Gambling age is 21, IIRC. Voting age would probably be 18. -Will Beback 08:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Legal to live on your own. I live in California, and my friend (she lives in Vegas) said that you could run away and live in Vegas - legally - when you're 16. Is it true? Why sigh, cutie pie? 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
That's probably a Nevada state law. A search of the code at [15] reveals that the age of majority is 18. Like other states, minors may become emancipated:
  • NRS 129.080 Minor may petition juvenile court for decree of emancipation; reference to master. Any minor who is at least 16 years of age, who is married or living apart from his parents or legal guardian, and who is a resident of the county, may petition the juvenile court of that county for a decree of emancipation. The district court may refer the petition to a master appointed
I don't see where it says anything else about living apart. Non-emancipated minors who run away may be returned to their parents. I suggest consulting a better source than a Wikipedia talk page. -Will Beback 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Technology companies

How is Zappos a technology company? It's a shoe store. -THB 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

This article is in desperate need of pictures of Las Vegas at night. I believe that only daylight pictures will not suffice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.156.165.57 (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Agreed, especially for the Strip and Fremont St. VisitorTalk 23:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection Status Request

I'm troubled by the amount of editing this page undergoes due to WUI (Wiki-ing Under the Influence) and vandalism. Sadly I don't know where else to lodge a plea for protecting this article. I find this doubly necessary when this article is a candidate for Release. Help me out? MrWarMage 16:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This article does not appear to have experienced an unusual amount of vandalism. Most of the recent bad edits appear to have come from one IP, which can be blocked if necessary. I'm not sure what is meant by "Release". -Will Beback · † · 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I see the recent IP vanadal has been blocked for six months.[16]. -Will Beback · † · 00:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
By release I mean that it's been chosen to go into a version. On the other side, what then denotes "unusual" vandalism? I'm a bit unsuccessful searching out those criteria, and I don't want to be crying wolf. MrWarMage 15:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas redirect

Right now, Las Vegas redirects to Las Vegas, Nevada. However if you look at the links to Las Vegas, they are all over the board with the majority not being about the city. While difficult to judge, I'd say the biggest group point to strip hotels or activities. I'd like to discuss changing where the redirect goes. The other options appear to be Las Vegas metropolitan area, Las Vegas Strip and Clark County, Nevada. I'm leaning towards Las Vegas metropolitan area since that seems to cover both the city and the area for most of the inbound links. Several discussion over naming conventions seem to support that Vegas is rather different and that pointing to the city might not be the best choice since Vegas is not used to describe the city in many uses. Vegaswikian 20:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections raised, I'm going to change the redirect to Las Vegas metropolitan area. Thanks. Vegaswikian 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Just spotted this discussion. Anyway, I concur with your decision. --Coolcaesar 08:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree strongly, it confused me when I first saw it so I'm guessing it confused a lot of other people too. I'd change it back if there weren't a concurrence, but now there's a challenge, so let's discuss. --Golbez 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the inbound links, most of them are not about the city. They are about the strip or hotels not in the city. To much of the world, Vegas is a generic area that is southern Nevada. They don't relate it as being the same as the city. Or they consider the city to be all of southern Nevada. Vegaswikian 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Then maybe the links should be changed. We tend to go by the 'policy of least surprise' here, and if I put in "Chicago" and was redirected to "Chicagoland," I'd be pretty surprised, just as I was in this case. --Golbez 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the links also need to be changed to point to the correct article. Try fixing a few and you will see that most of them are not about the city. So by pointing to the city article by default, we are sending the vast majority of readers to the wrong article. That too is a surprise. I update a few whenever I have the time. Vegaswikian 08:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Articles can link to the correct article. Users, however, don't know this, so when they TYPE IN "Las Vegas", they will be sent to what I would say is the wrong article. We need to consider them more than redirects used in articles, as those can be fixed. I suggest we change the redirect now and fix the articles later. --Golbez 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
When someone enters Las Vegas, they are mostly not interested in the city. They want the Las Vegas Strip or the area around it. So the link should be to one of those two. This is clearly supported by looking at the current links. They are simply not for the city but for the metro area or the strip. Vegaswikian 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
When someone enters New York City, do they mean the city, or do they mean Manhattan, which is what the Post Office calls New York? Or should we not make that decision for them, and just go with the standard used for 30,000+ other cities and towns? I'm a little shocked you suggested "Las Vegas" should redirect to "Las Vegas Strip" before redirecting to "Las Vegas, Nevada" - that would indeed be exactly akin to redirecting "New York City" to "Manhattan". --Golbez 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at the articles that redirect there. You will see that most are not about the city, so the city is just wrong. The Strip or the metropolitan area is what most of the links are for and not the city. Vegaswikian 23:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, this isn't about articles. Articles can be changed. This is about the user. When i typed "Las Vegas," I expected, like 30,000 other cities, to be taken to the article about the city. --Golbez 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Just saw what happened since my last look at this talk page. Both of you have good arguments, so I don't really know which side I'm on at this point. Can another editor please add their two bits? --Coolcaesar 05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Vegaswikian, did you even think about the redirect situation? I spend a lot of time fixing links to cities, and I know I have fixed several articles in the past that were talking about the city but just linked to "Las Vegas" instead of "Las Vegas, Nevada". I can't speak for others, but I would be looking for the city if I typed in Las Vegas. TJ Spyke 14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
So would I, and I'm going to be bold. If others really disagree, then feel free to revert and I'll take it to RfD. --Golbez 09:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought this was over so I did not keep the paper. But about two weeks ago, the Review-Journal had a chart showing that Las Vegas had the biggest gaming market compared to to other places like Atlantic City and Indian Casinos. While the headline screamed that Las Vegas was the largest, the caption for the largest market was The Strip. So again, another case where assuming that Las Vegas means the city is wrong. Maybe in this case the best place for the redirect is to the dab page and have the editors cleanup the mess that is out there, but redirecting to the wrong place the vast majority of the time is simply against the guidelines. Vegaswikian 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It should go to Las Vegas, the city. The links that go to the strip are all wrong, and should go to the city. Just because people confusedly think Vegas is a casino repository called the Strip, doesn't mean we have to report that non-truth. 69.69.88.85 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Bellahdoll

I am suggesting what I said, not to break the rules for the fun of it. You seemed to imply I was just trying to be bothersome. I am offended by that. I was greatly surprised that Las Vegas does not go to the city itself. That is a bigger shock than not landing in the strip or metropolitan area, which are NOT entirely contained in the city Las Vegas, and therefore are incorrectly redirected by Las Vegas. If they expect to be somewhere else, it is not our fault they asked for the wrong place. If 99 in 100 people think 1 + 1 is 3, that does not make it correct. Similarly, just because they think the strip or metropolitan area are entirely in Las Vegas doesn't make it entirely so. We should not cater to people who have been misinformed (or misassumed) just because they are numerous. The world once believed Earth was flat, but it wasn't true. People's beliefs are often wrong, or at least misguided. Trust me, many people are wrong. Someone asked a friend I know who works in a casino what city she commutes to her. Many casion guests think no one actually lives here. Popular belief doesn't alter the facts, and recording the facts is an encyclopedia's job, not the nonsensical thoughts of people with no real knowledge of the subject. 69.69.88.85 07:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Bellahdoll

Can those feeling warm about this topic please review my suggestion of a disambiguation page? VisitorTalk 07:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Las Vegas is a dab page. Vegaswikian 08:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs watching

Minor vandalism stayed in place for 16 minutes. I only noticed it because I was looking at recent changes and since I live in Las Vegas, the edit caught my eye. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Young Electric Sign Company

Just a note that the article on Young Electric Sign Company was deleted and I have asked for a deletion review. If anyone wishes to comment on this, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 5. Vegaswikian 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Marriage

I didn't find this information in the article, and as I'm not from Vegas (not even USA), I'd like to know, is it true that when you marry in Las Vegas you're only married there? --Midasminus 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I was a little confused since some friends of mine told me so. --Midasminus 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In the USA, marriage laws are a matter for each individual state to decide. However, states recognize marriages that were conducted in other states. Whether another nation would officially recognize a marriage from Nevada, or any U.S. state, is up to the laws of that country. Here is some information about marriage in Vegas: http://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/Visitor/149.htm VisitorTalk 23:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Organized Crime, Prostitution & Corruption

Las Vegas is infamous for organized crime. Why no mention? Here is an example from NPR of an article linking the mob to Las Vegas: Hidden Treasures: A Museum for the Mob DavidAmis 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only is the history of the mob in Vegas missing, but so is any discussion of the largest industry in Vegas -- prostitution and strip clubs. There is one mention of prostitution in the article and it only mentions that it is illegal in Vegas. However, anyone who visits Vegas knows that advertisements for escorts and strip clubs are everywhere. Any cab driver can get you a hooker within 20 minutes. The famous "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" advertising campaign is a sly wink about the prostitution industry. There also really should be some mention of the fact that 4 of the 7 Clark County Supervisors are under indictment for corruption -- and that political corruption is rampant and extremely well-documented in all levels of local government. These Vegas articles read like press releases from the Chamber of Commerce. Let's try to get a little balance in here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.141.69 (talk)
OK, so how are escorts and strip clubs in Vegas different then NYC in this regard? As to the corruption, yes, those articles need to be added. Fell free to add articles on the member of the Clark County commission. Remember to read WP:BIO and associated pages about living people. Also, as far as I know, none of the County Commissioners are under indictment for corruption. Vegaswikian 02:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
And we'll need some reliable sources regarding the "largest industry"; that may have been the case a few decades ago, but it's hard to see it as such now, with the megaresorts. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just check with the Sin City Chamber of Commerce. I'd love to get an article on them written. Vegaswikian 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The book "The Money and the Power" may be a suitable reference to cite if you'd like to include this material, David. VisitorTalk 07:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

township maps

Does anyone know of a good source for a map of the various township boundaries?

Vegaswikian 20:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Events

The mention of the nuclear testing should give the distance from the city to the tests, since they weren't actually done inside the City Limits (or the Strip or metro area for that matter). Would also like to see a mileage figure to Hoover Dam in this section's mention of it. VisitorTalk 14:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Cityscape

In addition to the panorama, there should be a picture of the typical nearly new desert suburban houses where most of the population actually lives, such as this one http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/rfs/403832943.html - of course, should use a picture that will not go away. The economy section really should mention and link to the Wikipedia article on Summerlin and mention its importance not just to Vegas, but also to national trends in suburban real estate development. VisitorTalk 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Education

Although UNLV is outside the city limits, it's just off the south end of the Strip in the metro area. The article should clarify this geography. Simply saying it's miles outside of the city limits could lead people to imagine a drive out of town and through the open desert to get to the university, which of course wouldn't be accurate. VisitorTalk 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Transportation

How does 10% ridership make the bus system "popular?" This seems like editorializing, compared to mass transit usage rates at other major cities.

The freeway widening projects and ongoing road construction, all to serve the growing population, would be worth mentioning in this section.

Do the Strip resorts make the city have more limo services than most? VisitorTalk 14:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"center of gambling" claim in the lead

I suspect it's still true that Vegas is the center of gambling for the U.S. However, I think the most recent economic statistics show that Macau has overtaken Vegas in terms of total annual gambling revenue. Calling Vegas "the center of gambling in the United States, and the so-called 'Entertainment Capital of the World'" is probably still accurate- since Macau's visitors don't stay as long and aren't as interested in entertainment, on average, as Vegas visitors. This is from articles I've seen in the LV Sun and other major news media; I can look up citations if needed. VisitorTalk 03:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Tourism - not just casinos

I think there should be a small mention of the Atomic Testing Museum which is based in LV? After all LV is important to the development of the A bomb, and the nuclear response emergency teams. Is it okay to add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.120.79.169 (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Water situation

I've heard Las Vegas imports most of its water, but the article barely mentions water at all. Are there any movements to get the casinos to cut back on water usage? What is the stability of the local water table, and what happened to the artesian wells? I'm just surprised to not see this covered. --NormalAsylum (t) 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The water is not imported, most of it comes from Lake Mead. Casinos are small users when you look at the overall picture. The water table is about where it was many years ago when they stopped most pumping. Right now, they recharge in low use periods and pump the added water back out in times of high usage. The artisan wells dried up long ago. Since this is not a city issue, any coverage should be in Las Vegas Springs Preserve and Las Vegas metropolitan area. Vegaswikian 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Zip codes

I'm going to remove these at some point since the information is not correct. For example, 89147 is not in the city. Unless someone can correctly source this and limit these to the city, the information should be deleted as incorrect. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhoods???

Do people actualy live in las vegas, because this article makes it seem as if its ONLY a tourist destination and party city....

Verification

The quote "All of the original large casinos were managed or at least funded under mob figures Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel and Meyer Lansky." isn't supported by the identified footnote. That footnote indicates some mob affiliation - nothing directly linkin git to Bugsy or Meyer (which I'm confident is inaccurate - Bugsy only had a realationship with the Flamigo.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.246.79 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs disamb. page

I added a link at the top to LV, New Mexico. "Las Vegas" should certainly start here, but I think we could use a "for other uses see Las Vegas Disambiguation" tag and page...Smarkflea (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But "Las Vegas" doesn't redirect here - there is a separate Las Vegas page for disambiguation between the city, the Strip and the metropolitan area. There is also a Las Vegas (disambiguation), so I don't think that so many dab links are needed at the top of this page. Cheers, Rai-me 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Las Vegas is too big and too well known to be named Las Vegas, Nevada. Chicago isn't named Chicago, Illinois, Paris isn't named Paris, France, why should Las Vegas be named any differently? Just use Las Vegas (disambiguation) for a list of all the other places with the same name. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose per all of the previous like nominations. The article conforms with the US naming conventions. In addition, I believe that it has been shown that most uses of Las Vegas in articles are not for the city but rather for the Las Vegas Strip and the Las Vegas metropolitan area. So if you want to make this move, change the naming convention first. Or wait for Oscar to combine the city and county. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Indifference and note - you will never get this passed without first getting everyone to agree to a move of ALL cities in AP Stylebook. You'll have to start another proposal for a set of moves of the cities you mention. What you're doing here is futile.--Loodog (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2008 (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.

On going IP vandal edits

Since we have been reverting various IP address vandals on a regular basis, I protected the article for 90 days from edits by anonymous and new editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs crime statistics section.

I Don't know if the tourism board for Las Vegas is editing this page or what, but this is the only major city on wikipedia I have seen without crime statistics. Las Vegas is well known lately for its violent crime rate rising steadily.Guipo (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you need to do your research if the last information I saw is to be believed. For most major crimes, the rates are actually dropping and in some case, there are very significant drops. Check the rates for auto theft for one example. If you are using the FBI stats, I believe some of what they publish are 2 or 3 years old. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant Nathanbrisk (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Gaming vs. Gambling

The economy section previously listed "tourism, gaming, and conventions" as primary drivers of the Las Vegas economy. I have changed "gaming" to "gambling" because "gaming" is a euphemism for the word "gambling". "Gaming" is vague, as it could refer to video games, or other types of games such as lawn games or board games that aren't related. Also, the title of the article linked is even called "gambling", which demonstrates the word "gaming" as misleading and confusing.

I have made this change twice, each time with a full explanation as to why the change makes sense. However, user Vegaswikian has reverted both changes without bothering to refute my provided reasons or list any him or herself. Please spend a few seconds providing justification for the word "gaming" so that we may have a dialog. Thesacrificebunt (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • How about that it's the term consistently used by the industry and by the state of Nevada? Do you really think anyone thinks the references are about board games or Mario Brothers? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, this is an encyclopedia and we should be calling a spade a spade. It should certainly be gambling rather than whatever the state of Nevada prefers to refer to it as. We should not be using the state of Nevada as a benchmark for language, certainly not when they are likely referring to it incorrectly for reasons of their own. Mfield (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It is much more then Nevada. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Care to explain? "Gaming" is a euphemism that redirects emphasis and meaning. How many states without a large aspect of their identity or industry tied to gambling use the word "gaming"? California, for instance, overwhelmingly prefers the term "gambling" over "gaming" in legislation. Is there any other reason to prefer the more vague and ambiguous terminology compared to the more specific and descriptive? Do we use "escort service" for prostitution? [18] Thesacrificebunt (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually we use "escort service" and prostitution since they are two related activities. The first may include the second but it does not have to. Two terms, two different meanings. Also the position you are taking is that "Gaming" is a euphemism. Given it's widespread use in financial publications and legislation, that seems a bit presumptive and POV. Gaming is an industry, and a business that provides a service. Using that service is called gambling or wagering or betting or may other names. Simply put gambling is not a correct term to define the industry. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about this some more, and I now think "gambling" is more appropriate. "Gaming" indeed is a euphemism, essentially an industry-sponsored whitewash of whats really going on. That legislation and financial publications use the term speaks primarily to the power of the gambling industry. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Both "gaming" and "gambling" are used by government regulatory agencies worldwide. See [19]. "Gaming" is used by Macau, parts of Australia, many countries in Europe and the majority of US states. "Gaming" is also commonly used by industry (e.g. Boyd Gaming), by the press and by international organizations like IAGR. "Gaming" refers specifically to legal activities; "gambling" can refer to illegal activities. See [20]. Exactly how much evidence do people need to stop making the "euphemism" claim? Simishag (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The AGA has some relevant history on this which I found easily with the Google search "gaming vs gambling". See [21]. In particular: 'The word "gaming" - defined as the action or habit of playing at games of chance for stakes - actually dates back to 1510, predating use of the word "gambling" by 265 years.' The Nevada Gaming Control Board was established under that name in 1955. The Nevada Gaming Commission was established under that name in 1959, by the Gaming Control Act passed by the Nevada Legislature. See [22], pp 4-5. I don't know if the legislative records are easily available but presumably they had the opportunity to debate the appropriate term. You are implying that a conspiracy exists to promote "gaming" over "gambling". Where's YOUR evidence? Simishag (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • You're sure reading a lot into a lexicographical suggestion. Evidence of what? What are you so angry about? (And that the American Gaming Association defends the term "gaming" is not exactly convincing of anything.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe the better question is should we be using both terms based on the context. I thing gaming is clearly focused on the industry and the devices and locations that industry offers. Gambling refers to the activity that individuals partake in. To apply that this is the gambling industry is quite misleading. How is it a gamble to offer games where you have structured the game to give you up to a 50% or so return? The gaming companies are not taking a gamble so they should not be labeled as being in the gambling business. If you want to start labeling businesses as gambling then start with the biggest one, restaurants.
    • Hm, good point. Same way pimps aren't in the prostitution business, since they don't actually have sex with their clients. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Your "lexicographical suggestion" is merely your personal opinion, which would be fine except that you attempted to justify it with a bogus theory, terms like "whitewash" and "euphemism", assertions of financial bias and specious comparisons to prostitution. You blithely claim that we should disregard a term in wide use by government, industry and the press because, apparently, they're all in on it together. Your attack on the AGA is an ad hominem circumstantial argument; you are attacking the messenger rather than the message. The AGA link I posted actually listed 3 references, including the Oxford English Dictionary and the Dictionary of Gambling and Gaming. Whether they defend the use of the term is not the point; the fact that "gaming" was used centuries before "gambling" sure seems to disprove your theory that the industry invented the term. Why do you insist on pushing your POV in the face of the evidence? Simishag (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • "Pushing my POV"? You'll notice I've not made a single edit to the article in this regard. I don't know about you, but I'm having a civil discussion about the use of particular term on an article talk page, and I neither appreciate nor understand the hostility. Regarding AGA, it would be rather peculiar if the "American Gaming Association" did not defend the use of the term "gaming". Comparisons to prostitution are quite apt: they are activities that are some places criminal, some places quite legal, considered highly immoral by some, considered "mind your own business" by others -- and are described euphemistically much of the time. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did we get to on this? From a dispute in another article, my attention was drawn to this bit of policy which reminded me that it might apply here. Do the majority of readers use the term gambling? I would think it is certainly safe to say that people would would say they were going to Vegas to go gambling rather than gaming. The question then is what do the majority of RSs use? Mfield (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "gaming" is pretty consistently used to refer to the industry, while "gambling" is used to refer to people's activities. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Drinking laws

My edit comment on my removal of this was incorrect. Open containers are legal in the city and on the Strip. However, I still think the edit was justified as it's not appropriate for the lead. Simishag (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Roads

A few things that come to mind here:

  1. This road plan would probably be useful for all the articles associated with Las Vegas, Clark County, North Las Vegas, etc; perhaps it could be moved into an infobox or some other widget. I'm not sure what the exact limits should be but limiting it to just the city limits seems arbitrary. As it is, if someone wants information on how to get around in Las Vegas, they will not find a number of the major Strip streets here.
  2. Including the freeways inline in a list of the NS/EW arterials is confusing. 215 zigzags all over the place, it would need to be included twice on the east-west list, and to say it follows the grid alignment (even if it does over some portion) is stretching things a bit.
  3. The use of "aligned" with respect to freeways is confusing. Looking at Google Maps, only the easternmost portion of Summerlin Parkway is aligned with any part of Bonanza, and it's a really a pretty small part of Bonanza, just the part west of downtown. There's also a big gap between the Parkway interchange & Bonanza. The majority of Bonanza runs east of downtown and is "aligned" closer to US 95.
  4. A number of significant arterials do not run the entire NS/EW length of the city. Some end well inside the city or run only to an approximate NS/EW centerline of the city. The endpoint should be noted. Example: Ann Road is EW but only serves points west of Camino Al Norte/Camino Eldorado. (EDIT: actually, this is a bad example as Ann runs a bit farther east, but there are plenty of other examples).
  5. A number of significant arterials change names without any change in direction and these should be noted. Example: N Durango/Rampart/Fort Apache (bonus: the separate segment of S Durango). Simishag (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll let the person who added the data and cited the source comment on most of your points. However for the first one, the city article is not the place to include information about Henderson. For information that is about the valley in general, it goes in Las Vegas metropolitan area. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Point 3 refers specifically to your reversion of my edit yesterday, so I'd appreciate your response. Simishag (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I undid your revision back to the sourced version. If you want to source that one from a different source feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to the Nevada DOT PDF, which is a planning document rather than a scale map. It does not support the claim that Summerlin Pkwy and Bonanza are the same road. I don't think a source is necessary to prove this; it's obvious by simple inspection of freely available maps. Simishag (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing was asserting that Summerlin Pkwy and Bonanza are the same road. The assertion from the other editor was that they are on the same basic alignment when looking at the roads from a north to south perspective. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The "other editor" was you (see [23]). No one besides you or me has edited the "Roads" section in over a month. Perhaps you did not write the original copy that I modified, but once you restored it, it became your edit. The assertion that they are "aligned" is false if based solely on the DOT PDF source. The short portion of W Bonanza is not shown on the DOT map, and the portion of E Bonanza which is shown is clearly on a separate line. Simishag (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I remove the list of roads? It better belongs in Clark County. It does not seem very useful here other than being a link list. davumaya 21:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not object. However since it only covers the valley, Las Vegas metropolitan area would appear to be the better target. Some of this might be better in that article. Another option would be to create Las Vegas metropolitan area transportation and move most of the road, monorail, tram and airport stuff there. With a few local exceptions, most of the road stuff is I think covered by the RTC. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Poor Description

This is a poor description of the Mojave desert: As befits a desert, much of the landscape is rocky and dusty. First, there are all sorts of deserts - from the sand-blown Sahara to the frigid Antartica - so no landscape 'befits' a desert. Why don't we say something like, "The dry landscape consists mostly of low brush and dry, clay soil, as is typical for Western US deserts."

"Las Vegas was the most populous American city founded in the 20th century (a distinction held by Chicago in the 19th century)" - Technically that would read as: Chicago in the 19th century held the distinction for the being the most populous American city founded in the 20th century. --UtahStizzle (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lost Wages redirects to Las Vegas

I can not fathom a reasonable excuse for why "Lost Wages" redirects to "Las Vegas". This should be corrected. 199.80.142.70 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess that is one of the slang terms used to refer to Vegas. How do you propose correcting? If you want this removed you need to file a request at WP:RFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Probably someone is too fond of the Steely Dan song Show Biz Kids. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

WHAT??!!

I live in las vegas and in "Transportation," it doesn't talk about the tram! Can someone put it in, or do I have to do it? -Warriorscourge (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)♠♣♥♦

The tram that goes from mandalay bay to luxor to excaliber.Warriorscourge (♠♣♥♦) 01:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mainly because it is not in the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

GA improvements

In order to reach Good Article status some work needs to be done. One thing that is clear is the need to basically do inline citations for just about every paragraph and fact. So if someone wants to start on that it will be appreciated in the long run. BTW, this lack of citations appears to he the reason why Lake Tahoe is not listed as a GA. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also the pictures really need reviewing/replacing especially the one in the infobox. Most of these are not in the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I just realized how some pictures weren't quite the city city. As well, the article needs to be re-scoped to make mention of the western neighborhoods and diminish the Strip and casino value a bit. Las Vegas Strip is indeed more an appropriate article to further delve into the touristy nature of the metro area. davumaya 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea, looks like another good cleanup is needed to undo all of the information added that is not about the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Top Image

Starting a discussion here for others to discuss and establish consensus as an edit war is developing over this..

The current top image does not serve the article in question. The article in question is about the city of Las Vegas, not just one building in the city. Since this article is not about the one building, Las Vegas Club and about the city itself, I believe a picture of the skyline would be more appropriate. Bporter 28 06:19 14 January 2009

Bones of the dispute seems to be that the second image fails to depict the city, what it shows is a number of casinos on the strip - not itself part of the city. The original image shows a well known building that is in the city of Las Vegas.

Thoughts here please. I agree with the contention and think that the original image is more appropriate until a better one can be found that more completely represents the city rather than the Strip. Mfield (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the pictures here should be of the city. The only one I recall seeing was the panoramic one from 515 of the city. Not the best for the infobox. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This is splitting hairs, IMO. There's a variety of reasons for the reasons why the region is partitioned the way it is, and while I'd like for the valley to have it's own version of a Bill 103 and merge up, the fact is that this is that Wikipedia isn't a civics lesson. Thousands of books refer to the Strip as Las Vegas regardless of political boundaries, and even the county-run McCarran International Airport refers to itself as from Las Vegas. At the very bare minimum, at least get a picture focusing on the Stratosphere, since it's the most iconic structure within city limits.70.170.20.107 (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Would this be a better picture (http://johnkeyes.com/images/magick.php/JPK_3342_w.jpg)? It's the entire skyline of downtown. Musepharaoh (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. But it needs to meet the license requirements when it is uploaded, here or on commons. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded a picture much like the one from the link. This one is from Flickr and it meets requirements. (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Downtown_Las_Vegas_from_Stratosphere_3.jpg) Musepharaoh (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Retirement community

Can we see more in this article about Las Vegas as a retirement community? Ncgal78 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I will add some of these additions eventually. I would also like to remind editors to adhere the distinction between Las Vegas incorporated and the Las Vegas Strip. davumaya 22:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

contrary to vegas being a retirement city, Denver is a youth city? I need you baby and if Its quit alright (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

New City Manager.

The New City Manager of Las Vegas is Betsy Fretwell, who replaced Douglas Selby when he retired. Can someone change the city manager? 71.205.0.204 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/mar/06/betsy-fretwell/

Misleading hatnote

The current hatnote for this article advises readers seeking information about the Las Vegas Strip to go to the Paradise, Nevada article. This is misleading, as that article has less than one paragraph about the Strip in its lead; this article is actually a better resource for the Strip than that. What the hatnote should say is "for the Las Vegas Strip, see the Las Vegas Strip article", but I'm not sure what the best way to word that is. Cheers, Rai•me 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed with:
{{otheruses4|the city of Las Vegas only|the Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas Valley|Las Vegas metropolitan area}}
{{otheruses4|the city of Las Vegas only|the Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas Valley|Las Vegas metropolitan area|other uses|Las Vegas}}
 Guy M | Talk  20:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (UPDATED:  Guy M | Talk  20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC))
Thanks, that is much better. But is there a less awkward way to direct readers to the Las Vegas Strip articles besides saying, "for the Las Vegas Strip, see Las Vegas Strip"? Your edit is a significant improvement, but perhaps just {{seealso}} would suffice? That is what was in place before. Cheers, Rai•me 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
How about a {{this}} and a {{that}} (just kidding!), I mean a {{see also}}?
{{This|'''city of Las Vegas only'''|Las Vegas}}
{{See also|Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas metropolitan area}}
This article is about city of Las Vegas only. For other uses, see Las Vegas.
See also: Las Vegas Strip and Las Vegas metropolitan area
 Guy M | Talk  21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
...or maybe {{Distinguish}}
 Guy M | Talk  21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea - how about:
  • {{This|city of Las Vegas only|Las Vegas}}
  • {{tl|Distinguish|Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas metropolitan area}}
Or, to keep it succint and all on one line, we could just use:
  • {{dablink|This article is about the city of the Las Vegas only, not to be confused with the [[Las Vegas Strip]] or the [[Las Vegas metropolitan area]].}}
I personally like the {{that}}, but... ;-) Cheers, Rai•me 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd go for
{{This|city of Las Vegas only|Las Vegas}}
{{dablink|This article is about the city of the Las Vegas only, not to be confused with the [[Las Vegas Strip]] or the [[Las Vegas metropolitan area]].}}
 Guy M | Talk  21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should state "This article about the city of Las Vegas only" twice. And, seeing as Las Vegas is already the dab page, I don't really think we need a hatnote from a qualified, disambiguated page back to the dab page itself. But, if the link does remain, the first hatnote should probably read: {{This|city in Nevada|Las Vegas}} Cheers, Rai•me 03:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Archives

We had several archives, 1, 2, 01 and 02 over time. I consolidated them into one archive which should make it easier to find things in the archive. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope: Is This Article About Just the City?

According to the notices at the top of this article: "This article is about the city of Las Vegas, Nevada proper, not to be confused with the Las Vegas Strip or the Las Vegas metropolitan area." and "This article is about the city in Nevada. For other uses, see Las Vegas."

I agree, but the article itself doesn't follow these requirements. Many statements, especially those in sections Economy and Redevelopment, refer to the Strip or to the metropolitan area. Since there's already an article on the Las Vegas metropolitan area, it seems we should either combine the two articles, or separate the two. Right now, there's a hodge podge. Opinions? Larry (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the Strip developments have a tendency to drive, in a good or bad way, the economy in the city, it is not unreasonable to include them here. Having said that, rewriting those areas of the article to move most of the material to the metro article would seem to make the most sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

pronunciation

Definitely /lɒs/ rather than /lɑːs/? Is this how non ɒ/ɑː merging accents pronounce it? In Britain, people usually say /læs/, so I can't tell from that point of view. Lfh (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I never took the time to figure out those codes. The ending is like the end portion of 'loss', the beginning like 'la'. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering if the beginning was like "loss" or "la", but those vowels are identical in most American accents anyway. I would think "la" seems more likely though. Lfh (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
As someone who lived in Las Vegas for over 11 years, most people I have talked to have said /lɑːs/, and Spanish speakers do as well. MohammadMosaddeq 00:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Split Public Transport (per City) into a Category

Occurred to me that details of Vegas Public Transport and its Schedules should be on a separate page. Duh? The point being, that such a move should be done across cities in Wikipedia overall, right? Then we could also have a central page called Public Transport, with links to all of them. Also, in time, this would allow some automated systems that may even update the major timetables! Gwrede (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding time tables gets into WP:TRAVEL and WP:NOTADIRECTORY. As to a separate page, we pretty much have that covered under RTC Transit. I'm not sure that the city is still operating any bus service. Didn't they drop the last of their service last year when they turned over the DTC to the RTC? On the more general issue of doing this on a global basis, I don't see that happening since in many areas transportation is regional. Even the transit system for NYC runs well north of the city (50 miles or so) covers two states and both sides of the Hudson River as I recall. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Vegaswikian. Gwrede seems to have mixed up Wikipedia with Wikitravel. (I contribute to both, by the way.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

The page is now indefinitely protect for excessive vandalism. This is in addition to the previous indefinite move protection. I have tried to use shorter periods for the protection, but it seems that as soon as the protection is lifted, the anon vandals return. If anyone thinks sufficient time has pasted for this action and think we should try lifting it again, leave a note here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should stay protected a little longer. But under the Climate section, it states the city receives "little rainfall, which occurs on only 29 days per year". It would be more accurate to state "which occurs about 29 days of the year". The words about or approximately would be better in that sentence as it cannot be said with accuracy that it is always, and will always be, exactly 29 days of rainfall per year, every year for the rest of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, that section was reworded. Thanks for pointing it out. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a climate graph a little more consisdent with the rest of Wikipedia; here's a graph I've made for the climate (Seattle has the same thing, for example). Feel free to use it!

Las Vegas
Climate chart (explanation)
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
 
 
0.5
 
 
57
34
 
 
0.5
 
 
63
39
 
 
0.4
 
 
69
44
 
 
0.2
 
 
78
51
 
 
0.3
 
 
88
60
 
 
0.1
 
 
100
69
 
 
0.4
 
 
106
76
 
 
0.5
 
 
103
74
 
 
0.3
 
 
95
66
 
 
0.2
 
 
82
54
 
 
0.4
 
 
68
43
 
 
0.4
 
 
58
34
█ Average max. and min. temperatures in °F
█ Precipitation totals in inches
Source: NOAA
Metric conversion
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
 
 
13
 
 
14
1
 
 
13
 
 
17
4
 
 
10
 
 
20
7
 
 
5.1
 
 
25
10
 
 
7.6
 
 
31
16
 
 
2.5
 
 
38
21
 
 
10
 
 
41
25
 
 
13
 
 
40
23
 
 
7.6
 
 
35
19
 
 
5.1
 
 
28
12
 
 
10
 
 
20
6
 
 
10
 
 
14
1
█ Average max. and min. temperatures in °C
█ Precipitation totals in mm

Picture 2010

The photo in question. This prior photo shows only a small amount of the city of Las Vegas. While I fully understand that the Las Vegas Strip is not located in the city of Las Vegas, this is being explained explicitly under the new picture and throughout the article. The prior picture shows downtown only, and the city of Las Vegas, not including the metro, Paradise, NV, or Winchester, NV, still expands beyond this point. Please find a new picture of the entire city, rather than just a portion. It would be better suited to the artilce. In the mean time, I will leave this picture, but the sooner the better. I want to work with you guys as a team to find a picture that is better suited. Much appreciated. Thank you! 28 March 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The city does not include anything south of Sahara. So while the current image may only show a portion of the city, it shows the notable portion. Using a picture that is mostly areas that are not in the city is just not appropriate for the article on the city. Maybe it is of value in any of the articles that cover the area in that image. It would be nice if there were a selection of images available that could be used, but for whatever reason, they seem to be hard to come by. In any case, getting a picture of the entire city would be difficult at best since it stretches from the valley in the east to the foothills in the west. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a tricky one, but as noted at the top of the article, "This article is about the city of Las Vegas, Nevada proper, not to be confused with the Las Vegas Strip or the Las Vegas metropolitan area." Thus, an image of The Strip, or of such metropolitan areas as Paradise, belong elsewhere. Larry (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The notable portion of the city is in fact the Strip. While it is not located in the city limits, it is the main reason people come to Las Vegas in the first place. The photo I have chosen shows not mostly areas that are not in the city, but the city as a whole up to Sahara and beyond. I have also checked other city pages on Wikipedia, and many top images on those pages feature montages or monuments that are in fact outside the actual city limits in suburbs, etc. Please see if you can find a better picture though because this one is really not of the best quality and does not show much, if anything that Las Vegas itself is famous for. 29 March 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

THE STRIP IS NOT IN THE CITY!!!!!! It is in the area that most people call Las Vegas. So trying to highlight the strip in the city article is simply wrong. I'm going to undo your last change of the image since the two are about the same and you replaced the more detailed one (1280x960} with the less detailed one (600x402). Vegaswikian (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And just who are you? COnsidering you did not sign, I'm going to assume that you are a vandal and disregard your rude comments. THe Strip is the main reason Las Vegas is famous and is the main reason that people come to Las Vegas. Even though it IS NOT in the city, many other top images on wikipedia feature monuments that are not within city limits. This applies for many other wiki articles, such as Dubai, Washington, D.C., etc. So, why cant the Las Vegas page show something that the city is famous for? I would also appreciate if just me and Vegaswikian work this out. He is much more professional and is nice to work with. Thank you. 29 March 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see now that you are Vegaswikian. I have tried to work professionally with you, but obviously that has not worked for you. You are being extremely anal about this matter and I am simply trying to find a better picture for the city. The one that you keep posting does no justice to the article. The one I found recently shows more. Please discuss. Thanks. 29 March 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The two pictures are pretty much the same except one is poorer quality. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, which is why I have chosen one on a clearer day with a wider range in the background. I would also like to call attention to the other picture which shows more of the valley and what the city is famous for. 30 March 2010 Bporter28

The picture restored by Vegaswikian is a better representation of the CITY of Las Vegas. Other areas are NOT part of the city, and are thus not appropriate for this particular article. Larry (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Las Vegas, Nevada is about the city Las Vegas, Nevada -- not about Paradise, Winchester, Spring Valley, Henderson, or any of the rest of Clark County. Can this be any more clear? --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is very clear. But other Wikipedia city pages show top images with things the city is famous for. This is despite the fact that many of these images contain monuments that are not in the city. It was also made QUITE clear in the image caption what the picture showed and what its purpose was. 30 March 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you can get consensus to add to the confusion about what the City of Las Vegas is (as opposed to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area), then that picture could be used. As it is, the consensus at this article appears to be that it should be about the city, and that the photo should be as well. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The picture would be reflective of the city. And any additional areas in the picture outside the city could be explicitly labeled in the photo caption so there is no confusion. That way it would show more of what Las Vegas is known for and give readers a better idea of location, specifics, etc. As I said, all outside areas would be labeled explicitly to avoid confusion. 30 March 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you keep repeating that. Bottom line is the by consensus there is no Las Vegas article which might address your concerns. As everyone else keeps repeating, there is a clear division for the city article, and the strip is not in the city. We know what you want, but there is no consensus for that. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the Strip is what the area is famous for. I would make sure to include a description or caption that designated exactly where the city ended. This way, it would stay true to the article and the city boundaries would be clearly stated in the article, but the reader could also see the well known portion surrounding the valley. 30 March 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion clearly shows, consensus has not been reached on the proposed change. The picture in question should be left in its original format. Larry (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for full agreement. 31 March 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. There is consensus to leave the photo as it was. Consensus is what you wind up with on the encyclopedia. The fact that you don't agree with consensus does not mean that consensus is wrong. Not everyone agrees with consensus in every case. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Rather odd that someone who has been editing Wikipedia for over four years is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's peculiar use of the term "consensus". --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand consensus. The fact that you agree with consensus does not make it right either. I added that comment because there was a lack of discussion on the board. Anyhow, I am still proposing the change as the new photo would better serve the article, show better the geographical surroundings and location of the city, etc. 1 April 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, as previously stated by user 70.170.020.107,

"This is splitting hairs, IMO. There's a variety of reasons for the reasons why the region is partitioned the way it is, and while I'd like for the valley to have it's own version of a Bill 103 and merge up, the fact is that this is that Wikipedia isn't a civics lesson. Thousands of books refer to the Strip as Las Vegas regardless of political boundaries, and even the county-run McCarran International Airport refers to itself as from Las Vegas. At the very bare minimum, at least get a picture focusing on the Stratosphere, since it's the most iconic structure within city limits." 2 April 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for this change, yet you keep doing it. Does this somehow seem in keeping with Wikipedia policy to you? --jpgordon::==( o ) 05:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking consensus for that picture change. The picture I keep swapping is a better temporary picture until we resolve the issue. If you had been part of the discussion at the beginning, you would know that I am asking consensus for a different picture that I wish to upload in order to better serve the article. 3 April 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet again you fail to explain why a low resolution picture is better then one with a much higher resolution. To my eye they cover pretty much the same area. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have continuously explained why the picture is better. It is clearer in quality and shows more of te surrounding area, mountains, etc. It shows the geographical location and environment in which the city is encompassed in. Just because a picture is higher resolution does not mean the quality of the shot is better or clearer. 4 April 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.84.185 (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You have continuously put forth your opinion, and the consensus is against you. Time to move on. --Larry (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Larry, the consensus was not made and was regarding another picture. I am simply proposing a cleaner version of the current photo at this point in time. My last message was addressed solely to answer Vegaswikian's question. He stated that I hadn't given my opinion on the new matter, so now I have. This is a different topic. Thank you. 4 April 2010 Bporter28 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bporter28 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this part of the discussion is about another picture - and the consensus here too is to leave it alone. P.S.: please remember to sign your posts. SineBot gets around to correcting it, but once in a while someone will read a post before this occurs. --Larry (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So far, the only person the comment on this particular part of the discussion is you. And I will sign, not a problem. Thanks for letting me know. --User:Bporter28 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The photo Downtown_Las_Vegas.jpg is the proposed photo. Same area, but clearer and with more detail. --User:Bporter28 (talk) 15:23 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to, one last time, direct your attention to the fact that the Las Vegas wiki page is the only one this explicitly concerned with containing the smallest amount of surrounding area in the top photo. May I also suggest removing the top photo to avoid conflict all together or perhaps replacing it with a vital landmark within the city, such as with other U.S. cities on Wikipedia. --User:Bporter28 (talk) 22:52 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated changing an article when there is no consensus to change is disruptive. You are not being ignored, this discussion has reached an end. If you continue to change the article you will likely receive warnings like {{uw-vandalism2}} or {{uw-own1}} or {{uw-ewblock}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way we could get a montage picture for this article? I know Las Vegas, doesn't contain the strip; but I think it contains some casinos (Sahara? Stratosphere?). But, could someone make a montage of the various landmarks in the city of Las Vegas... or is there not enough? DunGoofd (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Strat is in the city but not the Sahara. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Dang... So I'm guessing there's just not enough landmarks to make a montage out of, eh? DunGoofd (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
{{downtown Las Vegas}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you :) DunGoofd (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting to see a montage for Las Vegas.... so I added a montage to the page. I think it makes the page look more colorful, and it inlcludes things people think of Las Vegas as (casinos, neon)... and it includes no landmarks from outside Las Vegas. DunGoofd (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Parks and Rec (Attractions)

Why is there one line about local parks then some nonsense about Hawaiians? The number of former Hawaiians currently in Las Vegas is not an attraction nor is it a park. Having an ABC store is not pertinent to article and this section needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.220.160 (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic passage in geography and climate

This text seems to be out of context in "geography and climate" section:

"Enabling the rapid population expansion was a major addition to the city's sewage treatment capacity. The sewage treatment expansion resulted from a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant funding 2008 programs to analyze and forecast growth and environmental impacts through the year 2019."

Alex (Alexander Sorokin), Aug 22, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.37.13 (talk) 04:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

churches

the article states that las vegas has the most churches per captia, not only is this not cited, is is stated in deceptive context. The churches consist largely of drive thru wedding chapels, not actual congregations, and is not an indication of piety to contrast the city's reputation. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

An anti-cite here: http://thestrippodcast.blogspot.com/2007/07/most-churches-per-capita-god-no.html 24.131.65.102 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Another anti-cite here: http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/May-11-Sun-1997/news/5225540.html This appears to be an urban myth. Although it's an old article, it claims that the inflated claims originated with the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. I'm removing the sentence. Guyminuslife (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Advertisment

This article reads like an advertisment and self-promotion. I suggest at the least that we re-write some of the paragraphs and praising of las vegas. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Layout

Please fix it. I accidentally removed the climate box in my attempts to make this page readable. Simplyianm (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


Las Vegas, Nevada → Las Vegas — Las Vegas, Nevada is the most well-known Las Vegas in the entire world. Why not just simply call the page "Las Vegas" instead of "Las Vegas, Nevada"? Just like Detroit, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee don't include the name of the state because they're so well-known, so should Las Vegas. This would greatly enhance our readers' Wikipedia experience by simplifying. --Krauseaj 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Absolute and total Oppose. I have been dabbing the incoming links for over a year now and only 5% or less are for the city. How can anyone claim that this is the primary topic? If there is a primary topic, it is the brand which does not even have an article. This nomination is another one of those that assumes that cities must be the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Nomination makes sense; the US city is obviously the primary topic, not some brand. Las Vegas is easily as iconic worlwide as other major cities in the United States which we title without the name of the state. I would argue that Las Vegas is at least as well known internationally as larger cities such as Milwaukee, San Antonio, Denver, Baltimore and Virginia Beach, because of its cultural importance. The Celestial City (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually most people who go to Las Vegas, never ever go to the city. That is a fact. So to default the primary use to a location which is not the primary use of the term is totally wrong. If you look at what is currently linked to Las Vegas, Nevada you will find that over 50% are wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I assume you are referring to the Las Vegas Strip and/or the Las Vegas metropolitan area, but that doesn't change the fact the city is far more widely known as "Las Vegas" than as "Las Vegas, Nevada". The Celestial City (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The part that is technically outside of the city limits, but colloquially considered to be part of "Las Vegas", is within the scope of this article, as is made clear by the last paragraph of the intro, and other parts of the article. That is, the subject of this article is not "Political Las Vegas that is strictly within the city limits", but is "the city of Las Vegas and the surrounding area which is also generally considered to be part of 'Las Vegas'". The fact that we have spinout articles that cover the strip and metro area in detail does not change the fact about the scope of this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • But what is most commonly called Las Vegas? This is a key to establishing primary use. As I said if you had been dabbing the incoming links for over a year you would know that maybe 5% are for the city. How does that make the city the primary use? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
          • What is most commonly called Las Vegas is identical with the topic of this article per it's own introductory sentence (with the part you seem to keep ignoring in bold): "the most populous city in Nevada, United States, the seat of Clark County, and an internationally renowned major resort city for gambling, shopping and fine dining.". The last part, in bold, is, by the way, mostly outside of the legal city limits, but it's part of this article, and it's part of what is referred to most commonly as "Las Vegas". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolute and total Support ;-) I believe Vegaswikian's objection is ultimately based on the same technicality that argues Hollywood should be disambiguated. That is, the topics of these articles are specific legally and politically designated areas, while the terms are more commonly used to refer to something more general. For example, "I'm going to Las Vegas" doesn't necessarily mean you're going somewhere that is within the city limits... (most if not all of the strip is outside of the city). But I would argue that the scope of this article already includes, at least by reference to certain spinout articles (Las Vegas strip and Las Vegas metropolitan area), all of the area and "brand" known as "Las Vegas", as indicated by the last paragraph of the intro: "The name Las Vegas is often applied to unincorporated areas that surround the city, especially the resort areas on and near the Las Vegas Strip." The most common name of "the city" (including the strip) is "Las Vegas" and "the city" is clearly the primary topic (as Vegaswikian notes, whatever he means by the "brand" does not even have an article). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, that is nice with the last clarifications. If what everyone calls Las Vegas is not the city, how can the city be the primary use? Those spin out articles are in fact the primary uses. While some argue that the strip is the primary use, I think that the valley is the primary use. The article points readers to what they probably intended if they wind up at the city. That does not make the city the primary topic. Look at the inbound links for the city article now. I'll bet that over 50% are for the metro area or the strip. So how can you argue that the city is the primary use? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • "If what everyone calls Las Vegas is not the city, how can the city be the primary use?" It can't, of course. The city (proper) is NOT the primary use... the subject of this article (which is not just the city proper) is the primary use.

        That is, the primary topic for "Las Vegas" is not just the city proper as it is defined politically, it's not just the strip, it's not just the airport, and it's not just the metro area... it's ALL of the above, and that is the topic of this article. There is no separate article on just the city proper, and there is no separate "umbrella" article about "Las Vegas" defined in its most general terms... both of those uses are combined in this article. The subject of this article is both the city proper and everything else that is included when most people say, think or write... "Las Vegas". I don't know how else to explain it, but you should read the article... discern yourself what the subject is, what it's most common name is, and whether any other topic has a stronger claim to be "Las Vegas". --Born2cycle (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

        • It's clear you have no training or experience with close reading. (BTW, I took freshman English composition at a certain university whose English department is usually ranked no. 1, and rarely falls below the top 3.) The article as currently structured focuses on the CITY, with digressions only as needed to clarify confusion among readers unfamiliar with the distinction between Las Vegas city and Las Vegas metro. The Las Vegas metropolitan area article provides the needed umbrella treatment for the whole metro area (including the unincorporated townships, Henderson, and NLV). This is a clear distinction that is already clearly established in the articles as drafted, as any competent reader can see. Also, it's not just a matter of how Las Vegas is politically defined, it's how the city is legally defined. For example, if Oscar Goodman doesn't like the timing of the traffic lights at Las Vegas Blvd. and Tropicana Ave., there's not a damn thing he can do about it except lobby the county commission. If you don't know who Goodman is, or if you have to look at a map to recall the four famous resorts that border that intersection, then you definitely don't know jack about Vegas. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
          • That intersection is not within the city limits of Las Vegas, and yet is within Las Vegas, and, so, falls within the scope of this article as it is currently written, and thus within the scope of this talk page as you've just shown. The legal distinctions are sufficiently notable to mention in the article, but there is no reason to limit the scope of the article at those legal limits, just as there is no reason to exclude the golden gate bridge from the scope of San Francisco, even though it is technically outside of the city limits.

            No matter how many times you say it is, the topic of this article is not just the narrow precise legal conception of the city of Las Vegas, it is what most people think of and mean when they say, hear, write and read the word "Las Vegas": "the most populous city in Nevada... and an internationally renowned major resort city for gambling, shopping and fine dining... The Entertainment Capital of the World". That's from the introductory sentence to this article... don't ignore everything after the and when you read it closely. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. I assume that Vegaswikian's "the brand" refers to promotion of Las Vegas as a destination for entertainment and gambling when most of that entertainment and gambling is outside the political boundaries of the city. That's a reason to support a move, not to oppose it, because "the brand" (to use Vegaswikian's term) promotes the name of the city quite heavily. It is perfectly well-known without the need for disambiguation. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually the brand is for more then the city and it is more the area in total. For everyone who is supporting the move, exactly what criteria are you using to determine primary use? So far I have seen no one refute my statement that the city is not the primary use. It may be the basis for the name, but it does not have the largest population, most of the hotel rooms, most of the destinations and so on. The bottom line is that the city is not the primary use. If it was, then most of the links that were disambiguated over the last year would have been for the city which they were not. In fact, the TV series had about as many links as the city. I've stated what the inbound links to the proposed target have been over the past year. How can that be ignored when choosing a supposed primary use? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • My argument is not that the city proper is the primary use... that's your straw man argument. My argument is that the topic of this article is the primary use, and that the scope of this article's topic goes beyond the political city limits of the city, and certainly includes the strip, as indicated by the article's images and content (see last paragraph of the intro). I believe this is at least the third time I've made this point in this discussion, and you keep ignoring it and yet continue commenting as if it has not been made. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • For what it's worth, this is also my position. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
          • If that's truly your position, both of you grossly misread the scope of the article, which means your high school English teachers failed. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy for U.S. cities has traditionally been to maintain the distinction between cities as legally defined and metro areas (which is also adhered to by government agencies and other encyclopedias as the only coherent way to keep everything organized).--Coolcaesar (talk) 08:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Coolcaesar, it would be a whole lot better if you would refrain from making comments about other editors' reading ability. "Comment on the content, not the contributor" is our community standard, and there's good reason for that. I suggest you filter out the disparaging and insulting bits of what you have to say, and keep it professional. We've got policies about this, and people get blocked from editing Wikipedia for the kind of personally directed comments you're making. Do you understand? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
            • With respect to how most other articles about cities and municipalities are treated, I suggest that Las Vegas is special. It's introduced in the article as the "internationally renowned major resort city for gambling, shopping and fine dining." Since most of the gambling, shopping and fine dining for which it is renowned is technically outside of the city limits, then this is saying that the topic of the article extends beyond the city limits. From the montage which includes iconic images of "Las Vegas" (the strip outside of the city limits) to the last paragraph in the intro which even clarifies that "the name Las Vegas is often applied to unincorporated areas that surround the city", I don't see how anyone can interpret the scope of this article to being limited to the Las Vegas city limits. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Oppose if there was a primary topic it would be Ls Vegas Strip which is not in the city (it is in the metro area). YE Tropical Cyclone 01:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per the rules of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the primary topic is "one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box." Nobody so far has supplied any evidence to make that case. The primary topic is NOT meant, as Krauseaj says, to merely "simplify readers' experience". Or, as Born2cycle suggested, specifically related to just "the topic and/or scope of [one particular] article". And The Celestial City just seems to be making a WP:OTHERSTUFF-type of argument, saying that "Las Vegas is at least as well known internationally [and therefore should automatically be treated like] Detroit, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee". And as this article states, "The name Las Vegas is also often applied to unincorporated areas that surround the city, especially the resort areas on and near the Las Vegas Strip". And as Vegaswikian has suggested, many more users may be searching for the brand and the metro area, not necessarily the city. And technically, most of the resorts and attractions are located outside the city, and instead on the Strip and surrounding areas (as Yellow Evan says). Therefore, I cannot support having the city be the primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The topic of this article encompasses the city, the strip, the metro area and the "brand". Look at the images. Read the text. It's about "Las Vegas", meaning all of the above, not just the city proper. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      Unfortunately, the article currently is structured to be primarily about and heavily slanted towards coverage of the city, from 2/3 of the lead section, to most of the Demographics section, to most of the Government section, to most of the Culture section, to most of the Parks and recreation section, and to most of the other sections. If this article truly was about to the city, the strip, the metro area, the "brand" and the entire lot, then I would expect a more evenly balanced type of coverage written in summary style, with all hatnotes featuring articles primarily listed on Category:Las Vegas metropolitan area, not Category:Las Vegas, Nevada. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
      It's very common to have an overall article that encompasses other subtopics that are sufficiently notable and comprehensive to warrant separate WP:SPINOUT articles. The normal way that happens is that the subtopics get summarized in the main article, while other aspects get more coverage in the "top" article. That is the case with the article about the strip and the metro area being spunout, so the bulk of what remains here is the topic of the city proper. But make no mistake, this is the main article about Las Vegas, and unless readers are looking for details about the strip or the metro area, they are likely to find what they are seeking here. I think the way it has evolved is very good. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I just went through the article, and very few, if any, paragraphs deal with just the city proper. For example, you might think that the second paragraph is only about the city, but it mentions that "this image has made Las Vegas a popular setting for films and television programs."' Since TV shows and movie set in "Las Vegas" are often on the strip, "Las Vegas" here does not refer to the city proper (Coolcaesar, that's the kind of thing you discern if you have the skills of close reading). And on it goes; that's just one example. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - The AP Stylebook lists Las Vegas as not needing a state name and the Nevada city is by far the most common use of the term. Dough4872 02:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article as currently drafted largely focuses on the city itself, which is exactly what it should do, and occasionally links to articles on areas outside of the city where relevant (to ameliorate confusion among readers not familiar with the fact that most of the Strip lies in the township of Paradise). I was just in Las Vegas last weekend (fifth visit in as many years) and I've regularly followed the Review-Journal and the Sun online for years. Born2cycle clearly hasn't visited Las Vegas nor read its local newspapers and has NO UNDERSTANDING what is the city of Las Vegas. Las Vegas locals do understand the difference between Las Vegas metro and Las Vegas city. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll bet I've been to Vegas more often than you, Coolcaesar. Ironically, I once had a job that regularly sent me to Caesars (it's ugly and smells bad behind the scenes) and the Desert Inn (before it was taken down, obviously), and have stopped there countless times on the way home from other places, and have gone there on vacation dozens of times of times in my life. I understand what is the city and that locals understand the difference. San Francisco locals also understand that the Golden Gate bridge is technically not part of the city, but it's still considered an integral part of "San Francisco". This article does largely, but not exclusively, focus on the city itself. The topic scope of the article is therefore not just the city, but the very topic that is primary for the name "Las Vegas"... the city plus the strip plus the metro area + "The brand" - ALL of that is... LAS VEGAS (baby).

      Put another way, when people say, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas", they're not talking only about the city proper. Nor is this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose The current name is fine and is consistent with the naming convention for US cities.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As several others noted, the name "Las Vegas, Nevada" is how the current guidelines for U.S. cities say it should be listed. Those guidelines are currently under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), but unless and until consensus is reached there to list cities such as Las Vegas without the state, this move should not be made. --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • That's the opposite of how we work. Wikipedia is bottom-up, not top-down. The day we become top-down, Wikipedia dies. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Please tell that to Born2cycle. His major argument in his long crusade to eliminate the state from city names (and the city from neighborhood names) is that he thinks the rules at WP:TITLE should trump existing usage - in other words, a top-down reason. The bottom-up reply is that tens of thousands of articles about American cities are currently named by the pattern City, State, implying a very broad consensus that this is how it should be done. Personally I am a firm believer in the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, especially the fifth: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The five pillars and WP:TITLE are supported, so far as I know, by consensus. Until recently, that was also the assumption for the U.S. city guidelines, but the current discussion there indicates that is no longer the case. So, following WP:TITLE and the five pillars is bottom-up (since those are supported by consensus), but following the U.S. city guideline is not.

          In any case, following any rule simply for the sake of following that rule and no other reason is also a top-down argument, which is what your comment was. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

          • To clarify: What I mean by "bottom-up" is that decisions are made at the individual article level, and policies are abstracted from those individual decisions. At no time does a general rule "trump" a specific decision made by a consensus of Wikipedians. Now, are those tens of thousands of US city articles named in "City, State" format because of tens of thousands of individual decisions? No, those articles are that way because of a top-down decision made many years ago, when most of those articles were created, en masse. Bottom-up decisions about article titling for US cities have only been made lately, and the momentum is in the direction of doing away with unnecessary disambiguation. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - This article is about the city, the municipal area, and the brand. Unless these are going to be split into different articles, this is clearly the primary topic for "Las Vegas", and it's a better case for an exception to the (tenuous) guideline on US city names than "Milwaukee", for example. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Can someone explain to me on what the exceptions to the "name, state" format are based? walk victor falk talk 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    • If you go by the naming policy and guidelines that apply in general to all WP titles, then just using the plain name of a city for its title, when it's not ambiguous, is not an exception at all.

      With respect to the tenuous and disputed U.S. city guideline that arguably contradicts the more general policy and guidelines in that it requires more precision (adding , state) even when disambiguation of the plain name of the city is not required, the exceptions are explained at that guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that before, and I wonder why the Associated Press? Why not the Washington Post or the Economist's style guide? Why would rules for the datelines of a wire service be fit for the article titles of an online encyclopedia? Btw, it says that Las Vegas does not require the name of the state. So what gives? walk victor falk talk 07:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It was a compromise proposal not particularly favored by either major faction (those for disambiguating only when necessary and those for predisambiguating all), and worked to quiet things down for a while. But the unnaturalness of required predisambiguation is bound to cause periodic eruptions as long it is in effect, and we're in the middle of one now. As to why the AP standard was proposed as the compromise over others, I can't tell you.

The argument that "Las Vegas, Nevada" refers to the city proper and that is the topic of this article has been convincing to enough in the past to keep this article here. Hopefully not any longer. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This line of argument seems thoroughly murky to me. That would like saying you must have Los Angeles, California because of Downtown Los Angeles, Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, and Greater Los Angeles Area. Or did I miss something? walk victor falk talk 10:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree the reasoning is murky, and it should, logically, apply to Los Angeles too. IN fact, it has been used to argue that the article about that city should be at Los Angeles, California ("Given the various meanings of LA, I fail to see how we can say that one use is predominate."[24]) I'm not defending this murky reasoning. The fact that murky reasoning is never-the-less found to be persuasive by many explains much more than the current title of this article; it is the bane of much of human existence! Oppose comments here indicate this murky reasoning continues to be persuasive, for reasons I cannot fathom. But I can't fathom the acceptance of the murky reasoning used to reject Evolution either, so there you go. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Adding "Nevada" to "Las Vegas" does not in any way clarify which specific concept of Las Vegas one is talking about. Whether it is the strip, the valley, the metro area, the muncipality, or the postal address, "Las Vegas, Nevada" is still ambiguous. The current article focuses on the municipality but already addresses the other concepts so a simple "Las Vegas" will do just fine. It is certainly simpler than adding Nevada, which does nothing to clarify. --Polaron | Talk 06:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    • LOL! "Adding "Nevada" to "Las Vegas" does not in any way clarify which specific concept of Las Vegas one is talking about"... of course! Because they're all in Nevada!!! Too funny. Thanks so much for pointing that out. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per guideline at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) which works fine. --Doncram (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is an extensive debate at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names) over just what the guideline should be. Therefore, I think there should be a moratorium on all place name moves until we come to some sort of resolution or detente on the current convention.DCmacnut<> 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Vegaswikian's argument here makes no sense and has never made any sense. The title Las Vegas, Nevada makes it no clearer we are referring to the city proper than the title Las Vegas would, especially since the Strip uses "Las Vegas, Nevada" as its address for the U.S. Postal Service. The only article title that would clearly indicate we are referring only to the city proper, and not to the postal area, is City of Las Vegas. But I don't see any reason this article should be only about the city proper. The demographic and political information, obviously, should be about the city proper, but it seems like WP:UNDUE to focus on the city proper to the exclusion of the postal area, when the latter, and not the former, includes the areas most commonly associated with the name "Las Vegas." john k (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as "Las Vegas" doesn't clearly identify the city as distinct from the region. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the present move requests on other American cities. This established convention, which marks this article as the muncipality, and gives it a title similar to the other articles in the Category:Cities in Nevada, works well, and is fully compatible with policy and practice. The POV that it somehow serves municipal pride to have an unambiguated title should be discouraged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, i think the current title describes the article well. Someone65 (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Vegaswikian and US city convention. AgneCheese/Wine 00:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose Many US cities need disambiguation and doing it for all is the simpliest solution, avoiding endless and unproductive re-naming arguments city-by-city like this one, which serves no purpose other than wasting time. There is no valid reason for changing the name used by WP for this city. Hmains (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Deb (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose; this is not even the primary topic for "Las Vegas"! Powers T 20:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    If it is not the primary topic for "Las Vegas", it is not the primary topic for "Las Vegas, Nevada," either. john k (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    Due to our standard naming conventions, the current title implies that it refers to the municipality. Powers T 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Have you read the article? Have you read this discussion? The article is not about just the municipality. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
      • From the lead, the city is clearly the intended scope, and why we have additional articles on those other topics. If the article occasionally strays, that's a problem best resolved through editing. Powers T 03:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This makes no sense to me. We cannot expect our readers to be familiar with arcane naming conventions. "Las Vegas" and "Las Vegas, Nevada" mean the same thing. Both can refer to the municipality, or to the metro area, or to the post office address or to whatever the tourist bureau is selling. There is absolutely nothing in "Las Vegas, Nevada" that makes it clearer that the municipality is what is being referred to than when you just say "Las Vegas", unless you assume that readers have read wikipedia naming conventions, which is not what we are supposed to do. john k (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, it's also standard American usage, to say "city, state", something one rarely does when not speaking of a specific municipality. Powers T 03:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
        • "City, State," is most frequently used for post office addresses which are not at all the same as municipalities. Mailing something to the strip, you send it to "Las Vegas, Nevada." john k (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't agree with that assertion. Powers T 14:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
            • It's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. The mailing address of the MGM Grand, for example, is "3799 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada" [25]. The idea that naming this article "Las Vegas, Nevada" instead of "Las Vegas" somehow means it excludes the area where the MGM Grand (and the rest of the strip) is located really makes no sense. There is certainly some correlation between use of city, state and municipality, but it's not nearly as high as is being implied here. First, "city, state" is often used for unincorporated census designated areas, or mailing addresses, where "city" is the name of a populated community, but not a municipality or incorporated city. "Carmel, California", for example, often refers to not just the one square mile incorporated Carmel-by-the-Sea, but also areas south that are outside of the city, including Carmel Meadows and Carmel Highlands. So John's other statement, that post office address are not at all the same as municipalities is also true. So of course is the assertion that "city, state" is frequently used for mailing addresses. I'm curious to know what exactly you disagree with, and why.

              I also am curious as to what in the lead causes you to believe the scope is just the municipality. Again, the explanation with specific examples of how it doesn't was covered above. I'll give you the hatnote, which is in error given the article content (including lead and images), but not the lead. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

              • Given that 1) we try to have an article on each incorporated community in the United States, and 2) there is no other article on the city of Las Vegas, and 3) that the lead says "Las Vegas is the most populous city in Nevada, United States, the seat of Clark County ..." it seems pretty obvious to me that the article's scope should be the city. Powers T 23:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
                All this has been explained by multiple people above... not sure why we're repeating and starting anew with you as if none of that was discussed. I guess it would help if you would at least address the points previously made.

                Anyway, now at least that is making some sense. But even then, at best, points (1) and (2) support an argument about what you think the article scope should be, not what it is about (and so do not support your earlier assertion, "the city is clearly the intended scope").

                With respect to (3), you conveniently left out the part of the lead that clearly indicates the article is not only about the city: "...and an internationally renowned major resort city for gambling, shopping and fine dining. Las Vegas, which bills itself as The Entertainment Capital of the World, is famous for the number of casino resorts and associated entertainment.". Don't you agree that the city and the brand inclusive of the strip are clearly the intended scope?

                I agree we usually try to limit scope in articles about municipalities to the municipality, but don't you think "Las Vegas" is a special case where doing that is simply unnatural and awkward because the notion commonly associated with "Las Vegas" (and "Las Vegas, Nevada") is not just the municipality but the brand also and is inclusive of the strip? I mean, to say, think, or write that "the Bellagio is not in Las Vegas", or "the Bellagio is not in Las Vegas, Nevada", is to use "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada" in a legally-technically correct manner, but it's also relatively uncommon and most likely unexpected to most readers. Don't you think it's much better to leave the article as it is, which means it's about "Las Vegas" in the broad/common sense and explains the distinction in the text of the article?

                And scope issues aside, none of this addresses how "Las Vegas, Nevada" somehow refers to something other than "Las Vegas", especially to someone unfamiliar with WP conventions. Again, the address of every casino on the strip is "Las Vegas, Nevada". --Born2cycle (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

                I certainly can't deny that this is a complex issue, nor that the exact number and nature of articles on these related topics are not easy to delineate. However, I am strongly supportive of the existence of an article that is about the city qua city, just as we have for every other city in the country, and that article should be named Las Vegas, Nevada (or, if one must Las Vegas (city), Nevada), and that this article as it stands closely resembles that idealized article. Powers T 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
                • Your argument is getting more and more reasonable, and now reveals a subjective point on which we can agree to disagree: the relative importance of the existence of an article that is "about the city qua city".

                  If we did have such an article, I would favor its official name, City of Las Vegas (which is current about a train!). After all, that is the name that is used to refer distinctly and clearly to "the city qua city".

                  The reason I disagree with having an article about just the city is because then we would also have to have an article about the topic is that is much more commonly known as "Las Vegas", which is the city plus the strip area and includes "the brand". The problem with that, which is often the case when you try to split coverage into one article about a specific topic and another about a closely related but more general overlapping topic, is the overlap between the two articles. The solution in those cases is to merge the specific and more general topics into one article, name it in accordance with the more general topic, but provide clear and distinct coverage of the more specific topic within that article. We basically have exactly that in this current article.

                  In theory we could have an article about just the city and another about just the strip, but then we would not have an article about the topic most commonly referred to as "Las Vegas". This is why I keep saying "Las Vegas" is a special case, and one in which it simply makes no sense to have an article about just the city. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

                  • (And that's the craziest indentation I've ever typed) Suffice to say we disagree on that. Powers T 13:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • In reading through this discussion, it is sad to see implications that we don't need an article about the city. It is also odd to read how adding Nevada to the city article does not help clarify that it is about the city even though that follows a clearly established naming guideline. Part of this lunacy is the result of not allowing an article on the valley either as the locally know population center Las Vegas Valley or the geologic Las Vegas Valley (landform) (until November of last year). The valley/metro area article was re purposed into one centered on the MSA which covers parts of two counties. Then we have the efforts to argue that the city is really what people mean when they say Las Vegas. Ask the 300,000 folks who just celebrated New Years where they were. To a person they will tell you Las Vegas even though not one of them set foot in the city. So it is clear that the city is not the only use of Las Vegas or the primary use. How many travel destinations lump the city of Las Vegas and the surrounding communities into one place called Las Vegas? How many GPS and mapping programs do the same? Everyone will tell you that there are over 140,000 hotel rooms in Las Vegas but only about 10,000 are in the city. But that number includes hotels in the cities of Henderson, Nevada and North Las Vegas so do we also merge those places into the Las Vegas, Nevada article? Even several of the USPS codes that use Las Vegas, NV cover other cities! Oh, and is everything within the outside borders of the city of Las Vegas part of the city? Surprise, surprise, but the answer is no. We have an American Indian nation and what are called county islands surrounded by the city of Las Vegas. My personal opinion is to leave the city with an article under the name that is currently has. Create, expand or re purpose an article for the MSA. Finally create an article for what most everyone knows as the Las Vegas Valley which is what most people, even the USPS mean when they say Las Vegas. Currently, the Las Vegas metropolitan area is forced to fill that role, but that could revert to being about the MSA. This would all be consistent with how Las Vegas is really used. Logical, and reasonable and accurate. What more can you ask for. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
                      To me, these excellent points ultimately suggest a single article on Las Vegas, at Las Vegas. If it's too big, and certain parts naturally split out into separate articles, fine.

                      As to why "Las Vegas, Nevada" does not designate the City of Las Vegas, it's because that term is commonly used to refer to, well, that place with 140,000 hotel rooms. We can't expect our readers to know WP naming idiosyncrasies, including that an article at "place, state" means it's about the city/municipality named place, rather than the place named place. This is why I still suggest City of Las Vegas, if a split out is warranted. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

                      Actually, Vegas and Las Vegas are what the public uses for the overall area. No one adds Nevada. This was made very clear over the last year from how it is used in the incoming links to the dab page. Most of what is written about is not happening in the city. That's why I think that the overall article should be at Las Vegas which gets a ton of page views for a dab page. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
                      And the public says "Las Vegas, Nevada," to refer to the city proper? Do you have any sources to back that up? To the extent that anyone uses "Las Vegas, Nevada" to refer to things about or in the city proper, they are just as likely to use it to refer to the strip, whose mailing address, once again, is, in fact, "Las Vegas, Nevada." john k (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Unlike the other RMs put into motion by this editor, this one has merit: "Las Vegas" is indeed well-known enough to not require the state modifier. However, the issue of region vs. municipality muddies the question. I'd suggest that Los Angeles be used as a precedent. There, Los Angeles leads to the city, there's a seperate article on the county at Los Angeles County, California, there's an article on the Greater Los Angeles area (meaning the "Southland") and another on Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. All of these regions or entities have a claim on the "Los Angeles" title, but pride of place goes to the city -- and there's a disambiguation page to keep it all organized.

    Now, I'm not as familiar with Vegas as I am with L.A., so perhaps the relationships aren't the same. Perhaps the region is the most important and should have Las Vegas as its title, the city should be Las Vegas (city) or Las Vegas, Nevada etc. Editors familiar with the region should have an amicable discussion and sort these relationships out, and use a disambiguation page to organize it.

    That being said, I reiterate that "Las Vegas" is sufficiently well known world-wide to be used without a disambiugator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The structure of the articles relating to Las Vegas is such that arguments about "common usage" and "primary topic" become technical and sterile: it's quite clear that the unqualified term "Las Vegas" could reasonably refer to any of the entities on the dab page, and there are very good grounds for arguing that in the case of the strip, the part is indeed greater than the whole. But rather than indulging the pointless technical arguments, please just keep the dab page, and give the reader an easy choice about which article to read while allowing editors to effectively identify and fix undisambiguated incoming links. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Las Vegas is unambiguous.←(That's why there'd still be a DAB page for the other uses.) Even the, uh, one that is across the mountain from me often gets called by the 'idiomatic' moniker "Las Vegas, New Mexico" in cases where there might be confusion. There's a frequent joke around here: "I'm goin'to Vegas", "Cool!", "No, the other one". As for any assertion that any of the similarly titled subtopics of this article on a famous geographic area (with fantastic resorts connected to the far reaches of the globe by a bustling airport, enclosed by economically enriching and rapid urbanization) might be 'more primary', it's a poorly stuffed strawman, at least, I haven't seen any requested moves for 'rival' subtopics like Las Vegas Strip. Furthermore, I agree with the positions taken by B2C and others. There is no coherent reason this guideline should have the effect of overwriting policy and, as has also been said by others, interested editors should be able to discuss and choose titles for the articles based on hierarchically superior policies and use guideline pages for counsel—not mandates—concerning their selections. They should be able to do this without being continually affronted with combative rhetoric backed by references to an irresolute consensus-by-status quo.—Synchronism (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • But the dab page would no longer be getting the bad links. Now they would be mixed in with the existing 10,000 or so bad links to the city that were made when the city article was last at the undisambiguated name. Right now the dab page functions well. Moving it will just add to the links to the wrong article. I fail to see how that is an improvement. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry you fail to see improvement, but the premise of your pessimism is thankfully quite iffy. I don't think you can empirically determine which links are 'bad' or 'good'. And I think worrying about about technicalities like potential extra clicking is a pretty low priority from an editorial standpoint. Redirects and hatnotes can almost always mitigate misdirection caused by shifts in dab pages.Synchronism (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I see no convincing reason why the common sense name without an unnecessary disambiguation term is unable to be used. The arguments for requiring disambiguation for this article come across to me as either weak post-hoc justifications for what boils down to simply WP:ILIKEIT or the even weaker "It's always been this way". A common sense reading of the letter and the spirit of WP:AT and WP:PRIMARY would clearly see this article at the simple "Las Vegas". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Please explain how the city meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the primary use. Most of what happens is not in the city, so how does that establish the city as the primary topic? The area and the city share a name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
      • V, you might consider that not everyone is presuming we must have an article that is strictly about the city, and even if we do, that this article must be it. Your argument and questions would make more sense if you were clear about these assumptions up front.

        It's more important to have an article about the more common notion of "Las Vegas" which encompasses the strip and brand as well as the city, and this article is the closest thing we have to that, so it might as well be it, and at Las Vegas. Then we can have another discussion about whether to have a separate article that is only and strictly about the city, which, per the recognizability naming criteria, should be at City of Las Vegas. After all, if an article was at City of Las Vegas, then its topic would probably be understood to be that which you think is the subject of this article. But the current name, "Las Vegas, Nevada", clearly does not convey THIS IS ONLY ABOUT THE CITY AND NOT THE BRAND OR THE STRIP to even most of the editors participating in this discussion, much less to our readers. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose per well-established conventions. Jonathunder (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is an encyclopedia. This article is about Las Vegas, Nevada. It should therefore be called that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose the convention here works and is well-established, no need to change it. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, using long form reduces ambiguity, increases link stability. TopoChecker (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Since all possible uses of "Las Vegas" are in Nevada, the long form (add ", Nevada") does not reduce ambiguity. "Las Vegas, Nevada" is used to refer to the wider area including the strip (see mailing address of any casino on the strip), and the brand, as much as to refer to the municipality. If you really want to reduce ambiguity, and make the article strictly about the city, it should be moved to City of Las Vegas. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
      • But when readers and editors see location, state in the US, they take it that it is a city or a community. So it does impart information to most. Now if we were to move the Strip or the metro area to Las Vegas, Nevada, that would be confusing since it does not follow the patters for cities or communities. Even when you add the state to other article's titles, the guideline is that a city does not already exist with that name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
        • In the case of "Las Vegas, Nevada", when most readers and editors see that, don't you agree that they think of the place that includes the strip, not the city that does not include the strip? That is, most everyone would agree with the statement, "The Mirage is in Las Vegas, Nevada" (including their own website).

          Of course there are some editors who are familiar with WP's idiosyncratic use of "Cityname, Statename" to refer to legal/political entities more commonly known as "City of Cityname", but to expect most readers or even most editors to know that is not realistic.

          I don't think there is any need to move any other article here. It is already about the place with 140,000 rooms. If you think we need an article about the place with only 10,000 rooms (the city proper), again, I suggest putting it at City of Las Vegas. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose The Naming Convention for the United States, as it is currently written, stipulates Las Vegas, Nevada. If there is consensus to change the naming convention (which I would support), then we can have a look at this again. The proposal is pre-emptive. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I personally find it better to go by the general rule of City, State to eliminate any doubt about what it is. If we start switching around sometimes doing it one way and sometimes another it becomes very confusing for newcomers and casual readers what we are talking about. --Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article cleanup

As one followup from the rename, the material that is about the area should be limited in the city article which should actually concentrate on the city proper. I have done a few moves, but clearly more needs doing. So if anyone wants to give a hand, jump in. Be aware that this should not be simply deletions unless the material is already included in another article. If the material is not in the correct article it needs to be moved to the correct article. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the rename vote demonstrated anything of the kind. As I have said before, your contention that Las Vegas is an ambiguous term but that Las Vegas, Nevada is a term that clearly refers to only the city proper is simply not supported by anything but your repeated assertions that it is so. But since you own this article, I suppose it'll go the way you want it to. I certainly won't be giving you a hand in this nonsense. john k (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Hello there!
Yesterday something odd caught my attention and since then I've been trying to look for reliable information on the matter. It is about the city of Pernik (Bulgaria) being listed as one of the Sister Cities of Las Vegas.
See, I am a Bulgarian and I sincerely doubt that Pernik qualifies to be a Sister City of Las Vegas. I immediately thought that it was a prank (left on 18:54, 23 October 2006 by Evanescenceboy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Las_Vegas,_Nevada&diff=83256564&oldid=83165639) but (seeing that no one has corrected it for almost four years) I nevertheless decided to check for myself.
I visited the web site of Sister Cities International and searched for the state of Nevada and (surprisingly) there was no record of Las Vegas having ANY Sister Cities -- there was just the city pair "Fallon (US) - Vani (Georgia)".
I thought (and I still do) that this was a persistent error in the search engine or the database. So, I went on to compare the results of other searches to the information which is on Wikipedia about some other cities and their Sister Cities. And what I found was that there is a lot of inconsistency between the two sources. (I will refrain from giving examples, for they can be found fairly easy.) Also, even the List of sister cities in the United States does not show the same as Las Vegas.

So, I would like to ask if any of you know of a reliable source of information on this matter, so that in the future I will not hesitate to correct such errors after referring to it.
~ Xaariz (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I went to the official website of the city of Pernik, where they have a list of their sister cities, and Las Vegas is definitely not in it. You can use Google Translate to check it yourself. Unfortunately the article is locked for me to edit. Best regards, --Лорд Бъмбъри (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC) (Bumbury)

Mayoral Election of 2011

Las Vegas mayoral election takes place 2011. Incumbent Mayor Oscar Goodman has reached term limit so no incumbent is in the race.

PRIMARY ELECTION - April 5 Early voting: March 19 - April 1 Voter registration deadline: March 15

GENERAL ELECTION - June 7

Link to City of Las Vegas Elections

Las Vegas Mayor is a 4 year term office with annual salary of $65,247. Filing Fee: $100.00

Municipal elections are OPEN and NONPARTISAN. That means, candidates’ political parties do not appear on the ballot. You must be a properly registered voter of the city of Las Vegas to vote in this election and you may vote regardless of your party affiliation.

Las Vegas City Charter provides that if, in the Primary City Election, one candidate for an office receives more than a majority of votes cast, they are declared elected and no General City Election is held. If no candidate for that office receives a majority of votes, the names of the two candidates receiving the highest number of votes are placed on the ballot for the General City Election.

The following candidates certified on the ballot to run for office: [1]

A. “Duke” Breuer Larry Brown Victor Chaltiel Katherine “Katie” Duncan Joe Falco Tim Gamble [Giunchigliani] Carolyn G. Goodman George Harris Larry M. Jeppesen Deborah Love Christine Montez Marlene Rogoff Steven D. Ross Abdul H. Shabazz Ed Uehling Angel F. Vasquez Anthony “little guy” Wernicke


LasVegasLibraryLady —Preceding unsigned comment added by LasVegasLibraryLady (talk • contribs) 18:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal discussion

{{movenotice|City of Las Vegas|Talk:Las Vegas#Alternative proposal}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Born2cycle (talk • contribs)

Invitation

You are invited to discuss something of importance to this article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Las Vegas at the project talk page. Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Las Vegas, Arizona?

Las Vegas was gonna be in Arizona but then the Colorado river devided Las Vegas, and Arizona apart. - 68.110.4.232 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Las Vegas area used to be in the New Mexico Territory prior to its segmentation into the New Mexico and Arizona territories, when it became a part of the Arizona Territory. I'm sure this is already mentioned in the history section. If not it can be added, it that is your purpose. 08OceanBeachS.D.

GA status

In doing some cleanup, I noticed that the article is probably in better shape then a B class. It needs more references and the external links need to be reviewed and errors corrected. One that is done, it will likely pass GA review. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I recently nominated San Diego for GA Status, which it was awarded. A couple of things I learned is that lists are a no-go for articles hoping to achieve GA status. That being said all lists would have to be converted to prose. See also WP:NOT. I know the size of the article isn't necessarily a criterion for being awarded such status, but this article seems pretty small. It also seems lacking of sufficient information in the proper subsections; such as in Culture, Sports, and Education. This all being said, I feel it would get put on hold or denied status. 08OceanBeachS.D. 21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Another thing that I also learned is that sections will also require at least one citation, though the necessity of citations will be dependent on the length of the prose and on the content within the prose. 08OceanBeachS.D. 00:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It needs more citations to the claims in the article, as well as Copyedit in certain places, such as the Sports section. It's a ways away from GA status at this point.--Chimino (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes regarding scope - please stop

The scope of this article is under discussion at Talk:Las Vegas. In particular, the discussion is about whether the scope is and should be just the city proper, or whether it is and should be about the surrounding area (especially "the strip") as well. While that discussion is ongoing, please do not make changes to this article (except for the reverts of others' changes) based on trying to make it conform better to one view or another. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. 08OceanBeachS.D. 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Las Vegas which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This "Las Vegas" should be titled Las Vegas City - very confusing. Who would know to use Las Vegas Valley when you're talking about LAS VEGAS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.4.197 (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Stratosphere

Under the "Tourism" section, it states that most of the downtown casinos are located on Fremont St, with the Stratosphere being the exception. The Stratosphere is (and widely accepted) as being a Strip property. Although the Stratosphere lies within the city limits of Las Vegas, and the other hotel-casinos do not, that does not make the Stratosphere a downtown property. It is quite some distance from downtown, as downtown does not stretch all the way to Sahara Ave. And keep in mind, all of the Strip hotel-casinos do not reside in one jurisdiction anyway; some are located in Paradise, some are in Winchester, some are in Enterprise, and yes, some (or at least one) is located in Las Vegas. So the fact that the Stratosphere lies in Las Vegas isn't the determining factor of whether it is a downtown property or not. Also, printed maps of the Strip casinos always show the Stratosphere; printed maps of downtown casinos do not show the Stratosphere. The article needs to be changed and have the phrase "with the exception of the Stratosphere" removed from the statement that's referring to downtown hotels. People read these articles for information. It is not fair or accurate to have a person who wants to stay in downtown Las Vegas read this and book the Stratosphere when it is not a downtown hotel-casino. Likewise, its not fair or accurate to have a person who wants to stay somewhere on the Strip read this article and rule out the Stratosphere because they are lead to believe it is downtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The county definition, cited in the article, shows the strip ending at Sahara, so the Stratosphere is not on the strip. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Sorry for the long novel but, Sahara Avenue may just be the county's definition only because the county handles the affairs of the non-incorporated cities, and Las Vegas is an incorporated city (Las Vegas city limits begins at Sahara Ave on Las vegas Blvd). Because Las Vegas is incorporated, it handles most of its own affairs, unlike non-incorporated areas; those areas that have no mayor or city council so governmental issues are mostly handled by the county. However, some entities like the city of Las Vegas, the various organizations of Strip property owners, the state of Nevada, and the general public actually do consider the Stratosphere to be part of the Strip. Another way to look at it is, imagine if the southernmost unincorporated area, which is Winchester, became an incorporated city; getting its own mayor and city council. Would the hotel-casinos located on Las Vegas Blvd within Winchester all of a sudden not be considered Strip properties because they are now in an incorporated city? No, they would still be considered Strip properties; just lying within the limits of another city. This is the case with the Stratosphere. Basically, it's easier for the county to leave out the Stratosphere hotel because it sits in an incorporated area (where they have less influence) and it is only one building. But that doesn't mean the Stratosphere isn't part of the Strip in the bigger picture. Downtown hotel-casinos do not have roller coasters and other amusement park-like rides zig-zagging on or around their buildings. The Stratosphere does, however, as do several other properties on the Strip. The county is not the be-it-say-it-all of defining the Strip. In another ten to twenty years, new casino-hotels or malls may be built just mere blocks north of the Stratosphere; that would mean the Strip is extending. If the Strip boundaries were never extended, that would mean anything outside the original cluster of properties, like the New York-New York or CityCenter, wouldn't be considered on the Strip. At one time, Mandalay Bay was the southernmost Strip property, now Four Seasons came just south of it, extending the Strip southward. So if the Strip can continue a southward extension, why is there an imaginery brickwall at Sahara when extending northward? Because you've come into an incorporated area? That's not reason enough. Again, look at all the entities (except the county) and notice that whenever they define the Strip they all include the Stratosphere too. This could be something that maybe Wikipedia readers can give their opinion on for contribution to the article. -Even if it is decided that the Stratosphere is not on the Strip, that still doesn't make it downtown. That's a little overboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Magick12000, 5 September 2011

Please add the website: www.neonparadise.com to the external links section. The website is all about Las Vegas.

Magick12000 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Las Vegas Economics

Why doesn't this page discuss unemployment, homelessness, or the movement of resources from Nevada to Asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahnshaulis (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds incredibly biased and inappropriate. Not to mention a lack of real references. Frischee113 (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, current title does no harm to WP Mike Cline (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


Las Vegas, Nevada → Las Vegas – Las Vegas is a much more appropriate name for the following reasons...

  • Las Vegas, Nevada is the most well known Las Vegas. Obviously, like all other major US cities there are other smaller cities that share the same name. If I were to say for example "I just came back from Boston. What a beautiful city." You would assume Boston Massachusetts not Boston GA or Boston TX.
  • The Las Vegas Metropolitan Area is detailed in the Las Vegas Valley article, therefore there would be no confusion between the city proper and the greater metro area.

We have discussed previous requests and have gotten nowhere. I am now asking for no more discussion. Make the move. We are getting no where and the Vegas page needs to be equal to other cities of smaller or similar size.

Thank you. Frischee113 (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113

Comment: Yes, this issue has been discussed repeatedly on Talk:Las Vegas, some of these same arguments have been repeatedly been made, and these previous debates have "gotten nowhere" into resulting in no consensus. But asking "for no more discussion" and have an admin unilaterally "make the move" without any other comments by others would fly in the face of Wikipedia:Consensus. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Based on past discussions, many disagreed that the primary topic should be the city of Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Strip, a top contender, is not technically in the city limits of Las Vegas, Nevada, and would therefore present a problem for those actually searching the term "Las Vegas". Therefore, "Las Vegas" became a disambiguation page, and although it may not be the best solution, I feel that the proposed change would not improve the situation. GoneIn60 (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GoneIn60. Jonathunder (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; there's no reason the Strip can't be covered in this article. Powers T 01:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. When people say the came back from Las Vegas, they may not know it, but the proboly mean the Strip, which all but one hotel is located south of Las Vegas. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Support'. The Strip is detailed in this article here. The article is about Las Vegas. Although it is technically in Paradise, it isnt in another city because Paradise is unincorporated. There would be no confusion at all. "The name Las Vegas is often applied to unincorporated areas that surround the city, especially the resort areas on and near the Las Vegas Strip" is straight from the Las Vegas, Nevada page. Why exactly do you oppose it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frischee113 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per the same argument I used at Talk:Yogurt for years. There, enough editors who favored "Yoghurt" opposed the Yoghurt→Yogurt move for eight years so that each time there was an RM discussion (and there was usually one per year, sometimes more), the result would always be "no consensus". Sound familiar? I argued repeatedly that once the article was moved, there would be no argument to move it back, and, so, it would have consensus support once it was moved. But they resisted and resisted and resisted. Well, recently, finally, it was moved, and, lo and behold... there are no arguments to move it "yoghurt". There simply is no basis for that move. Similarly, once this article is at "Las Vegas", there will be no argument to move it to "Las Vegas, Nevada", and it will be stable at Las Vegas with consensus support, even if it appears there is no local consensus by counting !votes to move there right now. By evaluation of the arguments, clearl consensus favors the move.

    This city is a special case where "the city" is not necessarily defined exactly by the official municipality. The most common use of "Las Vegas" is the city including the strip, and so that's what this article should cover, and the name of this article should be Las Vegas. We already explain the distinction. Anyway, considering the mailing address of hotels on the strip is "Las Vegas, Nevada", the claim that the current title is somehow distinctive in terms of referring specifically to the official municipality, excluding the strip, is absurd. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    • That you continued a debate over a silent "h" in yog(h)urt for years is what was absurd. Please don't make this page join the WP:LAME list as well. Already my yog hurts. Jonathunder (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yeah, as if it was me that continued that debate. I was instrumental in ending it, finally. The only lame aspect of that whole thing was the opposition to restoring the original spelling. The only lame aspect here is the opposition to this move. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - The Request for comment on this topic was over 95% supporting that the city is the primary Las Vegas. Requests for comment have the advantage of involving the entire Wikipedia community, and not just the editing cabal on a particular page whose views don't align with the majority or with reliable sources. (see China for another example). Many of the opponents argues to close on the blatantly false premise that the request for comment was frivolous or invalid. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • In that RfC I counted 14 Yes, 5 No which is more accurately described as 74% in favor. That's a good majority but not over 95% as you stated. Also, the RfC format is not a way of tallying up votes (see WP:RFC). It's about the content of the discussion. The most recent debate continues to show a notable amount of contention. Also it's worth noting that No consensus for article title discussions results in the continued use of the long-standing, stable title (see WP:CONSENSUS). Multiple discussions initiated in a short time frame to overturn that consensus could be seen as going against WP:POINT. GoneIn60 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed, the discussion should be speedily closed IMO. After all, the Strip is not part of Las Vegas. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • "Multiple discussions initiated in a short time frame to overturn that consensus" Umm, what consensus? Every single proposal has ended in no consensus. So, how am I, or anyone else, breaking the non-existent consensus? The request for comment was the closest there has been to consensus, and it was clearly to make Las Vegas an article about the city. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I was mistaken. I reviewed the history of this debate again and see your point that you are trying to reach a broader audience taking the correct course of action. GoneIn60 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Again though, this article is about the City of Las Vegas. The Las Vegas strip is discussed here. There would be no confusion because there are TWO DIFFERENT ARTICLES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.78.124 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Also, the same arguement can be made for New York. When people talk about visiting New York, they are probably referring to visiting NYC not NYS. That doesnt mean that New York City should be called, New York City, New York simply because tourists refer to it improperly. New York City covers the city while New York covers the state. Frischee113 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113
The comparison isn't a good one. If I search for NYC, it takes me to NYC. I am thinking about the city and was directed to the city's article. If I search for Las Vegas, the proposed move would take me to the city's article although the common intention (being debated) was likely the Las Vegas strip. GoneIn60 (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
But, for the third time, there are two different articles. Las Vegas Strip and Las Vegas. One is about the city, one is about the tourist destination in the Greater Las Vegas region. There would be no confusion. Frischee113(talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113
It is a good one actually. If I search New York it will bring me to New York State. Just like if I search Las Vegas it will bring me to the city of Las Vegas, not the Las Vegas strip. Frischee113 (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113
No one said we were combining them. Las Vegas, Nevada would simply become Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Strip would remain its own article. Frischee113 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Frischee113
Did you miss the there's no reason the Strip can't be covered in this article comment above? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The strip article is too big to be merged into this one, but along with the change in title I would expect the scope of this article to expand to include the strip, covered as a section here, including noting that it is outside of the formal city limits, but within "postal" Las Vegas, and with a pointer to the existing article. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Vegaswikian, you sure love the strawman argument. "Covering the Strip in the Las Vegas article" means summarizing it and linking to Las Vegas strip as a main article, not merging. That's pretty obvious. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and other arguments here. The Las Vegas Strip brouhaha is a non-issue. There are already a hatnote and a couple of lines in the intro of the article explaining the difference. Another small section can be added to the body of the article. As User:Dondegroovily notes above, "'Covering the Strip in the Las Vegas article' means summarizing it and linking to Las Vegas strip as a main article, not merging." —  AjaxSmack  04:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated by Vegaswikian et al. When people think of Las Vegas, they think of the skyline of the huge hotel-casinos along the Strip which is not within the boundaries of the City of Las Vegas, but instead is governed directly by the Clark County Commission. Moving this article to the title Las Vegas would only compound the confusion. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The current title is no less confusing than the proposed title in that respect, as the address of every place on the strip, even though it's outside of the city boundaries, is "Las Vegas, Nevada"[26] [27] [28]. All this confusion would be eliminated by expanding the scope of the article so that it is not restricted to the boundaries of the City of Las Vegas. A few tweaks to the intro, history and a new short section with a link to the full article about the strip is all that is probably needed.

      In fact, if we had an article about the City of Las Vegas with scope restricted at the city boundaries, its title would be City of Las Vegas. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

      • What you propose would create a gigantic, disorganized, subjective, and hopelessly incoherent mess. This article is ALREADY restricted to the city boundaries like every other U.S. city article and should continue to do so for consistency with those other articles. City limits are simple and objective. We have articles on METRO AREAS like the Las Vegas Valley for the larger concept you describe.
      • For example, just because I regard Jersey City and White Plains as extensions of New York City doesn't make them part of New York City, even though they share a common skyline and are connected by numerous transit and road links. They're part of the New York City metro area. Same thing here; nearly all of the Strip is in the township of Paradise, not the City of Las Vegas. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Jersey City and White Plains are part of the NYC metro area, but rarely if ever does one consider them to be part of the entity to which they are referring to when they say "New York City". Yet the strip is normally considered to be "in" "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada". That's the difference.

          I suggest this is a great example of taking consistency too far. For the vast majority of U.S. cities -- virtually all of them -- "CityName", "CityName, StateName" and "City of CityName" all refer to essentially the same entity, so it's perfectly reasonable to name articles about the cities using either just the city's name, or the city name disambiguated with the state name. But Las Vegas is a rare exception to this general rule, because the area famously referred to as "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada" is normally not limited to just the city boundaries. This is also why this issue keeps being raised on this talk page. We need to treat Las Vegas differently because it is different.

          The Las Vegas Valley is larger than just "Las Vegas", as it includes Henderson, etc. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

      • Coolcaeser, you are incorrect about limiting things to city limits. Seattle discusses Boeing, Microsoft and Sea-Tac airport, none of which are in city limits. Los Angeles discusses the Port of Long Beach and the various airports that are not in LA, as well as the Anaheim Angels. New York City mentions Ellis Island, even though half of the island is in New Jersey. Paris discusses the Palace of Versailles, which is in a suburb, not Paris. Things that are widely considered an important part of a city are always included in city articles regardless of whether they are in city limits or not. The same is true of the Las Vegas strip - the fact that it is not in city limits is not a valid reason to exclude it, and not a valid reason for the city not to be the primary topic. (Plus, it's called the Las Vegas Strip, not the Paradise Strip, so the "it's in Paradise" argument doesn't quite fly with me.) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose with apologies in advance to the admin who will need to read this. Having read through the above support comments, it is clear that they fail to address any of the valid oppose reasons raised in this discussion or any of the previous one. They fall into the WP:ILIKEIT or hey this is what I think it should be so make it so or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Then there is the straw man argument applied to discredit facts rather then presenting anything of value. So let's discuss common name. Las Vegas, Nevada is commonly called Las Vegas. Las Vegas, New Mexico is commonly called Las Vegas. Las Vegas (TV series) is commonly called Las Vegas. North Las Vegas, Nevada is commonly called Las Vegas. Henderson, Nevada is frequently called Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Strip is commonly called Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Valley is commonly called Las Vegas. Clark County, Nevada is commonly called Las Vegas. The Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA is commonly called Las Vegas. Las Vegas, Santa Bárbara is commonly called Las Vegas. So clearly many places have Las Vegas as their common name.
    Now to repeat the facts about the disambiguation of the inbound links to Las Vegas. Probably about 97% can be correctly disambiguated to Las Vegas Valley. Probably about 45-50% can be correctly disambiguated to Las Vegas Strip though winding up at an article for a street when you were expecting a place can be a surprise. Another 2-3% are for Las Vegas, New Mexico, North Las Vegas, Nevada, Henderson, Nevada or other stuff. And about 5% are for Las Vegas, Nevada, usually as an airline destination or to measure mileage to someplace else.
    So given that, I fail to see where one can argue that the city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But some editors seem to be convinced that the strip and valley are named after the city so that somehow make the city the primary use. However, the city is really named after the water stop on the San Pedro, Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad line that was likely named after the commonly used name for the area and the valley. The city did come years after the railroad. Given that the Strip is the driving force for the area as a whole, it seems odd that we would want to move that into the city unless it was the primary topic or had a stronger claim to the primary topic. After all, the politicians there have really no say in what happens there so this is rather confusing. In fact the city has about 5% of the Las Vegas rooms, 5% of the gaming revenue and 80% of the courts and lawyers. So yes if you get a traffic ticket for the Las Vegas Township Justice Court (which excludes the City of Las Vegas), yes this is the largest court in the area, you need to pay in the city, but don't go to the city's office to pay since they are different.
    Then we still have the fact that Las Vegas is first and foremost a resort destination and a brand. The city does sit on the board that markets the destination. But they are 2 of the 14 seats with the other cities actually having a stronger voice! When people say they are going to Las Vegas they mean the resort and destination. They don't mean the city. When people say they have just returned from Las Vegas, they mean the resort and destination. They don't generally mean the city. Even the national press when they report on crime or housing or income or what ever don't mean the city since that data is released for the Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA. I hope everyone enjoyed this past weekend from the UFC fight to America's Party which are mostly held outside of the city. Or the Las Vegas Bowl again, not in the city but a part of the resort destination. Then there was an interesting point made by the Las Vegas Sun about the problems with XL Airways France and their limited number of flights. Seems they are talking about the 'Las Vegas Market' does not buy enough tickets. I wonder if the Las Vegas they are talking about is the city?
    So clearly the case is there that the city is not the primary topic no matter what editors would like. That is why when the contentious wording about the AP list of cities was added, Vegas was not renamed along with a few others. It was not and still is not the primary topic. So while far from perfect, the current arrangement is head and shoulders better that what is proposed. I sense from reading the support votes that those editors understand that. Otherwise why do we need to expand the city article using original research to add one and only one 4 mile stretch of road? Oh and don't forget that it is the Las Vegas Strip and Valley that host all of the MMA events and the poker events and the concerts and the beauty pageants and the rodeos and the conventions and trade shows and... Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • "Las Vegas [a.k.a "Las Vegas, Nevada"] is first and foremost a resort destination and a brand.". And that's the point; the primary topic is the resort destination (which includes the city) and brand, and that's what the article at Las Vegas should be about. So, move Las Vegas, Nevada to Las Vegas, tweak the intro and a section or two, and presto, you're done. If you really want an article about the municipality, then put it at City of Las Vegas, because the primary use of "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada" is clearly not the city proper. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, the primary topic is the resort destination (which includes the city) and brand it is not the city which is one of three cities in the resort destination. I will not argue that an article about the resort destination and brand might be the primary topic and that an article about that would be better then a dab page at the main main space. But the city article is not that article! And it's not that I want an article on the city, it's that everyone wants an article on the city! Which just happens to be the article we already have on the city, no tweaking required. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the thorough analysis by Vegaswikian.   Will Beback  talk  02:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page edit notice

While making a ho-hum routine edit (deleting the move discussion notice as the discussion has ended), I notice a page notice saying not to add anything about the Las Vegas Strip. Can anyone provide any discussion justifying this page notice? If there is no consensus, there should be no page notice. It seems that more than a majority in recent discussions have wanted the Strip included in the city article, so this page notice seems to contradict consensus. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about excluding all material on nearby areas. But it should be kept to a minimum.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
A page about Las Vegas that doesn't mention the strip is like a page on Seattle that doesn't mention Boeing or a page on Paris that doesn't mention the Palace of Versailles. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Reverted. The hat note is sufficient. The article Las Vegas is about all related topics (actually, a disambiguation page); this article is about the city. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Show me the consensus to do this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The article does mention the strip - in the {{about}} header and in its own dedicated subsection. Julianhall (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That page notice has been there for about two years to clarify that this article is about the city. If makes it clear what the focus of the article was and continues to be. As I recall it was added after the feature supporting page notices was 'discovered' and since then it has greatly reduced edit waring in the article, mainly over images. As I recall it does not say that material about the strip can not be mentioned. However simply adding material not about the city should be avoided. Clearly if something on the strip had a direct impact on the city it can be mentioned. But something about the strip that does not affect the city should not be included. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that this article shouldn't focus on the Strip, it's hard to imagine anything about the Las Vegas Strip that doesn't have a "direct impact" on the city. Las Vegas is famous for gambling, and most of it's on the strip. Vegas is famous for entertainment, and most of it is on the strip. Nearly everything that makes Vegas famous is on the strip.

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 11) a year and a half ago. It focused on Rochester, New York, where the rough consensus is that Eastman Kodak deserves a mention despite not being in city limits (while some smaller companies don't deserve mention). The Las Vegas Strip is way more notable than Kodak, and way more associated with Vegas than Kodak with Rochester. In my view, that means the Strip not only deserves a mention, but an entire section. In fact, the strip is iconic with Las Vegas enough that the city photo should probably show it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not from the US, and have only a basic overview of Las Vegas' geography, mostly picked up from here. As something of an outsider to this subject, i think that there is enough with the {{about}} tag and the subsection Las Vegas, Nevada#Las Vegas Strip to point people in the direction of the Strip's dedicated article. I also think that there is enough guidance for editors to add information about the Strip in its own dedicated article. Julianhall (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Las Vegas - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot08:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC) fixed link after page move --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a section about the strip?

Now that this article about Las Vegas is finally at Las Vegas, do we need section on the strip and other surrounding areas often included within the conception of "Las Vegas"? Or is the final paragraph of the intro sufficient? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in the intro is sufficient for the intro, but the subsection under Economy->Tourism on the topic needs to be a longer summary than it is now. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What do we do about the thousands of links to Las Vegas Valley that should be links to Las Vegas? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, my feeling is that we can safely assume that every such link that isn't on a Las Vegas page or a disambiguation page is wrong and put a bot on it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The reason is that they are correct. Unless the scope of the city article is to be expanded to cover the entire valley, then these are correct and factual links. Just because the city is now at the main name space does not mean that it the correct link for all of the other communities in the valley. As a single example, where is the Las Vegas] facility for Clearwater Paper? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Leave them alone, they are correct. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
By that logic, we should be changing thousands of Los Angeles links to Los Angeles Basin D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
If the article refers to the metro area/basin not the city, why not? YE Pacific Hurricane 20:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, starting at the what links here list for Las Vegas Valley, the first result was Atari ST, which mentions an electronics show in Vegas. Whether this "technically" refers to the city or not doesn't matter, since people reading about a video game system really don't care, so the primary topic of Las Vegas wins be default. I expect that more than 75% of the links are just passing mentions like this one, where the reader clicking really doesn't give a damn about the city's local politics. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Change that link then. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Well a link like that one is clearly not about the city. It is one of many conventions held in Vegas that are not in or hosted by the city. These are most commonly marketed under the Las Vegas brand of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. While the city has seats on the board, they are just one piece of the Vegas marketing machine and brand. The better solution for the move would have been to move the Valley article to the main name space since it is more correct and actually covers all of what most people consider to be Vegas. Vegas is more then the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
We just had a huge multi-paragaph discussion that concluded that the common use of "Las Vegas" was more than just the city and also included the strip and the conventions, so again, no valley for that link. The only legitimate link for Las Vegas Valley is one that explicitly is distinguishing it from Las Vegas, which is relatively rare. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, your "Valley Crusade" was completely ridiculous and out of control. From Cult Film: "Showgirls (1995), initially intended to be a drama film about the rise of a Las Vegas stripper", yes, piped to link to Las Vegas Valley. Completely ludicrous, especially since this content gives no clue whatsoever whether it's in the city or not. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is exactly the point. If it is not about the city it is about the generic brand and location of Vegas. Most references and uses are for the 90% of the valley that is not the city. Would this be clearer if the the valley article were moved to Las Vegas? Yes. This is probably the best solution. Otherwise you need to randomly extend what is intended to be covered by the city article. In any case, no matter how you want to define the city article. All of the places are in a different community. It is the location that they pay taxes in and need to go for planning commissions and building variances. So, these places do exist and are not the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Your decision to continue this crusade is unsurprising given the fervor with which you have pursued this matter, but it's annoying nevertheless. While the only outcome a third-party needed to decide was whether there was consensus for the move, I think it's also made clear that we shouldn't be surprising readers with Easter Egg links to an article (e.g. the Valley article) they aren't expecting. While you may outwardly claim you're doing this for the sake of accuracy, it's plain as day your primary motivation is to prove a point. Most of the links you have "corrected" are brief references to Las Vegas. Most give no indication of the precise location of the place referenced, but you've taken it upon yourself to institute a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach, assuming that sources are referring to somewhere outside the city proper until proven otherwise.
Look, your attempts to keep the previous setup for these articles failed. Take the defeat kindly and move on to something else. Continuing to spend ninety percent of your time fixing links that don't need fixing, and then badgering the closing admin with statements you've already made is obnoxious, if not disruptive. I don't contribute to this area enough to care, and I have more important things I could be doing on Wikipedia -- like, you know, actually contributing to articles -- so I won't be pursuing this doggedly, but I'm saying for the record that I definitely think you should stop. -- tariqabjotu 07:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Tariq, let's be fair, Vegas changed nearly all of those links while Las Vegas was a disambig page and before there was yet consensus that they city should include Paradise and Winchester (aka, the Strip). But, now it's time to accept the changed consensus and change nearly all of these to Las Vegas. However, if the text of the link is "Greater Las Vegas" or similar, I'm fine with it, and also if the context makes clear they are making a distinction between the city and surrounding areas, I'm fine. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how you thought I was being unfair. While I always thought this link-changing was unnecessary, I talked about issues now. And, surely, you must be aware that it is extremely rare for "Greater Las Vegas" to be the text of the link Vegaswikian changes. -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Your comments fail to understand that not all uses of the phrase 'Las Vegas' apply to the city. It is not the sole use of that phrase. Moving the city article, does not move places into the city. So when an article is talking about an event that is in 'Las Vegas' that probably should not link to the city since 'Las Vegas' is still ambiguous, that's why there is still a dab page. The purpose of an encyclopedia is accuracy. However then needs to be tempered in the running text to not surprise the reader. So when the article is mentioning several things that happened around the valley that is the best link. Also the city can and should never contain all of Paradise and Winchester! Those are two communities with their own government and taxes. To claim that they are part of the city and direct readers to the city on that basis is simply wrong! Vegaswikian (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I was around during the move request, so please don't patronize me with "what [I] fail to understand". Changes like [29], [30], and [31] give no indication of whether the place referenced is actually in the city or not. And yet you've decided to go with your catch-all link that probably no one clicking said link is expecting. And I haven't even touched the links regarding casinos on the Strip, which, despite supposedly being in the pursuit of accuracy, goes against the spirit of the outcome of this move request. -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Vegas, the consensus in the move discussion was that the term Las Vegas refers to more than just the city. While what it exactly refers to might be unclear, it was nearly unanimous that the term refers to the Las Vegas Strip and also to both Paradise and Winchester, while excluding other incorporated areas (North LV, Henderson). I can't imagine any passing generic mention of Las Vegas that would not be either the city or the Strip. Any ref to Vegas that doesn't specify if in the city or not should be assumed to be the city, just like we would do with Seattle or Los Angeles. The only things that should be linked to Valley are mentions that explicitly say it's more than just the city, and such references are rare. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that these links to Las Vegas Valley aren't really doing any harm. If you come across a an article that said "Warner Brothers is based in Los Angeles", would anyone be confused about why the link was to Los Angeles metropolitan area? It seems pretty straightforward. Someone who's clicking on such a passing reference probably doesn't care much whether they get an overview of the city itself or the whole area. So I'd say that any mass campaign to change links from Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas (or vice versa) is rather a waste of time. Toohool (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about that, but I'd imagine anyone clicking on a link saying "Los Angeles" would want to see the article on "Los Angeles". If it said "Warner Brothers is based in the Los Angeles metropolitan area", that's obviously perfectly fine, but we should not be promoting Easter Egg links. Rarely is the text of the sentence changed to clarify the link is going to Las Vegas Valley; it's just piped in to give the impression Las Vegas = Las Vegas Valley. That was kind of okay when there was a disambiguation page at Las Vegas, meaning piping "Las Vegas" to any of the links on the disambiguation page was acceptable, but, of course, that is no longer the case. Again, I don't think this has a major effect (or even a minor effect) on the area of Wikipedia I frequent (or anyone frequents), but I'd like to think Vegaswikian would respect the outcome of the move request, which implies that the link-changing fervor needs to be taken down a notch. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Vegas, it doesn't matter that "not all uses of the phrase 'Las Vegas' apply to the city", since the topic of this article is not strictly limited to the city proper. The topic of this article is broad... it is the imprecisely defined place known as Las Vegas, which is primarily the city proper but also includes the immediate surrounding areas, especially the Las Vegas strip. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Toohool - I suspect most people who click on a link labeled Las Vegas in an article would expect to land on this article, and would be surprised to be teleported to Las Vegas Valley. Whether that is "harm" is a rather subjective question, but in the context of how much anything causes harm in WP, I'd say it's on the scale, albeit towards the lesser harm end of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge this article with Las Vegas Valley?

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn by proposer --Born2cycle (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I just looked at Las Vegas and Las Vegas Valley side-by-side and in my opinion these articles are screaming for a merger. Just look at the image of "the valley" here... I see nothing in yellow there that does not fall into the WP:SCOPE of this WP:DABCONCEPT article Las Vegas for at least a mention. Some of these areas, like Paradise, Nevada and Las Vegas Strip, also have sub-articles... and that's fine, but I think the content of this Las Vegas article should be an overall summary of the valley area with detailed focus on the city proper.

The merger would also solve the link issued discussed in the previous section, because anything linking to Las Vegas Valley would be redirected to this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't totally agree with that. Henderson, Boulder and North Las Vegas are all separate cities with their own separate governments, making them suburbs and not part of Las Vegas. In my view, the page Las Vegas should cover Las Vegas and the neighboring unincorporated communities of Paradise and Winchester, as those three communities together cover the entire Vegas strip. It would make sense to merge Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA, which is nearly a stub and includes the surrounding county. Such an articles does not need to be the same as the county page, as it would only be about urban areas. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Dondegroovily's sensible analysis of this issue. Born2cycle, please remember that Wikipedia is not a travel guide. See Section 2.7 of WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a travel guidebook). A lot of your proposals are better suited for Wikitravel. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The RM that moved the article on the city Las Vegas, Nevada to Las Vegas is still warm, and now you want to change the topic of Las Vegas to be the whole region? Weird. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for some background, the Las Vegas Valley article was created during the move dispute earlier - see Talk:Las Vegas (disambiguation)/Archive 1#Requested move 2. Looking at it now, the valley definition seems somewhat original research - after all, the US Census uses Clark County for the metro area. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Don, precisely. I agree it's a violation of WP:NOR - Las Vegas Valley, if it exists at all, should link to Las Vegas.

Coolcaesar, travel guide? I don't see how. Did you see Will's comment in the move discussion? He wrote:

I suggest a better solution would be to loosen the electric fence mentality for articles about municipalities just a bit.

That's essentially all I'm suggesting, too, and that seemed to be the consensus in that discussion, at least according to the closer.

Dicklyon, the notion that the topic of this article is not exclusively the city proper was a prime factor in the recent move decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So is it time to start a new article on the city, Las Vegas, Nevada? Or is it less important than Henderson, Nevada and Paradise, Nevada? Dicklyon (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense. We just finished up a lengthy move request, and now you want to change things around again? What you are suggesting is tantamount to reversing the move that was just made and moving Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas. Regardless of the reason the Las Vegas Valley article was created, the Las Vegas Valley is a real thing, right? Why don't you think we can have an article about it? In my opinion, this article (the Las Vegas article) should have information about the City of Las Vegas and some information about the Strip (with the link to the relevant article), and that's it. -- tariqabjotu 19:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Tariq, did you look at Las Vegas and Las Vegas Valley side by side? The point is that there is not much difference between:
  1. An article about the city and something about the strip
  2. An article about the city and something about the strip and valley
I recognize that "Las Vegas Valley" is a distinct topic, but, again, by looking at the two articles side-by-side, I don't see that it's important/different enough to warrant it's own article. To have it separate is arguably a violation of WP:AVOIDSPLIT.

Dick, it would be redundant to have a new article on the city, since this article is on the city. The issue here is about whether it should also be on the valley, or just also on the strip. I think that WP:DABCONCEPT indicates we cover the valley here as well as the strip and city proper. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for a move. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither does anyone else. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, did I type move? I meant merged, sorry. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay. But baseless opinions from anyone (nothing personal) don't really contribute anything to a discussion. Would you mind sharing your reasoning with us? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I also don't see why a merge of so many Las Vegas related topics would make sense. Dicklyon (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
"So many"? We're talking only about merging the WP:OR "Las Vegas Valley" with "Las Vegas". --Born2cycle (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
OR? If you Google the LV Valley, you get over 20,000,000 hits. I somehow don't believe that this would support an OR argument. If you look at the City of Las Vegas web site they even have an entire section for Las Vegas Valley maps including the one for the US Census Bureau tracks]. If there is a problem with the city web site it is using the valley, metro area and metropolitan area to describe the valley. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Merge proposal withdrawn. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2012 (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.

I'm gonna suggest at Talk:Las Vegas Valley a merge between Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA and Las Vegas Valley as I mentioned earlier. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


Edit Request, Sports - Las Vegas 51s

The Las Vegas 51s signed a new affiliation deal with the New York Mets just a week or two ago. As such, this page is out of date.

http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120917&content_id=38577744&vkey=news_t400&fext=.jsp&sid=t400

The page for the Las Vegas 51s is correct. I would edit this myself but I see no edit button for the Las Vegas page. Is this a wiki or what?  ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.35.247 (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, so only registered users can edit it. The reason for the protection seems tenuous and long-past, though, so I will suggest it be unprotected. I have added an {{Edit semi-protected}} tag atop your request. Powers T 14:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 October 2012

"The $485 million Smith Center for the Performing Arts (scheduled for completion in 2012) is located downtown in Symphony Park. The center will host Broadway shows and other major touring attractions as well as orchestra, opera, and dance performances" is outdated. According to the wikipedia entry "Smith Center for the Performing Arts" the center was opened on March 10, 2012.


ErixS (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed everything in brackets. diff A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Quick spelling change to the History of Las Vegas

The last line of the "History" section reads:

"The rapid growth of Las Vegas is credited with dooming Galveston, Texas; Hot Springs, Arkansas; and other major gaming centers in the 1950s.[15]"

Unless I am mistaken I believe that it should read "booming Galveston, Texas", not "dooming".

Unfortunately the sources are not online, but it most certainly is "dooming". Galveston and Hot Springs are not successful gambling destinations. "Booming" would imply that they were a huge success. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://lasvegasnevada.gov/files/CERTIFIED_CANDIDATE_LIST_2011__FORM_.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Las_Vegas/Archive_1&oldid=1241146590"