Talk:Las Vegas (disambiguation)/Archive 1

message: Lon Kruger, the coach of the UNLV rebels on a TV interview today (March 15, 2007 as broadcast on KTNV) about what people think of Vegas when the team is at the NCAA tournament in Chicago is the Las Vegas Strip.  Everyone wants to know how we can all live on the strip.  Apparently they don't know there is more to Las Vegas then the strip.  Vegaswikian 23:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does Las Vegas mean? 

message: I have just posted to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 14 that the discussion should be here, not there, so better start the section :-)
Possible targets for a redirect called "Las Vegas" appear to include:
#Las Vegas, Nevada which is focussed on the city area inside a small political boundary
#Las Vegas metropolitan area which gives a lighter coverage to a larger area
#Las Vegas Strip which is what most people from outside Nevada think of first when we hear the term. It is inside the metropolitan area, but outside the city boundary
#Las Vegas (disambiguation) which makes the reader decide what they really meant.
There are over 2000 links to this redirect, so we need to "fix" it reasonably quickly, and correct any/all links that are wrong. The easiest way to decide which are wrong is to make it a disambig page - then all the links are wrong, but fixing them requires thought. Otherwise, some will be right, thought is required to decide which ones, and thought is still required to determine where the wrong ones should point.
Are there good arguments besides "it's too hard" for the redirect to point to a particular article rather than the disambig page? --Scott Davis Talk 14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already been discussion on Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada so it's not like we haven't been discussing this. --Golbez 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I was unaware there was discussion there too. --Scott Davis Talk 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Every so often I try and fix some of the redirects.  It seems the inbound ones grow faster then one person fixing them.  While some of them are easy to fix, like those clearly about something in the city or on the strip, many are not clear.  For now I have been leaving those that I see as unclear untouched.  I will say that a clear minority so far have been about the city, that is why making the city the target is so wrong.  Vegaswikian 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion might be that "Las Vegas" is the redirect, with a set of guidelines on the talk page to assist people who don't know LV well to help us decide which article to use when fixing links. For example, would I be correct that any article that says "Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas" actually means "Caesars Palace on the Las Vegas Strip"? Or is there an even better way? --Scott Davis Talk 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is where it is right now.  Las Vegas redirects to Las Vegas (disambiguation). So any link to Las Vegas leaves you at the disambiguation page so that you can select the correct place.  In your example, yes, Las Vegas Strip is probably the most likely intended target.  And Scott Davis has provided the list of guidelines to use when fixes links as the opening to this discussion.  Vegaswikian 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect target 

message: I moved back to the last known good version of the article for Las Vegas, Nevada, because someone named Brion on #mediawiki believes that article suffered from a database corruption.
Please see the talk page for the Las Vegas article for additional details. — DV 03:57, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  last known good version 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Oppose Redirect Las Vegas to Las Vegas, Nevada. It seems obvious to me that the vast majority of people typing in "Las Vegas" expect to find precisely the content of Las Vegas, Nevada.Joeldl 08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *While I fully support the dab guidelines and I understand what you're saying, I feel that the best way to handle this particular case is to expand the coverage of the strip in the article on Las Vegas, Nevada. I feel that the distinction disallowing the strip as a subtopic of the main topic "Las Vegas, Nevada" is artificial. This means that if the Las Vegas, Nevada article handles the strip as a subtopic, links to that page aren't really broken. Dekimasuよ! 00:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This makes sense. Usually an article about a major city should contain information about parts of the metropolitan area of major interest, even if they are outside city limits. Joeldl 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Well, even if this was the decided direction, there is still a lot about the city that needs to be added to that article and it already is a rather large 40K.  I'm not sure how much more we want to add to the article.  So suggesting that a major topic be added would hurt in the long run.  While a bit more on the Strip could be added, the current article would need to remain with most of the information.  Vegaswikian 02:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * It is a fallacy to say that the conversation going on for a long time means that there is no primary topic. That would make sense if some were arguing that Topic A was more important, and others that Topic B is more important. Instead, what we have is some saying that Topic A is much more important than Topic B, and others that Topic A is not much more important than Topic B, which is precisely the issue we are determining. In any event, nobody referring specifically to the Strip calls it "Las Vegas". Most likely, they think it is part of Las Vegas, as part of the Strip indeed is. The fact that many people want to know about the Strip when they refer to Las Vegas, Nevada is precisely because they expect to find information about it in the article about the city, not because they are looking for an article about the Strip itself. Joeldl 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So we tell a little white lie rather then educate?  And yes, some say that a block or two from the strip are in the city.  Not significant. Vegaswikian 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Would you not mention the airport because it's in Paradise? Nobody is saying we should lie. It can be mentioned that the Strip is not entirely located within city limits. A division of information based on city limits will force people to look in two places when it should all be in one place. Of course, you could put it all in the article about the metropolitan area, but I suppose it's something of a convention in an encyclopedia that the primary article for a city and its vicinity is at the name of the city rather than at the article for the metropolitan area.Joeldl 07:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: Unrelated to the debate: Right now, "Las Vegas" (capitalized V) brings me to the dab page, while "Las vegas" (small v) brings me to Las Vegas, NV. Shall we make them consistent? --supernorton 05:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea.  They should point to the same place.  Vegaswikian 05:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we delete Las vegas, then the search engine will find one with other capitalisation, I think. The only links to it are from this talk page. OK to delete lower case redirect? --Scott Davis Talk 06:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that it will redirect to the upper cased redirect.  Also that is a likely typo and the lack of links for a redirect is not in itself a reason to delete it. Finally if you want to delete it, you will need to take it to WP:RFD.  Vegaswikian 06:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect at "Las vegas" (small 'v') 

message: Since this has been reconstituted, there are now about 2300 ambiguous links to this page. It would be great to have help fixing them. The standard recommended procedure is for the creator of a disambiguation page to take care of links as a courtesy, so it would be particularly nice to have help from those who supported the moves/redirect changes related to this page. Thanks for any time you can put in. Dekimasuよ! 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I've been woking on these.  Thus far, they are all in reference to Las Vegas, Nevada.  This is as one would expect, which is why I must disagree with the deciosn to have this page not be about Las Vegas, Nevada, with a disambig page linked to separately for all the other things people might mean that scant percent of the time they are not talking about Las Vegas Nevada.  This is a big mess that will take time to cleanup, which is telling as to what is common usage for the term "Las Vegas."—Gaff ταλκ 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Comment See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links.  This page is the number one problem page on Wikipedia.  Seriously, what percentage of pages linking to Las Vegas are not looking for Las Vegas, Nevada?—Gaff ταλκ 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: **Most links are not about the city but the area around the city and specifically not including the city.  Most of what appears to be about the city are really about the Las Vegas metropolitan area or the Strip.  Most pages are not about the city, I'd guess maybe 10%.  The rest are really about the strip, the metro area or Las Vegas Township.  Having a large number of links to a dab page is not a problem.  It just means that there is work that needs to be done.  My problem in doing these is that you need to read the articles to try and determine exactly what the reference is to.  In many cases, the article is totally devoid of any information that helps.  Is there a deadline that we have to clean this up? Vegaswikian 19:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ***One example of the problems in cleaning this up is the quality of the articles.  One I just fixed had a reference to Vegas based on the the assumption that Nellis Air Force Base was over 100 miles long!  Fixing the name of the area being discussed  and surrounding text eliminated the Vegas reference.  Vegaswikian 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * This problem is being discussed on the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links page as well (understandably, since that project inherits the responsibility for dealing with this mess).  After looking through the articles linking here, it seems pretty clear they want to link to Las Vegas, Nevada, more or less meaning the strip.  These are articles about boxers, entertainers, gamblers, etc.  I'm not sure, but think that the most efficient this to do is make this page be about Las Vegas, Nevada and have a link to a disambig page at the top.  I realize this is not what the discussion above agreed would be best, but that decision seems to be resulting in some unforeseeable consequences.  —Gaff ταλκ 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: **Linking to the strip would be better then to the city since more of the links would clearly be for the strip.  As one user pointed out in the discussion.  To most people the strip is Las Vegas to most people.  They are surprised that it is not in the City of Las Vegas.  Also others are surprised that Henderson, Nevada is a city since many consider that to be Las Vegas.  Vegaswikian 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ***I brought this up because it seems to have created a mess of links to a disambig page.  In general, this is not such a good thing, as it disrupts the flow of the encyclopdia for the reader.  However, there appear to be some strong opinions about this issue; its not that big of a deal to me and I am going to focus on other things...—Gaff ταλκ 17:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Las Vegas and ambiguous links 

message: As suggested in my comment above, I'm not convinced that the current redirect of "Las Vegas" to this page is the right move... I do think we are all convinced that the vast majority of people linking to or typing in "Las Vegas" are referring to some part of the Las Vegas metropolitan area, but that redirecting to the metro area page isn't very satisfying.  Neither is fixing 2000+ links with more surely on the way all the time.  To improve the situation a little, why not rename this page "Las Vegas (disambiguation)", and make a new page "Las Vegas, Nevada (disambiguation)" which contains only the ambiguous uses of the term "Las Vegas" when applied to the notion of Vegas.  That seems more "correct" to me than this page which has a poor signal/noise ratio for links/searches concerning Vegas NV. AdamMorton 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Disambiguation Pages 

message: "Las Vegas" is now this disambiguation page, but "Vegas" still redirects to "Las Vegas, Nevada"?  Does that seem internally inconsistent to anyone else? Redirect "Vegas" to here also? Or to my proposed "Las Vegas, Nevada (disambiguation)" page proposed above? AdamMorton 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects Post Move (Vegas) 

message: I just reverted the move to Las Vegas (disambiguation).  This has been discussed in many places and it is clearly established that there is no primary use for the term.  Moving this page is controversial and should not be attempted without a clear consensus in support.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move reverted 

message: I'm wondering, why is the metro area listed before the city? Looking by hit counts: the city gets 114,000 hits, the Strip gets 65,000 hits, and the metro area gets under 8,000. I realize that the metro area collectively includes both the city and the Strip, but clearly it is not the article that readers are seeking here when typing in "Las Vegas". The best order would be city, Strip, and then metro area. Cheers, Rai•me 15:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a case where the hits are wrong.  I have been doing some dabs as of late.  In the past, I think that helpful editors were simply using the city link even when that is wrong.  The metro area is just about always going to be right and the city link is probably going to be wrong about 80% of the time.  I have also looked at some of the incoming links to the city and over 50% of those are not correct.  When the dab pages were moved around, I made the point that for many people, Las Vegas is the Strip and Las Vegas could redirect there.  But that did not gain sufficient traction to have an effect on the outcome beyond supporting that Las Vegas is ambiguous.  I believe that if someone goes through the links to the city and changes those that should not point to the city, you would see those stats drift to the metro area.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The scope of the metro area article is too broad; "Las Vegas" seems to refer to the Strip (and, less commonly, the city) the vast majority of the time. The metro area is "always going to be right" since both of two main uses are in the metro area, but that same logic could be applied to the state of Nevada... The majority of the articles referring to "Las Vegas" seemingly should point to the Strip, which is both more specific than the metro area but separate from the city. At the same time, since the city is also a common usage, a dab page of some sorts seems more appropriate. Maybe we could take a cue from Kansas City and make "Las Vegas" into a summary page that combines all three main uses in a format separate from a dab page? Cheers, Rai•me 02:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could reopen this with a move request.  But given the difficulty the last time, I'm not sure that reaching a consensus would be easy.  I'm open to moving the Strip to the top of the dab page since that is not an unreasonable option as you state. I wonder what percentage of the links to the city are not really for the city? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer my question, it is probably in the range of 90% that are not for the city.  This is based on the dabs I have been doing.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As an update, about 95% of the links that need to be dabbed are NOT for the city.  Most are for the strip or the area.  Interestingly we probably get as many for the TV show as for the city in some months. Based on this, I'm going to probably move the metro area to the top of the list as the most common target.  I wonder why the city still manages to get as many hits as it does.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Las Vegas metropolitan area 

message: The discussion on this page has gone on for weeks, and it is getting very difficult to determine what users are actually supporting and opposing in the matter of what "Las Vegas" should redirect to. In an effort to determine a clear consensus, I have recreated the four proposals below that seem to be the most popular options from the above discussion. Discussion of each proposal (and support/oppose/neutral opinions) can take place below so it is clear what each user actually favors as an outcome. I only listed the four proposals that I could easily pick out, but if I missed one or if someone else has another proposal, please feel free to list it below. 
====Proposal 1====
*Move Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas
*Move Las Vegas to Las Vegas (disambiguation)
*Leave Las Vegas, Nevada as the article about the city
;Discussion
*Oppose - The Valley, not the city, is the primary use of Las Vegas, Nevada. Rai•me 18:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidating proposals to determine consensus

message: *Move Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas
*Move Las Vegas to Las Vegas (disambiguation)
*Leave Las Vegas, Nevada as the article about the city
;Discussion
*Oppose - The Valley, not the city, is the primary use of Las Vegas, Nevada. Rai•me 18:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 1

message: *Move Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas 
*Move Las Vegas to Las Vegas (disambiguation)
*Move Las Vegas, Nevada to City of Las Vegas
*Move existing City of Las Vegas article to City of Las Vegas (train)
*Redirect "Las Vegas, Nevada" to new Las Vegas article
;Discussion
*Neutral - I still don't see a good reason to ignore U.S. place naming conventions and move the city article to City of Las Vegas, but this is a better option than Proposal 1 (leaving the city at "Las Vegas, Nevada"). Rai•me 18:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 2

message: *Move Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas 
*Move Las Vegas to Las Vegas (disambiguation)
*Move Las Vegas, Nevada to Las Vegas (city), Nevada (per U.S. place naming conventions)
*Redirect "Las Vegas, Nevada" to new Las Vegas article
;Discussion
*Support - The Valley is the primary use of both Las Vegas and Las Vegas, NV, as evidenced by the sources provided by Vegaswikian in the above discussion. Rai•me 18:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 3

message: *Expand the city article, Las Vegas, Nevada, to include information about Las Vegas Strip and surrounding communities (follow USPS designation of Las Vegas, NV?)
*Move expanded city article Las Vegas, Nevada to Las Vegas, keep "Las Vegas, Nevada" as a redirect
*Move Las Vegas to Las Vegas (disambiguation)
*Leave Las Vegas Valley as article about metro area
;Discussion
*Oppose - The city is not the primary topic of "Las Vegas," and the USPS designation of "Las Vegas, NV" does not reflect common usage. Rai•me 18:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 4

message: *Expand the city article, Las Vegas, Nevada, to include information about Las Vegas Strip and surrounding communities (follow USPS designation of Las Vegas, NV?)
*Move Las Vegas to Las Vegas (disambiguation)
*Move expanded city article Las Vegas, Nevada to Las Vegas; keep "Las Vegas, Nevada" as a redirect
*Leave Las Vegas Valley as article about metro area
;Discussion
*Support.  Avoids USPS designation problem of Proposal 4.  Folds some coverage of the strip into the "Las Vegas" article, which makes sense because most people include the strip in the concept of "Las Vegas".  There is no reason to have an article devoted to the municipality that does not include the unincorporated strip.   --Born2cycle (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal 4a

message: 1. Trying to create an article so that multiple redirects can all go there is putting the cart before the horse.  The purpose of redirects is to send readers to the article that they are most likely to want to be at when you enter another name that is used for the article in question.  
2. Articles exist and you need to understand what they cover and what the inbound links to them are for, or in the case of a disambiguation page, what the intended target is.  If you look at what the inbound links for Las Vegas have been, you will see something like this:
:North Las Vegas - 1%
:Henderson - 1 %
:The city of Las Vegas - under 5%
:The Strip - 30% to 45%
:Everything else in the Las Vegas Valley or metro area or whatever you want to call it 30% to 50%
Now look at the reverse logic, how accurate is a given target if it were actually at Las Vegas:
:Las Vegas Valley 100%
:The Strip - 30% to 45%
:The city of Las Vegas - under 5%
So why is an article like the Las Vegas Valley or metro area or whatever always the right target?  Because it includes everything that people actually mean when they use the phrase Vegas or Las Vegas.  That includes the city (the mayor is the chairman) and the county since they are involved with the marketing that does not make the distinctions that some editors seem intent on making.  As soon as you try to artificially limit what this covers, you increase the number of bad links.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that, like all big cities, articles about places there are often sloppy about the distinction between suburbs and the main city. Just because a casino in Henderson advertises itself as in Las Vegas doesn't mean that the city is no longer the primary topic - it just means that the marketers rightly decided to use Las Vegas so tourists would know where it is. This is similar to articles that say Boeing and Microsoft are in Seattle - that doesn't make the Seattle metro area the primary topic for Seattle. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: *Even links to a city don't refer to the whole city.  They are mostly about small areas that just happen to be in the city.  Is something about the downtown area about the whole city?  The city is not the focal point in the valley.  The skyline is not in the city, most hotel rooms are not in the city, most casinos are not in the city, most tourists are not in the city.  Provide data to the contrary.  Again if you seem to be in this discussion to show the the city is more then what it is.  The facts that you seem to want throw aside clearly establish that the usage of Las Vegas is simply not about only the city.  You would have a stronger case arguing to make the Las Vegas Resort Corridor the primary topic.  However I still have not been able to find a map.  I did find an RTC site that defines it as the 'the major focus of employment in the region.'  I also found this that gives some idea of what the resort corridor covers. I'll note that most of these discuss the corridor as being the center of the valley. Oh, I did love the Yahoo map for the city. Also, you seem to be insistent about including the city as the base for this new Las Vegas article yet you fail to address how to handle the county islands that are not in the city.  Do we exclude those from this article? Or do we include them and cover more of unincorporated Clark County? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: **I think the thing to do is have "Las Vegas" the city as the primary article, and include in that all urbanized adjacent areas that are not part of another city. This covers the Strip, the Airport, Palms and most big off-strip casinos and all the county islands. I think that would cover the important topics well and address the fact that Henderson, Boulder City and NLV are not quite as "Las Vegas" as the strip. FWIW, it seems that Las Vegas is unusual for a primary city of a metro area to not be surrounded on all sides by suburbs. This is probably why other cities haven't had this argument. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: ***So is your proposal to cover all of the Las Vegas Valley with the exception of North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Mesquite, given that those three cities are the only incorporated places in the urbanized area besides the city of Las Vegas? Given that the scope would be so much greater than the city, it would make more sense to use the Valley as the starting point and leave the city as a separate article. Rai•me 01:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: ***This ignores the fact that Henderson and NLV are considered to be part of Las Vegas.  Do you have some sources that would support this odd exclusion criteria?  Also you are creating an area that includes areas that would be in this theoretical article but are separated from the rest of the area covered by the cities of NLV and Henderson (those pesky county islands again).  I fail to see how this is factual or logical in any way. You really need to stop thinking of the city of Las Vegas when you use Las Vegas.  The two are different animals.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: ****I would not go as far to say that NLV and Henderson are considered to be a part of "Las Vegas." I hear locals and non-locals alike refer to Henderson and not even mention Las Vegas. Neither is Mesquite part of the urbanized area of Las Vegas. There are miles of undeveloped land between Mesquite and Las Vegas. I am strongly against making the proposed "Las Vegas" article include information on the whole valley. 08OceanBeachS.D. 02:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: *****Mesquite is not in the valley.  What does the valley include that is not considered to be Vegas?  The LVCVA does not make a distinction for NLV or Henderson.  Henderson is used, mostly by the locals when they are going around town.  But if you live on the west side of I-15, Henderson is also part of the east side of town that you tend to avoid.  How many people staying at the GVR booked a stay in Vegas?  As for GRV they consider themselves to be in the LVCUA's definition of Vegas.  The LA Times commonly does use Vegas here. Looking at an existing article on the wiki, you find ones like Darby O' Gill and the Little People.  Notice where that article places GRV.  Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: ******Umm, I typed Green Valley Ranch into Google, and it gave me a map saying "Green Valley Ranch, Henderson, NV". So, umm, wrong. Of course their marketing materials will say Las Vegas, because tourists know where Las Vegas is, and not where Henderson is. That doesn't mean the casino is actually in Las Vegas. And the fact that the convention/visitor center includes everything is meaningless, as such groups pretty much always represent the metro area. Seattle's promotes the Bellevue art museum, for example, and currently features Mt Rainier on its homepage, neither actually in Seattle. Also, I never said to include Mesquite. I said urbanized areas adjacent to the city of Las Vegas, which does not mean the entire valley except Henderson/Boulder/NLV. Mostly it adds Paradise to the article. Raime missed the use of the word "adjacent"; an urban area adjacent to Henderson goes into the Henderson article, of course. And enough about the county islands - this does not mean an area isn't part of the community, is means Nevada's annexation process is corrupt and used for private gain rather than to ease governing. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: *******Yes, as you have found out a buildings address can be different then the location it is commonly placed in.  You really do need to sort that out for yourself.  Having an address in Henderson does not mean that people don't include that as part of Las Vegas which is not the city of Las Vegas. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: ********I feel this may be striding in WP:OR. Many people think of Orange County or even San Diego as being part of Los Angeles. But you don't see them lumped together under the Los Angeles article. Nor do you see Disneyland, a popular "L.A." destination, being labeled as in Los Angeles. Rather on the article, it is labeled under Anaheim, as it should be - regardless of what the media or multiple tourist organizations may say. The same usage could and should apply to Henderson and the issue of what is in the Las Vegas scope. 08OceanBeachS.D. 22:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: *********It has been clearly established with reliable sources that this is not OR.  And yes, LA is a problem in that the city as you point out may not be the primary use.  But that is a different problem.  BTW, what OR would you use to draw a line where an area would be included in Las Vegas, NLV or Henderson? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: **********You're sources repeatedly say Las Vegas area or Las Vegas metropolitan area and do not consistently refer to Las Vegas as the whole Valley. Only spotty tourist organizations. There is no problem with L.A. as I explained, it has been dealt with accordingly as should this issue with Vegas. Another suggestion that is quite simple is to have Las Vegas, Nevada move to Las Vegas. The Nevada part really does no good because as shown, we can't even define what Las Vegas is. The one true definition of Las Vegas is the city. Other uses are the Las Vegas Strip or Las Vegas Valley, but never simply Las Vegas. Perhaps this is a change of mind, but it is also seems to be the simplest, yet most reliable, definition we have. 08OceanBeachS.D. 18:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The problems with the proposals

message: Let's not conflate city and place.  I, for one, reject the notion that the city of Las Vegas is the primary topic for "Las Vegas".  Rather, the primary topic is the place that encompasses that city, but also at least includes the strip.  That is, when people think, say, or search for "Las Vegas", they are most likely referring to the place that includes the strip as well as the city.I also suggest that the primary topic for "Las Vegas, Nevada" is also the place, rather than the city, and this is especially important for the many references to "Las Vegas, Nevada" that are referring to the place that includes the strip.  For example, at Dean Martin it states: "For three decades, Martin was among the most popular acts in Las Vegas" (note that Las Vegas is a link to Las Vegas, Nevada). Clearly this refers to the place, not the city proper.  That's only one example, but clearly is typical/common usage.This is why the place (city + strip) needs to be the topic of the article at Las Vegas, and why Las Vegas, Nevada needs to redirect to that article as well.  I'm not convinced that we need a separate article about the municipality, but if we do, again, I would put it at City of Las Vegas as being an exception to the U.S. city naming guideline because this is a very special case.    --Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the respective Las Vegas, Nevada and Las Vegas Valley articles, it appears that the city article actually already does cover much of the Valley (at least the immediately surrounding areas and the Strip) already. The city is also a much better article, prose and content-wise, than the Valley article. What if we attempted a merge of the content of the two articles - that is, merge the information from Las Vegas Valley into the Las Vegas, Nevada article, leaving "Las Vegas Valley" as a redirect to "Las Vegas, Nevada". This broad article would cover the entire Valley, as it is OR to limit the definition of "Las Vegas" to only the city and the Strip, but the majority of the article would still focus on the city + Strip area because that is undoubtedly the center of what constitutes "Las Vegas". This article could then be moved to "Las Vegas," and "Las Vegas, Nevada" would remain a redirect. However, in addition to this, a new article about the city would also be created, entitled either Las Vegas (city), Nevada per the naming conventions or City of Las Vegas. The content of this article would be much briefer than the current city article, but it is in this article than we can describe very "city-centric" information - such as census statistics, city geography, city government, and demographics - in more detail. This solution does not require a messy move of the Las Vegas, Nevada article (we could leave it at "Las Vegas, Nevada" since that name does refer to the entire region, although the unqualified "Las Vegas" is clearly preferable), allows the city to have its own dedicated article that does not include information about other regions in the metro area (important because the most populated incorporated place in Nevada really does need its own article), and has a scope that covers the entire Valley. Rai•me 23:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This idea seems the most favorable and reasonable so far. Las Vegas Valley could also be directed to the land-form article or itself be turned into a disambiguation page to either the Vegas article or the Las Vegas Valley (landform) article. 08OceanBeachS.D. 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to move the city article since it complies with the naming convention and moving it would, in my opinion, create more confusion.  See my comment below.  I have been holding off trying to start a cleanup of the material while this discussion has been going on.  There is no reason for a messy move, just a need to cleanup several articles.  The city article is correctly titled Las Vegas, Nevada and for that name it is the primary topic.  However the city is not the primary topic for Las Vegas.  How everything else redirects, does not affect the two articles that there now seems to be consensus for.  Don't let that confuse or overly complicate what should be a simple solution.  Rewrite the two articles and maybe move the one not about the city to Las Vegas or make that a redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

text: For a while, in the moves the city article was at the top of a dab page for Las Vegas and as a result many of it's incorrect links were, I believe, created by good intentioned editors who did not really understand the dab page they were working to cleanup the inbound links to said dab page.  This work needs to be undone at some point and this probably influences the incorrect perception of how often the various pages are read. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that the city is the primary topic of "Las Vegas, Nevada" is very weak when nearly 80% of the links to "Las Vegas, Nevada" do not refer to the city. "Las Vegas, Nevada" clearly refers to more than just the city the majority of the time. Where are the casinos? In Las Vegas, NV. And where is the Welcome to Las Vegas, Nevada sign? In Paradise, not the city. My proposal would not require moving the city article; leaving it where it is (Las Vegas, Nevada) is an option, although moving it to "Las Vegas" is also an option. In the end, the expanded city article would serve as the new "Las Vegas" article, but it would still have a scope that covers the entire Valley. The new (not moved) Las Vegas (city), Nevada or City of Las Vegas article would serve a similar function to the Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA that was proposed a while back - information about demographics, government, geography, etc. that is exclusive to the city. Rai•me 00:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In Vegaswikian's defense, he does not appear to be arguing that the primary topic of "Las Vegas, Nevada" is the city; he seems to be ignoring WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and simply arguing that the topic of the article at Las Vegas, Nevada should be the city, per the U.S. city naming guidelines.  However, the counter to his argument is to invoke WP:IAR, and, since WP:IAR requires a good reason to ignore a rule (in this case the U.S. city naming guideline), the good reason here is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.I presume we all recognize that in probably every other case of "Cityname, Statename", the primary topic is the city of that name in that state.  Las Vegas really truly is an extremely rare special case, possible even unique.  This is a perfect situation in which to apply WP:IAR.I fully endorse Rai's suggestion above with either Las Vegas (city), Nevada or City of Las Vegas as being the destination of the article about the city proper, though I favor the latter.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of what should be the topic of the article at Las Vegas, Nevada comes down to whether a specific naming guideline or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should prevail when there is conflict in guidance from the two.  I'm pretty sure I've always consistently favored WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in such cases, as that seems to be much more important that a specific naming guideline.  --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with both of you on this.  It sounds like you don't know what Vegas is; the result will be a totally illogical, incoherent sui generis mess.  We have enough of those on Wikipedia!  Wikipedia is about things that actually exist (like the City of Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Valley, and the Las Vegas metro area), not things that exist only in people's fantasies (some weird nonexistent conglomeration of just Paradise and the City of Las Vegas).  By proposing an article on something that doesn't actually exist, you're clearly violating Wikipedia's core policy against Wikipedia:No original research.  The more elegant solution is to simply keep the city article where it is at Las Vegas, Nevada and tighten its scope as needed (with appropriate brief disambiguation references to the articles on Las Vegas, Paradise, and the Strip for confused WP newbies), and have Las Vegas discuss the whole valley including the city and the Strip.--Coolcaesar (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how you can say this proposal is original research when the assertion that the term "Las Vegas" applies to the entire Valley is clearly one mislead and not accurate. The accompanying sources explicitly say Las Vegas Valley, Metropolitan Area, or Area.08OceanBeachS.D. 07:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, creating an area that is not used by anyone for anything is OR as it relates to the article's content.  This is especially egregious when you consider the fact that there are definitions that don't require this unique treatment.  Also your argument that the facts supporting this definition of Las Vegas are to 'misled (sic) and not accurate' is simply bogus.  The statements support what reliable sources mean when they use the term.  They clearly establish that they do not simply mean the city.  Likewise that clearly don't include a narrow area and they clearly include Henderson and NLV.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal is not to limit the scope of the expanded article to the city and the Strip; I agree that that is OR. "Las Vegas" clearly often refers to the entire Valley, but the epicenter of the Valley is the city + Strip area. Like a city article focuses a great deal of attention on the Downtown area, the expanded Las Vegas, Nevada article would focus largely on the city and Strip area, because that is undoubtedly the economic and cultural center of the region. But Henderson and NLV would be clearly mentioned in the article as part of the Valley. Since "Las Vegas Valley" would likely be a redirect to the expanded article, it needs to be broad in its scope. Rai•me 00:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

text: First, WP:NOR applies to article content; it does not apply to the process of selecting article titles, nor to the editorial decision of deciding article scope.  Second, the place most commonly known as "Las Vegas", and most commonly referred to as "Las Vegas" in reliable sources, though it may not be precisely defined, does actually exist.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Las Vegas the place not the city - Rai-me's excellent idea

message: I think it is fair to say, given the long discussion, that there is consensus to retain an article on the city however there is still a discussion on what the name of that article should be and maybe the content.  There should be an article, maybe a rewritten Las Vegas Valley, at the main name space with the current dab page there moving to Las Vegas (disambiguation).  That last part is what started this long discussion as the actual nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: I'm very disappointed by the no consensus decision.  If you were involved in this long and productive discussion, please let the closing admin know what you think at User_talk:Kilo-Lima#Las_Vegas_decision.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a complicated move discussion, and one of the alternatives would have gone against a naming convetion. "No consensus" isn't a surprising outcome.   Will Beback  talk   21:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I understand your frustration at me closing with a "no consensus", however I do stand by my decision. KiloT 22:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IAR would have allowed us to go against naming conventions. Las Vegas, with the exception of perhaps Miami, is a very unique case. 08OceanBeachS.D. 06:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but IAR requires a clear consensus.   Will Beback  talk   06:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no going against naming conventions, so IAR was not necessary. The place naming guidelines clearly indicate that Las Vegas (city), Nevada is the appropriate title for the article about the City of Las Vegas , since the city is not the primary topic of Las Vegas, Nevada. Rai•me 19:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How many other cities are named that way? It seems like an unconventional name.   Will Beback  talk   21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those where the usual City, State is not applicable; and if we were really going to follow naming conventions, Las Vegas would not have need of the 'Nevada addition. 08OceanBeachS.D. 22:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sort of uncharted waters. In any case, a more clearly defined move proposal might get a clear consensus.   Will Beback  talk   22:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus?