Talk:Caesars Entertainment

Requested move 19 July 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. consensus is to move the titles per nomination. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• Eldorado Resorts → Caesars Entertainment (2020)
• Caesars Entertainment Corporation → Harrah's Entertainment
• Caesars Entertainment, Inc. → Park Place Entertainment

– Caesars Entertainment to become a disambiguation page

Next week, Eldorado Resorts will complete its acquisition of Caesars Entertainment Corporation and will change its own name to "Caesars Entertainment, Inc." This will make three companies that have been named "Caesars Entertainment" over the years. This exacerbates an already bad disambiguation situation: "Inc." vs. "Corporation" is not a good way to distinguish two companies, because very few readers will already know which is which.

Both of the previous Caesars had other names that they used for a longer period of time: The first one was Park Place Entertainment for 5 years and then Caesars Entertainment for 2 years. The second one was Harrah's Entertainment for 15 years and then Caesars Entertainment for 10 years. So moving these two articles back to their old names comports nicely with WP:COMMONNAME (in the span of these companies' histories, there are presumably more sources using the name that they used for a longer time) and avoids recentism bias (there's no other reason to automatically prefer the final name used by a no-longer-extant company).

I'm not as sure about where to move the Eldorado Resorts article. It doesn't seem to have a good claim to being the primary topic, though perhaps it will in 10 years (when it will be the company that has used this name the longest). But there isn't a good natural disambiguation for it, and all the choices I can think of seem clunky: "Caesars Entertainment (2020)", "Caesars Entertainment (current)", "Caesars Entertainment (former Eldorado)". Toohool (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

And the acquisition and name change have been completed. Toohool (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Instead, I make this alternate proposal: the surviving company should be at the undisamiguated name, Caesars Entertainment, Inc., because the (2020) implies it only existed for one year (and (2020–) or (2020–?) are even worse). The "old" Caesars should have the years added, i.e. Caesars Entertainment (1990–2020). And of course hatnotes and disambiguation pages can be used to direct readers to the correct article. Please see how DuPont (surviving company that took a different company's name) and DuPont (1802–2017) (old company) are treated, or TCF Financial Corporation, TCF Financial Corporation (1923–2019) for another example consistent with the above. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: So if I understand right, your proposal is something like:

• Eldorado Resorts → Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
• Caesars Entertainment Corporation → Caesars Entertainment (1990–2020)
• Caesars Entertainment, Inc. → Caesars Entertainment (1998–2005)

I think that'll be quite confusing because of the overlapping lifespans of the two old Caesarses. (To be clear, they overlapped in existence but didn't overlap in the time they had the Caesars name.) That's why I suggested moving those articles back to their old names, which works nicely as a natural disambiguation in each case, since each company had its old name for at least half of its lifetime. (And natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation.) Toohool (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with the compromise to put the historical companies at their old names, as long as the current Caesars has no parenthetical disambiguator. Again, redirects and hatnotes will help get readers where they need to go. 14:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support There is no perfect answer here, but the proposal seems to work without the potential for too much confusion. Now that the others are former companies, it seems just as reasonable to have them at the proposed names as the final one they had in their lifetimes. I would probably also be ok with just having the current company at a non-disambiguated name.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, OhKayeSierra (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support both proposals in part I agree with UnitedStatesian that Eldorado Resorts should be moved to the undisambiguated name. However, I also see how the other parts of their proposal could cause to confusion. Thus, I would support the other two changes made in the original one. Hence:

• Eldorado Resorts → Caesars Entertainment
• Caesars Entertainment Corporation → Harrah's Entertainment
• Caesars Entertainment, Inc. → Park Place Entertainment. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with this. I don't think the "new" Caesars really meets the requirement of a primary topic, but I suppose the lack of a good unambiguous name justifies a departure from that policy in this case. Toohool (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

So this would be the same as the initial proposal, except with the parenthetical 2020 removed for the first one? If so I think that one could work too.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Should reflect the current company's name and operation. YborCityJohn (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support I support Toohool's recommendations. ~mitch~ (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• relisting comment this discussion has been open for a very long time, and this is the last relist. Alternate titles have been suggested, with no clear consensus to any one title (or set of titles). Pinging all the involved editors to form a consensus. @Toohool, UnitedStatesian, Yaksar, Presidentman, YborCityJohn, and Mitchellhobbs:. Also kindly ping any editor if I left someone out accidentally. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: @OhKayeSierra: {{relist}} is used deletion discussions :) —usernamekiran (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: It's fine for {{Relist}} to be user in conjunction with {{Relisting}} if the relister has a significant comment regarding why their relist occurred. But yeah, there's no comment there... Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Steel1943: yeah. I found about it just now. I did some reading after getting your ping. I used to think "relist" adds the discussion to Category:Relisted AfD debates and/or Wikipedia:Dashboard/Relisted AfD debates. Apparently I was mistaken. Maybe I was correct, and this discussion was removed from the above pages because it was relisted seven days ago? I am not sure. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I reviewed the code of {{Relist}}, and pages with {{Relist}} substituted on them get thrown into Category:Relisted AfD debates only if the page is a subpage of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The same claim apparently also applies to the category Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times. Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Steel1943: yup. I was doing the same :D See you around :) —usernamekiran (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought we had consensus for the set of moves listed above by Presidentman. Nobody has argued against them anyway. Toohool (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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

As a person who works with the company, I would oppose the changes. When someone searches for "Caesars Entertainment", the Harrah's Entertainment page and Caesars Entertainment 2020 pages show up in the search results. Also, the knowledge graph for the Harrah's Entertainment page displays. People will get confused because Harrah's Entertainment is not Caesars Entertainment. The Caesars Entertainment 2020 page is not even an actual page. It just shows the brand names that are associated with it. The Harrah's Entertainment page should revert back to Caesars Entertainment. The Caesars Entertainment 2020 page should be renamed to something different. Can something be done? Pinging @Toohool, UnitedStatesian, Yaksar, Presidentman, YborCityJohn, and Mitchellhobbs: Tawatson15 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tawatson15: I'm not really clear on what you mean. "Caesars Entertainment" has been the name of 3 different companies over the years, and those are 3 separate articles. If someone types that name, we don't know which of those 3 companies they're looking for, so that's why Caesars Entertainment is now a disambiguation page, which exists simply to help the user find the article they want. The company that currently has this name is covered at Caesars Entertainment (2020). The company that had this name up until a few months ago is covered at Harrah's Entertainment. How else would you propose to do it? Toohool (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toohool: We need to be very specific about brand names. "Caesars Entertainment" was the name of one company, not three. Harrah's Entertainment was the former name. If you look at the history of the company and look at press releases, you will learn about the company names they had at specific times. "Caesars Entertainment, Inc" (with the Inc included) was the company Harrah's acquired. Both brands merged together. Not sure if the brand stayed as "Harrah's Entertainment" or "Caesars Entertainment, Inc". But eventually both brands merged together and took on the name "Caesars Entertainment". As of right now, they are "Caesars Entertainment Corporation", though people will still search for "Caesars Entertainment". Eldorado should have their own page since people will search for Eldorado and want to know Eldorado's history before they merged with Caesars. Harrah's Entertainment and Caesars Entertainment are two different company names but Harrah's is NOT Caesars. Harrah's is the PREVIOUS name of Caesars Entertainment. My proposal would be to rename the Caesars Entertainment (2020) page to something like Caesars Entertainment Brand Names since right now, it looks like a page with a list of company names it is associated with. Create a brand new Caesars Entertainment Corporation page and copy everything on Harrah's Entertainment page over to it but put Caesars Entertainment's existing company info on it, not Harrah's. Like I said, Harrah's and Caesars are two different brand names.Tawatson15 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tawatson15: Sorry but that's inaccurate. "Caesars Entertainment" is not a brand, it's a company name that has been the name of 3 companies. "Caesars" is certainly a casino brand, but that's not the topic we're talking about. Park Place Entertainment changed its name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc. in 2003. Harrah's Entertainment bought Caesars Entertainment, Inc. in 2005, and its assets were folded into Harrah's; at that point, there was no Caesars Entertainment in existence. Then Harrah's changed its name to Caesars Entertainment Corporation in 2010. Then Eldorado Resorts bought Caesars Entertainment Corporation in 2020, and changed its own name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc. on the same day. Toohool (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toohool: Do you have an email I can contact you on? I can discuss with you further details via email. I can give you specific details. But wikipedia is a community-driven platform that can be edited at anytime by anyone. If details about a company on that company's wikipedia page are confusing or inaccurate, the company can't do much about it if the people on wikipedia disagree. The point is: When someone searches for Caesars Entertainment, Caesars Entertainment Inc, or Caesars Entertainment Corporation, the Harrah's Entertainment page should not show up and an actual Caesars Entertainment Corporation page should be created. "Then Eldorado Resorts bought Caesars Entertainment Corporation in 2020, and changed its own name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc. on the same day." According to the press release I read, that's true, however like I said. Harrah's Entertainment is not the correct name for Caesars Entertainment. Anybody working for Caesars Entertainment will tell you that. When someone searches for "Caesars Entertainment", a Caesars Entertainment page (whether Inc or Corporation) should show up, not a page showing what brand names it is associated with and definitely not a page displaying a name it was formerly known by. Tawatson15 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tawatson15: It's not considered appropriate on Wikipedia to discuss article content through off-site channels like email. I still don't understand what you think is inaccurate about the current situation. If you type "Caesars Entertainment" or "Caesars Entertainment, Inc." in the Wikipedia search bar, you will come to the disambiguation page, because those names are ambiguous. If you type "Caesars Entertainment Corporation", you will come to the article named Harrah's Entertainment, because that is the only one of the 3 companies that had "Corporation" in its name. There are not separate articles for Harrah's Entertainment and Caesars Entertainment Corporation, because those are two naames of the same thing. It would be like having separate articles for Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali. If you are looking for the page about the company currently named Caesars Entertainment, that is Caesars Entertainment (2020)... which for some reason you keep describing as "a page showing what brand names it is associated with", but that's not what the article looks like at all. It gives you the history the company and a list of the properties the company operates. What is the problem with that? Toohool (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toohool: I'm talking about if you search "Caesars Entertainment" in google. Caesars Entertainment has a high search volume in Google. Again, Harrah's Entertainment and Caesars Entertainment are NOT the same company. Any executive at Caesars Entertainment can tell you that but feel free to say they are the same.

This is what it is on the Caesars Entertainment (2020) page:

Caesars Entertainment has been the name of several casino companies:

• Caesars Entertainment (2020), formerly Eldorado Resorts
• Harrah's Entertainment, named Caesars Entertainment Corporation from 2010 to 2020
• Park Place Entertainment, named Caesars Entertainment, Inc., from 2003 to 2005

That is not the history of the company. That is a list of the names that Caesars Entertainment has been associated with. Caesars Entertainment doesn't operate Harrah's Entertainment. Harrah's Entertainment is the previous name. Tawatson15 (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tawatson15: We at Wikipedia don't control Google's search rankings, we only control what we do here. As for the rest of it, sorry, but I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. So I'm going to take it one thing at a time. Do you acknowledge that there have been three companies named Caesars Entertainment? Toohool (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toohool: The feeling is mutual. I feel like I am talking to someone who is asserting they know everything about a certain company and completely ignoring what I am trying to say. Wikipedia has an impact on Google's ranking. You don't control but Wikipedia as a resource platform has an impact on Google. No, I do not acknowledge that there have been three companies named Caesars Entertainment. I do acknowledge there have have been multiple different company names with "Caesars Entertainment" in them but not "Caesars Entertainment" specifically. Tawatson15 (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tawatson15:, Nice to meet you! From what I am reading on your first edits on this subject you have a conflict of interest. Toohool has been very patient on explaining wiki process's on editing. We base our information on RS, you represent a primary source. I would suggest reading these three links before you continue this conversation on this talk page ~ you might have a better understanding of how we edit here. Once again nice to meet you. Regards ~mitch~ (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs:, Nice to meet you as well! My justification on my proposal is based on what I know from actually working with the company and my expertise in how Wikipedia's content affects Google's search results. A lot of people have no idea how much impact Wikipedia has on the search results in Google. If you search for a person or brand, a wikipedia page will pop up most of the time. As I mentioned before, Harrah's Entertainment and the current Caesars Entertainment, Inc. brand are two different names. I had no idea any of these page changes existed until I was informed that the logo in the knowledge graph showing up when you search for Caesars Entertainment in Google was incorrect. I then noticed it was the Harrah's Entertainment page that was showing up, not a Caesars Entertainment page and I got confirmation from an executive that the name "Harrah's Entertainment" was not the correct name that should show up for "Caesars Entertainment". It seems my efforts to make this clear on Wikipedia are not doing so well and as such, I won't continue. It's up to the community to decipher what is correct and not correct if changes cannot be made. I will do my best to edit the current Harrah's Entertainment page to display correct and non-confusing information which can sometimes be difficult since my edits can be reverted by anyone at anytime. Tawatson15 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Toohool: No hard feelings! It seems we might have different perspectives on this. I'll let the community figure out what is correct and incorrect when they browse the pages. I do appreciate you responding to my comments though. Tawatson15 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Tawatson15:, Just to help you out and it has nothing to do on Wiki's part. As you said when you google "caesars entertainment", the info box that comes up shows "Caesars Entertainment - Entertainment company" with Caesars logo, below I see that as far as a description of Caesars you see information of "Harrah's Entertainment". This is a Google problem. If you would go to the bottom of the info box and click on "feedback" It would highlight edit boxes on what is incorrect information, if you click on the Wiki box another pop up will ask you to give feedback ~ If it was me I would click on the "other" tab and describe exactly what is happening, maybe like ~ Harrah's Entertainment information is showing instead of Caesars Entertainment (2020). just a suggestion. Regards ~mitch~ (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tawatson15:, just an adder ~ after you get to the last pop up box ~ if you would click on the "learn more" next to "If you are the subject of or official representative of an entity depicted in this knowledge panel, you can claim this panel and suggest changes" ~ it might get you quicker results. ~ Regards ~mitch~ (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mitchellhobbs: Great suggestion! I've submitted edits for Google My Business listings that showed incorrect info but have little experience with wikipedia. Very interesting. I'll try it out. Maybe that will be a better solution. Had I known this was an option I could do, I wouldn't have spent the last several days arguing about all of this. My apologies! I appreciate your response!. Tawatson15 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

---

• Caesars Entertainment (2020) → Caesars Entertainment
• Caesars Entertainment → Caesars Entertainment (disambiguation)

– (over dab) Reopening the above discussion from 18 mos. ago: even though there have been multiple companies named "Caesars Entertainment", the article on the current company should be located at the unqualified title (with hatnotes/dab's/redirects used to assist navigation to the others). And the present (2020) disambiguator is now terrible in 2022; makes it seem like this company only existed for one year and no longer exists? I think a careful reader of the 2020 rm discussion would conclude that this title does not conform to the consensus of that discussion. My proposed titling is consistent with how we have titled the DuPont (1802–2017)/DuPont pair, which is an identical case. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The currently named company should be the primary. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. Some time has passed, and although I still think the no primary option works, pageviews are more than 50% for the former Eldorado. The current dabpage should be kept and moved to Caesars Entertainment (disambiguation). Note that Category:Caesars Entertainment (2020) will also need to be moved. 162 etc. (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support. I agree there is a problem but don't have a better solution. Assuming Caesars Entertainment (2020) becomes Caesars Entertainment, a redirect notice should be provided pointing to the new dabpage. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: requested move of associated dab page per above !votes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

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

RS notes re: content removal

@Toohool About that removed "largest" statement... I hadn't doubted those 2 sources, AP and CBS News, thinking both legit WP:RS, so not "thinly sourced", and wasn't venturing into WP:ORIG.

AP: "...Caesars Entertainment — the largest casino owner in the world — confirmed..."

CBS: "Caesars is the largest casino owner in the world, with more than 65 million Caesars Rewards members... The disclosure by Caesars came after MGM Resorts International, the largest casino company in Las Vegas, reported publicly on Monday..."

Sorry, that was good enough for me, especially with the comparison to MGM, but, I now see your "dubious" point, finding nothing much to back up those media statements. Looks like the old RS just aren't what they used to be and so extra research beyond a second RS is needed to support even major media statements. Good to know.X CP X (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it always depends on the context. News organizations are great sources for contemporaneous facts. But when their articles include off-hand remarks about prior events or tangential bits of analysis, it's usually better to look for a stronger source to confirm.

They might have meant that Caesars operates more casinos than any other company. Which may be true, but hard to confirm, because there are companies like Novomatic that have lots of casinos but don't publish a list of them all, and there can be different views of what constitutes a casino, such as the small slot parlors found in the UK and elsewhere. It does seem pretty clear that they operate the most casinos of any US company, which may be worth mentioning in the lede, if a source can be found. Also, being the second-largest US casino company by revenue could be lede-worthy. Toohool (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)