Wikipedia

Talk:Las Vegas (disambiguation)

Latest comment: 12 years ago by RegentsPark in topic Requested move, May 2012
Learn more about this page

Requested move 3

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments12 people in discussion
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: page not moved: no consensus in 15 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Las Vegas → Las Vegas (disambiguation) – This is what we all agreed to in the previous discussion. Hopefully this will not be as much the train wreck as the last discussion was, and we can get it closed quickly. Let's save discussion about "City of Las Vegas" until after this is closed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Beepoppab, then you actually Oppose the move, and should change your vote. Look what the move request proposes. Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support the first two and oppose the third. The question here is what is the primary topic. The AP list is not a guide for primary topics as some might have you believe. Page hits here are of limited value since in the past a large number of links to Las Vegas were incorrectly disambiguated to the city article even though they have nothing to do with the city (yea, something over 10,00 probably need cleaning up). Las Vegas or Vegas is a brand, it is a destination. How many entertainment events happen in the city? Close to zero, consider the NHL awards or the last week's Miss America contest. How about sporting events other then minor league baseball? The primary use Las Vegas is the valley and not the city. A few weeks ago I watched a concert on Lake Las Vegas. I believe it was Michael Buble. Did he say 'hello Henderson'?, No, he said 'hello Las Vegas' since that was his 'Las Vegas' stop. From cleaning out the incoming links to the current dab page, it is clear that the city is the intended destination for only a small percentage of the links. That alone says something about what is not the primary use. Simply put, Las Vegas describes several different places, even in Nevada. This weekend's Electric Daisy Carnival is billed as being in Las Vegas, but it is not in the city, it is not in a township, but as far as I can tell it is in unincorporated Clark County. As for the closest city, I believe that is the city of North Las Vegas. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. On the contrary, after taking extensive thought on the matter, Las Vegas should not remain a disambiguation page. The French seem to have the idea down as fr:Las Vegas is about the valley. Once this proposal goes through, we can discuss the Las Vegas (city)/City of Las Vegas matter more extensively. The only thing I might ask is that a separate metropolitan statistical area page is created strictly for government purposes. 08OceanBeachS.D. 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support a move of the Valley article to Las Vegas and a move of the city article to Las Vegas (city), Nevada. But note that I strongly oppose Will Beback and Vegaswikian's proposal to move the Valley article to "Las Vegas" and leave the city at "Las Vegas, Nevada". Having a Las Vegas article and a separate Las Vegas, Nevada article would be far too confusing; I think even the existing dab page is better than this solution, as at least the distinction is clearer. I still prefer the option of merging the Valley article into the existing Las Vegas, Nevada article, moving that expanded page to Las Vegas, and then creating a new Las Vegas (city), Nevada article. Rai•me 03:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
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.

Request for Comment - primary topic?

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago69 comments21 people in discussion

Is the city in Nevada the primary topic for Las Vegas? Answer yes or no, and please explain a no answer with an alternative or by stating there is none. Las Vegas is currently a disambiguation page. Two previous move requests to change this have gone nowhere. While everyone agreed that keeping Las Vegas a disambiguation page is not acceptable, what the Las Vegas page should be failed to reach consensus. The primary argument for Las Vegas as primary topic is that it is by far the largest city of that name and nearly all non-city uses of the term are named for the city (such as the TV show. The primary argument against it is that the Las Vegas Strip, where the most famous landmarks are located, is not in the city limits. Let's get this settled and have Las Vegas actually go someplace instead of disambiguation. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC) - Revised rationale to correct statement about disambig page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Yes Since I didn't state my opinion above, I'm stating it here. The exclusion of the strip from city limits has nothing to do with whether it's part of the city. It's has more to do with local politics, likely a way for casinos to keep their taxes low, and no one outside the city really cares about those local politics. City and county governments often have idiotic boundaries (look at Los Angeles) and shouldn't be trusted to tell us anything. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, city in Nevada the primary topic for Las Vegas. That the Las Vegas Strip is outside the city limits doesn't seem to alter the fact. It is called Las Vegas Strip because of its proximity to the city. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes. I've read the various proposals above, and the pros/cons arguments. I'm persuaded that the example set by Los Angeles should be followed for Las Vegas related articles. In other words, Las Vegas article should be about the city, and there should be a Las Vegas (disambiguation) disambig article. I've lived in the United States my entire life, and "Las Vegas", in the overwhelming majority of usages, means the city, not the valley, and not the strip. The fact that the strip is outside the city limits is not too significant: the same thing can be said for the city of Los Angeles: L.A. city is rather small, and many (most?) usages of "Los Angeles" actually mean "Greater Los Angeles Area", yet it would be perverse to have the article Los Angeles cover greater L.A. --Noleander (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, for same reasons mentioned above. I generally find taking people to a DAB page to start is a useless exercise unless there are truly multiple primary topics. Here, the primary topic is clearly the settlement; all the other articles relate to the city and are not distinctly unique primary topics. -epicAdam(talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. There are a number of people in the previous moves who have made it clear that they believe there is no primary topic for "Las Vegas". The sentence in the RfC statement that " everyone agreed that keeping Las Vegas a disambiguation page is not acceptable" is clearly mistaken. I don't even see a consensus for that in the previous move request threads. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • No. No one, except in a governmental context, uses "Las Vegas" to refer to the city alone. The city of Los Angeles is sometimes used by people outside the area, although I think the intersection of the metro area and the county may actually be more common. The valley (which, in reality, is a subset of the metro area; the valley does not include Henderson) or the metro areas are the only potential primary topics, and I'm not at all sure that either is primary. Las Vegas or Las Vegas (Nevada) should remain a disambiguation page, not necessarily the same page as Las Vegas, Nevada. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I hear what you are saying, but for a very, very famous place like Las Vegas, it is not friendly to readers to make them type in "Las Vegas" in the WP search field, show them a disambig page, and then make them click a link in the disambig page: readers should be able to get to an article in a single step. Isn't that what the "primary topic" test is all about? The city article can have a disambig template at the top steering readers to other articles. --Noleander (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Only if the city is truly what is know as the primary use Las Vegas! I'm reminded of the sign on I-15 in California inviting everyone to the place that Vegas began. And it is not the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
True, but that sort of trade-off is made all the time in WP: Should Los Angeles go to a disambig page, so users can see the full breadth of interpretations? or should it go to the city article, so users at least can see some article immediately? I understand your point: but I see it not as black-or-white, but rather as a weighing of what is best for the readers. --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
A careful reading of the the previous discussions is that
  • the dab page needs to be moved
  • the city is not the primary topic
  • Las Vegas Valley is the primary topic
Where the previous discussion broke down was try to also
So the RFC would be better focused if the consensus from the previous discussions was presented in a clear and unbiased manner and that was used as the starting point. Oh, and no LA should not go to a dab page. The county article or the Greater Los Angeles Area should be the main topic. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes as per Noleander's point above. It seems like the best way to go would be to have the Las Vegas article about the city, and a separate disambig page. Kessy628 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • 'Move to close since the RFC misrepresents the previous discussions. The last one failed because the requester of this RFC said one thing in the nomination (which would have passed) and yet proposed exactly the opposite in the discussion. This is also forum shopping since this is the third time in 2 months that this has been discussed to death. Editors are tired of this discussion and this should be left alone for a while. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
If the RfC text is flawed: it should be fixed, although I dont see any significant flaw. I agree with Rubin that the " everyone agreed that keeping Las Vegas a disambiguation page is not acceptable" claim is not accurate, but that doesnt seem to impact the RfC. More importantly: the RfCs are designed to draw in uninvolved editors (such as myself) rather than the same old denizens of the Talk page. Closing this would exterminate the entire purpose of the RfC: to get input from new editors. --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it's exactly forum shopping; making a new proposal a month or so after a "no consensus" result doesn't seem out of line. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. Waiting at least six months would have shown more respect for Wikipedia's consensus-driven processes. Repeatedly initiating RfCs on the same issue smells awfully suspicious and looks like attrition tactics.--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Coolcaesar, waiting six months would be appropriate to change consensus. In this case, we failed to reach consensus twice. A repeated failure to reach consensus is exactly what RfC is for. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I find it interesting that you did not deny you are engaging in attrition tactics. Your record will catch up with you someday. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Excuse me? I think WP:AGF applies here. I never said it was attrition tactics, and I didn't deny because you never made that accusation in the first place. In summary, we had multiple no consensus results. I want this resolved. I find another way to find consensus. RfCs are great, because the overall community overwhelms the small core of regular editors, who often aren't neutral about the topic and have opinions that don't match the wider community. Regular editors of China, for example, don't consider the People's Republic a legit government, and have fought having it recognized as such on Wikipedia. The RfC at Talk:China knocked some sense into them. All the yes votes here tell me the same thing is happening for Las Vegas. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
"I want this resolved. I find another way." Sounds like attrition to me. For you to assert WP:AGF is breathtakingly disingenuous. The consensus was that there was no consensus. You're the one who can't accept that. So your tactic is to initiate an RfC in the hope of bringing in enough users unfamiliar with the topic to "overwhelm the small core of regular editors." Keep it up, you're "winning" in the way that Charlie Sheen is "winning." --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
As usual, you are failing to actually read what the history here is. It is not simply that there was no consensus for your repeated requests which are clearly a violation of WP:POINT and forum shopping, you are simply ignoring the fact that the current situation is in place as the result of consensus! These repeated attempts to try and keep changing without reading the history of this shows that you only have one goal which Coolcaesar seems to have pointed out. The second RM request and now the RFC to override a long standing consensus decision is what is not acceptable. Yes consensus can change, but editors need to understand why something exists when you present the RFC. I too opened an RFC recently on a topic that was actually causing issues. However in that one, the introduction presents the issues in what I think is a clear and unbiased manner. This RFC fails to do that. It makes it sound like a simple yes or or no answer which you know is not the case. Your proposed solution relies on bastardizing the city article to include a population 3 times the size of the city and to include 2 other cities and the 90% of the hotel rooms that are not in the city and so on. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes. The city is the primary topic as explained in the above supporting comments and the following reasoning: places in the immediate vicinity derive there name from the city, places within the region are advertised as being in Las Vegas, even though they may lie outside of the city limits. The disambiguation page is inappropriate in the place of Las Vegas when clearly there is a primary topic. 08OceanBeachS.D. 23:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, the city in Nevada is the primary topic. The disambig text at the top of the city's article and a separate disambig page should be enough to explain the other uses. Ibanez100 (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • No. The current disambiguation page is adequate. And this RfC should be closed immediately as frivolous. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes make Las_Vegas,_Nevada the target. It got 143024 page views! Las Vegas strip only got 76697. Las Vegas Valley isn't even on th map (pun intended) with 12468.– Lionel (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Page views is not valid in this case do to previous page moves. There are over 10,000 incorrect links to the city article that resulted from a bad disambiguation page and previous page moves. If you want to use page views, please cleanup all of the inbound links to the city article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Vegas, you're the only one who thinks these links are "incorrect", and every "incorrect" link is a yes vote in this discussion. Here's the scenario: An editor mentions Las Vegas in an edit. Clicks the link to check it. Sees that it's a disambiguation page. Changes the link to Las Vegas, Nevada. Multiply by 10,000 and there's your "incorrect" links. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, I think this argument is pointless. If you live in the eastern part of the country, and think of Las Vegas, you think of Las Vegas the city. SOXROX (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    You may think you're thinking about the city, but you're really thinking of the metro area, for which we do not have an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, so when someone says Las Vegas, they're talking about Henderson and Boulder? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes The "metro area" argument is something of a canard; every city has a metro area which is referred to in common parlance with the name of the city. Certainly, the term "Las Vegas" is inclusive of the metro area, but the city is the primary topic, and the topic from which the blanket term has emerged. Infoboxes on city pages even include population estimates for the metro area as a whole, and the history sections rarely exclude important events because they just happened to occur one block over across the city limits (the Chicago history section makes no bones about mentioning Al Capone despite the fact that his base of operations was in Cicero). The example of Los Angeles is quite pertinent, also. siafu (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes Speaking as someone who has never been to Las Vegas, nevermind the states, I would expect and hope to immediately find the article Las_Vegas, Nevada for the city upon searching Las Vegas. This should definitely be the primary topic. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 23:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • So your view that everything is in the city should control what is the primary topic? Exactly what proof do you have that the city is or should be the primary topic? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • WP:Place states that when a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. I know that doesn't make it the primary topic, but the generally held impression given by Las Vegas worldwide is for the city called Las Vegas. I know that within the states and within nevada people will possibly be thinking of the metro area or another type of area known as Las Vegas. But since Las Vegas (especially when use outside of North America) generally refers to the city, it would make sense to have the article point there. Also, please remember that an RfC is intended for comment from neutral parties and the hostile attitude you are taking is making that difficult here. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 00:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • Actually the advertising is for Las Vegas and not the City of Las Vegas. What is marketed is a brand and a resort destination. That place is mostly outside of the city and that is where people go. It is the economic engine that drives things, both locally and for the state. So that is clearly the primary topic. Not sure what your reference to WP:PLACE is suppose to prove. That does not really say anything about how to name things based on disambiguation when there are multiple uses for a specific name. The fact that people in Europe don't understand that they are not going to a city simply makes the point that the articles should be correctly named and located so that the encyclopedia educates and does not reenforce incorrect assumptions. By the way, the city article is at the correct place based on the established naming conventions. I guess part of the problem here is that the RFC itself makes false statements that lead to the conclusion that the city is in fact the primary topic. Statements like The primary argument for Las Vegas as primary topic is that it is by far the largest city of that name and nearly all non-city uses of the term are named for the city (such as the TV show are simply false (other then it is the largest city with that name). So in my opinion, this just leads people into saying yes assuming that the request is unbiased and accurate. Clearly not the case here. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
          • Vegas, you continually fail to make any case that Las Vegas is different than the hundreds of other large cities that are primary topics. If Vegas is a brand, so is every city with heavy tourism. New York is a brand, Boston is a brand, Paris is a brand, so what makes Las Vegas different? Also, please justify that my statements are false. Looking at the disambig page, only the towns in New Mexico and Ecuador and the ancient culture in Ecuador are not named for the city in Nevada (arguably even the nearby natural features are named for the early Mormom settlement that is today's city). Everything named after the strip is named for the city, as the strip is named after the city. BTW, the city article is not in the correct place, the naming conventions say to omit the state name when AP does so, and AP omits the Nevada. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
            • You are the one making the case that that city is the primary topic without providing any evidence to refute what has been presented in the past showing that clearly the city is not the primary topic. As for justifying your statements as false, how do you know that Las Vegas (TV series) is named or the city? What percentage of the scenes are shot in the city? What percentage of opening title sequence is hot in the city? Exactly where in the city is the Montecito Resort & Casino located? As to different, please read the past discussions where this is made quite clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
              • Concur with Vegaswikian. Also, New York, Boston, and Paris are all bad analogies because when you're standing in Times Square, or walking the Liberty Trail, or sightseeing on the Champs-Elysee, you are actually in the City of New York, the City of Boston, and the City of Paris. (I have visited all three of those cities at least twice, and caught connecting flights in New York to other destinations many, many times.) When you're watching the fountains at Bellagio, shopping at Fashion Show Mall, or viewing another Cirque du Soleil show, you are not in the City of Las Vegas, but rather, an unincorporated township under the jurisdiction of the Clark County Commission. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
                • Regardless, the cities are all still "brands." No doubt places outside of the Paris city limits are advertised as being "in Paris." Another example of advertisement, places are frequently advertised as being "in Miami" when in fact they can be found in Miami Beach. Miami is not located at Miami, Florida simply because the Beach is often being referred to. The same can apply with Las Vegas and the Las Vegas Strip. It would seem the vast majority, outside of the usual group of Las Vegas editors, concur that the city is the primary topic. Why don't we stick to the AP style guide for naming cities. 08OceanBeachS.D. 06:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • No Before I stumbled upon this I was under the impression that the strip was in the city. If that was the case then the city would be the primary target. Is there any more mileage to be gained discussing moving Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas with hat notes to the strip and Las Vegas (disambiguation). Otherwise the current set up will have to suffice. AIRcorn (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes (qualified). I don't present evidence here, but I do present an argument based on a number of assertions that I'd be happy to support with evidence if they are genuinely doubted and questioned.

    The problem of the primary city name being commonly used to refer to a broader area than the city proper is not unique to Las Vegas. It's true from London to Paris to Moscow, and from Portland, Oregon to Portland, Maine. The argument that the city proper is not the primary topic for a given city name could be made just as strongly for a myriad of other cities. And it's not just big cities. The main city on the Monterey Peninsula is Monterey, California, but Monterey is commonly used to refer to the entire Peninsula, but that link still redirects to the city. Just like people going to Caesars Palace are likely to say they are going to Las Vegas, people staying in the Peninsula cities of Pacific Grove or Carmel are still likely to say they are going to Monterey.

    So, based on the precedent set by virtually every other city article in WP, yes, the City of Las Vegas is the primary topic for "Las Vegas".

    That said, I would not limit the scope of this article (or any other city article) to the strict city limits. The strip and the valley each deserve sections, and if we ever create an article for the metro area, that deserves a section too. Why? Because these topics are sufficiently related to the main topic to be mentioned in the article - it's similar to how we mention closely related people (children, parents and siblings) in articles about people. Similarly, places "closely related" to the place which is the topic of an article should be mentioned in that article. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment. I suggest the consensus here is clearly that Las Vegas is the primary topic, at least as much as many if not most cities are the primary topics for their names, and so to move Las Vegas to Las Vegas (disambiguation) and make Las Vegas a link to Las Vegas, Nevada. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • No. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • That was easy. Clearly it has been established that the city is not the primary topic. The question here as proposed ignores primary usage and is really a question about the common name for the city. If you do some digging you would see that when the El Rancho Vegas was opened it began a trend for the casinos to be located outside of the city. While many think that this area was named after the city, that is WP:OR since the city, valley, rail stop and the strip where named after the name given to the area by the Spanish. That type of logic would be fine if this was Thinkopedia and not a factual Wikipedia. So ask a faulty question or one designed to extract a wrong answer from editors who don't really do research into the details. Consider the fact that population growth outside of Vegas grew faster then in the city for most of the time after 1941 and for some periods before then. Did this have anything to do with the fact that the Vegas as people know it was really the areas outside of the city? Bottom line is that while the city it commonly called Las Vegas, the primary use for Las Vegas is the brand and destination which holds the 95% of the rooms, casinos and tourists that don'tgo to the city. It is the destination that the media call simply Las Vegas. Look at who markets Las Vegas, hint it is not the city! To this point the only evidence that has been provided has been about why the city is not the primary topic. Nothing to support the city has been presented. As I have stated in the past, incoming links to Las Vegas are mostly for the brand and not the city which gets all of a generous 5% or so. The edit history is there to support this. One other point. If you look at all of the supporting articles, they are for the area and not the city. So clearly the fact that the Las Vegas Valley is the primary topic is recognized by many other articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes. Every major American city is used, to some extent, synonymously with its metropolitan area. Yet, Los Angeles, for example, is not made into a disambig page just because people's idea of LA might include Beverly Hills and Santa Monica. Las Vegas is not unique in this respect, and there's no reason to handle it differently from other cities. Toohool (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes per many comments above, including Toohoo1. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • No, insofar as most of what makes "Las Vegas" famous is outside of the city. This is quite unlike other metropolitan areas. Most of what makes Boston, or New York, or London famous is in the city proper. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • In that sense it is a bit different, but it doesn't matter. What people mean when they say or write "Las Vegas" is usually (its primary meaning) the city in a broad sense that extends beyond the strict political city limits to include the strip. By including a section on the strip in the "Las Vegas" article (or the article to which it redirects), we are accurately reflecting that primary use. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment - RfCs normally go for 30 days,, so there are about five more days to go on this one. Then, if it looks sensible, a Request for Move may be initiated, based on the RfC comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply


Requested move, May 2012

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago73 comments22 people in discussion
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 Reading moved as requested. The move case is much stronger than the not move case. Reading the discussion, it appears that there are three main candidates for the name 'Las Vegas': The city, the strip, and the valley. Assuming that Las Vegas Valley is probably far from the minds of most readers and that they are looking either for the strip or the city, and that they generally believe that the strip is in the city, the solution proposed by powers below, that the strip be included as a linked section in the city article, is the best one. Both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are polices with usage rather than pedantic accuracy in mind and, if users confabulate the strip and the city, then we should take that into account, point the page to the obvious candidate (the Las Vegas that is in the minds of the reader as several editors have implicitly suggested), and include the strip in that article. --regentspark (comment) 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Relisted. Lynch7 18:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

– Las Vegas remains the last outpost of the absurd U.S. city naming convention from awhile back that dictated that every single U.S. city reside at "[name], [state]", no matter how well-known they are. Despite there being apparent consensus in the RFC above for righting this wrong, this still has not been rectified, bulwarked by another dead-end RFC, topped off by an impassioned local explaining the intricacies of the area.

Simply put, the article currently at Las Vegas, Nevada is precisely what one should see if one goes to Las Vegas. All this nonsense about people really thinking of the Las Vegas Strip or the Las Vegas Valley or McCarren Airport or the Bellagio or something else is neither here nor there. There's nothing special about Las Vegas and, as was suggested when the ridiculous U.S. city naming convention was eradicated a few years ago, U.S. cities in general. Nearly every major city in the world has the issue of people not intimately familiar with the city referring to places not technically in that city as actually being there. Nearly every major city in the world has much smaller cities or films or whatever named after them. And, yet somehow we have no qualms about putting major cities at their simple, straightforward titles.

Except for Las Vegas.

We do a serious disservice to readers when we direct readers to a disambiguation page or, worse, to the Valley page because we, a bunch of nitpickers, know better than them what they are looking for. The principle of least astonishment ought to apply; when I type in Las Vegas, I expect to see an article about Las Vegas -- even if that's not the location of the hotel, airport, attraction, or house I'm thinking of. It's about time we make that a reality. -- tariqabjotu 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

And I fully admit that I crossed the line on this, with apologies D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • Support, as nominator. -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support; the nomination says it all. When people type in "Las Vegas", they want the page which is currently at "Las Vegas, Nevada". The name of the city is "Las Vegas"; "Nevada" is not part of its name. I would also point out the obvious WP:COMMONNAME... bobrayner (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Move, and enjoy your flame war. Here we go again... D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment For a possible alternative, see City of London versus London. In London, the legal entity is tiny and not what anyone considers "London". There's a small element of this to Las Vegas, but I don't think Vegas justifies this treatment. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong Oppose No, when you here the word Las Vegas do you think of the city or the strip? I'd say 60% of people think the strip, 40% think the real city. Remember, that the Las Vegas Strip is not part of city limits (save one hotel). Like London, the legal entity is somewhat small. And, BTW, this is brought up all the time, and it ends with the same result and no offense, but it has gotten rather annoying and very lame. YE Pacific Hurricane 13:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong Support. It doesn't matter that most people think the strip is in the city, or sometimes refer to the entire valley as "Las Vegas". The strip and valley each require separate sub-articles anyway, but the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is the city proper. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support like a steel-reinforced jockstrap. ("Strong" support ain't good enough in these parts....) I'd say when most people hear the term "Las Vegas" they are thinking of a city in Nevada. When most people hear "Los Angeles" they are thinking of a city in southern California. In both cases, I doubt most readers have a clue one way or the other where the actual city limits are, or whether particular landmarks they may be familiar with happen to fall within those city limits. Indeed, some of them may be looking for the article so that they can learn these facts. Frankly, virtually every city of any size in the entire world has a metropolitan area associated with it that extends further than the legal city limits, and some people may associate places within that wider metro area with the city. In each case, the city is still the primary topic. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment. For those who are suggesting support I'll ask you do something. Go to what links here for the city article. Then go about 6,000 entries in and select at random about 25 of those. Then review those articles and see how many of them are really about about something in the city. When done report your results back here. Please don't use road or airline articles in this since policy has those always linking to the largest city in the area. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Vegaswikian, every single discussion you've used this argument, and every single time you've convinced no one. Give it a rest. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • This does not help your point. What you're saying is that people go out of their way to link to Las Vegas, Nevada (rather than just Las Vegas), even though that's not the geographically correct location. This move request will do nothing to change that, and, in fact, it just codifies what that point demonstrates is true: no one, except for maybe a few people very close to the city, cares that the places referenced are not actually in Las Vegas. The writers of those articles know, by making the effort of linking (often pipe-linking) to the article about the city (rather than carelessly linking to just Las Vegas), that people want to see the article currently at Las Vegas, Nevada. Not Las Vegas Valley, not Las Vegas Strip, not Paradise, Nevada -- even if those are more "correct". -- tariqabjotu 21:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • No you are assuming that editors have and do link as described. That is a fact that we really don't know if it is true. What I will state is that when the dab page was badly constructed a lot of helpful corrections were made based on the false impression that Las Vegas always meant the city. Those were never cleaned up so they skew the results. Also, I suspect, but can not prove, many editors when they see the dab page they don't read and say it must be the city and change the link. That problem would disappear if Las Vegas Valley were moved to Las Vegas. Most editors and readers would be informed and educated by where they wind up. If they also want to read about the city or another topic they can follow the hat note links. Remember that the Valley article is correct almost everytime while the city is not even close! Vegaswikian (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment for the nominator. You really should also list the past discussions on this topic and the results. This is not the first time this nomination has been made. The last one was only 5 months ago. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    I linked to the last move request. The one before that is just a couple sections up. Anyone who cares to see what happened before then can continue back in the archives, but I don't see why what other people said more than a year ago should have a significant effect on the opinions of people now. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Makes perfect sense. Most people looking up Las Vegas would be looking for the city regardless on whether they think the strip is in the city or isn't. Easily rectified by putting a hat note at the top for those that wanted the strip itself. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per nominator. I don't think I could've said it better. Hot Stop 20:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Having Las Vegas as a disambig is apparently meant to force editors to think about whether they mean to link to the city, the Valley, the Strip, etc. But as tariq explains above, the fact is that editors largely just go ahead and link the city article, even if that's not technically correct, so the Las Vegas disambig isn't even achieving its goal. Instead of expecting editors to be nitpicky about a distinction that most don't care about, let's just give them what they want, which is the city article. The solution to the problem of, say, Caesars Palace linking to the city article is for the city article to not be religiously focused only on what's inside the city limits. Toohool (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment: I think there is a very similar issue for Halifax, Nova Scotia. I very strongly agree that non-residents of Las Vegas or Nevada who merely want to link to Las Vegas (for instance while editing the André Agassi article) should not be forced to take a crash course in local municipal structures and hierarchies just to be able to add one sentence to an otherwise completely unrelated Wikipedia article. I'm not opposed to the proposed solution, but maybe an alternative would be to create a landing page of sorts that is not a mere disambiguation page, with the usual barebones terse bulletpoint style and limit of one bluelink per line and grab-bag listing of any article title that happens to contain a particular word (eg, sports teams, etc), but rather a brief one-or-two paragraph description limited to a small set of "city-like" choices. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose – the combination of a main disambig page and the "city, state" naming convention seems like the perfect way to handle this very ambiguous name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
What's ambiguous about it, other than confusing local politics that no one outside Nevada cares about? Portland is ambiguous. But there is no doubt what someone means when they say Las Vegas. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
What's ambiguous about "Las Vegas" is well described at Las Vegas (disambiguation). Dicklyon (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Again. The only credible argument in favor is that when people (including editors unfamiliar with the topic, including the nominator) refer to "Las Vegas", they think they are referring to the city. The fact that they are almost always wrong makes WP:COMMONNAME a strong argument in favor of this being a disambiguation page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    How does WP:COMMONNAME provide an argument, let alone a strong one, for keeping the disambiguation page? There is no dispute about what Las Vegas is actually or commonly called, and that part of policy is largely irrelevant. Much more appropriate here is Wikipedia:Primary topic, which says:

    A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

    Let me repeat the last part, as it's the key here: to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. What you and Vegaswikian (and others) seem to be arguing is that there should be no primary topic, because the article people think they want to find is not precise or accurate. Setting people geographically straight is not something that should be done through a disambiguation page. The primary topic, the topic most likely (above all the others listed here) to be sought by readers when they search for "Las Vegas" is, without a doubt, the one currently at Las Vegas, Nevada -- even if that doesn't actually denote the geopolitically accurate location. Going into the intricacies of borders and informing people of the common misconception is something that can be done in the article on the city. -- tariqabjotu 15:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    You're right that it's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I was confused by the fact that B2C almost always improperly uses WP:COMMONNAME for his naming decisions. Still, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC shows that you're wrong. When people enter "Las Vegas", they usually want information about the strip, but sometimes downtown, or the metropolitian area, and rarely the actual city. This applies whether or not they think they are looking for the city. This means basically, that, if an article on the city were to be at Las Vegas, it should contain most of the information presently in Las Vegas metropolitan area. Because of our conventions, an article on the city should be at Las Vegas, Nevada, although one could find reasonable justification for City of Las Vegas or City of Las Vegas, Nevada, or possibly even Las Vegas (city), Nevada. One could not find justification for an article on the city being at Las Vegas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
The problem with Las Vegas, Nevada serving as disambiguation is that all the strip, valley and most other topics are in Nevada, too. Everyone agrees that the ambiguity is not between Las Vegas, NV and some other city called Las Vegas somewhere else. It's ambiguity between the city limits and the wider area. If this is where the disambiguation is needed, then City of Las Vegas or Las Vegas (city) is a lot better way to do it - it disambiguates the only thing that actually needs disambiguation. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. I guess the simple answer is the same reason why the city article was not moved here years ago when the mass moving of city articles happened. Quite simply it is not the primary topic. A point supported since then by various move requests and even an RFC or two along the way. And as always, such a move would go against several guidelines. Adding more from outside the city to the article would also violate established policy.

    In this discussion, WP:COMMONNAME is raised and I think it is obvious that Las Vegas is the common name for the city. It is also the common name for the valley, the strip, Paradise, Winchester, Whitney, Spring Valley, Enterprise, Sunrise Manor and more. It is a common name for North Las Vegas and is occasionally used for Henderson when talking about entertainment in the Valley. Part of the logic being pushed is that everyplace is kind of similar and therefor we need to ignore valid cases where being identical to everything else is actually right and correct. In fact one could say that the city article is not an exception, but rather is just like 99% of the other US city articles in how it is named. Also the naming exemption being pushed says that Cities listed in the AP Stylebook as not requiring the state modifier may or may not have their articles named [City] provided they are the primary topic for that name. Again it is established, even by those proposing this move, that the city is not the primary topic.

    While it was suggested that looking at the inbound links for the current city article would be informative no one seemed interested in doing so. If someone had, they would have seen that about 70% of the links are not for the city but are for other areas in the valley. That is strong evidence that moving Las Vegas Valley to the main name space is the wisest choice. Why? Because it does not create an arbitrary and inaccurate definition of what Las Vegas is. Moving the city article there, even with hat notes, would be wrong. A comparison has been offered to Boston as an example of why this is correct. Well, they might be the case if the various townships in the valley chose to market themselves as individual destinations and suburbs of a city. That is not the case here where the valley and everything in it is marked under the Las Vegas brand. Is Boston a brand and it is marketed as such? If so is it close to the second best recognized brand? Also in the case of Boston, the city proper is the central engine that drives the area. This is not the case in Las Vegas. The city has less than 10% of the hotel rooms, casinos and casino revenue. It also has less of the high end entertainment and so on. For reference, gaming revenue for the city in February of 2012 was $39,622,360 (listed as downtown) vs $769,459,750 for the rest of the county or a tad over 5%. Also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city.

    There are valid points made that using Las Vegas, Nevada may not be the best way to disambiguate the city given that both Las Vegas and Las Vegas, Nevada are ambiguous. If you actually read the articles with inbound links and see how they are worded, I think it becomes very clear that the least confusing option is to move Las Vegas Valley to Las Vegas (which is always going to be correct, if imprecise) as opposed to the other options which will be wrong a significant number of times, and moving (or leaving where it is) the city article to Las Vegas (city) or something similar.

    It has been alluded that the page read statistics supports the move. However, based on actually looking at what is linked which causes the vast majority of the hits are incorrect in about 70% of the cases. Given that there are 15,000 or so links, it will take a while to fix these, many of which were created when the dab page was misleading for a while. If you want to see the effect of cleanup, take a look at this count and notice the trend vs the trend here. This is probably a good example for why page moves should not be based on this statistic. Also I having been disambiguating inbound links for Las Vegas, virtually 99.99% would be correct for the valley. The city is the target of less than 10% of these, probably around 4-5%.

    The current setup while not the best is less harmful than a bad rename of the city article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Are you suggesting that the valley exclusive of the city is commonly referred to as "Las Vegas"? Are you suggesting that the strip exclusive of the city is commonly referred to as "Las Vegas"? If so, I would like to see some citations for such claims. If not, that means that "Las Vegas" is not used to refer to different places, but is used to refer to different variations of the same place (just the city, the city plus the valley, the city plus the strip, etc.). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
The distinction is important, because it's the difference between having multiple topics (one of which might be primary) vs. a WP:DABCONCEPT. As far as I can tell, "Las Vegas" is a DABCONCEPT.

The point of the Boston analogy is that Cambridge is considered part of the place known as "Boston", even though strictly speaking they are distinct: Cambridge begins where Boston ends. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Again it is established, even by those proposing this move, that the city is not the primary topic." Hell fricking no! Don't you dare misrepresent 80% of the votes on this move request. 80% are saying that the city is primary (including the original nominator). Don't stoop so low as to blatantly lie. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Forget it. I have more important things to do. I don't really give a damn how these articles are named on a silly website, whereas you have made it your crusade to ensure the status quo sticks. It doesn't matter what I say, or what points I present, because you'll employ the exact same tactic you've used in this and the last move request: wait until the very end of the request period and post a wall of text that misrepresents your opponents in order to give the impression that, despite all that was said earlier, your position is still right.
You even go so far as to outright lie about what was said:

Again it is established, even by those proposing this move, that the city is not the primary topic.

You have some nerve. I posted a full response to Arthur detailing how precisely I felt the city article was the primary topic. You probably read that, but just conveniently ignored it.

While it was suggested that looking at the inbound links for the current city article would be informative no one seemed interested in doing so.

Actually, I was, and I did just that, and told you quite clearly how you were shooting yourself in the foot by suggesting those links prove your point. You didn't respond, unsurprisingly. Instead, you played dumb and pretended your points have just been sitting here unchallenged.
But, I understand. You're desperate. And this underhanded, get-the-last-word approach is your only hope. -- tariqabjotu 03:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose: As a WP reader I personally believe that landing on a disambiguation page when looking for information on an ambiguous term that has multiple meanings, regardless of how primary anyone of the options might, is better than being distracted by the primary when I am looking for something else. But that is my opinion as one reader. I am truly awed by my fellow editors who can divinely predict how hundreds of millions of WP readers from different cultures, different languages and different motivations are going to react when they encounter a WP title. Such divine wisdom is almost messianic because of the obvious absence of any empirical evidence, we must have faith that these divine prognostications are indeed true. It is sad however that these masturbations we call requested moves based on WP:PRIMARYcontinue to sap the valuable energy of editors, energy that would be better spent improving and creating article content. Regardless of the outcome, WP itself will be neither harmed nor improved by this RM. Some will be satisfied and go to sleep relaxed and with a smile. Others will be frustrated and unfulfilled with the climax of this RM, but they will try again. Either way some admin will have to spend some energy to clean up the mess. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
So it's bad for us to "divinely predict" that readers want to see the city, but it's okay for you to "divinely predict" that they'd rather see the disambiguation page? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
If you know my track record on this at WP:AT, you'd know that I think, and have been very vocal about any titling policy interpretation that relies on predicting how millions of readers are going to react. You'll note above that I said the disambigation preference was my personal preference not what readers what. Any predication as to how millions of readers are going to react to a title is sheer fantasy.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
For a while, we have had that page, Las Vegas Valley which should situate the reader allowing then to switch to other articles if needed. I have not nominated that for moving since I have not been able to see my way through the obstacle of primary use. If and when the inbound links to the city article are cleaned up, then the stats will better help to justify a move like this. But that means fixing links in 15,000 or so articles. Watching the length of the inbound link list, I don't see any indication in a reduction in areas earlier then I have been working, well occasionally a few disappear, so if I keep working on this I should be finished in a few years. Vegaswikian(talk) 18:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Odd that you essentially say that page stats don't matter right now, but after you've changed all these links, they will. To be honest, I don't actually think they're significant either way, out of context. More relevant, I believe, is the fact that a wide variety of editors across Wikipedia, when choosing to link text that says "Las Vegas" will link it to Las Vegas, Nevada. Very few people -- basically just you-- will link to Las Vegas Valley. Just because you are going around Wikipedia changing the links in the hopes that the page stats will change to give the impression Las Vegas Valley is more sought after than Las Vegas, Nevada doesn't change the primary usage. --tariqabjotu 18:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Do either of us know how many of the links were created when the dab team did some work with the wrong content on the dab page? Do we know how many editors incorrectly fix the links when they go to a dab page without reading it? Apparently you do. And apparently I don't, which I admit. Page read stats are not the sole determiner of primary topic for good reason. I'm simply pointing out a fact that makes it clear why they are unreliable in this case. I believe I have also said that if the valley article were moved it would be right at least 99% of the time if not the most precise in some cases. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
With such a radical opinion, intentionally flying in the face of Wikipedia:Primary topic and taking an unorthodox stance on disambiguation pages, I'm not sure how or why we should even consider your opinion.
That being said, we shouldn't even be in this mess now with the changes to the U.S. city naming conventions a few years ago. Las Vegas is the last of the AP Stylebook cities that hasn't been moved where the naming conflict is with itself. In other words, the naming convention washed away the arguments (long used to prevent cities like Los Angeles from moving) that people sometimes refer to places outside the city proper as being in the city itself. It washed them away, except in the case of Las Vegas. This should have been moved in the batch move back then; I don't know how a small group of editors have managed to prevent this for so long. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Las Vegas, Nevada" is not the way to disambiguate this

edit
  • Whether or not you think the city government and larger urban area should be treated the same, Las Vegas, Nevada is not the proper way to disambiguate this. We disambiguate with Portland, Oregon because there is another Portland in the state of Maine. This is not the case for Las Vegas. Any need for disambiguation is between the legal city and the surrounding area, and it's always best to disambiguate what actually needs disambiguation, and nothing more (thus we don't put the year of a film in an article title unless there is more than one film of the same name). Thus, instead of Las Vegas, Nevada, we should have City of Las Vegas or Las Vegas (city) - disambiguate what actually needs it, which is the fact that we're talking about the legal city, not the fact that we're talking about Nevada. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Sounds like you have hit the nail on the head. If we decide to go with City of Las Vegas, the current article will need to be disambiguated. Not a big deal, just some cleanup. But Las Vegas (city) seems to make the most sense and would actually result in a shorter title then we current have. I will ask that if this discussion continues, that we not try to resolve redirects at the same time. For a previous precedent for this type of city rename, see Cork (city) so this would not be setting new ground. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Yes, this is probably correct, if it needs to be disambiguated, which is something I obviously don't believe needs to happen. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • FWIW, wherever Las Vegas winds up going, Las Vegas, Nevada should go to the exact same place. But with the disambiguation problems that Vegaswikian is constantly dealing with, Las Vegas should be an article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • I would stress what has already been noted. We don't have distinct uses of "Las Vegas" here (as is the case for Portland) - what we have are different closely related uses. When several related/derived topics all share the same name, we typically have one main article at the basename, and that's what we should have at Las Vegas. I think moving Las Vegas, Nevada here is an excellent start, though I would expect that article to evolve a bit differently once renamed, with the scope not being quite as tightly controlled as it is currently (to be strictly about the city proper). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Las Vegas (city) would be ridiculous, IMO, when we have perfectly natural forms of disambiguation available. Cork (city) is used because Cork, Cork just looks weird. Powers T 15:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • Not necessarily defending "(city)" (City of Las Vegas meets the criteria as well and may be preferable to those who prefer to avoid parenthetic disambiguation for some reason)", but adding ", Nevada", though it looks natural (Las Vegas, Nevada), is not disambiguating, since it doesn't disambiguate any one of the uses in Nevada from any of the others in Nevada. That is, "Las Vegas, Nevada" is no more nor less ambiguous than is "Las Vegas". --Born2cycle (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • I mostly agree, except in so far as someone explicitly searching for Las Vegas, Nevada is much more likely to be interested in the city itself than in the Strip or the metro area. Powers T 00:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
          • I don't think so, unless you're talking about one of us WP title dweebs. Google search results indicate that someone (who is presumably not intimately familiar with WP US city naming guidelines) searching with "Las Vegas, Nevada", is about as likely to be looking for the metro area (much of which outside of the city, like the Strip, is officially referred to as "Las Vegas, Nevada" -- see the official mailing address of any casino on the Strip) as he is for the city itself. On the other hand, anyone searching for "city of las vegas" is almost certainly looking for the city itself, which is also confirmed by google search results. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
            • A USPS assigned address is only a source for routing mail. It is based on the USPS rules and in no way reflects reality. I have spent well over half my life having a USPS assigned address that did not represent the name of the place where I was living. So to use this as a WP:RS is completely wrong! It is not reliable for anything except getting mail delivered. In those cases where it happens to actually match the place everything is fine. It is just the rather large list of exceptions that creates issues. Calling the USPS address official for anything else is an open invitation to confusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
              • While the USPS address is a source for routing mail, it's what anyone who mails anything to that place uses to refer to that place! It's well-known. Don't you think that the vast majority of our readers would say the following statement is True? "Caesars Palace is in Las Vegas, Nevada." --Born2cycle (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
                • Yes, which is what makes the term Las Vegas, Nevada ambiguous. So leaving it focused on the city is reasonable. Are you going to suggest that we write an article on postal codes that cover what is in the USPS definition? Also realize that this changes when North Las Vegas or Henderson annex land so that definition is rather fluid. However the Las Vegas Valley is rather stable and covers what most people consider Las Vegas. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
                  • This discussion has drifted, but the point is that it's not Nevada that's ambiguous, it's city vs USPS vs valley that's ambiguous. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
                  • But Las Vegas Valley covers way more than what people consider Las Vegas. If it wasn't for the Strip being outside the city, we probably wouldn't be having this issue. I see no problem with having some information -- a bit more than what is present in the Las Vegas, Nevada article currently -- about the Strip in the city article, as the city's fame comes largely in part because of the Strip. It seems you prefer being pedantic over being informative, and I couldn't disagree with you more. -- tariqabjotu 21:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
                    • No, the Valley article pretty much covers what anyone includes when they say Las Vegas. If you look at a large number of the articles that currently link to the city article, you will see that. You will find links to the City of Las Vegas for places and people in and from North Las Vegas and Henderson. No one will dispute that they are not in the city of Las Vegas. I will agree that the Las Vegas-Paradise, NV MSA, the census classification that covers Las Vegas, covers way more then what most people consider as Las Vegas. But then it covers about 10 time the land mass of the valley. Ever been on a flight to Vegas? People always say there is Las Vegas as soon as they see the lights past Lake Mead. What are the seeing? Usually Henderson and Boulder City and North Las Vegas and unincorporated areas of the county not the Las Vegas Strip. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
                      • Ever been on a flight to Vegas? People always say there is Las Vegas as soon as they see the lights past Lake Mead. What are the seeing? Usually Henderson and Boulder City and North Las Vegas and unincorporated areas of the county not the Las Vegas Strip. Ever been on a flight to anywhere? As I said in the nomination, there is not special about Las Vegas; this holds true for nearly every major city. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
The point is that there is one loosely defined place commonly referred to as both "Las Vegas" and "Las Vegas, Nevada" that is the actual city and, to varying degrees, the surrounding areas. The article about that place should be at Las Vegas, and Las Vegas, Nevada should redirect to it. I agree with Tariq that the article current at Las Vegas, Nevada is pretty much that article, perhaps with more added to it from the valley article. But all this can and should be explained in such a DABCONCEPT article. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I just want to point out a good example of article that incorporates the same approach. Boston, a featured article, incorporates a healthy amount of information that actually is about Cambridge, Massachusetts, even though Cambridge, unlike Paradise, Nevada, is a full-fledged city (with its own city hall) and well-known beyond technical maps. That's, of course, because Harvard and MIT are located in Cambridge, and even though those universities are not in Boston proper, a Boston article without mentioning them is incomplete. Some of the information about Harvard is there because it has facilities in Boston, but most of the information is really about their presence in Cambridge (and specifically noted as such). It even has pictures of both universities. It's not a lot, but it's enough to satisfy the reader and point them to the more relevant articles, if that's what they're looking for. The same thing can easily be done here. -- tariqabjotu 03:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  Yes, Boston/Cambridge, Massachusetts/Harvard University is a GREAT ANALOGY to Las Vegas/Paradise, Nevada/Las Vegas strip!. Why not follow it here? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
First, I really do not care all that much whether the disambiguation page or one of several articles is at Las Vegas. I think a large part of the problem is the notion that articles about municipalities cannot include information about things outside the municipal boundaries. There is no electric fence around municipalities (at least not in most of the world). What a term like Boston or London or New York (or just about any city) refers to is very dependent on context. For example, I live in Michigan, but for three years I worked in Cambridge, MA. When talking with people back home or when traveling elsewhere I'd typically say that I was working in Boston (or the Boston area). If people were familiar with the area or seemed otherwise interested, only then would I specify Cambridge. From a certain perspective, the cultural area associated with Boston extends far beyond the city boundaries. I suggest a better solution would be to loosen the electric fence mentality for articles about municipalities just a bit. That of course leads to some potential issues with duplication of content, but that can be addresses as needed. For large areas, with correspondingly large articles, at some point one or more subarticles might be created for details specific to the municipality, such as government and public services. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
  Totally agree with idea of loosening the electric fence mentalitySee also: WT:USCITY#Places_outside_city_limits. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
Can you please top using the {{like}} template? It puts undue emphasis on your comments, and it's simply unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 19:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

And yet, there is no legitimate argument for Las Vegas to be a disambiguation page

edit

No matter what your view, there is no legitimate reason to have Las Vegas as a disambiguation page.

  • If you think it doesn't matter that the strip is not in city limits, then the article belongs at Las Vegas
  • If you do think it matters, then the city would land at Las Vegas (city) (or similar) and the broader area at Las Vegas Valley. But, this doesn't make Las Vegas a disambiguation. This would make Las Vegas the quintessential case of WP:DABCONCEPT, where some ambiguous terms should be articles explaining the ambiguity instead of mere lists. Similar treatment is done at Football, particle and supreme court, where the ambiguous term is an article explaining the concept.
  • Summary: Either way you look at it, Las Vegas should be an article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 17:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Las_Vegas_(disambiguation)&oldid=1244506388"