This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

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

Clarification: The wikicode is difficult to read, but the rendered page is inline with the WP:Style Guide. Guy M ^{( Talk)} 01:57, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Typo the new number is 12 million from the web site. It was fixed. Thanks Vegaswikian 02:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

No it isn't necessary and is prone to get out of date fast so I removed it.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

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

---

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

this seems to be a mirror of wikipedia.

is this allowed?

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

Your creation of the separate article on Oscar Goodman was a very good idea (it's been on my list for a while but I never got to it). I think it's most appropriate that this article have only the Wiki link to your article on Goodman. This follows the policy of "Don't use external links where we'll want Wikipedia links." The reader who wants more information on Goodman should first be directed to our own article on Goodman (now that we have a fine one, thanks to you). In the Goodman article, I have no problem with listing his site as an external link. I made other changes there but left this link alone. There's no reason to repeat the link here, though, because it has no information about Las Vegas other than the information about Goodman. JamesMLane 09:13, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

How about we do this... I will change all of the links current links for the Mayor and Council to Wiki Links and then put under External Links the list of their official website. Misterrick 19:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Having external links embedded in text, as they are now, instead of in the "External links" section, seems to me to be against Wikipedia policy. I'm not keen on listing them at the end, though. This article already has too many external links. (The article on New York City has only ten, four of which are just to convey photographs.) Furthermore, all of these individuals' official sites are merely pages within the City's website, which is already the first external link listed. A reader who goes to the City's site selects "Elected Officials" then "Council" then the ward, and reaches the page -- not very tricky. I think it makes more sense to do it this way: Make Goodman a Wiki link; don't bother Wiki linking each Councilmember, because odds are there will never be an article; delete all links to individual pages within the City's website; and insert a sentence, before or after the listing of Councilmembers, along the lines of: Each member of the Council has an individual page within the City's website (see "External links," below). JamesMLane 21:54, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

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

I agree with you. I think the root cause of the problem is that we are blessed with lots of images on this page. I have several times time to re-arrange images so that the page looked ok for people with lots of different screen resolutions, but because I was trying to cater for a lot of page layouts, the balance was delicate. Other users, who could hardly expected to be aware of such issues, came along very quickly and broke them again. I have taken the slightly more radical approach of putting all the images in a table, thereby forcing it to look ok at all screen resolutions. The only downside is that images are all in a row rather than spread throughout the article. However I do believe it looks better than before (note: if you don't think it looks better - then you were a lucky person with a screen resolution the page was still designed for!). Pcb21| Pete 06:59, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm one of those who didn't consider the previous setup chaotic. Maybe I have the right browser, or maybe I'm used to more sloppiness in my life.  :) What I don't understand, though, is why this browser problem should be any worse for the Las Vegas article than for any other. Do other articles employ a different solution? Having the pictures all in a row at the beginning certainly isn't optimum. JamesMLane 07:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am convinced that it is a screen res issue, not a browser issue. The previous layout had overlapping images, and hence ugly whitespace, in both Mozilla and IE at my screen resolution. The reason that it affects Las Vegas more than most is that this article has lots of images. Articles with just one or two images can have their images sufficiently spread out that it will look ok at any resolution. There are other articles where there is an issue - London is one, City of New York is hanging on by the skin of its teeth - there are just enough long lists to enable spreading out of the images. I have employed this solution on a few other pages. It is still a relatively scarce issue - over-abudance of images is not something Wikipedia is cursed with :).

If this solution does not suit, the next iteration of sophistication would be to have two or three tables, each containing two or three images, spread out down the page. Pcb21| Pete 08:07, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't look chaotic to me, Although IMHO it really isn't necessary to have so many pictures in the article. I mean do we really need to have a TERRA satellite picture and a picture of downtown Las Vegas in the daytime and at night? and since this article is specifically about the City of Las Vegas the picture of the Las Vegas Strip should be excluded since the strip (aka Las Vegas Boulevard South) is technically part of Unincorporated Clark County in an area called Paradise. Misterrick 04:55, 02 January 2005.

---

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

Las Vegas is the largest such city in sense in which most people would think of Las Vegas, not realizing that much of what's commonly called "Las Vegas" is in unincorporated Clark County. Would it be correct to say that Las Vegas is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. that has no major-league-level professional sports team? JamesMLane 04:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it means that it's the largest city in terms of metropolitan size that does not have a professional sports team. bob rulz

As a Las Vegas resident for 10 years, I don't think I've ever heard any locals term Las Vegas a metropolis. The most frequently used term to encompass more than Las Vegas proper, is (Las) Vegas Valley. Which would cover the three Cities: Las Vegas, North Las Vegas and (sometimes even) Henderson; plus the unincorporated areas (Larger than all three cities combined). For the lack of professional sports? We're trying to get it together! Guy M

Just found out the definition of valley ^{( def.)} and it doesn't pertain to the "Las Vegas Valley". Appearently, since our location is surrounded by 4 mountain ranges, we are concidered a bowl^{( def.)}. Guy M 21:50, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Cheers,

— DV 10:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this approach is a mistake. Very few readers will care about the municipal boundaries. Heck, the Postal Service doesn't care; if you live in Paradise, your correct official mailing address is "Las Vegas, Nevada". Readers will come to this article looking for information about the Las Vegas metropolitan area (whether they know it or not). The prior approach was to put all the information here, including the explanation that most of the Strip is outside the municipal boundaries of Las Vegas. I think that worked best. If people insist on separating them, then the article at Las Vegas, Nevada should be about the metropolitan area, with a separate articel for Las Vegas, Nevada (city) or the like that would give details (such as census figures) that are limited to the municipal boundaries. JamesMLane 00:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with JamesMLane; the strict city limits line drawing that's going on here doesn't make sense. Carter 01:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To avoid an edit conflict, I've asked Rama on his user talk page to comment on his edits that started to strip out references to locations outside of the city, but despite the extensive nature of his last edit, and that it was just a day and a half ago, he now states that he "can't remember editing" the article.

I think we should give Rama a chance to clarify his intent.

So, in the interest of avoiding conflict, I've added a follow up note to Rama's user talk page pointing out the entry in the history and his user contributions where he made his recent edits, with the hope that it will refresh his memory enough so he can comment one way or another.

If there is a consensus to go with a single article that covers metro and the city, then we should revert back to the version of the article just prior to Rama's last edit, which included information about the greater metropolitan area, and then delete the new Metropolitan Las Vegas article that I created to try and save the deleted material, as well as its reference on the disambiguation page.

I'm open to either approach (i.e., either one article that covers metro and the city, or separate articles for each) but we should be consistent either way.

— DV 04:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rama now quotes someone named Brion, on the #mediawiki IRC channel, as follows:

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

If the database is truly being randomly corrupted in this manner, I give up.

If we can't rely on the integrity of the database, I'm not sure how to proceeed.

Unless someone objects, I recommend reverting back to the last version by JamesMLane.

— DV 09:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

OK, since there seems to be agreement, and Rama supports the "database corruption" theory, I went back to the last known good version by JamesMLane. — DV 03:58, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi David, on a side point, if Rama did get his information from Brion ( User:Brion VIBBER) then it is likely to be accurate. Pcb21| Pete 14:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Las Vegas is generally the entire valley to most people.

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

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

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

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

Vegaswikian 07:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To further support not using the term metropolitan, I offer the following:

1. The United States Census Bureau has apparently defined Core based statistical area to replace metropolitan;
2. Here is what one site defining the area it covers [1]; and I believe that' different that what is intended here;
3. MSN Encarta has a different definition that what is proposed here [2]. Also very different from what is suggested here.
4. The MSN metrolpolitan Map covers 4 states [3]!
5. Apparently [4]' says the offical name for the metropolitan Statistical area is "Las Vegas-Paradise, Nevada"; And acording to [5] it lists both Las Vegas and Paradise;
6. The census bureau apparently lists Las Vegas in TWO metropolitan areas [6], the one listed above and Las Vegas-Paradise-Pahrump;
7. The only government agency that I know of that uses metropolitan, METRO covers a vastly different area. And that name was probably a political creation to make the merge between the Las Vegas and Clark County Departments possible.
8. The LVCVA sells the city and the county under the Las Vegas banner. [7] is one example from Primm through the valley including Henderson;

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

Vegaswikian 19:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. It's rather like London vs. City of London; places like Spring Valley, Paradise, and so on are in Las Vegas, though they're not in the City of Las Vegas. But the interaction between county and city is intense; the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police also serve much of, if not most of, the unincorporated townships surrounding the city; the school district is unified; and though Mayor Goodman legally has power only with relation to the City of Las Vegas, he's also the spokesperson for greater Las Vegas. I'd say there should be a special article about the City, that includes information that's mainly relevant to the city; but the Las Vegas article should be about what most people think is Las Vegas. After all, the famous sign, "Welcome to Las Vegas", is seven miles from the actual city. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:23, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People who type in "Las Vegas" should come (via the redirect) to an article that tells them about the Strip, and about the basics of the governmental entity that Goodman heads, and about the basics of the governmental entity that governs the Strip. For that reason, I don't think very much of the information in this article should be removed. Perhaps the listing of the City Council members could be transferred to an article about the municipality, but not much else. The demographic information should remain in this article. (A daughter article just about the municipality could repeat the relevant portions of it.) It would be a good idea if this article covered the Clark County Commission a bit more. I'm not sure I understand what Vegaswikian is suggesting, but I think I'm against it. JamesMLane 21:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Las Vegas article is not about the City of Las Vegas no matter howwe try and cut it. It is about the Las Vegas Area. In particular the major gaming areas. If a city page is created, then the demographics need to be moved to the city page. They simply are not correct for a general vegas area page. I'll wagger that virtually no one who types in "Las Vegas" is looking for the governmental entity that Goodman heads," as you suggest. They want information on the Las Vegas destination. The problem is that Las Vegas means two different things and that needs to be addressed. One is the City of Las Vegas. The other is a much broader area that is universally know as Las Vegas. That latter area is what is on the entry sign as Las Vegas, as was pointed out above, and is advertised as Las Vegas in all of the commericals by the LVCVA. How many of the almost 40,000,000 visitors go to the city? Is following the lead of the LVCVA wrong? By splitting this into City, County and area it makes things clearer for anyone from the outside. They don't care about the county or the city. They just want the area. Those who want the other stuff can get it from links on the area or the disambugation page. Does anyone still think the metropolitan page, given all of the facts I listed above, is the correct way to go? Vegaswikian 22:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there's a distinction between the city (in the legal sense) and the area (what most visitors would think of as the city because they don't know they're in Paradise). The current article notes that distinction, however. It gives the population statistics for people residing within the city limits and for people residing in the area. That's appropriate information to provide to a reader who comes to this article. JamesMLane 23:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Except that the top of the page says city of Las Vegas. That's also on the disambiguation page. Adding the strip there also makes extreme sense. I'll do that shortly. Vegaswikian 01:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added added the strip to disambiguation. The Strip article could use some work. It is rather lean.

If the concensus is that the las vegas page is both the city and the area, and the metropolitan page gets deleted I would probably be OK. Vegaswikian 01:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that we not paint either a positive or negative picture - we're just painting. Pictures can be striking and/or beautiful, as long as they're faithful to reality. Stan 17:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And you can change which picture of reality you use; or, alternately, insert some info about air quality in the Vegas Valley -- which, I understand, is now more endangered by dust than by vehicle emissions. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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

So does anyone have the data or pictures?

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

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

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

We have Image:Welcome to vegas.jpg, but it's not very good; I've been planning to do a photo shoot of my own. I have some pics of Mt Charleston, but I don't like them much. Stan 05:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That image was in the article for quite a while. In fact, until this comment I didn't even notice it had been removed. I think it's good enough to include, at least until a better one comes along. More generally, there are several good photos that were moved to Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, an article that isn't needed unless this article is to be confined to the Las Vegas city limits. I thought that material removed from this article had been restored, but obviously I made an incorrect assumption. Along with the pictures there may be some text that should be restored. As to the longer list of photo suggestions, I think we have to draw some lines and not have too many photos. "Missing casino pictures like the Riv" -- if that means having a picture of every casino, I'm against it. In particular, I don't think we need a Riv picture. JamesMLane 06:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I compared the text in the two articles. The Metro one looked pretty much like the old Las Vegas one before the edits, corrections and moves to other pages. I did not see any material in metro that was not in Las Vegas. All of the images in metro should now be in other articles. Vegaswikian 08:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Casino pictures. Would it be reasonable to have pictures for each casino that has a page? It seems that all of the old pages do. Vegaswikian 07:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: other stuff. As to the metropolitan page, consider the fact that there is a Las Vegas metropolitan area page besides the metro LV page listed above. I think this one could be better named the Las Vegas Valley, but I'm not sure how to use it. Right now it basically defines the towns in the valley. Since there does not appear to be support for keeping Metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, can someone start the process of deleting it? I'm a little busy dealing with a delete vote and trying to get something set up so that we can get spa defined a little better. I'll try and do something with the pictures and see if any text is there that should be in the article. I did search commons, but did not get any hits for the sign picture. I'm also going to remove the city comment on the top unless someone sees a real reason to keep it. Vegaswikian 07:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I moved the images around and modified a few of their descriptions to better identify what they show. Can someone verify the the US 93 picture is really from that location and which way we are looking? Vegaswikian 08:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would be easier just to redirect the other article here than to redirect. IMHO this article is already at the best possible title, shouldn't be messed with. Stan 19:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have the original high quality version of that image at home. Must've uploaded it during that period of time when Wikipedia wouldn't allow large file sizes and I didn't know how to compress jpg files well. Pcb21| Pete 10:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not to rag on it too much, but the angle is not so good either - looks like it's attached to Mandalay. One of my goals was to try some different angles - looking down the Strip seems like it would be better, but maybe too visually noisy, won't know till I try it. Stan 19:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rag away, I just took the photo whilst driving so it was bound to have its problems. Although that particular sign is in the middle of a busy road, plenty of people do get themselves safely positioned to take a decent photo. Pcb21| Pete 23:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what restrictions Metro has about stopping there. I think that a ten foot ladder would get you high enough to get a 'good' shot straight on to the sign. A shot of the back side could be interesting for the end of The Strip article. Vegaswikian 00:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be easy enough. The "middle of the busy road" is a wide median, and frequently there are people parked there to take photos of themselves with the sign. (As often as not, the subjects of the photographs are wearing wedding clothes.) I'll try to convince the family photographer to get a good one. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I took a picture with my digital camera over the weekend. Comments?? Kcferret

Oh and for the natives .. yes the power lines have been edited out ... they detracted from what I wanted to picture to convey. Kcferret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Pics Why so many? Isn't two, maybe three enough? (about LV even)
• Law & government - Term: Bloat
• Climate - Full of Hot Air
• Economy - Nothing said about LV
  • "... 130,000 hotel rooms" (Not in LV) Las Vegas Strip
  • "... on the Strip" (Not in LV) LV Strip
  • "... to the valley" (Not in LV) Las Vegas metropolitan area
• Transportation - Too congested
  • "... airport .. in the U.S." (not in LV [honorable mention though]) LV Metro
  • "... growth of the Strip to the south..." (Not even towards LV) LV Strip
  • "... Clark County ..." (Not LV) Clark County, Nevada
  • "... LV monorail" (Not in LV [yet]) LV Strip
  • "... light rails / trams" (Not in LV) LV Strip
  • Convention Centers (Not in LV) LV Strip
  • Hoover Dam (Not in LV) Clark County

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

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

... Which all have great Las Vegas history.

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

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

Additional information covering a larger geographical area, see: The Strip, Las Vegas Metro, Las Vegas Valley, Clark County, Nevada

Guy M ^{( talk)} 17:56, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

edit | Guy M ^{( Talk)} 02:11, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

• And my latest add about city redevemopment makes it even longer. But it is in the City.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, the problem is appearent, the solution is evasive. Although, I thought my idea (which can be expanded/improved upon) was a good start. Having articles with topics such as:

• Las Vegas, Nevada - City of data (following Wikipedia formats).
  • Downtown - Historic, Casinos, Hotels, FSE, and bot data [Census info]. I would leave entertainer information primarily in Las Vegas Strip and government personel in City Of.
  • Simple lines like " McCarren International Airport provides commercial flights into the Las Vegas Valley." and " Las Vegas Motor Speedway (LVMS) hosts NASCAR and other automotive events." and " RTC provides public access transportation via CAT which Las Vegas benefits from." Allow the links to provide other documents for which more detail is provided.
• Las Vegas Strip' - For information directed to entertainment, Casino, Hotel...
• Las Vegas Valley - Topics covering more expansive area.
  • Lake Mead, Mountains, Ski Resort, Climate/Flooding (more area to explain why (the shape of) LVValley floods)

Yes?

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

Lord save us from the pedants! Once again, this article does not need to be picky about only mentioning things that are literally inside the city limits. The problem is that each editor wants to add their little tidbit of info, without thinking much about whether it's sufficiently important to be in the main article, or should go into topical articles. One way to solve this problem is to make a "budget". For example, 20K is a good size for a city article; in that space you need to give an overview (1K), history (3K), geography (3K), demographics (2K), culture (3K), economy (3K), sports/recreation (3K), politics (2K). If a section grows past that, split out the full-length version and leave within-budget summary behind. (This is just a sample budget; I neglected transportation, but a section for that means another section has to shrink.) Instead of churning the article randomly, this talk page is perfect for an interested person to put up an outline of what section should contain; that outline will give an idea of how to fine-tune the budget, and also ensure that each section includes its most important topics. Stan 04:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To pull stuff out, it has to be notable and encylopidic on its own. You also need to not have it so short that it is nothing more then a stub. It also needs to be logical. I'd like to see the welcome sign expanded so that it can stand alone and be a seperate article. I'm sure that others would like to see other sections become stand alone articles. Likewise, it is easier to build an article where you talk about Fremont Street and The Golden Gate in a few words and the complete discription is in the link as a page. There is so much that is missing. So, how do we move in the right direction? Do we add rewrite adding broken links in the hope that someone will be able to create complete articles? I spent time today cleaning up the Mojave links. They all pointed to the city when most were about the desert. Not very helpful. I'm afraid that without a plan something like that could happen here. On the plus side, so far no one has said moving culture and attractions to a different page with a link to the data was wrong. And speaking of sports, there is no mention of Boxing which is a major venue here. Vegaswikian 06:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with Stan about the "city limits" issue. That's been taken up on this page before. People who enter "Las Vegas" or "Las Vegas, Nevada" in the search box aren't concerned to know exactly what's within the city limits; I'd guess that they generally don't care. They want to know about what's popularly considered "Las Vegas". It might make sense, however, to have a separate article on City of Las Vegas or Las Vegas, Nevada (municipality) or whatever it's titled, which could include City Council corruption issues and anything else that's specific to the municipal government.

As for the overall length, while I don't agree with a formal "budget", I do agree that largish topics can be spun out into daughter articles, leaving behind a summary. One tricky part is that we should never delete a subject entirely just because there's a daughter article. For example, we have a separate article on the Las Vegas Monorail, but at least the basic information was still included in this article. I think the same principle should apply to "Culture and attractions" (that's how the heading should read per the MoS, by the way) and to any other section. Vegaswikian, I think your most recent set of edits goes too far in removing information from this article, especially in those instances where not even a summary has been left behind. I call this the "tricky" part because it means crafting a summary, which is usually harder than just providing all the available information.

Instead of making a fetish about the length of the article, I would concentrate on serving the needs of various readers by including the highlights of each subject, with a link right at that point to the more detailed daughter article. I would also prune the lead section (including probably moving one or more photos) so that the reader gets to the table of contents more quickly. Some readers will be able to use the table of contents to jump directly to what they care about. The current third and fourth paragraphs (the third about the UP and the freeway, the fourth about some of the removed material) don't need to be in the lead.

The question about creating a red link has to be decided for each case. A few months ago, Misterrick linked each City Council member, saying, "I figure if I create Wiki links someone would be inspired to actually create an article about that Councilmember ...." So far the inspiration hasn't struck. I think links should be created where you yourself intend to write the article or where there obviously ought to be one. Each major Vegas casino would qualify (I have my doubts about the little hole-in-the-wall joints like Le Bayou, though). A Mormon Fort article would make sense, so linking that now would be OK. On the other hand, given that Fremont Street Experience exists, I don't see much likelihood that we'd need a separate Fremont Street article; a simple redirect to Fremont Street Experience would be better. JamesMLane 08:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll try and put more short summaries into the body for the moved stuff. I can also fix the '&' while I'm in there. The UP and road stuff can be moved into transportation. The Fort is a state park, and there are several pages with a red link calling it a state historic park.

Council members tend not to be interesting enough to justify their own articles (even many members of Congress have thin bios). I think it takes a certain amount of WP experience to develop a sense of what is likely be an article that not only seems worthwhile in the first place, but gets others to improve on it. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any opinions on where the Las Vegas redirect should point? Right now it goes to Las Vegas, Nevada. I'm wondering if the disambig page would be a better choice. Vegaswikian 08:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely it should point here. If we get an irate letter from the Las Vegas, New Mexico Chamber of Commerce, we post it on WP:BJAODN. JamesMLane 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redir is fine where it is. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should the sign picture be moved down to after the first paragraph? Doing this should make the first screen better balanced. Vegaswikian 09:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the welcome sign is a good welcome to the article. I've tried moving the skyline photo down instead. With the pictures aligned vertically instead of horizontally, the second paragraph doesn't get cramped over toward the left margin, and we have a smaller expanse of blank space to the right of the table of contents. JamesMLane 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On my display, both paragraphs are using the left 2/3s of the display. There is mostly white space next to the TOC except for that highway 93 picture. If I go full screen, the shorter text length does move the pictures down a little more. Moving the first picture down to below the first paragraph will fill the space to the right of the TOC better with all or most screen sizes and resolutions, I know it does on my when I tried that as a preview. How this appears is dependent on the user display settings. So forcing a position lower allows the pictures to float next to the TOC for pretty much all displays. Vegaswikian 19:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the welcome sign is ideal, could only be outdone by a stunning skyline pic. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the Economy section. Can you really break out the economic drivers in the city from the rest of the county? Is there one economy for the city and another for the valley or are the all a parts of one economy? Vegaswikian 09:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they can be completely separated, but development efforts being undertaken by the city government can reasonably be a separate section. JamesMLane 10:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should the general economy comments be on the metro page or the county page? Given that how much is run by the multi-agency authorities I'm thinking the county. Vegaswikian 19:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interconnectedness of the city and county economy is one of the reasons that a "city limits only" article concept breaks down. As a fast-growing area, the economy is of much interest, and could easily support an Economy of Las Vegas that talks about casino revenue, strip vs downtown vs neighborhood dynamics, diversification initiatives. I'm not much of an economics type myself, but it would be nice to have a succinct description to answer people's questions about how the place works. Stan 13:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the concensus seems to be clear, and match what GuyM was suggesting, I'll move the curent text to the metro article. I don't think that it is complete enough to be a stand alone article right now. Maybe if we all add more information to it, it could become standalone. I was listing the state gaming areas in a different place, maybe that is really a part of the economy section? Vegaswikian 19:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that there's a consensus on this. GuyM's fundamental approach was to draw a sharp distinction based on the location of the Las Vegas city limits, but no one else agreed. I'm not sure that any purpose is served by the separate Las Vegas metropolitan area article. For example, the information that many people retire to Las Vegas is worth keeping in the main Las Vegas, Nevada article.

One example of a U.S. city article, a recent selection as a featured article, is Seattle, Washington. If people are concerned about article length, I think the best approach is that used in the Seattle article, with information spun off to topical daughter articles, with the main article having a summary and a reference like "Main article: Education in Seattle." If we do that, why would we need the Las Vegas metropolitan area article at all? JamesMLane 22:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Las Vegas Wiki anyone? Yes, Seattle has spun off a lot of larger complete articles. But it still seems to be mostly about the City. I would agree that if there was something like a Las Vegas area attractions article, there would not be much of a question about 'is it in the city or the county'. It there was an agreement to split stuff off, who is going to fill in all of the stubs that are created? We have been doing a good job with identifying pages needed and some topics are being developed in other places like The Springs or the welcome sign. I was wondering if we had a topic here to list the pages, generic for things like hotels, that everyone could move around would work to get develop a plan for how things should be layed out. Kind of like the blueprint for what needs to be done. This way the moves will be easier and it would be easier to see the end result. No comments on the section just headings, but maybe a place to explain why you moved something. Vegaswikian 00:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

The '\temp' sounds like a place to put a trial format. Also, when I was looking into that I ran into the expansion template. The list over there is rather small so maybe that means articles in this catgory get more attention then stubs. Don't know if that can help in getting some of the articles that need work filled in. Vegaswikian 04:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, it's hard to get people to work much on things they're not already interested in; they tend to develop their own task lists, or wander into areas linked to from their interests. One benefit of having f2f meet for Vegas residents is to get some ideas flowing about how to coordinate and expand coverage; there are at least a half-dozen people that I can recall. I'm in California right now, but will be back on Friday and available. Stan 15:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to meeting. Anyone have a place in mind and a time? I'm on the west side, DI and Town Center area. Vegaswikian 02:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(and a month later he responds...) I'm in Red Rock, so hardly a mile away. I see no other people piping up, time to ping them. Stan 13:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• According to Amtrack's website, trains don't run to Vegas, but there is an Amtrak/Greyhound Thruway bus service that runs through Las Vegas. Carter
  • So the change to the page is technically correct. To make the type of service clear, should we change Amtrak to Amtrak (bus)? Vegaswikian 17:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a stub for Thruway Motorcoach; I'll make the change and link to that. Carter 10:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

• Notable residents sounds reasonable. One question, would you expect that list to get too long for the page and become a page on its own? Vegaswikian 07:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it. I envision only a list of links, with no more than extremely terse descriptions ("entertainer" and the like). It should be OK unless people start trying to cram in more information about the named notables. We should bear in mind that anyone who wants to read more about Liberace can just click on the link. If need be, though, you're right that we could spin it off, as was done with List of famous New Yorkers. JamesMLane 07:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll create this with the data from the old entries. Entries with links that work probably should have only a 1 or 2 word comment. Other entries should have a bit more. Vegaswikian 18:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• No objections so I'll move the text. Vegaswikian 18:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

The biggest problem with the history was there was no sources to back it up. I am working on 1966+ and will be putting it in. The plan is to make a page for Las Vegas history with 2 more pages for 1800-1966 and then another page for 1966 on.

Major changes which remove what is already there should be discussed here first. Much of the existing information was sourced from various places. So to just throw it away is not the right thing to do. It is not requird that sources be listed, if it was, then almost every article on wiki would need to be deleted. One editor on a dial up line spend a long time cleaning up and verifing much of what was thrown away. When you make your changes, please add to what is already there and don't throw it away since that creates more work when someone has to put the valid information back in. Yes, incorrect infomation should be removed, but everything was not incorrect. Given the work you are talking about, I'd suggest starting the detailed history article now rather then waiting for all of your changes to be completed. Vegaswikian 22:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The majority was incorporated, just worded different to fit the flow of the narrative. The rest was corrected and incorporated. The stuff, I forgot to put in (the beginning with the Spaniard's) was my fault.

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

Read the earlier heading for this topic. Using different sources apparently causes confusion so sticking with a single source seems to be the accepted way to go. Vegaswikian 23:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While that may seem ideal, it would serve the interest of this article to use a source that is compatible with "metropolitan population" (which in itself is a somewhat ambiguous definition, but most useful in understanding the true size and relevance of a city) rather than "county census." If a more definative and updated source for this data exists, go ahead and replace the current figures.

Since this is the city article, using the LV numbers is correct. If you want a wider area, then you could use the Las Vegas metropolitan area article or the Clark County, Nevada articles which cover the wider area. Vegaswikian 21:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia city articles do seem to usually include the 'metro area' population (at least the ones that have been significantly expanded from the RamBot versions), but the Las Vegas MSA/agglomeration seems WAY too big to mention to me, as it appears to include three counties in NV and part of AZ [8] (Clark Co.'s probably too big, as well--it seems to be equal to LV-Paradise in the new system, and the new system's LV-Paradise-Pahrump is even bigger [9]). The LV UA seems far more appropriate [10] (includes as far out as Henderson, but not Boulder City or Pahrump--more or less the same as Las_Vegas_metropolitan_area#Las_Vegas_Valley). The 2000 LV UA pop was 1,314,357 [11], but I haven't found a newer estimate.
• Besides the 'apples vs oranges' problem with the World Gazetteer data, the general issues I have are: I have noticed places it doesn't agree with US Census Bureau numbers; it doesn't have (or else I haven't found): clear definitions of the geographical entities such as the LV agglomeration or the '2005 calculation' methodology; and the copyright/usage status doesn't seem clearly open--"If you would like to republish the data presented here, please do not change the data and use a copyright note as described as follows: © by Stefan Helders www.world-gazetteer.com" [12]. Niteowlneils 01:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'd say that is conventional wisdom, but CW isn't Verifiable. There are groups, such as libertarian/conservative thinktank Nevada Policy Research Institute that claim that Nevada is not a low tax state, as the lack of income tax is made up for by other taxes and fees [13]. So, I agree, remove the statement as unverifiable, unless someone knows of specific research that supports it. - Satori 17:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Satori. Information should be backed up by facts. If this statement is factual, there should be sources to the information. TruthInEvidence 00:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I removed this text. Vegaswikian 01:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Satori, can you link to the specific citation within the NPRI site? I wasn't able to locate the information you cited from the home page. VisitorTalk 23:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The Nevada Development Authority for Clark County ( http://www.nevadadevelopment.org/) cites an Inc Magazine article which quotes the Authority as saying that job growth and tax climate are major reasons for the business growth in Clark County; and a Tax Foundation study which quotes a Harvard Business School professor who commented on the significance of taxes in business locations. The NDA also provided a press release dated December 11, 2006 which states, "In the past few years, the NDA has targeted California companies to relocate and expand to Las Vegas and is currently making efforts to recruit life science and biotech businesses from the eastern seaboard.

The NDAís progressive campaigns to recruit business include statistics on the tax structure of Nevada. 'Las Vegas is one of the best places to do business,' said Somer Hollingsworth, President and CEO of the NDA. 'Companies across the country come to Las Vegas because there is a pro-business atmosphere and weíre growing at a rapid pace. On top of that, we don't have corporate or personal income tax.' "

Would you trust the NDA to be a veriable source with an opinion worth hearing about business relocation to southern Nevada? VisitorTalk 03:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

=

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Well, there was a casino called Sassy Sally's on Fremont Street. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And, in the Plate of Shrimp department: two hours after posting this, I was reading Get Shorty for the first time, and in the third or so chapter, he mentions some downtown casinos, including Sassy Sally's; I'd never even heard of it before I read your question. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• See for a picture. Vegaswikian 19:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Criminy. I'm amazed I never noticed it before -- we often go to the Golden Nugget, it's right catty-corner from it. I think all I noticed was the huge advertising marquee. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think its an old picture. I believe its now Mermaids or something like that now. Vegaswikian 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• I know for sure that Las Vegas metro is the fastest growing but not sure just about Las Vegas (city) -- Texaswebscout 23:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • While the north west is still enjoying considerable growth, the majority of growth in the area is in the south west. For instance, Mountain's Edge (a master-planned community) is currently in early stages, but there are plenty of smaller communities such as Rhodes Ranch, that are creating some serious traffic problems. That area is growing faster than any other. 68.96.230.33 02:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Is it? Interesting. Seems to me the development in NLV is pretty intense too. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

• I think I fixed this from an early version. Can someone check my work? Vegaswikian 01:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor Clean up done -- Ben 02:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I dont know if this will help out with this information, but according to the census data from this press release this is the data. [14]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since there has been no discussion or objection, I'm going to delete the Neighborhoods section. Vegaswikian 22:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think four days is enough to make that decision. I'd like to see that section return. MojaveNC 01:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have such a section, but that certainly wasn't it. Unsourced facts, POV, etc. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

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

And that data is, I believe, county wide and not specific to Las Vegas. The city article is suppose to be about the city and the area information is in the Las Vegas metropolitan area article. Also it is reported by the LVCVA so including it there seems to make more sense. A reference to the data would be better in the Las Vegas metropolitan area aticle with a link to the LVCVA and the data so it only needs to be maintained in a single place. Vegaswikian 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've added a sentence linking directly to all the LVCVA reports in the entry (I'd no idea so much useful LV material was held there). Robma 07:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• You could make that point. The problem is that Las Vegas is legally one thing but something much larger to the world. My personal opinion is to keep the city article as close to city only as is reasonable and let the other articles, metro and strip, cover most of what the world considers Vegas. However, I'm not sure that there is consensus over this. Vegaswikian 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I live in Las Vegas as defined legaaly, far from the strip. Still, when I think of Las Vegas, the first thing I thin of is the casions and the Strip. It should deserve a good part in this article; even the local news refers to the strip as being in Las Vegas (city). 69.69.88.85 06:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Bellahdoll

Agreed, I've heard local radio news mentions of "Las Vegas companies" when giving updates on casino stocks. VisitorTalk 07:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The night picture of the Strip is a beautiful representation of the city's international reputation. (By the way, there should be a mention of the statistic of 30+ million visitors a year, making the city the most popular tourist destination of the U.S. I don't have the statistic's source in front of me, but it should be easy to find.) I recommend leaving that picture at the top of the sidebar, but add a caption: "Lights of resorts along the famous Las Vegas Strip - most of which is actually outside the city limits." What do people think of this wording? Also, for the Strip sign photo by Mandalay Bay, I'd like to change the caption to "Las Vegas sign at the south end of the Strip - miles south of the actual city limits." I think the sign picture should be relocated to the Economic History section, since welcoming visitors to the Strip is the foundation of the local economic history after Hoover Dam's completion. For the picture box next to the Founding section, a picture of the Springs Preserve would be very appropriate. VisitorTalk 14:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry User:VisitorTalk I really have to disagree with you and anyone else that feels the picture in the InfoBox is appropriate because in my opinion it is not and should be replaced with something that truly represents the city, Not to do so is very disrespectful to the people who live, work and breath the City of Las Vegas. Simon Bar Sinister ( talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I realized that it said Nevada instead of Las Vegas. I changed the OP accordingly. MGM fire certainly could not have been the worst disaster in state history as mine collapses, native american displacement, and nuclear testing all occupy prominent places in Nevada history. Brianckeegan 18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I lived in Vegas for both the MGM fire and Pepcon, and the fire seemed far worse to me. But that's why we need to avoid general phrases like "Worst Disaster". Maybe "Greatest Loss of Life" would be appropriate. 74.75.0.106 00:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How about simply having a section labeled "Major disasters"? VisitorTalk 07:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should include this in the article-- Googleplex5 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Should ArenaBowl be considered a "major event"?

• I think it should be. -- Dr. Pizza 03:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

• Do you really think many tourists use fake names in Vegas? I guess the ones that drive here and use only cash could pull it off...kinda hard to fly or use credit cards legally with fake name. (And heaven help you if you win a decent jackpot; they card the hell out of you nowadays.) Am I just naive? -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah but Also where did the rule of Whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas thing. Explain that the history of that thing and we might put that into the article. Plus, have you seen those commericals of tourism to Vegas? Many of the characters in those commerical use fake names, also in many of the movies I've seen that are about visitng Vegas, they characters use fake names, which give me into detail on a possible Vegas tourist culture on why people use fake names Falconleaf
    • I think you are confusing an advertisement with fact. The two are quite different. There is no such rule. But there is a well received advertising campaign that would have you think otherwise. Vegaswikian 23:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Bill Bennett can testify that it's only a slogan. 74.75.0.106 00:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think FalconLeaf is referring to the practice of using a fake name when you pickup a girl or a guy. It was featured in a tourism ad for Las Vegas, but honestly, that phenomenon is hardly unique to the city. Furthermore, it's hard to remember now (damn advertising!), but I'm pretty sure the phrase "What happens in ___, stays in ____ " was around long before those commercials started and did not always refer to Las Vegas. If someone wants to discuss it in the context of Las Vegas though, it could be put under a "Tourism" or "Advertising" section. But Falcon, I don't think there's much of a "rule" that requires ppl to use fake names -- they just don't want the people with whom they have casual hookups to ever find them again, which may just be to avoid hassles and/or because they're actually cheating on a significant other in order to do it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.249.96.252 ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC).

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

• Then why use thumbnails at all? MojaveNC 06:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • EXACTLY! :-) WHY use them? -- Boereck 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that it reduces the load on the image servers. Maybe asking in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Vegaswikian 14:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

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

• I think because over time, there have been edits to remove the other items or the pointers to the information from the article. Given the length of the entire article. I think moving most of the Sports text to Sports in Las Vegas would be justified. Also note that a lot of the culture in the City lacks articles. Remember that much of the culture is in the areas around the city and not in the city proper. Vegaswikian 00:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I like how you discussed this with everyone before you went ahead and just arbitrarily moved it, Wikian. Thanks for asking for input. -- 64.221.232.240 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, given Category:Sports in the United States by city exists this seems like a reasonable action. Also Category:Sports in Las Vegas existed since March of this year without a main article so creating Sports in Las Vegas provided the missing main article for that category. If this is really a bad thing to have done, the change cange be undone. But given the fact that this happened a few days ago and no one has indicated it was wrong, one might assume that this was the right approach. Vegaswikian 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

This proposal would allow for this article to be located at Las Vegas instead of Las Vegas, Nevada, bringing articles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.-- DaveOinSF 16:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions. A new convention might allow Las Vegas to redirect to Las Vegas Strip or Las Vegas metropolitan area as primary or most common usage. Vegaswikian 00:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this proposal. For cities with a name that is unique and where the name of the city clearly means that city above all other uses of the word, it would allow that city to use its name as the title for the article. Currently, Las Vegas redirects to Las Vegas, Nevada, which means that Wikipedians have already decided that the city of Las Vegas in Nevada is the most important use of the word Las Vegas. If you disagree with the way the redirect currently functions, then you should take it to Talk:Las Vegas and propose that Las Vegas redirect to something else.-- DaveOinSF 02:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. - Will Beback 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Legal for what? Gambling age is 21, IIRC. Voting age would probably be 18. - Will Beback 08:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal to live on your own. I live in California, and my friend (she lives in Vegas) said that you could run away and live in Vegas - legally - when you're 16. Is it true? Why sigh, cutie pie? 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a Nevada state law. A search of the code at [15] reveals that the age of majority is 18. Like other states, minors may become emancipated:

• NRS 129.080 Minor may petition juvenile court for decree of emancipation; reference to master. Any minor who is at least 16 years of age, who is married or living apart from his parents or legal guardian, and who is a resident of the county, may petition the juvenile court of that county for a decree of emancipation. The district court may refer the petition to a master appointed

I don't see where it says anything else about living apart. Non-emancipated minors who run away may be returned to their parents. I suggest consulting a better source than a Wikipedia talk page. - Will Beback 00:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This article does not appear to have experienced an unusual amount of vandalism. Most of the recent bad edits appear to have come from one IP, which can be blocked if necessary. I'm not sure what is meant by "Release". - Will Beback · † · 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I see the recent IP vanadal has been blocked for six months. [16]. - Will Beback · † · 00:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

By release I mean that it's been chosen to go into a version. On the other side, what then denotes "unusual" vandalism? I'm a bit unsuccessful searching out those criteria, and I don't want to be crying wolf. MrWarMage 15:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Since there were no objections raised, I'm going to change the redirect to Las Vegas metropolitan area. Thanks. Vegaswikian 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just spotted this discussion. Anyway, I concur with your decision. -- Coolcaesar 08:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly, it confused me when I first saw it so I'm guessing it confused a lot of other people too. I'd change it back if there weren't a concurrence, but now there's a challenge, so let's discuss. -- Golbez 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the inbound links, most of them are not about the city. They are about the strip or hotels not in the city. To much of the world, Vegas is a generic area that is southern Nevada. They don't relate it as being the same as the city. Or they consider the city to be all of southern Nevada. Vegaswikian 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe the links should be changed. We tend to go by the 'policy of least surprise' here, and if I put in "Chicago" and was redirected to "Chicagoland," I'd be pretty surprised, just as I was in this case. -- Golbez 08:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the links also need to be changed to point to the correct article. Try fixing a few and you will see that most of them are not about the city. So by pointing to the city article by default, we are sending the vast majority of readers to the wrong article. That too is a surprise. I update a few whenever I have the time. Vegaswikian 08:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles can link to the correct article. Users, however, don't know this, so when they TYPE IN "Las Vegas", they will be sent to what I would say is the wrong article. We need to consider them more than redirects used in articles, as those can be fixed. I suggest we change the redirect now and fix the articles later. -- Golbez 12:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When someone enters Las Vegas, they are mostly not interested in the city. They want the Las Vegas Strip or the area around it. So the link should be to one of those two. This is clearly supported by looking at the current links. They are simply not for the city but for the metro area or the strip. Vegaswikian 21:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

When someone enters New York City, do they mean the city, or do they mean Manhattan, which is what the Post Office calls New York? Or should we not make that decision for them, and just go with the standard used for 30,000+ other cities and towns? I'm a little shocked you suggested "Las Vegas" should redirect to "Las Vegas Strip" before redirecting to "Las Vegas, Nevada" - that would indeed be exactly akin to redirecting "New York City" to "Manhattan". -- Golbez 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the articles that redirect there. You will see that most are not about the city, so the city is just wrong. The Strip or the metropolitan area is what most of the links are for and not the city. Vegaswikian 23:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about articles. Articles can be changed. This is about the user. When i typed "Las Vegas," I expected, like 30,000 other cities, to be taken to the article about the city. -- Golbez 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just saw what happened since my last look at this talk page. Both of you have good arguments, so I don't really know which side I'm on at this point. Can another editor please add their two bits? -- Coolcaesar 05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegaswikian, did you even think about the redirect situation? I spend a lot of time fixing links to cities, and I know I have fixed several articles in the past that were talking about the city but just linked to "Las Vegas" instead of "Las Vegas, Nevada". I can't speak for others, but I would be looking for the city if I typed in Las Vegas. TJ Spyke 14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So would I, and I'm going to be bold. If others really disagree, then feel free to revert and I'll take it to RfD. -- Golbez 09:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was over so I did not keep the paper. But about two weeks ago, the Review-Journal had a chart showing that Las Vegas had the biggest gaming market compared to to other places like Atlantic City and Indian Casinos. While the headline screamed that Las Vegas was the largest, the caption for the largest market was The Strip. So again, another case where assuming that Las Vegas means the city is wrong. Maybe in this case the best place for the redirect is to the dab page and have the editors cleanup the mess that is out there, but redirecting to the wrong place the vast majority of the time is simply against the guidelines. Vegaswikian 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• So you are suggesting that we ignore the guidance to avoid surprises on redirects and send them to the wrong place? Vegaswikian 06:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• No. And I imagine it costs more to get unmarried than it does to get married in Vegas... -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Not only is the history of the mob in Vegas missing, but so is any discussion of the largest industry in Vegas -- prostitution and strip clubs. There is one mention of prostitution in the article and it only mentions that it is illegal in Vegas. However, anyone who visits Vegas knows that advertisements for escorts and strip clubs are everywhere. Any cab driver can get you a hooker within 20 minutes. The famous "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" advertising campaign is a sly wink about the prostitution industry. There also really should be some mention of the fact that 4 of the 7 Clark County Supervisors are under indictment for corruption -- and that political corruption is rampant and extremely well-documented in all levels of local government. These Vegas articles read like press releases from the Chamber of Commerce. Let's try to get a little balance in here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.141.69 ( talk)

OK, so how are escorts and strip clubs in Vegas different then NYC in this regard? As to the corruption, yes, those articles need to be added. Fell free to add articles on the member of the Clark County commission. Remember to read WP:BIO and associated pages about living people. Also, as far as I know, none of the County Commissioners are under indictment for corruption. Vegaswikian 02:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And we'll need some reliable sources regarding the "largest industry"; that may have been the case a few decades ago, but it's hard to see it as such now, with the megaresorts. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 02:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just check with the Sin City Chamber of Commerce. I'd love to get an article on them written. Vegaswikian 03:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The book "The Money and the Power" may be a suitable reference to cite if you'd like to include this material, David. VisitorTalk 07:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Vegaswikian 20:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• [17] seems definitive. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 04:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The Atomic Testing Museum has an article that is still a stub. Since many of the museums are located outside of the city, they are listed in the Las Vegas metropolitan area article. Adding a brief mention should be OK if you can find a good spot, or just link to the list in other article. Vegaswikian 22:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant Nathanbrisk ( talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I've been thinking about this some more, and I now think "gambling" is more appropriate. "Gaming" indeed is a euphemism, essentially an industry-sponsored whitewash of whats really going on. That legislation and financial publications use the term speaks primarily to the power of the gambling industry. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 14:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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

• More than simply asserting that places, corporations, and individuals making money from gambling or the gambling industry prefer to call it gaming. What's the history of the term? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 18:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A few things that come to mind here:

1. This road plan would probably be useful for all the articles associated with Las Vegas, Clark County, North Las Vegas, etc; perhaps it could be moved into an infobox or some other widget. I'm not sure what the exact limits should be but limiting it to just the city limits seems arbitrary. As it is, if someone wants information on how to get around in Las Vegas, they will not find a number of the major Strip streets here.
2. Including the freeways inline in a list of the NS/EW arterials is confusing. 215 zigzags all over the place, it would need to be included twice on the east-west list, and to say it follows the grid alignment (even if it does over some portion) is stretching things a bit.
3. The use of "aligned" with respect to freeways is confusing. Looking at Google Maps, only the easternmost portion of Summerlin Parkway is aligned with any part of Bonanza, and it's a really a pretty small part of Bonanza, just the part west of downtown. There's also a big gap between the Parkway interchange & Bonanza. The majority of Bonanza runs east of downtown and is "aligned" closer to US 95.
4. A number of significant arterials do not run the entire NS/EW length of the city. Some end well inside the city or run only to an approximate NS/EW centerline of the city. The endpoint should be noted. Example: Ann Road is EW but only serves points west of Camino Al Norte/Camino Eldorado. (EDIT: actually, this is a bad example as Ann runs a bit farther east, but there are plenty of other examples).
5. A number of significant arterials change names without any change in direction and these should be noted. Example: N Durango/Rampart/Fort Apache (bonus: the separate segment of S Durango). Simishag ( talk) 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the person who added the data and cited the source comment on most of your points. However for the first one, the city article is not the place to include information about Henderson. For information that is about the valley in general, it goes in Las Vegas metropolitan area. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Point 3 refers specifically to your reversion of my edit yesterday, so I'd appreciate your response. Simishag ( talk) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I undid your revision back to the sourced version. If you want to source that one from a different source feel free to do so. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the Nevada DOT PDF, which is a planning document rather than a scale map. It does not support the claim that Summerlin Pkwy and Bonanza are the same road. I don't think a source is necessary to prove this; it's obvious by simple inspection of freely available maps. Simishag ( talk) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was asserting that Summerlin Pkwy and Bonanza are the same road. The assertion from the other editor was that they are on the same basic alignment when looking at the roads from a north to south perspective. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The "other editor" was you (see [23]). No one besides you or me has edited the "Roads" section in over a month. Perhaps you did not write the original copy that I modified, but once you restored it, it became your edit. The assertion that they are "aligned" is false if based solely on the DOT PDF source. The short portion of W Bonanza is not shown on the DOT map, and the portion of E Bonanza which is shown is clearly on a separate line. Simishag ( talk) 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I guess that is one of the slang terms used to refer to Vegas. How do you propose correcting? If you want this removed you need to file a request at WP:RFD. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably someone is too fond of the Steely Dan song Show Biz Kids. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 16:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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

• What tram? -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also the pictures really need reviewing/replacing especially the one in the infobox. Most of these are not in the city. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I just realized how some pictures weren't quite the city city. As well, the article needs to be re-scoped to make mention of the western neighborhoods and diminish the Strip and casino value a bit. Las Vegas Strip is indeed more an appropriate article to further delve into the touristy nature of the metro area. davumaya 22:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, looks like another good cleanup is needed to undo all of the information added that is not about the city. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• 
  Established top image
• The image that has been swapped in and reverted a few times
  The image that has been swapped in and reverted a few times

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

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

I agree that the pictures here should be of the city. The only one I recall seeing was the panoramic one from 515 of the city. Not the best for the infobox. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs, IMO. There's a variety of reasons for the reasons why the region is partitioned the way it is, and while I'd like for the valley to have it's own version of a Bill 103 and merge up, the fact is that this is that Wikipedia isn't a civics lesson. Thousands of books refer to the Strip as Las Vegas regardless of political boundaries, and even the county-run McCarran International Airport refers to itself as from Las Vegas. At the very bare minimum, at least get a picture focusing on the Stratosphere, since it's the most iconic structure within city limits. 70.170.20.107 ( talk) 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Would this be a better picture ( http://johnkeyes.com/images/magick.php/JPK_3342_w.jpg)? It's the entire skyline of downtown. Musepharaoh ( talk) 09:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But it needs to meet the license requirements when it is uploaded, here or on commons. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture much like the one from the link. This one is from Flickr and it meets requirements. ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Downtown_Las_Vegas_from_Stratosphere_3.jpg) Musepharaoh ( talk) 05:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed with:

{{ otheruses4|the city of Las Vegas only|the Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas Valley|Las Vegas metropolitan area}}

{{ otheruses4|the city of Las Vegas only|the Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas Valley|Las Vegas metropolitan area|other uses|Las Vegas}}

  _{Guy M |  Talk}  20:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC) (UPDATED:   _{Guy M |  Talk}  20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, that is much better. But is there a less awkward way to direct readers to the Las Vegas Strip articles besides saying, "for the Las Vegas Strip, see Las Vegas Strip"? Your edit is a significant improvement, but perhaps just {{ seealso}} would suffice? That is what was in place before. Cheers, Rai• me 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a {{ this}} and a {{that}} (just kidding!), I mean a {{ see also}}?

{{This|'''city of Las Vegas only'''|Las Vegas}}

{{See also|Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas metropolitan area}}

This article is about city of Las Vegas only. For other uses, see Las Vegas.

See also: Las Vegas Strip and Las Vegas metropolitan area

  _{Guy M |  Talk}  21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

...or maybe {{ Distinguish}}

  _{Guy M |  Talk}  21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - how about:

• {{This|city of Las Vegas only|Las Vegas}}
• {{tl|Distinguish|Las Vegas Strip|Las Vegas metropolitan area}}

Or, to keep it succint and all on one line, we could just use:

• {{dablink|This article is about the city of the Las Vegas only, not to be confused with the [[Las Vegas Strip]] or the [[Las Vegas metropolitan area]].}}

I personally like the {{that}}, but... ;-) Cheers, Rai• me 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for

{{This|city of Las Vegas only|Las Vegas}}

{{dablink|This article is about the city of the Las Vegas only, not to be confused with the [[Las Vegas Strip]] or the [[Las Vegas metropolitan area]].}}

  _{Guy M |  Talk}  21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should state "This article about the city of Las Vegas only" twice. And, seeing as Las Vegas is already the dab page, I don't really think we need a hatnote from a qualified, disambiguated page back to the dab page itself. But, if the link does remain, the first hatnote should probably read: {{This|city in Nevada|Las Vegas}} Cheers, Rai• me 03:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Sup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.61.191 ( talk) 00:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sorry I never took the time to figure out those codes. The ending is like the end portion of 'loss', the beginning like 'la'. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering if the beginning was like "loss" or "la", but those vowels are identical in most American accents anyway. I would think "la" seems more likely though. Lfh ( talk) 13:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone who lived in Las Vegas for over 11 years, most people I have talked to have said /lɑːs/, and Spanish speakers do as well. Mohammad Mosaddeq 00:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I concur with Vegaswikian. Gwrede seems to have mixed up Wikipedia with Wikitravel. (I contribute to both, by the way.) -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The city does not include anything south of Sahara. So while the current image may only show a portion of the city, it shows the notable portion. Using a picture that is mostly areas that are not in the city is just not appropriate for the article on the city. Maybe it is of value in any of the articles that cover the area in that image. It would be nice if there were a selection of images available that could be used, but for whatever reason, they seem to be hard to come by. In any case, getting a picture of the entire city would be difficult at best since it stretches from the valley in the east to the foothills in the west. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky one, but as noted at the top of the article, "This article is about the city of Las Vegas, Nevada proper, not to be confused with the Las Vegas Strip or the Las Vegas metropolitan area." Thus, an image of The Strip, or of such metropolitan areas as Paradise, belong elsewhere. Larry ( talk) 01:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't understand your question. There is consensus to leave the photo as it was. Consensus is what you wind up with on the encyclopedia. The fact that you don't agree with consensus does not mean that consensus is wrong. Not everyone agrees with consensus in every case. Vegaswikian ( talk) 02:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather odd that someone who has been editing Wikipedia for over four years is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's peculiar use of the term " consensus". -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Also, as previously stated by user 70.170.020.107,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Strat is in the city but not the Sahara. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Dang... So I'm guessing there's just not enough landmarks to make a montage out of, eh? DunGoofd ( talk) 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

{{ downtown Las Vegas}}. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) DunGoofd ( talk) 06:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GENERAL ELECTION - June 7

Link to City of Las Vegas Elections

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

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

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

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

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

• Las Vegas Review Journal Coverage of Las Vegas Mayors Race
• City of Las Vegas Elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

I recently nominated San Diego for GA Status, which it was awarded. A couple of things I learned is that lists are a no-go for articles hoping to achieve GA status. That being said all lists would have to be converted to prose. See also WP:NOT. I know the size of the article isn't necessarily a criterion for being awarded such status, but this article seems pretty small. It also seems lacking of sufficient information in the proper subsections; such as in Culture, Sports, and Education. This all being said, I feel it would get put on hold or denied status. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 21:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Another thing that I also learned is that sections will also require at least one citation, though the necessity of citations will be dependent on the length of the prose and on the content within the prose. 08OceanBeach^S.D. 00:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It needs more citations to the claims in the article, as well as Copyedit in certain places, such as the Sports section. It's a ways away from GA status at this point.-- Chimino ( talk) 10:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

•  Declined - Wikipedia is not an internet directory of sites, and the proposed link appears to fail inclusion criteria defined at WP:EL. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm not sure about excluding all material on nearby areas. But it should be kept to a minimum.   Will Beback  talk  04:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A page about Las Vegas that doesn't mention the strip is like a page on Seattle that doesn't mention Boeing or a page on Paris that doesn't mention the Palace of Versailles. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 04:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted. The hat note is sufficient. The article Las Vegas is about all related topics (actually, a disambiguation page); this article is about the city. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me the consensus to do this. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 05:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The article does mention the strip - in the {{about}} header and in its own dedicated subsection. Julianhall ( talk) 12:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That page notice has been there for about two years to clarify that this article is about the city. If makes it clear what the focus of the article was and continues to be. As I recall it was added after the feature supporting page notices was 'discovered' and since then it has greatly reduced edit waring in the article, mainly over images. As I recall it does not say that material about the strip can not be mentioned. However simply adding material not about the city should be avoided. Clearly if something on the strip had a direct impact on the city it can be mentioned. But something about the strip that does not affect the city should not be included. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, my feeling is that we can safely assume that every such link that isn't on a Las Vegas page or a disambiguation page is wrong and put a bot on it. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 15:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason is that they are correct. Unless the scope of the city article is to be expanded to cover the entire valley, then these are correct and factual links. Just because the city is now at the main name space does not mean that it the correct link for all of the other communities in the valley. As a single example, where is the Las Vegas] facility for Clearwater Paper? Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Leave them alone, they are correct. Y E ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, we should be changing thousands of Los Angeles links to Los Angeles Basin D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 20:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If the article refers to the metro area/basin not the city, why not? Y E ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, starting at the what links here list for Las Vegas Valley, the first result was Atari ST, which mentions an electronics show in Vegas. Whether this "technically" refers to the city or not doesn't matter, since people reading about a video game system really don't care, so the primary topic of Las Vegas wins be default. I expect that more than 75% of the links are just passing mentions like this one, where the reader clicking really doesn't give a damn about the city's local politics. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 21:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Change that link then. Y E ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Well a link like that one is clearly not about the city. It is one of many conventions held in Vegas that are not in or hosted by the city. These are most commonly marketed under the Las Vegas brand of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. While the city has seats on the board, they are just one piece of the Vegas marketing machine and brand. The better solution for the move would have been to move the Valley article to the main name space since it is more correct and actually covers all of what most people consider to be Vegas. Vegas is more then the city. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

We just had a huge multi-paragaph discussion that concluded that the common use of "Las Vegas" was more than just the city and also included the strip and the conventions, so again, no valley for that link. The only legitimate link for Las Vegas Valley is one that explicitly is distinguishing it from Las Vegas, which is relatively rare. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 01:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Which is exactly the point. If it is not about the city it is about the generic brand and location of Vegas. Most references and uses are for the 90% of the valley that is not the city. Would this be clearer if the the valley article were moved to Las Vegas? Yes. This is probably the best solution. Otherwise you need to randomly extend what is intended to be covered by the city article. In any case, no matter how you want to define the city article. All of the places are in a different community. It is the location that they pay taxes in and need to go for planning commissions and building variances. So, these places do exist and are not the city. Vegaswikian ( talk) 05:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your decision to continue this crusade is unsurprising given the fervor with which you have pursued this matter, but it's annoying nevertheless. While the only outcome a third-party needed to decide was whether there was consensus for the move, I think it's also made clear that we shouldn't be surprising readers with Easter Egg links to an article (e.g. the Valley article) they aren't expecting. While you may outwardly claim you're doing this for the sake of accuracy, it's plain as day your primary motivation is to prove a point. Most of the links you have "corrected" are brief references to Las Vegas. Most give no indication of the precise location of the place referenced, but you've taken it upon yourself to institute a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach, assuming that sources are referring to somewhere outside the city proper until proven otherwise.

Look, your attempts to keep the previous setup for these articles failed. Take the defeat kindly and move on to something else. Continuing to spend ninety percent of your time fixing links that don't need fixing, and then badgering the closing admin with statements you've already made is obnoxious, if not disruptive. I don't contribute to this area enough to care, and I have more important things I could be doing on Wikipedia -- like, you know, actually contributing to articles -- so I won't be pursuing this doggedly, but I'm saying for the record that I definitely think you should stop. -- tariqabjotu 07:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Tariq, let's be fair, Vegas changed nearly all of those links while Las Vegas was a disambig page and before there was yet consensus that they city should include Paradise and Winchester (aka, the Strip). But, now it's time to accept the changed consensus and change nearly all of these to Las Vegas. However, if the text of the link is "Greater Las Vegas" or similar, I'm fine with it, and also if the context makes clear they are making a distinction between the city and surrounding areas, I'm fine. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 14:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how you thought I was being unfair. While I always thought this link-changing was unnecessary, I talked about issues now. And, surely, you must be aware that it is extremely rare for "Greater Las Vegas" to be the text of the link Vegaswikian changes. -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comments fail to understand that not all uses of the phrase 'Las Vegas' apply to the city. It is not the sole use of that phrase. Moving the city article, does not move places into the city. So when an article is talking about an event that is in 'Las Vegas' that probably should not link to the city since 'Las Vegas' is still ambiguous, that's why there is still a dab page. The purpose of an encyclopedia is accuracy. However then needs to be tempered in the running text to not surprise the reader. So when the article is mentioning several things that happened around the valley that is the best link. Also the city can and should never contain all of Paradise and Winchester! Those are two communities with their own government and taxes. To claim that they are part of the city and direct readers to the city on that basis is simply wrong! Vegaswikian ( talk) 16:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was around during the move request, so please don't patronize me with "what [I] fail to understand". Changes like [29], [30], and [31] give no indication of whether the place referenced is actually in the city or not. And yet you've decided to go with your catch-all link that probably no one clicking said link is expecting. And I haven't even touched the links regarding casinos on the Strip, which, despite supposedly being in the pursuit of accuracy, goes against the spirit of the outcome of this move request. -- tariqabjotu 17:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Vegas, the consensus in the move discussion was that the term Las Vegas refers to more than just the city. While what it exactly refers to might be unclear, it was nearly unanimous that the term refers to the Las Vegas Strip and also to both Paradise and Winchester, while excluding other incorporated areas (North LV, Henderson). I can't imagine any passing generic mention of Las Vegas that would not be either the city or the Strip. Any ref to Vegas that doesn't specify if in the city or not should be assumed to be the city, just like we would do with Seattle or Los Angeles. The only things that should be linked to Valley are mentions that explicitly say it's more than just the city, and such references are rare. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 19:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm not entirely sure about that, but I'd imagine anyone clicking on a link saying "Los Angeles" would want to see the article on "Los Angeles". If it said "Warner Brothers is based in the Los Angeles metropolitan area", that's obviously perfectly fine, but we should not be promoting Easter Egg links. Rarely is the text of the sentence changed to clarify the link is going to Las Vegas Valley; it's just piped in to give the impression Las Vegas = Las Vegas Valley. That was kind of okay when there was a disambiguation page at Las Vegas, meaning piping "Las Vegas" to any of the links on the disambiguation page was acceptable, but, of course, that is no longer the case. Again, I don't think this has a major effect (or even a minor effect) on the area of Wikipedia I frequent (or anyone frequents), but I'd like to think Vegaswikian would respect the outcome of the move request, which implies that the link-changing fervor needs to be taken down a notch. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Vegas, it doesn't matter that "not all uses of the phrase 'Las Vegas' apply to the city", since the topic of this article is not strictly limited to the city proper. The topic of this article is broad... it is the imprecisely defined place known as Las Vegas, which is primarily the city proper but also includes the immediate surrounding areas, especially the Las Vegas strip. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Toohool - I suspect most people who click on a link labeled Las Vegas in an article would expect to land on this article, and would be surprised to be teleported to Las Vegas Valley. Whether that is "harm" is a rather subjective question, but in the context of how much anything causes harm in WP, I'd say it's on the scale, albeit towards the lesser harm end of it. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

Done — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 19:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

The last line of the "History" section reads:

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

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

Unfortunately the sources are not online, but it most certainly is "dooming". Galveston and Hot Springs are not successful gambling destinations. "Booming" would imply that they were a huge success. Ego White Tray ( talk) 13:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)